Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleWikipedia:Relevance of content
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUser:Father Goose, User:WikiLen, User:Kevin Murray, User:Newbyguesses, User:DGG
Mediator(s)Wizardman

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Wikipedia:Relevance of content]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Wikipedia:Relevance of content]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

User:Father Goose, User:WikiLen, User:Kevin Murray, User:Newbyguesses, User:DGG

What's going on?

WikiLen and Kevin Murray claim the proposal now at Wikipedia:Relevance of content was rejected; I (Father Goose) claim the proposal is active and discussion of it is being disrupted. WikiLen and Kevin Murray have sought to change its status to "essay"; Newbyguesses and I have been changing it back to "proposal".

The mediation context became moot with FG's submission of "Relevance of content" to the Village pump (policy) — made the tag, "proposal", unambiguously legitimate. For the sake of full disclosure, let it be noted I have tagged the proposal "Rejected" and done so with full consensus support. —WikiLen 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an escalation of the dispute. My not edit warring with you at this time should not be taken as a sign that our conflict has ended. I am observing a self-imposed cease-fire until the mediation begins.--Father Goose 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your own choice to submit "Relevance of content" to the Village pump made moot your request regarding "Essay" verses "Proposal." Now I presume you seek mediation regarding "Rejected" verses "Proposal." —WikiLen 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue remains identical; you claim it is rejected, I claim it is active but being disrupted. The exact bits (and pages) that are being edit warred over have shifted from day to day.--Father Goose 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —WikiLen 07:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to get back to discussing and improving the proposal with interested parties, and bringing in more parties to discuss it, without bickering over what the proposal's status is.

Mediator notes

Discussion of logistics archived to talk page for clarity. --Kevin Murray 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

See "Was version "FG 3.x" rejected?" for discussion regarding rejected status of Wikipedia:Relevance — old context.
See "Proposal rejected" for discussion regarding rejected status of Wikipedia:Relevance of content — new context.

Summary by WikiLen

Old context — now moot
FYI: Made moot by FG's submission to the Village pump on 17 August 2007.
I am all for FG and others continuing to develop a "Relevance" guideline or whatever it turns into. My only issue is on how they do so. It needs to be done in a way that maintains the integrity of the proposal process. Carte blanche to just claim a work is a proposal, no matter what the state of one's efforts is inappropriate in my reading of Wikipedia Policy — as I note at the discussion referenced above.
The original proposal was submitted to the Village Pump on 15 June 2007. FG's draft existed as an evolving proposal at Relevance for many weeks and resulted in those efforts being reverted to the umbrella version on 30 July. FG and others are in a major rewrite at the moment — a rewrite not yet submitted to the Village Pump. If the current status of this work is "rejected", then it ought not carry the tag, "proposal" unless it is re-submitted to the Village Pump (as a substantially new proposal). —WikiLen 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New context
See talk Proposal rejected
The dispute is now over "Rejected" verses "Proposal." —WikiLen 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What triggered the dispute

On 1 August 2007 (diff) a new project was created by FG, named "Relevance for content" (the project now under dispute). The text at Relevance prior to reverting was copied to this new project, including the tag "Proposal." The move was done by FG with his rationale documented at Wikipedia talk:Relevance#Proposal renamed. —WikiLen

What muddies the dispute

For a time there were two forks in contention for a "Relevance" proposal — mine and Father Goose's. My fork was rejected. I used the criticism to do a complete rewrite, however I made it into an essay instead of a new proposal. —WikiLen 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbyguesses' brief statement

