Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 alumni link

Mediation Case: 2006-06-16 alumni link[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Tony 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Talk:Sydney_Technical_High_School and the related article.

Who's involved?: The main players: enochlau, Andrew Jens. Possible secondary players: Blnguyen, Sumple, Grumpyyoungman01, Winterelf, and many others. (I hope I've got the hierarchy correct.)

I guess I'm mixed in there as a secondary, but I really couldn't care less about the issue, and have bowed out after a few early, unpleasant exchanges on the talk page, after which I was bullied on my talk page (now archived) by one of the admins who are connected with the page. I'm happy to stay out of it—but whatever is best for the mediation process.

What's going on?: Andrewjens is a pre-existing friend of mine, who has coincidentally just become a WPian. He inserted an external link to a web site for his cohort of ex-students from 1984, which was promptly reverted by enochlau. There's been something verging on an edit war about it, and a LOT of nastiness generated on the article talk page and the talk pages of some of the parties. (And as I write this, there we go again, another step in the edit war, I see.)

I think that enochlau and associated WPs are being high-handed, particularly considering that andrew is a new WPian. Instead of explaining their motives, there was a unilateral reversion and failure to discuss it, at least initially. Andrew hasn't helped the matter (IMHO) by writing uncompromising, personal statements. Now there's a lot of that going on; the situation has escalated over the past day.

As a relatively experienced WPian, I'm a little concerned that the admins here are not calming waters as they're supposed to, but appear to be doing the opposite. In addition, I raised concerns on the talk page about whether enochlau went through the proper channels to have the article semiprotected (apparently this has occurred more than once), but received no reply on the matter.

What would you like to change about that?: Calm everyone down; negotiate a compromise; encourage mutual apologies; sort out what should happen about the link.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: Not necessary. I'm listing this for mediation because the fracas appears to be detrimental to WP, and has caused a lot of stress (perhaps even depression), at least on andrew's part; he's too upset to list this himself for mediation. He has agreed that you might contact him (rather than me) in relation to mediation.

Mediator response[edit]

Alright. I've messaged all whom I believe might have an interest in this case, inviting them to a civil and good-natured discussion. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, and bear in mind that I personally reserve the right, on this page, to edit any post I deem to be a flame, at my discretion as mediator. Now, if we could all please start by posting something to the effect of: "I realize that this issue has led a few of us to get hotheaded. I would like reaffirm my dedication to a healthy Wikipedia by stating my commitment to resolving this issue in a calm and civil manner," somewhere in the compromise or discussion sections. Luna Santin 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially relevant pages, in reverse the order I attended to them:

Luna Santin 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Two users edge on 3RR[edit]

3RR violation by Andrewjens and Enochlau

evidence

Neither of you has actually violated 3RR, yet, but from looking at this anybody could tell you that we're heading down the wrong road, towards a nasty edit war and all that entails. Let's try to avoid any more of that, shall we?

Luna Santin 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

"I realize that this issue has led a few of us to get hotheaded. I would like reaffirm my dedication to a healthy Wikipedia by stating my commitment to resolving this issue in a calm and civil manner,". --AndrewJens 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple made it personal with his comment "Why is User:Andrewjens editing a post by an (allegedly) anon prefect?" (on User_talk:Enochlau). Enochlau also made it personal very early on with his "sock puppet" comments. I (and many others) would simply like to know under which Wikipedian guidelines Enochlau has removed an external link? This issue was addressed very thoroughly by user Winterelf in the "Alumni Link" section of the Talk:Sydney_Technical_High_School page (the large table). So far, neither Sumple nor Enochlau have made any attempt to address the point(s) raised by myself, winterelf, and others. What they have done is stubbornly just remove the external link without justification. My compromise - I will desist with my reinsertion of the external link if Enochlau can adequately address the points raised by Winterelf --AndrewJens 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not heavily involved in this as I don't have a strong opinion either way. I realise that both parties are doing what they think is right or good for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The article in question has not become a random vanity link depository and isn't in danger of doing do. After some discussion on Andrewjens' talk page I think that a link such as that can be a useful inclusion as it is relevant to article, even if it isn't exactly 'authoritative' or 'encyclopedic' (debateable as to what exactly one considers encyclopedic). For a solution to this dispute, a good outcome would be if Andrewjens could have the link inserted and that all of the people in favour of removal of the link where satisfied that in doing so, the integrity of the the article as an encyclopedia entry was not compromised.

