Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School/archive3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving again[edit]

I have gone ahead and implemented the proposed solution in the article and archived the discussion up to this point. Arkyan • (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next point[edit]

I guess the next point is the differences shown in this edit [1]. I favour the latter, 0-0-0-Destruct-0 favours the former. I think the area of dispute is 0-0-0-Destruct-0 would prefer the article read In the early 1990s, the entire run of the paper was archived in the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Library.(note 1) Faculty oversee students who produce the paper in an informal setting in conjunction with the English department's journalism courses, which teach "gathering accurate information and interviews from official sources in order to inform, educate, interest, or entertain student readers."(note 2)(note 3) Along with its archiving at the University of Pittsburgh... and I guess also wants the later text The Columbia Scholastic Press Association at Columbia University has recognized the paper and members of staff with its Crown Newspaper awards--the highest recognition it gives to a student print or online medium for overall excellence[2]--since the awards' inception in the early 1980s.

  • Now, I want to work out if we need to talk about the archiving, is that necessary, and if it is can we perhaps find a better way to format that reference because it makes the reference section really untidy. My concern here is that we're blowing the trumpet for something rather mundane. The next part is over whether faculty do oversee the students. This was a hot topic on the talk page and I would like to know if the sourcing supports it. Now we know that the journalism courses are required of people working on the paper, but does that mean the faculty oversee students who produce the paper? Is there anyway to verify this? I think also, given what we've agreed above, perhaps we might have to couch this in terms of Since 2005? I mean, since we couldn't verify that the yearbook was produced by students in the seventies via the website, can we use the same source to categorically state that the paper has always been produced in such a way? I'll throw this one open to the floor. I would prefer to write At least since 2005, students wishing to work on the paper are required to take one of two journalism courses, which teach "gathering accurate information and interviews from official sources in order to inform, educate, interest, or entertain student readers." The source we're using here is [3].
  • The next area is the paragraph which opens Along with its archiving at the University of Pittsburgh, the newspaper has spawned such career journalists as Gary Graff... I'd like to remove the phrase Along with its archiving at the University of Pittsburgh,. I think giving it such prominence is granting it more weight than it maybe deserves. By couching it in this manner, we are denoting that such archiving is a distinction. I'm not convinced the sourcing provided allows us to create such an impression.
  • The next disputed area (on my part), is The Columbia Scholastic Press Association at Columbia University has recognized the paper and members of staff with its Crown Newspaper awards--the highest recognition it gives to a student print or online medium for overall excellence[4]--since the awards' inception in the early 1980s. For starters the inline external link should go. If it is a reference it should be formatted appropriately, if it is an external link it should either go in the external links section, or preferably removed altogether, I'm not sure it is of vital relevance to the article as an external link per WP:EL. I also have concerns over the grammatical flow, and am not convinced the later part of the sentence, since the awards' inception in the early 1980s adds to the flow or is necessary. Does it matter when the awards started? Also, do we use the word online medium or online media? I think those are the only content areas left under dispute. Hiding Talk 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response[edit]

Hiding wishes to re-implement[5] the same set of consensus-breaking edits as the sockpuppet Superburgh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).[6] See also these:[7][8][9]. When Superburgh introduced these edits, three administrators noted their disruptiveness as ArbCom moved to force the sockpuppeteer, former admin ChrisGriswold, to desyssop himself for such abusive sockpuppeteering. I explained and documented all that on the talk page when I reverted the disruption here[10] and that explanation is more easily read here[11].

When Hiding first expressed agreement with the sockpuppet's disruption weeks after it occurred,[12] I felt pressured to agree to any terms regarding points we mediate here lest more attempts to break the meticulously negotiated, months-old consensus arise. In that first expression, Hiding provided a diff[13] to Ned Scott, who had re-implemented the sockpuppet's disruption verbatim with an incoherent edit summary, ignored the talk page, and disregarded this mediation. When Hiding broke the mediation and radically re-implemented the sockpuppet's disruption, I felt so pressured to withdraw items I had raised for mediation that I expressed my concerns in our mediation, and Arkyan then requested everyone to respect the mediation process more circumspectly and he placed a notice on the page in question. This same set of edits Hiding now raises for mediation breaks the months-old consensus to which Hiding himself was an active party, for example here[14], here[15], and with praise from ChrisGriswold here[16], despite the latter's decision five months later to use a sockpuppet to disrupt this longstanding consensus. As another example, after extensive discussion[17] Hiding ceased contesting the phrase "faculty oversee" on December 15. The sockpuppet's cutting it five months later thus aimed at the consensus's most sensitively negotiated material, which I stated in my complaint about his disruption.[18] In the last six months, the only intervening factors or information have been disruptions for which the disruptor has been disciplined, and I see no reason to break such a meticulously developed consensus. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This issue seems to stem from a more detailed and older debate, so I will need a little bit of time to review the diffs provided and to go through the talk page and history for the article. Feel free to continue to discuss the issue. I will ask though that we try not to point any fingers or make any accusations one way or another - try to discuss the merits of the information as they stand without bringing up "extra information". I appreciate being informed on the background of the situation though, just try not to cast anyone's actions in a given light. It's not a trial here, it's just an attempt to reach consensus :) Arkyan • (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my part I'm reopening this because in my opinion we have a chance to build a better consensus. I'll respect any decisions we make here, I simply want the chance to be heard by impartial editors. Most of the discussion over these points was between myself and 0-0-0-Destruct-0. I want the input of the editors who have contributed to this mediation. As I've said, I think this mediation has raised points of relevance to these disputed areas. I also feel I should be allowed equal opportunity to raise points of contention. Like Arkyan, I would rather focus on the content. Hiding Talk 06:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say something about this topic: before contacting those users, think whether they have something constructive to give or not (and of course, whether they want or not to be contacted). It is a somehow sensible topic not only to this article: it includes a grave sockpuppetry case by an administrator that had to be de-sysoped... Personally, I'd like to see this point treated just like the other ones, in an article not behaivor perspective. --Neigel von Teighen 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not looking to drag anybody else in, beyond that I mentioned this to Ned a couple of weeks ago, and he hasn't followed it up anyway. I'm simply asking that these matters be looked at again and discussed between the four of us, and that we stick to the content, not the behavioural issues. Hiding Talk 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's response[edit]

I've taken the time to read through the diffs provided as well as to review the talk page in better detail regarding this issue. It looks like there was a considerable amount of discussion that went into this particular problem previously, and if possible I would like to try and avoid re-hashing the information from the old debate. I am going to address each of the "problems" brought up by Hiding and taking into consideration the information provided by 0-0-0-Destruct-0. As stated previously, I would like to consider this information based on the content and not the contributors - whether malicious sockpuppets may have supported one version or another is immaterial to the encyclopedic merits of the content itself. Let's judge it for what it is, and not what someone said about it.

  • The first point of contention brought up was about the following phrase - In the early 1990s, the entire run of the paper was archived in the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Library.(note 1) Faculty oversee students who produce the paper.. Hiding first questions the utility of the statement regarding the paper's archiving. At this point there does not seem to be any overly promotional tone to the statement, and it is sourced - merely a statement of fact. As to what point there is in mentioning this fact, I am unclear, but as it is not in contravention to policy or guidelines it becomes merely a style issue. Personally I don't see the inclusion of this phrase as being problematic.
  • The next point of contention seems to revolve around the Faculty oversee part of the above statement. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 pointed out in the talk page that "faculty oversee" is essentially synonymous with "teachers instruct", so again, the distinction is one of style and not substance. It was brought up that the notion that teachers oversee the students is intuitive and understood without requiring explicit sourcing, and I might agree. However, I would also question the utility of including information that is implicitly understood - if it is plainly obvious that an academic course will have faculty oversight, what point is there in mentioning that fact? In this case I favor Hiding's wording as being simpler and not adding in extra content.
  • The next problem is with the phrase Along with its archiving at the University of Pittsburgh, the newspaper has spawned such career journalists.. At this point the mentioning of the archiving a second time does seem to be putting undue weight onto what is apparently a mundane fact. Whether the university archives many or just a few school newspapers is not important to the fact that it was archived. We have already mentioned the archiving, and should leave it up to the reader to decide whether this is an exemplary achievement or a mundane process - there is no reason to aggrandize the archiving. I agree in this case the phrase is superfluous and puts undue weight on a minor fact.
  • Hiding also brings up a few issues with The Columbia Scholastic Press Association at Columbia University has recognized the paper and members of staff with its Crown Newspaper awards--the highest recognition it gives to a student print or online medium for overall excellence. His contention that the inline link should be converted to a reference is understandable, but again this is a style issue and not a content issue. It is, in this case, appropriate to provide a sourced statement clarifying what the "Crown Newspaper award" is, and this link provides the source for doing so. Retaining the qualifying statement is appropriate in this case, and converting the link to a reference is also appropriate. As to the distinction between medium and media, the choice of medium is gramatically correct as well as the phrase used by the university in the source provided, and I'd say it would be preferable to use their wording.
  • Finally, the statement since the awards' inception in the early 1980s is called in to question. Grammatically this is problematic - in the context of the sentence, it is difficult for the reader to decide whether this means the university has awarded the Crown Newspaper awards since the 80's, or does it mean that The Foreward and its contributers have been recognized since the award's inception? As a confusing statement that does not seem to add to the article it would be my opinion that removing it is best.

