Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-16 Generation X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Generation X
State: Closed

Requested By: Ledboots (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Mediated By: PhilKnight (talk)
Comments: Discussion on talk page



Contents

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Ledboots / Cumulus Clouds

[edit] What's going on?

Cumulus Clouds is under the impression this the last section (and other items) of this article is pov. I set up that section 2 years ago with the intention of listing credible references, like best selling authors, to establish various views on the birth years that denote Gen X based on "expert" research. Other people have contributed a great deal to the article. Cumulus Clouds recently made wholesale deletions that I feel are unjustifiable, and based on his/her own opinion, what constitutes original research. I am looking have those edits reversed as I am inclined to label them as vandalistic. Lastly, I feel that the quality of the article is diminished and left to a great deal more edits in the direction of pov. Edits regarding what defines "Gen X birth years" in the opening paragraph (now, about the only source in the article), for instance, are practically a daily occurrence. Ledboots (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I would like is this article to be reverted back prior to Cumulus Cloud's edits, unless an impartial mediation is in disagreement. I would like a mediator to assess before and after changes and evaluate. Ledboots (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like the administrator to assess the contents that were deleted in the subsections: "Generation X in the United States", "International factors defining Generation X" and "Generation X references" to determine the justifiability of their deletion. Some may need sourcing, that's true, but it much of it was in fact referenced. This article once had a tag for lack of worldly point of view, which it now does more than ever. Much of what was deleted with the claim of "original research" is incorrect and unsubstantiated, just claimed by someone who has their own editing agenda. Wikipedia should definitely have standards, but relaxed standards should, especially here, be the rule rather than exception in this environment. People who are contentious like this one, serve no good purpose by being excessive (for example, citing year of birth of a celebrity, which is widely published). Ledboots (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator notes

Is this dispute still active? Or have the problems largely been resolved? Addhoc (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll close this case if no-one objects. Addhoc (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Reopened. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Discussion

I am interested in knowing how Cumulus Clouds justifies the claim that some 2/3 of the article which was deleted is pov, when much of it was referenced and included authors such as Statistics Canada, the US Census Bureau, PhD's and other credible sources. I also would like to challenge the notion of an editor that throws out a "fact" tag, which probably can be extremely subjective, could then follow up and remove items at will, especially when there is a record of it being challenged, and ignored. Ledboots (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I removed a section titled "Generation X references" which was entirely original research from the editors who wrote that material. It was a compendum of texts that mention the term, or the editors' own analysis of how that particular work "affected" Generation X. None of it was substantiated with any sources (and this includes synthesis by the editors being drawn out of the "references" in that section).
Following the list of books and magazines, the article had about 200 names of people that one or several editors believed was part of Generation X, with their explanation of that analysis usually included in the edit summary. Again, this is pure original research. This was also the only place in the article that any new edits were being made, and almost entirely by anonymous IPs adding new names to the list. We already have categories for people born in the various decades, so the list was redundant and including it was unencyclopedic and, frankly, couterproductive.
I then culled more information out of the main body of the article which was also entirely OR. One or several editors had written extensively about their own analysis of who or what contributed to Generation X and how those people viewed the world. None of it was sourced -and I doubt any exist- so I deleted it.
Ledboots objected to those edits (probably because he wrote the original material) and reverted it without explanation. Notes on the talk page indicate he believed my edits were "invalid" because I didn't respond to his original request for mediation, which was also made in bad faith because Ledboots wanted to retain a great deal more OR that I had removed from this article in February. Ledboots then left numerous messages on the talk pages of several administrators, seeking a favorable outcome for this dispute, and tried several times to lock the page on his version at RPP.
Ledboots is using this process abusively to protect content that he believe he owns and which is very clearly his own subjective original research. I would ask that this mediation case be hastily closed so that the article can continue to be improved without any further delay. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This morning Ledboots left a message on Talk:Generation X saying he would revert any and all changes made to the article that conflict with his own. Again, this is symptomatic of his misguided beliefs of ownership over that article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you know I'm a he? Ledboots (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)