Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2

Eurofighter Typhoon 2

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party - Agreed to RFM.


 * Articles affected by this dispute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon_and_Comparison_to_Dassault_Rafale
 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated
3rd paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Radar_signature_reduction_features
 * Sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be 2-4 times greater than the Eurofighter's return depending on aspect.   Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes,  whereas the Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.   The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection, whereas some aircraft with smaller fixed radar have them vertically mounted yielding a larger radar return.  An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar, with detection range being proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.   Other sources put the Typhoon's radar cross-section at up to 100 times that of the F-35's depending on the aspect examined. 

1. Mztourist made an allegation of synthesis because he felt % composites in 2nd and 3rd sentence was being used to allege a lower RCS - as per 1st sentence. He however lost this point, because the first source already made this case:
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf

2. Having lost the first case, he then claimed the source wasn't reliable. However the source has excellent credentials and is supported by another source that also has excellent credentials. The sources have each been used >500 times on wikipedia:
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=globalsecurity.org&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=ipcs.org&fulltext=Search
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSecurity.org
 * http://fas.org/

3. Having realised that he's probably wrong on reliability, he then stated that he 'doesn't like the language because it makes a comparison', even though there is no wikipedia policy against this and there is a precedent already in the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 and North American F-86 Sabre articles among others.

4. He believes that consensus can be achieved by a vote that ignores wikipedia policy:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
 * Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Z07x10 is misrepresenting the situation. There are multiple contributors involved in this discussion, and none of them are supporting Z07x10's position - see and  Since the dispute does not involve the two named parties alone, it clearly cannot be settled via mediation between the named parties. I therefore suggest that mediation be summarily rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or people could perhaps add anyone they feel should be included? Mztourist has been the main protagonist in this, which is why I listed him, and I'm sure he is more than capable of summoning his support.  I did mention about a consensus in point 4.  There may be a couple more coming in my support too.Z07x10 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So you accept that the consensus is against you? That's a start... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately because it is based on 'I just don't like it' it doesn't fit the description of WP:consensus. The initial accusation of WP:OR having failed, the parties refused to WP:DTS and have gone WP:FISHING - that last page doesn't yet exist in the context I mean it but after today I personally volunteer to write it.Z07x10 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted by AndyTheGrump, Z07x10 is misrepresenting the situation, this issue has already been discussed at length and there is a consensus of Users who oppose the paragraph that Z07x10 insists on including. I should note here that Z07x10 failed to inform me (and presumably other interested parties such as Martinevans123, Dbrodbeck, HLGallon and McSly all of whom oppose the inclusion of the paragraph) of the existence of this discussion, but he did attempt to canvass User talk:Julian Herzog who declined to get involved.

The issue first arose from an edit to Eurofighter Typhoon in February stating that "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return". I questioned the reliability of the source provided on the Talk Page, see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon, User:Fnlayson then tagged the source and it was left at that. On 24 May Z07x10 edited the phrase claiming to add a source but actually just removing the tags, I reverted this. On 28 May Z07x10 and User:Fnlayson added a comparison of relative %s of composites and OR/Synthesis that the Typhoon had a reduced radar signature to support the questionable ref. I reverted this and Z07x10 and I discussed this on the talk page. User:Fnlayson who tagged the disputed statement then trimmed the OR on 29 May. On 30 May I removed the OR and restored the tags. On 4 June an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. I reverted the changes and advised that the IP wasn't me. Z07x10 then engaged in an edit war for which he was warned for edit warring and false sock accusations, see:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Z07x10 then accused me of edit warring see: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Since then Z07x10 has continued to modify the paragraph adding sentences that while they may be individually factual (if primary sources are accepted and after some questionable sources were revised) add up to synthesis all intended to support the original questionable statement. The issue has then been discussed at length at the DRN board and then on the OR board, there is a clear consensus against inclusion of the paragraph, but Z07x10 won't accept this. Dealing with each of Z07x10's points above in the order in which they originally arose:

2. WP:RS: if you read the source it is clearly a poorly-researched and referenced hatchet job on the Rafale, which is why it was tagged back in February, so Z07x10 is incorrect when he states that "Having lost the first case, he then claimed the source wasn't reliable", I have consistently questioned the reliability of this source. The paragraph that Z07x10 relies on states that: "While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars. According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter. While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible." The first sentence assumes that as the Eurofighter Typhoon is constructed of more composites than the Rafale it is therefore stealthier, yet Z07x10 himself has produced sources that show that the Typhoon is 85% composite while the Rafale is 70% composite, so saying that the Typhoon is mostly composites while the Rafale is "overwhelmingly metal" is clearly wrong. The writer of the article ignores all other aspects of stealth which are widely known and ironically also refers to the Rafale's "curvaceous layout" ignoring that this may be "continous curvature" as used on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. The second sentence is equally problematic, none of the "estimates" are cited and "may appear" is weasel wording. The final sentence makes it clear that both aircraft lose whatever steathiness they have when carrying munitions, it is well established that external storage leads to higher radar returns, but Z07x10 omits to mention this in his paragraph.

