Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Scotland

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Scotland
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)date=10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parties involved	Unknown

What's the conflict?

There is currently divided opinion on the opening paragraph of this article. The majority wish for the paragraph to remain the same but there is minority support for some rewording to take place. A recent poll showed (6 opposes and 5 supports) to the proposal to reword the opening statement which relates to Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.

I was the person who made the original proposal for a change, a detailed explanation for the reasons why i think a change is justified and opinions of others on this issue can be found on the talk page from Talk:Scotland#Possible_rewording_of_the_opening_paragraph and the two sections after.

The basic change proposed is that the opening read "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom" or "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom" instead of the current wording "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom......"

This is my first time requesting informal mediation, sorry if i did not include all the required data and i hope someone can help us resolve this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... is there a source that Scotland is a "country in northwest Europe"? - that alone seems to be a Wikipedia neologism ([1]). --Jza84 | Talk 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the first stated "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom" which seems very very clear to me and i dont understand the objections, But some seem to think geography is more important than Scotlands legal status as a country so it seemed a reasonable compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism ? That's a word that has been recently coined isn't it? Which word were you thinking of: "Europe", "northwest", "in" or "country". Or perhaps you were thinking of the phrase "country in northwest Europe". It may well be new but we have to create new phrases and sentences for our articles in order to avoid accusations of plagiarism and copyright problems. So the fact that a phrase is unique to Wikipedia is hardly a problem as long as the phrase is clear and accurate. There are literally thousands of such phrases in use throughout the Wikipedia project. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conflict is actually not much to do with the actual wording in the article any more, and therein lies the problem. Editors (be they new or not) are coming along with proposals which long-standing editors are unwilling to consider because the text has been heavily discussed before. So the question, when grossly simplified, is do we at some stage "lock" articles, or do we not? Personally I think the best thing the mediators could do would be: firstly to find a way to stop people questioning the motives (and identity) of each other; secondly to establish whether the debate about the article is valid (per the "lock" point); and finally and crucially to help the conversation to focus on the relative merits of the various proposals for the article text. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that this and related issues just come up again, again and again with no new material or argument. Extensive (mediated) discussions on this were finally summarised at Countries of the United Kingdom. As to the vote most active editors didn't take part. If it had become serious I thing others would have joined. Personally I think having a lengthy period without this subject coming up would do everyone the world of good. Its also bad form to raise something here and NOT notify the talk page concerned that you have done so - something to note for the future BritishWatcher. --Snowded TALK 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear this is not to do with if Scotland is a country or not, the only issue is the wording of the opening sentence / paragraph of the Scotland article. That has had NO mediation on the issue, the mediation that took place on the wales article resulted in its current wording, something you have recently said you support. So i still fail to understand why you objected to my proposal for such a change to take place. On the issue of informing people about this request i said very clearly if someone else did not request it i would do it myself which i did the next day. Within one hour of making the request someone else had already linked it on the Scotland article anyway, its not like it was being hidden. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is something that should be invoked after you have made all effort to resolve it on the talk page. If you can only get a few editors engaged then you should persist or realise that you will not get people to buy in (mediation requires consent from the involved parties). You are coming across as "If I can't get my way I will escalate" and the threat of Arbcom on the talk page for a minor issue made this worse. Its very basic protocol to say that you are taking something to mediation (not just a general indication that you might) and to notify not only the talk page but the engaged editors if you do. Its simply not good enough to rely on other people to do it for you. --Snowded TALK 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little good will or presumption of good faith going on at the talk page. Editors failing to engage can be a quite passive-aggressive tactic... If anybody from the mediation cabal feels like at least taking an outside view and trying to help, what does anyone with good intentions have to be worried about? Hopefully nothing. Worst case scenario is it'll be a waste of time, but if that helps lay this to rest and reduce grievances, then all to the good. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that i did not create a new section in the talk page stating that i had requested informal mediation, i did not know it was required and as i stated this was the first time i had done it (one of the reasons why i asked for someone else to do it originally). In my opinion things were moving nowhere and views on the issue were divided. Some strongly supported some change, others offered weak opposes and in some of those cases simply attacked me rather than even considering my proposal. Its not like i rushed to request outside help a day after not getting my own way when everybody else disagreeed with me. It has almost been a month since i made my original request for some change to the opening paragraph. If nobody had agreed with me or quite a few people had strongly opposed the suggestion then i would of dropped the issue, but it is clear that quite a few editors do have a problem with things as they stand which is why i requested informal mediation. I never made a threat about going to arbcom, that was first mentioned by someone in response to my request. I recently said i was willing to take this to the next level (formal mediation) if nobody took this informal mediation case. Apart from not stating in a new section that i had actually requested informal mediation i dont understand what i have done wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ Look, you were not getting support in a time frame you found acceptable. You were also raising a subject that many people on that (and related pages) has discussed many, many times before and reached some form of compromise. Its also the case the the edit position you were adopted has frequently come from Unionist editors (ie with a declared political position as per your user page) often newly created IDs and you fell into the same pattern. Given the history of the page people would not be human if they were not concerned. Also I (and this just may be me) don't think it assumes good faith to run to mediation because you are not getting agreement to your position. Your position was a common one on many pages in Wikipedia and if mediation was called I all the time the mediation cabal would be the most edited page on WIkipedia. Patience and engagement, not appeal seems to me a better approach. The form of notification is something you now know - hopefully you will not need to use the knowledge in the future. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was giving more than enough time for some resolution to be reached, if the debate was ongoing with alot of activity then i would of continued to wait but sometime had passed with no progress being made. I read through all of the different options available and tried to follow the process by requesting informal mediation, this was the first thing on the list after conflict resolution between just two editors. I can totally understand why when i first made my request people considered i might be a "SPA" but i made very clear i wasnt that person and i laid out reasons why i thought a change was justified.

