Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-28 Computer Science dispute

Request Information

 * Request made by: -- Evanx  06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Computer science
 * Talk:Computer science
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_December_2005/Computer science


 * Who's involved?
 * Party 1
 * User:Dzonatas
 * Party 2
 * User:Evanx
 * User:R.Koot
 * User:powo


 * What's going on?
 * We are unable to negotiate the details of the abovementioned article. Dzonatas went ahead with a unilateral edit that was against consensus on at least 2 occasions, despite implicit agreement to only amending issues that are already resolved when the article was locked. Negotiation has failed and although Dzonatas does not have the confidence of every other user in his definitions and amendments, he insists on carrying them out and has quoted "It is non-negotiable,", implying a non-NPOV, since that rejects all other POVs by the other users.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * seek resolution and mediation.
 * solve the divergence in opinion and if that is not possible, to at least seek a favourable account to all parties.
 * indiction against unilateral edits that deal with disputed issues (until they are resolved).


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I am contactable by email, please leave your email on my page.

Comments by others
Comment by Powo

User Dzonatas has been blocking improvement over this page for months now. Absolutely nobody, and I mean it: nobody, has supported his points of view, yet he has constantly been insisting for pushing them on the page. This is unacceptable, because (from my POV and from the POV of evryone else I think), he is very mistaken on what CS is and his edits are strongly damaging the quality of the article. Anyone reasonable would have accepted the majority and consensus POV, yet Dzonatas did not. I have a question to the community: is there a way to stop that? I dont think there is since it seems (a) Dzonatas will not understand why he is wrong (b) Dzonatas will not give up pushing his POV on the page (c) Dzonatas seems to apply the idea that one is a majority if he is right, and he erroneously thinks he is right against all others... I can see only one solution: admins blocking user Dzonatas. Is this possible? --Powo 11:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by &mdash;  Dz on at as 

Note: There is another mediation case on Computer science. The discussion was idle over the holidays. I expected it to continue, but here is the result. It may or may not have been a result of an action to get participation from the outside over here. These cases do not come with a list of instructions on what to do next, so I assume that is why the previous one became idle. &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Evanx

That mediation case was considered resolved. Hence the idle period until you forced reverts, leading to the protection of the article and raising the discussion yet again. Clearly, you are unsatisfied with the verdict. I quote from the mediator: '''finding agreement that "the concept of computation is central to computer science, and the proposition to define computer science as the study of computations is not uncommon." ''' which you have consistently tried to work around. Also, using the pretext that "the discussion was idle", does not entitle your unilateral edits, especially when it has failed to acknowledge agreement since the current one is deemed neutral to all parties but yourself.

As to your "outside influence" theory, there is no connection between me and the other users. Take for example, I am from Canada and Powo is from Switzerland. -- Evanx  17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by &mdash;  Dz on at as 


 * Is the other case really considered resolved? I see only a suggestion to close the other case. I left a note on its page.
 * On finding agreement that "the concept of computation is central to computer science, and the proposition to define computer science as the study of computations is not uncommon: this whole process wasn't done. It is not uncommon to define CS as something besides computation. I already agreed that the study of computation is central to Computational Intelligence. The study of computation alone (even with study of information) doesn't define CS in a neutral way. There are many sources that define CS in various ways, and these should be noted. &mdash;  Dz on at as  18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
taken up -- see talk page for followup. Sdedeo (tips) 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

and resolved! Sdedeo (tips) 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)