Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-25 Eviction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Eviction State: Closed Requested By: Kierenj Other Parties: Drouillm Mediated By: – Chacor Comments: Closed due to inactivity from both parties. Actual dispute seems to have died down.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-25 Eviction 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-25 Eviction

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Kierenj 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Eviction and Talk:Eviction

Who's involved?

User:kierenj, User:Drouillm

What's going on?

The Eviction article contains a whole load of material related to the U.S. legal process of Eviction. I believe that such material has no home anywhere on Wikipedia. A description of eviction, perhaps a non-country-specific overview of the process etc should be there.

I deleted the legal stuff with a comment on the talk page only to have it consistently reverted (returned). The argument they give was first of all 'don't delete a lot of content', then 'I think it is encyclopedic' and now 'it should be moved, not deleted'. No arguments have been given for the case of keeping it on Wikipedia - other than 'it's well written and has diagrams'. But I don't think its appropriate at all! I was under the impression that if the content shouldn't be there and no-one defends it's right to be on Wikipedia, my deletes should stay in place.

Please, I'd appreciate any advice on what I can do - or if I'm plain wrong (of course, I don't think I am :)).

What would you like to change about that?

Come to an agreement.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Discretion not required, thanks!

[edit] Mediator response

Having looked it over, here are my thoughts. What we need now is for both sides to recognise each other's opinions, and respect them. Discussion always works best. If you ever need more people to participate in a discussion, don't hesitate to ask for a third opinion or request comments. Personally, my opinion is that any article should revolve around what it is, for example sex doesn't give information on list of sex positions. In this case, U.S. and even the section on BC could probably be split off to their own articles, for example how meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina is not part of Hurricane Katrina, likewise there could be an article Evictions in the United States or Evictions in British Columbia.

Based on what I've said above, I'd like to hear from both sides about the feasibility of the above, and what their view on how this should proceed. Remember, however, to respect civility. Notifying both sides to ask their opinions. – Chacor 05:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Movement to an appropriate Wiki.

• Possible split of article off to evictions in the United States et cetera? – Chacor 05:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm not really sure where I'm supposed to write on this page -- I hope here is ok. If there is a better place for those articles, then I say go for it - they should be moved. My problem was with the outright deletion of the content. It's ok to delete vandalism and profanity, but let's not delete quality, wikipedia original content. Perhaps the area specific content could be moved to Evictions in the United States or Evictions in British Columbia Canada as suggested, with links to such articles found on the main Eviction page. Personally I don't feel encyclopedias by definition have to be broad in nature, but that is another issue that kierenj appears to feel more strongly about than me. I say we move the content as recommended by the mediator. Drouillm 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I think the content should be deleted because guides to location-specific legal processes wouldn't be found in an encyclopedia. If it's in its own article (i.e. moved) at least it's clearly labelled correctly, which is an improvement -- though I'd still nominate it for AfD (or try to suggest it). If someone wants to move it, that's fine; however since no-one took the action I just implemented the idea that I think it doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. I deleted it because I thought it should be deleted -- I would have assumed someone wanting it moved would have taken the appropriate action and moved it too. If the move happens I won't argue Kierenj 08:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's encyclopedic and does not fail our deletion criteria, then removing it could, in extreme cases, be seen as page blanking. We do have well-written articles detailing laws and even processes. In this case, are both parties willing to agree to my suggestion to split the disputed content off? After which, if Kierenj really thinks it fails our guidelines he can choose to nominate for AFD or PROD. – Chacor 08:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I say move them to their own articles, with links available on the main eviction page. Drouillm 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should also note: The only reason you don't find location specific legal processes in an encyclopedia is because encyclopedias of the past were written in books, therefore having greatly limited space. Trust me, if it were feasible for Encyclopedia Britannica to write as much as they pleased about any subject, they would. Encyclopedia by definition does not mean a brief and broad description. Drouillm 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)