Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-07/Nuclear optimism

Where is the dispute?
Nuclear optimism

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:mcorazao
 * User:Beagel
 * User:Johnfos
 * User:Katana0182

What is the dispute?
I recently created Nuclear optimism. After my initial attempt it was perhaps at a "Start" class. I stopped there to see if it would attract any interest/feedback. In other words, the article clearly needed some work but I thought it a good start.

The result was a slew of tags ranging from notability to POV to accusations of synthesis. Aside from questions of whether some of these concerns were justified the editors resorted to tagging multiple phrases in the same sentences and even some minor vandalism to highlight things they didn't like.

The comments on the talk page essentially seem to indicate that the editors had never heard of the term, didn't really bother to read any of the references carefully, and generally objected to the premise of the article and so were looking for excuses to trash it as a whole.

I have added references and made a few edits to address concerns. The major concerns, though, do not seem to me made in good faith:
 * "Cannot find the term "nuclear optimism" in any of the references": There were not many references originally but the ones there did mention the term. The editor does not appear to have read the references carefully.
 * "Nuclear optimism is not a commonly used term": In everyday conversation this is true but it is used in academic circles. The notion of "I have never heard of it therefore this guy is doing something wrong" is not a helpful attitude.
 * "This article, to me, appears to be subtly yet inherently POV": Questions of POV aside, this editors concerns regarding whether there should be a single article covering different types of technology may be valid. But the justifications for the POV accusation seem to say more about the editor's personal feelings than they do the topic.

What would you like to change about this?
I would simply like to not waste time filtering tantrums.

How do you think we can help?
A gentle neutral reminder about proper etiquette would be appreciated. Some of the specific concerns the editors raised were good ones but the malicious nature of how this was approached makes me spend time that shouldn't be necessary for such a simple article.

Discussion
The issue is closed. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)