Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01 Joyce Foundation

.

Mediation Case: 2007-03-01 Joyce Foundation
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: Kevinp2 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Joyce Foundation (talk)


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?
 * The root cause of the dispute is that Hipocrite is removing large sections of information because (he claims) that it is sourced from blogs. In my opinion, Wikipedia does not prohibit the sourcing of information from blogs per se.  WP:ATT only calls for Reliable Sourcing.  WP:RS which is only a guideline, not a policy says that blogs "should not" be used as sources, but also, right at the top cautions about using common sense.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * At the minimum, Hipocrite needs to stop deleting large sections of text. The article had been through many rounds of edits from opposing persons and had reached a stable place for many months.  We need to first revert to the last edition before Hypocrit came along.  I am open to searching for more accurate sourcing as time permits (I have a full time job).  What needs to stop is:


 * Hipocrite's overbroad claim of authority to remove blog sourcing when in fact Wikipedia does not require it
 * His large scale removal of entire sections even when some of them clearly meet Wikipedia's requirements


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * My talk page, or the Joyce Foundation talk page. If you have a way for me to send an email address that would be fine too, I just don't want to make the email address public.

Mediator response
Accepting case; anthony cfc  [ talk] 11:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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



Discussion

 * If information is sourced only to blogs, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I see no mediatation that can take place between myself and a single purpose account. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, you removed information that was *not* from blogs, but from the Joyce Foundation website. See for example this edit. Yes, some is from blogs, but most is from the Joyce Foundation. I hope you guys will find a reasonable compromise. Chrisahn 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From Kevinp2 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC): Thank you for offering to mediate this disagreement! I am not sure what a "single purpose account" is supposed to mean, so I am going to disregard it unless its meaning is explained to us. These are my claims and arguments in this dispute:

CLAIM 1: Blogs as sources

Hipocrite: If information is sourced only to blogs, it does not belong on Wikipedia. In support of my position, let me cite WP:ATT as follows: Using questionable or self-published sources ... For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. There are two exceptions: 2. Professional self-published sources When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. In my last edit, I left the following text embedded into the wiki text: In the case of the Chicago-Kent Law Review symposium issue, the external editor purposely solicited only one side of the debate. As Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, who played a part in moving Chicago-Kent Law Review to a symposium model,

explains: Hipocrite disregarded this and blew away the entire section and many other sections in this edit. Looking at the standards of WP:ATT: All the requirements are met and there is no justification for removing his source.
 * Professor Randy Barnett does in fact meet the standards listed. He is a well known professional researcher
 * His work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications.
 * He is writing in his field of expertise.
 * His blog post is germane to the section on the law symposium controversy
 * There is no other published source available on this law symposium controversy (I spent an hour researching this), and it is unlikely that this will be published.

CLAIM 2: Original research

In the same edit, Hipocrite blew away an entire section containing a diagram that I had created of a mind map, claiming that this was original research. I had left the following comment embedded in the text: My mind map is NOT original research. It is directly taken from the Joyce Foundation's own web page of its grant history and from NO OTHER SOURCE. I have merely illustrated them in a way that is easier for the reader to understand. Last year, persons sympathetic to the Joyce Foundation edited this page and left the mind map alone, since it is accurate. If this mind map is to be deleted, then numerous contributed illustrations will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. As an easy example, see the illustration in Exon. In spite of this explict protection by the Original images in WP:ATT, Hipocrite blew away the entire section.

CLAIM 3: Non-constructive deletion of large sections of text

In all cases, Hipocrite has not merely performed careful surgery of those sources that he disagrees with. He deletes entire sections, including information that was NOT sourced from blogs and was NOT original research. This article was stable for many months before he came along, including edits by people connected to and sympathetic to the Joyce Foundation. No one objected to the content of the article after the editing process. The information that he deleted was accurate, and had taken time to collect. His behavior of deleting entire sections even when they meet Wikipedia's requirements skates very close to meeting Blanking Vandalism

CLAIM 4: Unclear motivations and obstinacy that make it impossible to reach agreement

