Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Metrication in the United Kingdom
Status	Closed
Request date	13:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	Martinvl (talk)
Parties involved	User:Martinvl, User:DeFacto, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:HiLo48
Mediator(s)	Alpha_Quadrant (talk)
Comment	The case is now stale. Two of the parties have withdrawn from the discussion.
Outside discussion	Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#MedCab mediation offer

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute involves how to use this source (if at all) in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom.

Who is involved?

What is the dispute?

The dispute is which text best reflects this source in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. All editors are agreed that Which? is a reliable source.

User:DeFacto and User:VsevolodKrolikov believe that this text best reflects the source:

Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain are experimenting with selling produce in round imperial measures again.

User:Martinvl has questioned whether this source is really approriate for the article, insisting that if it is, then it is best reflected by the text:

Which? magazine also questioned the validity of a survey conducted in 2011 by Asda who claimed that 70% of their customers would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units by asserting that buying [fresh produce] by weight was "going out of fashion".

As can be seen, these two summaries present diametrically opposing views.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

This dispute has taken up six different threads. I have highlighted those that are more than just Talk pages.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The real issue is an understanding of how one should use a "reliable source". Given the deadlock, somebody, somewhere has totally misunderstood things.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Please read the original source document - it is not very long. All the relevant parties will give their interpretation of the source and why they interpret it that way. Given the stalemate that has arisen, please give guidance through the meaning of a "reliable source".

Mediator notes

Adding a comment here so that MedcabBot doesn't close the case. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#MedCab_mediation_offer. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

It should be noted that there is a discussion of the scope of this mediation going on at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#An_open_invitation_to_User:DeFacto_and_User:VsevolodKrolikov, which prospective mediators might be interested in reading.
Editor HiLo48's comments in that discussion appear to be a withdrawal from this dispute beyond his assertion that, "mentioning claimed precise numeric results of surveys of which we know absolutely no details is inappropriate, no matter how reliable a source is normally regarded as being." Though he goes on to say, "I have presented this view in considerable detail over recent weeks, and don't want have to repeat myself again", I would point out to him that since the other editors in this dispute are summarizing their positions, that for him to fail to do so means that any mediator who accepts this case would have to dig back through the walls-o-text already generated in this dispute to extract his more detailed position. That is an unreasonable demand on mediator time and his withdrawal will likely be taken as an implied agreement that his simple statement quoted above fully and adequately summarizes his position.
Though the request in this case states that all are agreed that the Which? article is a reliable source, I could not find anything in the scope discussion which supports that assertion and, indeed, just a quick look at the source suggests that it is open to question. If consensus has indeed been reached on that point, it would be useful to be provided a link to it.
The RFC currently under way in regard to this article is on a different issue than is being proposed for mediation in this case.

Just to be clear, I am not accepting this case for mediation or offering to mediate this case at this time, nor declining to do either, but simply raising some preliminary issues which might contribute to or detract from those decisions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Added 4th bullet point 16:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC) TransporterMan (TALK).[reply]

Lest there appear to be nothing happening here, mediator Alpha Quadrant is conducting the mediation at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#MedCab_mediation_offer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion