Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-30 Radiant and "Notability" Guidelines

Mediation Case: Radiant and "Notability" Guidelines
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: badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC (and WP:N in some capacity), although Radiant hasn't significantly used the talk page to really show much input.


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?
 * In December, fundamental changes were made regarding the three criteria noted above. After some short discussion, I reverted the changes and began a dialogue on the talk page.  Some discussion occurred, a lack of consensus was noted, and while there was some individual warring going on, nothing incivil or disruptive occurred.  Radiant began revert warring heavily within the last couple days, ultimately pushing himself and myself against the 3RR barrier, removing disputed tags, and rarely using the talk page, declaring a nonexistant consensus within his edit summaries.  His disruptive, tendentious editing has already caused another page he's forcing his will on, WP:CREEP, to be protected, and it's my belief he's looking to do that yet again.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like his disruptive, tendentious editing to cease and for him to begin a dialogue on the respective talk pages. I would like him to respect the principles of consensus on all project pages, not just the ones I'm in conflict with him on.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * As public as possible, any type of contact is fine.

Mediator response
If Radiant is willing to agree to mediation I'll happily listen to your respective points of view. Otherwise, consider the Administrators' Noticeboard for a more... "persuasive" resolution. To refer to another user as "disruptive" implies the absence of good faith, which is a serious claim and not conducive the kind of discussion usually held here. Flakeloaf 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AN referred me here, actually. And I fully admit to the absence of good faith at this point - as much as I'd like this resolved so we can move on, good faith only extends so far, and my patience is nonexistence considering the wealth of evidence to the contrary.  Regardless of how this turns out, thank you for looking into it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily defer to AN's wisdom; let's chat. I'll go through the diffs while we're waiting for Radiant's response. Flakeloaf 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Okay I've skimmed through a bit of this discussion. From the looks of things you're both frequent contributors to the talk pages for guidelines/policies and are both working towards their perfection. When your views don't match, he makes bold edits and you make bold reverts, the edit summaries for which put you two at odds. Not to tl;dr you but that's quite the wall of text; could you bring up a few diffs that you think demonstrate exactly what's going on here?

Radiant doesn't want to participate in the MedCab at this point and, if I may be forgiven for overstepping my place for a moment, I think I can see why. I'm not going to cite policy to the people who help shape it: suffice it to say that an apology from you would go a long way towards whitewashing certain comments that may have exacerbated your mutual tension. Many editors get understandably touchy when words like "tendentious" are levelled against them. Can we agree to breathe a bit and take a look at this in a couple of days? Flakeloaf 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't lie and apologise, because that would be a false statement - I'm not sorry and I don't feel I've done anything improper. Deferring is fine, whatever you feel is best in that regard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant won't talk without an apology. Badlydrawnjeff won't apologise. This ends here. Consider resubmitting later. Flakeloaf 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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