I have made a good faith attempt to restructure and re-cite the article to meet Hipocrite's objections. I have spent many hours researching Wikipedia's policies and am satisfied that I have changed the article to obey the policies. Hipocrite refuses to accept these and deletes these sections anyway. In order to reach some kind of agreeement, I have tried to understand his motivations. Unfortunately, as best as I can see, they seem to be limited to a blind hostility towards sources that he doesn't like. He has taken it upon himself to delete large sections of text from tens, if not hundreds of articles. I have yet to find a place where he has actually significantly CONTRIBUTED to the knowledge and content of an article. While there is a place for policemen in Wikipedia, this kind of behavior is discouraging to those who attempt to do the actual hard work of writing an article and increasing the content of Wikipedia.

I apologize for the long length of my posting. I have attempted to trim it but it is hard to do so without sacrificing the content of my arguments.

Thank you for your time! Kevinp2 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not going to meditate via slinging huge blocks of text at eachother. Unless Kevinp2 is willing to recognize that he faced substantial, unanimous opposition to his blogsourced info from his soliciation at WP:ATT (which, by the way, was set up ever-so-subtily to compare someguysblog with Tom's Hardware), then we're not moving forward. I'm also not going to meditate with some redlink who is peeved that I removed his blogsourced nonsense from a totally unrelated article. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean mediate, not meditate :-) Yes, I have made a proposal on the talk page of WP:ATT to allow for the use of self-published sources under strict conditions.  I am following the specified procedure for doing so - there is nothing sneaky about it, and it is hard for me to see where there is "substantial, unanimous opposition".  In fact, nobody has really said anything, one way or the other about the the last proposal that I made.  In any case, this is IRRELEVANT to the current discussion because the Randy Barnett blog post quote meets the CURRENT standards of WP:ATT, not any standards that I may wish to have.  I am not sure what a redlink is?  I would like to understand where you are coming from, but I don't understand your jargon.  Thanks! Kevinp2 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There were at least two people who told you that your blog post was not a reliable source there. You apparently decided to ignore them and press ever on in trying to use a blog post as a reference to say something you desperately wanted in the article, but wasn't important enough for any reliable sources to mention. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I never listed the Randy Barnett blog post on the WP:ATT talk page, so it would be a little hard for people there to tell me it was unreliable, no? :-) I would ask that you focus on the topic at hand instead of distracting it.  The Randy Barnett blog post is a reliable source per the existing WP:ATT policy.  I have listed the reasons why I assert so in five bullet points above.  Please list the reasons why you disagree that the Randy Barnett blog post is reliable.Kevinp2 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I think that you are confusing the Randy Barnett blog post on the Joyce Foundation page with the Jonathan Adler blog post I provided as an example in the talk page of WP:ATT. The two people are of course different.  I agree that the latter blog post is disallowed today. But the former, the Randy Barnett blog post on the Joyce Foundation page is allowed today despite your objections to it (see my five bullet points above). Kevinp2 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading your bullet points. I suggest you ask the WP:ATT people about the other blog post. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you not seeing them above or are you refusing to read them? I have made a good faith attempt to list my arguments here.  Are you refusing to participate in this mediation?  Kevinp2 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am refusing to read your giant wall of text, yes. If you can write your problems succinctly, I'll read them. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. If the above is a "giant wall of text", I wonder how you can edit any Wikipedia article.  Nevertheless, I will attempt to humor you by restating Claim 1 as follows:  The blog post by Randy Barnett meets all the requirements of 2. Professional self-published sources.  I have met you more than half way, please cooperate with this mediation.  Thanks!  Kevinp2 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the blog post in relation to Professional self-published sources. I have reviewed the blog post in question. The exception for professional self-published peices is about actualy works of research. The blog post in question is not a research work - it is a combination of unreliable observations by a guy (with a vested interest), and is mostly a polemic. It is not a research piece, and Barett is a LAW professor - said document is not about the law, it's about academic ethics. The man is not an ethics professor. I suggest that if anything in the blog post were of any notablity at all, a third party source would have picked it up. Additionally, the factual accuracy of the blog posting, and the intial document are disputed. Again, if it's accurate, it would have been picked up by a reliable source. I suggest that your passion for second amendment rights has clouded your ability to edit an encyclopedia, and further suggest that you try editing an article not about guns or politics in any way. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I disagree with your argument, but will accept a decision by a mediator on it. Thank you for your suggestions on what I should and should not edit. Kevinp2 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we now discuss Claim 2 where you blew away the diagram even though it is protected by Original images? If you have some specific objections, I can redo the diagram, but the concept of the diagram is protected. Kevinp2 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments." The "Mind map" of who a foundation funds is an unpublished idea. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Joyce Foundation funds are already published in their grant page and the diagram is constructed from that page. The diagram is not publishing anything new and the idea of the funding is not anything new.  This is no different from the diagram Gene structure in the article Exon and the diagram Comets by aphelion in the article Comets Kevinp2 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation categorizes it's grants into "Education, Employment, Environment, Gun Violence, Money & Politics, Culture and Special Opportunities." You clasified it into "History and Law, Media and Entertainment, Activist Support, Ellen S. Alberding (President), Gun Control Research and Advocay, Public Health and Public Interest Groups." How did you determine your clasifications? Also, do you think stating that one of the "grants" was going to the president of the foundation might have been just a wee bit in violation of, perhaps WP:BLP? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now we are getting somewhere: The Mind Map was originally intended to show all persons involved in the Joyce Foundation regardless of grants.  However, I agree that it is incorrect to represent the officers of the Foundation in it since they may be miscontrued to be grantees and have uploaded a new version   without them.  The classifications are my own, and are not different from the classifications done by Wikipedia on a regular basis without requiring a citation or source.  However, if you object to those classifications, I can change their names or remove the classifications altogether. Kevinp2 00:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a classification performed by Wikipedia. In fact, this page seems to say that Wikipedia's classification is notable.  Kevinp2 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The math article is classified by MSC. Your document is classified by you. You seem unwilling to use the existing classification published by the subject. Why is that? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The math article isn't actually classified by MSC. Aspects of the MSC classification have been borrowed but the end result is something unique to Wikipedia.  As to why I use my classification:  The Joyce Foundation funds tens, if not hundreds of different organizations.  The Gun Area funding is one place to start.  There are no further sub classifications provided by the Joyce Foundation (but persons sympathetic to them have previously reviewed this mind map and left it alone).  In this mind map alone, there are 50 organizations/persons/projects represented.  The sub classification provides a high level overview that makes it readable and understandable to the user.  Hence the reason for it.  I can remove the sub classification but that will result in a big confusing blob.  If you have specific suggestions on how to improve it, I will be glad to hear them.  Thanks!  Kevinp2 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally here is some evidence for my claim that persons sympathetic to the Joyce Foundation have been over this material and left the mind map alone. IP # 24.13.109.58 is registered to someone in Illinois (where the Joyce Foundation office is) and they spent a lot of time redoing the article in a manner that suggested familiarity with the organization's structure. Kevinp2 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you use the categories presented on their webpage. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to but they don't have any sub categories. If I use the main categories for all their grants, that will result in a huge diagram with likely hundreds of nodes on it. At that point, the diagram will be so large as to be unreadable.  That is my whole motivation - a diagram is easier to read than hundreds of grant listings.  So I have to bite off one main category at a time and assign some sub categories to it since they don't have any.  I could do each main category as a separate diagram.  In fact, that is how started, since I know something about the gun area, but am not an expert in the other areas. So it could be:  One simple graph of the main categories (from the web page, without any child nodes), then one graph for each main category. Kevinp2 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your picture has no sub-categories. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 05:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Kevinp2 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the source data for your picture? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Joyce Foundation grant page.  The diagram is attributed to it.  Kevinp2 13:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you exclude, for example, "PAX." Why do you not mention that this diagram only does their gun control activities and excludes all of their other activities anywhere? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The revision that you deleted says: This is a mind map of Joyce Foundation funding[2] in the area of gun control. As for PAX:  At the time that I created the graph, I thought that the organization had become defunct.  However, I can put it back in if you want. Kevinp2 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest given the number of times we've either used your thoughts, or your interpretations makes this classic WP:OR. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of times is related to your number of questions, not to my number of intepretations. "Thoughts" are what editors do.  I will update the graph to include all organizations, defunct or not.  Incidentally, the name PAX is used by numerous organizations, making it hard to figure out who is the grantee.  Please continue stating your objections Kevinp2 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to go to work so I will take a break from this mediation for some hours. In the meantime, I did find other examples of classifications: Aircraft, Music, Theater, and the previously mentioned Mathematics.  Many more can be found as desired.  It appears that classification appears to be a common practice in Wikipedia. Kevinp2 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have updated the diagram to include PAX. I also went through all the grants and added a couple of organizations that I had missed. Kevinp2 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Short Version
Guys; we're aiming for readability here, and the above discussion is nothing of the sort. Could you report exactly what you want to get out of this case, with policy links. For example...

User:Anthony cfc (example)

 * Delete sentence "...sentence here..." in accordance with policy/guideline link.
 * Retitle section X, from Y to Z in accordance with policy/guideline link.

Such plain, clear posts are exactly what I'd like here, if it's okay: I, and any readers, are not experts and the above is nonsense to use :) thank guys!

anthony cfc [ talk] 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite
From this version
 * Delete section "Organizations funded by the Joyce Foundation," as a biased list (not complete, no rationale for any items being included/excluded from the list)
 * Delete sentence "Its work in gun policy has drawn criticism from some pro-gun advocates." as unsourced
 * Delete section "Criticism" as unsourced.
 * Delete section "Law review symposia" as non-notable/biased selection
 * Delete section "Research" as puffery and non-notable
 * Delete section "Other academic publication support" as non-notable/confusing

An example of my preferred version, which I doubt will last the blogwarriors, is here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me also be clear, I have no knowledge about this foundation or it's activities, or any relationship or, ahem, conflict of interest with my deeply held principles like I suggest other participants do. What I do know is that the article was a combination of unsourced hit-piece and blogpile before I got there. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would note that the opposition has yet to cite policy that actually says what they say it says. Below, you will see that my good-faith removal of content with clear comments in edit summaries regarding my actions are treated as "blanking vandalism," that images that advance novel ideas created by their author are "encouraged." There is absolutly no justification whatsoever for using blogs as sources for information presented. This is a standard pattern of Single Purpose Accounts - editors with no broad interest in an encyclopedia aside from their pet issue. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:kevinp2
Revert to this edition and: Thanks! Kevinp2 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop this practice of gutting entire sections that have been through many editors and have reached a stable point. This practice comes close to blanking vandalism.
 * Address perceived sourcing problems by requesting a citation for specific claims instead of deleting entire sections that do contain properly sourced material. The article is now a shadow of what it used to be.
 * In particular, restore the section Funding patterns which is correctly sourced and the diagram which is encouraged by Wikipedia policy.
 * As a bonus, encourage some civil behavior from Hipocrite, who cannot restrain himself from continually hurling insults and accusations at another editor: "single purpose account", "redlink", "clouded your ability", "hit piece", "crappy pictures", "conflict of interest" etc. While this does not bother me, I am sure that he is capable of being civil and would like to request the same.

Unfortunately, Hipocrite continues his uncivil behavior by accusing me of calling in my "POV warrior friends" from the Firearms Project (of which I am not a member) and nominates that entire project for deletion! Kevinp2 01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Hipocrite has retired from Wikipedia. This leaves this mediation in an uncertain state. Kevinp2 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you still wish to continue? anthony cfc  [ talk] 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If Hipocrite has truly retired from Wikipedia, then we can retire the mediation as well since he was the only other person involved in the dispute. He left the article in question, the Joyce Foundation covered with many tags, some of which are reasonable, but some of which are unjustified.  I propose that I work on that article and address the tags that I find reasonable, and remove the ones that I find unreasonable (justifying them on the talk page).  What do you think?  Kevinp2 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

= Case Closed = Good evening (GMT time) all; as a result of User:Hipocrite retiring from Wikipedia, I am closing this mediation as successful.

My thanks to all for striving to resolve this dispute, and my apologies for being a little late in the closing.

Kindest regards, anthony [ cfc ] 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)