Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-05 RDRAM

Mediation Case: 2007-03-05 RDRAM
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: Action Jackson IV 06:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Action Jackson IV
 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * RDRAM


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself and Denniss


 * What's going on?
 * The RDRAM page, at one time, went into a relatively lengthy paragraph, written in the second person, with information that was more suited for a how-to or an FAQ than an encyclopedia. I removed this information. Denniss has been reverting my edit for about five days or so, offering no comment beyond calling me a "Troll" and stating that the information was "valuable". I referred him to both WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT, both via the edit summary and his talk page. No response, just another revert.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * For him to A) Stop being a dickweed, B) acknowledge that his edit is in the wrong, and C) stop reverting my edit to a page that's already rather piss-poor. A) might be genetic, so I'll be happy with B) and C), and will settle for C) alone.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Put it on the front page for all I care. :) Talk page is probably best, at least the most eye-catching.

Mediator response
Let me begin by saying this is my first ever mediation case, so I don't really know how to do this. I apologize in advance if I make a mistake.

Before we resolve the content question, we need to establish a baseline of mutual respect. [I'll use nicknames.] That means AJ should not call Dennis a "dickweed," even not to his virtual face. Correspondingly, Dennis should not have called AJ a "troll" in one of the edit summaries of the revert war. I'd like you two to show respect to each other from now on.

For easy reference, the following text is under discussion. AJ want to delete it, and Dennis wants to keep it.

Compatibility: One has to carefully mind the mainboard's specification when purchasing RDRAM as modules come in various flavours. Most common are 16-bit single channel RIMMs with either 168 or 184 pins, which are usually interchangeable, and 32-bit dual channel modules with 242 pins. You can't use 32-bit modules in a mainboard designed for 16-bit ones and vice versa.

My first observation is that the text comes without a reference. I would be much more willing to consider keeping the text if it came with a reference. I would encourage Dennis to find and cite a reference, on or off the web.

My second observation is that the text is highly technical, and is well-beyond the understanding of computer-literate people like me. As it stands, there is not enough context to justify inclusion of the statement. If you can establish why the keyboard specification is relevant to someone who doesn't actually own RDRAM, that might justify inclusion. Indeed, the entire article could benefit from better contextualization and organization.

I'm treating this case like a miniature AFD - of a paragraph, not of an article. From my point of view, AJ has nominated the paragraph from deletion, and Dennis has voted to "keep" it. For now, the paragraph is not there. I'm willing to allow its inclusion if the following three criteria are met:
 * 1) Cite a reference.
 * 2) Provide some context (even wikilinks could help with this).
 * 3) Correct the style, e.g. convert second person to third person.

I hope this leads to a solution. Please write me on my talk page if you have questions or comments. I will be on vacation next week and the week after, so I may not be able to see this discussion to its conclusion. YechielMan 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Status?
Is this case still active? Do you need a new mediator or can I close it? --McClerk 05:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)