Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 jeryl-heath-midg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-24 jeryl-heath-midg 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-24 jeryl-heath-midg

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Midgley 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Mumpsvax is a page about Merck's mumps vaccine, created 22 April 2006 by Heathhunnicutt (talk • contribs • count).

Jeryl Lynn is a page about the strains of virus which are used in research and to manufacture Mumpsvax, this article created 27 April 2006, both by Heathhunnicutt (talk • contribs • count)

Jeryl Lynn Hilleman is a redirect to the Jeryl Lynn article. Jeryl Lynn Hilleman is the living human for whom the Jeryl Lynn strains of mumps virus were named. This article added by Midgley (talk • contribs • count) two days ago on 23 May 2006.

Mumps vaccine is a stub article created by Midgley also on 23 May 2006.

Mumps vaccine (disambiguation) is a solution to the problem of the Mumps vaccine article Midgley added, added by Admins mboverload (talk • contribs • count) and Naconkantari (talk • contribs • count).

Midgley's talk page and User_talk:Heathhunnicutt's.

Who's involved?

Midgley (talk • contribs • count), Heathhunnicutt (talk • contribs • count)

What's going on?

I object to a number of Heathh's remarks which attribute motives to me that I find bizarre, for actions some of which are imaginary, and some of which are as well as reasonable not actually capable of producing the effects which are complained of. eg a redirect to the Jeryl Lynn article.

I object to Midgley's apparently calculated creation of 'overshadowing' articles and redirects. In particular, the creation of a misleading Jeryl Lynn Hilleman redirect seems like a move toward ambiguation of the subject; as does the Mumps vaccine page, with respect to the Mumpsvax article. Heathhunnicutt 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like not to be insulted or impugned. I'd like to see well-organised information appearing in a readable form, amounting eventually to an encyclopaedia.

I object to being treated with such great tact and civility by a person whose actions undermine my good work and an honest representation of all details and facts. I have added almost only statements with pubmed references to the articles in question. Heathhunnicutt 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like the information about substrains and their genetic information, the tissue tropism of these strains, the relevance toward neurotropism, to all remain. I would like the product codes for Mumpsvax to evolve into a taxonomy category of the National Druge Codes.Heathhunnicutt 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the creation, accidental or otherwise, of "overshadow" or "ambiguation" articles such as Mumps vaccine and Jeryl Lynn Hilleman -> Jeryl Lynn. Heathhunnicutt 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

...

Why be discreet when the Truth shall set us free? I am sure Midgley would agree. Heathhunnicutt 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes. (Comment by Midgley)

[edit] Mediator response

Hello there! I am Cowman109^Talk from the Mediation Cabal. I'd like to help out here, but I must admit I am utterly baffled by what is going on. The section about what you would like to be solved has comments from numerous users and I don't exactly know what is being requested. Could the submitter of the request for mediation please reply under this to explain the conflict a bit further? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me. Heath took exception to some edits and a page that seemed sensible to me, and approached it, not for the first time, by attacking me rather than content. Having seen that vaccine articles for some reason attract weirdness and incivility I thought I'd see if the WP procedures could improve on the sort of situation around Mumps anmd anti-vaccinationist Midgley 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid I have looked over the source of the dispute several times and I cannot quite understand what it is exactly that is being disputed. The Mediation Cabal is an informal process, but this dispute appears to be very complex and may require some sort of strict procedure. I would suggest you try another route of dispute resolution and perhaps try the Mediation Committee. I feel that this sort of case is too complex for voluntary mediators to handle and the fact that it took a week for anyone to answer makes me believe that if the case remains open in the Mediation Cabal, it may get lost in the backlog for quite some time, no offense. Would you be alright with going on to the Mediation Committee? Cowman109^Talk 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Case closed?

I am closing this case as I suggested that those involved see a higher form of dispute resolution. Is that alright? Or are there any objections. Cowman109^Talk 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

I regard this as uncivil. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Midgley&diff=prev&oldid=54806634

It is also incorrect, contrary to WP:AGF and way outside the norms of WP practice with redirects (redirects are cheap, use rediredcts so that if someon is looking for something they will find it). (Comments by Midgley)

I regard the following course of events as vandalism in the form of endeavouring to ambiguate an article:

• 19:10, 23 May 2006 -- Midgley created redirect "Jeryl Lynn Hilleman" changing the topic of article "Jeryl Lynn" from the Virus strains to their namesake.[1]
• 00:01, 24 May 2006 -- Midgley asserts that he has used the web-page form on Ms. Hilleman's employer's web site to inform "them" of his redirect. [2]

Heathhunnicutt 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from "Where" section