I am in favour of work currently continuing on the proposed guideline. I note that some editors have expressed the view that a guideline on Relevance is not required, I disagree with that view. I note that some editors claim the proposal has been rejected, again, I disagree with that view, which in my opinion does not represent the majority. It appears to me that ongoing work and discussion could lead to acceptance of the proposed guideline, and there is no need to truncate such work prematurely. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have contributed to the project, and their views ought to be considered, without presuming that they are parties to the mediation, other than User:DGG who applied to join. I think about six were on Relevance of content so far, (August 9-17) and five on Relevance June 19-August 14). Should a list be necessary, it is this list. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Sorry for the delay. May I ask that the above discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content, where I will be posting my overture? Like Newbyguesses said, there are other parties who might have an interest in this mediation, even though they have not been direct combatants.--Father Goose 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose, are you directing this question to the Mediator? If not... seems like you should be. —WikiLen 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I wanted to sound out if anyone would have a problem with it.--Father Goose 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overtures and combatants? What's this all about? It is a simple matter of policy. You proposed a guideline and did not receive support -- it's deemed rejected per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Just read the rules and drop the rhetoric. --Kevin Murray 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By combatants, I meant the four of us who had participated in edit warring. In retrospect, that was not the clearest choice of words. What I meant is that the four of us are not the only ones who have had some kind of involvement with the proposal, so in the same way that DGG has expressed an interest in the mediation, I'd like to give others a chance to weigh in -- if they want -- by conducting it on the talk page of the proposal. I hope this request does not antagonize you.--Father Goose 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, it would seem more productive to try again in a month or two than to continue with this one now. There are particular issues over the content of popular culture articles that have arisen over the last few weeks, andthe proposal -- and the reaction to it -- is unduly influenced by them. We will better be able to have a good discussion, and a good final proposal, after it can be considered with a little more dispassion--it affects the comprehensiveness of the proposal, and the intensity of the reaction. Don't read me wrong--I understand that you have other things in mind as well, some of which I think would be a great improvment, and I think there are more issues that should be incorporated. There are real problems with content--there is no way of enforcing standards, and the quality of most WP articles is adversely affected by the lack. We ahould go back to this in a situation that will arouse less defensiveness. I urge you to simply withdraw it now, in the interest of getting a better one a little later--and over a more extended time of discussion, and a much greater participation in the discussion. DGG (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought the discussion of the proposal was going just fine, notwithstanding WikiLen and Kevin Murray's insistence on "rejecting" it, for reasons unrelated to what's actually in it. I also didn't note any "popular culture" issues arising during the discussion -- unless you personally would like to raise them -- in which case, please do. It's my understanding that there are both "deletionists" and "inclusionists" amongst the advocates of the proposal -- which I took as a very encouraging sign. Sure, the work's not done yet, but aside from the procedural warring with WikiLen and Kevin Murray, the discussion of the proposal has been without strife.
I don't understand why you think you, I, and everyone else have to stop discussing it right now. If you want to discuss it, if you want to bring a larger number of people into the discussion, why don't we do just that? That's exactly what I was in the midst of before the call for rejection on procedural grounds came along.--Father Goose 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and WikiLen, may I ask you clarify one point? Is your only objection to the proposal the fact that it should be qualified as rejected by the terms of the rules? No other problems with it?--Father Goose 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The category name for the work you are shepherding is "Project.") I have plenty of problems with your project as a Relevance proposal and I don't understand how you don't already know this from all that I have contributed at the talk pages of these two projects (two projects that really should have been one). The burdon is upon you now to discuss your objections to the tag "Rejected." I appreciate the satisfaction you get from responding to other peoples objections — that train, unfortunately, has left the station. —WikiLen 14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! --Kevin Murray 05:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can the parties agree on?

