Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 Joint (building)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Joint (building)
State: Closed

Requested By: Achim (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Other Parties: Coccyx_Bloccyx and Achim
Mediated By: Steve Crossin
Comments: Case seems resolved. Will re-open if necessary.



Contents

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Coccyx_Bloccyx and Achim

[edit] What's going on?

Coccyx_Bloccyx continues to tag the article for references and quality. Achim believes that sufficient inline, Wiki-internal and other external references have been provided. Coccyx_Bloccyx nominated the article for deletion and the status of that process was keep, with 12 votes against the nominator, who had not one supporter. The deletion page contains subject-related commentary on the editing of the article by Coccyx_Bloccyx, which Achim would like considered here.

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

Achim would like Coccyx_Bloccyx to either discontinue the tagging and diminishing of the article through content deletions, OR to provide specific information as to what information is still required, taking the questions posed to Coccyx_Bloccyx into account in their entirety, not just sweeping statements that avoid the specifics. This includes questions on the article's talk page as well as those deleted on Coccyx_Bloccyx's talk page on this topic.

[edit] Mediator notes

Okay, I think I'll mediate this one. Let me have a look over the details. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been unresponsive recently, I've been rather busy with a new MedCab case. Anyway, can diffs of all the discussion please be provided in a section below this one? It would be best if I can access all the discussion easily. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coccyx_Bloccyx Trail

Thanks, I'll take a look now. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, one thing, I cannot see deleted edits. I'm not an administrator. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just go to the history tab. It will show you the exact changes that were made and by whom. Click on the difference. --Achim (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has no deleted edits that are relevant to this case, and neither does Ahering@cogeco.ca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Thanks for checking. Now that one of my mediations is closed, I'll wait for a short message here, that both parties are ready to begin, then I will start the mediation. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Ready to go. --Achim (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Y I would hazard a guess that this prose indicates Coccyx_Bloccyx's readiness to begin. --Achim (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

True, however I'd like a response from them here first. That would be best. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Y I have added {{refimprove}} to the article in question because of a lack of in-line citations. I feel that Achim (User:Ahering@cogeco.ca) is on the right track now in that regard, but I'm not completely sure he fully understands why these tags were added in the first place. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a definition of the term specific? --Achim (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

{ec}

  • Yes, I saw you added refimprove to the article. However you need to be specific here, if an issue over tagging an article has gone to the MedCab, then there is an issue. What I can have done is have a peer review of the article done, but, our verifiability policy clearly states that:
“ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ”

The question here, what content in the article is questionable/challengable? I feel here, as Achim does not understand the issue, that you need to be specific as to what the issue is. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably along the same lines of what the meaning of "is" is. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And to quote Jeremiah Wright: "How do you spell eeeask"? --Achim (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for Coccyx Bloccyx to give a more specific explanation of the reason you tagged the article with {{refimprove}}. I have no opinion on the article (As a mediator, I cannot), but it appears Achim is unclear on the reasons, therefore the best way for the issues here to be addressed is to explain clearly to them the concerns you have with the article. Perhaps using {{fact}} on specific parts of the article would help clarify the issue. Once you've explained your concerns, these concerns can be addressed. I hope this helps clarify what I'm requesting. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps THIS is considered to be his response? --Achim (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Discussion

A direct quote from an administrator, as written on Achim's talk page:

