Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson

Welcome to Community enforceable mediation. This page is for Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) to discuss their differences and reach an agreement. Other interested parties, please post to the outside comment page. The mediator Navou may move or refactor comments at either page as appropriate.

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)

Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

►Chris Nelson 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator acceptance

I'm ready to mediate. If both parties could state the dispute for the Template. Navou ^banter 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To expand, there are other outstanding issues, but we never had the opportunity to hash them out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm really only here to have the Pro Bowl links issue mediated, since it's been the biggest and longest-running one. Also, I'll probably write out my argument for the mediator if it gets picked up, but that probably won't be until Thursday.►Chris Nelson 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Do both parties understand WP:CEM and its associated faq? Navou ^banter 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Just noticed the signed request.[reply]

What is in dispute behind the pro bowl links template? Navou ^banter 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on outlining this in my argument. Jmfangio can reply for now he if wants. I think basicaly, I want to link Pro Bowls as we had been doing it in the old infobox for the most part. That is, linking to the correct Pro Bowl but having the link show the year of the regular season. (Ex. [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]]). See Junior Seau for this example in action. Jmfangio, I believe, feels that keeping both years identical, as in [[2007 Pro Bowl|2007]] is just as valid. As a compromise, Jmfangio wants only the number of Pro Bowl selections (see Brett Favre for an example).

I plan on outlining my reasoning in detail so I'd like to do that before any decision is made. Do you mind if I don't reply in depth until Thursday? I'm swamped with studying.►Chris Nelson 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no problem at all. I don't think we are in any particular rush. I'm going to go ahead and open this, I'll let you know on the talk page where we will be doing this. Navou ^banter 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little more to my post, see above.►Chris Nelson 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main dispute occurred over the pro bowl issue. There are also some other issues that affect this mediation and the ability to have reasonable conversations moving forward. I would be happy to restate my observations of these problems. You can also view them at the talk page for the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmfangio (talk • contribs).

It might be helpful to restate them (the issues) briefly so that they can be identified. Navou ^banter 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really here to discuss other "issues". I was under the impression this was only about the Pro Bowl issue. Nothing else has gotten to such an insane level. (Not on his part, just in general). I won't be discussing anything other than the Pro Bowl issue here though.►Chris Nelson 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would keep things simple. Jmfangio, ok with limiting this mediation to the probowl issue? Navou ^banter 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean I'm not saying I won't discuss other issues at all, but I wasn't really expecting to address anything else here and honestly I'm not even sure what these other issues are off the top of my head. But after this thing's done I'll put forth the effort to discuss anything else in a civil manner to we don't have to do this again. In my mind this is the only issue that absolutely needs mediation.►Chris Nelson 04:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the see also section? I will agree to focus only on the "pro bowl" issue provided that once that is solved, the other issues I have with the other party, (WP:OWN, WP:NPA) do not return. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPA issue I can do, although we're both guilty in that regard even if I have more of them under my belt. As for WP:OWN, to this day I don't believe I violated it so I can't promise you won't think I violate it in the future. I guess we'll cross that road if we come to it.►Chris Nelson 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post my whole argument tomorrow, I promise.►Chris Nelson 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument (Chrisjnelson)

First, I will explain the debate as I see it. I believe in listing out Pro Bowl years in a players’ infobox. Further, I believe that the link should look something like this [[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]], or in other words, the link should show the regular season year and link to the Pro Bowl that took place the following calendar year. Jmfangio feels that this is confusing to some, and that there is an equally valid argument to keep the years the same, as in [[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. As a compromise, he feels all infoboxes should only list the number of total Pro Bowl selections, as in "Pro Bowl (x8) or something to that effect. It is my belief that the two sides Jmfangio feels to be valid are not in fact equal. It is my intent to show that my style of edit, the kind in my first example, is much more valid and accurate than the alternative (listing the year the Pro Bowl took place), and thereby showing a "compromise" to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that linking Pro Bowl years as I do has been a fairly common practice here at Wikipedia, and that this dispute only arose with this new template on which I collaborated with Jmfangio. To get a visual idea of each side, see these:

Junior Seau – This is my style of edit in use. Each year link shows the year of the regular season, but links to the correct Pro Bowl.