I am unsure how this mediation is to proceed. Do we just discuss, and try to make helful suggestions? If so, I suggest that we consider getting the page-protection lifted, as long as good behaviour is agreed to by all. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question of "good" behavior. The page should be labeled as rejected under WP policy and should be tagged as rejected. FG and Newby need to stop removing the tag and follow policy. This is a failed proposal; it's that simple. --Kevin Murray 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For mediation to work at all, both parties have to be willing to discuss something, not just say "I am right, you are wrong, end of discussion". Kevin, would you be willing to discuss anything beyond your above statement?--Father Goose 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is to dicuss? The policy is clear and there is no consensus. At this point there are two editors trying to establish a content policy which will govern millions of articles and contributors. It's just laughable that you continue to play games with this. --Kevin Murray 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is adding or removing tags - the page is protected. I have not done anything disruptive, nor breached 3RR, nor have I been accused of such. I will always abide by best practice as an editor, to the best of my ability. The page can stay as it is, with no-tag, but I believe a protected page is a bad sign. I impute no *bad* behaviour by any party, but it is normal procedure for parties to a disagreement to confirm that they intend to adhere to better behaviour in future (and mean it). Newbyguesses - Talk 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is protected because two editors kept removing the rejected tag. Nonsense. --Kevin Murray 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested *NOTAG*. Does that suit? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise brings one to a consensus, it does not replace a consensus. I cannot support *NOTAG* as a replacement for "Rejected — would be replacing a consensus with a compromise. —WikiLen 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amorphous pleas for "discuss" are hopelessly weak arguments. I and others have extensively discussed why we find consensus for "rejected" — points that have gone unchallenged (not discussed) at the project talk page or here. The burden remains on those opposed to the claimed consensus to discuss their opposition to the arguments presented. (This is looking like it a dispute for arbitration.) —WikiLen 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of discussion and compromise is to establish a consensus for action among the parties here. We are to move on, not re-hash past circumstances. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, we cannot override a consensus established elsewhere. —WikiLen 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (not including five parties), there were six contributors to talk:RC between 9 and 14 August, with five of them making positive remarks. The opposition then came from four contributors (including 3 presently concerned). How does that add up to a consensus for rejection, except that U:Wikilen and U:Kevin Murray had already decided to scuttle the project, which could have proceeded much better without such input. Newbyguesses - Talk 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or better with input along the lines of "here's how I think it needs to change", but not "kill it on sight". We've always been open to the first kind of input. DGG was helping us on that front, and Coppertwig, too, to the extent that he could articulate his thoughts.
That said, we weren't prepared to take WikiLen's draft as a wholesale replacement to what I (with the help of others) had been working on up until that point. There's a difference between "input" and "you do it my way". Long ago when WikiLen was still discussing the issues instead of making procedural motions, he helped to shape the proposal in several positive ways, and I really regret that we lost his input to this current course of action.--Father Goose 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were a number of positive contributors to WP:REL in the initial stages, and WikiLen was one. However, it took time to proceed, and momentum was lost when Wikilen's inferior draft went up on the projectpage for a time. There were further positive comments at RelC, but that was trampled on by a volume of negative and energy-sapping posts at talk:RelC by Wikilen and Kevin Murray, despite the fact that neither were willing to contribute, as others were willing. Now with the page protected, any interest by potential new contributors is spurned by the page.
Father Goose, may I ask what you see as a fair outcome here, and what you would see as a likely outcome? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kevin Murray, may I ask you if you still hold to your position that you are not prepared to discuss any outcome other than one directly dictated by you, which is what you are claiming so far. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It remains my contention that the stalling of this project is due to User:wikiLen and then User:Kevin Murray attempting to truncate the work prematurely. The time-frame required to get a proposal written, then discussed, then submitted is surely longer than was demanded to be adhered to by User:wikiLen.
WikiLen has claimed a majority, and that supported by "other users". Unfortunately, most of WikiLen's voluminous posts consist of that user's self-musings and long-winded procedural law-giving. And then to suggest that User:Father Goose is fond of chat! The posts to the talkpage polluted the atmosphere, and the project is stalled. But who are these other users whom User:WikiLen claims to represent?
User:DGG made useful comments on the talkpage (they were not in approval) and may rightly feel that improvements that were made have not been sufficient. Any comment by User:DGG is welcomed.
But it remains the case that positive comments on talk:RelC outnumbered negative ones, although the sheer length (and number) of WikiLen's negative posts may be a deterrant to anyone wishing to actually read the talkpage, and contribute. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to User:WikiLen, who previously has said -
Also, when the fork here is posted to the Relevance 'guideline' I expect it to be done without any holding back. That is, everything possible will be done to get other editors to see it, comment on it, and revise it! How else to get consensus to emerge? (No hold on editing/reverting the project space while someone works off-line on improving it.) —WikiLen 12:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The only real way to establish consensus is to post at the Relevance project space, tagged as a guideline (or proposal), and then see what consensus—or lack of—emerges at that project's talk page. Talk anywhere else is a poor predictor of consensus. WikiLen 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How can these comments be reconciled with your actions in slapping a "Rejected" tag on the project, which had then the effect of deterring user's from getting involved in the project? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No "holding back" applies to work for achieving consensus, an appeal that I directed to Father Goose. When Father Goose finally submitted the "Relevance of content" project to the Village Pump on 17 August 2007 (UTC), I then felt it was "unambiguously legitimate" to tag it as "Proposal." In the full light of the Village Pump, discussion quickly moved to "rejected" — the no-holding-back discussion is now regarding the "rejected" status. Ironically Newbyguesses, has held back on this discussion — his only arguments against the 'formal' claim of "rejected" — despite my polite efforts — has been to say,

have read the talkpage, but it did not make sense, since I am not a lawyer -Edit summary here

and

It is quite ridiculous of you to ask me again to supply an edit summary of my edit summary! I do not wish to bicker on this talkpage, nor comment very much on such a volume of lawyeristic posts on the article talkpages. -here

Furthermore, my reply to Newbyguesses was, "Failure to discuss on the talk page leaves the consensus for "Rejected" unchallenged (in that space)" — an assertion I find Newbyguesses has not disputed. —WikiLen 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not rejected, that is only your assertion. The page is marked currently with *NOTAG*. Your assertion, or posting to the page, does not make the page "Rejected". Your posts were weighed by myself by the bucket-load, I did not find much in it that I could address, or a reply that would get through to you that you had miscalculated how such a process should go. I have not posted replies on the page to your posts for some time, I am not required to, though I have been able to discuss with you previous to your REL3 going down. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newbyguesses, it is the everybody-else-reading-this that I am asking you to speak to. Convince them that the claims made at Proposal rejected are wrong. Otherwise, those claims—by being unchallenged—establish the consensus. As the Consensus policy puts it:

"Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus

WikiLen 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm not getting credit for months of discussion. But the Wizard is here to mediate, so I'll make my point again. How can we compromise away from the Policy of WP which clearly states that a proposal which does not reach consensus is de facto rejected? Shall we compromise our standards just because two editors insist on beating a dead horse? I certainly have objections to the format of the proposal, but that point is irrelevant. The premise of this mediation is to determine whether the proposal is rejected or not. Continuing discussion of my other objections is not germane to that consideration, because even with my support there would not be sufficient involvement to deem this a guideline. It's a binary choice: (1) deem it as rejected or (2) continue as a proposal. Where can we compromise? --Kevin Murray 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User: DGG (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) above said - withdraw it now, in the interest of getting a better one a little later--and over a more extended time of discussion, and a much greater participation in the discussion.

