Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film)

Where is the dispute?
The Circus (film)

Who is involved?

 * User: Jack_Sebastian
 * User:Slatersteven
 * User:ScottyBerg
 * User:Hobit
 * User:Big_Bird
 * User:Koppapa
 * User:MikeAllen
 * User:Erik

What is the dispute?
The dispute surrounds the inclusion of text noting (and/or detailing) the October, 2010 reporting of an Irish filmmaker seeing a person in a premiere film of Charlie Chaplin's film, The Circus. In the 1928 footage, a woman walks past the camera, listening and talking into what appears to be a cellular phone. The initiator of the YouTube video, an Irish filmmaker then suggested that the woman might be a time traveler. After millions of internet hits, the story was noticed by major news outlets across the world. It was notable and significant media coverage of the event. All of the citations were from top tier media outlets (like CNN, ABC News, NYT, etc.) meet our criteria for inclusion (WP:CITE, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V). The point of contention is any whether any mention of the event belongs in the article and if so, to what extent. The discussion was initiated by a now indef-banned user. The larger group of editors feel that no mention is warranted, while the smaller group (of which I am a part) feels that some mention of it should remain within the article as is or - at best - expanded slightly within a cultural references section or the like.

What would you like to change about this?
I think we need to mention the event in the article - not go hog wild and get all nerdy about it, but simply explain all the hubbub. Wiki page stats and internet numbers seem to indicate that thousands of users came to the article looking for details about the event in the article and found little there.

How do you think we can help?
Simply point out the policy aspects of inclusion versus exclusion. Personality friction may have made that observance more difficult, and someone uninvolved might do the trick.

