Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding

Who are the involved parties?
Currently, Fireproeng is pressing the issues, although several other editors have commented on the Talk page regarding the same issues, notably MikeDayoub. Ahering@cogeco.ca is the original author of the page.Fireproeng 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And MikeDayoub backed off as soon as his proven commercial interest was addressed with a paragraph. Even with the terminology advocated by Fireproeng, MD's commercial interest would not have been satisfied because one cannot install a product in accordance with the tolerances of a certification lsiting when there can be no certification listing, because no accredited test standard exists for the subject new widget, which also means that its use is not mandated or regulated by any code in existence. So even if Fireproeng's verbiage had been used instead of the far easier word Bounding, in use for many years, documentable, verifiable, by both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry, that could not have made MD happy. Also, take a look at what he has contributed since then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MikeDayoub - nothing. Nobody else with any subject-related knowledge touched the old case since. The inference is, therefore, bunk.--Achim 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
inadequate source, NPOVFireproeng 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have provided ample references to governmental documents on the web about the use of the term.--Achim 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A reading of the Talk page is the best way to determine the overall context of the discussion. The basic contention is that the word “bounding” is not an established term as claimed, and therefore violates WP:NOR and WP:V. There is an underlying problem of lack of effective communication, including Personal Attacks by Ahering@cogeco.ca. Specifically, he has confused his personal knowledge of the technical issues involved – of which he seems to have a considerable amount – with the intent of the overall WP project, mainly in regards to notability and verifiability. The article reads largely like a personal website.Fireproeng 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As in the case of MikeDayoub, I believe that there are other reasons Fireproeng is pressing the matter apart from trying to make sure that Wiki protocol is followed chapter and verse. People do things because they get something out of it. I no longer work in construction. I don't have any financial motivation. The fact is that many field isntalled configurations don't meet the tolerances of the certification listings, meaning that they are not bounded, as it is called in the industry, as is proven in the many links provided, whether he likes it or not. I notice he also does not ever go in his commentaries to the substance of my revuttals, more or less just sluffing them off without comment, apart from put-downs. Presuming that people do things because they get something out of it, you may ask my motive: I have worked in this field for many years and I like to see things done right because I have an interest in improving fire protection. I don't profit by it. I work in a totally different field now. So, what may be Fireproeng's motive for questioning a common industry term? And I answer: My theory is that this user profits personally from the maintenance of a certain status quo, as shown here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html. The notion that bounding is often not really happening in the field is a loose end in the scheme of the FPE trade, which stands to gain by performing "risk-informed", "performance-based" or "objective-based" evaluations and computer models. In those lovely looking scenarios, it is so sexy to presume that a 2 hour fire-resistance rating is really that, and not 0 because of lack of bounding. I simply don't buy that his motive to question the term is that he is the knight in shining armour, ready to defend Wiki protocol. What is the attraction? I have made a workable suggestion on how to overcome the matter but he wants nothing less than the eradication of the term. There must be something deeper to the matter.--Achim 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Delete the use of the term “Bounding” from this title and text of this article. Replace the word with industry standard terminology which can be verified (i.e., “installed and used in accordance with it’s testing and listing”)

Rewrite the Bounding article to eliminate the inappropriate opinions and unsubstantiated claims, resulting in an encyclopedic fact based article.

Delete the use of the term “Bounding” from the numerous references in edits Ahering@cogeco.ca has made in many other articles.Fireproeng 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:
Fireproeng appears to agree that the term is used in firestopping. In googling the term, it is apparent that it is broader in scope than indicated herein, which does not take away from its use so far, especially with back-up from renowned consultant and whistleblower Gerald W. Brown.

For instance here: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:q354P6CphOcJ:www.deprep.org/1993-2/tr93g20a.htm+bounding+fire+protection&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

and here:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Yc02k_9mlegJ:www.freepatentsonline.com/6840153.html+bounding+fire+protection&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca

Neither of those links have to do with firestops. The verb is obviously derived from the noun Boundary. It is apparently used, as anyone with access to Google can see, to mean that something, an object, or an activity is confined to certain limits. In the fire protection industry, this means that an installed configuration in the field matches a certification listing, or falls within its maximum and minimum tolerances for all relevant aspects. In the case of the certification listing C-AJ-8073, this means, for instance, that the opening size can be anything up to 24ft². Therefore, a 10ft² hole is OK, whereas a 40ft² would not be bounded.

In a design basis fire scenario, bounding parameters may be the presumed fuel load within a compartment multiplied by a margin of safety, let's say +30%. Now, we change the occupancy from a concrete paver storage unit to a storage facility for unleaded fuel, and we're clearly not bounded by the design basis any longer.

I don't struggle with an expansion of the term given a preceding paragraph that stretches it in a generic sense, whilst preserving the specific meaning in PFP, which I have clearly proven to exist, as agreed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its nemesis Gerald W. Brown.

