Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin

Request Information

Request made by: Fresheneesz 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

The page in question with forced no-redirect

SkyTran (links to old article)

These are talk pages where the issue was discussed:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_and_uncooperation_of_an_admin

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Who's involved?

User:JzG

me

User:A_Transportation_Enthusiast

User:Avidor

What's going on?

User:JzG put up the page Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal for deletion, and there was some small discussion involving him, me, and a known vandal and PRT opponent Ken Avidor. I called for a vote, and it was unaniomous 9 votes that voted down the deletion.

After that, JzG cited that "AfD is not a vote", and "merged" the page with PRT. Really he merged one sentence out of the fairly large article SkyTran (links to old article) - and then deleted the rest, instead redirecting that page to Personal rapid transit.

It is my opinion that even a merge needs another proposal and another vote. But JzG doesn't think so, and basically went through with deleting the page. I consider his acts knowing vandalism - but I don't know how to deal with an uncooperative admin.

Now, he has practically violated the 3 revert rule (3 reverts in about 32 hours, and 4 reverts in 2 days), and protected the page so people who want the article can't put it back.

I dispute much of what is written here, and all of Freshneesz's interpretations, see comments below. I note also that he didn't tell me he'd made this request. Just zis Guy you know? 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

I would like administrator JzG to discuss his edits rather than abusing his power. I believe I have conducted myself very appropriately, and my actions are in no way malicious or harsh toward JzG.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

huh? My talk page would be fine.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

No, I've already tried to mediate the situation - but JzG will not cooperate with me.

Mediator response

Hi there, this is Cowman109^Talk and I have looked over this case. However, this case seems to be a disagreement about an official WP:AfD decision, and as the Mediation Cabal is an informal mediation process, there is little that mediators can do. Attempts to go through official channels appears to have already been done at WP:DRV#Personal_rapid_transit.2FUniModal, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Therefore, I'm sorry but the Mediation Cabal would not be the place to take this issue as it is beyond our control.

What I will ask, however, is that Fresheneesz and A Transportation Enthusiast take a deep breath and calm down. Writings words in capital letters and/or deeming others' opinions 'rediculous' does not move forward a discussion in any way. Instead, they increase the tension in a conversation and provoke an argument, as we clearly see here. I'd recommend seeing Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Cowman109^Talk 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman109: My only use of the word "ridiculous" was in response to JzG's assertion that I had been uncivil to Avidor, even though I believe I acted with almost unflinching civility to Avidor even as he was being quite uncooperative (see the history on the PRT page from January to March). JzG has since retracted this assertion, so the matter is closed.

If you sense hostility from Fresheneesz and me, it may be because we have been battling over the PRT pages for nearly four months now, with an editor (Avidor) that was argumentative and very non-specific in his concerns about bias. Since JzG came along, things improved considerably, but there are still areas of fundamental disagreement between JzG and Fresheneesz/me, and much of the hostility from previous battles has lingered. This was exacerbated by the contentious SkyTran deletion, as well as some unexplained mass reverts by JzG to my edits on the PRT page (and we've since come to agreement on most of those reverts). While there is still strong disagreement, I think much of the hostility has subsided in the last few days. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that after seeking a second opinion this case actually has not gone through official mediation yet, so that means informal mediation may still be an option. I will read over the statements once more and respond shortly. Cowman109^Talk 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman, the parent article, personal rapid transit, was posted for mediation a while back, which is I think when I first came across it. But this one has been through WP:AFD, WP:AN, WP:AN/I and WP:DRV, plus some Talk pages, and thus far TE and Fresheneesz have not accumulated much in the way of support. DRV endorsed my closure of the AfD. Fresheneesz has put up a proposed new version at UniModal/proposed but this fails to address the problem of it being a hypothetical implementation of a hypothetical transportation system, as yet not even in prototype, for which the creator is actively soliciting investment. I really can't see how we can give that space without violating policy. Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a hypothetical implementation of a hypothetical transportation system" - JzG, I'd just like to point out that while SkyTran itself is hypothetical, PRT itself is far from hypothetical as a transportation system, given that fully functioning prototypes of other PRT designs have been built and tested. I believe (and I know you disagree) that SkyTran is more accurately labelled as "a theoretical implementation of a real transportation system" since real PRT systems have been built and have even received regulatory approval from two governments (Germany and UK) -- all that's lacking is a real world installation of these fully developed systems. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So why are there no real-world examples listed in the article? It says there are a few test installations and one or two minor installations in process, but it doesn't mention all the cities which have PRT systems. Where are they? Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your main criterion for a "real" system seems to be commercially installed. Just because PRT systems have failed to sell in a very difficult market (which is basically controlled by proponents of a competing technology), this does not disqualify them as "real" systems. Is the new Airbus mega jumbo jet "hypothetical" just because it still hasn't proven itself commercially? PRT has been a commercial failure to this point, but that doesn't mean it's "hypothetical". To call it hypothetical basically ignores all the work that has gone into developent of fully functioning systems, from basic reasearch to engineering, to testing of fully functioning prototypes, to regulatory approval. SkyTran may be hypothetical (though I prefer "theoretical", since it is based on proven technologies), but PRT in general is real, if not commercially realized. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that because this case has gone through so many channels, I feel an informal mediation may not have too much effect on the decision. From my point of view this appears to be a disagreement that has gone much too far. I will ask for another mediator as I myself am overwhelmed by the extent of this case and have no idea where to begin as an informal mediator. I would suggest you go to a formal mediation process to settle things definitively at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. If the case is not resolved there, the disagreement could finally be brought to the Arbitration Committee, settling this once and for all. If another mediator here would like to take this case, however, we can see where things go.