Question for User:DGG - is this your current position, and how long is a reasonable amount of time to take for a project to be written, discussed and submitted? Newbyguesses - Talk 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numeric approach

WikiLen has said that "there is a consensus for the proposal's rejection" on the basis of five users' comments, two of which (Coppertwig & edgarde) are taken from different contexts and don't even mention rejection, and it's not clear to me that DGG endorses rejection either, except in the short term for reasons that suggest an incomplete understanding of the situation.

In the past three weeks, the following users had been a part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content:

and the following users had edited it:

Based on various comments (I will provide diffs if that would make a difference), I feel I can safely say that I, Equazcion, Newbyguesses, Eyrian, Moonriddengirl, and Carcharoth support continuing work on the proposal. Additionally, Android Mouse has expressed his support for it in the past, and Timneu22's comments at the Village pump ("I like what I see so far") and Girolamo Savonarola's comments ("Any case, good luck!") suggest mild support as well.

What all this amounts to is a proposal that had a respectable and broadening degree of participation, and a respectable amount of approval which also had been improving as the work had progress. The claim that it is "rejected" is thus both spurious and premature.

I can't yet claim that it is "approved", but a claim that it is "rejected" is even less well supported. It remains a proposal, with work continuing on making the changes needed to have it meet with broad community approval. Should that work stall, with little chance of reaching that broad approval, then it would be reasonable to claim the proposal was rejected. However, the intensity of your personal opposition is not grounds for terminating the participation of several other editors.--Father Goose 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree with the assessment, but you are now definately on-point and discussing the issues, either: (1)reject, or (2) continue. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the numerical analysis[edit]

The following have specifically called for rejection or merger at one or both locations:

The following are proponents for adoption:

The following have made minor edits or comments but have not called specifically for acceptance or rejection.

is this a fair representation of the facts?
--Kevin Murray 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm wary of turning this into "supporters" vs. "opposers", since that would turn it into a vote, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Radiant, whom you mentioned above, is a zealous (and rightful) guardian of that principle. Furthermore, his "call to merge" was made months ago toward the first draft of the proposal, so his attitude toward the present work cannot be inferred.
Your choice of words "have not called specifically for acceptance" is either a technicality (we haven't polled on turning it into a guideline yet) or a mischaracterization, because obviously I would call for accepting it -- when I'm satisfied it meets with broad acceptance from others. We aren't quite there yet, and unfortunately work towards that goal has been "shut down" at this time by your actions.
I'm not seeking a referendum on having it approved as a guideline at this time, but just to continue developing the proposal as we were doing. A proposal should only be considered rejected if it is a) without consensus and b) unlikely to ever attain consensus. And consensus does not mean unanimity. You might possibly remain opposed to it forever, but your "no" vote doesn't translate into veto power.
In terms of counting support for the limited issue of allowing work to continue on the proposal (as a proposal, not 'rejected' or 'essay' or tagless or any other inapplicable status, nor declaring it a guideline at this time), I'm pretty confident about the following list:
  • Myself
  • Newbyguesses
  • Equazcion (belongs in the "accept" column, not "reject")
  • Eyrian
  • Android Mouse
  • Moonriddengirl
  • Carcharoth
And moderately confident about:
  • Girolamo Savonarola
  • Timneu22
I'm also not entirely confident that two of your "rejectors", DGG and Coppertwig, would favor rejection in perpetuity, as those of us working on the proposal have sought their continuing input and were in the process of making changes in response to that input. Coppertwig has expressed opposition but has also said "this is not a strong opposition and you can proceed without me if nobody else feels the same way". DGG has said something like "reject but resubmit" which to me seems like an arbitrary "time out" during a discussion that was active and proceeding constructively. Furthermore, I'm not confident he understands the nature of the present "rejection" movement, as he has described it as being connected to the "popular culture" issue, which has never been the case.
Thus, in the "rejection" column, I'm personally only confident of:
  • Kevin Murray
  • WikiLen
And, you know, with continued discussion of and modification of the proposal, I can't be certain even you two would never support it. At one time WikiLen wanted Wikipedia to have a relevance policy, not just guideline, and even you have at times said positive things about the work that has been emerging, although you've also voiced doubts. Why can't you give us a chance to try to address your doubts, instead of assuming, "this is never going to work, I better stop everyone else from working on it"? Use rational discourse, not stonewalling. Please! Every one of us could end up satisfied with the outcome if the two of you were willing to communicate your doubts to everyone else, instead of trying to clear the room.
Separately, I wonder what this presumed headcount is likely to change. Your presumed headcount was no more proof of rejection than mine is of acceptance, and I would say that the correct response to "no consensus" is "no decision". If you want to isolate the words from WP:POL "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not.", you have to balance them against "...and unlikely to improve" as well as "A proposal is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing."--Father Goose 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The numerical analysis has led to positive discussion, which is pleasing. I would caution, however, that we are referring to views which were held by editors at the time they posted - these views may have changed. We are not doing some kind of straw poll, or vote.
My own rough calculations suggest that on WP talk:RelC there were a total of 11 contributors, with four negatives (Users:Coppertwig, DGG, WikiLen, Kevin Murray) and seven positives - enough for the work to continue. If 5 contributors to WP talk:Rel are counted as against the current project, (they may be) then the rough calculation is 7 positive and 9 negative - nowhere near consensus to approve a guideline, but enough (having read those user's comments) in my mind to demonstrate that ongoing work is not hopelessly deprecated, as a premature "Rejection" tag indicates. Rough figures only, this is not a vote, and none of those users need to comment or be commented on, if they do not wish to be parties to the mediation. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a workable starting point. I'd be surprised if it took anything less than two months, from this point, to really shore up the proposal's standing and wording. And the more people participate in the discussion, the longer it's going to take. I'm all for bringing in more participants, but everybody's going to want something different, so that'll just take additional time to hammer out the differences.
In earlier stages I was seeking to go slowly because of how much work the first draft needed, and then because WikiLen's draft and the "rejection" business made it impossible to discuss it coherently. The past week's drama set the work back as well.
Consensus is hard to nail down. But I'll say this: as long as someone has brought up some reasonable issue that can be addressed, I'll work toward fixing that issue instead of pushing on toward the next stage. That's what I've been doing all along; I'd fix what I could, ask for more feedback, then fix the next thing. Only in the past couple of weeks had the participation broadened to the point where the onus was not entirely on me.
(Side note to Newbyguesses: I hope we're past the number battle for now; let's just let it drop unless someone raises it again.)--Father Goose 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(additt: reply to Father Goose) Well, I was only summarizing contributors to the talkpages, (16 in all). If the concerns of Users- Coppertwig, DGG, and Kevin Murray can be addressed, it would then seem that user:WikiLen remains the only serious opponent, or opposer, of the work continuing on the proposal. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see; it's more important to me to gain the good will of Mr. Murray and WikiLen than to keep trying to "win arguments" against them. We can hash out our disagreements later when we have reached a better understanding of each other.--Father Goose 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FG, I'd support a two month window for completion. Can we get some definition of what would serve to demonstrate consensus at that point? --Kevin Murray 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a definition.--Father Goose 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are a Red herring

A consensus has emerged, just check the talk page — argruments for "rejected" are compelling and arguments against are, well... absent. There is, however, talk about Trivia, which begs the question: Why is a policy that will effect all articles needed when the focus is only on Trivia? (This is the third time I have asked that question.) —WikiLen 09:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against "rejection" are in the section above, which you immediately branded a "red herring". All arguments against your prior positions ("get permission via an RfC first", "it's an essay", "it's a 'new' proposal", etc.) were ignored by you as well. You changed your position every single day, showing that you're focused on a single goal and don't really care what argument you make, just as long as you achieve the goal. If you are only here to say "my position is the only right one, all your claims are uncompelling", then I know better than to try to talk to a stone. You can win any "argument" by refusing to acknowledge other people's views, but that still doesn't make your position any more tenable.--Father Goose 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Comments of a personal nature have been moved to FG's talk page.] —WikiLen 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of Newbyguesses and FG's argument is that a numerical analysis of the editors involved in the project can lead one to conclude that there is no consensus for "Rejected." I contend that such an analysis is a red herring because an actual "Rejected" consensus has already been reached, but not accepted by some editors. In that context a numerical analysis is just a way to prolong this non-acceptance in the hopes of overturning the consensus. —WikiLen 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has been reached by you WikiLen. This limiting conclusion is completely your assertion, and a million diffs posted to everyone's talkpage prove no different, if your fundamental understanding is unviable. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why when focus is only on Trivia?

Why is a policy that will effect all articles needed when the focus is only on Trivia?

FG's partial reply below is copied from talk at Wikipedia Talk:Relevance of content.

Although trivia is a hotspot for relevance issues, this proposal is aimed at the entire issue of relevance, and doesn't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as "trivia" -- which is as it should be. (Like WP:TRIVIA, it mentions "trivia sections" only.) In taking a general approach, this proposal takes the best approach: relevance is a question of focus and proximity. Trivia that lacks focus and proximity is arguably irrelevant (to an article, not necessarily to all of them). Trivia for which relevance can be demonstrated should never have been called trivia in the first place.

