Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-06 Majestic-12: Distributed Search Engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-06 Majestic-12: Distributed Search Engine

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: alexc 13:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?

The discussion on proposed AfD is taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Majestic-12_Distributed_Search_Engine

Who's involved?

Myself and primarily User:JzG (admin) who appears to be supported by a few other admins.

What's going on?

A fairly old article on the leading Distributed Computing project of its kind (distributed search engines, see site: http://majestic12.co.uk ) that was noted by national UK press (The Guardian) as well as other publications around the world is now proposed to be deleted. Initially this proposal was done on the basis of low Alexa's rank (even though Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test pretty clearly states that this test should not be used for notability. Further accusations were added with main emphasis that project is not "noteable" despite evidence of dedicated articles in printed media (ie: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html ). Produced evidence certainly makes us more notable than many other entries in our category of Category:Internet_search_engines, if AfD stands then it follows that most entries in that category should be AfDed too, something that would clearly go against Wikipedia's aim of being sum of human knowledge.

What would you like to change about that?

We need experienced people to mediate because my own comments and also comments from people who support our project are being discounted and it was suggested that effectively we should not comment on the talk page at all.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I prefer open process, but if you wish to talk about it privately then you can reach me via email: alexc @ majestic12.co.uk

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

If mediation process proves to be an effective tool in resolving conflics then I will gladly dedicate my time to it after I learn more about processes to be able to make good judgements.

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi there, I am Cowman109Talk and I have volunteered to mediate this case. However, what you seem to be asking from us is for us to act as advocates in the AFD debate. The Mediation Cabal is not exactly the place to ask for advocates, I'm afraid, though Wikipedia:Third Opinion may be more suited to get a third opinion on the matter to get a non-biased opinion on the article. I recall there being some sort of procedure for advocation in Wikipedia as well, though I can't seem to find it at the moment. I will look into other options possibilities. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion review if the article is deleted, in which further debate can be brought if the article is deleted. Cowman109Talk 22:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates might be a good solution. Cowman109Talk 22:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, I suppose I should have waited for outcome of AfD process. alexc 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article in question just got deleted, at this stage I have lost my confidence in Wikipedia's processes, thank you for trying to help. alexc 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but there are still chances to get this article to remain. After glancing over at the article for deletion, for example, it seems that the delete votes actually were outnumbered by support votes (though one of the support votes was by an anonymous IP. You could still see Wikipedia:Deletion review to bring the situation back up with the evidence that a solid conclusion to the articles for deletion debate was non conclusive. If there's still anything I can help with feel free to ask. I will be closing this case, however. Feel free to reply on my talk page if you wish to discuss this matter further. Cowman109Talk 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that opinions of some are more valuable than others, to me its strange to see that deletion took place after all external references provided and also many voices of support, but it is now apparent that its not enough, but I will follow undelete process just to see if there is some common sense present: to me its not about article, its really about very strange situation where place that bills itself as "sum of all human knowledge" actually has got "deletion" in actively used vocabulary, sounds like burning books to me. No mediation however seems possible, so I think its fair that you closed the case, thanks for your time. alexc 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


[edit] Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.


[edit] Discussion