  • Basically, I think the article would be more useful if the sources were cited inline. On the other hand, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs) is inserting tags and leaving vague messages about the disagreements he has about content, without providing any sound reasoning as to what could be improved. I don't think the {{cleanup}} tag belongs on there at all.--Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC) --Achim (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To expand on that a bit: From a discussion at User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca, he mentions that he does this kind of work for a living, and that he's not only read the engineering texts on firestopping, he's actually written some of them. (I did a quick Google search, and I found a couple examples: an article about the reliability of two international testing standards for passive fire protection products, an essay on performance-based building codes, and his personal site.) I don't doubt Mr. Hering's credentials. I'll note a couple things from Wikipedia policy:
  • Wikipedia:No original research, one of the core policies, says that original research is not permitted in articles. Wikipedia:No original research#Citing_oneself states, "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources."
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources states that articles must rely on reliable, published third-party sources. It also covers the use of self-published sources.
These requirements for sourcing apply across all Wikipedia articles. Are these the sort of content policies that warrant administrative action? No. I'm not going to start using administrative tools against Mr. Hering.
Looking at the contributions of Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs), I noticed that he's been spending a lot of time tagging articles for needing references and participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. He nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint (building) for deletion, and when the deletion was snowball closed, he's kept picking away at Joint (building). While on the one hand, it's useful to tag articles for needing reference improvements and for other mechanical edits, the fact is that he hasn't communicated much with other editors about the reasons for this tagging. In particular, this edit that Coccyx Bloccyx made to his talk page, in which he summarily removed a number of questions and answers about his edits. I think that indicates an unwillingness to talk at length with other editors about what needs to be fixed or improved in the articles in question. I noticed that Coccyx Bloccyx's replies were rather terse and say things like, "This is our policy. Is it really hard to grasp?" Well, even though Wikipedia has content policies, it also has behavioral policies, and those need to be followed in order to prevent editing disputes and disruption.
If I wanted to summarize the situation in just a couple sentences, here are my suggestions:
  • Mr. Hering should provide citations to articles so other readers can verify the information and/or look further for more details.
  • Mr. Bloccyx should be a little less hasty with reference tagging, and should discuss policies with other users and suggest ways to improve articles, instead of just stonewalling.
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all that except that I am at a loss as to what else to cite in there. There is so much already. What else would anyone add? --Achim (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If I am placing my response in the wrong location, please feel to relocate it to the right place. I feel as if I've gotten off on the wrong foot here, and if that is the case I do apologize. On that same token though, I see that Achim does not understand the constructive purpose behind the cleanup tags, and although I've repeatedly asked him to use in-line citations he has refused to do so, and then removed the cleanup templates all together. That is wrong. I have left what I honestly feel are fair explanations for my actions both in the edit history of the respective article, and on the talk page as well. I look forward to resolving this issue through mediation. Thank you. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In response: I fully understand tagging. Since his tags I have added more subject-related links in fact. But nothing seems good enough for him. I have placed many inline references, Wiki-internal hyperlinks and other external links. The issue is Coccyx Bloccyx (talk)'s continued tagging despite the existence of plenty of external references whilst refusing to say specifically what else he thinks is needed, apart from manufacturer data, certifier data, certification listings, a commons gallery, etc. Also, if something else were required, then why not spend the time to find it and insert it, instead of just tagging? WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT, is the question. Through repeated attempts there has been no answer to that specific question, nor the expenditure of a bit of effort for him to find it himself. And that, I believe and others agree, is a pattern for this user that would be entirely useful to discontinue. --Achim (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For the moment, can we leave Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs)'s other article contributions out of this, and just stick to Joint (building) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? Since this mediation started, Ahering@cogeco.ca (talk · contribs) added three citations to the article. Then, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs) made these edits to move the lead paragraph before the two images and converted two bare links into the <ref ...> and {{reflist}} citation format, as described in Wikipedia:Footnotes.
In fact, Coccyx Bloccyx didn't make any edits on the 26th or the 27th. Coccyx Bloccyx returned today and added more {{unreferenced}} tags to articles, as well as submitting an AFD or two and contributing in some others. I really wish he/she hadn't made this edit, since it's only serving to ignite tensions, as answered by Ahering in this edit.
Meanwhile, I created Failing Office Building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) a couple days ago. Maybe I should rent an office there, since I'm apparently failing to make any progress in my rather terrible attempt to mediate this.
Do the two of you even want me to try to mediate this dispute any more, or should I try to find a real mediator (and someone who could do a better job of this than I can ever hope to do)? Let me know. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
--Elkman, I have no objection to any course of action you propose. Elkman is not, however, the mediator listed at the top, which is Steve Crossin. Are Steve Crossin and Elkman the same person? I don't object to either one. In fact, this can be made very simple. If Coccyx_Bloccyx can simply state what on earth else he thinks the article needs, we can just insert it and be done. Any improvement, especially further back-up can't hurt, can it? I just don't know what else could possibly be added. I purposely found more back-up, but he's leaving his tags, etc., etc., etc. I think in terms of mediation, this should be quite simple. Apart from that, I have attempted to get administrator action on Coccyx_Bloccyx's behaviour in general, but it seems that this has not worked. So long as I find out what else anyone wants added, we put it in and then the tags stop, then as far as this article is concerned, I'm a happy camper. --Achim (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm a completely different person. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm turning this over to Steve. I'm not the same person as Steve. I'm the admin who isn't doing a good job at either administration or mediation, as far as this page goes. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This discussion page is a mess, and I'm very busy this week-- but I do not want to see the mediation stalled any further. Here is an example paragraph from the article which lacks in-line citations:

"The fire here leapfrogged up the tower by shattering the glass and then consuming the aluminium skeleton holding the glass. Aluminium's melting temperature is 660°C, whereas building fires can reach 1,100°C (see fire-resistance rating article). The melting point of aluminium is typically reached within minutes of the start of a fire. Sprinklering of each floor has a profoundly positive effect on the fire safety of buildings with curtain walls. In the case of the aforementioned fire, it was specifically the activation of the newly installed sprinkler system, which halted the advance of the fire and allowed effective suppression. Had the sprinkler system not become operational at that point in time, the tower would have collapsed onto fire crews and into an adjacent building, while on fire. Exceptionally sound cementitious spray fireproofing also helped to delay and ultimately to avoid the possible collapse of the building, due to having the structural steel skeleton of the building avoid reaching the critical temperature, at which steel normally softens and can no longer hold its intended load, as the post-mortem fire investigation report indicated. This fire proved the positive collective effect of both active fire protection (sprinklers) and passive fire protection (fireproofing)."

