Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Article: Sundial. Topic Section: Reclining-Decllining.
Involved users who cannot be notified
[edit]
Clerk note: The following users could not be notified due to page protection or bot exclusion:
Please notify them manually, or take other appropriate action. MediationBot (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments on Clem's reasons for refusing to participate in mediation
[edit]Clem says:
[quote] . Disagree. WP:RFM/G#PRIOR Can I point you to the long conversation I have had with Michael on his talk page where I am attempting to keep the discussion contained. . [/quote]
Yes, there's been much 1-sided "discussion", in which I've (in vain) asked Clem to justify his use of un-sourced formulas, and his reversion of my deletion of those formulas, and in which I've (in vain) asked him to answer my justifications for the deletion.
I've offered a number of compromise proposals, every one of Clem ignored or rejected.
Individual, 2-party, discussion and negotiation has been unsuccessfully fully tried.
[quote] . Have a look also at the conversations with User:DOwenWilliams on my talk page . [/quote]
This matter has nothing to do with DOwenWilliams. I don't list DOwenWilliams as a participant in this dispute. If DOwenWilliams wants to express arguments here, regarding this dispute, he's welcome to do so. But he is not named as a participant in this dispute.
[quote] . , and the conversation he has had with Michael in the Talk:Sundial#« Cadran bifilaire », Why ? . [/quote]
...which has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. Someone asked why the Bifilar section linked to Cadran Bifilaire, instead of Cadran Solaire. I answered, explaining that Cadran Solaire merely means Sundial, and that it's appropriate to link to Cadran Bifilaire, which means Bifilar Sundial. But I emphasize that this matter has nothing to do with the current dispute.
[quote]
.
and much that follows. None of this suggests that every other method has been explored, which is a precondition for this procedure
. [/quote]
Clem has refused or rejected every compromise that I've offered. Clem has refused to give justification for his use of un-sourced formulas, and didn't offer any justification for his most recent revert of my deletion of those formulas. Clem hasn't offered any answer to my justifications for that deletion of his un-sourced formulas.
Individual, 2-party, discussion has been fully and unsuccessfully tried.
[quote] . - it does suggest a degree of impatience . [/quote]
One of my compromise offers consisted of offering to give Clem a month in which do do nothing, if he so chooses...and to leave the un-sourced formulas as-is in the article during that time. Clem explicitly rejected that compromise offer, and I withdraw it. It isn't in my list of compromise offers now.
My compromise offers are listed at the mediation-request page.
[quote] . , and a request from Michael for two editors to enter into a considerable amount of WP:OR. . [/quote]
Nonsense.
1. This isn't about DOwenWilliams, who isn't a participant in this dispute. The dispute involves my complaint about the un-sourced formulas that Clem re-posts every time I delete them.
2. Among my 5 compromise offers, only one of them involves any OR by Clem. One of my 5 compromise proposals is that Clem actually try his formulas out, and show us an example in which they give a right answer.
But I emphasize that I offer 4 other compromise proposals too, and they don't call for any OR. And two of the proposals don't call for Clem to spend any of his time meeting those compromise proposals.
[quote] . If the Mediation Committee does wish to get involved so early in the process I am sure that DOwenWilliams and myself will be willing to assist in every way . [/quote
Good. That would indeed be a change for the better.
...and DOwenWilliams, or anyone, is welcome to participate in the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
[quote] . - but in my case after the UK General Election when I will be less occupied in RL.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC) . [/quote]
If Clem is very busy, then he's welcome to just delete his un-sourced formulas until he's ready to fix his citation problem with them.
Readers shouldn't be presented with unreliable, un-sourced material just because Clem doesn't consider the article a high priority, and is too busy to source, replace, or test his formulas.
--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff
.
Mediation-Committee--Can I complain about Clem's latest content-edits?
[edit]The Sundial article's history-page, shows Clem's most recent revert, re-posting un-sourced incorrect statements, and unsourced formulas of unknown origin.
...and deleting a warning to readers that the formulas in the Reclining-Decling section are of unknown origin. I suggest that that is something that the reader has a right to be informed of.
Here's a quote from a wikipedia policy-page:
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
Not only did Clem violate that policy when he reverted my various deletions of his un-sourced material. But, brazenly, he additionally deletes my warning to the reader regarding the fact that the formulas are of unknown origin.
Is there any limit to Clem's disregard of wikipedia policy and principles? Is there such a thing as a policy-violation that he won't try to get away with?
So far, this has been a complaint about a matter of content. But now, it's blatantly and clearly a problem of conduct. Clem knows Wikipedia policy, and is intentionally, knowingly disregarding it, to an extreme degree.
Clem has said that he won't participate in mediation. Does that mean that mediation has already failed, and that there'll be no mediation suggestions? I don't know if suggestions from the mediation-committee are given, when one of the disputants explicitly refuses to partiipate in mediation.
Given Clem's recent conduct, evidently now it's time for this to instead become a conduct complaint. Can you advise me on how I pursue such a complaint?
Thank you, --MichaelOssipoff (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff