Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Castelseprio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Castelseprio State: Closed Requested By: Johnbod Other Parties: Attilios, Javits2000 Mediated By: HammerHeadHuman Comments: response written

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-02-10 Castelseprio 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Administrative notes 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-02-10 Castelseprio

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Johnbod 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Castelseprio (hereinafter "C")

Who's involved?

essentially me and user:Attilios...

What's going on?

Castelseprio is a small village in north Italy with a population of 1,267 and a world famous fresco-cycle. There was an existing bot-generated stubby article on the village, to which I (initially) added a much longer article about the frescoes and other monuments in an "archeological zone" near the modern village. On Jan 24, whilst this was on DYK on the main page, Attilios spotted it and objected to the changes, in particular displacing the "standard" Italian infobox from the top of the page for a picture from the frescoes. Without any communication he drastically re-edited the page, putting all references to the frescoes below the first screen. An edit war followed, after which he canvassed a large number of other editors (in terms very uncivil to me) to come and support him. Of those who subsequently commented, 6 supported him, and 6 supported splitting the articles (both of us included in these figures). None of his supporters argued against the split. Apart from him, all the respected Visual arts editors who commented were for the split. So today I split the commune stuff (with a little on the frescoes etc) to a new Castelseprio (commune) article, leaving the frescoes & associated monuments at Castelseprio. It is clear to me (arguments on the talk page) that the frescoes are the primary meaning in English, so should have the plain C title, on WP naming policies. Ever since he has been busy, reverting, abusing and canvassing again.

A user on the talk page put it more clearly than anyone before: as long as the page is castelseprio, and as long as Castelseprio is a city, and not its frescoes, and as long as WP:style guidelines the our articles must begin with saying what the entry is, and not what it does contain, the frescoes should tranquilly have a page of their own, under whatever a name one can devise.... though, not Castelseprio. Also, I am not English motherlangue, so I do not know what's the meaning of that annoying accuse of canvassing other users. I simply pointed to some users I collaborated to what was the problem, without asking them how to vote in the poll (and in fact, some voted partially in favour of Johnbod's version). The only one making abuses here is Johnbod himself, who reverted to his beloved version clearly against the consensus (in fact, he skillfully left some days pass before his coup, clearly hoping to take other editors with lowered guard), and later pointing out feeble and foggy excuses for his gesture. --Attilios 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

typical diffs [1],[2], Johnbod 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Well I'd like that to stop & the articles reach stability, ideally as they were a few hours ago.

Of course, stability for Johnbod means the article be as he likes it, and as he reverted back to despite the majority consensus against him. --Attilios 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Let me know on my talk page & I'll send an e-mail (I had it here, but it seems there might be a wait..)

[edit] Mediator response

I am just beginning to look over the article and talk page in question. I'm sure we can find a resolution that makes everyone happy, but would encourage everyone to cool it a bit in the mean time and remember to assume good faith from everyone involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selket (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 February 2007.

I'm beginning my review of the discussion now, you can expect an update in the next twenty-four hours. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have created an archive of the discussions related to this dispute. Please review this archive and let me know on my talk page if there is anything more that should be added. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 01:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have begun writing a response to the case in an offline text editor. I should have it posted by tomorrow night. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Response

The first thing that I should say is that it is not my job to slap your hands, I am not an administrator, and my role here as mediator gives no additional weight to my opinion except that it was solicited with the understanding that I have no former history or knowledge of these subjects. I will not address accusations of canvasing, nor will I speak here of wikiquette. My only interest here is that the article as it is now is not encyclopedic. The title and introduction are about the commune, but the vast majority of the body of the article refers to the art, and the archeology of the site. A search of "Castelseprio" on JSTOR revealed 139 links to academic articles related only to the art of Castelseprio. Granted, many of these may be duplicates, or reviews of the same books, but this goes to establish the importance of the history the art from the site and how much it has been covered. And this link points to an interesting website with a link to a text document at the bottom. I don't know how official the site is, but the text document talks extensive about the history of the site, not the commune itself.

It is clear to me that there needs to be two seperate articles. The art and the archaeological site are the more notable. In my opinion, it is that article that would be entitled to the title Castelseprio. The modern day commune would have to be moved to Castelseprio, Italy or Castelseprio (commune). I realize that this has been suggested before, and the outcome was not satisfactory to some parties. Though I think that this is the most logical solution, I'm sure that it won't please all. My only other solution is the classic mediator strategy of "if you can't please both parties, make sure neither leaves pleased": turn Castelseprio into a disambiguation page with a link to both Castelseprio (commune), and Castelseprio (frescoes) with a brief description of both. Either of these solutions should help improve all aspects of this article.

If you feel there is something that I have overlooked in the forming of this opinion feel free to comment below. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well of course that makes perfect sense to me. I would only add that, were a disambig page deemed necessary (and I agree that it is not the ideal solution), something like Castelseprio (extinct city) would be preferable to Castelseprio (frescoes), in order to cover the other historical and topographical information that has been collected. --Javits2000 17:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would second that. For a disam title (a 2nd best I agree) perhaps: Castelseprio (ruined citadel) Johnbod 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will let the involved parties decide upon the correct names, I will only warn them to give the articles a title that people would be likely to search for. Perhaps Castelseprio (ruins), which seems to best convey the theme without getting more specific than the average searcher would. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the obviousity of being Castelseprio referring to the frescoes and Castelseprio, Italy to the commune. Is it Castelseprio the name of a fresco? Of the place containing it? What's the problem to have a large page entitled Castelseprio frescoes? I think we should think in encyclopedical way: is in the Britannica the article for the Tower of Pisa entitled Pisa at all, evne though it's clear that Pisa is mostly known only for it? Or, to make a more in the size example, does Farfa redirect to Farfa Abbey? There's at laeast a redirect between. If something a name refers to something, we should get stuck to the true meaning, not one often misleaded for it. This is my opinion. --Attilios 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is, once more, between extinct city and modern administrative unit -- not between frecoes and town. The frecoes are in a church which is in a ruin field where a city, that no longer exists, once stood. That city is the subject of the most notable article. And once and for all, the modern hamlet and the extinct city are geographically and historically distinct. This whole thing would become clear if we all hopped a train in Varese and had a gander. But this is not the place to rehash old arguments. Count me personally satisfied with the mediator's first opinion, of unanimous opinion with Johnbod, and prepared to finally produce a cogent article out of this mess.--Javits2000 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Johnbod 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Though I hate using the Britannica Precedent I think that if the publishers of those volumes were wise they would include a see also note for each in the other. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 06:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have split article into Castelseprio and Castelseprio (comune). --Javits2000 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

No activity for almost a month. Closing. --Medcabemail 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's been no activity, it's only because we've been waiting for another mediator, as requested by the first. The article is still in a state that I and, so far as I know, another editor, consider unsatisfactory; I'm sure we could create some disruptive "activity," but that would hardly be in the spirit of things, no? --Javits2000 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I recently recived this from another mediator offering himself, so I hope things will now move. Please mark as open again.Johnbod 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed status back to "new". --Medcabemail 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

See talk page