Based on my reading of this section and the opinions expressed above, I believe a modified version of the section as follows would be preferable :

  • In the early 1990s, the entire run of the paper was archived in the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Library.(note 1) Since at least 2005, students wishing to work on the paper are required to take one of two journalism courses, which teach "gathering accurate information and interviews from official sources in order to inform, educate, interest, or entertain student readers."(note 2)(note 3) The Columbia Scholastic Press Association at Columbia University has recognized the paper and members of staff with its Crown Newspaper awards, the highest recognition it gives to a student print or online medium for overall excellence.(note 4)

I now invite you to discuss some of the conclusions I have made regarding the disputed statement. Arkyan • (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to mediator and request to Hiding[edit]

Arkyan, I commend you and admire your commitment to us for the diligence with which you soldiered through the diffs and the talk page debates to craft a solution trying to bridge two sides. Despite your request that we not judge the existing version for what someone said about it, I would indeed like to consider one editor's opinion--Hiding's. On April 19, before this latest round of cuts he suggests, Hiding opined "I think the section detailing the school paper is an excellent addition."[19]. The version he considered excellent had stood for four months after the consensus that included him was reached.

Hiding, I know you shared a bond of affection with ChrisGriswold,[20] a mentoring relationship[21][22][23][24] that developed into one where you could turn to your own pupil for advice.[25][26] His ethical lapse upset a lot of people, some of whom, after the ArbCom discussion, acted out in their own ways on other pages where their stridency was tolerated, perhaps because the depth of their hurt was understood. I know I was the one who exposed your friend's malfeasance and caused him to face the fair disciplinary action he deserved, which can't endear me to you.

My own AMA, Neigel von Teighen AKA Imaglang, pleaded for leniency for ChrisGriswold[27][28]. His pleas were ignored the same way ChrisGriswold ignored my pleas[29] that he apologize not just to ArbCom, but to those whom his actions hurt, and that he make right the damage he'd done by reverting his own sockpuppet's edits, which you only lately began to support. Along with his sockpuppet's targetting me, ChrisGriswold also wikistalked me[30][31], and given Ned Scott's behavior as another example of how ChrisGriswold's friends view me, I will be permanently looking over my shoulder on WP. I feel the chilling effect ChrisGriswold sought for people treading on what he inappropriately considered his turf, in violation of WP:OWN.

Hiding, in view of your own recently expressed opinion on April 19 supporting the longstanding consensus in which you played an integral part, I urge you to change your heart regarding these matters. I think the project, the article, and all of us would benefit if you could recover the frame of mind that led to our consensus last December and maintained it for five months. Everything surrounding ChrisGriswold's actions, including his disruptive edits you only started supporting on May 18[32] could then be laid to rest. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to ask the mediator to intervene here. Arkyan, is it possible we can focus on discussing the content? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has been given the chance to air points, I feel it is only fair I am allowed to raise points of my own. We came here with good faith on the understanding that our points would be heard by an impartial person, who would also mediate the discussion. I would hope we can complete this mediation in a similar manner, otherwise I'm not sure how we progress from here. This mediation is not a request for comment on any user, but is seeking to improve the article in line with our policies and guidance. Does 0-0-0-Destruct-0 have any points which address the disputed edits at hand? Can I suggest that if 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has no points to raise over the suggested changes by Arkyan, to which I am agreeable, we implement them? Hiding Talk 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have contacted 0-0-0-Destruct-0... I must recognize his last post is a result from a great confussion I had yesterday (maybe because of the archiving, but now I think everything is solved). Apologize me, please.
Anyway, I'd like to notice that your proposal, Arkyan, may conflict with older consensus. I ask all of us to try to solve this very carefully so we don't end disrupting everything. --Neigel von Teighen 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content and consensus[edit]

I cannot stress enough the importance of focusing on content here and not contributors. This is a content dispute and not a referendum on the behaviors or actions of any given editor. This is an inappropriate forum for bringing up the past associations or actions of anyone. The reason that I feel this is so important is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the quality of the encyclopedia will be judged on the quality of its content and not its contributors. If we get wound up worrying about "who said what" and meanwhile let the content suffer then we are doing the community a disservice. So again, I urge everyone to put aside past differences and keep the discussion centered upon the merits of the content at hand.