1. OR/Synth: To analyse the contentious paragraph: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. This was the original wording from February that all of Z07x10's later edits seek to support. The According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements has been dropped as unreferenced.

''Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes.  This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence. i.e the unspoken assertion is that Typhoon is steathier because it has a higher % of composites, while completely ignoring numerous other aspects that contribute the stealth.

An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.

Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. '' This may be true, but I'm also unsure what this is trying to say in the context as no reliably sourced RCS figure is given for the Typhoon or the Rafale.

''The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection. '' This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar).

In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. User: Z07x10 doesn't present any information that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more effectively than the Typhoon.

3. Comparison of aircraft: Contrary to Z07x10's assertion, I have never made this point, although I do certainly support it. Z07x10 has been very keen to try to compare the relative steathiness of the Typhoon as compared to the Rafale as he claims that there has been 'a lot of speculation' about the relative RCS of the two aircraft, if that is even the case there is a dearth of WP:RS on the issue which is why he has had to rely on the Indian article above and the OR/Synth. Z07x10 claims that comparison of aircraft within a page is acceptable, citing the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article, which makes comparisons between the F-86 and MiG-15. This is a falacious comparison, the F-86 and MiG-15 met in sustained combat during the Korean War and so the relative performance and success of the two is relevant for inclusion on both pages.

