Editors involved in this dispute

1. Dcs002 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. HOOTmag (talk · contribs)
3. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Pariah state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pariah state

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. This article has been nominated for deletion by one of the parties, and the nomination was, in my opinion, inappropriate retribution for reverted edits by another party.
2. Article content has been subject of content dispute for a very long time
3. HOOTmag (talk · contribs) nominated the article for AfD when he made what are IMO unambiguous threats that he would do so if his edits were reverted.
4. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) reverted edits made by HOOTmag (talk · contribs)
5. The timeline seems unclear to me, but HOOTmag (talk · contribs) nominated the article for AfD apparently less than an hour after the reversion, and then posted a note on the talk page ( Talk:Pariah state ) that deletion was "inevitable."
6. It seems there has been no attempt to ask for 3rd party help - RfC, mediation, or arbitration, nor any alternatives to deletion sought.
7. Imo, this is purely a content dispute, not a deletion dispute. It can be resolved with third-party intervention. Some editors are convinced there can be no definition of the term "pariah state." (IMO, that is a WP:Crystal issue.) I contend that the definition is not the issue. (I have sourced a non-controversial definition.) What has not been agreed upon in RS is what qualifies for pariah statehood, and what organization(s) has the authority to make such a designation. Some in the discussion don't seem to understand the distinction. I have brought up a similar case with the article on stupidity. We cannot say who is stupid, or agree upon an authority to designate stupidity, but we can discuss it in an encyclopedic way. Another editor has brought up usurper and tyrant as more germane examples.
8. In the AfD discussion, I, Dcs002 (talk · contribs), have unfortunately been drawn into the bickering (in which Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) has not been an active participant), and I don't want to be there. My role, as I see it, has been to point out that WP:Deletion policy and WP:ATD have not been considered or followed, and I have alleged that the AfD was nominated as part of an edit war - a threat made and carried out by a single editor, HOOTmag (talk · contribs), who made no attempt to follow the WP:Deletion policy, including WP:DEL-REASON and WP:ATD, and who did not give any policy-based reason for deletion in the nomination.
9. In support of my above allegation, here are the two quotes, which I perceive as clear threats, especially in light of the fact that they were immediately carried out by the same person:

• "However, if Henley's table is deleted again, then a request for deleting the whole article will be inevitable, on the ground of Original Research. HOOTmag (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"
• "Note that adding Henley's table, is intended to save the article and defend it from deleting. Anyways, since you changed again the stable version of 21.7.2014, a request for deleting the whole article is now inevitable. HOOTmag (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"

1. In summary, I believe this nomination for AfD is an abuse of the AfD process by someone whose edits were reversed, WP:Deletion policy has been ignored, no alternatives have been sought, and an article about an encyclopedic topic is proposed for deletion based on a dispute over content, which IMO is misguided, as the dispute centers around what qualifies a state as a pariah state, not the definition of a pariah state. The dispute over what qualifies as a pariah state is IMO great content material for a good article.

• Question As the person questioning mediation, do I need to be a party to the mediation? (I assume so, though I would prefer those more directly involved were the parties.) Dcs002 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filing party would normally be involved in a mediation. I will take a closer look, but my read of the above suggests that this matter is either: a) not suitable for mediation (ref Mediation Guide) as it does not relate to article content, or b) premature - since there has not been any other form of dispute resolution attempted. Please correct me if I've got anything wrong. Sunray (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my very contention - that the content of this article has been disputed for so long, and that as the direct result of this content dispute is that one party has nominated the article for deletion because his deletes were reverted three times. Dcs002 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional: I have not been a party to that content dispute, only to the deletion dispute. I am trying to find an alternative to deletion when IMO the issue is a content dispute rather than an argument under WP:Deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be mediatable. I note that the AfD has been closed with no consensus. I will ping the other parties. Sunray (talk)
• @HOOTmag and Sean.hoyland: If you agree to this mediation, would you please sign in the section below? Sunray (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree, once user:Dcs002 - focuses on the very need to upgrade the content of the article - and stops leading the discussion to the personal direction, i.e.:

• Stops claiming I have posed "threats". I have already explained lots of times that, my claims quoted (ibid. and here) by user:Dcs002, were intended to express no threat - but rather to express a quite different (thechnical) idea on which I have already elaborated ibid.
• Stops claiming I have "nominated the article for deletion because" my "deletes were reverted three times". 1. I have already explained lots of times that, what was reverted, was not - "my deletes" (I have deleted nothing) - but rather was the stable version. 2. I have already explained lots of times that, my nominating the article for deletion - which historically (as user:Dcs002 correctly claims) had really been made immediately after the reverts of the stable version were made, was considered by me many months before those reverts, but technically could not be made - as long as the stable version was kept - because the stable version included a table which IMO could technically save (hardly but could technically save) the article from deletion (in spite of my heavy considerations in favor of deleting the article also when it included the table). However, once I realized the stable version had been reverted in such way that IMO could no longer save (even just technically) the article from deletion, the request for deletion became inevitable (IMO).

