Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Mediation: 2006-03-20 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Fishhead64 06:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) - the content of the article itself.


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Myself (Fishhead64), and two users who I think are the same person (since they make exactly the same points and insert the same links - Kduhaime and 216.232.185.105.


 * What's going on?
 * ...When I came across the article a few days ago, it provided limited information and was written in an extremely POV manner. I expanded the material, and edited in such a way as I included a section on the controversy concerning the public insurer, presenting concisely the major points from both sides.  The other editor(s) has repeatedly gone in to expand the Controversy section to edit it with extensive anti-ICBC language.  I have tried to engage the individual in dialogue both on the user page and the talk page but s/he has not responded.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...In my latest revert, I have left stand the external links the other editor(s) referenced. But I would like the individual to be persuaded somehow to refrain from extending his/her argument against ICBC in the body of the article itself, and just allow for a concise presentation of the controversy for the sake of neutrality.  But I can't engage the person in dialogue about the neutrality policy.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * ...I'd rather you didn't work discreetly - it's not a very widely read article, and if other wikipedians from BC can be made aware of it, perhaps I could enlist some help in keeping it NPOV. So you can just contact me on my talk page.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * Sure!

Mediator response
Lacking an indication of which specific edits Fishhead64 has a problem with, I am using the following two: this Kduhaime edit and this 216.232.185.105 edit.

Findings:


 * 1) The edits to the Mandate section are valid. The Fishhead64 edits are better phrased, but sound like they emit from a public relations factory. Sentences such as "In setting premiums, ICBC does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or marital status and discounts are provided based on the number of years that a driver has been claims free", while grammatically and structurally correct, sound canned.
 * 2) The edits to the Controversy section are not necessarily violations of WP:NPOV. A section titled "controversy", by definition, should including opposing points of view.

Suggestions:


 * 1) I suggest the sentences be rephrased to sound less strained.
 * 2) I'm not convinced that mentioning "ICBC does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or marital status" is at all necessary. It would only be noteworthy if this were not a common feature of government-owned institutions. However, it should be possible to rephrase the entire sentence such that this point is kept, but does not appear as it were something special. For instance: "In contrast to rival insurance companies (such as ....) that base premiums on demographic factors such as age, sex or marital status, ICBC establishes premiums based on the number of years that a driver has remained claims free."
 * 3) I suggest the sentence "In 2005, ICBC made an unexpected profit, and so made across-the-board reductions in insurance premiums" be rephrased, with a citation of the press-release where it actually says a) the profit was unexpected, and b) the company reduced premiums because of it. Moreover, from what I've read in the article, given the criticism of being non-transparent, I can imagine that this move alone raised eyebrows. If that is so, I recommend that the sentence (with rephrase) be moved to Controversy.
 * 4) I strongly suggest that the Controversy section be restructured, with one controversial issue per paragraph. As it is now, all controversial issues are in one paragraph, with the views of one side blurring into the views of the other. It may also make it simpler for other editors to write concisely.
 * 5) I suggest that the second paragraph of the Controversy section be moved to the introduction.

Perhaps implementing these suggestions will resolve the problem Kduhaime and anon have with the article. -- Fullstop 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Discussion
Per your recommendations, I have altered the article. I provide a summary of my edits and rationale on the article's talk page. I remain concerned by the extended, uncited, and anecdotal anti-ICBC language used in outlining the controversy, and I will continue to revert if it keeps popping up. So far, the other editors have refused to engage in discussion, which is a frustration. Fishhead64 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done edits. These will hopefully keep the other side from destroying the quality of the article.


 * Since mediation doesn't work if a side refuses to participate, I'm going to close this case with only a response to your comment above:
 * With respect to the refusal of the other parties to discuss changes: a) point them to Consensus, b) try your best to incorporate their views in Controvery.
 * If an editor repeatedly refuses to discuss edits, you can always request page protection. This will, in effect, force a discussion if the editor really cares about his/her edit.
 * Avoid reverts at all costs. Reverts are a powerful tool, but are also a sure way to annoy and aggrieve, and thats not a good foundation for discussion. First and foremost, assume (and show) good faith. Repeatedly, if need be. Yes, it can be frustrating, but you won't be able to invoke Policy if you violate it yourself.
 * Again, well done with the edits, and good luck with this and other articles. -- Fullstop 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)