Regarding the notion that the solutions we reach here may tread upon prior consensus - that may indeed be the case. One of the core precepts of consensus is the fact that consensus can change. I do not mean to suggest that we outright discount older consensus, particularly when it is in regards to contentious topics. Just because consensus arrived at a good solution does not mean that future discussion cannot result in a better solution. Indeed, that is another mark of a good encyclopedia, one that is in a constant state of change for the better rather than saying "This works, let's stick with it and never change." Again, I have no interest in discounting previous consensus, but rather building upon the conclusions reached there with the goal of reaching a superior conclusion.

I have made an attempt to address the concerns that Hiding has brought up. It is my opinion that some of his concerns are valid and ought to be addressed, while others may be unfounded and the wording left as is. I believe the proposed solution that I presented is a fair compromise, but this is just my opinion.

So again I will invite the users to comment on the proposed solution, or, if necessary, provide additional commentary regarding Hiding's concerns. Again, I must stress that the discussion must center on the content that is currently in dispute, and not the circumstances that brought it about. Arkyan • (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Arkyan. But if we're going to discuss multiple items at one time, I'd like to be confident as to exactly what I'm agreeing or disagreeing with. You refer to the modified version you propose above as "the section," but it's ambiguous to me how you actually propose the whole section to read. For example, you apparently elided the statements regarding student journalists who have gone on to professional careers. I presume you wanted to keep your proposal brief and to the point, but would you mind pasting here the entire contiguous section incorporating your proposal so that I can weigh the impact of the various items currently up for discussion? In fact, I wouldn't complain if you posted the proposed form of the entire section on The Foreword if you considered that the guaranteed way to eliminate any ambiguity. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I apologize that the information above seems to skip information, that's my bad. Below I will post a full revision of the section incorporating the suggested changes, based on Hiding's concerns. It lacks Wikiformatting but here you go. Arkyan • (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromise version[edit]

The school has published its newspaper, the Foreword, since Taylor Allderdice's founding in 1927.(note 1) In the early 1990s, the entire run of the paper was archived in the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Library.(note 2) Since at least 2005, students wishing to work on the paper are required to take one of two journalism courses, which teach "gathering accurate information and interviews from official sources in order to inform, educate, interest, or entertain student readers."(note 3)(note 4) During the 1970s, the paper carried the motto "Serving Allderdice High School and the community,"(note 5) and claimed to reach more than 5,000 readers.(note 6)(note 7)(note 8)

The newspaper has spawned such career journalists as Gary Graff,(note 9) who wrote for it in 1977-1978(note 10) and professional writers such as Maxine Lapiduss(note 11) whose bylines appear in 1977-1978.(note 12) In 1979, the Foreword's news editor, Aaron Zitner, was a finalist in the American Newspaper Publishers Association's annual competition,(note 13) and the paper received a first place rating in Columbia University's annual Scholastic Press contest.(note 14) The Columbia Scholastic Press Association at Columbia University has recognized the paper and members of staff with its Crown Newspaper awards, the highest recognition it gives to a student print or online medium for overall excellence(note 15). Staff achieved Gold Circle awards in 1989,(note 16) and 1990,(note 17) and the paper itself a Silver Crown award in 1991.(note 18) As "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School,"(note 19) the school uses a scan from The Foreword on its web site, so documenting the school's fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school". (note 20)

Motion to close & request formal mediation[edit]

After some time in this mediation, 0-0-0-Destruct-0 and I consider this mediation to have been really useful and productive; we have solved some major points and have discussed everything in a very civil way. But, we also consider that this case should now be treated by a formal mediator (WP:MedCom). The reason is mainly that we would like some new opinions from another neutral user.

We are very pleased to have worked with you Arkyan, really. And feel free to participate in this formal mediation (if succeeds), you have some background on the dispute that might be very helpful. Don't think that we do this to have a more "favorable" mediator or to disrupt everything, it is an attempt to solve this without going into an arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If 0-0-0-Destruct-0 wishes to withdraw from mediation then I will consider the case closed. I am glad that we were able to make as much progress as we did, although I must express some disappointment that we're having to end the discussion when it seems we're just on the cusp of some closure.
If MedCom is willing to take on the case I would be willing to offer my opinion there if it was requested. Also, if what you are seeking is merely additional input on the matter, have the parties considered other consensus-gathering methods such as third opinions or request for comment? They are both valuable methods for seeking input from a broader audience on a matter.
Again, as one side of the mediation has withdrawn from the discussion I will hereby consider the case closed. I will leave the discussion page open for 3 days should anyone wish to provide some final comments or statements regarding the dispute, feedback on the mediation process or any other information they feel is necessary to bring up in this forum before I archive the discussion and terminate the case. As always, please remain civil in all comments. Arkyan • (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehension... Anyway, I think you'll be a great help in our next step. And yes, it seems there was a RfC before; I don't know exactly who requested it and why. Personally, I don't like RfC, but that's another discussion we can have elsewhere, but have a lot of respect for MedCom. The problem with this informal process is that we're seeing the discussion is getting back to older debates that were considered closed and that, if we're going to discuss, we have to move too an "official" method because it is referred to those grave sockpuppetry cases we already know. It's not a discussion problem, but the place we're discussing it, I think.

