Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:49, 29 August 2010

Latest revision as of 07:47, 24 April 2011

(45 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{medcabstatus

|article={{SUBPAGENAME}}

|status=NewClosed

|date=17:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

|requester=[[User:Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor|Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor]] ([[User talk:Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor|talk]])

|parties=[[User:Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor]]

[[User:Glrx]]

[[User:Chaosdruid]]

Line 11:

[[User:ErikHaugen]]

|mediators=

|comment=<!-- ForFirst mediator userejected onlyby a party. -->

}}

Line 17:

====Where is the dispute?====

The dispute is primarily on the discussion page of the article on Genetic Algorithms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_algorithm#Should_all_reference_to_the_Generative_Fixation_Hypothesis_be_removed.3F]. Parts of the discussion have can also be found at [[User Talk:Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor]] and [[User Talk:Glrx#Genetic_algorithm]]

====Who is involved?====

*[[User:Keki BurjorjeeKeburjor]]

*[[User:Glrx]]

*[[User:Chaosdruid]]

Line 30:

====What is the dispute?====

The dispute is about whether the existence of the generative fixation hypothesis (GFH)---a new explanationhypothesis forabout the workings of genetic algorithms that I (Keki Burjorjee) published in my Ph.D. dissertation--- should be mentioned in passing in the article on [[Genetic algorithms]]. The edit in question satisfies Wikipedia's three content policies, viz., [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. The dispute started between [[User:Oli Filth]] and me; however, after I issued an RFC, Oli Filth seems to have abandoned the discussion. The only opposition currently comes from [[User:Glrx]], who got involved as a RFC editor, and has since reverted the edit on multiple occasions. Glrx has accusedaccuses me of being "toopushing close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia... I'veoriginal askedresearch" him(despite repeatedlythe toedit elaboratebeing on his claim[[WP:V]]), and tosays providethat evidencethe thatconflict Iof cannotinterest beinherent objectivein writing about myone's own work.---a HeCOI hasI notmade doneexplicit so;by chiefly,writing Iunder believe,my becausereal hisname---''by claimdefinition'' ismakes basedme on"too speculation,close" and not an acquaintance withto my work orto thewrite fieldabout ofit geneticon algorithmsWikipedia. WhenI've pressedasked him repeatedly to provide evidence that I'm incapablecannot of beingbe objective about the edit,. [[User:Glrx]]He askshas fornot evidenceresponded ofto "prominent adherents" of thethese GFHrequests. HisI demandbelieve, demonstratesthat ahe ratherdoes rosynot viewrespond ofbecause thehis paceconclusions atare which science progresses in response to revolutionary theories. [[WP:N]] prominently states that the Wikipedia guidelinebased on Notability applies to articlehis ''existencefeelings'', notabout articleme content. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference. Neither does my entreaty to him to consider the harm he might be doing readers seeking an explanation for the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms(specifically, especiallythat geneticI algorithms with uniform crossover. (The generative fixation hypothesis is currentlyhad the onlygall full-fledgedto hypothesischallenge that professeshim to explainback theup adaptivehis capacity of genetic algorithms with uniform crossover). Other neutral editors have commentedclaim that the mereedit mentionviolates of[[WP:NOR]] the ''existence'' of the GFH on theand [[Genetic algorithmsWP:NPOV]] page does), not violate any Wikipedia policy, and may be very helpful to readers. None of this has made an impressionacquaintance onwith Glrx. He believes that he can be helpful in this case without knowing anything abouteither the field of genetic algorithms or my work.

When pressed to provide evidence that I'm incapable of being objective about the edit, [[User:Glrx]] asks for evidence of "prominent adherents" of the the scientific hypothesis I've put forth. In other words, Glrx asks for evidence of the ''notability'' of this hypothesis. In doing so, Glrx conflates the Wikipedia concepts of ''weight'', which applies to article content, and ''notability'', which applies to article existence. The nutshell box at the top of [[WP:N]] prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article ''existence'', not article content. The filters for article content are [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]], none of which are violated by the edit. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference.

Other neutral editors have agreed that the mere mention of the new hypothesis on the [[Genetic algorithms]] page does not violate [[WP:UNDUE]], and could quite possibly be very helpful to readers of the article, especially since the reigning hypothesis in the field is known to have significant flaws. None of this has made an impression on Glrx, who acts like he is the final authority on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, and on who can and cannot post material to a given article. Additionally he feels no obligation to respond to my questions, or my invitations to him to enter into formal mediation [[WP:RFM]]. His one word response to the latter was "Sigh". [[User:Keburjor|Keburjor]]

====What would you like to change about this?====

I'd like additional editors who havewith a cleargood grasp of Wikipedia policy to weigh in on this dispute.

====How do you think we can help?====

# By clearly stating the difference between weight and notability, and explaining Wikipedia's policy regarding the application of [[WP:Notability]] to article content.

# By correcting any misconceptions that Glrx or I (or any other participant) might have.

# By commenting on any misconduct you see in the way this dispute is being handled by any of the participants.

# By helping us break the impasse we're currently in.

===Mediator notes===

I will mediate this if I am acceptable to all parties. Please indicate such on this page. Thanks. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

* Accept [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]]) 17:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

* Accept — [[User:Parent5446|Parent5446]] [[User talk:Parent5446|☯]] <sup class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:User talk: Parent5446|action=edit&preload=User:Parent5446/MediaWiki/TalkPageMessage&section=new}} msg] [[Special:Emailuser/Parent5446|email]])</sup> 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

* Accept. [[User:Keburjor|Keburjor]] ([[User talk:Keburjor|talk]]) 07:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

* Accept [[User:Chaosdruid|Chaosdruid]] ([[User talk:Chaosdruid|talk]]) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

* Decline [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

:As Glrx has rejected me as mediator, I will leave a note and leave the case open. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::I will mediate if acceptable to all parties. Again, please indicate such here. [[User:Robotnick2|Robotnick2]] ^{[[User talk:Robotnick2|Messages?]]} 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

* I accept, [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]]) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

* Thanks, I accept. [[User:Keburjor|Keburjor]] ([[User talk:Keburjor|talk]]) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

* I accept, — [[User:Parent5446|Parent5446]] [[User talk:Parent5446|☯]] <sup class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:User talk: Parent5446|action=edit&preload=User:Parent5446/MediaWiki/TalkPageMessage&section=new}} msg] [[Special:Emailuser/Parent5446|email]])</sup> 02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

* Decline. History [[User:Robotnick2]] and [[User:Anikin3]]. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::And your reason for rejecting [[User:Hipocrite]] was? [[User:Keburjor|Keburjor]] ([[User talk:Keburjor|talk]]) 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, I was wondering that. In addition, what in my history makes you think that I would not be a valid mediator? [[User:Robotnick2|Robotnick2]] ^{[[User talk:Robotnick2|Messages?]]} 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

----

Does this still need a mediator? I (1234r00t {{user2|1234r00t}}) volunteer to help solve this issue if it is still a problem [[User:1234r00t|<span style='color:#383132'><i><b>Mr R00t</b></i></span>]] [[User Talk:1234r00t| <span style="color:#46520C">^<i>Talk</i></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/1234r00t|<span style="color:#46520C">^{<i>'tribs</i>}</span>]] 05:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

* A mediator is not needed. The case should should be closed because the issue is moot. Although I disagree with the above characterization of the dispute, the matter has been resolved. Keburjor has acknowledged that he does not have a consensus at this time to add information about his PhD thesis to the article. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 06:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:* Great, I'll close it. [[User:1234r00t|<span style='color:#383132'><i><b>Mr R00t</b></i></span>]] [[User Talk:1234r00t| <span style="color:#46520C">^<i>Talk</i></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/1234r00t|<span style="color:#46520C">^{<i>'tribs</i>}</span>]] 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Mr R00t. The current consensus does indeed seem to be that the edit should not be made. Of course [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], and your involvement may bring about such a change. However, even if it does, I don't believe that two disputants, Glrx and Oli Filth, are capable of looking beyond the COI to the real issue here---whether the interests of the article's readers are being served. And, one of them, Glrx, has a fondness for reverting the edit even when the consensus doesn't align with his ideas of what should and shouldn't be included. I've decided to withdraw from this dispute because it seems pointless to carry on. [[User:Keburjor|Keburjor]] ([[User talk:Keburjor|talk]]) 03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

===Administrative notes===

I recommend closing this until the declining editor specifies exactly what he's expecting in a mediator, or if he wants mediation at all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:That would probably be a good idea if the user does not reply to my above post or declines me. [[User:1234r00t|<span style='color:#383132'><i><b>Mr R00t</b></i></span>]] [[User Talk:1234r00t| <span style="color:#46520C">^<i>Talk</i></span>]] [[Special:Contributions/1234r00t|<span style="color:#46520C">^{<i>'tribs</i>}</span>]] 05:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

===Discussion===