The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Tryptofish (talk · contribs) – filing party
- EEng (talk · contribs)
- ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs)
- John (talk · contribs)
- John Vandenberg (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- How should the article best be written, so as to be an encyclopedia page, rather than a scholarly study, resembling good Wikipedia pages such as featured articles?
- How should the page balance different sources when those sources disagree? In particular, how should the page present source material written by MacMillan and collaborators, relative to source material by other authors?
- How should the page be written and formatted, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with regard to footnotes and formatting templates?
- Note to MedCom by Tryptofish, about participation of other parties: I've invited four other editors to participate. Of those four, I think that EEng's participation is critical to the success of this mediation, and there would be no point in accepting my request without his participation. If it comes to it, I think a mediation with just EEng, me, and a mediator would be very productive. ChrisGualtieri is the principal editor who disagrees with EEng, so his participation would be very desirable, but I probably understand his views. I've invited John and John Vandenberg, who have been less central to the dispute, and whose views tend to be opposite to one another, because I think that their participation would be helpful, but it is not essential.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- I am travelling to regional Indonesia the next two days, but I will try to track this request. As I have said on the article talk, I do not think mediation is not appropriate yet, and that is actually what I would call a 'primary' issue here. Tryptofish is trying to make this about EEng vs ChrisGualtieri, unnecessarily personalising the dispute. They just want sanctions if the article doesnt say what they want it to say, and formatted the way they want it formatted. EEng has engaged MOS numerous times to get feedback on formatting, and afaik there is only one instance where he wasnt following the MOS itself as written, or feedback received from the MOS regulars. On the content side of things, 3O's and RFC's have not been used to bring more contributors into the discussion to help guide the article through critical decision points. As an example, currently a very significant part of this 'dispute' is whether Fleischman's work should be used as a source; that question has only had light attention so far on the talk page, and needs more discussion, and the appropriate forum like WP:RSN consulted if local consensus can't be found. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tryptofish, I think your list of issues covers the field well. But #2 if by far the most important (being about content, not style or formatting) and whether here or back on Talk:PG, I would suggest that #1 and #3 be put aside until #2 is resolved, because #2 affects the others strongly but not vice-versa
- That said, though I'm open to persuasion I agree with CG and JVDB [1] that mediation is premature.
- For example, the current discussion on Talk:PG (re burial of the iron) is spot on to issue #2. A week ago I pointed to a guideline I thought would help us resolve those issues [2] and I repeated the suggestion in more detail two days later [3]. You haven't yet acknowledged those posts and yet suddenly you're suggesting mediation.
- EEng (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- EEng: Just for the record, I did respond to those posts of yours, just not to your liking. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Agree. Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the Mediation Committee: With my sincere thanks for your availability to have helped, please let me withdraw this request for mediation, and please mark it declined as withdrawn. I guess that one cannot help people who do not wish to be helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.