4. There is a clear consensus of Users (AndyTheGrump, Martinevans123, Dbrodbeck, HLGallon and McSly) who oppose the entire paragraph and are dismayed by Z07x10's approach to this issue. Personally given this and a similar lengthy dispute regarding the Typhoon's maximum speed (Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 5), I believe that Z07x10 has shown that he is unwilling to work collaboratively, but instead is obsessed with trying to 'win' arguments of dubious merit and so should be banned from the page Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree.Z07x10 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Decline. per AndyTheGrump's reasoning below Mztourist (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And his e-mail.Z07x10 (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to imply by this edit? Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply pointing out that you agreed, got an e-mail notification on your talk page, then declined.Z07x10 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I received no such email, you are implying that I have been canvassed, something that only you have done. I agreed to mediation originally, then read AndyTheGrump's reasoning and realised that we need a binding decision to stop you from continuing to forum-shop this issue as you did on Typhoon max speed. Mztourist (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:TransporterMan I would like to draw your attention to User:Z07x10's edits above:, and  as indicative of the pointlessness of attempting mediation with him Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply pointing out that you were both given the opportunity to settle this matter in a civil manner and refused. Therefore you should drop your complaint if you do not have a dispute with the content as user:AndyTheGrump seemed to imply in his refusal above.Z07x10 (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Decline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I am declining at this point, because (1) I see no evidence that this matter cannot be settled via normal community processes (an RfC on the matter would seem an appropriate way to do so, and I shall be starting one at some time in the near future unless specifically instructed not to do so by someone with the authority to give such an instruction), and (2) because I don't see this as a content dispute so much as a refusal of one of the parties to accept a clear consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're not disputing the content then let's just leave it in eh? You should either agree to settle here or drop the issue.  Let it stand for the record that the opposing editors were given fair chance to settle this dispute in the proper manner and refused to do so.Z07x10 (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an opposing editor and I haven't refused. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Abstain. I don't consider myself a party to this content dispute.  I will comment that there are other opposing parties who need to be added to this request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Question. What is "Refused to settle matter in proper way" supposed to mean, against the names of two of the participants at the top? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That issue is irrelevant to this request for mediation since it goes to conduct, not to content, and conduct will neither be reviewed or considered in any mediation resulting from this application, nor in the evaluation of this request. Martinevans123, please simply either agree or decline to participate in mediation, based on the content issues only. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * I see that text has now been removed. So agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those two users declined mediation Martin, that was all it was meant to indicate for the record.Z07x10 (talk)
 * And who added that text? And why? The choice of words was hardly neutral, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The text was accurate.Z07x10 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this a content dispute, I don't understand that claim? Surely the fact people are disputing the content is the reason we're here? The last forum was an OR forum and that compliant failed. What it's a case of is WP:I just don't like it absent of any basis in policy. Z07x10 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Decline - per AndyTheGrump as it is not really a content dispute but more about one user failing to drop the stick. We have had a similar situation with the same editor on the same article before where they edit war and envoke every possible discussion forum looking for someone to agree with them. History shows that if this mediation fails they will just move to another forum as before. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstain - A couple edits on the relevant text in the article does not make me an active participant. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A formal complaint
I would at this point wish to put on record that I consider this edit by Z07x10 to be in clear violation of talk page guidelines. The contributor has without my permission edited my post, adding emphasis where I had none. I would like to learn what exactly the mediation committees' position is on such violations - do they deal with such matters, or do I have to raise it at WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I put some of your text in bold, to draw attention to it, hardly a hanging offence.Z07x10 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Seriously"?? Wouldn't you object if I started emboldening text in your own contributions, just because I'd decided to invent certain emphasis? This is a very basic part of Wikipedia etiquette, surely you know this by now? I think you owe AndyTheGrump an apology at the very least. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to engage in a debate here. I asked a question from the mediating committee, and I would like a response from them, not anyone else. Is this violation of talk page guidelines going to be dealt with here, or do I have to raise Z07x10s repeated tendentious behaviour at WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the Committee is not to enforce conduct matters and it would not be in the best interest of the Committee or the encyclopedia to become involved in anything except seriously disruptive kinds of behavior which threaten to seriously and immediately interfere with the mediation process. Any violation of the talk page guidelines here did not rise to that level any more than this edit which removed the Committee's preset request page subheading. Both of those kinds of activities should cease. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
 * Do you seriously think that I intentionally removed the header? What benefit exactly do you think I gained by doing so? If I was responsible, rather than a software glitch, it was unintentional, and I find the lack of good faith here disappointing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Chairperson's note:
 * First, User:AndyTheGrump: If you feel that other parties are needed for the success of this mediation, please feel free to add them, but in any event please indicate your acceptance or rejection of mediation in the "Parties' agreement to mediation section," above. Whether this goes forward will initially be determined by whether a majority of the responses of those who are listed are acceptances (which seem to be likely at the moment since the minimum two acceptances have already been received; if additional parties are listed, that will be reevaluated). If the case is accepted for mediation, then the mediator assigned to the case will determine whether additional parties are needed for the success of the case.
 * Second, please do not respond to one another here on the request page. Feel free to add additional issues for mediation if you believe them necessary, but do not engage in discussion of them. If the case is accepted for mediation, the mediator will sort out and seek agreement on the issues to be mediated.
 * Third, please refrain from discussing or referring to user conduct here. Formal mediation is only for content issues and user conduct will neither be mediated nor discussed.
 * Fourth, Please remember that while discussions during mediation are privileged, discussions here on the request page prior to the commencement of actual mediation are ordinarily not privileged.


 * For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * Chairperson's note 2: I would ordinarily reject this case at this point for not having acceptances by a majority of the listed parties to the dispute, per prerequisite to mediation #5. Since the possibility that other editors need to be listed has been raised, I'm going to wait 24 hours or so (until 16:30 UTC on June 16) to see if that happens, but if no additional editors are listed by that time the case will be rejected. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Chairperson's note 3: Just an update: Two additional editors having been added, we now need "accepts" from at least three in order for this case to meet prerequisite to mediation #5. The accept/decline period runs for 7 days from the date the case was filed, in this case until June 22. By my count, we now have two accepts and two declines and are waiting for MilborneOne to accept, decline, or not do anything (which is, in effect, a decline). Unfortunately, I'm going to be traveling starting June 20 and may not be available to either accept or reject this case if MilborneOne does nothing, but I'll ask another member of the Committee to act on behalf of the Committee if that should prove to be the case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * Chairperson's note 4: Another update: Three additional editors having been added, and MilborneOne having declined, we now need "accepts" from at least five editors in order for this case to meet prerequisite to mediation #5, which means that if any of the three newly-added editors — Dbrodbeck, Julian Herzog, or Fnlayson — declines or fails to respond by June 22, this case will be rejected. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * Chairperson's note 5: Since Fnlayson has, like Robert McClenon, in effect removed himself as a participant in the dispute, not just declined, we now need four "accepts" by June 22 and have two so far. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reject: Fails prerequisite to mediation #8: "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The RFC which was started today constitutes such a proceeding. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)