So here is my suggested preamble to the existing paragraph:
Bounding, generically indicates that an object or an activity and their uses fall within known limits or tolerances. In passive fire protection of nuclear construction and maintenance in particular, the term is used to indicate that a fire safety product is used in a manner no less safe than the way it was used in a fire test that justified its use in the nuclear power plant.

In non-nuclear construction, this generally applies as well, except that, to comply with a building code, tests must be run under the auspices of product certification, whereby the test is summarised in a certification listing. It follows that for non-nuclear construction and maintenance, the term bounding is the activity of adhering to all the requirements of installing and/or using safety-related products and items in conformance with an active certification listing that has been issued by an organisation that is nationally accredited both for testing and product certification. It is the exclusive means to establish due diligence for goods and services whose use is mandated by a building code or a fire code.


 * As this is just a repetition of your Talk page comments, which got us nowhere, I will wait for comments and suggestions by Wikihermit. Fireproeng 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's just see - though I don't agree for a moment that I was simply repeating. I made a suggestion. --Achim 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Accept me as mediator?

Hi Fireproeng. I saw you made a request at WP:MEDCAB for mediation. I have decided to mediate the case. However, you need to provide more information into what is going on, as "inadequate sources, NPOV" doesn't state the problem. Also, you need to add to what you would like the out come to be, as it is not detailed enough as well. Thanks for you help! ~  Wi ki  her mit  03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Communicating should be centralized, so we should keep most of the discussion regarding the article and case at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. ~   Wi ki  her mit  03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New mediator Is it okay with you both if I, GrooveDog (talk), mediate this case? Does this case still need mediation?
 * Yes, and yes. Thanks. Fireproeng 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with me. Thanks for the assistance. --Achim 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
So, reviewing the history of this page, WikiHermit used to be the mediator? Why did he leave? GrooveDog (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I read that he was going on vacation. The only comment I saw was discussion on Wikihermit's talk page, where he asked fireproeng to keep the discussion on this page and not on each other's talk pages and where he asked fireproeng to produce some back-up for his case, instead of just stating that it is NPOV. I suspect that he saw the use of the term on the government links I provided. I also saw a request by fireproeng to gather support from addhoc, if I remember correctly. That's all I know and it's only what I have read here. I don't know either of the individuals personally. In the past, I have asked to just have a chat on the phone to resolve matters, instead of such a public forum and to involve others, but no bite. --Achim 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, should I not have taken this case, or would you guys rather that I were the mediator? GrooveDog (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need this resolved, please proceed. Fireproeng 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he either removed himself or someone removed him after he said he was on vacation. His name was removed and he did not object, so it's all open. Have at it I say. --Achim 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-Discussion
Okay, before we start, I should remind you both that this is not the place to attack each other. You need to remember that what the other person did was probably in good faith, and that no one is at fault.

So, as I understand it, the dispute is about the word "bounding" being not the correct term, am I right? GrooveDog (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the concept of third party certification, and that use of the product in it's installed configuration should be within the limits of that testing, is not in dispute. The term "bounding" itself is used as a noun, in this article and others, as if it is a thing. I have asked for secondary sources per WP:SOURCE be provided. For example, the first line of the Product certification article reads, "Product certification or product qualification is the cornerstone of all bounding...", and further down, "Product Certification enables bounding of safety related articles and systems." Fireproeng 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is his assertion. If you read through the links I provided, you will find ample evidence of the use of the term through US governmental sources. As an industry source, Gerald W. Brown weighed in as well to back up the use of the term, which is at least 30 years old. That's government and industry, both. You will find the subject-related links both on the article page at the bottom and on the talk page. I have provided chapter and verse. --Achim 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it, Ahering does have reliable sources to use the term "bounding". GrooveDog (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * GrooveDog, I'm looking for a little more than that to address the specific issues I have raised. In particular, would you please cite specifics on how the sources referenced meet WP:SOURCE, (i.e., complete lack of lack of secondary sources, no extent of the term in any source in any way past fire stopping in the nuclear industry (and even that is weak, infrequent, narrow, and primary only). Thanks. Fireproeng 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm in the middle of packing for vacation and won't be able to help you very much. You might have to look for another mediator, or wait until Wikihermit comes back and ask him to take over. Sorry I can't be of more help. GrooveDog (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. My sources are only the United States federal government and the industry that is regulated by it and a renowned industry expert who served during the Congressional hearings on the Thermo-lag case and a consultant to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. That does seem pretty thin. However, my other research, as pointed out above and on the article's talk page, has indicated that the term is somewhat broader in use than is stated herein, even by my opponent's peers, which is why I suggested my alteration to the preamble to account for the other uses. I think it's a fair offer. You can't argue away the published use of the term by industry and regulators and I see nothing wrong with indicating where else it is used. --Achim 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Following imported from User talk:Fireproeng
Mediation Cabal