Now, there's an "operative" issue: MedCom requires that all parties sign the mediation request in order to accept the case. That's why we're not making the request yet because Hiding hasn't answered or hasn't shown any opinion on this. I don't like to try to gain any advantage by presenting an RfM without the opposite party's knowledge. --Neigel von Teighen 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, Arkyan. I too am happy with the progress your informal mediation has helped us make. I find myself in a quandary, however, as to how to respond productively to the proposal currently on the table. For example, on the one hand Hiding now says the phrase "faculty oversees" should be stricken as OR. On the other hand, you agree with me that it's justifiably sourced common sense, but its very uncontroversial obviousness warrants its deletion. So the same item is at once OR and not OR and both criteria are being adduced for its deletion. The solution you propose is virtually identical to alternate phrasing that didn't survive the consensus already developed by these same two editors six months ago, with no intervening factors since then except behavioral issues, yet this history is unsuited for consideration in this venue. In particular, by using the passive voice, the current proposal (as did proposals six months ago) conveys no sense, despite the sources' support, that people actually produce The Foreword. Furthermore, others have opined that some school newspapers are rogue or underground operations, so the sourced faculty oversight belongs in the article because it distinguishes The Foreword from those other kinds of publications.

I'm also concerned that the proposal on the table impinges on issues to come when it's again "my turn" to propose our agenda's next item. Behavioral issues and previous consensus would factor in again. So I feel we're not presently on the cusp of another breakthrough, which is why I believe we should move to the next logical venue. Hiding has previously made RFC's, but presumably this article's obscurity didn't attract enough interest. I think formal mediation is the more appropriate place for considering the totality of our case's circumstances, which we can't do here. I believe that my behavioral concerns also necessitate the degree of confidentiality afforded by formal mediation in the event of any follow-on processes. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

I'm completely confused now. I've been away for a couple of days like I said, and I come back to this. I'm a bit over-whelmed and feel like the rug has been [pulled from under me. I can't understand any of this at all. Sorry, but is this it? Hiding Talk 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately it looks that way. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 has indicated that he wishes to withdraw from the informal mediation, and since it is an informal matter he is free to do so. Since that means you'd be the only party left, there's not much sense in continuing this session. It is his opinion that formal mediation is a better venue to continue this discussion and a request for such as been made here for such. I'm somewhat disappointed that the decision was made to withdraw from this mediation as I do feel progress was being made. Since the participants are withdrawing, however, I have no choice but to end this mediation. Arkyan • (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why aren't you listed as a party? And why isn't User:ChrisGriswold, or User:Elomis? And what happens if I decline that mediation? Hiding Talk 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you decline to take part in the formal mediation, then the case will be declined and the entire dispute will wind up in limbo. The only remaining unexplored option is to try and take it to the ArbCom, but I can say with some measure of certainty that ArbCom will not take up the case - they generally don't take up cases that are content disputes.
      • I'll reiterate my opinion that the move to take this to formal mediation was premature, but again that is not my decision to make. As far as why some people were listed in the case and others are not, you'll want to take that up with Neigel von Teighen as he's the one who filed the request and I don't want to make assumptions. If you feel there are other participants to this dispute who have not been listed as participants or have not otherwise been notified of the request for formal mediation you might want to notify them. Arkyan • (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, one last question. Does only one side get to decide who is a party to the dispute? Hiding Talk 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not per se. By "signing" the mediation request you would essentially be endorsing the section of listed participants. If you feel there are more participants who should be listed then contact Neigel von Teighen and ask him to amend the request to list all the participants prior to signing off on the request. Even formal mediation is still a voluntary process and no one is ever under any kind of required/compulsory participation, and so all the participants should be in agreement as to what the dispute is about and who it involves prior to approving the request. Arkyan • (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23_Taylor_Allderdice_High_School/archive3&oldid=1136421785"