Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header

Instructions

New requests should be listed at the top of the "New Requests" section, right below the template sample. All requests must use the template provided below.

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide provides an explanation for how to file a request.
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sample shows the template with instructions.
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection has a description of common reasons for rejecting requests.

All parties to the mediation must indicate agreement to mediate by signing the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section; any request that has not been signed by all parties within 7 days will be rejected. Please watch this page during the time the case is listed here; if additional information is required, you will be asked here, and expected to respond within the 7 day period.

Case name (Sample)

---

Do not edit this section! Copy the text of this section into another section and edit that.
Edits to this section will be reverted immediately.

---

Involved parties

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

• Foo [1]

User talk pages:

• User:Example [2]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link
• WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

• Issue 1
• Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

---

Your case should look just like this when you have finished filing;
no commentary, no extra information, just what is required in this template.
If you choose to ignore these instructions, your case will likewise be ignored. Caveat lector.

---

New Requests

New requests immediately below this line.

F-14 Tomcat

Involved parties

• Mmx1 (talk · contribs)
• Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

• Talk:F-14 Tomcat[3]
• Talk:General Dynamics F-111[4]
• Talk:Robert McNamara[5]

User talk pages:

• User:Wiarthurhu [6]
• User:Mmx1 posted this RfM[7]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Having used article content RfC previously with little success in drawing in additional eyes, and given the very specific nature of the information in dispute, I posted informal RfC's on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft[8] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history[9] in the hope of drawing interested and qualified editors. Indeed, this succeeded in drawing two editors to comment, resulting in a unofficial truce on the F-14 Tomcat article and talk page (I agreed but Wiarthurhu has not expressed it verbally, but has also refrained from editing the page in question. However, given that the content in dispute has spread to other pages, I feel a mediation is appropriate at this time. Wiarthurhu has expressed openness to mediation[10], though has not specifically assented to the one I am posting now.

Issues to be mediated

• Is the following content, which in slightly modified form has been inserted in three articles and currently (at the moment of the unofficial truce) resides on two, supported by WP:Reliable sources? [11]

Few will recall that it was McNamara who directed the Air Force to adopt the Navy's F-4 Phantom and A-7 fighters. But he is best remembered in aviation history as the father of the debacle that was the TFX / F-111 dual service fighter project. His experience in the corporate world led him to believe that adopting a single type for different missions and serivce would save money. He even insisted on the General Dynamics entry over the DOD's preference for Boeing because of commonality issues. The F-111 pioneered perhaps too many new technologies such as swinging wings and pylons, afterburning turbofans and even the only operational ejecting crew escape cabin. Popular media heralded the fighter than could fly slow and fast, fly farther with more payload, and shoot down planes from farther away from any other plane.

A product of the age of missles, the one item missing from the laundry list that was the TFX specification was the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability. Starting in 1965, US pilots in supersonic jets in Vietnam were shot down by post-Korean vintage Mig-17s in alarming numbers. Grumman dutifully reported that the F-111 would be "unable to cope" in a dogfight, and was much less maneuverable than the F-4 that was then tasked with downing MiGs. The Navy's F-111B would prove an utterly embarrasing and expensive failure, cancelled and replaced by the nimble F-14 Tomcat. The Air Force F-111 suffered extensive problems and accidents before it was effective in the single role of medium bomber. A lasting legacy of the F-111's lesson in how not to build a fighter would be that the US would ultimately develop not one, but 4 more new highly successful air superiority fighters essentially similar to the F-4 in payload and speed. The shadow cast by the accountant's approach to fighter design was so thoroughly discredited that planners stripped multiple roles from both the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat until the 1990s. The F-111 project is often remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in aviation history, at least in terms of its initial cost saving objectives. However, it is a somewhat fitting footnote that the Australian Air Force will proudly fly their F-111s long after the retirement of the naval TFX replacement, the F-14.

• More specifically the content issues are:

• Should MMx continue to be permitted to automatically revert all edits on F-14 on the basis of being an uncited, unsupported edit Air superiority fighter Air superiority F-111 stating that a) e F-14 in an air superiority fighter (many citations) b) the F-14 was designed to be an maneuverable air superiority figher (supported by Modern Marvels, several books, and a Grumman F-14 test pilot and president)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should MMx continue to discount as worthy of reverting any source from a) book b) magazine c) broadcast media d) U.S. Navy website e) internet aviation website f) Grumman vice president g) F-14 pilots--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should MMx continue to respond with coarse and insulting language including !@#$ and @#% and (*&(*^) and (*%^*(&Y%^%??
• Should MMx continue to act as if he is the final authority on aviation topics over other editors who have a) more education at institutions such as MIT b) more professional experience in aeronatical engineering c) more articles published in Aviation Week magazine and Asian Week newspaper d) owns more reference books and magazine e) has built more models of the F-14, F-111, F-15 and F-16 f) has read more books, magazines, reference books such as Janes All The World's Aircraft and Aviation Week since the late 1960s when the F-14 was being developed g) seen more actual F-111s, F-14s F-15s and F-16s at airshows h) demonstrates a higher level of intelligence as measured by standardized test such as the SAT? h) has written actual research papers with typewriters with footnotes and primary sources since 1974? Is MMx in a position to assert his right to revert demonstrating absolutely no ability even recognize or accept the most blatant and obvious evidence? (such as Grumman VP)
• Should wikipedia state that the F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a primary consideration? (Hey, that's A primary consideration, easily edited without reverting an entire edit)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should wikipedia state that the TFX was cancelled primarily due to its lack of maneuverability? (According the Flight Journal, Conally's testimony "killed the F-111B", with citation. Other justifications were also supplied, as per most other sources)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Should wikipedia state the maneuverabiity was the decisive factor in all previous (pre-Vietnam War) air battles? (That's A factor again, you should be free to edit without substantially reverting the original meaning) --matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Does the quoted passage above accurately reflect the RAND Report which is cited as a source for the above passage? (MMx claims that the Rand report proves that the F-14 was NOT an air superiority fighter. The chapter in question is titled the "Return of the Air Superiority Fighter", and covers the development of 4 fighters, including the F-14. The source he claims supports his position states that the Navy wanted a fighter that was unhindered by Air Force air superiority, meaning maneuvering requirements. This however is not inconsistent with air superiority being added to the considerable interception capability of the F-111B. The inclusion of the F-14 clearly means that the paper classifies the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, as does every hit on a google search "F-14 air superiority". The article goes into much detail how the downing of sophisticated supersonic US fighters by primitive Russian fighters meant that the Navy badly needed a fighter which was more, not less maneuverable than the F4, and even details a Grumman study which comes to just such a conclustion, and that the Grumman 303 design (the F-14) was designed just to do this. This clearly demontrates the inablity of MMx to discrminate between when a source that I provided to him supports a position contrary to his.--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that Mmx be allowed to add or edit without substantially changing the meaning of articles. However, he must not be permitted to be given a blank check to impose his POV freely over any author that does not have the stamina to engage in an edit war and remediation.

My research shows that MMx himself edited the F-14 article for many months before in March 2006 removing the statement that the "F-14 was designed as no-comprimise air superiority fighter" and adding "while the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable at the expense of ....." After this point, a web search of F-14 and "maneuverable" turns up primarily his passage, and several web pages which have mirrored this wikipedia page. I have found two (2) other persons on the internet who seem to agree. However a community of 3 on the Wikipedia does not make a consensus when they are in disagreement with a test pilot who was a direct witness and participant in the actual design of the F-14. At the very most, they should be allowed to add a note that there are differences in opinion with respect to this point, though given the large volume of evidence, I don't see why any reasonable person would continue to hold such a view.

Considering that if you had to say one sentence about the F-14, it would be "The F-14 was the Navy's first supersonic fighter designed to be agile in air combat". Many articles state exactly this of the F-15, that it was the first USAF A/S fighter since the F-86, it is also true of the Navy's F-14. The active guarding of this page by one or more persons who would remove any information supporting this seriously damages the value of the WP, and the crediblity that WP articles are being maintained by people who are knowledgeable, or at least open to verifiable information.

This is symptomatic of an effect I have seen on all of the other high traffic pages, which are effectively patrolled by editors who deem themselves the final arbitor of what can and will not be allowed on the WP, summarily reversing verifiable and reasonable edits without review, without any credible qualifications, who I will not name at this time.--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

• What weight do we assign to sources not available to other editors for examination, and what weight should be given to them if they conflict with openly available sources?

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• Agree.

Agree--Mmx1 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Authorship of A Course in Miracles

Involved parties

• Andrew Parodi
• Ste4k

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Authorship of A Course in Miracles [12]

User talk pages:

• User:Andrew Parodi [13]
• User:Ste4k [14]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC RFC posted June 26, 2006
• Third Opinion given on June 26, 2006 [15]
• Informal attempts to resolve the dispute, beginning on June 26, 2006 [16] and ending June 30, 2006 [17]

Issues to be mediated

Note: These issues are suggestions of Kickaha Ota; the parties may wish to work with the mediator to reformulate these issues or add additional issues.

• Issue 1: Do particular statements in the article violate WP:OR or Wikipedia:Verifiability?
  • Issue 1.1: If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", what particular statements violate these policies, and what changes can be made to correct some or all of these statements to the editors' satisfaction?
  • Issue 1.2: If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", then do these problem statements currently rise to a level that justifies placing a dispute warning tag such as{{OR}} on the article until the statements can be corrected, or would the use of {{citeneeded}} or other statement-specific warning tags be sufficient?
• Issue 2: Do the parties need to pursue dispute resolution procedures, such as further mediation, to address their past grievances?
  • Issue 2.1: If the answer to Issue 2 is "no", or if the parties cannot agree on how to resolve their past grievances at this time, then can the parties agree to disagree on their past grievances for now, set those grievances aside, and cooperate on the problem of improving this particular article?

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. -- Andrew Parodi 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Beverly Hills High School

Involved parties Gunbolt (talk • contribs) Karmak (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where Template:RFMF was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages: Beverly Hills High School [1] User talk pages: User:Gunbolt[2] [edit]Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: WP:RFC link WP:AN/I discussion [edit]Issues to be mediated Beverly Hills High School article's use of a satirized article reference (Joel Stein) Issue 2 [edit]Additional issues to be mediated Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 [edit]Parties' agreement to mediate All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed. Agree. Gunbolt 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [edit]Decision of the Mediation Committee Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.) For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Shosei Koda

File:Yes

This request does not use the required format. The filing party will be contacted and asked to properly complete this request. After an appropriate time, if this request does not use the proper format, it will be declined. For assistance in filing the request, please read the guide to formal mediation or contact the Committee. To re-file this request entirely, add {{csd-u1}} to the top of the page; and, when it is deleted, go here.

Message added by 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

F-14 Tomcat

Hey, I'm all set to go, how do we do this??--Wiarthurhu 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)