Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12-05 LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Where is the dispute taking place?
Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Who else is involved in the disagreement?

 * User:Tony May
 * User:MickMacNee

Briefly, what's the problem?
Tony May and I both disagree with Mick MacNee but on different grounds. I will leave Mr May to state his grounds. My grounds are that Mr MacNee insists on stating, as a fact, that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. I regard Tornado as a new and unique locomotive which is not a Peppercorn Class A1 and so cannot be the 50th member of the class. I am not trying to impose my opinion on anybody. All I ask is that the article presents both sides of the controversy so as to give a neutral point of view. Biscuittin (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My principle concern, and the first edit that I made, was that it is entirely inappropriate to list the 2008 replica built A1 with the original 49 engines. This approach is not taken by any of the sources, for various reasons, primarily historical, which I have explained.  Instead it should be treated under a separate heading.  The content under that heading needs to be an adequate summary of the separate article.


 * I'd also be grateful if this mediation focused on content not behaviour. --Tony May (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do want to talk about behaviour and I will enlarge on this in the Discussion section. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

...What's keeping it from being solved?
Mr MacNee refuses to accept that there is a controversy and, whenever Tony May or I edit the article, he immediately reverts our edits. Mr MacNee uses a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy to justify his action. He has provided references to an opinion by the A1 Trust that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. I maintain that this is a misinterpretation of the rules because a reference does not convert an opinion into a fact. I think most people would agree, after reading Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1, that there is a controversy and I think it is absurd to deny the controversy because of a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

...What do you want fixed?
I want the article to present a neutral point of view. Biscuittin (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I want the article to have appropriate structure, reflect history, and contain no original research. I want MacNee to acknowledge that he does not own the article. --Tony May (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * On the official site it says its a A1 Class steam engine. Hereford 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but that is an opinion of the A1 Trust, not a fact. My opinion is that Tornado is a unique locomotive and is replica, not a member of the class. Both statements are opinions. Neither is a fact, so neither should be asserted as a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want added to the article? Tornado is the 50th member of the class (a view opposed by User:Biscuittin of wikipedia). MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is already there as a heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class". I don't agree with it, but it is there. Biscuittin (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the same simple trap that MacNee has fallen into; namely he is taking this statement at face value and over-interpreting the source without thinking about the consequences, or the fact that other references disagree with his treatment .  I have made extensive comment at talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 (section Article RFC) explaining the reasons why they should be treated separately within the same article.  I shall perhaps copy them onto a separate page.  Please do not jump to immediate conclusions without considering all points. --Tony May (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IF its A1 steam engine if they say its part of the the series then, it is.Hereford 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this sentence. Could you please expand it? Who are "they"? Biscuittin (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hereford, the above statement is overly simplistic and IMVHO you are jumping to conclusions. Please let's get this right first time, otherwise I fear you will disqualify yourself as a mediator. Tony May (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour: One of the reasons this dispute has arisen is that MacNee and I have very different editing styles. MacNee insists on rules being followed to the letter while I prefer to use common sense. MacNee appears to believe that only people with a thorough knowledge of the rules should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. I disagree. According to Understanding IAR "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are". MacNee obviously knows a great deal about Wikipedia's rules but I think he uses this knowledge in the wrong way. Instead of trying to help less experienced people, he tries to "shout them down" or indulges in Edit wars. His fondness for edit wars is surprising, given his usual insistence on rules being obeyed. I expect MacNee will have some criticisms to make of me so I will now hand over to him. Biscuittin (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just "rules to the letter", I think he's quite intent on bending the rules to fit his own opinion and ignoring those that don't suit him. Tony May (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points of clarification:
 * I believe the above was first published at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1
 * Am I right that A1LST stands for A1 Locomotive Steam Trust?
 * Biscuittin (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Commments from MickMacNee
(Much of my latest thinking is reflected by the last post I made on the article talk page )

Despite much verbosity from Tony May, and much confusing manipuliation of his Rfc comments section such that now the original article talk page is not realy useful anymore as a record of point making and rebuttals from a conversation flow point of view from that point on (I have added a note to the talk page version to reflect this effect), there are only a few questions the mediator needs to examine here:

Re. the "Replica controversy"
Tony May and Biscuittin both continually refer to Tornado as a replica. It is worth pointing out that this is their opinion, and it is presumably necessary on their part to keep stating it as fact to support many of their later assertions, which also derive from their personal opinions and preferences.

But, has Tony May or Biscuittin proved any third party sources that state Tornado is a replica, and not an original build machine? Have they even given satisfactory sources to show they even know what they are trying to say to the reader when they call something a replica? I am honestly not sure. Tony May directly contradicts himself many times in this regard while trying to treat Tornado as just another preservation replica, and is apparently unaware that design changes were routine in locomotive classes, without issuing new class numbers.

The A1 Trust explains this in the quotes I have supposedly misquoted, as well as the article about the class itself (note: roller bearings etc). You will note that nowhere do the A1 Trust justify sticking to the original design to make it a replica in any classification sense. The only thing that defines Tornado is a replica in Tony May's definition, is time. Every single one of the original 49 was a replica of the prototype by his definition. The time difference between build dates of the original 49 and the 50th is obvious to the reader from text all over the article. The description of Tornado as a replica is therefore Tony May's and Bisuitin's attempts at sythesesis based on original research, in order to produce novel conclusions in the text, i.e. that it is a replica. Wikipedia does not do this. Period.

The fact is, nobody has issued Tornado with any special class distinction. If Wikipedia wants to assert that is the 50th new build member of the Peppercorn A1 class, a viewpoint which is backed by sources, there is nothing they can do about it (Biscuitin ultimately thinks his opinion existing is enough to prove a controversy per NPOV). Invitations to provide sources to the contrary have been repeatedly made, and would be accomodated if they ever turned up, becuase that is wikipedia policy.

