Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony

'''Closing, as no activity in the last three months. If parties wish to reopen, please contact the mediator.''' Essjay  Talk •  Contact 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Users involved

 * Nixer
 * E Pluribus Anthony
 * Marskell
 * potentially, other users who have commented on global city pages in former/recent discussions

Summary
In recent history, the global city article – and related topic – has been a hotbed of subjective editions and choices; some have been in disagreement with the primary cited reference, the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) list (a published source), but also with other cited references.

Beginning 27 September 2005, Nixer began providing notional summary argumentation about why numerous ex-Soviet cities ranked as they did in this report/article and that there was a discontinuity between the article summary/definition and the GaWC list. E Pluribus Anthony, functioning as an amicus curiae cited differing examples/interpretations ad nauseum, and highlighted the clear distinction between the article proper and the GaWC list. E Pluribus Anthony and Marskell have indicated empathy and a willingness to alter the article appropriately (including addition of different sections and appropriate tables) contingent on citation of relevant information and sources and subsequent rationalisation.

Nixer has failed to do this as of yet, despite repeated requests and repeated reminders of recently stated information/rationale. Nixer continues to add dispute resolution tags to the article inappropriately, i.e., by only providing argumentation (not citations/evidence) substantiating this position. E Pluribus Anthony, et al. have reverted these tags, but cannot do so perpetually.

Nixer then proceeded to add a table segregating global-city related criteria, a la transport page, without discussion or indicating sources. This was removed pending source provision and cautions were expressed about original research.

Moreover and later (perhaps cognizant of my residency in Toronto), Nixer has made minor retaliatory editions to the Toronto article and information template, relating to global city notation. E Pluribus Anthony has restored original text on numerous occasions, pending rationalisation.

Request for mediation and guidance requested by author; specifically regarding (but not limited to):
 * (1) prohibition of substantial editions and inclusion of POV tags to global city article by Nixer, contingent upon provision of authoritative, relevant citations;
 * (2) prohibition of retaliatory edits by Nixer to Toronto article;
 * (3) arbitration of said issue.

Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this a request for arbitration, or an offer to enter into Mediation? Uncle Ed 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a request for mediation: I have made various contributions here and there and I've tried to be as objective as possible regarding this; to no avail. An arbitration (from what I gather) is feasible if a mediation fails and is the highest 'escalation', right?  I'd like to settle this without resorting to arbitration, but that may be necessary.  In any event, this needs to be resolved somehow.  Your guidance is appreciated.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 00:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that I see Catherine is back, I'd like her to take this case. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine with me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I accept. Does Nixer agree to mediation?  &mdash; Catherine\talk 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! I don't know if he will accept mediation, though.  I mentioned the prospect if things could not be resolved alternatively.  And as I've been involved in this from the get-go as of late – and in the spirit of true mediation – can you ask him? :)  And what if he does not accept?  In any event, I appreciate your assistance.  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nixer's comments
First, because the article is being disputed, I think, the dispute tag should exist in the article until the conclusion. Second, because of contraversity between the introduction and the GaWC rating, I suggested to alter the article different ways:

1. Remove the existing introduction and leave the GaWC rating only.

2. Remove the GaWC rating and leave a link to it only.

3. Add some other ratings such as cost of life rating, number of billionaires living in the city or rating of metro area.

4. Add a table to the article, indicating different parameters of a city or place of the city in diffeent ratings.

So, all of my suggestions were refused and my edits were reverted.

Also, I should note that there is another user Vlad Patryshev, who agreed the article is biased and is not objective. He voted for complete deletion of the article from Wikipedia. According to his opinion, the GaWC list is an insult for Wikipedia.--Nixer 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Marskell's comments
First, I broadly second EP's requests and comments.

I'd suggest that tags can't be unilateral and that it doesn't belong on this page. Nixer has essentially created the controversy.

As for points 1 and 2—seperating the intro and the GaWC info—I disagree. We make clear that GaWC is a starting point to view the topic and not synonomous with Global City itself. The info is not an "insult to Wikipedia." It's a perfectly respectable primary source which dovetails with what we want to describe in this article.

Points 3 and 4: yes, add other information but source it. You were reverted for this reason. Your suggestions were not refused, your edits were. Marskell 20:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Catherine's comments
Firstly, thank you for accepting me as mediator, and for refraining from editing this article while mediation is in progress. I have moved the "responses" from this section to Talk:Global city/Mediation, where I will continue this discussion. When online, I can also be reached by email and on the main wikipedia IRC channel (although I don't watch it continuously so you may need to ping me).

I choose not to protect the article at this point -- I trust you both to work together while we try to find a good solution to your differences. I think the "globalize" tag should remain while we work this out (although it technically belongs on the talk page, it won't do any harm there for a short time).

Marskell, I appreciate your comments here and on the talk page, and your attempts at perspective, but I believe a mediation is most fruitful between two people; you are welcome to follow along, but unless your disagreement is significantly different from EPA's, I would ask that you sit on the sidelines, and hold off from making edits yourself for a few days. (Also, try to be more professional in your edit summaries, please? :)

Thank you, &mdash; Catherine\talk 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann
in case this proceeds to arbitration, I would like to submit Nixer's behaviour on and  (where he employs rather similar tactics) as part of the case. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in mediation, as a consequence of the nature of the exchange on these articles' respective talkpages. dab (&#5839;) 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)