| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Time |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Stevertigo ( w |
| Mediator(s) | Hipocrite ( talk) |
| Comment | Parties did not agree to mediate. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Dispute is at Time and Talk:Time, with some spillover into Time in physics and Talk:Time in physics. There was also some follow-me activity on the Punishment article. In an unrelated case, User:Modocc has been following my edit activity, after encountering me only recently at Talk:Universal reconciliation.
Who is involved?
- Other
- User:Peterdjones - constructive
What is the dispute?
The main dispute is between JimWae and I, I being a newcomer to the article seeking to rewrite the lead section in accord with a general conceptual overview of time. Time, in my view is too broad to simply leave to its extant mechanical introduction, and too grounded in physics to leave to a philsosophical approach. JimWae supported keeping the previous version, a version he worked on and which has endured for some time now, but which takes the approach of saying not what time is, but simply that time is something measurable. Its an odd combination of subjective philosophical "unrealism" and a dependence on engineering concepts like measurement and mechanics - "time is what a clock says." I suggested to JimWae that his writing served well as a secondary sentence - the first sentence belonging to a simple statement about what time actually is, followed by JimWae's treatment of what people conceive about time and how they give it dimension - ie. measurement.
Jim filed an RFC at Talk:Time and we got User:Steve Quinn, who appears to have some physics knowledge, but advocates for an entirely non-philosophical introduction. Though largely one of philosophical approach, JimWae does not argue with Steve Quinn on this point, probably because SQ acts as a foil to me. User:DVdm has entered the discussion with a few points, and likewise promotes a mechanical ("time is what clocks say") view.
The issue of OR is often raised by JimWae and Steve Quinn in particular, and is a red herring. The writing I proposed is 80% sourced to the source provided, while the versions they propose are not. DVdm attempted a rewrite, and Quinn claimed that his version was "sourced" but I showed that DVdm's entire four-sentence paragraph lede was "sourced" only to a handbook on engineering. Much of the discussion follows this pattern, and JimWae in large part is guilty of taking OWNership of the article, and of being unnecessarily adversarial to the point of destroying any consensus.
Note
(crossposted to my talk page) I made this request a month ago. There is currently no dispute at time AIUI. Parties on both sides agreed to a single new lead sentence that generalizes the topic, dealing in large part with the concept of a "continuum." - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 02:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
To see the time article written with a conceptual overview as the lede.
How do you think we can help?
By interjecting some common sense, and sorting valid from invalid argumentation.
Mediator notes
I'm happy to mediate this, as long as all parties find me acceptable. I am certain we can reach a resolution satisfactory to all. Please confirm my acceptance. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 14:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Steve Quinn opening statement
First, Hipocrite, thanks for taking this one. I think you are boldly going where no one has dared to tread before. You may see why, depending on how this discussion goes. My only condition for participating in this is that User:Modocc, User:JimWae, and User:DVdm also participate in this mediation process. Also, User:Stevertigo it is nothing personal, but please do not contact me on my talk page when you have a new entry here. I will be able to keep up on my watchlist.
I am supposing the actual discussion will take place in the section below. Thanks for contacting me, and I accept Hipocrite as mediator. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a version of the introduction you see as "ideal?" If so, could you link it, so I can get an understanding of how far the parties are from each other? Hipocrite ( talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Remark by DVdm
Thanks for the offer, but this discussion has died some 6 or 7 weeks ago by "consensus with the exception of Stevertigo who prefers his personal OR". Anyway, perhaps it's a good idea to wait for the outcomes of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stevertigo_2 DVdm ( talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Per this and the above, I'm closing this request. If parties decide it is worth mediation in the future, please change the status from "closed" to "open" in the template, or contact me. Best of luck! Hipocrite ( talk) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)