Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	National Civilian Community Corps
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Coterminous, LoverOfArt
Mediator(s)	official - none unofficial - Che Nuevara, Dbiel
Comment	User:Coterminous may have left Wikipedia, and in any case seems to have no continued interest in the article. User:LoverOfArt has acknowledged mistakes and demonstrated good-faith efforts at future constructive contributions. Little happening at the article for now, but I feel that progress forward will now be peaceable.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|National Civilian Community Corps]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|National Civilian Community Corps]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Coterminous and myself, LoverOfArt

Dbiel - NPOV editor

Che Nuevara - Unofficial mediator

What's going on?

Coterminous is a new Wikipedia user and doesn't fully understand what is appropriate for this site. This users edits on the Americorps NCCC page haven't been NPOV, in addition to violating several other wikipedia rules. He/She is also more than likely directly affiliated with the NCCC program (given IP resolution to the same area as NCCC headquarters).

Note From Coterminous

I am not employed by NCCC, nor have I ever been. I am self-employed. I have never received a check from NCCC, nor have I received a check from Wikipedia, for that matter. I am committed to the success of the program, for reasons I do not feel it wise to discuss. My judgment on this matter was confirmed by the extraordinary outburst directed at me by LoverofArt, as quoted in part at Dbiel's page. Knowing a great deal about this program makes certain statements seem simply obvious to me that others take as biased. I am working on taking a more objective tone. Meanwhile, I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work and have eliminated or qualified pre-existing statements about NCCC that were false and misleading - perhaps reflecting a point of view issue.Coterminous 20:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Knowing a great deal about this program makes certain statements seem simply obvious to me" This is probably our biggest problem as these obvious conclusions are Original Research. When reviewing what you write you need to forget everything that you know about NCCC and try to look at just what is written. Then after seeing only what is written, then compare that back to what you personally know about the subject. Wikipedia rejects the obvious, it is only interested in what can actually be supported by notable sources. Your knowledge of the subject actually puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to write a NPOV article. It means that you have to work several times harder than the individual that only "knows" what is actually written in the article.Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted above in the What is going on section by Coterminous hiding behind an IP address as he continues to fail to long in before posting, but does at times manually sign his name

LoverofArt has posted false and misleading and defamatory information about NCCC at the Wikipedia site and resorted to repeated vitriolic personal attacks on Coterminous which finally prompted an angry response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.55.211 (talk • contribs)

This concludes this entry Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like Coterminous to be helped with understanding what is and isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. I would ask the mediation cabal to examine the article and offer their advice as to what constitutes appropriate entries within the purview of wikipedia policies. In the event he/she is able to contribute within the purview of NPOV, I have no further issues. If not, I guess the mediation process will have to go to the next level.

Note

The user in question has already deleted the Med Cabal request tag once. I'm starting to lose my assumption of good faith with this person. I really think it's a seriously POV vandal. --LoverOfArt 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of Good Faith Missing by Mr. or Ms. LoverofArt

As I was working to update the NCCC page, I shifted from that page to other pages as I compiled research. I noticed the Med Cabal message at the top, but when I returned to the page it was missing. I have no idea whatsover what caused that. I had to go to the Wikipedia search engine to search for Mediation Cabal to find out what it was. LoverofArt: Do not Jump to Conclusions.Coterminous 20:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Seems like there is nothing that can be done as Coterminous, one of the two key users has refused to participate or have any thing to do with any article that LoverOfArt is involved with. He was given a 48 hour block at 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC) and has not been heard from since. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

One of the key questions, which may need mediation, is do quotes that relate directly to AmeriCorp but do not directly mention NCCC, which is a sub-division of AmeriCorp, which therefor may or maynot apply to NCCC; are these appropriate on the National Civilian Community Corps page or should they be limited to the AmeriCorps page? Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbiel, have you considered taking the case? Addhoc 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to contribute, there have been numerous entries on my talk page already on this subject; but due to time constraints I am unable to "take on the case". Additionally I am rather new to Wikipedia myself, so am still working on the learning curve. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate your explanation, regarding your experience, for what's it worth, I think you you would make an excellent mediator. Addhoc 23:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Dbiel as Mediator:

