Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter

Arab Winter

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Arab Winter
 * Talk:Arab Winter
 * Talk:Arab Winter (AfD is at )
 * Talk:Arab Winter

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * The Arab Winter article should be improved in place, instead of deletion or large sections blanked.


 * The article has repeatedly been nominated for deletion, merger, and the removal of the largest section has been advocated. The consensus has been formed opposing such edits. Four edits by have been attempts to circumvent the consensus and remove significant portions of the article (ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 characters). It is our contention that such edits are detrimental to the article's health and should cease.


 * Most of the talk page agrees that the article needs improvement and compromises have been recommended. One of which is to remove the table formatting for a standard narrative format - a first step move that would likely make editing the article much more productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk • contribs)


 * The consensus is to replace an item in the table, when the narrative is inserted for it. So all the current content is available to the reader. — Lentower (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * The presentation of the dispute above is not representative of the real issue, which is a violation of Wikipedia content policies. And as we all know, consensus can't trump our core content policies. The issues are related specifically to the "Arenas" section Arab Winter, which exhibits the following policy violations:


 * It contains unsourced material per WP:V (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material).
 * The material in the section is a WP:NOR violation (To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented).


 * Basically, what editors have done in that section is to create a table of events and associate them with the concept of "Arab Winter" while the sources provided do not make that connection whatsoever, a clear violation of WP:NOR. The problem is not the format (narrative or table), but the content. The entire section is based on original research by editors, as the material on the table does not refer to the subject of the article. What editors have done here is to take any and all events following what was called the "Arab spring" and add it here as if these were described by reliable sources as belonging to an "Arab Winter".  So, the issue here is one of violation of content policies and not of formatting. Having said that, if there is material attributable to reliable sources that describes an event as being part of an "Arab Winter", I'd agree that it would be best presented in narrative format rather than in a table.  Per WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so despite this, the material is being restored without any attempt to address the content policy violations that I have clearly outlined. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to keep the article in this state and only allow content to be added if and only if is verifiable and directly supported by sources as being related to a purported "Arab Winter". -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * arguments here (also made repeatedly elsewhere) have all been refuted at length on the talk page and at AfD, with a consensus against his arguments. No reason to repeat all that here, unless the Mediator asks us to. — Lentower (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) This is not an AFD discussion. It is mediation, and I have to write down what are my arguments for the mediator to understand the dispute. (b) We are in mediation because we have not managed to come to an agreement, so your point about consensus in moot. Now, relax and let the process unfold. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus can occur without the agreement of all editors involved. Consensus has occurred here without 's agreement. How much more good would have been done, if have put all their effort in actually improving this article or others. Also clear,  does not agree about these three points.
 * Awaiting developments and what further input the mediator(s) request. — Lentower (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I initially started out a discussion about the titling of the topic. However, the issue has extended to content. To be honest, Cwobeel has been deleting content without patience. I had to revert repeatedly because impatient is unconstructive. No one agreed to merge or delete, and no consensus was formed to keep or change the name of the topic. Even so, the article may still have problems as Cwobeel pointed out. Nevertheless, Cwobeel hasn't implemented the WP:PRESERVE policy, which says to preserve and fix, NOT delete. Whatever Cwobeel did may not be a good example of WP:CANTFIX policy. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. sudo  people  21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Note that I have less time for Wikipedia for the next few months, & am not logging on every day. — Lentower (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree - I am staying out of this for now; I hope we don't have to deal with delete-restore cycle again. Right now, I guess college means more to me than Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I'll still visit Wikipedia whenever I want. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn
I am withdrawing from the mediation, as the mediator is not following process as described at Mediation Committee/Policy, and instead is injecting himself in the dispute instead of mediating , and actively editing the article. If a different mediator will step forward, I will rejoin. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is following Mediation_Committee/Policy, which saids in part:
 * Sensible compromises between each arguments will be proposed (including sandboxing or producing multiple "drafts" of the article(s) or section(s) which are disputed);
 * Nothing wrong with him supplying potential drafts.
 * Perhaps you will rejoin this mediation? — Lentower (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should I? The lack of response here (5 days) means that there is no real interest from the committee to address my concerns, let alone mediate. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe because as meditation is voluntary, if someone doesn't want to take part, it is often difficult to persuade them to do so. I'm not sure what response you are waiting; I was going to leave this for a week with no activity, then close as unsuccessful. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also feel that the lack of activity by mediators was a contributor to the breakdown of proceedings. Most of the participants have expressed our limited availability yet have still been consistently involved in discussions here.
 * The last major activity was agreeing to wait for mediators, and building drafts for mediators to review. See: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Arab_Winter.

Regardless, I'm content with closing this mediation. I think we achieved most of what we intended. We gained a lot from taking a WP:WIKIBREAK at Arab Winter—I know I did—and the article hasn't been destroyed. I want to thank you for joining us here and defending your position. I think going forward, your recent tactic of highlighting specific claims is a great way to give the article a fair shot at existing. I'd again like to reiterate that I agree with a lot of your primary concerns regarding the article being POV, OR, and SYNTH, and I appreciate your ambition to correct those problems. You've proven yourself to be valuable contributor, and I'd like to formally apologize for assuming bad faith. It's clear after all this that your intention is to build an encyclopedia.

& I think Cwobeel has reminded us that Wikipedia's standards are higher than we sometimes require for ourselves, and that we can always improve upon what's here. Thanks for all your hard work! I look forward to more of your contributions.

(I feel like Clinton at the Oslo I Accords! Let's hope this result is more lasting ;) sudo  people  21:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If everyone else is willing to close this mediation, I'm willing to. — Lentower (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to move forward with the draft started for us? Perhaps we should discuss that over on Talk:Arab Winter? — Lentower (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the one who started Draft:Arab Winter. Anyway, let's hope this doesn't happen again, which would lead to "arbitration". --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * It looks like we have 4/5 accepted parties. Would one of you like to contact the remaining party -- or remove him/her from the mediation if inactive? Andrevan@ 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan:  I removed  - He voiced his reservations to me since he hasn't been involved in weeks. I wasn't aware 100% of parties had to agree.  sudo  people  17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Accept For the Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)
 * I am happy to take this case if the parties are OK with it, but there is a caveat. What I understand the issue to be is that Cwobeel is removing a table which he says is unsourced original research or a unique interpretation of the sources. I understand this to be a general concern as well a specific concern with some content. Specifically, in addition to correctly pointing out the lack of inline references on some data points, he believes that the use of the term "Arab Winter" to describe the concept of "aftermath of Arab Spring" is being synthesized with the other data in the table which does not specifically invoke Arab Winter. The term Arab Winter does not appear in all the sources. The other 3 parties maintain that the content itself can be used in the article Arab Winter, and opinions differ how to show the content. They may try to show that the equivalence between the Arab Spring or events described in the sources and the Arab Winter is demonstrable in multiple reliable sources, and not a unique synthesis, and provide sources for all of the data and statements in the table. The stipulation for taking the case is that the argument that consensus may trump policy be dropped. A simple consensus to involve IAR cannot be used for core policies like V, NOR, NPOV, etc. So long as all the parties additionally accept this stipulation that we must adhere to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on. This means consensus will change if the previous consensus can be shown to violate those policies in some way, i.e. by including something that constitutes a unique synthesis of data. Relevant reading includes These are not original research, What SYNTH is not Andrevan@ 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Assigned. To Mdann52 as mediator and mediation discussion moved to talk page. Apologies to Andrevan for the conflicting involvement. For the Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)