Admittedly, I have not given my arguments for/against this (and the rest of FG's answer) yet. With our current compromise-focus, answers and rebuttals to this question deserve renewed interest. —WikiLen 09:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer it regardless. Wikipedia is a mammoth project, with hundreds of thousands of contributors, and only minimal coordination. As a result, stuff gets posted all over the place to the wrong articles, or even just to the wrong parts of the right article. Wikipedia would definitely benefit from sensible and clear guidance on this issue. "Trivia" material is merely a symptom of this broad problem, and to identify trivia correctly, one has to evaluate it according to its relevance to the article or section where it was placed. Trivia is just a question of bad organization, as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps, in that light, the "relevance" guideline ought to be re-tooled as a style guideline instead of a content guideline.--Father Goose 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for compromise[edit]

WikiLen suggestion

I suggest that this project be narrowed to focus on Trivia and renamed or merged to support that. —WikiLen 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reduce the risk of unintended consequences.
  • Reduce its rule-creep foot print.
  • Won't conflict with those who believe a Relevance policy is not needed.
  • Increase the chance it will solve problems at Trivia — won't be diluted by efforts regarding non-trivia relevance.
  • Will put the focus where all the editor energy is.
  • May not draw as many editors to work on it as a Relevance proposal would.
  • May fail for Trivia and never get tried for a wider scope of Relevance.
I don't think it would be a good idea to focus on trivia at first, though I'm glad to see the recognition that this was the key issue in the original proposal. This would be concentrating on the part that will be hardest to agree on. Perhaps we should do the other half first, and after we've been working together, see if we can carry it further. DGG (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Suggestion

— I suggest that we consider getting the page-protection lifted, as long as good behaviour is agreed to by all. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this was Newbyguesses suggestion. Care to discuss it? — Newbyguesses - Talk 13:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbyguesses suggestion

copied from above —WikiLen 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested *NOTAG*. Does that suit? Newbyguesses - Talk 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be ready to submit the proposal to the Village Pump again and again and again, to draw in more participants. I have done so twice already. I'd still like to add it to WP:CENT. We can't gain new participants while it's overwritten with a personal essay, blanked, "rejected", or locked from edits, however.--Father Goose 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose suggestion

copied from above —WikiLen 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeking a referendum on having it approved as a guideline at this time, but just to continue developing the proposal as we were doing.

Kevin Murray suggestion

copied from above —WikiLen 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a two month window for completion. Can we get some definition of what would serve to demonstrate consensus at that point? --Kevin Murray 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take two months plus the option to assess whether the participants would like to continue the work if it has progressed well but needs to progress further. If at that point the participants are deadlocked on the possiblity of further improvement, I'd probably have to concede the proposal will never fly. However, if the conversation is interrupted by extended disruptive actions, such as has been the case throughout much of the last two months, I personally will not count any time lost to that against the deadline being proposed here. Otherwise it would be an invitation to harrass for two months more, then reject again, claiming "no progress".--Father Goose 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An important requirement[edit]

If, in the course of working on the proposal, we find ourselves edit warring over any change to the proposal again, we will hold a poll as to whether the change meets with approval. Any change achieving less than 2/3 support ("neutral" votes included) will be conceded by the changing party as not approved, and the change will remain reverted. As much as I consider polls a shitty form of discussion, I consider edit warring far worse. We should resort to polling only when it is needed to cut off an edit war in-progress, and not edit war in order to force a vote. It is my hope that we will not need to resort to this failsafe at all.--Father Goose 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pledged:

I can agree with that, subject to WikiLen's answer to the question below (next section header). Newbyguesses - Talk 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question for WikiLen[edit]

WikiLen, would you care to say: whether you consider that your continued involvement with the project to attempt to produce a workable guideline here is absolutely vital, to the extent that Wikipedia would be harmed if you were to stop your noble efforts to enforce your (changing) interpretations of policy endlessly? Would you consider withdrawing from the project, and trusting the Wikipedia community and Wikipedians to oversee this role that you have taken on on their behalf? Newbyguesses - Talk 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is mediation not arbitration. I am not the issue. Replying to a comment such as above — seems designed to entice anger — could get heated, too personal and very long. Find my detailed reply at Newbyguesses' talk page. —WikiLen 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style guideline as suggestion for compromise[edit]

FG's suggestion below is copied from above, #Why when focus is only on Trivia?. —WikiLen

Perhaps, ... the "relevance" guideline ought to be re-tooled as a style guideline instead of a content guideline.--Father Goose 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and a brilliant solution! — thanks FG. If others are in agreement then we have some minor details to work out. The moving forward steps could be: — WikiLen 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Create a project: "Guide to creating relevant content" or similar name — FG should determine this name.
  2. Copy the content of the project "Relevance of content" to this new project and copy any related talk — or just start fresh with an introduction by FG at the new talk page.
  3. Put a style-proposal tag on it (what template would that be?).
  4. Request "unprotect" for the Relevance of content project. (task for me since I made the "protect" request — WikiLen)
  5. Put the "Rejected" tag back on the "Relevance of content" project.
  6. Add a Notice template to appear below the rejected template and have it say something such as:

.

  • For clarification: Are you talking "style" guideline or "policy" guideline? —thanks, WikiLen 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (new heading for ease of reading)

First, I want to point out that I'm not irrevocably committing to a pure "style" guideline instead of a "content" guideline, just that I'm willing to try it out. Over the course of its lifetime, Relevance has trended in this direction -- in fact, it was heading further in that direction right when the edit war started up, since DGG was doing a good job of articulating its faults, and we were in the middle of trying to fix them. However, I can't say for sure that all content guidance can be removed without leaving the guideline sapped of its usefulness.

In order to explore this next possible step, what we need to do is -- in the spirit of no rules creep -- 1. unlock the proposal page; 2. if possible, call it a plain old proposal again; and 3. discuss how to change it. If the guideline continues to be specific to the subject of "relevance", we should eventually move it back to Wikipedia:Relevance. But until I'm confident its placement at Wikipedia:Relevance is uncontested, I want to leave it at Wikipedia:Relevance of content.

Don't interpret these suggestions as a bid to return things to the way they were before the edit warring; if you're willing to discuss the changes you'd like to see to the proposal instead of trying to "bury it", then everything has changed. Those of us working on the proposal have always been willing to consider such input -- it's just that your side hasn't been willing to offer it for a very long time.

Also understand that your views will be respected, and acted upon when they are found to be sensible, but you will be two of many people working on the project, and not everything will "go your way". I personally had to sacrifice much of what I liked from earlier versions, but it's been my aim all along to mediate the project, not dominate it.--Father Goose 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • FG, your statement, "I'm not irrevocably committing to a pure 'style' guideline" seems not acceptable in a mediation context. We all need a commitment one way or the other — else nothing to mediate. If you can't decide now, should we put this mediation on hold until you can decide? —WikiLen 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FG, your other points above, regarding the "Rejected" status, explain your motivation and how you will respond if we put our trust in your "aim ... to mediate the project", but don't explain why it is wrong to claim a consensus for "Rejected" has been reached. Please explain why the claim is wrong. Otherwise, the claim will stand and "rejected" will be the status. —WikiLen 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise is this: we'll work toward a position acceptable to us both. We'll see how far we can get with that. I commit to trying to forge a middle point between our respective stances, and possibly a point beyond the middle. Is that somehow unacceptable?--Father Goose 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as for me, I think this change to a style guideline would be a very good way to go--it will decrease some of the pressure and make it easier to get some degree of agreement on the actual result . DGG (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully do not support FG's latest offer of compromise. I find his "style guideline" suggestion to be a better compromise. A "style guideline" is more fitting in so many ways, including for purposes Father Goose has stated himself. At User Newbyguesses talk topic, "Latest draft" FG characterizes the project as providing advice rather than policy — a style guideline thing.

I chose to cast its tone [the project] as advice to editors adding material... Father Goose, 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At "Relevance of content" talk, "The road to official sanction" FG talks about the guideline providing organization assistance — something a policy doesn't do but a style guideline does.

A guideline that advises how to maintain this focus [article focus] and better organize those outliers is appropriate and desirable. — Father Goose, 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At "Avoid trivia sections" talk, "Relevance proposal" FG talks about the guideline providing organizational help to editors.

Relevance of content is simultaneously an attempt to improve that organization and advise editors how to present their information... Father Goose, 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This all adds up to a style guideline. And if that is not enough there is the fact that Avoid trivia sections — where this project has its roots — is a style guideline and has been so almost from day one. WikiLen 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLen, what are you on about here? Take this stuff to talk:ROC, and discuss the issues I have raised concerning concluding this mediation process, please. I have requested the page-protection be lifted, you have neglected to reply, or try to compromise on this, and most other matters. We will never conclude the mediation at this rate. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Question repeated for visibility

(repeated from above) The compromise is this: we'll work toward a position acceptable to us both. We'll see how far we can get with that. I commit to trying to forge a middle point between our respective stances, and possibly a point beyond the middle. Is that somehow unacceptable?--Father Goose 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, do you side with WikiLen that this is an unacceptable offer?--Father Goose 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To, Kevin Murray, thanks. You took the very first possible opportunity during this discussion to refer to "nonsense' and bandy other insults, but now the presumed thinness of your hide is on display. I have been civil, and tried to work towards compromise. Yoou have not done the same, and I will have it noted, by the mediator, that it is your conduct which has been insulting, if any, not mine. How dare you! Newbyguesses - Talk 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing being achieved[edit]

We're back to "rejected"?

It is my feeling that Kevin Murray and WikiLen seek no actual compromise, having rejected a good-faith offer to seek a mutually-acceptable position. Based on their actions here and over the past two months, I have no confidence that they will ever embrace any form of compromise, in continued discussion during mediation or in actual work on the proposal. I have had enough.