Cowman109^Talk 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cowman. Fresheneesz 10:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Compromise offers

Comments by others

This is straight-out forum shopping. The facts of the case are as follows:

• Ken Avidor is not a "known vandal", Freshneesz and A Transportation Enthusiast have been particularly uncivil towards him; he is an opponent of PRT, but since the other two are proponents it is not really on to shout "bias".
• I nominated the article for deletion, as being essentially unverifiable (it is about a fictional transportation system)
• Freshneesz removed the AfD tag. I put it back.
• The debate garnered a few "votes" (AfD is not a vote, of course), with a consensus to merge to PRT, which went against my recommendation to delete.
• Freshneesz invented a "vote here" section (remember: AfD is not a vote). There was obviously external solicitation to vote as 100% of the new "voters" in this section were either anonymous or unhistoried. Comments on the admin noticeboard support this suggestion.
• The new "voters" include at least one who wanted an article on PRT itself (which we already have) and argued quite persuasively against having an article on a single "manufacturer" (SkyTran is a theoretical conept only at this stage); also one who is politically engaged in promoting PRT as his sole platform in a recent minor election.
• Freshneesz "closed" the debate as "unanimous keep" having completely excluded all input other than his friends, and with significant editorialising of the purported close.
• I closed it properly as consensus merge (against my prference), with closer's usual discretion to ignore input from unregistered and unhistoried users which does not specifically invoke policy
• because I was an involved party took it to WP:AN for comment. There was broad agreement with my closure of the AfD. I merged what little was verifiable and not already in personal rapid transit with the main article, which already contained (in more neutral terms) many of the same arguments - also the artist's rendering which illustrated the article. Supporters of the article commented at AN but without success.
• The article was also posted at WP:AN/I, where similar comments were made by its supporters but again got no joy.
• Freshneesz and A Transportation Enthusiast both reverted the closure, so rather than getting into an edit war with them I protected the redirect.
• Freshneesz tried another admin, User:Omegatron, who finally, I think, persuaded him that I was right per normal practice to discount the input from the new and anonymous friends he invited along. Omegatron has pointed out to Freshneesz that he was edit warring. Omegatron also noted (as I did) the bias in the deleted article, which essentially amounted to a POV fork of the PRT article, which has taken some considerable efforts to wrestle into a more or less neutral format. Freshneesz does not want me editing that article either.
• I have also pointed out more than once that there is a deletion review process.

Enthusuasm is great. I am an enthusiast too. But we have firm policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV which make it hard if not impossible to write substantial articles about concepts which have no objective reality other than as a sales pitch. It's easier to write about fictional consturcts if there are no vested interests involved, but in this case there is a man trying desperately to sell the concept and get investors. WP:NOT a storefront.