[1] – this is the side Jmfangio feels has equal validity to my own. You can see that years shown are identical to the ones in each Pro Bowl linked.

Brett Favre – this is Jmfangio’s compromise in use. Only the number of Pro Bowl selections is shown, with no individual years.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying Jmfangio's method is wrong. What I'm saying is that the first example is a totally satisfactory edit and therefore has more depth than Jmfangio's suggested edit.

Now, a basic explanation as to why I link the Pro Bowls the way I do. As you may or may not know, the NFL's regular season begins in September and runs through the end of the year, usually culminating in early January. The Pro Bowl occurs in early February, after the postseason and Super Bowl. Therefore, the years of the regular season and corresponding Pro Bowl are not identical, but rather the Pro Bowl is in the calendar year after any given season.

Please note that I am not arguing against the naming of Pro Bowl articles or how they are referred. The 2007 Pro Bowl was in fact the one played this past February, and I think we can all agree on that fact. It should always be referred to as the 2007 Pro Bowl, and the same line of thinking goes for any Pro Bowl. But what I am saying is that, when listing Pro Bowl years in a player’s infobox, one is not referring to the game itself. Rather, the years are there to list the SELECTIONS of that individual player. I personally feel that a list of Pro Bowl years in a player infobox is basically a sentence saying “Player X was select to the Pro Bowl in this season, this season, this season, etc.” In that case, the year should correspond with the regular season in which the player earned the Pro Bowl selection.

For example: In the 2006 regular season, Peyton Manning was rewarded with a selection to the 2007 Pro Bowl. However, the regular season for which he earned he selection, and the selection process itself, occurred in 2006. As evidence, here is a link, dated December 18, 2006, stating that "The teams will be announced at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 19 on NFL Network." This proves that the selection for the 2007 Pro Bowl began, and was completed, during the 2006 season.

This is why it is factually inaccurate to list 2007 in Peyton Manning' infobox under Pro Bowl selections. He has not played in the 2007 regular season, and no voting or selecting has taken place in 2007. Peyton Manning was in fact a Pro Bowl selection in 2006, and played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. His selection was a REWARD for the 2006 season, and without that season he could not have played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. Essentially, it was the 2006 regular season that earned him the reward of a Pro Bowl selection – a selection which occurred in 2006 as shown by the link provided.

I must say I am astounded this has even become such a giant issue, because those that follow or cover the sport nearly always refer to it the way I do. Here are some examples of player bios on official NFL team websites, and how they convey the Pro Bowl information:

Peyton Manning – Colts.com bio – The very first sentence states: “Started 16 games for ninth consecutive season in 2006 and earned seventh career Pro Bowl selection (1999-2000, 2002-06).” A look at the season-by-season highlights shows that these years mentioned in the first sentence correspond with regular seasons, NOT years of Pro Bowls.

Michael Vick - AtlantaFalcons.com bio – The first section has a paragraph which states “Earned his second consecutive and third overall Pro Bowl nod in 2005” and the 2002, 2004 and 2005 seasons sections all indicate that the Pro Bowl selections occurred during these regular seasons.

Jason Taylor – MiamiDolphins.com bio – Not far down this page, there is a section that states “CAREER PRO BOWL SELECTIONS: 5 (2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).” As you can see by looking at the year-by-year highlights, these years correspond to regular seasons, not Pro Bowl years.

Brian Urlacher – ChicagoBears.com bio – in the first paragraph there is a sentence that states: “Fifth player in franchise history to receive Pro Bowl selections in each of his first 4 NFL seasons.” This sentence’s wording clearly goes along with my style of edit, and there is further support of this on that page for you to see but I feel this is sufficient.

Ray Lewis – BaltimoreRavens.com bio – Various evidence to support my kind of edit, for example: “Ray earned his 5th consecutive Pro Bowl in 2001 when he led the NFL in tackles (196).” Again, using the regular season year when referring to the selection.