I withdraw from mediation.--Father Goose 19:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are back to nowhere due to the intransigence, or misunderstanding, of u:Kevin Murray, and that of u:WikiLen, no other reason. When WikiLen has finished designing the Relevance proposal to a level of personal satisfaction, perhaps a humble request to User:Jimbo to swap jobs would be in order? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLen, you mentioned Arbitration above, before any progress on the mediation had even begun. — . (This is looking like it a dispute for arbitration.) —WikiLen 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC) — Shall you be representing all parties there, or only yourself? Newbyguesses - Talk 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I urge FG to have more patience, and to continue the discussion on the basis of a style guideline. I do not support moving into arbitration instead--I see no question the ArbCom would accept. DGG (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll say one last thing to try to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. I am still committed to trying to remake it as a style guideline, but I am not sure all of its content-specific guidance can be stripped out without crippling it. I'm happy to work with any party that wants to discuss how to bring this change about, but I will repeat my caveat that while extensive changes should be possible, some guidance on content will probably have to be retained.
I will be requesting unprotection of the proposal and I will be resuming the work in this vein that DGG and the rest of us had been in the middle of two weeks ago.
I will tolerate no further edit-warring. Given:
  • The intensity and disruptiveness of WikiLen and Kevin Murray's actions from August 15 to 19;
  • Their personal stake in "burying" the proposal;
  • The number of active contributors to the proposal not on the so-called "rejecting" list (and the manner of that list's assembly);
  • My continued openness toward any parties willing to help shape the proposal (but not "bury" it);
  • And the fact that ArbCom focuses on editor behavior, not the "rightness" of either party's position;
I believe arbitration would be accepted and would produce a conclusive end to our dispute.
I now intend to get back to work on the proposal, hopefully with DGG's help and anyone else who is willing to achieve their goals through discussion, not disruption.--Father Goose 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call again, for the fourth time, for the edit-protection to be lifted, and meaningful work resume, though my pleas have been ignored to date. Even if I am no longer able to contribute, I think the edit-protect should get lifted soon. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Since the arguments here are public, and that is best, I would request that no posts be made concerning the mediation to talk:newbyguesses by either of u:WikiLen and u:Kevin Murray during the duration of this mediation. Please keep it on this page, and also refrain from attacking and insulting me. Your conduct has been perplexing, now it is getting obstructive, in my opinion, and I am glad of availing myself of mediation, where the excesses of your ill-natured contributions to this discussion may hopefully be monitored and curbed. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and implies some inappropriate contact by me. I've never contacted this person outside of a project talk page. I'd also like him to cite the dif where I've insulted him. --Kevin Murray 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without inconveniencing the mediator, I would like to request at this point that there be a comment from u:Wizardman as to the prospects for timely resolution of this mediation. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Kevin Murray 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. --WikiLen 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. Anyway, as I said in the mediator section above, I was on wikibreak (And I apparently picked a terrible time to do some, I come back and there's 60kb of conversation I have to read over) But I will look over everything and see waht I caan come up with. I'd like conversation to slow down until then please. Wizardman 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, u:wizardman. Since u:WikiLen apparently posted a reply to my talk page which should have gone to thispage, I will repeat the gist of my reply here, for the record. I am willing to withdraw from all further participation in the ROCproject, at the reasonable request of any party, if it is felt best that the project continue without me. I urge u:WikiLen to consider this position. — Newbyguesses - Talk 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

As I would wish this mediation to conclude satisfactorily, sometime soon, I will concede this point - The projectpage is now unprotected, answering my plea for discussion of this matter, which was ignored by other parties for 10 days.

However, the REJECTED tag has again been added to thepage, against consensus.

What matters are there to be raised here, so we can conclude this part of the business? I request that all parties affirm that they will take note of this Mediation's outcome, when and if available, and agree to abide by better behaviour in future. Any suggestions? Newbyguesses - Talk 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the damage being done with this non-consensus tag - see these recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content by two users uninvolved in this mediation:

23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) - I don't mind people working on this and it is a worthy project. However, since this is a rejected proposal many people who care about the issue are sitting the discussion out rather than participating.

01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC) - The proposal would evolve easier if it had the respect of an actual proposed guideline in the wp: namespace. More editors would get involved.

It is obvious that work should be allowed to continue on this proposal, and that the correct tag is the "proposal tag", the wording of which is entirely appropriate for this situation. I suggest, that we discuss that work recommence on the proposal, as soon as possible, with the correct tag, a *proposed* tag, in place, so that these and other users are afforded the opportunity to contribute, as is their right. Newbyguesses - Talk 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can get consensus on the current proposal for what to do, which was just placed on the talk page, then this shoul finally work itself out. Wizardman 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just stated my acceptance of the scheme that has been worked out at talk:ROC. To my mind, that will conclude any concerns I have regarding the Mediation. I hope other parties will agree we can end this, with the outcome being that agreement was reached on the talkpage - no further action seems required, other than to thank User:wizardman sincerely for helping. And, thanks to other parties for the willingness shown, in the end, to compromise. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think things are in an okay state now. Thanks to all.--Father Goose 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More