I later express my own doubts of the LNER Encyclopoedia as a reliable source, but if Tony May wants to use it as one in the article, I will be citing it in the article using their own statements: [http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1peppercorn.shtml A total of 49 were built in four batches between 1948 and 1949. A 50th is currently being built by the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust.] and "The last Peppercorn A1 was withdrawn in 1966, and none survived into preservation. However, the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust is currently building a Peppercorn A1 from new. As the 50th Peppercorn A1, it will follow the number sequence of its predecessors and be numbered 60163." - note, this is under a section entitled, Preservation, a reasonble choice as the project is regarded as preserving the class for future generations. What is categoricaly does not say, is that Tornado is a replica.

Re. the "style issue"
Has Tony May conclusively proved that separation of locomotive lists into stock lists is the accepted practice on Wikipedia?

There has been no view demonstrated at all at the Wikiproject Trains Manual of Style. So as with many of his points, it comes down to his personal assertions being more valid than that of other editors. Two other users in addition to me have already rejected his views on style already (see the talk page for direct diffs), namely that splitting the article into the orignal 49 and Tornado, to the point of not listing it in a list of locomotives, is just not needed. The current article is more than satisfactory to prevent any possible confusion.

He has tried to support his opinion by pointing at other articles, but this is not a generally accepted practice (See other stuff exists), and also, the status of Tornado is pretty unique, it is after all the first (completed) new build main line class after such a period of time. (And besides, anybody should be wary of comparing any other article's in this field anyway, to be sure he has not recently edited them to make a point. I have seen at least one instance of this already.). The whole topic area receives comparatively little attention, so this is an easy thing to do if you were so inclined.

Has Tony May proved that the LNER encyclopoedia is "of almost professional standards" as he claims? Has it been evaluated by anybody on wikipedia to show its approach is what Wikipedia should be copying? I asked him to show it had been, the request was ignored. To me, it looks very nice, but ulitmately a one man band enthusiast website. It could even be 'Tony May's website for all anybody knows, if we realy want to get daft about it. Wikipedia makes it own style decisions, it does not copy other sites without explicit consensus that that is appropriate. And on the related note about historical books/historians, even if we did decide our style based on historical books, which again in this case is not proven, it is pointless copying historical books in this article, as the issue of how they would treat Tornado from a style point of view has not yet even come up (i.e. no book of Peppercorn A1s has been published recently).

Tony May's use of the A1 Trust site to demonstrate that separation occurs is actually pretty absurd, they specifically state "Have you ever wondered why one of the original Peppercorn class A1s is named after a geological period and another after an insurance company". Why are they going to list Tornado on that page, when they make clear the page is talking about the original 49, and the rest of their site is dedicated to talking about Tornado? The fact that there were 49 original A1's, and Tornado was not one of them, is not claimed by the atcile, and is not in dispute.

As to his analysis of the IMechE source, I am honestly not sure what to even say to that it is so bizarre. He merely tries to discredit their opinion and state what he thinks would be said in the lecture. The fact is, this source, like the Railway Magazine source, contain attributable approval of use of language by them, as well as direct reprinting of the views of the A1 Trust. If they had issues with what they were printing in that respect, they would have detailed their contrary views (which would suffice as contrary views from reliable sources to describe Biscuittin's supposed controversy). Tony May/Biscuittin are free to request written retractions from them, which can be filed in the OTRS system for use in the article.

Proposal for advancement
I have held off trying to make any changes to appease Tony May, so as not to legitimise his abhorrent misbehaviour and total disrespect for the behavioural norms of how to edit Wiipedia. I would point out thought, that in the locomotive table, there is even a notes column where issues can be noted. I would suggest any further delineation between Tornado and the oringinal 49 that Tony May realy feels he needs to make obvious in the article, would be more than satisfied by adding text to that note column alongside Tornado, in the event that users cannot work this out from all the other article text, or the large difference in build dates in the table. (As a belts and braces contingency if you like against confusion in the realy lazy reader who merely jumps straight to the table). MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Commments from Biscuittin
It is my opinion that Tornado is a new and unique locomotive and therefore not the 50th member of the class. I have said many times that this is only an opinion and I do not seek to impose it on anyone. I have no objection to the A1 Trust calling Tornado the 50th member of the class if that is what they want to do. However, this is, again, an opinion so it should not be presented as a fact. MacNee's repeated point about references is irrelevant because a reference does not convert an opinion into a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You neglect to mention that third party sources other than the A1 Trust express this 'opinion'. And who, if anybody, are you actually going to take as a source of incontrovertable 'fact' in this respect? Arthur Peppercorn?. Not going to happen. The irony is, it is only due to the fact the 'facts' are properly attributed to the sources in the normal way, that you are even able to make these complaints so easily. Wikipedia does not preface text with 'in the opinion of xyz....', and then list each source, in the article text. In-article qualification and attribution of the sort you want only happens when there are conflicting sources. The article quite correctly states that "Tornado is not a replica, but rather is considered the 50th member of the class. Neutral in the fact there are no contrary sources, verifiable to published sources and direclty supported by the sources without advancing any original theories. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We really need the mediator to decide whether "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter". This is a direct quote from Use common sense. Biscuittin (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on the above, I think the dispute revolves around two of Wikipedia's core policies: Verifiability and Neutral point of view. I think that MacNee objects to my case on the grounds that it lacks Verifiability while I object to his case on the grounds that his preferred version of the article does not present a Neutral Point of View.  This presents two actual Wikipedia policies for the mediator to consider the merits of. Biscuittin (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Decision time?
Have you all finished? I suggest we now stop and let the mediator consider the matter. Biscuittin (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)