Comment by slatersteven
I should point out that I have crated a page that this material can be include on with far less concern over weight and fringe issue, and I which the material can be coved in detail. Time travel urban legends and that the materail is in the Circus article as a see also link The_Circus_(film) that the nominator insistes must be a descriptive line of text, against consensus. Also see Noticeboard. Indeed this (which I would argue does exactly what he wants, mentiones the basic nature of the story) [] does not appear to be enough. .Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - As has been noted elsewhere, while its good that an article has been created out of the discussion, it does not preclude the mentioning of the instance in the parent article. They are related - that is incontrovertible. No one is arguing the strength of the claims being made (ie. time travel or cell usage in 1928), but that the publicity and media coverage of the claim is sufficient enough to warrant inclusion. Page stats, verifiable references and internet stats confirm that it was something our readers are interested in. As well, not one is arguing n favor of having the instance take over the article. The event warrants a sentence or two mention (in the Lede, too, as the Lede is an overview of the article, which is anemically short). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Moving to close the case. Firstly, the filing party wishes to withdraw it in favor of an RfC; second, several parties have declined mediation at this time; and thirdly, this action is premature as understood by the Dispute Resolution process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I can't believe this is still going on. I first took a ride on this horse at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion and got off it after it was beaten pretty much to death. It rose from the dead a few months later on the article Talk page and I foolishly suggested it might better find resolution at Notability/Noticeboard discussion where it quickly got beaten to death once again. Since this was (and still is) nothing more than a refusal by one editor to accept consensus, I decline to participate, and will steer clear of this article, this editor, and this dispute in the future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This will make it hard to proccede, what would you sugest Arbcom?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It will be "hard to 'proccede'[sic]" without Lucky Louie? Really. Golly, what will all the other editors listed at the top of this mediation do without LL? If LL doesn't want to be a part of the solution, then that's their call. Most of his post here is factually inaccurate, anyway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it if any involved party refuses mediation then mediation cannot go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As LL's participation was minor to begin with, perhaps we should get a ruling from someone here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, participants will have to decide if a mediation process without a particular user would be successful in resolving the dispute. If there is consensus that the remaining users can work together and resolve the dispute (in the absense of the other user), then mediation should move forward. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work with other users, so long as we remain within policy and guidelines; that is the crux of my problem here: I don't feel the other users are following such in censoring out the heavily-cited information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the 3RR board, both Jack Sebastian and Slatersteven have been asked by an administrator to not interact for seven days. So I don't see how you can have a mediation in the absence of two essential parties, as a mediation would seem to require interaction of some kind. Additionally, LuckyLouie is correct in noting that this has already gone to two noticeboards and is a case of one editor not accepting consensus. His fatigue is understandable and his being driven away from this subject matter is troubling. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I Nhave asked for clarrifcationn on this matter. We can both still engage each other here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's correct. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the parties all agree this is the right forum for negotiation and discussion with the help of a third party, then a mediation will help resolve the dispute. If that cannot be agreed on, I suggest trying a full RfC to gain outside views on the matter. Good luck and cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed an RfC pending. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to that RfC, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * . By the way, I see you removed LuckyLouie as a party. I request that you revert that. He is indeed an essential party, having been involved in this article far longer than I have, and he is declining to participate. If you remove his name from the list of parties, a person casually looking at this may get the impression that he is not an involved party. He is. Thanks in advance, ScottyBerg (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may request, but I must decline. LL has explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that he doesn't wish to be a part of this mediation. I removed his name (which I had added at the inception of this mediation without his consent) out of respect for his wishes. He doesn't consider himself an involved party in the mediation, so I am not sure of the reasoning behind your request. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's await other parties' comments on this matter before a decision is made on whether to proceed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, in addition to the RfC, this subject has been revisited at the fringe noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say he was origionaly listed aas an invloved party nad declined to take part.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas was also added as a party but removed.. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you added him as well as an indef banned troll (1), and I subsequently removed both of them, the troll for obvious reasons and Viriditas as he was a late arrival to the discussion. If he wishes to be involved in this informal mediation, he can add himself. He seems to not wish to be involved, considering his views on the forum-shopping at the Fringe noticeboard and elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Err...I think you will find I beamed them up not Scotty.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I did not add either party. However, this is all a moot issue. As Big Bird points out correctly below, mediation is clearly not suitable in this instance because there is a consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for any mediation of any kind regarding this issue. Requests for mediation/Guide suggests mediation in cases when consensus cannot be reached. Consensus exists and one editor refuses to abide by it on the basis that the consensus is against policy. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are derived from consensus and they simply summarize the prior consensus of the community so that the same arguments need not be re-hashed ad nauseam. Therefore, consensus trumps policy in all cases except rare occasions described at WP:CONEXCEPT. Since the purpose of mediation is to help involved parties attain consensus and consensus already exists, I suggest that this request be dismissed for lack of purpose. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I only wish to point out that you are referencing the Mediation Committee's guide. While similar, the Cabal is intended for informal discussions to bring agreement. So, in one respect, our scope may be larger than what the guide specifically says. Sometimes the mere start of a mediation process can be beneficial to an ongoing dispute. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is clearly a dispute here as well about the involved parties. As a matter of principal, it seems to always be better to have anyone possibly involved in the article involved in the mediation so the compromises reached are agreed on by all contributors. I ask that everyone who is a party, or considers themself a party, to indicate below whether you are accepting of the mediation process. If all are, then this case will be opened. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Big Bird that mediation is not warranted in a situation when there is a preexisting consensus. There is in this case. The dispute over involved parties is secondary to the fact that we have a consensus not just on the article talk page, but at the two noticeboards where this has been brought. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that is at best misleading, Scotty. The actual tone of the noticeboards was crowded by the same group of 3-4 editors who complained in each noticeboard about how I was disregarding their consensus, made personal attacks. In none of the noticeboards did you or the others present anything approaching a reasoning for exclusion based on actual wiki policy and guidelines. In actuality, there was very little input on those noticeboards, probably because other editors wanted to (correctly) avoid the drama and toxic editing environment you and at least one other editor created.
