Italic text
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Charles R. Pellegrino |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 06:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Redslider ( talk) |
| Parties involved | dbrennan3333
Sparthorse Dougweller SarekofVulcan 'Curb Chain' Andythegrump Mangoe |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place.
Charles R. Pellegrino BLP Charles R. Pellegrino Talk reversion diff (difference between my original corrections and reverted BLP)
Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:
- User:dbrennan3333
- User:Sparthorse
- User:Dougweller
- User:SarekofVulcan
- User:Curb Chain
- User:AndytheGrump
- User:Mangoe
What is the dispute?
A calm explanation of what the problem is. Be as precise as you wish, but avoid general statements such as "User:X has a POV regarding article Y", as that's usually unhelpful. Provide diffs if possible, but try to keep the description brief. A list of issues that need to be addressed would also help.
Their position: 1) statements direct and by inference in the BLP that their is doubt that the subject received a Phd. from Victoria University, Wellington; 2) that their sources are adequate to suggest that doubt throughout the text (in both sourced and unsourced ways). Reasons have not been given by any of the parties why the they think this contention is sufficiently important to include in the biography. We presume they have their reasons.
My Position: 1) The presence of statements that cast doubt on validity of the subject's Phd. are very doubtful, at best; they serve only to malign and impugn the character of the subject both personally and professionaly, and continue to do serious injury to him; 2) the sources used are either weak, self-contradictory or based on unsourced material; The sources I've provided in support of the validity of the degree are written legal documents that have been interpreted by qualified professionals as certifying the doctoral degree was awarded to the subject.
Problem: continued assertion of doubt in the matter is unwarranted and does irreparable harm to him. Every time I try to correct the record it is reverted or revised to re-establish their claim. I have been charged with "vandalism" and "edit-warring" in an effort to stop me from trying to correct the record.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
Talk page discussion and at least one prior good faith attempt at dispute resolution is a bare minimum. (Click your back button and see What Mediation Cabal is Not for help.) If this has not occurred, then you shouldn't be here. Please provide a link to the prior dispute resolution discussion and if the issues have been discussed elsewhere, provide a link to that discussion as well.
There has been lengthy discussion at [ Charles R. Pellegrino Talk (items 8-11 are a good sample of the contentions) There was also discussion at BLP Noticeboard; and a DRN discussion that was prematurely closed while the discussion was still active. I posted a second DBR notices asking that the discussion be reopened, but haven't had a reply to that yet.
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Describe the issues that are causing this dispute to get stuck. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute. And finally:
I think that mediation of the content issue is not likely, and I'm exhausted with it, in any case. Nor do I wish to propose something directly to the other parties. I think it best if it comes from a third, neutral party. What I would is propose a is a mediation that offers an entirely neutral position for both sides. Here is what I suggest (what I would consider a 'neutral position'):
- 1. The BLP for Charles Pellegrino be immediately closed an inaccessible to all.
- 2. That an invitation go out to any number of qualified biographers who are well known and respected in the general Wikipedia community (at least by administrators) asking if they would offer to write a BLP. biography of Charles Pellegrino.
- 4. This process could be done and overseen (as far as I'm concerned) by this committee, or bumped up to a high level administrator or administrative group. It goes without saying that overseer and biographers should be entirely neutral in the matter - that is, they should be unfamiliar with the BLP and the subject, and certainly have no prior association with either the parties involved or the work and publications of the subject). If members of the mediation committee have prior knowledge of the BLP or this matter or those involved they should, of course recuse themselves. No one else but the oversee(s) should have anything to do with the selection of biographer(s).
- 5. Once the biography is installed, further revision should be restricted to the biographers only. A contact can be provided if anyone wishes to make comment or suggestions. But that is all.
I think that takes it out of the hands of the dissenting parties in a fair and productive way. I'm am certainly open to entertain any other suggestions of your committee if anyone cares to make them.
I know that is a strange way to start a mediation, with the resolution already in mind. But it is the best I could come up with. Who knows, if it works, perhaps it could be added to the methods of solving these contentious matters?