As for user:Dcs002's impersonal claims about the content of the article: they are legitimate - as long as they are impersonal, but I can't discuss them - nor can I take a part in the mediation process - as long as user:Dcs002 keeps leading this discussion to the personal direction by their statements about "threats" and about my nominating the article for deletion (which is quite another issue). Once I realize - that this mediation process is not taken to the personal direction - and that no confusion is made between the two issues (i.e. the "deletion" issue and the "content" issue), I will be in a mood to discuss user:Dcs002's impersonal claims (i.e. those about the "content" issue).

HOOTmag (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcs002 and Sean.hoyland: Comments on the above? Sunray (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here now to try to help bring about an agreement regarding the content of the article and to prevent another nomination for deletion. I have made my case already about why I think the deletion nomination was inappropriate. That discussion has been closed with no consensus. However, please understand that if I honestly believe a user has abused WP policies, which is the case, I feel compelled to speak up, and I think you all should do so too. (That is not personal. WP needs us to do that in order to preserve its integrity, though in some cases we might get it wrong.) That is the only reason why I persisted in that discussion after making my case to keep the article. The lingering possibility of having an important article deleted is the reason I am here now.

So, for our purposes here, I am content to put that aside (the nomination for deletion and what I believe were threats) if you (HOOTmag) will in turn agree not to re-nominate the article for deletion before this process is closed. My goal is to preserve the article and to get it into an encyclopedic form that we can all be happy with. (Honestly, I think that's the easy part.) Everything I have said and done - the only reason I have participated at all - is because deletion of what I think is an important article was being considered. Dcs002 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim: "So, for our purposes here, I am content to put that aside (the nomination for deletion and what I believe were threats), if you (HOOTmag) will in turn agree not to re-nominate the article for deletion before this process is closed". So, for our purposes here, I am content not to re-nominate the article for deletion before this process is closed, if you (Dcs002) will in turn agree, not to re-file another request (for mediation for the article) - that will be taken to the personal direction, before this process is closed.

After both of us agree - to promise each other - as mentioned in my previous paragraph, would you agree to strike out here - all of your personal statements about what you believe were threats and likewise (excluding the promise mentioned in my previous paragraph) - and all of your statements concerning the nomination for deletion? If you agree, then I will strike out here - all of my personal statements - and all of my statements concerning the nomination for deletion (excluding the promise mentioned in my previous paragraph).

HOOTmag (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not file another mediation request for this article while this mediation is still open. This current mediation should encompass all of the issues I have with the article itself, as long as deletion is not on the table.

My true and honest intent was originally to bring you and Sean.hoyland together to try to reach an agreement over the content that would prevent deletion and leave you both satisfied. If you and I can come to a cooperative agreement through this process, I think we can fix this article regardless of whether Sean.hoyland chooses to participate. (I think that also resolves the question of mediatability.) We can choose to care for this article as a united front if we come up with a good resolution. (My bulleted proposals below show the issues I would like to discuss and the changes I would like to make. That is the nature of the discussion I would like during this process.)

I would like to ask the mediator for an opinion before striking anything out at this point. I still honestly believe in what I have said, and I don't want to suggest otherwise. (That would not be honest. I would prefer outright deletion to striking, because that would remove the statements without prejudice.) I think our statements speak for themselves. I think they are all valid (yours included). However, if our mediator considers it a good thing to do, I will strike the content as you ask, and I will not question Sunray's judgement on this issue. I will just do it. I hope that is acceptable. I hope I have made it clear that I am very optimistic about the eventual outcome of this mediation, and I hope we can get to that point without getting stalled on this issue. Can we hear the mediator's opinion? Dcs002 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You indicate: "My true and honest intent was originally to bring you and Sean.hoyland together to try to reach an agreement over the content that would prevent deletion and leave you both satisfied ". My true and honest intent was originally to make sure this mediation process is about the "content" issue only, rather than about the personal issue or the "deletion" issue.

You indicate: "I would prefer outright deletion to striking...However, if our mediator considers it a good thing to do, I will strike the content as you ask, and I will not question Sunray's judgement on this issue. I will just do it ". It's up to you whether to strike out or delete. I suggested striking out every irrelevant paragraph, just in order to skip the technical problem of deleing other people's responses to that paragraph. Anyways: if you choose to delete - then, once you delete any of your irrelevant paragraphs - you are hereby allowed to delete also every irrelevant part of my response (if any) to that paragraph, but please notice you are not allowed to touch Sunray's response (if any) to that paragraph - before getting their permission.

