Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is primarily on the discussion page of the article on Genetic Algorithms. Parts of the discussion can also be found at User Talk:Keburjor and User Talk:Glrx

Who is involved?

 * User:Keburjor
 * User:Glrx
 * User:Chaosdruid
 * User:Parent5446
 * User:Oli Filth
 * User:ErikHaugen

What is the dispute?
The dispute is about whether a new hypothesis about the workings of genetic algorithms that I published in my Ph.D. dissertation should be mentioned in passing in the article on Genetic algorithms. The edit in question satisfies Wikipedia's three content policies, viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The dispute started between User:Oli Filth and me; however, after I issued an RFC, Oli Filth abandoned the discussion. The only opposition currently comes from User:Glrx, who got involved as a RFC editor, and has since reverted the edit on multiple occasions. Glrx accuses me of "pushing ... original research" (despite the edit being WP:V), and says that the conflict of interest inherent in writing about one's own work---a COI I made explicit by writing under my real name---by definition makes me "too close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia. I've asked him repeatedly to provide evidence that I cannot be objective about the edit. He has not responded to these requests. I believe, that he does not respond because his conclusions are based on his feelings about me (specifically, that I had the gall to challenge him to back up his claim that the edit violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), not an acquaintance with either the field of genetic algorithms or my work.

When pressed to provide evidence that I'm incapable of being objective about the edit, User:Glrx asks for evidence of "prominent adherents" of the the scientific hypothesis I've put forth. In other words, Glrx asks for evidence of the notability of this hypothesis. In doing so, Glrx conflates the Wikipedia concepts of weight, which applies to article content, and notability, which applies to article existence. The nutshell box at the top of WP:N prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article existence, not article content. The filters for article content are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, none of which are violated by the edit. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference.

Other neutral editors have agreed that the mere mention of the new hypothesis on the Genetic algorithms page does not violate WP:UNDUE, and could quite possibly be very helpful to readers of the article, especially since the reigning hypothesis in the field is known to have significant flaws. None of this has made an impression on Glrx, who acts like he is the final authority on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, and on who can and cannot post material to a given article. Additionally he feels no obligation to respond to my questions, or my invitations to him to enter into formal mediation WP:RFM. His one word response to the latter was "Sigh". Keburjor

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like additional editors with a good grasp of Wikipedia policy to weigh in on this dispute.

How do you think we can help?

 * 1) By clearly stating the difference between weight and notability, and explaining Wikipedia's policy regarding the application of WP:Notability to article content.
 * 2) By correcting any misconceptions that Glrx or I (or any other participant) might have.
 * 3) By commenting on any misconduct you see in the way this dispute is being handled by any of the participants.
 * 4) By helping us break the impasse we're currently in.

Mediator notes
I will mediate this if I am acceptable to all parties. Please indicate such on this page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept ErikHaugen (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept. Keburjor (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept Chaosdruid (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Decline Glrx (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As Glrx has rejected me as mediator, I will leave a note and leave the case open. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will mediate if acceptable to all parties. Again, please indicate such here. Robotnick2 Messages? 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I accept. Keburjor (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept, — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Decline. History User:Robotnick2 and User:Anikin3. Glrx (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And your reason for rejecting User:Hipocrite was? Keburjor (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering that. In addition, what in my history makes you think that I would not be a valid mediator? Robotnick2 Messages? 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this still need a mediator? I (1234r00t ) volunteer to help solve this issue if it is still a problem Mr R00t   Talk      'tribs  05:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A mediator is not needed. The case should should be closed because the issue is moot. Although I disagree with the above characterization of the dispute, the matter has been resolved. Keburjor has acknowledged that he does not have a consensus at this time to add information about his PhD thesis to the article. Glrx (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll close it. Mr R00t   Talk      'tribs  23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Mr R00t. The current consensus does indeed seem to be that the edit should not be made. Of course consensus can change, and your involvement may bring about such a change. However, even if it does, I don't believe that two disputants, Glrx and Oli Filth, are capable of looking beyond the COI to the real issue here---whether the interests of the article's readers are being served. And, one of them, Glrx, has a fondness for reverting the edit even when the consensus doesn't align with his ideas of what should and shouldn't be included. I've decided to withdraw from this dispute because it seems pointless to carry on. Keburjor (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
I recommend closing this until the declining editor specifies exactly what he's expecting in a mediator, or if he wants mediation at all. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a good idea if the user does not reply to my above post or declines me. Mr R00t   Talk      'tribs  05:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)