Even honest editors make mistakes. Providing valid in-line sources from reputable publications helps limit and prevent those mistakes. Does this make sense? The article has improved to a slight degree, but only after a display of name calling by the party who initiated this mediation case, and I feel that is unfortunate. We have an obligation to provide material in the most professional manner possible. Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a citation provided, which leads to the full report. That full report is located right here and it is accessible from the existing citation. There was also a movie made about it. What is written up there was widely reported in fire protection magazines of the time and it is considered common knowledge among fire protection insiders, also especially since it led to a special advertising campaign by W.R. Grace & Co. - Connecticut, whose product Monokote was the spray fireproofing that was justifiably praised in the cited report. It's all in the report and it is linked to the article for those to read who are not aware of it as yet but have an interest. Page 19 point 8 speaks to these facts. That was linked to the article before it was tagged by Coccyx Bloccyx. The other deductions mentioned in the article can also easily by gleaned from the report. So, the example cited by Coccyx Bloccyx does not support his case in the slightest. --Achim (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My lines between yours, Elkman.--Achim (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'm going to jump back in here and raise a couple points:
  • Not sure, Lee Majors starred in it, if memory servres. It's a while back now.--Achim (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking for myself, as a casual reader, I don't have the fire protection magazines of the time, and I'm not a fire protection insider. (I have participated in several flame wars on the Internet, though.) Let's say that this article piqued my interest, though. Where could I find more of these fire protection magazines?
  • The National Fire Protection Association, for instance. You could also check with W.R. Grace and Co. - Conn. on the role of Monokote in that building.--Achim (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch! I did not know that. Once the fire was done with, the building itself did not gather nearly the interest anymore.--Achim (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Summary of Key Issues" section appears to give conclusions that there was no fireproofing between the floors and the glass curtain walls, and that the sprinkler system hadn't been fully completed.
  • We differentiate between fireproofing and firestopping and that is separate and apart from the active fire protection measure of the fire sprinkler system. The steel structure was clearly fireproofed. Think about it: otherwise the steel would have collapsed before the sprinklers were activated in this case. Look at the time/temperature curves shown in the fire-resistance rating article and you will see that it does not take long to reach about 500°C, which is usually when your rating terminates in most international fire tests. As loong as the steel stays below that temperature, it will still support the intended load. Also look at the curtain wall article for the perimeter slab edge joint. It IS a bit of a conundrum because while the floor has a rating, the exterior wall typically does not. The firestop there buys a bit of time, but not that terribly much, if the fire pops out the glass and starts leapfrogging up. Every little bit can help though. Seconds count in a fire like that. But this is not about the virtue of firestopping that particular joint. The code typically calls for it and it is ordinarily done. At issue here is that there is such a joint and it is a building joint. The article defines that adequately and points to adequate resources, such as the test standard and the UL treatise on the subject matter.
  • The "Lessons Learned" section, near the end, says that the sprinklers on each floor should have been turned on as soon as they were available to operate. It also criticizes the security guards who silenced alarms instead of actually checking them out.
  • Well, that system was just being installed after the fact. They weren't done yet. And yes, the guard should have taken the alarm seriously right away, and that's the way the cookie crumbles. Same as hotel personnel should quit wedging open fire doors and running rugs through them...
  • Come to think of it, a couple examples from other fires would be useful, for comparison or contrast.
  • Why not add them in? The more the merrier. What is here though adequatley indicates the existence of building joints and what people do with them, such as create and seal them.--Achim (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll let Steve provide the official mediation response to Achim's response, though. I'm just butting in (instead of doing my real work). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

As the article improvement is dragging, I've provided a proposal to move this off center on the Joint(building) Talk page. Fireproeng (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could this have been discussed with me prior to posting here? I have been working on this with Achim, as the other party hasn't been very active in the case. It's here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason I posted the details on the Talk page instead of here. I'm just letting all interested parties know here. Ignore it, if in the context of this mediation, if that's better. But in the context of others not involved in this mediation trying to improve the project, I have been waiting for this to come to a conclusion. Just moving along on a parallel path. Cheers. Fireproeng (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of specific response

I believe we are done. No specific replies are coming from Coccyx_Bloccyx that are reasonable and stand up to scrutiny. Even comments from Elkman and Fireproeng do not negate the fact that building joints exist and that codes call for them to be sealed in an approved manner and that there are products and certification listings to do so and that these contribute to fire safety. That's what this article is about. If there are any specifics that would warrant continued tagging, now that the deletion has been destroyed on merit with complete consent by everyone, I think that we should have seen that by now. You can nitpick as to wheter the aluminium frames within a curtain wall melt or fail after the fire shatters the glass in a high-rise fire, but it does not negate the facts that there is a perimeter slab edge joint that codes call to be firestopped. Nor can any reasonable person argue that head of wall joints exist and that they too are sealed and that all joints in buildings are subject to movement, which is why you have joints in the first place. Nothing specific has been offered by Coccyx_Bloccyx after a multitude of people have questioned him. He has no point that he can back up. This needs to be brought to a close. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)