And above all, I posted my action at WP:AN for review. This is not some secret behind the scenes rouge admin action, I have tried to be as straight as possible. I have also engaged with others at every stage, giving full replies to every comment. Just zis Guy you know? 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG claims that Avidor is not a "known vandal". The evidence shows otherwise. In addition to Avidor's well-documented NPOV edit wars (in which he repeatedly applied the NPOV tag with only vague accusations that the article was written by "PRT cultists"), see the following for instances of his vandalism: [1],[2],[3]. There may have been others, these are just the ones I found by quickly browsing the edit histories. There is also the extensive attacks, propaganda, and linkspam that he has repeatedly posted on the PRT talk page. I cannot see how JzG can claim that Avidor is not a vandal. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avidor is not a vandal, he is an editor making good-faith edits from the basis of strongly-held opinions. Just like you. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is replacing an entire article with "PRT is totally bogus" followed by a propaganda spiel a good faith edit? How about the quote "PRT fanatics pee in their pants every time this article is mentioned." How about Avidor's repeated attacks of PRT proponents as "fanatics" and "cultists" on the talk page? Apparently, none of this strikes you as evidence of bad faith on Avidor's part; but then Fresheneesz (an active editor on pages other than PRT) makes an error in process, for which he has since apologized, and not only do you not show patience in dealing with his transgression, but you then go so far as accusing him of manipulating a vote. Does any of this strike you as an uneven treatment? A Transportation Enthusiast 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Avidor is an editor with strong opinions, just like you. Yes, there is unequal treatment - Avidor made some assertions on my talk page which I did not even dignify with a reply, whereas I have done my best to reply to every point raised by you and Fresheneesz. And you have to admit, PRT as stated in the article - a widespread urban transportation system - is bogus. It simply doesn't exist, anywhere, and I am willing to be Actual Money that it never will because there are too many powerful vested interests in the motor lobby. It's far more likely that we would see some kind of automatic guidance system based on standard or near-standard cars. But that's just my opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And you have to admit, PRT as stated in the article - a widespread urban transportation system - is bogus." - no, it is not. As I've said repeatedly, all that is lacking for PRT is a real world installation, which has been stalled by the sheer magnitude of investment required to get one built, along with natural fears about being the first implementor. History is filled with examples of technologies that looked impossibly large and complex before they were built, but which are now a mundane part of our everyday experience. Look at the NYC subway system: back in the 1800s, could anyone have conceived of such an extensive network of underground trains (at multiple levels) carrying thousands of people every day? What about the US Interstate system? Or ubiquitous air travel? Or the Internet? Or, for that matter, a comprehensive, publicly maintained encyclopedia of knowledge? :-) Can you honestly say that these huge systems were any less inconceivable before they were built than PRT appears to be today? The main hurdle for PRT as compared to these other technologies is that you can't incrementally build PRT. Air travel started with prop planes and tiny little airstrips. Interstates were preceded by local roads and US routes. The Internet started with local networks and ARPA net. But there's no gradual path to PRT, so startup has been extremely challenging. But "bogus" - certainly not. This is IMO, of course, but supported by a lot of evidence of large systems that very nearly made it to market (Cabintaxi especially). A Transportation Enthusiast 21:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1. Ken Avidor is a known vandal, he has been blocked accordingly (he was allowed back, and is welcome as long as he cooperates). He has a year LONG list of talk page junk-vandalism and actual page vandalism. You can't tell people hes not a vandal.
2. The article is about an idea, not fact. Its verifiable at www.skytran.net. How verifiable is freedom ship ?
3. I prematurely removed the AfD tag. I'm very sorry, I will not do that again. I just thought it seemed ridiculous since the page was edited by upwards of 10 people. Again, that was an action I will not take again.
4. *I* did not solicit votes, however even counting 2 out of the 9 votes gave no delete, no merge consensus. I think counting at least 2 is fair.
5. I did pronounce it "unanimous", I simply wasn't aware that voting means zip on wikipedia. I had no idea there was so many unintuative policies surrounding such a thing.
6. JzG, you merged ONE sentence out of perhaps hundreds. That is not merging. " in the deleted article" - that quote's right above. I believe JzG knows that his merge, was really a delete.

• "anonymous friends he invited along" - for god's sake JzG, I didn't invite ANYONE. You keep telling people i've been soliciting people - I simply did not solicit people. Please don't spread rumors.

• I had the impression that the "deletion review process" was for deleted articles, not "merged" articles. Or are you considering your merge deltion too - as I am? Fresheneesz 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is for review of AfD decisions. I read both articles and ensured to the est of my ability that what was verifiable from Unimodal was in PRT. Votes were clearly solicited externally, it doesn't matter particularly by whome (but there are only two likely suspects). And most of all, I know a lot about policy and precedent and I rarely, if ever, refuse to answer a civil question or request - you could have asked. Avidor has strong opinions. So do I (though not on PRT). So, it seems, do you. You might like to read what William wrote to some other people with strong opinions: beware of the tigers. In the end Unimodal was a massive article on a quite minor variant of an interesting but as yet unproven concept. It was a long way from neutral (to the extent of representing a POV fork of PRT, in my view). Freedom shipis a very much smaller article than UniModal was, and than personal rapid transit is (because PRT has at least reached prototype status). We cover the concept encyclopaedically. Malewicki's scheme is mentioned. The problems with his hypothesis are discussed in the article in some detail, as are its possible advantages. But we are not here to promote people's bids for seed funding. We really aren't.

One of my favourite subjects is Robert Hooke. Look at the size of that article. Hooke had several undred patents, was the co-designed with Wren of much of 17th Century London (he was chief surveyor to the City of London after the fire), he designed the Monument, discovered that gravity was an inverse-square law, developed the science of microscopy, established the mathematics of Boyle's Law, established Hooke's Law and prety much invented elasticity, computed the resolving power of telescopes - he was without doubt the foremost experimental scientist of his age, which was itself the age of experimental science. The article runs to a bit under 2,000 words. PRT is twice that size even though not one single fully operational system currently exists, and UniModal was over 2,100 words and doesn't even have a propotype. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(written before the last comment was posted)

I agree that the SkyTran article could be scaled down, but deletion isn't the answer.

"giving full replies to every comment" - I have yet to hear from my question that I posed more than once: Why is it so pressing to delete this article now? Why can't we have more discussion about it?