I will be back tomorrow. HOOTmag (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am content with that - content issue only, and deletion optional instead of striking if our mediator decides striking those comments is a good idea. Dcs002 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I will agree to take a part in this mediation process, once you either delete - or strike out - the personal issue. HOOTmag (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the difficult bit... I haven't shared this with anyone here (for obvious reasons), but I have been quite sick lately, and it's possible that at some time soon (maybe even tomorrow) I will be hospitalized. If that happens, I will likely be away for several weeks. The timing sucks, but it is what it is. I will likely have time to post something here to let you all know if I have to go. You can decide how or whether to proceed without me in that case. Everything I want to suggest and discuss for improving the article appears somewhere in the AfD discussion, and I have made a bulleted list of proposals for the article just below. I know it's not a great idea to make proposals and stuff before everyone has agreed to this mediation, but since my medical condition is providing some unexpected challenges to this process, I hope you can understand I feel the need to improvise a bit and put it all on the table now, in case I have to disappear for a while.

• First, WP:TNT.
• Then go with Lawal's simplest definition of "pariah state" meaning an outcast state (in the lead section).
• Discuss the lack of universal criteria and defining authority in the article.
• Alternative and more specific definitions should also be covered in the article, but if the primary definition is an outcast state, that solves most of our controversies. Keep the issues of definition and criteria separate.
• Focus on non-controversial facts when discussing any individual nation, putting the controversy back where it belongs - with the politicians and academics who now use the term rather flexibly.
• That controversy is also an objective fact. There is real disagreement we should discuss in the article, but this way the disagreement is theirs, not ours.
• We can describe any and all the criteria proposed by RS, using phraseology like "X has proposed criteria Y, and has given Z as an example pariah state under those criteria." Always attributing criteria (and examples, if possible) to the source will keep that non-controversial as well. I think it will also help to err on the side of permissiveness if other editors add more definitions and criteria, as long as it is sourced and attributed. I think it's far more important to be inclusive than to reject content because rejecting content can lead us back to unnecessary, emotionally charged disputes.
• I think we can give examples of states that have at some point met the various criteria discussed in the article (like Lawal did - maybe one, or just a few, under each criterion), but not try to list all pariah states.
• Very important IMO: If a nation is seen as a pariah, I don't think that in itself means it should be included. That has been a point of contention for years. We should not try to maintain a comprehensive list. If our goal is to give examples, that whole disagreement goes away - whether the US or Ukraine or some other state is now a pariah state. We might be able to agree on a few non-controversial or minimally controversial examples and leave it there.

Finally, I think we should avoid lists of pariah states, even lists of examples, because lists might draw readers' attention to which nations made the list, possibly leading to emotional reactions without having the context of what the list means. (That's a suggestion based on what I think might happen, and what I think did happen to this article. I'll drop it if anyone disagrees.)

That's everything. I'm "all in." Thanks for coming this far. :) Dcs002 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am obviously not in the hospital today, and (barring any surprises) I should be good at least until the last week of August. Dcs002 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If other parties would like to be part of this process, can they be invited at this point? I think it would be helpful if people with strong opinions were at least able to voice them here, if not being actual parties. Dcs002 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, other parties can be included. Sunray (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Dcs002 (talk)

• Comment I posted some comments on the talk page for this page shortly after requesting mediation. I hope you have seen them. I will keep my comments here in the future. Dcs002 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please understand that whether or not this will be a mediation has not been decided yet. So far no parties other than Dcs002 have indicated (in the section below) that they agree to mediation. If this is accepted for mediation, the mediation would proceed on this page's talk page. Please keep comments on this page brief, and to the point, about the need for mediation (or not). Sunray (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. My reason for posting those proposals was because I feared I might have been hospitalized yesterday, leaving you all to decide what to do if I had to leave. I wanted to leave my comments in case you chose to consider them in my absence. I will try to be concise, but I do struggle. Dcs002 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My take on the above: You two seem to understand each other and are able to communicate effectively, IMO. Sean.hoyland has left the field ("retired"). I don't believe that the two of you need mediation. If the situation changes, or others want dispute resolution, you can reactivate a request for mediation at any time. I will reject this request now. If either of you have further questions, please contact me on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sunray, thank you for your help and for your assessment of this dispute. I think you might be right. I think we can try to work this out on our own. Dcs002 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

1. Agree. Dcs002 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject Several reasons for not proceeding with this; the main one is that there aren't enough participants. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]