Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07 Democracy (disambiguation)

Mediation Case: 2006-08-07 Democracy (disambiguation)
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: Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also request this mediation: BruceHallman 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Democracy (disambiguation)


 * Who's involved?
 * Four editors have signed on to mediation, three (amongst others) who agree with a consensus solution, and one who does not.


 * What's going on?
 * * The consensus solution is very close to full compliance with WP:DAB, with the possible exceptions of listing Democracy (varieties) and List of types of democracy, but they were left as it is generally agreed they are considered very helpful continuation links for the predominant/top disambiguation. The person disagreeing with the consensus is offering a partial reading of WP:DAB that appears to ignore what not to include, and has reverted the page to a version that contains a lot of links related to the predominant/top disambiguation term.  Related links are not supposed to appear on this page according to WP:DAB.   Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Another point I had failed to leave out before is that David Oberst, Natalya and myself answered Bruce's question on "What is the criteria?" (from inclusion and exclusion points of view) on multiple occasions, yet he continued asking the same question repeatedly. Further, when Bruce was asked what his criteria was, he offered one sentence out of the entire WP:DAB guideline and apparently has not to date offered anything further that is specific.  It is difficult for the consensus group to discuss this matter when there is no detailed position from Bruce's side to deal with.  The consensus offered many ideas, and we're still waiting to see what Bruce's ideas are.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * * My perspective on this 'consensus' is somewhat different. A month ago the page Democracy (disambiguation) contained a lot of links.  Three editors, David Oberst, Natalya, and Stevietheman bypassed the standard consensus building process and negotiated in secret to do a 'major revamp' of the page, which deleted out 95% of the prior existing disambiguation links. Since then, they have doggedly defended their 'major revamp' and have refused to reasonably and incrementally negotiate their massive changes which they decided upon in secret. BruceHallman 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While in theory it should be academic even if I had been crafting this in a secret cavern with the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission, in actuality all that happened was this: after a previous fruitless attempt at rationalizing the page in June, I merely took a copy to my userspace, and altered it to roughly what my research had led me believe reflected a proper Wikipedia disambiguation page. It then sat dormant for some time, until Stevie dropped me a note about revisiting the issue. At that point I dug out my draft, pointed it out to Stevie in my reply, asked Natalya (as a previously involved member of WikiProject Disambiguation) to take a quick look, and made my edit on the live page. Their comments and minor alterations during this one-day period is the extent of their involvement in my userspace. While I obviously feel that Bruce has misunderstood and/or mischaracterized this, it would appear to be moot to the actual content issue, and I'll leave it unless our mediator wishes to revisit it.

As to the actual content, it became obvious to me that the "laundry list" of accumulated links were all related to the same sense of the term embodied in the Democracy article, and that none of them shared the term as a "natural title" in the manner discussed at WP:DAB. This being the case, both the guidelines and actual practice seem clear these were not disambiguation links. The issue is not one of "removing 95%" of potentially valid links, but 100% of links that do not belong on a properly formed Wikipedia disambiguation page. It is this distinct and significant basis that I feel is at the heart of the consensus. It is convincing enough to have converted the original author of the page, and the "list" approach (Stevie), and a member of WikiProject Disambiguation who had made a previous revision suggestion of her own (Natalya), concurred with by another project member (Usgnus), and others attracted through RFC or other means (Wangi, Tmorton166). I emphasize the distinctiveness of the two approaches - that democracy is indeed the sole link meeting disambiguation guidelines and practice. This is essential to my (and I believe the others) view of the issue. If we are wrong on this, the rationale for the current page falls apart, but if we are correct, endless discussion on the merits of individual links or "criteria for inclusion" is futile. Bruce's reluctance to understand or engage meaningfully on this point in the first instance is the cause of much of my frustration.

Given the massive nature of the Talk page debate, I'd be happy to provide any summary or clarification the mediator feels useful. I would point to my examples of the Parliament (disambiguation) and freedom dab-pages, and what they do and do not include, as I feel they are direct and on-point parallels. I feel that Bruce's references to the WP:DAB/MOS:DAB guidelines are isolated and his interpretations not supported by the entire context of the documents, and more importantly, fail to reflect actual dab-pages. Again, Bruce has declined to support his reasoning with existing pages; should this become an issue I could address this further. Similarly, he provides no existing basis for the validity of his hypothetical 13 year old New Zealand girl example (who would not reach the page directly in any case); I believe it would be easy to demonstrate that this is distinctly what dab-pages do not do (the same girl might "expect" to find Parliament of New Zealand at Parliament (disambiguation), but would not). I'm sure that Bruce believes in his reasoning, but there seems to be a large and demonstrable gap between whatever he is trying to accomplish, and what Wikipedia disambiguation pages actually do.

I'm not sure in what direction this mediation might proceed. There has been more than ample discussion on this, especially given the restricted scope of a dab-page. If Bruce feels that a number of independent editors have somehow misinterpreted dab-guidelines, would recruiting a substantial number of additional opinions at WikiProject Disambiguation be useful? I would expect overwhelming concurrence, and any dissent might be illuminating. Otherwise, absent compelling evidence that "democracy" requires exceptional treatment, "the onus" is on Bruce, and while I'll work with the mediator in whatever manner they think best, I feel no qualms in considering the current state of the page satisfactory. - David Oberst 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to fully read David Oberst's 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) explanation, because he begins with pointed and sarcastic insults aimed at me personally. I would like refrain from further discussion until the people who have flung insults make apology.  Regardless, I also point out that on July 31st, when David Oberst made his 'drastic revamp', it was not accompanied by a reasoned explanation.  My requests for a reasoned explanation of the 'major revamp' were stonewalled and defended, not with reason, but with ad hominem attacks on Bruce, over and over, yet David Oberst somehow calls this 'ample discussion'?   Now, on August 10th, for the first time, David Oberst finally explains his reasoning rationally (albeit mixed with sarcastic insults aimed at me).  I now understand and accept the logic of his reasoning for the 'major revamp' edit.  I don't accept the poor treatment and insults.   BruceHallman 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * * We could use a clarification of WP:DAB with respect to this page, so that all can see what clearly belongs and doesn't belong. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Page reworks are completed on user pages on a regular basis in the Wikipedia. I believe the consensus group thinks that this rework effort has nothing to do with the merits of this case, as pages can still be discussed and modified after any rework, whether the rework was constructed "in secret" or not.  Further, I believe the consensus group has found that each and every one of the individual links Bruce alludes to are related to the predominant/top disambiguation, and are therefore ineligible for inclusion on the page.  Bruce has not to date provided one example from the list he alludes to that isn't related and represents a separate angle for the term 'democracy'.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue being mediated is the drastic 'major revamp' done by editor David Oberst on July 31st.  The onus is on him to explain his drastic edit.  It is false logic to blame me for this dispute, instead the editor making the edit has the responsiblity to explain.  BruceHallman 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * * I ask that each of the links from a month ago be considered individually in public, using reason and evaluation to a set of criteria, and not be deleted out, in mass based on secret negotiations. For the items to be considered individually, we need to first agree on what criteria to use to make our decisions.  I also generally agree that the page from a month ago contained too many links.  I also believe that the currently defended 'major revamp' contains too few links.  BruceHallman 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I believe in an open process. Please use my talk page to contact me personally. I think a direct approach in the article's talk would be best.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevietheman (talk • contribs).


 * As the discussion has cycled numerous times on the talk page already, I'll defer adding comments for now. I have this on my watch list, and should someone decide to take it up, I'd be happy at that time to provide a summary, or whatever other information might be deemed useful. - David Oberst 08:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Statement made above - my apologies for the length, but hopefully the links and references will prove useful. Thanks to Blnguyen for taking this up. - David Oberst 08:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I echo David Obersts's thoughts. -- Nataly a 12:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, however I do not really see the requirement for mediation in this matter - consensus has been reached. Thanks/wangi 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, consensus has not been reached. Consensus requires "...a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action."  The secret nature  of this 'major revamp' prohibits a fair characterization that a true consensus exists.  BruceHallman 17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A general agreement, as consensus is defined, does not require all people to be in agreement. Additionally, the discussion of the revamp was not done in any fashion meant to be secret; many pages are drafted in the userspace.  It does not seem appropriate to accuse someone of plotting secretly when the true reason is not known.  Regardless, we should wait for our mediator, so as not to elongate this page more than is necessary. -- Nataly a  20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bruce, you're pointing to discussion to which i was not party to and did not know about until recently. However that did not prevent my viewpoint and constructive edits making in into the page, having a discussion with other editors and reaching agreement - look at the edits around the 31st July (which resulted in the current version of the dabpage). I became involved in this page as a result of a post to another talk page requesting input - I was an outside party. There is clear consensus. This is a waste of people's valuable time (as in there are incidents that really do need mediation). Thanks/wangi 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response

 * Well, I'm willing to take this as a debut case. Surely it won't be worse than User_talk:Blnguyen and the sections around it. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Judging by the comments by Bruce on the talk page, I presume the deadlock is now broken. Is that the case? Would you like further action? Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC).
 * It seems to be over. Thanks for your help, anyway. -- Nataly a  01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume Bruce is finished with this, and you can close it. Thanks for taking it up though, and it should do wonders for your MEDCAB rating: "Mediate with Blnguyen, whose mere acceptance solves all woes!" :) - David Oberst 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * David, a at that one! :) Thanks Blnguyen, /wangi 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That brought a smile to my face too. :D -- Nataly a 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)