I suggest that to accomplish this Andrewjens could insert some text in the article, about a paragraph long, which could then be cited with the external link to the class of 1984 page. I don't know what that text could be, but I think it may be the only way to a mutually beneficial outcome. Grumpyyoungman01 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable. I really didn't want to interfere too much with the main article (not being currently in day-to-day contact with the school). Hence my simple addition of an external link. If someone else can suggest some suitable text, I'd be willing to go with this suggestion.--AndrewJens 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisly the suggestion made on the article's talk page. I agree with it - let's do it and get over this. This issue has been blown out of all proportions. enochlau (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the site as a reference rather than as an external link[edit]

One suggestion I made on the talk page a couple of days ago was to incorporate any verifiable information from the site (and there certainly is some good information on the site) into the text of the article and use the site as a reference, rather than as a bare link. That way the article is improved, readers can easily visit the site if they choose, and the impression that the link is gratuitous or has been added for vanity purposes can be avoided.

The only problem I foresee is that some parts of the site consist merely of scanned pages from the school's yearbooks or journals or magazines, in which case there may be copyright issues. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the reference rather than external link compromise, and agree with bainer re copyright. I'm glad such a medium as the mediation cabal exists so that everyone can listen to other people's points calmly, instead of resorting to childish name-calling. That's all I have to say, really. Cheers. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm impressed -- for the most part, we've avoided some of the vitriol I was expecting, here, and there seems to be real progress toward what appears to be a fair resolution. Only one edit war, and a minor complication came up with somebody stumbling in (which I should take the blame for, really; I should have noted this discussion at the article's main talk page; I'll go and do that immediately after this). If you guys do want outside input, I think that using the site as a reference link (instead of as an external link) is very effective; it appears that the site has a nice, ripe amount of potential article material. Citing the page instead of linking to it does, as was mentioned, improve on the article (new information!) without any lingering appearance of link advertising -- using the site as a reference lets any observer know that there is relevant information at the site, which I would hope should vastly reduce the chances of this coming up again.

It appears that the remaining task is to find the relevant material. If everyone agrees, I'll encourage you guys to do that on your own, or through use of the article's talk page, but I'd have no complaints if you do it here. Especially, feel free to bring things here, if the situation takes a turn for the worse. In the (I think unlikely) event that nobody can find a relevant passage, I would at this time recommend against adding the link to externals, as it was before; that just opens up the issue for another edit war. Better to find a relevant passage.

And just so that we're abundantly clear, here: is there anyone at this point who doesn't support the use of the website as a reference? Luna Santin 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to nominate some material from the '84 site that may be of general interest rather than being particular to the class of '84. I don't remember the school ever claiming copyright for the journal or TechTalks during the period 1979 to 1984 - I could check in a couple of days. And the nominations are: • Any material under the first menu item "Shool" plus it's subheadings (Old Boys etc.), but perhaps the "links" item may be a little contentious. • The "Staff" "photos" section under "Misc. 1979 - 1984" has some excellent informal images of teachers, some of whom were at the school for over 20 years. •Each year heading (E.g. "In 1979 Year 7") has a set of formal staff photographs scanned from the journals - including a year's photos would give a useful snapshot. This is just one opinion - I don't have any experience of editing websites so others will have to work on it. Rhysw 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to claim copyright, it is automatic. Copyright might be held by the school, or it might be held by the students or teachers who contributed. Either way, when considering material lifted from school publications, it would probably be easier to reference those publications directly. --bainer (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it's all complicated by the fact that we're working with publications created around two decades ago. You do raise some legitimate concerns, but as I'm currently in the business of trying to find solutions, I'll brainstorm a few ideas, in order from what I think is least likely to work, to possibly best. First, the most obvious, can we let the problem slide? Second, does the website still have relevance as an easily verified copy of these articles? Third, is there a way someone could contact the school and ask for permission to use the scanned documents, on the alumni website and/or as a reference for Wikipedia? I'm very much open for ideas or suggestions, and also torn -- I'm really liking the current compromise, but also concerned about copyright issues. Luna Santin 10:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one find an article's references? I can't immediatley see any references in the STHS WP article - are there any? I'm trying to get a feel for how easy any references will be to find once they are inserted. Rhysw 10:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is both easier and harder than it sounds, in my experience. There's a quick guide to it at Help:Footnotes (or a more advanced version at Wikipedia:Footnotes). Basically, you open a "ref" HTML tag immediately after the sentence you're using the reference for (place tag after punctuation), give the reference a citation, and then close the "ref" tag. Towards the bottom of the article (in a References section you just placed, per WP:MOS and in particular WP:GTL), place an HTML tag that reads "references/". You can see an example of that at (*pulls out of a hat*) the Jay Robert Nash article, if you open it up for editing. Feel free to drop a message off at my talk page if you need any help past that; took me more than a few tries to get at all used to it. Luna Santin 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Discussion[edit]

