Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Article: Sundial. Topic Section: Reclining-Decllining.

Article: Sundial. Topic Section: Reclining-Decllining.

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated
The Reclining-Declining section contains formulas that are un-sourced. Formulas for which no source is cited. I've tried to delete them.
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Should unsourced, untested formulas be in the Reclining-Declining section of the article?

For some time there has been basically 1-sided discussion at Sundial-talk. I've unsuccessfully asked Clem to answer my justifications for deleting his un-sourced formulas. I've unsuccessfully asked Clem to justify his reverts (as called-for by wikipedia policy). I've unsuccessfully asked Clem to justify placing un-sourced and un-tested formulas in the article.

I've offered various compromises, and all have been ignored or rejected.

Most recently I offered Clem a month, to get around to doing something about the un-sourced formulas. He rejected that offer, saying that maybe in 6 weeks he'd _begin_ to look at what to do about it.

Here are the solution-alternatives that I've offered (and continue to offer) to Clem. Most of these are compromises on my part:

That Clem:

1. Cite an origin for the formulas 2. Replace them with formulas of known, cited, origin 3. Show an example in which they give a right answer 4. Or just delete them if he doesn't have time for the above requests.

Now I offer an 5th alternative:

5. Precede his un-sourced formulas with a disclaimer warning to the reader, that the formulas are of unknown origin, and evidently haven't been tested by anyone at wikipedia, to find out if they give any right answers.

So, if Clem really wants to leave un-sourced, un-tested formulas in the article, then will he at least be willing to warn the reader that those formulas fail wikipedia's usual standard for reliability, verifiability and citation?

Description of the issue:

I'm a new editor, and so, if I violate protocol or rules here, it isn't intentional. I hope that you'll notify me if I do.

As I state, here, the information required, some of it will duplicate my answers to the above form.

1. Editors involved:

2. Articles or pages:

The Reclining-Declining section of the Sundial article

3. Previous discussion:

A basically 1-sided discussion has been going on for some time (as can be seen at Sundial-talk, and at my own talk-page.

Much discussion of this can be found in the most recent part of the Sundial-talk page. This dispute is the most recent topic there (at the time of this writing).

3. Previous attempts at resolution of this dispute:

I've offered a set of various compromises. I've asked Clem questions about the origin of the formulas that he keeps re-posting in Reclining-Declining, whenever I delete them. I've (in vain) reminded Clem that he should state a reason when doing a revert.

My most recent compromise-offer was my offer of a month, before Clem is expected to do something about his un-sourced, un-tested formulas in Reclining-Declining. Clem explicitly rejected that compromise-offer, saying that _maybe_ he'll _begin_ to look at references for the formulas in 6 weeks.

That open-ended non-offer can't be called a counter-offer.

I've been asking that Clem do or allow at least one of the below-listed things. Obviously, some of these alternatives amount to compromises on my part.

1. State the origin of the formulas (supply a citation to a reputable, reliable source)

2. Replace the formulas with another set of formulas, from a reputable reliable source, and cite that source.

3. Show an example (even just one example) in which Clem's formulas in Reclining-Declining give a correct answer.

4. Delete the formulas until Clem has time to do one of the 3 above-listed alternatives.

To these, I add one additional compromise that I'd accept:

5. Add these words directly above the beginning of Clem's set of Reclining-Declining formulas:

"The formulas that follow in this section--these formulas for Reclining-Declining sundials--are of unknown origin. So far as is known, no one at Wikipedia has tried the formulas out, to find out if there's an example in which they give a correct answer.

"In other words, being un-sourced, without valid citation, these formulas don't meet wikipedia's usual standards for reliability, verifiability and citation."

[end of proposed wording}

If Clem really insists on leaving his un-sourced, un-tested formulas in the article, then will he at least allow the above-suggested warning to be placed above them? Or does he think that the reader doesn't have a right to know that his formulas are un-sourced, un-cited, and un-tested--and of unknown origin?

Clem says that he's very busy. It's my understanding that some of what he's been busy with consists of other wikipedia work. That's quite understandable. But I don't feel that un-sourced and un-tested formulas should be presented to readers just because Clem doesn't consider this article a high priority, and chooses to not allocate his time to it.

What can we not reach an agreement on? Any of the first 4 of my above-listed proposals, most of which are compromise proposals.

I emphasize that I now offer alternative compromise #5 as a compromise-proposal.

I hope that you can help us resolve this dispute, regarding the matter of whether Wikipedia's policies, principles, and guidelines regarding citation should be respected.

Thank you, Michael Ossipoff


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. MichaelOssipoff (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree. WP:RFM/G Can I point you to the long conversation I have had with Michael on his talk page where I am attempting to keep the discussion contained. Have a look also at the conversations with User:DOwenWilliams on my talk page, and the conversation he has had with Michael in the Talk:Sundial and much that follows. None of this suggests that every other method has been explored, which is a precondition for this procedure- it does suggest a degree of impatience, and a request from Michael for two editors to enter into a considerable amount of WP:OR. If the Mediation Committee does wish to get involved so early in the process I am sure that DOwenWilliams and myself will be willing to assist in every way- but in my case after the UK General Election when I will be less occupied in RL.--  Clem Rutter (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." However, let me note that if this case had not been rejected on that basis it would have been rejected under prerequisite to mediation #9, "Although disputes that satisfy the first eight prerequisites may be mediated by the Committee, the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)