Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/SIG MCX

SIG MCX

Editors involved in this dispute

Felsic2 (talk · contribs) – filing party
Herr Gruber (talk · contribs)
Thomas.W (talk · contribs)
RunnyAmiga (talk · contribs)
DHeyward (talk · contribs)
Faceless Enemy (talk · contribs)
Therubicon (talk · contribs)
Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

SIG MCX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Should the article include mention of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting?
~~Can mainstream sources be used for firearms articles, or are firearms hobbyist books and magazines the only acceptable sources?~~ Dropped, per feedback.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

This myopic request fails to view firearms as an entire topic with branching subparts and models that exist as a largely technical and dispassionate articles on various aspects of firearms. There are consensus driven guidelines regarding how technical articles on firearms are handled. Editors that ignore that consensus open a Pandora's box to what amounts to trivial mentions or worse, a WP:COATRACK platform for politics (particularly American politics). How many times was a particular model used to stop criminals? How many enemies of country X were shot and killed during war by model Y? How many times did it take multiple shots to disable an active shooter? How many times was this model used in a multiple victim shooting? Which model is the most lethal? The least lethal? The most beneficial? The most crippling? The amount of trivia is not insignificant and is why there is considerable consensus not to add it particularly if it's inflammatory. This isn't a dispute so much as it is an argument against established consensus that the proper place for discussion of events are on the event article or even a list article, not the topic article. It's the same concept applied to articles focused on religion and race. On the Islam page, for example, we don't have things like the 2016 Nice terrorist attack or mention how many times Islam is invoked as the motive for murder, but we may mention ISIS and Islam in the 2016 Nice terrorist attack. It's a one way link, by consensus, to avoid inflammatory content (e.g. "Prevalence of Islam in terrorist attacks" does not help the reader understand "Islam," but it would serve the political ends of editors trying to demonize Islam - the same is true for guns which don't inherently convey good or evil use). We would have to upset many policies and consensus across many topics including every model of firearm to satisfy political desires to list crimes on the particular firearm page (or particular religion page - the article is about the firearm, not the crime or any specific criminal event). It's best to realize this can of worms for what it is, and continue with the current consensus that the event is the proper place to explain the roles of particular guns, people, religions, etc, and not the broader parent article where it would only serve as a WP:COATRACK. --DHeyward (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Felsic2 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: I am willing to drop #2 if that's a problem. It's a significant issue, but not perhaps central to this dispute. I apologize for the language - I didn't mean for it to be ""strident". Felsic2 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC) I'm going to add something even though I'm not supposed to. (Given that three editors have ignored the rules on how to participate here while two of them have used this page to violate the WP:CIVIL policy, I suppose I'm in the clear.) Upon a second look, I'm not particularly pleased with the language Felsic2 used, particularly the excessively strident, limiting language in issue #2 that predictably caused pushback. If agreeing to this meditation means I have to sign on to the issues as they're written up there, I'll probably change my vote. RunnyAmiga (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to reject. This badly needs the sort of discussion mediation is supposed to provide but given User:TransporterMan's slippery, semi-coherent explanations of what mediation can and cannot do, it's been made painfully clear that this committee either lacks the means, the ability, or the will to accomplish anything. Mediation gives the high-input users who have consensus (User:Herr Gruber, User:Thomas.W, and User:Miguel Escopeta) no real motivation to participate in a process in which they'll have to stop insulting User:Felsic2 and actually discuss content. Thus, it was predictable that they (with the exception of Herr Gruber but the addition of User:DHeyward) came here to, as always, restate positions they've explained to death, violate the WP:CIVIL policy (with the exception of Miguel Escopeta, at least here) and refuse to participate in a process where participation in a discussion and restraint from violating policy aren't required.
- There is no way to settle this dispute, which is assuredly not settled because one side outnumbers the other side, unless the editors who have had a lot of input on this discussion can be compelled to participate and behave. I've asked this before and I'll ask again: is there anywhere in dispute resolution that actually requires disputes to be resolved? RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Policy and consensus hae already resolved this dispute over multiple years and topics and gave rise to WP:COATRACK. --DHeyward (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Policy and consensus has already resolved this dispute over multiple years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use , which has already reached consensus over multiple years and for all firearms articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I'm tired of Felsic2's refusal to drop the stick and endless forumshopping, and have already wasted more than enough time on this. Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

First, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party list at this time, we will need at least 5 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Second, with this many people involved, if many fail to accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough appropriate parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
Third, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept.
Fourth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Fifth, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you do not intend to edit the article or continue discussion at the article talk page on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party account.
Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

In regard to the number of needed "accepts" please see the discussion on the talk page here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Reject. Insufficient acceptance. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]