Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This case is inactive The reason for this is: Case has become stale - requesting user has ceased participation in discussions. This case will be closed if User:Pmetzger (requesting user) has not participated in this mediation by 17:19 on 14/1/07 (UTC) - which is in 4 days time.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics & Related State: Closed Requested By: Pmetzger Other Parties: Multiple, including SebastianHelm Mediated By: Anthony cfc

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.5 About the mediation

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Pmetzger 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and a lot of pages that have now been edited in response to the discussion there.

Who's involved?

A bunch of people, see the page.

What's going on?

So, some folks got in their head that the notation , which is used in lots of fields, especially in physics and chemistry, to mean "defined as", was too confusing. They decided to invent their own new notation for definitions, an equals sign with "def" over it, which appears nowhere in the literature. This is a bad idea -- for people who are working in particular fields, keeping the notation between papers in the field, textbooks, etc., and Wikipedia consistent is important, and people new to these fields need to see the notation that is widely used, not a private notation used only on wikipedia. Unfortunately, these people made the decision in a small group, feel they already have consensus, and are implementing it. Most people who edit pages in the impacted fields aren't even aware of the discussion.

I understand the claim that \equiv is confusing to people who don't know what it means, but it seems to me that the simple thing to fix that is to explain on said pages what the notation means, not to change the notation. Say "in this page, means "is defined as"" and you've enlightened people, allowed them to deal with the existing literature, etc.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to see the edits reverted, the discussion held more widely among people who actually know the impacted fields, and have a real consensus developed instead of a fake consensus. Most importantly, I don't get involved in disputes very often and I'm not very good at dealing with them. Mostly I just edit off on my own and avoid trouble, so I am not very experienced in dealing with things when trouble arises. I need help from people who know how to deal with these things correctly.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I don't need you to work discreetly, openly is fine. You can reach me most easily by email, although I do check my user talk page every day.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

What about Pmgetzer carries on with editing his articles, ignoring the change in format? Surely it will not affect the integrity of the article - in fact, more so heighten it by having an even format over all articles? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm ready to proceed here -- what's next? --Pmetzger 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after waiting for another week for something to happen, I'd prefer it if we could get another mediator involved. For whatever reason, Alan.ca does not appear to be doing anything and I'd prefer to get someone who is willing to be actively involved in resolving the dispute. --Pmetzger 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to start off by giving me a precise list of everyone involved (that you can remember) and one or two links to an example dispute (whether it be on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or "a bunch of other pages" as you stated above :)) --Anthonycfc 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This took a very long time to get underway, so the discussion has, since then, been archived off to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 19. The essence of the argument is this: some people feel that all articles on Wikipedia that use mathematical notation should abandon the notation for defining things, because there are disciplines in mathematics where the notation is ambiguous. Others, such as myself, say that in many fields (especially in parts of physics), is traditional, and we would prefer not to have a new notation imposed upon us simply because some people feel that all mathematical notation should be completely uniform. Different fields use mathematical notation differently, and although the desire for uniformity is understandable, in the end it is procrustean.

The discussion reached a "consensus" just within the mathematics project, and certain users began implementing their proposed change, much to the shock of people like me who mostly edit physics pages and had no idea that the math people were off on their own making this decision. When some pages in thermodynamics I regularly edit got hit in the sweep, I (and others) suddenly discovered this "decision" that we had been unaware of, and then the discussion got very heated.

My preferred rule would be "the notation in Wikipedia should follow the usual notation of practitioners in the area of study in question", but it appears others feel Wikipedia should invent its own notations. (Perhaps I am unfairly characterizing them.)

Have a read of the archive I linked to above to start with (it is long and, as I say, very heated) and we can figure out from there what you will need in order to bring parties together in order to mediate this. --Pmetzger 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmgetzer, I request that you provide a summary detailing exactly what dispute you are trying to settle here; is it, as I understand, you prefer \equiv in articles whereas Sebastian prefers \equal-def. This is for the benefit of sebastian who has stated that he does not know what dispute we are trying to resolve. Cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your well intended request, but at least as far as I'm concerned, I don't think that is necessary. Pmetzger already wrote a long statement above and since I as the other party haven't written anything officially here yet, it doesn't seem fair to ask him to add more work. If lack of detail were the problem, then it would be your or my responsibility to ask specific  questions.