 * Allow me to be clear and unambiguous: you have not offered a sufficient reason for exclusion that follows any wiki policy or guideline. Apparently, the only thing you are following is 'I just don't like it'. A consensus based on that sort of base impulse is disturbing, to say the least. - 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mediation Committee's guide being related or not, the first sentence of Mediation, which describes the purposes of both the Cabal and Committee states: "Mediation is a general Wikipedia process in which a third party becomes involved in a content dispute between two or more editors in order to try to guide their discussion towards the formation of agreement." I hope we can agree that the purpose of any sort of mediation or outside intervention should be to help achieve consensus. So if consensus exists, little can be achieved by further intervention and any possible existing dispute in this issue is unilateral. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, BigBird, could you clarify the basis for your statement, "Therefore, consensus trumps policy in all cases except rare occasions described at WP:CONEXCEPT"? I don't recall getting that update. I agree that consensus overrides anything BUT policy and some guidelines. We differ on this, and I'd like you to support your conclusion better, please.
 * Lastly, I asked for informal mediation as suggested by another user as an escalatory step in Dispute Resolution. I firmly believe that the consensus you are speaking of is composed of 3-4 editors who have ventured forth on each of the two (and with the opening of the recent FN discussion, three) noticeboard discussions, voicing the same incorrect applications of policy and guidelines. The consensus you are speaking of offers no convincing reasons for exclusion except for 'I just don't like it'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but I will not enter into a general discussion of policy vs consensus with you because it will serve only to add another issue to this debate thereby further complicating things.
 * As far as existing consensus is concerned, you challenge it on the basis that it "offers no convincing reasons for exclusion except for 'I just don't like it'" but I contend that it simply offers no reasons that are convincing to you and your repudiation of consensus can similarly be characterized as "I just don't like it" as well. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you are stating that you cannot supply citable precedent for your statement about 'consensus trumping policy in all cases'? I ask because you are using this argument as the sole basis for exclusion. And, for the record, the consensus is not following policy and guidelines, so that in itself presents valid reasoning for seeking more advice on how to point that out. You did not appear to be receptive to my comments; I thought that others might help you (and others) to see that. Unfortunately, he problem here is not that I don't like the consensus being presented here, but rather that the consensus is flat-out wrong, violating RS, CITE, V, the inverse of UNDUE and lastly, our own censorship policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Would someone be able to provide me a brief timeline of the dispute so I can better understand its context? Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * *25 October 2010 15:24, 25 User:Luka Jačov adds the link to the George Clarke Youtube video citing the "time traveler". It is reverted out four hours later by Dragonhawk, citing (correctly, imo) WP:ELNO.
 * *26 October 2010 14:04 - User:Samarojr is the first to implement (incorrectly, imo) the information about the time traveler information in the Lede (but not the text, which is the opposite of how it is supposed to work)
 * *17:32, 26 October 2010 - 23:16, 27 October 2010 - the matter bounces back and forth between IP accounts and a bot
 * *01:07, 28 October 2010 I add the news of the matter, citing different news stories over the next 3-4 edits.
 * *16:04, 28 October 2010 Yinzland (who has since been indef blocked for trolling, NPA and edit-warring) reverts the formatted and cited information repeatedly.
 * *Over the next few days, despite several attempts to find a middle ground for noting the information in the article, the eventual consensus (of the majority, of which I was not a part of) of respondents in the article discussion is to simply note the event and provide a link to a catch-all page for internet phenomena. The consensus was arrived at after two different noticeboard (Notability, Fringe) discussions. Fringe found (twice now) that the discussion wasn't relevant there. Notability noted that the material should be mentioned but not use the film article as a COATRACK.
 * *15:07, 29 December 2010 Yinzland reverts even that bit out, creating a flurry of new edit-warring and article discussions (some less civil than the norm) bringing us - after much back and forth - to here, at Slatersteven's suggestion.
 * - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An RfC is then the next step along with renewed discussions on the noticeboards. Mediation is when those attempts at discussion and negotiation fail.

If after an RfC is completed, and subsequent discussion about the consensus from the RfC is discussed, you may bring a case here. Otherwise, it appears premature to bring the matter here. I ask if there are any objections to proceedings with renewed discussion in other fora and the closing of this case. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the mediation was filed out of turn (and indeed the RfC was the next step), then I was misinformed (considering the source, I wonder that I am surprised by this), and would withdraw the matter. My sole concern is that - when the RfC and discussions fail - I will be accused of forum-shopping for coming on back here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how following the Dispute Resolution process can be considered "forum shopping", provided you act in a good faith effort to prevent escalation of the process by negotiation and compromise. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who advised you to take this to mediation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one. The mediation cabal just lists the cases and volunteers try to help out. This page is actually the sum of my expierence with the users present. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was not replyingto you but to Jack, I had hoped that the indentation wouold have shown that. Appologoeis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of Mediation
(Indicate Accept or Decline with your sig)
 * Decline Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept Whilst is true we have consensus it might have been benifical to have a bit more imput.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline per Big Bird. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept - the consensus is incorrectly applying wiki policies for inclusion, replacing them instead with an 'I don't like it' reasoning. While an RfC may indeed be another step in DR, so is informal mediation is the next step in DR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)