Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/WP:OUTCOMES

Where is the dispute?

 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes
 * Editor_assistance/Requests

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Noraft
 * User:Jclemens

What is the dispute?
This started off with me nominating an AfD of a school because I thought it didn't meet WP:ORG. Then in the discussion, I was told all schools were notable as per WP:OUTCOMES. So I started Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and it came out that WP:OUTCOMES was broken and no longer serving the community. So I overhauled it to get it back on track (edit it so that it actually described outcomes, rather than telling people what was and wasn't notable and/or acceptable), as per the guidance I received at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) from an admin and other editors. Then my overhaul was reverted, with the editor citing WP:BRD, but at the same time, the editor wasn't actually following WP:BRD.

I think the above, plus reading the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes and Editor_assistance/Requests will pretty well describe the problem in full. There is a revert war going on now. Jclemens said in one of his edit summaries "Restore to consensus version while discussion continues." As far as I can tell, consensus is to go with my overhaul, with that consensus expressed by me, some guy who doesn't log in, and Fences&Windows, on the discussion page. Also by Archer904 through his now-overturned revert (I guess that's a de facto Keep). That consensus is further shared here in various forms by WhatamIdoing, Shereth, Shrik, davidwr, TerriersFan, Camaron, and here by Шизомби. None of the others who are discussing on the WP:OUTCOMES talk page have explicitly supported a reversion, or even said anything in opposition to the changes that I made. So how much consensus do we need before Jclemens releases his grip on the page?

Please keep in mind that this process started with me being told (in an AfD debate) that WP:OUTCOMES was a reason to keep a page, then told by another group of editors in a different discussion that WP:OUTCOMES should never be used as a reason to keep or delete a page because actual guidelines exist, and WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy or guideline. Since it was so unclear, I sought to clear things up for future editors. But it seems like the status quo, with all its resultant issues and problems is favorable for at least one editor.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like everyone to answer everyone else's questions, instead of responding with "be more succinct," and "you're way off base." I'd like to know what exactly is required for people to say consensus is for one version or another. I'd like the sock and meatpuppet allegations to stop, as they aren't productive. The sockpuppet investigation went in my favor. Now he's crying meatpuppet. Is it that hard to believe that someone agrees with what I'm saying?

How do you think we can help?
I think talking to both sides and helping me to nail down what needs to happen for consensus to be achieved would be a start. Having the page taken out of its current state of stasis would be another, so that regular editing by the community can continue.

Mediator notes
The discussion seems to have grown stale and/or been resolved. It seems that there is no reason to keep this page open, so i'll wait a few days and then mark it closed. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I'll take this on. I figure the problem is largely between whether the page takes a prescriptive or descriptive approach?
 * I'm still waiting for a mediator to open this case. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 09:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that for this to work, all allegations of socking and meating have to stop. If there's good evidence for it, email me; don't discuss it out in the open. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Can I get a list of all the folks involved? Need acceptance before we begin. Cupla rules:
 * Don't be a dick.


 * Allegations of socking and meating can be e-mailed to me; please don't discuss them here.


 * Sign below to agree to informal mediation
 * ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Father Goose (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sign below to reject informal mediation
 * Sorry, but this is premature, unnecessary, and is simply Noraft's attempt at forum shopping. All are welcome on the talk page, but I don't see the need for mediation at this time. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)