Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada

Closure?
Is it safe to say, this MedCab has ended (or at least, it's stalled)? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Both parties have accepted the ground rules for continuing with the mediation. Mayalld (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Infraction
Then delete G2's comment about me. His pretence of apology is very similar to a lawyer saying something he knows is not allowed, followed by 'withdrawn'; the point was to get his condescending attitude of my opinion out there, and then pretend to apologize. He knew the rules. Prince of Canadat 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Prince of Canadat 21:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Mediators are human too, and it took me a couple of minutes to wade through it. Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Equally imperfect
I will respond here in order to abide by Mayalld's requests: PoC, mediation is the attempt to have a third party make the two parties in disagreement meet in the middle - hence, mediation, as in medium, as in balanced. In order to do so, generally, each of the disagreeing parties has to give up something, meaning both win by getting some of what they want, and both win by knowing the other has sacrificed something they want. Fair and balanced - again, medium. I do not see that as being the case here; because you agree with all of Mayalld's proposed restrictions does not mean all parties are satisfied, and as long as one party is not satisfied, mediation has not been completed successfully. --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, see, I think we both have 'won' some and 'lost' some. I didn't say you were satisfied; I said that I am and that from my vantage point I don't see how you are not.  Again, I don't see this as a win/loss or gain/concession thing; we both came in here--at your behest--with a clear view of what we wanted.  We both presented those to an impartial person, who found a solution as close to the middle as I think it is possible to get.  It is your choice, naturally, whether or not to accept the proposed solution that has arisen from the mediation that you initiated.  Might I suggest that you have a conversation with someone famously neutral--GoodDay would, I think you'd agree, be an excellent example--and see what he has to say? You're welcome to take the suggestion or not, of course; up to you.  The bottom line is that Mayalld has proposed a solution which doesn't give me everything I want, but that I am willing to accept in order to move on.  If you can see your way clear to agreeing as well, I think that means everyone involved wins. Prince of Canadat 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask what it is you're sacrificing? I'm not being trite in posing that question, I just don't see how Mayalld's suggestions, which he built from nothing but our input, deny you of anything you didn't already desire. In fact, as I'm currently summarasing this affair, you only had one concern from the very outset: images overlapping into the following section, which you simply think "looks ugly." Is that indeed the case? --G2bambino (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you 'simply think' that whitespace 'looks ugly', so don't disparage my opinion, ok? Thank you.  Moving on... quite frankly, I tend to not like images anywhere (online or off) left-aligned within wrapped text (with the sole, I think, exception of illuminated or pseudo-illuminated chapter headings in novels); I feel that it looks unpleasant, unless the image in question is the same length or longer than the text it is beside (which, naturally, is something we simply cannot guarantee unless we only ever use images of this  size, which I'm pretty certain you would agree is a moderately silly response to the issue).  It is also more difficult to read; notice how the default of English text anywhere is left-alignment (whereas, for example, Hebrew tends to be right-alignment, in my experience), as it is easier for our eyes to track to the next line with left of text. (For interestingly similar reasons, it's minutely harder to read fully justified text, as it's harder for the eye to recognize endpoints, though the difference is minor. End digression).


 * However, I have to give up hope of removing left-aligned images from the articles that I work on. So, I'm not getting that, which is something I very much want, for the exact reason you want to remove whitespace: I find them unsightly, period. I am having to settle for ensuring that left-aligned images do not encroach onto following sections, which I also find unsightly and disturbs the formatting of the page--see above for part of why; the other part would be that misaligned section (& sub) headers make it very difficult to scan through a page, as you have to look in different places to see what you are looking for. So. I have to accept that I am simply going to have to deal with seeing left-aligned images.  Ensuring that right-aligned images, similarly, do not encroach is a matter of simple logic: images should clearly be shown to be within the sections in which they belong, under all resolutions and screen sizes. I am less concerned about right-aligned image encroachment when the following section(s) doesn't contain images (or infoboxes, obviously), as there is no worry about anything being pushed out of its correct section based on variations in window/screen size.


 * So, if you're going to push me into defining this in terms of 'win' and 'loss' (which I do only under protest; as I hope I have made clear, I categorically do not see this process as about 'win' or 'loss' at all): I 'win' no left-aligned images encroaching into following sections; I 'lose' a complete lack of left-aligned images. You 'win' aligning images on the left; you 'lose' a complete or near-complete lack of whitespace.


 * To be blunt, I don't much like unnecessary whitespace either; the headings of almost all WP articles annoy me, as there's (usually) a lead nicely snuggled up to an infobox, followed by a more-or-less random patch of whitespace due to the TOC. But, to be even more blunt, you want to optimize layout for a screen resolution that is used by approximately 16%, or less, of Internet users; as opposed to the one used by approximately 42%.


 * Even more blunt than that: I'm trying to ensure--as I've said since the very, very beginning of this--that a) images & infoboxes will render in the correct sections on 100% of computers, and that b) use of images cannot disturb the formatting of following sections and/or images and infoboxes in following sections. Both of these things are explicitly and clearly asked for in the MOS guidelines that both Jao and Mayalld have provided. You are trying to ensure that the layout is aesthetically pleasing on approximately 16%, or less. (Size estimates based on the screenshots you have provided).