I originally had a different view of the term country, i read through the previous debate which i agree there had been lots of and agreed there was no better way of describing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than just as Countries. There is just no conensus made on the current wording, i looked through the archives, almost all the debate has been about if Scotland is a country or if its a constituent country, there was very little on the wording AFTER "country". Most of the suggestions made in those previous debates included "part of the United Kingdom" after stating Scotland was a country.

I also do not see the political problem with what i am suggesting. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, this can not be disputed. There is a sentence in the opening section of the Scotland page saying Scotlands constitutional future gives rise to debate (which i agree should stay there until 2010), but that is far more political than trying to have United Kingdom in the opening line. This is another reason i thought informal mediation would help, if we could get someone from outside of the United Kingdom to give a neutral view. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried unsuccessfully in the past, to bring the Scotland article into line with the England, Northern Ireland & Wales articles. Anyways, Snowded is correct, this Med Cab is premature. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay and I have shared that objective and we might get there at least for a bit! BritishWatcher, you are a new editor and you have a declared political position and want to edit pages associated with that position. Nothing wrong in that, but you need to be aware of that. The arguments above are not about the validity or otherwise of your views, but about initiating a Med Cab so early in the process with so few editors involved and/or an attempt to threaten people with bringing in "authority". Its worth learning from and most of us are (I think/hope) just trying to help out a new editor by suggesting you don't pull things into mediation just because you don't like where the content is going. I suggest you withdraw the request and move on. --Snowded TALK 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only political position is that i support the country in which i currently live, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have not hidden this fact, i have made it perfectly clear my views on this matter. I find it hard to believe that most editors on country articles are against that country or seek its destruction. There is nothing political at all about wanting to move part of a sentence "which is part of the United Kingdom" to the first sentence instead of it being in the second sentence. If by doing that we are in some way being "political" and "pro union", it suggests that current wording is anti union and also unacceptable.

I have been focused on country pages and lists because i am interested in such things. None of my edits or requests have attempted to make an article bias in favour of my political position. I am interested in many subjects, countries and international lists are of interest to me as they have been the main thing i have used wikipedia for in the past few years. Wikiguides make it very clear most editors start out on such subjects of interest to them and then branch out. I have never threatened anyone nor do i intend to, i have simply been trying to follow the process laid out in Dispute resolution. It is not like i sent in complaints about certain editors who have simply attacked me for no just reason, i have ignored such attacks. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution does it even suggest how long someone should wait before going to informal mediation. Over 3 weeks of getting no where when there is clearly divided opinion seemed like a reasonable amount of time to take before requesting or seeking some outside help.

The fact so many editors appear to of wanted change for some time, in my opinion justifies the request for informal mediation. Should disputes be allowed to go on for months or even years before real progress is actually made? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night it looked like this problem was going to be resolved so i started to look for a way to withdraw the request and close it. However somebody objected to the change so i dont know if progress is going to be made. I will withdraw my request when the problem is resolved, i see no reason to withdraw it until then. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to adjourn the case, pending discussion on Talk:Scotland? --Jza84 | Talk 12:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make it simple. As one of the involved parties I don't think there is any current case for mediation and I will not accept it. Its premature and also seems to be based on the assumption that if BritishWatcher doesn't get what they want then someone else should be pulled into support them. The responses above and the threat to go higher on the page itself do not bode well. BritishWatcher, I really think you should spend a bit more time learning how things work around here. --Snowded TALK 12:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people think that some resolution to the issue can be made in the next few weeks then i have no problem withdrawing this or adjourning it for that period of time. When i requested this no progress was being made, nobody else was joining in with the debate it was going over the same ground with people sticking to their same points of view and i failed to see how anything would be solved in such a case. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However i strongly reject the claim made that i have done something wrong. I have tried to follow the policies stated on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nowhere on that page does it talk about amount of time that should be given before seeking informal mediation. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ Ah well, you can take a horse to water .... --Snowded TALK 13:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you describe the editors on both sides of the debate, yourself included, not just BritishWatcher. Do you genuinely believe "I will not accept mediation" puts you in a position to tell somebody "how things work around here"? – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Kieran (I restored the formatting). I've been involved in mediation a couple of times and got frustrated when people refused to engage (most recently with Matt). However mediation was invoked only after multiple attempts to resolve content issues, and generally to deal with antagonisms between editors rather than content disputes. If you look at Arbcom you will see they do not accept content disputes, that is for the editors to sort out. So if someone runs to the mediators too soon I think its wrong and I will say so, refusing mediation on premature referrals is one way to prevent trolling (to take one example). --Snowded TALK 13:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible this Med Cab may not be required. A consensus seems to be formulating at the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has now been resolved so there is no need for informal mediation. I would like to close this case, not sure how to do that though thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]