I agree with Addhoc's statement that Dbiel might well make an excellent mediator. Unlike some, he often writes with considerable diplomacy, conveys suggestions with respect, does not jump to conclusions (and broadcast incorrect assumptions) regarding anomalies or apparent "vandalism," and takes the time to share knowledge. I do not always agree with his every point, but I feel a reasoned discussion with him is likely to be useful. Dbiel was polite in acknowledging the work involved in trying to improve and update the NCCC site and introducing himself (partly by way of his page). When someone unknown jumps into the discussion without those steps and assumes the posture of "expert" who is going to give directions, that is less likely to succeed; their possible agendas are unknown.Coterminous 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something to my comment about possible unknown agendas, because that may seem to indicate a lack of assumption of good faith. As of yesterday, the main AmeriCorps entry at Wikipedia had a Criticisms and a Success section. The Success section (by my word processor's word count) consisted of 830 characters / 116 words. The Criticisms section consisted of 3295 characters / 523 words. This distortion may well constitute or reflect a bias. In September of this year, the NCCC entry had a Criticisms section (which included doctored or manufactured defamatory quotes, posted at least according to the History section by LoverofArt - something he has not denied) and no Success section. Attempts by a new editor like myself (and I have probably been preceded by others) to remedy unfair or one-sided or misleading content are met with huge criticism. Although much of the criticism is valid, per Wikipedia guidelines, this can have the effect of chasing off persons who come to the site with an interest in and the skills with which to add valid, much-need content, if the site is not to be commandeered by aggressive and more experienced editors with a point of view all their own. I will attempt to maintain an assumption of good faith, but compulsive attention to process can be misused to stifle valid Wikipedia content, rather than used to improve it, which would be a mistake.Coterminous 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to list myself as an official cabal mediator for this case just yet, but I'm going to try and help out with this. - Che Nuevara 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Che Nuevara is doing a great job trying to mediate, but the going is not an easy one. Dbiel ^(Talk) 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NCCC - Notability - LoverofArt raises prospect of major edits unless Issue Addressed

At the Discussion Page for the NCCC article, LoverofArt posts this:

Breadth of the recent additions and WP:Notability

I think we are running into serious WP:Notability issues here. The breadth of some of the recent additions, while definitely factual, don't qualify as being particularly notable. While they might be relevant in the context of a debate about NCCC, that obviously isn't the intent of a Wikipedia article. I think it's important that we be comprehensive in chronicling important matters and presenting both sides of an issue, but there is definitely a limit; things like founding directors, funding details, specific headings for specific NCCC functions, the "oral histories" section. Per the criteria set out in WP:Notability, very few of the recent 'additions' have been published in works that are independent of the subject (the Corporation for National Service). If you go down to the 'footnotes' section, an enormous percentage of the "sources" cited for various additions are .gov sources that resolve straight back to the orginization in question. This a clear, absolute violation of WP:Notability. “ "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emp. add.)... "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. ” Those few citations that have been published independent of the parent orginization certainly don't have "comprehensive coverage" save for maybe the occasional, singular newspaper article here or there. Before I go through and make some big deletes and some big merges, I thought I'd open the discussion here and see what sort of opinions or consensus we might be able to reach. --LoverOfArt 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Notability and NCCC

My response follows:Coterminous 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

First, LoverOfArt is doing the right thing by opening this for discussion rather than "slash and burn" editing, which simply invites the same. Before I address this directly, a few brief quotes from the Wikipedia standards in question: From the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for Organizations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 states: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability: "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources...

"General notability guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." NCCC has definitely attracted notice!

See, for example:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/29/acd.01.html for transcript of recent CNN on-site program and interviews in New Orleans by Emmy award-winning anchor with AmeriCorps NCCC team members (and others). CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews AmeriCorps*NCCC Member Jared Kahan From Camp Hope, St. Bernard Parish, LA. See also http://anderson-cooper-effects.blogspot.com/2007/08/nola-blessed-volunteers.html, FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 2007, CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews AmeriCorps*NCCC Member Arielle Davis From Camp Hope, St. Bernard Parish, LA

As to the new sections added: The Founding Directors section is similar to (but more concise than) the sections at the Wikipedia entries for the American Red Cross and the Peace Corps, for example. Footnotes for the Directors section include citations to the Library of Congress website, a reliable and independent source. The qualifications of the Founding Directors are relevant to this article, because extensive debate has occurred about whether the NCCC program model is a valid one.

The Education Section is notable. Both the footnote to the Harford County school system and the footnotes in the Criticism section demonstrate attention given to Education projects. Education is one of the key areas for NCCC ("Projects fall in the areas of disaster relief, public safety, the environment, education, and other unmet needs.") In addition to the Harford County footnote about notable NCCC work, the American Council on Education, a reliable and independent source, is cited.

As for the NCCC Oral, Written, Photographic and Video Histories" section: one of the footnotes at that section is http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2006-02-28/fletcher-neworleansbudgetcuts/ which links to an article about NCCC published at the site of the Journalism School of Columbia University, a reliable and independent source. Another footnote at that section, http://redcross.tallytown.com/nccc-01.html is to an web page published by the Red Cross, an independent and generally respected organization, about notable NCCC work.

Other credible and independent sources have been brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors that attest to NCCC's Notability, including the editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald.

The McClatchy newspapers are among the largest group of U.S. newspapers and a credible and independent source. Last month, they recently published this article about NCCC: ""'House, Senate, administration battle over volunteer program,' By Maria Recio, McClatchy Newspapers, Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007" See: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/maria_recio/story/19661.html

The NCCC program is clearly Notable. A great many other independent and footnoted quotes from independent and credible organizations are available (as of now) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments Perhaps some of these should be incorporated into the main article to improve its content.Coterminous 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Status of Article

One party, as of this date, still is not willing to work as a group which resulted in a edit war which has now resulted in a 7 day full protection lock being applied to the article. Hopefully this time will allow a cooling off period and result in the acceptance of mediation by all parties. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the article is off, edit war seems to be over, hopefully progress will be achieved. I've closed this case. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)