I could go on and on, and if you are still unsure I urge you to look up any former Pro Bowler on any official team website and I’ll wager you’ll find more of the same. Google something like “earned Pro Bowl selection” and see what you find. I did, and what I found were various news articles from all kinds of sources referring to selections by the season. From ESPN to Yahoo to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This is common practice. The Pro Bowl may be the year after the regular season, but Pro Bowl selections refer to regular seasons themselves.

Furthermore, consider every postseason NFL award. Consider National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award, National Football League Rookie of the Year Award, National Football League Most Valuable Player Award or National Football League Comeback Player of the Year Award. Every award. Each is announced early in the new calendar year, following the regular season from the previous calendar year. Here is an article announcing Jason Taylor earning the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year Award. It is dated January 5, 2007. Nevertheless, it is called the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year Award, because it is a reward for the 2006 season. A Pro Bowl selection is no different. The honor is "received" (or in the Pro Bowl's case, played) in 2007, but the award is given as a reward for a 2006 performance. Personally, I feel this part of the argument alone is reason enough why my kind of edit is perfectly fine and perhaps the most accurate.

I believe Jmfangio’s objection to my method is that that it is confusing to the common reader. On this, I disagree. The common reader will see the years of selection and will, I believe, naturally assume it was those regular seasons that he was selected in. (Especially if they are unsure of when the Pro Bowl takes place.) But if he clicks on the links, he will also be taken to the correct Pro Bowl for those selections. I will admit that occasionally, someone will see my kind of edit in place and will change the years to match each Pro Bowl. But I do not believe it occurs enough to warrant tossing out years all together. I for one am willing to watch these pages, revert them if someone unknowingly changes the years to be incorrect, and I am also willing to post on their talk pages explaining why the original edit was correct. I do not believe that we should avoid putting in accurate information on the chance an uninformed person might come along every once in a while and change it. If we did that, there would be no Wikipedia. You could probably find articles here that contain edits I don't understand the reasoning behind, but does that mean they should not be there? Wikipedia is meant, at least I think, to inform, and my edit is the most informative and accurate of the three aforementioned methods.

I’m not saying Jmfangio’s compromise of “Pro Bowl selection (x8)” is wrong. It’s not, and there’s nothing wrong with it. If a guy's been to eight Pro Bowls, he's been to eight Pro Bowls. This is fact, and informative. But it is my belief that having the years in the infoboxes enhances the articles, and as I have shown they are factually accurate and can be sourced as well. My proposal is to basically continue what we’ve been doing. This has been pretty standard practice for years and I see no reason to discontinue it based on what I feel is one person’s misunderstanding of the situation. (I've also hear no other member of the community speak out against my style of edit.) No offense to you, Jmfangio, but I do feel you are incorrect in saying both my way and the way with matching years are equal. I believe my arguments above pretty much debunk the latter method. If there were differing and equally valid views on how to list years, then Jmfangio’s compromise would definitely be satisfactory. And I suppose I can live with it if he ends up being favored in this mediation. It has not been my goal to disparage Jmfangio's valid compromise, but only to show that my edits are completely legitimate, accurate and informative. Thank you.►Chris Nelson 05:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't read that. It's pretty simple: People debate whether or not the pro bowls should be displayed by year of the game or by year of the "regular season". This has been confirmed numerous times. In order to eliminate the "debate", I have proposed that we simply note the number of times a person was voted/played in the game. If someone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears, but again, as others have confirmed: there is a great deal of "variety" when one looks at the pro bowl issue. Simplifying the information is the way to go. Both sides are correct, that is why a compromise is needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to read it if you're going to offer comments on it, because a lot of the argument is about why both sides are not correct and how there is actually very little variety when it comes to this. You don't have to read it, although I hope Navou will.►Chris Nelson 05:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - I've read enough of your recent comments on the talk page to understand where you are coming from. You believe you are correct and that everyone else is wrong. I appreciate your perspective, but many people have been inclined to disagree with you. You continue to assert WP:OWN and I feel my response is short and to the point. I will be happy to quote the numerous number of "independent" arguments made that support finding an unbiased solution. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then. I guess there's nothing left than to wait for the decision.►Chris Nelson 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion break

I do appreciate the open dialog between the both of you. It seems that both editors see each others viewpoint. Is there a way to reach a mutual compromise? There are a good deal of options available at this juncture. What we must avoid is reversions of a particular version of the template. So, if I understand the debate, what is being discussing is the particular notation style of the year. Fangio has suggested Abstraction of the information. In some cases, full abstraction can be misleading, or uninformative, in other cases abstraction is simpler, and a better way to present information. I encourage both parties to explore any set of compromises.

Also of note, community enforceable mediation, means, both of you may mutually agree on any type of ArbCom style remedies to include, revert limiting, editing restrictions, template parole, etc, or no restrictions at all. In order to keep the dispute from happening between the participants of community enforceable mediation.

The goal of this mediation is two assist both editors in reaching a mutual solution.

Let focus on trying to reach a mutual solution... Any ideas? Navou ^banter 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I thought that's how it worked. I came here because we were unable to agree. I believe I have proven my method to be totally accurate and acceptable, while he does not. I'm not budging on this, and I suspect he isn't either. So now what?►Chris Nelson 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also just like to say that as it stands right now, I don't think anyone can say that my way should not be utilized based on what we've discussed here. I wrote in detail why I feel my edit is much more valid than the other way Jmfangio feels is equal. On the contrary, Jmfangio has not stated why he feels both ways are valid.►Chris Nelson 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing case

It does not appear this will work. I want to thank both participants as well as the outside participants on the outside comments page. It does not appear this form will work out. I am closing this now, and I hope everyone the best. Navou ^banter 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not totally familiar with all the courses of actions here, what can we do to get someone else to give us a final ruling, so to speak?►Chris Nelson 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to read WP:CEM for what community enforceable mediation is designed to do. It is the participants job to find a solution basically. If you will not budge, and, if you do not understand CEM, mediation here cannot continue. I have closed the case based on these facts. Additionally, check dispute resolution for other areas and tools you can use to resolve this dispute. Best of luck. With regards, Navou ^banter 17:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. So now what, Jmfangio?►Chris Nelson 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say i'm very disapointed in Navou. Why have you taken this case is you were not prepared to put any effort into it. The opening line of the project page says the goal of this is to help "persistent conflicts between established editors where content disputes include user conduct elements." This is exactly the case here, yet you asked to have the conduct elements left out, then you closed the case without really offering any input whatsoever. Why was this case taken? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured I misunderstood what this was. I really wasn't looking to discuss this with you since that had never worked. I just thought we'd each share our side then the mediator would decide. I guess I was mistaken in how that works. So is there a way we can do what I thought this was, if you'd be open to that?►Chris Nelson 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The other CEM mediator steps in). Actually Navou conferred with me before closing the case. There were concerns about the duration of full protection on the article and the rate of progress toward resolution, and I agreed. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't know what the hell we're talking about. How can we get someone to just look at both of our sides and decide?►Chris Nelson 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova - While I appreciate the additional information, I can't say I'm happy. Chris waited several days before finally posting his point. What else was I supposed to do? I have been attacked many many times and nothing was done about this. I have opened up every other DR process and nobody has stepped up. They all agree both chris' method and the alternative are appropriate and that my compromise is a good one. What do you expect me to do here? He continues to assert WP:OWN, despite overwhelming support for finding a neutral solution? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, move on. I haven't been the least bit hostile toward you in days.►Chris Nelson 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me "dude". That statement is certainly confrontational and it doesn't excuse the fact that you have called me a lunatic and everything else under the sun. CEM was suggested because your behavior was prohibiting the community from discussion. You agreed, and then you asked to have the "criteria" adjusted as you saw fit. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what criteria? What are you talking about, dude?►Chris Nelson 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]