Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Diabetes mellitus
Status	closed
Request date	16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	162.84.184.38 (talk)
Mediator(s)	Fr33kman (talk · contribs)
Comment	closing case

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Diabetes mellitus]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Diabetes mellitus]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

anon poster 162.84..., ww, JDFWolff, etc, etc

Most recently, an editor has persisted in entering a single item in the intro section. It has been included in various forms, and has been reverted each time, often with discussion on the talk page. Discussion has been extensive, and consensus reached (minus this editor) on the issue, on the article talk page, mostly in the section "messing about with the introduction". Various attempts to calm down the discussion have been without effect.

NB: an archive sweep of the talk page was done simultaneous with this request. The archiver (Coro) has been asked to reverse the archiving for the duration of this evolution. A note has also been left on the talk page to this effect.

162.84... has started on 00:12, 29 July 2008 editing the illogical lead, full of repetitions and unnecessary information, (see [1]) inconsistent with WP:LEAD. Usually, it takes a week or longer to get the structure right, but additional corrections, mainly stylistical, are needed from others, who often - like in this case - are long term and dedicated editors.

Unfortunately, they have reverted multiple times (against their own advise on 06:24, 6 August 2008 to follow WP:BRD) the inclusion in the lead of the very short sentence: "Monogenic forms[5], e.g. MODY, constitute 1-5 % of all cases." (see [2]) despite that:

(1) on 06:24, 6 August 2008, JDFWolff said in the discussion that: "I will settle for a single sentence..." and 162.84... made multiple and constructive attempts to make the sentence, as short as possible;

(2) multiple statistical, numerical, and on the humanitarian ground arguments of importance of the sentence were provided by 162.84... at the bottom of Messing about with the introduction, which are consistent with WP:PRACTICAL;

(3) the sentence meets the criterion of important aspects required by WP:LEAD, and also the criterion of making the lead to stand alone, because, without it, other forms are NOT represented in the lead, but they have the 1.1.4 subchapter in the article.

Also, (4) the aforementioned reverts prevent correction of formal logic errors in the lead's sentence starting with the words "The two most common forms of diabetes are due to...", which is very badly written and - apparently - not seen as such, possibly contributing to a bad opinion about Wikipedia, as lacking in some respects, euphemistically speaking.

It seems that CONSENSUS is misinterpreted, as mentioned at the bottom of Messing about with the introduction.

Done.

The dispute has been, in my view, resolved by consensus. A solution would be to install the content the anon poster is so concerned about somewhere in the article (I've suggested some locations). An additional solution would be that the acrimony cease. In the extreme, locking down the page in some way and for some time, or at the very boundary blocking of users. I should prefer to avoid these, however.

I agree with Ww (talk · contribs) that 162.84.184.38 has been unwilling to accept the view of several other contributors. Mediation would be very helpful here. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting views of majority seems to be secondary to the logic of solid arguments, as presented above in the (1)-(4) arguments, per WP:PRACTICAL. I think, a good name of Wikipedia is more important that "views of majority" especially, when such majority may not see errors. Reminding editors, that they should strictly follow the regulations (especially WP:BRD and not to use revert, but edit constructively) seems to be paramount, but what to do, when the regulations are misinterpreted, please?! 162.84.184.38 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Initial contact has been made. Dispute of content of diabetes article.
• Must leave for personal reasons, relisting
• Reopening case

Is this closable? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]