 * Anyway, back to your original question: I am not getting everything I want. You are not getting everything you want.  You asked for the mediation.  To me, asking for a neutral third party to intervene in a situation is saying "I trust that you will find a neutral and unbiased solution to the issues at hand, and I will abide by them."  Is there any question that Mayalld is anything but thoroughly neutral?  I am relatively certain I have never crossed paths with him prior to this, and while I don't really want to go through your entire history, I'd be willing to bet that the same goes for you; I'm sure that had you had any sort of negative experience with Mayalld in the past, or had you found me to have had any particularly positive one, you would have (quite rightly!) asked for him to not mediate this matter.  Mayalld's decision was rendered based on, in no particular order:
 * Your statements and arguments
 * My statements and arguments
 * Various MOS policies
 * (I'm guessing) some chats with other uninvolved people
 * I am satisfied with Mayalld's decision, as I have said before, because I feel it is fair and equitable to both of us. To expand on that, I would like to further add: I also feel that it is fair and equitable because it is both neutral and unbiased.  Mayalld looked at the facts (as we presented them), the facts (as he saw them via his experimentations with layout), the facts (as presented by the MOS and other guidelines).  You started the process, I agreed to take part in it.  Again, to me, it seems that starting a process like this means implicitly agreeing to the outcome; you trusted enough that a neutral and unbiased person would hear the case, it therefore seems logical that you would trust that person to render a neutral and unbiased decision.  I'm not sure what else to say, really. Prince of Canadat 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not, I repeat: not, a matter of win and lose; mediation is a matter of achieving a win-win result through each side being willing to live with loss. Regardless, I've thought further on this over the last couple of days, and I've come to the realisation that why this opposition to images crossing lines sits so uneasily with me is that it is utterly unique to you, Prince. I've surveyed a fair number of random articles, and there were countless examples of images crossing lines; that's not to say that every article was formatted properly in terms of image placement, but clearly there aren't many other Wikipedia editors with personal biases against images sitting in one section having their bottom sit in the following. Thus, as with every other desired new change that is contested by one or more other editors, I think it's best for you to garner a consensus on this, at WT:MOS, perhaps. I am very confident that the implementation of any "regulation" at Monarchy of Canada will just add to confusion with any other formatting conflicts that happen on other articles. Though I'd hoped we'd work something out (and I actually think we have), what's left needs to be resolved in a more central location with more participants to offer the guidance and opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Err.. well, I think the only response I can give to that is: Mayalld made his recommendations based on already-extant MOS guidelines. Prince of Canadat 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All we've achieved here (though, not to belittle that achievement) is agreement on a number of guidelines to abide by from now on. There does remain, however, the issue of images crossing lines, which seems to be completely unique to you. One possible response to my above comment could be: Indeed, there is no problem with images crossing section divisions; that would bring this to an end. Alternatively, you could say: yes, I think seeking a consensus is a proper path. Nobody is speaking about breaking any MoS guidelines, just about whether or not to create some unofficial new one. --G2bambino (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, um, I'm not concerned about images spanning sections unless it impinges on the formatting of the next section, either via munging header placement (left-aligned) or via creating image stack (right-aligned). Dealing with left-aligned images is easy; clearleft does so handily. Right-aligned images similarly, depending on whether or not images are present in the following section(s).  Mayalld has shown these to be supported by MOS. So I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Prince of Canadat 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry then, I should have been more precise: where you are unique is an aversion to left-aligned images, and, more specifically, left-aligned images placed properly in a section but which could possibly span into the following section. The clearleft template may be allowable by the MoS, but an image crossing a section header is not disallowed by the MoS, and, as I said, is a common occurrence across Wikipedia. Thus, this idea that no left-aligned image can ever cross a section header is novel, and should only be established as a guideline, if it indeed must be, through consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er.. I never objected to right-aligned images spanning sections, unless they create image stack. Prince of Canadat 03:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC) redacted due to correction by G2. Prince of Canadat 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry; my error, and now corrected. It's been a tiring weekend. --G2bambino (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to reserve any further comment until Mayalld is back. Prince of Canadat 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --G2bambino (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will note here, though, that this (which is in regard to this) is not an action that helps us in this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was in reference to that? News to me. But if you want to start that sort of thing, I'd suggest that you have a look at your sandbox before you start accusing other people of being unhelpful. Prince of Canadat 04:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [De-indent] My sandbox is not a talk-page, does not make misrepresentations, and does not make any conclusions or judgements. --G2bambino (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, like the conclusion that you jumped to regarding my comment on lawe's page? I'm not going to engage in an argument here; think as you wish. Prince of Canadat 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to state the obvious: no conclusion can never be like a conclusion. It appears, however, that you have come to the conclusion that my above musings about seeking consensus for your new ban on left-aligned images crossing a section header are a fulfillment of Lawe's prophesy, which itself implies that I have rejected every and all suggestions made during this mediation. These couched claims about me, of course, are patently untrue. My sandbox, on the other hand, is nothing more than a collection of examples of bad behaviour. I had hoped that recent better relations meant an end to any need for half of that collection, but newer events have, disappointingly, caused me to re-think that conclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I will not have an argument here. You may think of my comment as you wish. I have not said or implied anywhere that you have rejected "every and all" suggestion made here.  Indeed, though I did not put it in anything close to nice terms, for which I apologize, I noted elsewhere that you had agreed to many things. How about this, as marks of good faith on both sides? I will remove the comment on lawe's talk page to which you object, and you will remove everything about me from your sandbox, as well as the (now, and thank you for this, generically-named) links to specific archives from your talk page?  All material within them is contained elsewhere within your archives as well as mine.  I'm going to preemptively remove the comment you object to, and assume good faith on your part that you will respond in kind. Prince of Canadat 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I am wrong about the meaning behind your message to him, then I apologise. However, in the absence of absolute proof of my error, I don't think any reservations I hold could be deemed irrational, as it appears to me that yours and Lawe's edit histories show neither of you having had any interaction other than where I am also involved, frequently as a common point of attack. Regardless, if it will move things forward, I will do as you request. --G2bambino (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on your rationality or lack of; that isn't something I am competent to opine on without knowing you in person. I will say, however, that drawing a conclusion without any proof whatsoever (e.g., "Hey, you said G2bambino is a dick, and lo and behold he is definitely a dick!") is  a pretty clear violation of AGF; in the absence of proof to the contrary it is incumbent upon you (and upon me, and I will freely stipulate that I have not always done so) to assume that the comment is made in good faith and is not an attack.  Or, another way: proof of good faith is not required to AGF; good faith is the default assumption. Proof is required to (coining a phrase?) ABF.  Do you understand where I'm coming from, there? Further, someone as enamored of logic as you are (again, not an attack) should recognize that proving a negative is inherently impossible. Prince of Canadat 05:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, adding: Thank you for the removal. Doing so speaks volumes about you. Prince of Canadat 05:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and likewise from me for your return gesture. I only speak generally when saying that assuming good faith is, of course, not the same as unconditionally believing good faith; I won't block or ignore anyone's attempts to show good faith on their part, but, I won't be naïve either, always looking for the proof of anyone's intentions in their actions. Hence, my opinion of someone is malleable, in either direction. In this regard, the pendulum for you is swinging back towards the positive side (where it was originally); I will only encourage further movement along this trajectory. --G2bambino (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Mediation Cabal has been unsuccessful? Then try Mediation Committee. If that don't work? ya know what comes next. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had hoped it wouldn't come to that; I had hopes that we would both be able to agree with the outcome of a mediation process he set in place. If needs must, I guess, but I hope that G2 will be able to agree to Mayalld's solution. Prince of Canadat 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines
G2,

I think that part of the issue here is that there is no single guideline that say "thou shalt not have images spanning sections"

Per WP:NOTLAW, we don't expect guidelines to be all embracing, and we don't use them as if they are. I draw your attention to the following guidelines that do touch on the issue, and which (in my view) can be reasonably taken to mean that images spanning sections are depracated more strongly than white space;
 * WP:ACCESS tells us that images should be inside a section
 * WP:PIC tells us that as a last resort we can use clear to avoid image stackup, although it produces white space

I am still looking for a compromise here, and am open to suggestions

Mayalld (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By no means am I calling it quits, or putting my foot (completely) down, or anything like that; you were right in your remark at the beginning of this mediation that this wouldn't be a swift process. It's just that, at this point in the exercise, I still see the balance as being tipped in favour of one party; I don't think I'm being unreasonable in feeling that to be unfair and proof that mediation has not been successfully completed. It seems to me what we have done, so far, is hone the matter down to a singular point, which is a good thing, and I'm glad we've achieved that. I would therefore also say that we shouldn't consider ourselves at the point where last resorts are necessary; it would seem that to do so would be forcing an unhappy end to this. --G2bambino (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From here...
I was going to make a summary of sorts here, but I now see the Mayalld has done the same, and better than I could have. In one of the lists there are a couple of things you, PoC, and I each do not agree on; going from the commentary on the main-space here, those would be: I think, however, that because of what you and I have agreed on, image stack will be avoided: ensuring that singular images alternate left and right down the page cannot, in my mind, produce image stacking. What does remain, as I see it, and I think Mayalld sees it, is a perceived problem on your part with left-aligned images crossing into following sections, pushing the header and opening text across the screen. However, as I pointed out in another section above, this is not at all an uncommon occurrence across Wikipedia. I thus agree with Mayalld in that, if you do want to pursue this, the next place to go is to WT:MOS to seek a consensus on any changes to the status-quo, which should be reinstated at Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of Barbados, until such time as changes are to be made, if any. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is really long, by which, we mean that the infobox is reasonably likely not to have completed at the point in the text where we would normally add a right-aligned image, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph. (PoC conditionally disagreed.)
 * Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections where there is a risk of image stack should be closed with {tl|{clear}} to ensure that even on odd browsers we don't get image stack. (G2 disagreed.)
 * Where an infobox may go right through a section, and we are using only left-aligned images, we should use clearleft rather than clear. (G2 disagreed.)