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

message: 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)
thread_title: Archiving again

message: I guess the next point is the differences shown in this edit . 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--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 .
*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--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)
thread_title: Next point

message: Hiding wishes to re-implement the same set of consensus-breaking edits as the sockpuppet . See also these:. 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 and that explanation is more easily read here.
When Hiding first expressed agreement with the sockpuppet's disruption weeks after it occurred, 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 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, here, and with praise from ChrisGriswold here, despite the latter's decision five months later to use a sockpuppet to disrupt this longstanding consensus. As another example, after extensive discussion 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. 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)
thread_title:  response 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediator's response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Content and consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confused