Also, he never responded about the deletion on the talk page, he definately hasn't been ignoring me or the others that don't want this deletion, however to say "full response" or "every comment" is an exageration. Fresheneesz 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would have, do, and did fully endorse scaling that page down. Instead of citing NPOV, you proposed deletion. I would be happy enough to have a scaled down article to about the size of the freedom ship article. I would be very relieved to agree on such a compromise. Fresheneesz 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to treat neutrally a fictional concept for which commercial backing is being sought. And giving UniModal its own article when it has no existence outside the creator's CAD system would be giving it undue weight. Much better to put it in the context of all the other systems. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim it is fictional? Does the SkyTran proposal include references to dilithium crystals or flux capacitors? As far as I can tell, it's a proposal based in scientific and engineering fact. There is nothing in the proposal which disqualifies it from existing in the real world as we know it, so how can you continue to claim it is fiction? Do you not see the difference between unrealized design and outright fiction? The SkyTran article clearly stated (past tense, since you've deleted it) that SkyTran is a proposal, so what's the problem with keeping it? As for concerns about commercial backing... well, wouldn't it be beneficial to have a neutral presentation of SkyTran here, which describes the system without the promotional language inherent in the promotor's website? Besides, you've repeatedly admonished us on the PRT page to "trust the reader" to sift through PRT criticism (even though you've changed that article so the criticism appears to be unanswered, even though much of it has been rebutted), yet here you seem to be trying to protect the reader from information on SkyTran. Why the double standard? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a production version of UniModal? No. A protoype? No. An agreement to manufacture? No. Funding in place? No. It is a pipe-dream. The other systems discussed have for the most part at least some real presence. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this is your definition of reality? Nothing it real unless it has a production version or a prototype or funding -- only then does it become non-fiction? What is your view of Einstein's theories of relativity, much of which exists solely as thought experiments? Are we to go through all the relativity articles and purge all references to Einstein's unverified scientific theories just because there is no real world verification of these concepts? After all, it's been nearly 100 years; if Einstein's concepts had been valid, surely they'd be supported by real world experimental data by now, right? A Transportation Enthusiast 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an engineer. A hypothetical version of an untried technology which has no prototypes and no funding rates as outright speculation in my book. I call it like I see it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an engineer as well, and I recognize that every finished system starts with an idea, a vision, a design, a specification. You may see it as speculation, and much of it speculation until it is actually built, but that doesn't automatically invalidate it as the topic of an encyclopedia article. This is not cold fusion -- there's nothing fictional about a proposed design based on existing technologies. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, let me start by saying this: JzG is an admitted admirer of Avidor's cartoon work. He has repeatedly shown a remarkable amount of restraint when dealing with Avidor's vandalism both on the PRT talk page and the article itself, even though Avidor has admitted extreme anti-PRT bias. At the same time JzG has repeatedly shown hostility to Skybum, Frezheneesz, and me. When we've raised valid points, he has shot them down solely on the basis that our arguments are invalid just because we are perceived "proponents", but he's accepted without question several arguments from Avidor, who has an admitted and unquestionable bias. Now, JzG seems to be a good editor with a good reputation, but he has let his affection for Avidor affect his judgement in this case. He should have removed himself from this mediation from the beginning, when he admitted his admiration for Avidor's cartoons and viewpoints.
• Second, JzG's assertion that "Freshneesz and A Transportation Enthusiast have been particularly uncivil towards him" is offensive to me and I demand that he show proof of this ridiculous assertion. Avidor has been the aggressor from the very beginning in the contentious debate on the PRT talk pages. I have tried repeatedly to cooperate with Avidor, and when he raised valid specific concerns, I addressed them. But for every one valid point there were maybe 10 irrelevant comments attacking PRT and its supporters or promoting his anti-PRT political campaign. Not to mention the outright vandalism to the article. JzG has always viewed Avidor's actions with rose-colored glasses because of his affection for his cartoon work.
• Third, I have never solicited votes on the Skytran deletion. In fact, I didn't even get a chance to vote myself since I was out of town when the vote happened. I would have voted not to delete.
• Fourth, since we are making accusations of vote solicitation, I would like to know how JzG originally became involved with the PRT page. Could it be that he was solicited privately by Avidor for help in his PRT battles? If we are to be accused of soliciting votes, should we not also consider the possibility that Avidor solicited JzG because he either (a) Avidor knew him directly or (b) Avidor knew he was a fan of his work and political activities? I've searched the logs, and I've found no evidence that JzG was ever contacted by anyone directly via formal or informal Wikipedia mechanisms.

A Transportation Enthusiast 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I like RKB signifies precisely nothing. I am an avid cyclist, and RKB is sustainable transport agit-prop of a high order. The Rusty Muffler Oracle was a favourite of mine years back. That has absolutely nothing to do with PRT. The lack of civility towards Avidor is in the edit histories. But my apologies, it was Skybum who used words like "ranting" to describe Avidor's comments. Avidor was not blocked for vandalism, in fact the block log says the opposite. You appear to believe that only fans of PRT should edit the article. Policy indicates otherwise. Civil and consturctive debate between opposing viewpoints often leads to very good articles.

I first came to the article because it was (rightly) flagged as being in trouble. It might even have been the previous mediation cabal request that was raised, I can't remember. But Avidor did not invite me along, nor would it matter if he had because (unlike the "voters" in the AfD) I have an edit history. And unlike you my edit history encompasses more than one subject. As an admin I get pulled into all kinds of disputes through all kinds of channels - but as it happens I had no idea Avidor was involved in this before I arrived at the article, and as the history will show I did not know until some time into editing it that User:Avidor is Ken Avidor the cartoonist. To put it simply, inviting other Wikipedians to help out with an article is usually perfectly acceptable, to solicit for an AfD is more problematic and to do so outside Wikipedia is strongly discouraged and can lead to allegations of meatpuppetry.

As to the subject of this request, if I was an "uncoperative admin" I'd scarcely have spent as much time as I have explaining the policy and precedent behind my actions, would I? Nor would I have taken it to the admin noticeboard for review. There are several hundred admins, but only twenty-odd make it into WP:100 and very few of those were essentially unopposed (the only vote against me being a troll who voted against every RFA). People seem to think I am quite cooperative. - Just zis Guy you know? 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log you cite says that avidor had "bad faith edits" and is "not simple vandalism". Bad faith edits aren't the opposite of vandalism - and I would take the second comment to mean that "this is complex vandalism", which it is - hes not simply blanking the page. He causes plenty more trouble than that.

"You appear to believe that only fans of PRT should edit the article" - not me, I just want fair representation, but I can only speak for myself.

I do notice that you are a very well respected admin, but I still have the mind that our viewpoints are all equal here. Fresheneesz 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to JzG's comments:

• "And unlike you my edit history encompasses more than one subject." - I am new to editing Wikipedia, and PRT is the first topic I got involved in, mainly because it interested me and I was repulsed by the amount of misinformation that was being spread on this technology (much of it by Avidor and LRN). What does it matter if I haven't edited other topics? I'm generally meticulous about detail and I don't get involved in something until I have a very high level of confidence that I understand it. Look back at my early edits. Most of them were very minor changes to address Avidor's concerns. Only recently have I done more extensive editing, as I've become more confident in my knowledge on the topic. Maybe you should consider that a lack of editing other topics might indicate an editor who is careful about what he writes, not an editor with an agenda.
• "To put it simply, inviting other Wikipedians to help out with an article is usually perfectly acceptable, to solicit for an AfD is more problematic and to do so outside Wikipedia is strongly discouraged and can lead to allegations of meatpuppetry" - let me make something perfectly clear: I am not involved in PRT promotion or advocacy. Even if I were motivated to solicit votes, there are very few people I could solicit because I'm not acquainted with PRT groups or promoters. Why do you find it so hard to believe that some people might vote to keep the article? Maybe these are individuals who have lurked on the PRT pages watching without participating, and decided to register and vote when it appeared that a PRT page was being deleted just because 2 editors believe it is "fictional"? Why do you continue to assume bad faith when anybody other than detractors participate in the PRT debate?
• "You appear to believe that only fans of PRT should edit the article." - absolutely false. Look back at my discussions with LDemery and Transit Guest, and even Avidor himself. At all times I encouraged them to add to the article, even if what they added was unfavorable to PRT -- as long as it was based in verifiable fact. LDemery in particular wrote the section on regulatory concerns, and I complimented him on his presentation, even though LDemery is an outspoken opponent to PRT. Also, look back at how many times I asked Avidor to make changes himself. He refused to do so, instead repeatedly applying the NPOV tag to the article with no justification other than vague, non-specific verbiage (or, sometimes, just plain attacks and political propaganda) on the talk page -- nothing actionable. And yet I am still accused of being hostile to opponents. Nothing can be further from the truth. Avidor was the only editor I had issues with, and that was because of the vandalism and misinformation campaign he was waging. And even then, as I said, I encouraged him to add to the article as long as what he added was verifible. Also, JzG, I might add I was quite supportive of your initial changes to the PRT article, which I believe made the article much better. My disagreements with you came later, when you insisted on keeping an unanswered PRT criticism section, even though much of that criticism has been proven by proponents to be invalid. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a new editor once. But my early edits were to mor ethan once subject, and certainly within the few months you've been around I had accumulated a wide-ranging history. Not that I have a problem with people who restrict their edits to a single area, but a wider edit history does tend to bring you into contact with more examples of how policy is interpreted and implemented. The reason there are unanswered criticisms of PRT i that the answers to those criticisms often amount to original research, or are unverifiable from reputable sources (the company selling a product is a reputable source for technical facts, but not for claims of efficacy, for example). You can't answer some of the questions sceptics pose about PRT because there is no real-world system on which to base an answer, and Wik,ipedia is an encyclopaedia so only repeats what is verifiable from reputable secondary sources. We have this problem all the time with articles pushing things like HGH as an anti-ageing therapy. PRT is a concept which has been around for a couple of decades, during which there has been at least one oil crisis, and yet there is still no real-world system in operation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we may not speculate on whether a particular concept is the Next Big Thing; maybe it's a good but fatally flawed idea; maybe it's an idea whose time has not yet come; or maybe it stands no chance against the powerful vested interests of the motor lobby. Given that no system yet exists, we can't, for example, state that it would attract large numbers of poeple from cars, because one verifiable fact about alternatives to cars is that people strongly prefer their cars, whatever surveys might say. People in my town drive to the station; it takes around four times as long as it does to cycle and twice as long as walking or the bus. Go figure. But this is off-topic: a mediation cabal case has been requested, without formally notifying me, on the basis that I am in some way uncooperative. I think you may be confusing cooperation with agreement. I cooperate well, with lots of poeple, but I often disagree. Sometimes I am persuaded otherwise (my Talk archives include several such situations). Mediation will not fix the fact that I view PRT as an untried concept. It won't fix the fact that there are no real-world PRT systems as described in the article. It won't fix the fact that Malewicki's system does not even have a prototype. If you want to fix these things, the place to fix them is in the real world, not on Wikipedia, because we are not here to facilitate change. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "cooperative" about unilaterally deciding to delete an article, ignoring a vote in which a majority of users (even if some were new) voted to keep it? Even if Fresheneesz perhaps did not follow policy to the letter, your knee-jerk reaction to delete and merge without discussion seems uncooperative at best, vindictive at worst. Again, I ask you, JzG, other than a few isolated instances of frustration by Fresheneesz and me, when have we acted in bad faith in any of our proceedings on these pages? Your quick and uncompromising reaction to Fresheneesz's missteps during the deletion process once again shows that you automatically assume bad faith whenever one of us supposed "proponents" missteps on procedure; meanwhile Avidor, an admitted opponent with extreme bias who has vandalized the PRT page multiple times and routinely calls any editor who doesn't agree with his views a "cultist", continues to clutter the PRT talk page with linkspam and political fluff, and you are conspicuously silent. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated multiple times, excusion of new and unregistered users is normal practice in AfDs for perfectly obvious reasons. The fact that at least one of them was clearly ignorant of the fact that we already have an encyclopaedic areticle on persoanl rapid transit amply demonstrates why we exclude such input. The one who stated that he was politically active in lobbying for it is another. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about your repeated assumption of bad faith on the part of Fresheneesz and me? Why would you automatically assume that we solicited votes? This, along with your continued defense of Avidor's abuses, is ample indication of what your bias is. Avidor's position is based on opinions, my position is based on facts, and yet you see no difference between the two of us. Go back and find an instance of where I inserted an opinion like "PRT is totally bogus". Your comparison of me to Avidor is frankly insulting. I am a scientist and do not rely on outrageous conspiracy theories as the central point in my arguments. Go back and look at the histories, JzG. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly request that you guys keep your responses short and to the point? The clutter on this page is already so large I think many admins would look at it and say "uh..[skims] screw this, someone else can mediate..". Also, topics like who edits how much and when are pretty irrelevant here. Thanks.

"a mediation cabal case has been requested, without formally notifying me" - I wasn't aware that this was what should be done, sorry.

"I think you may be confusing cooperation with agreement." - I wouldn't have posted this mediation cabal if I didn't think you weren't cooperating in a fair fasion. I'm pretty sure that its wikipedia policy to discuss a merge before doing it. Theres merge tags for that sort of thing. The point of this cabal is that I think that the merge of the article in question was done prematurely, and should have had discussion specific to the proposition of merging the page. You have had a lack of cooperation in this respect, not allowing us to revert what seems to be an action only you want to take. Fresheneesz 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neutral observer who has never heard of Skytran before until I found this cabal case. After examining the proposed Skytran article, I do not understand why the administrator JzG is against the article. The article's introduction clearly states that the Skytran project is a proposal. I do not believe that a system must be available commercially in order for an article to exist about it. Take a look for example at Asteroid_mining, this is completely theoretical, yet the article deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Take a look for example at Space_colonization, this is completely theoretical, yet the article deserves to be included in Wikipedia. I say the proposed Skytran article deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Dionyseus 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]