After adding the redirect of Jeryl Lynn Hilleman to Jeryl Lynn, Midgley contacted the PR organization of Ms. Hilleman's employer:[3] (Comment by Heathhunnicutt) This has been repeated despite my correcting it twice now. It is an odd assertion. As I recall it was before I decided to create the redirect (although it doesn't really matter) and I passed a message for Ms Hilleman, not to any identified or identifiable PR organisation, that WP now had an article on the vaccine named after her. This seems a simple courtesy to me. And actually, what of it, eitehr as it occurred or as Heath prefers to assert? Midgley 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) In your own words (see the link to history I provided above, 54804152), you used a form on the website of the "firm" in order to contact "them." My "odd assertion" is a reiteration of your own admission. Heathhunnicutt 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC) As for "what of it?" -- you enlisted the support of paid writers without NPOV to edit the article, perhaps in order to change its tone to your desired POV. This is similar to congressional staffers editing their boss' article. Heathhunnicutt 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also this course of events surrounding Mumpsvax, Mumps vaccine, and Mumps vaccine (disambiguation).

• 10:04, 22 Apr 2006 -- Heathhunnicutt creates Mumpsvax [4]
• A month passes, during which we differ over the term attenuation in this context.
• 21:47, 23 May 2006 -- Midgley creates Mumps vaccine [5]
• 01:12, 24 May 2006 -- mboverload (talk • contribs • count) replaces the new article with a dismabiguation page to the Mumpsvax article and the MMR article. On this disambiguation page, there was amply room to mention but not link to the obsolote Urabe strain.[6]
• 02:40, 24 May 2006 -- Midgley reverts mboverload's edits.[7]

Heathhunnicutt 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Midgley, you have asserted multiple times that redirects "are cheap." Certainly they are in the sense of computational expense. Simultaneously, if they obfuscate or ambiguate good articles, they can be viewed as costly in that regard. In this case, the Jeryl Lynn Hilleman redirect was a cost/benefit loser. But I think you know that. Heathhunnicutt 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also mentioned multiple times that it is a WP mantra if not a formal policy (I think it has the status of a policy). A search in teh Wikipedia namespace produces more than 11 pages of hits for redirects cheap [8]. I've not looked at many, but you'll see that they all occur as "Redirects are cheap" in the context of disucssion of whether a redirect should be in or not, and the worst anyone says in the early part of teh search results is that they cannot imagine that anyone will actually search for that usingthis phrase. I think HeathH has got stuck on something here for no sensible reason I can see, and it is wholly unlike WP normal practice on redirects. Perhaps we need a redirect to teh policy becuase I can't find it... Midgley 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it not blatantly obvious what "something" I got "stuck on" here? The redirect changes the article subject matter. It isn't link a synonymous title to the article, it is ambiguating the topic of the article. The Jeryl Lynn strains are a disjoint topic from the woman they are named after. These two topics suggest the appropriate use of two articles, not one. Your efforts to pile the biography in with the article on the strains seems a thinly-veiled attempt to dilute the information about the strains with information from a corporate PR team (see reference above to corporate PR team). Heathhunnicutt 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the phrase "HeathH has got stuck on something here for no sensible reason I can see" is what Lakoff would call "reframing the debate" and I am going to henceforth refer to as "disingenuous." Heathhunnicutt 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm flattered, I am not an admin =) (removed admin from my name). A user briefly came into the IRC channel and complained about...well, honestly, I'm not sure what they were complaining about. But I took the initiative and created a disambig page and asked for feedback on the IRC channel. They said it was good so I just left it at that. --mboverload@ 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake. I guess I was thinking of Admin Naconkantari (talk • contribs • count)'s edit [9] that was reverted and assumed you were an admin, too. Heathhunnicutt 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Mumpsvax/Mumps vaccine

I suggest a revert to the idea mboverload had. I would like to see the Mumps vaccine (disambiguation) article replace the upstart Mumps vaccine, followed by edits to improve the disambiguation page as Midgley has improved the Mumps vaccine article.Heathhunnicutt 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeryl Lynn/Jeryl Lynn Hilleman

I would like to suggest a new disambiguation article at Jeryl Lynn and have it link to Mumpsvax#Jeryl_Lynn_Strain and Jeryl Lynn Hilleman -- that is, move the current content of Jeryl Lynn into the Mumpsvax article.Heathhunnicutt 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This would entail leaving the Mumpsvax article at a high level of detail:

• Ingredients such as human blood products detailed. (This is of interest to many readers but not this author, actually.)
• Process involving immortal cell lines detailed. (This is relevant to stem cell debate nowadays, and true facts also.)
• Product numbers detailed.Heathhunnicutt 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a compromise as it ensures that articles with detailed, referenced facts will not be overshadowed by establishment pablum. This should appease Midgley, whose main public objection seems to be a proliferation of articles, until the day he added two with X-treme civility. Heathhunnicutt 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This would mean rolling back to the admin-provided solution for Mumps vaccine and following a similar path over Jeryl Lynn, albeit one that favors Midgley's changes more in the case of the latter and mine more in the former. Heathhunnicutt 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion