Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band)

RfC meta
First, to reiterate, the above decision is my position as an editor (neither official nor binding), and is not made "as mediator".

Second, RfC is probably the best venue. I suggest both parties write a concise explanation of their positions in 1–2 paragraphs. After agreeing on a neutral overview (draft begins below), we can open it for community input.
 * Anything else before we open this up? Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 04:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, is the quote staying in place during the RfC? Does everybody agree to have the J/K synthesis replace the two Kimball quotes in the lead with immediate effect? shaidar cuebiyar, your input is requested. Is it possible and desirable to create a References section which will include all currently known RS? This would make it much easier for new contributors to get up to speed. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the RfC is proceeding apace, we should focus our energies there. It's considered good practice in general to avoid further edits to an article that's the subject of an active dispute resolution. The dubious tag serves as sufficient notification of the controversy.
 * A references section for the RfC is an excellent idea. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 05:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To CaesarsPalaceDude:
 * Which J/K synthesis are you suggesting for replacement of the K quotes? If you mean:

"Rock music historians praised the group's musicianship and noted they had a dilemma between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous or serious approach."


 * Actually, I meant the first version you wrote (which I have been unable to find, again); the version above is perfectly acceptable.
 * As far as I can tell the first version is "Other rock music historians also praised the group's musicianship and noted the group had a dilemma between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous or serious approach.[J] [K]" which is up there under section heading, point 2. It was written so that it followed M's quote, but I am happy to place the emended J/K synthesis, shown here, in pole position.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I agree. If a different version, then let us see it. Note: I've deleted 'Australian' from the start of that sentence: although J is describing Australian rock music history, his nationality is not Australian – I believe he's English. M & K are Australians but are also rock music historians. Alternatively you could start with "Historians of Australian rock music..." instead.
 * According to my "For" case below, M's quote would then follow straight after.
 * For the J/K synthesis to be used in the Lead the article would require J to be cited and reffed in the History section. My suggestion is to add J's discussion of their 1st album just after the sentence "During that year Ayers Rock issued their debut album, Big Red Rock, which was recorded live-in-the-studio at Melbourne's Armstrong's Studios. With something like:

"Vernon Joynson found the album was "an excellent example of jazz rock fusion Australian style. The musicianship is of high quality although it tends to become a little over-indulgent in places" it includes "radio friendly" material and three tracks "filled with fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone". He felt that despite being "quite a popular live act their recordings were hampered by a dilemma over whether to opt for a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons or for a commercial sound"."


 * A new paragraph break would be required to help with readability, while the rest of the current paragraph would follow. Alternatively K's agreement with J could be added straight after J's ref. I would have done something like this earlier; however the mediation has not resolved the issue about K's quotes despite my urging to do so over a month ago. We will now have to wait even longer: according to Feezo it'll be better to do so after the AfC is over.
 * I have thought that 2 paragraphs would be a very good idea for quite some time.
 * Clearly we agree that J should be added to the AfC's Reference section – it should have been in the article itself. Other than those already in the article what other entrants do you propose?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If CaesarsPalaceDude is willing, we can look for common ground on the Kimball quotes before launching the RfC. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding Joynson to the RfC Reference section is 100% essential. Basically, I would prefer to have everything we can lay our hands on, even the mention in the "Women's Weekly". Yes, Feezo, I did say "Women's Weekly"; it's hard to believe, I know! I haven't noticed anything above that I disagree with. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since both of us agree with the J/K synthesis being used in the Lead we should do so. Furthermore, we should add J's fuller quote to the main text per my proposal above with the in-line citation. All this before the RfC starts. In fact, I would have to modify my "For" case first.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I take CaesarsPalaceDude's comment that "I haven't noticed anything above that I disagree with" to mean that the J/K synthesis I proposed is acceptable and furthermore the insertion of new material per J's fuller quote can now be added to the article. I will make those edits.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made my proposed changes and added a sentence to the History on K's agreement "Duncan Kimball of Milesago website concurred with Joynson regarding the group's "dilemma" between "more expansive instrumental-based approach or ... more song-based commercial sound".K" I hope this is acceptable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, after we open the RfC to other editors, will they be able to view the whole of the mediation, or only the RfC? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the mention of Women's Weekly supposed to mean something to me? It doesn't sound familiar.
 * My apologies, it was one of my fairly weak jokes. The Australian Women's Weekly is the last place you would expect to find out about "the seriousness of music". The joke was at the expense of the Women's Weekly, and not at your expense. I hope you weren't offended. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problems, carry on :) Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 23:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) CaesarsPalaceDude is referring to Susan Moore's article from January 1982, which appeared in The Australian Women's Weekly. It is mentioned in our talkpage discussions prior to this mediation. I don't think its been raised here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To protect the privileged nature of the mediation, I will hide the page history for the duration of the RfC, if either party requests it. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I officially request it to be so hidden. I believe it will distract respondents from their task to judge the article on its merits per M's quote and our opening "For" vs "Against" statements.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be done! Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Feezo and CaesarsPalaceDude: are we right to go to RfC? I'm finally OK with my "For" case below, I have also combined my sig dates into a single one for easier view.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * shaidar cuebiyar and Feezo, yes, I'm good to go. Feezo, what type of RfC are we following? Is it a rolling discussion with one post indented from the previous one? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If editors want to discuss individual posts, that's fine. The primary purpose is still to generate new input, however Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, thanks, that was helpful. My interest was re formats, as described in RFC. My intention is to sit back, and mainly respond when I am asked. Am I on the right track? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky)
 * To encourage participation, would either party like to list talk and/or project pages that this page might be of concern, so that we can further publicize the RfC? Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky)
 * I can't think of any additional project pages that would be relevant.
 * If you scan the WP:AUS Mus Members list you'll find individuals that you could invite personally to comment (using a similar phrasing as in the WP:Feedback request service). Note that most of my work at WP has been associated with this project and consequently I have worked on articles in collaboration with these members. Some of the listed members are no longer active on the project (or on WP at all).
 * Look at Ayers Rock (band) article history and personally contact non-bot contributors. Again, I may have worked/communicated with some of these previously.
 * We would avoid canvassing by using Appropriate notification: dot point 4.
 * I know that this is not an entirely random selection but if you were to do the vetting it would be acceptable to me but check with User:CaesarsPalaceDude.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only interested in the arguments, new information, or reasons given by contributors; I have no interest in numbers on each side. Having said that, I do not intend to stand in your way; we need to try something different without going too far. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, shaidar cuebiyar, guys, what has happened to our mediation? I'm still extremely unhappy with the lead of this article. What do we do now? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest we re-list the RfC, this time contacting individual editors as suggested above. To start, Dunks58, Chubbles, and Dan arndt are currently active and have at least two edits each to the article. In addition, I suggest Canley, Moondyne, SatuSuro, and Nick-D (chosen more or less at random from active users at WikiProject Australian music). Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 08:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Let's do it. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do, as soon as Shaidar cuebiyar okays the list. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 18:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As indicated above I have worked with many of these people, but especially Dan arndt. I certainly have no objection to seeking their opinions. Note that Dunks58 = Kimball: this is no longer obvious from his current Userpage. I worked with Dunks58 (and Dan) on The Loved Ones four years ago but I have not contacted him in regards to Ayers Rock. As long as you're both comfortable with this – go ahead contact your list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; CaesarsPalaceDude, does this change anything for you? If not, I will go ahead and get this started. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 23:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, shaidar cuebiyar, I think we need to conclude the RfC phase. Should we have statements from the parties regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the RfC? What are the steps toward reaching some decisions/progress? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With about two weeks left before normal closure, it's not impossible we could get additional participation and move this towards a consensus. Would you or shaidar cuebiyar be interested in contacting additional agreed-upon users, or posting to relevant talk pages? Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 01:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two week to go... not impossible but highly improbable for any further participation. As for an additional list, I can't think of any other users which I would propose.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The following very helpful Wikipedians have been generous with their time in the past, and might do so again (hopefully, I am not going to the well once too often). User:JG66 a George Harrison specialist; User:Ritchie333 incredibly generous contributor to WikiProject: Rock Music; User:Bondegezou Canadian British, very knowledgeable prog rock guy; User:Floydian I'll give you one guess (ha,ha). shaidar cuebiyar should vet this list, for obvious reasons. I promoted the RfC at the obvious WikiProjects at the start of the RfC. Feezo, do you wish to contact the mutually agreed list, or would you like me to do it? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and contact them if Shaidar cuebiyar agrees. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 00:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy with RL. I see that JG66 has already jumped in. In any case, I echo CPD's prior comment: I'm interested in people's logic and improving WP overall. I have no problem with contacting them: the more the merrier.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, shaidar cuebiyar, I have invited the remaining editors on the list. I hope it is in line with the guidelines; could you check, and let me know, please? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our colleague Bondegezou "doesn't feel he has anything to contribute". I submit that the RfC is running on empty, although it has taken us some miles down the road. Can we move on to the next step, please? Starting with closing the RfC. Feezo, shaidar cuebiyar, your thoughts, please. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Shaidar cuebiyar agrees, I'll put in a close request. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 19:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, Shaidar cuebiyar, I'd like to add that there's no implied obligation to accept an early close. Since the comments so far seem (in my opinion) to generally favor CaesarsPalaceDude's position, I want to make sure you're 100% comfortable that the input we've seen reflects community consensus before requesting an early close. If you have any doubts on this, then we should keep the scheduled close. You're also welcome to suggest users to notify as well. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 02:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an early close. However, I dispute that all of CPD's proposals are wholly supported, nevertheless I'm willing to abide by Feezo's decision.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, there appears to be consensus on an early close, and we can discuss further action once that is done. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've entered the RfC at requests for closure. If you and shaidar cuebiyar would both prefer I close it, I will. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, close it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, I wish to make a request. Shortly before the commencement of the RfC, you and Feezo discussed whether to keep the quote in the lead on a temporary basis. You will remember that I stayed out of that discussion, and did not oppose the outcome. Why did I do that? Because I believed that was the right thing to do at that time.

Currently, there is a very different situation. I believe that the right thing to do now is that you move the quote from the lead to the body of the article on a temporary basis. Please remember that no change can be made permanent without the agreement of the parties. You may choose the position for this temporary home, and you may use the entire quote as it appeared before the mediation. I know that you have strong moral values, and I hope that you will agree that this is the right thing to do. I believe that to delay the move would be unfair to me. Please think carefully before making a decision. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I sense an air of presumption here: doesn't Feezo deserve the right to make his own RfC recommendations? It appears as if you are jiggling his elbow in the direction of your preferred option. I, however, await Feezo's decision prior to any such major change: after all that's the purpose of this whole RfM process which you initiated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, I believe that this situation is highly prejudicial to my interests. It is more than six months since I first raised this matter at the talk page. The continued delay, and procrastination in this matter is turning into an abuse of process. I firmly believe that the right, and proper place for the quote, on a temporary basis, is in the body of the article. I request permission to move the quote from the lead to the body of the article, at a position of my choosing. I request that you make a temporary ruling, which is binding for the period during which we discuss the RfC. Now is the time. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will close the RfC today, at which point you and other editors will be free to exercise that interpretation of consensus. Changes from that point would require evidence of a new consensus. Fair? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, thankyou for closing the RfC. I would like to make sure that I correctly understand you're first sentence. Are you saying that once the RfC is closed I am able to move the quote as outlined above, because it is a valid view of the current consensus? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll be able to bring the article in accord with consensus as interpreted by the closing statement. I'm sure you understand I can't make specific promises regarding the closure except that I will endeavor to accurately interpret and summarize the existing consensus. I'll have it up within a few hours. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, thankyou. It appears that I didn't understand the process re the closure. I was not trying to put time pressure on you. shaidar cuebiyar, I wasn't trying to preempt the outcome, but simply achieve forward progress. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, shaidar cuebiyar, I have moved Mr. McFarlane's quote from the lead to the end of the "History" section, as a first step towards implementing the closing statement. I accept entirely that the closing statement is an accurate summary of the consensus view of the RfC. Feezo, from your comment re the "seriousness of the music", will it be necessary for us to agree on an alternate wording to use the quote in the body of the article? Do you have something else in mind? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

 * The purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus on whether to include, in whole or part, the following quote in the lead and/or body of the article Ayers Rock (band):

"For a period during the 1970s, the members of Ayers Rock were seen as `musician's musicians'. The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music."


 * A mediation case yielded the following proposed text for the lead:

"Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise, rock music historians noted their dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous, "serious" approach. According to Ian McFarlane, the members were "seen as musician's musicians", and long term commercial success was ultimately hampered by the "seriousness of the music"."


 * Discussions broke down over whether to include the phrase "seriousness of the music". Position statements follow. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For
I think it would fit. It's important to note critical and otherwise popular perceptions of an artist's sound and how it related to their success. In this case, it indicates that the band were specifically as being too technical and this affected how they were perceived - some thought their music took itself too seriously or they took themselves too seriously as musicians, I think that's basically what it's trying to say.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  00:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ian McFarlane is a widely acknowledged expert on Australian rock music and the partial quote as used in the Lead is from his entry on the group in his Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (1999). Specifically, McFarlane summarises their career in his own lead paragraph with that quote. That era of Australian music has few independent and reliable sources which adequately describe this group. The quote should be used according to WP:LEAD so as to provide a similar summary of the group's career via an expert's opinion. His contribution assists readers to better understand their place in Australia's music history. He gives his description as to why such a highly skilled group were unable to sustain a greater impact on the local rock music scene of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Other rock music historians have provided their opinions on the group but they are largely based on the first album and don't give a broader career perspective.
 * To provide an inline citation for the quote, it would then be repeated in the History section, with a suitable cite template immediately after it (per WP:Verify). For a C-class article there is no need for cite 'plates to appear in the Lead as long as its material is adequately verified elsewhere in the article. McFarlane is already used in the article to support a number of historical facts about the group. However this quote is presented as his opinion on their career: it shows readers why he believed they did not achieve long term commercial success despite high quality musicians and some early chart success. If the quote is used in the last part of the History section and correctly attributed then readers will be in no doubt that this is his description and not the opinion of Wikipedia editors (avoiding WP:OR). Without his quote a balanced view would be distorted: the article would no longer be neutral by not representing a significant viewpoint expressed in an existing reliable source (see WP:NPOV). Without his quote the article would be an inferior product, there would be few independent expert commentaries on the group's entire career: it should be kept in the Lead and it has a place in the History section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Against
"Once Australia's hottest progressive rock band...." was how Luis Feliu described them in “The Canberra Times” on 7 July 1980. You wouldn't know that from reading the lead of the article on the same subject, nor from reading Mr. McFarlane's quote. WP:IMPARTIAL states "the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." As we know the lead is required to encapsulate the essence of the subject, and the article as a whole. At the moment it is failing to do that.

Mr. McFarlane’s quote:
 * fails to express "a clear, accessible style" as required by WP:LEAD
 * does not establish context, as required by WP:LEAD
 * presents a view which is not a valid summary of majority expert opinion
 * presents a view which is at the extreme margin of reliable opinion
 * contains "the band issued a series of technically proficient recordings…" which is damning with faint praise, and also does not represent a majority view of reliable sources
 * uses "the seriousness of the music" and "musician's musician" which are jargon (WP:JARGON)
 * fails to discuss the artistic achievements of the band
 * gives one reason for the supposed lack of commercial success, when it is quite likely that there are several others

(Please note: the lead has changed since this argument summary was written, by mutual consent, without any need to change the argument). Mr. McFarlane's quote should be discussed in the context of the whole of the lead, and the whole of the article. With the small number of reliable sources at our disposal at the moment, any additional RS that new participants bring to the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Given the number of serious issues with the quote, it should be removed from the lead, and possibly the article. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (Responding to a request on my talk page, and noting that I've never heard of this band before). I don't agree with this wording as it is clearly not encyclopaedic language: we shouldn't use Wikipedia's 'voice' to make statements such at this. It could be said that "X described the band as musicians' musicians" or whatever if this is a notable comment on them and reflects the consensus (or if not, differing views should also be noted), but it shouldn't be presented as a fact as is being proposed. In regards to the "seriousness of the music" what this means is entirely unclear, and isn't likely to be of much use to readers - if this is a commonly held assessment of the band, it should be translated into a layman's term. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (Also responding to an invitation to take part here.) I'd be against including the quote or even a paraphrased version in the Lead, simply because I can't see it adds anything useful or informative to the previous statement. But if I was working on the article, I would include the whole quote in the main text. McFarlane's wording is fairly innocuous (as critics go), although the phrase "the seriousness of the music" does make one pause briefly when reading the Lead – I can't help having an Oh, I see …-type moment there. In other words, the statement seems pretty loaded, perhaps because of the treatment it's given – words pulled out and quoted.
 * I've certainly heard of the band, and was hoping to bring another source or two to the party. Can't say I've come across anything so far, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Other

 * (Responding to request, heard of band, never listened to them) Include the first half of the mediated result. The rest contains quotes that are essentially meaningless or can have a number of meanings depending on your musical experiences in life. I don't think any of it belongs in the lede, would be undue weight to a single reviewer, however notable he may be. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Closure
In examining the six opinions above, I find the following consensus:


 * Irrespective of McFarlane's authority on the subject, this particular quote is too technical, vague, and/or unencyclopedic in tone to be used in the lead.


 * Opinions referenced in the lead must represent the majority view. The burden of proof is on the editor adding new material, especially for a topic with relatively few sources.


 * Opinions from notable figures that have not been shown to reflect majority view are valid for inclusion in the body of the article; however,


 * The meaning of the phrase "seriousness of the music" is exceptionally ambiguous, and hence is not a useful opinion to include. Critical opinions are useful for providing a balanced view; including every possible quote about the subject is not. Even experts can occasionally be unclear, and this should inform our decision to include a particular quote.

Questions may be posted in a new section below; I will close the mediation case shortly afterward. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

After the RfC
I accept entirely that the closing statement is an accurate summary of the consensus view of the RfC. User:Feezo, from your comment re the "seriousness of the music", will it be necessary for us to agree on an alternate wording to use the quote in the body of the article? Do you have something else in mind? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some kind of consensus will need to be reached; the RfC's results make possible a number of different outcomes, and may be used as the basis for continued discussion. At this point, I'm thinking: should I close the mediation, and join the discussion at Talk:Ayers Rock (band) as a regular editor? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an offer which I would describe as the epitome of generosity. What I want for the article is relatively simple: a very professional result. I am willing to roll my sleeves up, and pitch in as well. There is already a significant body of very good content in the article, and most of the credit must go to shaidar cuebiyar, and Dan arndt. Your participation as a colleague would be greatly appreciated. I think you are right in assuming that faster progress would be achieved by closing the mediation, and having you join the team. "Go ahead, make my day" CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, I intend to re-write the second half of the lead; other editors will be able to suggest concepts to be covered, but I would like to write the text. The whole process will be completely transparent, and I have created a sandbox called User:CaesarsPalaceDude/sandbox/Ayers Rock so that you, and others can observe the evolution of the new lead. I intend to ask other editors to stay at a distance from the sandbox in the periods where they are not invited. You will be invited to check at least one draft for compliance with guidelines/essays before it reaches the article. If the plan above seems like a bad idea, you should tell me sometime soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feezo, work continues on the article, and at the sandbox. The article needs a re-structure, and an editor who is less familiar with the material who has a sharp red pencil. Perhaps you might agree. I am brainstorming at the sandbox, and the rules of engagement are that there are no bad ideas, and if something is OR it is clearly shown as the source. I will sort out the issues with OR later in the process. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)