MedCab

Hi, sorry about the mediators all going on holiday, we had similar problems last year around this time. Regarding the use of bounding, the sources provided so far would substantiate an entry in wiktionary, however I agree there are insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Would you object to moving the bounding definition to wiktionary? Regarding the encyclopedia article, in the first instance, I would use fact tags and then presuming adequate sources aren't provided, begin rewriting the article. Addhoc 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC) --
 * See User talk:Addhoc for new mediator comments. Fireproeng 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Transfer to Addhoc as mediator

Adhoc, I'm asking for your advice on how to proceed with the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. I'm frustrated with my first attempt at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, specifically with the seeeming lack of commitment of the mediators who have thus far agreed to take this on. The first one accepted the case and then went on vaction. The second offered a one sentance 'ruling' with no supporting exposition (as requested) to help me undertand it's basis (which seems to clearly contradict WP:SOURCE, so I need to understand this if I am wrong.), and is now also bailing (on vacation). I understand these folks are volunteers, and so am grateful for the help - but so far, I have not really received any, either. Should I proceed to formal mediation or arbitration? Thanks in advance for the help. Fireproeng 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (From User talk:Fireproeng - I think you have nailed the issue on the head. Use of the word "bounded", as indicating extreme limits, is in public widespread use, so application of that word of this specialty area is of course appropriate. However, use of the word "bounding" as a noun seems to be used in by this relatively small isolated group of specialists, which does not provide adequate foundation per WP: SOURCE for an encyclopedic article. Is this the way you see it? Fireproeng 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources provided so far, yes. Obviously, if better sources are produced this could justify an encyclopedia article. Addhoc 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say, "... I agree there are insufficient for an encyclopedia article." As bounding is not a valid term for the the name of an article, how do we change it? The concepts discussed in the text of the article are valid, so how can we incorporate them into Product certification? Fireproeng 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One more question: I hesitate to change the MedCab page (seems non-neutral). Could you update so Ahering knows it was the MedCab behind the changes?Fireproeng 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should move gradually, in the first instance we could add fact tags to uses of 'bounding', and create the Wiktionary article. Also, there should be an explanation of this proposal on the article talk page. Addhoc 10:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was away for a couple of days, so I could not watch this. So how does this work? If you don't like what one mediator says you find people who disagreed with your opponent and then keep trying until you get your way? It looks like "Discussion closed" and now you're doing.....what?--Achim 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the absence of active mediation, I was requested to have a look at the case and have begun to formulate a way forward. Addhoc 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I would like to remind you though that it is not some infinitesimally small group of experts who use the term, as my opponent puts it. It is an entire industry, including regulators and consultants. I have even found links where FPEs have used it, though in its extended version, which is why I suggested the changed preamble. I get the impression it is pretty much case closed for you? --Achim 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There seem to be plenty of examples that establish usage, which is the criterion for inclusion in Wiktionary, however there don't appear to be examples of bounding being featured in secondary sources, which is the requirement for inclusion here. Are there any books on this subject that feature this topic? Addhoc 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much books that you would buy in a store but it is a regularly used industry and regulatory term. You will see it in all reportable event, and not just on the topic of firestopping, as my opponent falsely claims. You'll see it on write-ups on every licensed plant. The congressional proceedings on the Thermo-lag case, for instance, refer to it. That was widely covered in the media at the time and it covered circuit integrity, which is as much electrical as it is passive fire protection. The expanded use I indicated in my suggested alteration to the article's preamble was based on the use of the term by the very trade association that my opponent claims to come from. If you follow the links, you will see that. I just found it through google. I already provided a lot of links. To me, the fact that certain segments in the construction industry use it, and not the whole population, should not disqualify the article. For instance, we have an article on drywall. Drywallers use that and perhaps handymen - not everyone and his brother. That is the purpose of it, isn't it? I also stand by my earlier suggestion that the mediatior (number 3 now...) look at the motivation to get rid of the term. A crusade for the values of Wikipedia from a newbie? Are you kidding? I've been through this type of thing more than once now and each time, the motivation is just as important as it is in a criminal investigation. We do things because we get something out of it. We avoid doing things because we're worried about a negative consequence. When probed on such basics, my opponent prefers to pretend nothing was ever said and it does not exist. That too is indicative. This topic is an unwelcome stain on his profession. If you look at my article on the topic, you might understand: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html These guy don't want to hear that they don't know and that is a very basic flaw in the work that they do, which is partially reflected in the shamefully poor fire statistics that North America has compared against, say Germany, Austria, particularly Switzerland. We suck compared against those places because the devil is in the detail. This is the cornerstone of it and it happens to be the fundamental bedrock of our codes. He says that it goes without saying that thou shalt abide by listings. Pidgeon pellets! This is where they fall down and break apart. The very existence of the term is a huge mirror for their profession and they don't like what they see. That is what is truly at the heart of the matter. The rest is window dressing - like pretending that the newbie is just here to uphold the flag and quote Wiki doctrine chapter and verse? Don't make me laugh. This is also why I am convinced the man will not identify himself. --Achim 05:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the widespread usage it could be included in a dictionary, however without better sources I'm unconvinced that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Overall, I would suggest that you either include citations to reliable secondary sources or accept this topic should be merged. Addhoc 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merged with what and how? --Achim 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Achim, I have been letting the MedCab process work, which is why I have not responded for a while. However, maybe I can clarify a few of the points you raise above.
 * I am sorry you see me as your “opponent”, as think of you as only another editor, and have no rancor towards you.
 * I wish you could see that I’m actually trying to help you become a better editor. You obviously have a lot of knowledge, but don’t seem to grasp the thresholds for encyclopedia inclusion as clearly stated in many WP Policy statements. For instance, your reference to USNRC Inspection Report @ Shearon Harris Plant - Bounding of installed configurations from Bounding does not evan include the word bounding. And the NRC SECY-00-0080: "bounding fire tests for the myriad of fire seal configurations" are meeting minutes, which by their non-exclusionary nature can include original thought, making them a perfect example of a primary source. Secondary sources need to be cited, not alluded to.
 * Your personal attacks ( No personal attacks, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views…") are not worth responding to in detail. But yes, you are absolutely right that I have only the integrity of WP in mind. Your fantasies otherwise, such as your analogy to a "criminal investigation", are sad. Please stop and concentrate on the issues.

