Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Notability (fiction)

Mediation Case: 2006-05-27 Notability (fiction)
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: jbolden1517Talk 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Notability (fiction)


 * Who's involved?
 * User:jbolden1517, Rob and User:Sean Black


 * What's going on?
 * Rob absolutely refuses any changes to the page. On WP:AFD there are frequent comments about "not notable" in particular with game characters.  To deal with this effectively we need real criteria for fictional notability so we can determine who is or is not notable.  Rob absolutely allow any changes to the notability article in violation of WP:OWN.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like him to either "lead, follow, or get out of the way".


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Email this user link works fine for me. You can work publicly.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * I'm active in mediation cabal already.

Mediator response
Hello there! I am Cowman109Talk and I have volunteered to take this case. I have looked over the matter at hand and I would like to make a suggestion that you seek an opinion from another source. Have you tried the village pump? Getting opinions from other editors is very important in a guideline page, and I don't think a group of three people should change proposed guidelines on their own. Another alternative would be a straw poll on the talk page and a request on the village pump for people to come see. My personal view on the disputed bit of the guideline is that it is confusing as it stands. I cannot support removing it or leaving it in, but I will say that as it stands, it is a tad vague and open to interpretation. Policy and guidelines should try to clear so that people can refer to it when they make decisions related to it. How does that sound? Feel free to respond below my comments. Cowman109Talk 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am now asking that another mediator take up this case. Cowman109Talk 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey all! This is Reyk  YO!  07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC), and I've volunteered to have a go at this disagreement.

As I understand it, Jbolden is determined that some sort of addition be made to the Notability guideline so that moves and games are covered more specifically. I agree with that, particularly when you consider how many AfD discussions are about characters from movies and games. What I don't agree with is adding content to a guideline without discussing it with anyone first, and responding to being reverted with, essentially, Something needs to be done, I'm doing something, so you can either like it or lump it.

A guideline is not like an article. You can't just go in and fix anything that needs fixing on your own. The rest of the Wikipedia community have to live with what's in the policies and guidelines so you simply do not have the right to go in on your own and say "this is how it's going to be from now on". If you try, you'll find yourself reverted on general principles and that's what's happened here. You need the agreement of the community on any content that tells the community what to do.

To summarize: yes, something ought to be done, but this is not the way to do it.

How's this for a compromise? We set up a discussion for Jbolden1517's proposed changes and announce it on Village Pump and other places. We might even message AfD participants on movie or game related discussions, although I'm not a huge fan of spamming talk pages. That would highlight the shortcomings of the guideline to a large number of Wikipedians (as opposed to the few who happen to glance at the talk page) and hopefully a decent discussion and consensus would emerge. I'm willing to help any way I can. As Cowman said before he removed himself, this is not something for just a handful of people to do.

Reyk YO!  07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want to start the discussion and I'll throw my materials in or have me start it. jbolden1517Talk  15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've just put a note on Village Pump asking for people to come over and discuss. Reyk  YO!  00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others
The only result of this Mediation so far as I'm concerned is that instead of something happening, now NOTHING is happening concerning the topic. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made a suggestion to get the matter to move forward; it is the responsibility of those involved to respond or go forward and follow that suggestion. Policy and guidelines require consensus in order for important details to be changed, and as such is not something that one or two editors can decide. Cowman109Talk 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with DJ I asked for mediation not suggestions on how to start a campaign. Right now everyone uses adhoc standards and if a large number of people don't like the objective standards put forth on Notability fiction then they can overturn them easily enough (this is a wiki).  But I think that's unlikely.  I think there is only a few people who are willing to think about this issue abstractly and those are the people in this discussion group.  If you didn't want to mediate the case (and the case is on notabiility fiction) why did you take it?  jbolden1517Talk  00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently I misunderstood what was being asked for in this mediation case. I was under the impression that the goal of this was to achieve some sort of consensus on the guideline in particular that is being disputed upon. I'll step aside and let another mediator handle this case instead as they'll probably understand the source of the dispute better. Cowman109Talk 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I am quite happy to accept changes to Notability (fiction), but feel there should be some agreement for them to made. I don't need to personally be one of those agreeing. But I like to see at least two people say they like a major addition to a guideline, or I feel anybody is free to revert it. All I did was a revert a unilateral change, and I wasn't the only (or last) person. I think the resolution of this "conflict" will be best handled by getting the largest and widest possible participation in discussions at Notability (fiction). I would prefer nobody would "lead, follow, or get out of the way". Lets have more discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) with everybody welcome. --Rob 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its pretty clear I've been trying to get you guys to propose criteria. Again and again and again.  I have no problem with discussion but if you aren't talking and just revert anything there can't be a discussion.  Start actually participating in coauthoring criteria and there is no more dispute. That btw is exactly what that means:
 * Lead = propose your own criteria
 * follow = improve upon mine
 * get out of the way = or don't revert.
 * jbolden1517Talk 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This presumes there must be more criteria. If there's a consensus for that, then fine.  But until you get that consensus, you have no right to add substantial new criteria, by yourself.  Nobody, not me, not you, not anybody, can make guidelines on their own.  A guideline page, isn't like an article, which one person can do on their own.  --Rob 15:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the problem I'm complaining about! You are happy with the guideline even though its not functioning properly.  The people that need criteria are on AFD not on Notability.  You don't want criteria (I'm not sure why) they need them.  They can't be vague an article is either deleted or not deleted based on "not notable".  How do they decide if it isn't notable?  jbolden1517Talk  15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump didn't work out to well. Can we admit now that the people who care about guidelines for notability in fiction are by in large the ones watching the notability fiction guidelines page? Admit that there isn't some storm of hundreds of people ready to jump and join in to create a wide community consensus. Basically its the 2-5 people here are going to end up making this call. And either we make the call that whatever stays stays in which case we might as well just lock the page so people waste time thinking they can fix things or we fix the problem on AFD. I'd like to fix the problem. If the fix generates interest then great then we can have the wide open conversation everyone wants. But in the meanwhile hundreds of articles either got deleted or not based on no criteria and no advice from us. At the very least we have shown there is no consensus there is indifference. jbolden1517Talk 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)