Can someone explain why the STHS Class of 84 link isnt allowed on the STHS page when there are external links that are not in any way encyclopaedic on these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronulla_Sharks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George-Illawarra_Dragons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wests_Tigers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parramatta_Eels

Is Wikipedia going to remove the links in these pages?

Yes Enochlau, now that the external link ("The 1Eyed Shark: Sharks News, Views & Blogs") link at the bottom of the Cronulla_Sharks article has been brought to you attention, when will you be removing it? If you think you got a hard time with 'Techies', wait till you touch the fan site of a rugby league team. Time to stand up for what you believe in, or time to realise that Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britanica? --AndrewJens 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch those articles, so although I might disagree with some of those links, I won't exactly do anything about them. 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But do you now see why those sort of links enhance a Wikipedia article (certainly for many readers, if not yourself)? I'm sort of hoping that you'll learn something out of this mess.--AndrewJens 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to show that the 1984 link had much to offer the wider world and was not merely a link of interest to the few who were in Year 12 in 1984. Eventually there was an offer by the administrators to look again at the '84 site and put some of the valuable material into the main article. I replied something like "Please try to make sure you get all the good bits. If that's too hard perhaps you could put in a link to them:)" in the hope of showing that it would take a lot of editorial sensitivity (especially after some recent exchanges) and effort, and also that it might significantly alter the emphasis of the main WP article. My earlier entry is on Enoch Lau's talk page- I'll assume that I don't need to copy it here. Rhysw 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) minor typos (again!) corrected Rhysw 01:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel distant from the subject of the dispute, so my input is probably not critical. I apologise for any offence I may have caused to enochlau by referring to him by a different user name. I do hope that everyone can forget and move on from the dispute, because they all seem to have valuable and unique attributes that WP needs. Tony 02:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on? Now someone new has entered the fray - User:Bunchofgrapes has just removed the link again (how co-incidental). Please leave the link there as there has been far more support for the inclusion (at least 3 to 1 in favour), then for exclusion. What we need now is someone to add the paragraph that somehow magically supports the link being there. If no one has done it in the next couple of days, then I'll have a go.--AndrewJens 03:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you can't just keep edit warring. It's much better to leave be until the inclusion or non-inclusion of the link is resolved here. Bunchofgrapes is an experienced WP who is unconnected with the topic. He appears to have reverted as a procedural act; it's not one-sided in this dispute. Tony 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to your friend, Andrew. Also, please stop distorting the numbers - the link has no such support as a link by itself. As a reference, we're all for it now. enochlau (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enochlau, in exchange, I'd be delighted if you could be a little understanding of Andrew's angle. He's new, and one of the most valuable things admins can do is to induct new WPs, as difficult as that might be on occasion. Tony 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, hello. I didn't know this mediation was going on, or I probably wouldn't have dipped my toe in the waters there. But as long as I'm here, I'll comment: the comprimise that's being suggested is a good one. If the site offers any of the kind of information that belongs in that article, then including that information and using the site as a reference makes perfect sense. Linking generically to a "class of '84" site for the school, as has been done up to this point, smacks -- unintentionally I hope -- of web site promotion, which is broadly speaking what the common sense notions behind WP:EL are out to avoid. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the request placed on my user talk. I'm happy to participate here.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]