In the contrary: The issue is not that Pmetzger didn't write enough. My intention has always been to get to the core  of the issue. That is why I asked you as the mediator  to clarify what you  see as the issue. — Sebastian 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the mediation

What does this mean? When the mediator invited me to participate, I replied that the "What's going on" section is unclear about what this case is about. I invested hours to provide a concise summary of the discussion on WT:WPM; I stated that I can see two different issues and asked the requestor three times to clarify which dispute we're trying to resolve. So far, I have received no answer. Which is OK with me because I can wait. But what does it mean if the mediator, while one party is waiting for his answer to a basic question, writes to the other: "The end is near"? — Sebastian 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By "the end is near" I am referring to your willingness to backdown on the dispute. Unless that no longer stands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony_cfc (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you mean by "backdown". Are you referring to the following conversation (extracting the relevant parts from [1] and [2]:

• "To make it easy, I could just agree to not be interested in the mediation case. [...] I could declare on the mediation page I'm against this plan, but that I leave it up to others to decide." (Sebastian, 30 December 2006)
• "please continue with the mediation" (direct reply by Anthony_cfc, 31 December 2006)
• "Since you're asking so nicely, I promise I won't quit as long as you feel I'm needed. But am I really needed? As you state correctly, "The purpose of mediation is to prevent dispute, not continue it." Isn't the dispute solved when one side gives in? Of course, we need to clarify: Give in to what? Please therefore clarify which dispute we're trying to resolve." (direct reply by Sebastian, 2 January 2007)

This was not the first time I asked you this, but you consistently ignored it, like almost everything I wrote. Why? — Sebastian 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making your point again about my "consistent ignoring of this case". However, you have made it numerous times and it is getting tiresome. By your willingness to backdown I am referring to our email conversation starting 2/1/07, subject "re: something I just learned about mediation". Also, please consult WP:FREETIME for explanation on user's extended response times. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"consistent ignoring of this case"

That's not exactly what I said. I said you are ignoring most of what I wrote. Which is tiresome - I agree with you on that! So why do you keep ignoring it?

Our mails

How about if we inserted our mails into our conversation so other people can see what we're talking about? I'd use chronologic order; we could e.g. use light blue boxes so readers can choose to skip them. I had some concerns about the other party reading it, but I am fine with that now.

response times

You gotta help me out: Did I ever say anything about response times to you? — Sebastian 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - I've self-imposed a WikiBreak on myself using the code in my monobook.js; the reason for this is that I've got my Int2 Prelim Examinations in 2 days, and I really have to take time off to gather together all my revision. I'll be back by Tuesday, in the meanwhile I ask you - don't get into anymore disputes (especailly you, Pmzegter!). Regards, Anthony cfc (not logged-in, 86.144.30.245 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Right okay. Consistent ignoring of the case - you said "consistent ignoring of my (ie your) comments, and since at present the entire case is taken up with discussions with you, you're effectively stating that I'm ignoring the case.

Regarding your talk subpage, I think that we'd better move the entire coversation from your talk page to here in consideration of neutrality - any other page may appear as if it was an exclusive conversation between the two of us, and such instances requiring privacy should be conducted via email. I will transfer all the conversations we had over email to this page (after I have transferred over User_talk:SebastianHelm/Equiv_versus_Equal-Def to here); if there are any you wish to be excempt from viewing on this page, please let me know via email.

Regarding response times: well yes, you effectively did - you said that I was "ignoring your comments"; I wasn't, it was just that I hadn't had a chance to deal with them due to response times.

I really think that we ought to re-start this case from the start. The conversations are getting too lengthy and untidy, and I am willing to put my hands up and admit I haven't been paying this case as much attention as a willing participant in mediation such as yourself deserves. Once again, my apologies and with your leave I will scrap the above (such as transferring over email convos and your talk subpage) and blank the discussions on this page.

With your leave, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pmgetzer has ceased discussion participation, and I am unwilling to continue with discussions and mediation when the requesting user will not take part. If User:Pmgetzer has not posted any comments (and hence particpated in the mediation) by 18:00 on 8/January/2007 (UTC) I am ending the mediation.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well...I appreciate WP:NOHAMFTAU but I count 9 days since the requestor's last edit; in actual fact the second party (Sebastian) has been uncountably more active in attempting to resolve this dispute. Feel free to re-open this discussion if you are willing to actively participate; just contact me at my Talk Page. Regards - for the Med Cabal, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No objection, your honour!

For the record: Of course, I'm happy if this case can be closed. But I will not object if the case got reopened, based on the following consideration: Solutions that all sides agree with are preferable over victories that create resentment. We should grant the other party what we claim for ourselves - see "WP:FREETIME" above. The last statement the other party made about this case was "I need a chance to catch up", 5 days ago. Since he did not do anything on Wikipedia since the motion to close was announced, I would feel better if we gave him a bit more time. Also, the mediator may consider notifying him on his talk page. — Sebastian 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: What does "WP:NOHAMFTAU" stand for? — Sebastian 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your honour :) My apologies, the link I meant to post was WP:NEHAMFTAY (Not everyone has as much free time as you). If you believe that extending the time we will grant Pmetzger to participate will benefit the mediation, by all means it will. But I will remind you that even though the user last contributed to Wikipedia on January 5, he hasn't posted on here since 31 December, which is a window of 11 days, despite the fact that messages have been posted regarding the case between 31st and the 5th, indicating that he has read and ignored them (since nobody ignores the orange bar of death which says you have new messages). I will postpone archiving this case until the 14^th of January (07)? In addition, I will post another message on Pmetgzer's talk page; I hope these measures are agreeable with you. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)