First of all, I have no need for you, Fireproeng, to clarify anything at all. As a matter of fact, I see it merely as a form of thinly veiled manipulation. You say that my statements are not worth responding to, which is merely convenient and self-serving. You can't actually answer these things. After two mediators, you found someone who agrees with you. The last one did not and split. It is also but convenient and self-serving to use my reference to a criminal investigation and then knowingly take it out of context and call it "clarification", which is pathetic. You are attemtping to twist the words around to suit your needs and then label it something else - also pathetic. In case you did not understand, which I suspect is possible, though not likely, people DO THINGS because they have reasons or motives. Those things give us clues about what is really at issue. Another clue is this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fireproeng All you do is attack what is there to fit your status quo. I have yet to see you contribute a subject-related article or picture. You are only criticising from an inflatedly high horse but you have not really added to anything. I have seen that on here before and I find it highly underwhelming. It is also a knowingly false statement on your behalf to tell me that I believe you are only here to uphold Wiki protocol. You know this to be false and yet you state it as a matter of bogus fact, which is a blatant and indicative lie. I said no such thing and you know it. What I did say is that I believe you can only pretend to have this as your motive but in fact it is something else. I suspect that it has to do with preserving the entirely underwhelming status quo of North American fire protection, protecting your trade of FPEs against evidence of its inherent fallacy. Even if you disagree with me, again - possible as that may be - you cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that I meant at any time to imply that I believe you are here to protect Wiki protocol. Nonsense. You are here to protect your trade and expand its scope of work, as indicated here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html. This you consider to be a dangerous view point, that you cannot disprove, which is why you removed the reference from another page, knowing I cannot fight it. In a judicial proceeding on such matters your arguments would be taken apart in minutes. You know that it cannot stand up to any scrutiny and that is why I am convinced that you, and others like you who only attack existing work but don't have anything original to contribute can only hide through the anonimity afforded by this system. Again, I find that pathetic. So, I will make a prediction. Your response will be sweeping statements about how I am attacking you. You will still hide behind anonymity and you will continue to be too frightened to actually provide detailed responses to my statements, either pretending they do not exist and were never made, or to say something to make an uninitiated reader who could not pass a UL test to save his life think that everything can simply be sluffed off, kind of like the FPE fire models from the design period of the Chunnel? And then, to finish off my prediction, let's cry the blues plese? How ghastly to be attacked in such a vicious manner, on facts and conclusions? What a horrible person would do such a thing? And being that it's so horrible, you simply cannot go into the details that would expose your motives. I simply don't buy that you're the knight in shining armour here. You have an axe to grind, just like Mike Dayoub who disappeared as soon as he achieved what he belived to be his business objective. You will keep on here fighting for your status quo. That's what's really happening. I'm sure of it.--Achim 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you stop posting on my talk page? Thanks, Addhoc 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Addhoc, I apologize this discussion got displaced from the MedCab page to your talk page and has used up this bandwidth. I will proceed on the MedCab page or other user talk pages. Thanks again for the help. Fireproeng 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record
I don't see this as mediation. This is tagteaming. If it were serious, there would be serious responses to the points I raised. The end result looks to me like sort of a right-wing conservative spinmeistering to protect a status quo. I am revolted. --Achim 21:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)