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
yes, I do.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
 | Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
Discussion
Italic text
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Charles R. Pellegrino |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 06:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Redslider ( talk) |
| Parties involved | dbrennan3333
Sparthorse Dougweller SarekofVulcan 'Curb Chain' Andythegrump Mangoe |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place.
Charles R. Pellegrino BLP Charles R. Pellegrino Talk reversion diff (difference between my original corrections and reverted BLP)
Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:
- User:dbrennan3333
- User:Sparthorse
- User:Dougweller
- User:SarekofVulcan
- User:Curb Chain
- User:AndytheGrump
- User:Mangoe
What is the dispute?
A calm explanation of what the problem is. Be as precise as you wish, but avoid general statements such as "User:X has a POV regarding article Y", as that's usually unhelpful. Provide diffs if possible, but try to keep the description brief. A list of issues that need to be addressed would also help.
Their position: 1) statements direct and by inference in the BLP that their is doubt that the subject received a Phd. from Victoria University, Wellington; 2) that their sources are adequate to suggest that doubt throughout the text (in both sourced and unsourced ways). Reasons have not been given by any of the parties why the they think this contention is sufficiently important to include in the biography. We presume they have their reasons.
My Position: 1) The presence of statements that cast doubt on validity of the subject's Phd. are very doubtful, at best; they serve only to malign and impugn the character of the subject both personally and professionaly, and continue to do serious injury to him; 2) the sources used are either weak, self-contradictory or based on unsourced material; The sources I've provided in support of the validity of the degree are written legal documents that have been interpreted by qualified professionals as certifying the doctoral degree was awarded to the subject.
Problem: continued assertion of doubt in the matter is unwarranted and does irreparable harm to him. Every time I try to correct the record it is reverted or revised to re-establish their claim. I have been charged with "vandalism" and "edit-warring" in an effort to stop me from trying to correct the record.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
Talk page discussion and at least one prior good faith attempt at dispute resolution is a bare minimum. (Click your back button and see What Mediation Cabal is Not for help.) If this has not occurred, then you shouldn't be here. Please provide a link to the prior dispute resolution discussion and if the issues have been discussed elsewhere, provide a link to that discussion as well.
There has been lengthy discussion at [ Charles R. Pellegrino Talk (items 8-11 are a good sample of the contentions) There was also discussion at BLP Noticeboard; and a DRN discussion that was prematurely closed while the discussion was still active. I posted a second DBR notices asking that the discussion be reopened, but haven't had a reply to that yet.
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Describe the issues that are causing this dispute to get stuck. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute. And finally:
I think that mediation of the content issue is not likely, and I'm exhausted with it, in any case. Nor do I wish to propose something directly to the other parties. I think it best if it comes from a third, neutral party. What I would is propose a is a mediation that offers an entirely neutral position for both sides. Here is what I suggest (what I would consider a 'neutral position'):
- 1. The BLP for Charles Pellegrino be immediately closed an inaccessible to all.
- 2. That an invitation go out to any number of qualified biographers who are well known and respected in the general Wikipedia community (at least by administrators) asking if they would offer to write a BLP. biography of Charles Pellegrino.
- 4. This process could be done and overseen (as far as I'm concerned) by this committee, or bumped up to a high level administrator or administrative group. It goes without saying that overseer and biographers should be entirely neutral in the matter - that is, they should be unfamiliar with the BLP and the subject, and certainly have no prior association with either the parties involved or the work and publications of the subject). If members of the mediation committee have prior knowledge of the BLP or this matter or those involved they should, of course recuse themselves. No one else but the oversee(s) should have anything to do with the selection of biographer(s).
- 5. Once the biography is installed, further revision should be restricted to the biographers only. A contact can be provided if anyone wishes to make comment or suggestions. But that is all.
I think that takes it out of the hands of the dissenting parties in a fair and productive way. I'm am certainly open to entertain any other suggestions of your committee if anyone cares to make them.
I know that is a strange way to start a mediation, with the resolution already in mind. But it is the best I could come up with. Who knows, if it works, perhaps it could be added to the methods of solving these contentious matters?
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
yes, I do.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
| Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |