Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Involved users
2 Issues
3 Questions in the air?
4 Comments on the RfM page
5 Comment
6 Radiant was not a mediator
7 Let's talk out the framing issue
8 Focusing on Exceptions
9 Reason for new poll
10 ...........
11 Observation from a member of the Mediation Committee
12 Working toward Real Consensus
13 Are we done here?
14 Are We Fine?
15 Request for unprotection
16 Elonka's request for information
17 Page is unprotected
18 Page moves should stop
19 Is this gonna work?

[edit] Involved users

I think anyone who wishes to join the mediation can, but lets avoid adding every single user to the list of involved users, or else the mediation could stall waiting for everyone to respond. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per User talk:Josiah Rowe#Mediation, I don't like the way this is beginning. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have left notes on the talk pages of two members of the MedCom, asking for assistance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How are the parties being determined? (Sorry, I'll admit that I haven't been through a formal mediation here). Is Elonka's edit here an indication that it's anyone with multiple posts to the discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In case we're inviting people based on number of edits, I've compiled a list at User:Wknight94/Count. I think this list shows two things:

I'm very handy with Microsoft Excel.
I really need to find something better to do.

—Wknight94 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My original list of 15 users [1] was based on a survey of the recent discussion on the talk page; I didn't want to include everyone who had expressed an opinion on the subject, since that would make it very difficult to get everyone's agreement. Perhaps I should have talked this out at WT:TV-NC.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is interested is free to add themselves to the list of participants; I'm just a bit leery of having so many participants that the mediation request isn't accepted. I also hope that other users' edits to the request don't invalidate it. (It's my first formal mediation as well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. Anyone can join, but maybe some should be "opt-in" so we don't stall the mediation by default. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is here: I'm slightly concerned that some editors may not wish to agree to mediation because they've removed themselves from the debate. For example, Peregrinefisher (talk • contribs) hasn't edited WT:TV-NC since November 11. However, I don't feel that it's appropriate for me or anyone else to remove him from the participant list, since he's been added. Hmm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

I'm not a participant in this (aside from voting in the initial poll), but this struck me under issues...

If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?
Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?

Are these issues that can actually be legitimately settled by mediation? Aren't they policy decisions that have farther reaching consequences and therefore should be debated elsewhere? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I think any questions of authority of wikiprojects would probably be most appropriate at the wikiproject guideline page. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions in the air?

It seems to me that there are 3 questions (here and elsewhere) in the air regarding mediation:

1. Would mediation be able to address (or have any authority over) the substantive issues that need to be resolved to end this dispute?

If so, then do we need to

a) leave it as it is now; or

b) involve more people in this process because it gets into policy stuff?

If not, what do we do?

2. How are the issues to be framed so that everyone can "buy into" the process (as a mediator IRL I have found that this is of fundamental importance - if someone doesn't feel like their needs/interests are represented as the conversation is framed, the process is doomed from the outset) - has this been finalized yet? I saw somewhere where (maybe on talk pages?) this is still being talked about. . .

3. How do we handle the list of participants so that people with opinions either sign on or off, and so that the nonparticipation of noninterested people doesn't mess things up?

Is this an accurate list of questions? Does anyone have answers to any of these questions? Riverbend 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the RfM page

The RfM page specifically says that the RfM should not have any comments on it, only issues for mediation and signatures. Best case, the comments are all deleted and ignored by the mediator. Worst case, the comments are grounds for rejecting the RfM. To anyone who actually wants the mediation to happen, I'd strongly suggest removing your comments since they put it at risk of being rejected. I'm not sure how RfMs handle people who are listed and don't want to participate, but don't really care about the outcome. I'd guess that you could either take your name off or "Agree" and just vote yes on any proposal. Someone should probably ask one of the mediator folk how to handle it. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The way that I've seen it done in other cases, is people can simply remove their names from the list of participants, as Radiant did. Though, the way that I've also seen it done elsewhere, is that the mediation is first discussed, the wording is agreed upon, and then the question goes out as to who would like to participate in the mediation, before the formal RfM goes up. In this case, the RfM went up with no prior discussion, and no checking with people as to whether or not they even wanted to participate. Since there seemed to be a rather blanket "anyone who's commented recently" list of participants, I went ahead and added other names who had been active participants who were (inadvertently, I'm sure) excluded by Josiah. If any of those individuals do not wish to participate, I don't think it will be a problem if they simply delete their name off the page. --Elonka 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note about the wording of the issues - I am not sure about the official policy, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to have people sign on before the wording is decided - I am a mediator (not a wikimediator), and the framing of the issues is not to be taken lightly. I went ahead and signed on because I thought that this was how the process worked here, and it has already started, but I probably should have waited. I think that we probably should try to finalize that, if possible, before we close the "signing on" phase. . . Also, with things changing as folx are signing on, people can cry the same foul here as they did with the poll - they were agreeing to something and then it was changed after they agreed. Riverbend 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with formal mediation. I apologize if I moved too quickly. I had assumed that the general consensus on WT:TV-NC in favor of pursuing the next step in dispute resolution was sufficient — evidently it was not. Are we allowed to start over again? Some guidance from a MedCom member would be greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I was not being critical of you - I think that your efforts toward getting this to mediation are VERY helpful and positive - I was just looking at the procedure and seeing something that could stop things up later - which I am sure NONE of us want!! Thanks for all your hard work :) Riverbend 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just hope that it hasn't been in vain. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Actually I don't consider myself party to this dispute. I checked it out as an outside party upon a request (by Elonka [2]) at the village pump, and have no personal interest in how TV episodes are named. My actions could be called "informal mediation" since I am not a member of the MedCom or MedCab. Thus, if a mediator is now looking into this, there's no need for me to stick around. I do not understand why Elonka now denies I was an outsider ([3], [4], [5]), considering I hadn't heard of the dispute until she asked at the VP. (Radiant) 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I posted the above on the main page but it was removed. (Radiant) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiant was not a mediator

I notice that people keep trying to add a statement to the page, saying that Radiant was an "informal mediator." I strongly contest this, and have removed the statement (again) from the page. To be clear: Radiant was definitely an outside party, who was invited to comment, which he did.[6][7][8][9][10] That does not mean he was an "informal mediator." He took active part in the debate, he participated in the moving of episodes [11][12][13][14], he fought against a new poll or attempts to invite additional comment, to the point of deleting other users' posts right off the page [15][16][17], he engaged in some emotional language (accusing me of filibustering [18], an inflammatory term that was then picked up and used by several editors, in a very clear personal attack (even Radiant had to tell them to knock it off [19])). But he never presented himself as a mediator [20][21], nor was accepted as such. --Elonka 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Radiant said Radiant was a mediator![22] —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, please stop editing the RfM page until we can get a MedCom member in here to straighten this out. I have to think that an edit war on the RfM page is going to make the MedCom very reticent about accepting the case. We can figure out a neutral wording for Radiant's participation, but let's leave the actual edits to the MedCom, shall we? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying pretty much the same as Josiah) Revert warring is a sure way to get this rejected. Other than signing your name and editing "Additional issues to be mediated", people are not supposed to edit the RfM at all. Stop editing it, none of us are supposed to do it. If you have objections to something stated in the RfM, put it in Additional issues to be mediated or just live with it and dispute it once the mediation starts. At this point I suspect this is way beyond any hope of getting accepted. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to list Radiant under the heading in which he listed himself. I can't believe even that's going to be argued. Did his informal mediation not meet some formal requirement to be listed?! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than Josiah, the rest of us shouldn't be editing the page at all. If it needs to be put in or taken out, let Josiah do it. That's the rule, and if we don't follow it, they'll just reject this whole thing. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - my 2 cents is that there are very plain rules for this page, and if we are really going to mediate (and show each other that we are acting in good faith) we should show respect for the process, and discuss issues here. Riverbend 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Riverbend — I agree that we should be talking this matter out, not edit warring on the RfM page. So, to that end, let's try to find a wording that's acceptable to all.

Would it be acceptable to describe Radiant's involvement as "informal mediation and/or outside party perspective by Radiant!"? That way, we acknowledge that his involvement was part of an attempt at resolving the situation, but we allow for the perspective that it was not mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair description. He did try to help folx see what each other was saying, but he also seemed to move away from neutrality at a point (and I don't know how relevant this is, but he is not a member of the mediation cabal - they say they're the source of informal mediation, and the main wikipedia: mediation page links to it as "Informal Mediation" - but I don't know wikipedia well enough to know if there are other "official" sources of informal mediation or not (he he he, official informal)). Riverbend 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Official" and "informal" don't go together. Forget Wikipedia, that's just English. Radiant has a great reputation here and a long history of fairness, etc. He came in and gave an unbiased opinion and tried to uphold the obvious consensus. I don't understand how that doesn't qualify as informal mediation. The qualifications for informal mediation shouldn't be easy to question - by definition. It's informal! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and I don't care how he gets defined, honestly. I was just supporting what appeared to be a reasonable compromise and asking for clarification - thanx. One thing - giving opinions (even unbiased ones) on the subject matter is not what mediators do, they remain neutral and leave their opinions (however unbiased) out. I am not saying that to be argumentative, I just wanted to mention that as a side note.Riverbend 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm sounding all jump-down-your-throat-ey. I just can't believe that every little piece of minutiae has to be argued, all the way down to if a completely unbiased person coming in off the street qualifies as an informal mediator. He, like several of the rest of us, tried to give his viewpoint about the consensus being reached - just because he was mostly ignored doesn't mean he doesn't qualify as an informal mediator. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No stress, dude - and I was just offering a thought from my experience as a mediator. Hang in there and think positive thoughts - as long as the mediation is procedurally solid things can have an endpoint one way or another sometime soon, and everybody can get back to whatever they would rather be doing. Riverbend 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Wknight94) My understanding (which may or may not be correct) is that MedCab is a source of unofficial/informal mediation, but not the only such source.

Incidentally, I just got a message from ^demon, a member of the MedCom. He said that he was going to put protection on the RfM page until we as a group could figure out exactly what we wanted to say. So let's do that. He also implied that we haven't shot our chances yet, so let's keep it that way, OK? :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Elonka really shouldn't be editing these kinds of things in the first place. This is only the request for mediation, and not the mediation itself. Much of what is said is simply apart of the request that Josiah's initial request, and that is all. This isn't some great declaration of who Radiant is, it's what Josiah put him down as. Remember, this is just the request portion, it's not a big deal. -- Ned Scott 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between mediating (as defined in a dictionary) and being a mediator (as defined as a member of the MedCom or MedCab). The former is informal and ad hoc, the latter is formal and follows certain procedures. I have done (or attempted) the former; I have not done, nor claimed to have done, the latter.
Furthermore, I wish to point out that asking for a neutral opinion, yet expecting that opinion to coincide with one's own, is oxymoronic. It is possible (indeed, possibly even desirable) for a neutral party to point out which side appears to have consensual support. I will now leave this issue to the MedCom or MedCab and take it off my watchlist.
(Radiant) 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics, as in the definition of the term "mediation"? By my definition, an ideal mediator is someone who comes in as a neutral party, who expresses no clear preference for either side of a dispute, but whose primary function is to assist the different parties to be able to communicate better. But some others here seem to regard a "mediator" more as someone like a judge, who comes in, reviews a situation, and then makes a decision which everyone is expected to abide by. Is this where we're disagreeing? --Elonka 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my understanding (as a RL mediator). There are 3 main branches of mediation, Transformative, Evaluative, and Facilitative (I do facilitative, there's my bias). Transformative mediation has a goal of 'transforming' the parties, heal wounds, making everyone a better/mroe enlightened person, etc - it has the goal of transformation. Facilitative mediation is where a neutral third party's goal is to facilitate communication between the parties and guide them through a resolution process so they can make voluntary, informed decisions. Evaluative mediation (more popular among lawyers because it more closely mirrors a courtroom) is where a neutral third party hears both sides and helps parties communicate and present evidence, then he evaluates the case and basically makes a decision. Transformative mediation has strong roots in nonviolent religious thought, facilitative mediation is related to transformative mediation with the main distinction of the "goal". evaluative mediation reflects the increasing influence of attorneys on the process. That is still oversimplified (one could write a book) but there you go. . . As far as I am concerned, a person who expresses an opinion or promotes a particular side IN ANY WAY is not a mediator, although I don't know how much of the evaluative element are in wikimediation. . . Riverbend 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Riverbend. With that in mind, would it be acceptable (for the purposes of the RfM) to describe Radiant's involvement as "outside party perspective and attempt at informal mediation by Radiant"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that that is both fair and accurate. Riverbend 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still strongly disagree that Radiant made any attempt at "informal mediation", as that was never his stated purpose. He never arrived as a neutral mediator, but instead clearly arrived in the discussion due to a request for comment. He then stated a clear opinion [23], and participated in the discussion and took action based on his opinions, as did many other editors. His comments were valued, as were the comments of any other editor who responded to the RfC, but why should we mention his in particular on this mediation page? What makes Radiant's participation any more worthy of mention than that of, say, TobyRush? --Elonka 00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you are really missing the point here. This is being put under other attempts to resolve the dispute, so even if it was unsuccessful, it was still an attempt. If Radiant attempted to mediate, and failed (if he actually did or not I won't get into), it would still be listed. It simply shows that we tried something else before coming to this point, and is not a declaration of something with greater meaning. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that Radiant was not a mediator, he was a participant in the discussion, nothing more. There may be confusion here on the difference between mediation and arbitration. A mediator, even if an informal one, would have arrived in the discussion, announced that they were there to help mediate, would have had to have been acknowledged by both sides as a mediator, and then would have attempted to help both sides to communicate. Radiant, on the other hand, clearly arrived as a result of a Request for Comment, and offered an opinion [24]. His comments were appreciated, and he was a welcome participant to the discussion, but he was not a mediator, and should not be listed as such. --Elonka 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're just arguing semantics, there's no need for that. Although he may not meet your definition of mediator he was an outside party who came in to try and resolve the issue, we can call him that. Jay32183 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's talk out the framing issue

as per Josiah above, let's centralize the discussion that I believe is currently happening on the actual page as well as various user talk pages - this seems like the most appropriate place.

It Currently Sez:

Issues to be mediated

Has a consensus about the naming of television episode articles been established?
Should the guideline explicitly name television series with WikiProjects using different naming patterns as "exceptions"?
If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?
Would another poll on this subject be appropriate?

Additional issues to be mediated

Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?

So what (if any) problems do people see with this framing? Riverbend 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the "additional issue" is an issue, at least not with how it's worded. Who disagrees that WikiProjects should "be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence"? I certainly don't. And I haven't seen anyone say anything otherwise. I also don't know of anyone calling for "strict adherence" to Wikipedia-wide guidelines. So why is this an issue? Now, some of us are opposed to blatant violation of Wikipedia-wide naming policy by WikiProject guidelines, and conflict with Wikipedia-wide naming conventions and guidelines for no reason, but that's not what this says. --Serge 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I agree with your perspective — "allowed to set guidelines" isn't an issue, at least for me. As I understand it "additional issues" section is intended for participants who disagree with the initial framing to state issues which they feel are insufficiently addressed. Since it seems that we're reworking the statement of issues altogether, it ~~shouldn't be an issue~~ can be incorporated into the initial statement of issues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Question - if the guideline says "disambiguate only when necessary" and the apparant majority wants to only "disambiguate only when necessary" because that's what the rule says, then the word "strict" adherance doesn't sound all that far off - but I do see what you are saying. If the way it is now is loaded one way, the way you present it sounds loaded the other way (blatant, no reason). Would it be any better to say something like: "To what extent should WikiProjects, through concensus, be able to set rules to address the needs of their pages when those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?" I tried to remove the loaded language. . . Riverbend 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For what (little) it's worth, "If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?" was my attempt to state this matter neutrally. (Obviously, I failed.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent job identifying the points of contention - and this discussion is a really good thing to have before a mediation, and it gets things off on the right foot for the mediation - everyone feeling like their needs are addressed in the statement (probably why it has gotten more general as folx have talked) - it can hopefully be the first agreement!Riverbend 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines for RfM say that the issues should be framed in terms of the article, not the behaviour of people editing it. So it would probably make more sense to make the issues about whether or not the guideline should be changed (whether that's making it different intent then currently, or same intent but more specific), under what circumstances exceptions are OK etc, and not about consensus or polling. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Isn't the main issue "How should individual television episode articles be named?" That's the issue we were discussing and that seems to be the most neutral way to say it, as no one's opinion is included. Jay32183 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That does sounds like the basic issue, with very neutral language. There is the whole other thing about wikiprojects and what they can do, but I like your suggestion 'cause it kinda encompasses everything and cuts right to what people are feeling strongly about. . . Some of the earlier stuff (was there concensus back then, etc) isn't really productive because it is rehashing what has already happened, and will resort in everyone polarizing and waving around evidence, etc rather than being constructive. Riverbend 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really consider WikiProjects to be "people", so I do think we can directly comment on WikiProjects. I've said this a few times, WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of people second. I do think a major part of this is that some people feel WikiProjects gives them a loop hole, and if we can touch on this issue, even if it is not the main issue, it will hopefully help prevent a future conflict of similar nature. -- Ned Scott 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would a 2-part thing work, something like: 1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should WikiProjects, through concensus, be able to set rules to address the needs of their pages when those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?Riverbend 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary to mention wikiprojects, since a consensus of users working on episode articles for a show may want to make an exception to the guideline - whether they are a wikiproject or not doesn't really matter, does it? Maybe 2 should be something like Under what circumstances may a show make an exception to the guideline, if any? Any global discussion of the "power" of wikiprojects is probably best discussed elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about something like: 1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should interested editors, through concensus, be able to set rules to address the needs of pages for a particular television show when those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?Riverbend 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good. --Serge 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the core issue is the second item under "Issues to be Mediated"; in my mind, the other issues have explicit or implicit resolutions elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll gladly explain my rationale for this after my dentist appointment (which I'm already late for), but in the meantime I'd like to refer people to my pre-mediation clarification suggestion over at ~~Conjunction Junction~~ WP:TV-NC. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about: 1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should interested editors, through consensus, be able to set series-specific guidelines to address the needs of pages for a particular television show, even if some of those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines? --Elonka 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Better. I would change "even if some" to "when some", because it seems like the only ones that are problematic are the ones that actually are consistent. . . Riverbend 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean "inconsistent", don't you, Riverbend? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Josiah! This has been a long day, just a few minutes ago I had 2 pages up and typed each of 2 entries on the wrong pages. Riverbend 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that statement of the issues. I assume that "to what extent" covers the matter of how wide the consensus has to be in order for a guideline to have weight, which is an important part of the dispute. (That is, can a consensus of editors from all over Wikipedia, including the WikiProject, trump a consensus of WikiProject members alone?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is kindofa parallel discussion over on the naming conventions page - I am going to post this latest version over there to see what those folx think (they may not be over here). Riverbend 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Elonka's suggestion, I don't think that we have any WikiProject with such consensus. Maybe this should be an issue to mediate, whether or not WP:LOST had a consensus in the first place? I think the Stargate WikiProject might have had a consensus, but then again they didn't object to switching over to WP:NC. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So we currently have: "1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should interested editors, through consensus, be able to set series-specific guidelines to address the needs of pages for a particular television show when those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?" with a proposed addition/re-addition of whether or not WikiProject Lost had a concensus. Thoughts?Riverbend 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that I am misunderstanding something, but it seems to me that neither of these statements address the actual dissension concerning TV:NC. I am under the impression that there is actually consensual agreement about both of these points:

1) How should individual television articles be named? They should be disambiguated only when necessary. However, since TV:NC is a guideline, and guidelines are susceptible to common-sense exceptions, editors of a particular television show may feel the show has a reason to not follow this guideline. If there is a consensus among that show's editors (i.e., anyone interested in taking part) that this reason exists, then that show's exceptional naming conventions would be valid.
2) To what extent should interested editors, through consensus, be able to set series-specific guidelines to address the needs of pages for a particular television show when those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines? To an infinite extent, because Wikipedia works by consensus. As mentioned above, all Wikipedia guidelines are susceptible to common-sense exceptions, per WP:POLICY.

From a practical point of view: If there is a consensus among "Star Trek editors" (i.e., anyone who is interested in taking part) that Star Trek episode articles have a reason to be exempt from TV:NC, then the articles should establish their own naming convention. If there is a consensus that the episodes are not exceptional (as far as naming conventions go), then the articles should adhere to the general naming convention. If the consensus is not clear, the discussion should continue until a consensus one way or the other is reached.

My impression, as I've mentioned on the TV:NC talk page, is that the actual disagreement is whether or not the guideline should explicitly mention exceptions. However, I want to be sure that I am not misrepresenting Elonka and the other dissenting voices. Elonka and MatthewFenton (or anyone else), if you disagree with the general rule (i.e., you think that TV episode articles should generally follow a different naming convention), I hope you will clarify this, because it means that I've misunderstood your position. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with the general rule completely. My personal opinion is that all tv shows should be consistently, automatically disambiguated. However (don't everyone rush to fuss!), I am VERY well aware that I am a distinct minority in this opinion, and that it has been discussed everywhere long before i got here and the guideline does indeed exist. So I have no interest in pushing it at present, particularly in this context (I mentioned it at Some Point), because I feel it would be disruptive and pointless and disrespectful, since I appeared to be the only one. I would certainly support a clear exception to the guideline allowing Wikiproject editors (i.e. those who are interested in pages/topics) to make guidelines based on consensus (which I am not sure that i have ever actually spelled right) that contradict broader wikiguidelines when they in good faith deem it appropriate (I think it is perfectly reasonable for a series project to decide that autodisamb is needed if more than, say, more than 10 episodes in their series need disambiguation). That is my opinion, since I think it is even more extreme than others on this "side" I have tried to instead work within the context of the discussion and also try to facilitate discussion, since this is a really interesting issue, but since you asked. . . If this ever becomes a major policy discussion again, I will make sure to bring it up there, where it would be more appropriate. Riverbend 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But I would certainly add my voice to other editors who want to actually discuss the policy, if there are any. . . Riverbend 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent summary of what the issues really are, but I don't agree with your conclusion. I think we all agree on the general rule of how episodes should be named. I agree that exceptions can be made to all policies, including this one. But I disagree that naming of Star Trek episodes comes from a consensus of "Star Trek editors". If naming is discussed, the result (exception) is determined by a consensus of all editors participating in the discussion, whether they edit the ST articles or not. That discussion might happen to be made up of only people editing ST articles. But if the discussion becomes more widely known on wikipedia, the discussion may include many who never edit ST articles, and their opinions are an equally valid part of consensus. There's really no such thing as "Star Trek editors". Since wikipedia has no juristictions, all editors can edit all articles. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't actually disagree, Milo: there are no "closed clubs" on Wikipedia, and thus by "Star Trek editors" I meant "anyone who is interested in the discussion." If there is a consensus on the general guideline, the next step can and should be a discussion at WikiProject:Star Trek about whether or not the Star Trek episodes qualify as an justifyable exception to the guideline. If there is a consensus over there to that effect — and of course everyone is invited to that discussion — then those episodes can and should be treated exceptionally.

This may mean that several similar discussions will take place about different shows (Lost, Buffy, etc.) but I think that is just how it should be, because those discussions will focus on the reasons specfic to those shows and will be in the right place for the experts on those shows to contribute. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually one of the major arguments has been whether the exceptions at Star Trek and Lost actually were acceptable. Elonka has claimed that the small group (WikiProject Lost) had a consensus, although this has been disputed let's assume it's true for the sake of argument. But then the larger group (everyone in the Naming Convention discussion) did not necessarily agree with the reasoning behind the consensus and many wished to have Lost conform to the standard guideline. I'm not sure how that affects anyone's understanding of the issue. Jay32183 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then a consensus-building discussion about those particular shows should take place, but they should take place on those show's talk pages or WikiProject pages. And those discussions are going to be much easier to have if we can achieve consensus about the general guideline (i.e., "what most TV shows should do") first.

Also, whether or not there was a past consensus for either of those shows, if there are editors who disagree now, and if they care enough to join those discussions, then the discussion needs to continue to reach a new consensus one way or the other. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with both of you. It seems that WP:LOST didn't have a consensus, but even if they did, once a larger group came along and disagreed with that consensus, that consensus changed. At this point it doesn't really matter what happened in the past with Lost since the contradictory naming guideline has been removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines (per consensus) and all episodes have been moved to names compliant with WP:TV-NAME. I don't consider it a problem any more, regardless of whether a few continue to complain about it. I don't see any reason the remaining TV shows on the list can't be renamed (doing the uncontroversial ones first), then bringing up the issue at Buffy and Star Trek. If there's a consensus to move, the articles will be moved. If there's no consensus to move, those articles stay where they are and remain an exception. I don't think we necessarily need an Official Certified Solution as long as we end up with a defacto one. If people want to keep arguing about it after that until the end of time, I say let them. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, I think we already have consensus about the general guideline (i.e., "what most TV shows should do"). I don't think it needs to be argued any more, and we can move on to the exceptions. So let's move on to the exceptions. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Star Trek is an issue any more. I believe it was started by CBurrnet who also came up with the redirect solution. Jay32183 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only hitch preventing us from closing the TV:NC discussion is Elonka's request that the TV:NC guideline page make explicit mention of exceptions (as I've described at TV:NC). That, it seems to me, is the core issue for which we require mediation. That's why I think this RfM needs to be re-worded; the only issue is "Should the guideline at TV:NC include verbiage about exceptions" or something similar. As you've mentioned, I think all the other pertinent issues actually have achieved consensus. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need consensus for an exception before we could talk about listing that exception in the guideline? Jay32183 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, then, the question we need to answer is: "Can we mediate guidelines, or must changes to guidelines be achieved through discussion and concensus in the broader wikicommunity?" After reading the wikipedia:mediation page I am not sure that that is an appropriate mediation topic - any ideas? If so, we still have to frame the issue in a way that meets the needs of all "sides" (I hate using the word "sides", it is such a polarizing way of putting things, but you know what I mean). On the table is:

1) Was there a consensus about how to title Lost episodes?

People are having a problem with this one because a)how is it to be determined whether or not there was a consensus in a confidential mediation; b)because some of the participants have denied that that was a concensus, and c) even if there was a consensus,it wouldn't matter because any small concensus can be overturned with a larger consensus the other way, and many folx say that this has been established since then.

2)Should the guideline at TV:NC specifically state that individual wikiprojects can decide, by consensus, to make reasonable show-specific guidelines that are inconsistent with the broader naming convention guidelines?

People are worried that this is not covered in the mediation and would require broader consensus to alter the guideline. Plus they say exceptions can already be made, they just haven't heard a good enough reason to make one.

3) How should tv shows be named?

People have the same problem with this as #2.

So, can anybody suggest something else, or troubleshoot one of these, or determine more effectively what needs to be resolved? Riverbend 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, Elonka was unable to get consensus for her requested change to the guideline. So the change wasn't made. People want edits made and don't get them all the time, I don't see that as reason to have to go to mediation. And all guidelines automatically are open to exceptions if there is consensus for them, they don't have to explicitly say exceptions are OK and any exceptions don't need to be listed in the guideline. I think it's time to move on, see if there is consensus to keep the present exceptions and act on that consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, Minderbinder, just to clarify, are you rescinding your agreement to mediate, or are you saying that the mediation should only deal with a more specific issue (if there is consensus for the present guideline?)? Riverbend 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, the entire RfM is completely changing (if not completely starting over) and everyone will have to reconsider their acceptance. None of us know what the wording of the RfM will be, and I'll decide once that wording is done. In the meantime, I think we should continue working on this through other avenues. Who knows, it may be possible that mediation turns out to be unnecessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I completely agree that the signing on should take place after wording has been decided on. Riverbend 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just an idea, let me know what you think. I kinda think that a problem that isn't getting talked about is what counts as a reasonable exception to the general rule. It seems to me that the folx who specifically want an exception are worried that nothing will be good enough to qualify for an exception - The argument that it would benefit both readers and editors doesn't seem to matter, the fact that there are 60% of lost shows that already need disambiguation and that still isn't a "good" enough reason for an exception to the general guidelines, so it kind of looks to some of us like people who oppose it are basically wanting "strict" adherence to the rule. If the exceptions are really where the disagreement is, as several folx have said, and if some involved parties may refuse mediation or if we can't get a mediatable issue framed, would it address anyone's remaining converns to try to have a civil discussion here or on the naming page about what scenarios would or would not be an acceptable/reasonable exception, or would that just make things worse? . . . Riverbend 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly be more inclined to agree with a specific exception than a statement along the lines of "here's the rule, but go ahead and ignore it if you don't like it". --Milo H Minderbinder 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will start a separate discussion about that below and see if anyone wants to talk about it (this one is getting long and this is separate from "framing" for mediation, I will repaste my comments from earlier so they don't get lost as more comments come in under this heading. Riverbend 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Riverbend's suggestion below, I'll bring my concerns up here. Neither 1 nor 2 nor 3 above (as given in Riverbend's edit) hit the nail on the head squarely enough for my tastes. For #1, I don't feel the Lost titles were discussed that much at TV-NC. At least not enough to bring us to this point. If we'd like to discuss that at the Lost project, that's fine - as long as there's a proper quorum. It seemed to me that the case for #1 was bumped "upstairs" to TV-NC almost immediately after I got there. I first logged an opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines on October 29 and then I personally informed everyone that the discussion had been moved (and rather quietly) the very next day with this edit. If we want to further discuss Lost specifically at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, we don't need mediation for that. Someone fire up a discussion there - and make sure others are invited for a proper quorum.

For 2 in Riverbend's edit (Riverbend, hopefully you don't think I'm picking on you - your edit happened to be the crescendo of an argument evolution that I disagree with), this question itself shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be whether that question was already answered. It seemed to me that the majority of the people felt that it had been answered. That is where the dispute is - did we already have consensus or not... Was the poll valid or not... If 2 itself is going to be inside the frame, we might as well just do another poll and start over. Only not in here since we'd have an even smaller number of opinions which I don't think anyone, including Elonka, wanted.

For 3, if the issue is exceptions, then see my argument against 2 - the discussion itself has already been done. If the issue is something besides exceptions, then mediation isn't needed for that either - just start a new discussion about some non-exception change to the guideline.

To me, the most important issue that should be inside the frame is Was consensus properly reached to leave the guideline the way it is and to leave out exception verbiage?. Without that, we're not addressing the most contentious parts of the discussion at TV-NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't take anything personally since a lot of those were not even my ideas. All I was doing was trying to pull together what different people were suggesting in one place to make discussion easier and more focused, and trying to stay on top of organizing the positions so that they stayed focused. I do have a more extreme personal position, which I have no interest in pushing or being positional about. I am tired of this discussion, and I haven't been here nearly as long as most. My main goal at the moment is to try and get people to look at things from another angle or to focus on being constructive and/or cooperative so we don't keep getting stalled. Riverbend 14:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wknight, I think the fact that Elonka and MatthewFenton so vocally disagree shows that we do not have a true consensus right now, even if we did at one point or another. (FWIW, I agree with your position about the exceptions statement.) I've added a section talking more about this at the bottom of this page. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree, so it isn't just them 2. . . Riverbend 15:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focusing on Exceptions

Above I posted a slightly longer version of this:

A problem that isn't getting talked about is what counts as a reasonable exception to the general rule. Some folx who specifically want an exception seem worried that nothing will be good enough to qualify for an exception (The argument that it would benefit both readers and editors hasn't seemed to matter, the fact that there are 60% of lost shows that already need disambiguation and that still isn't a "good" enough reason for an exception to the general guidelines, so it kind of looks to some of us like people who oppose it are basically wanting "strict" adherence to the rule). If the exceptions are really where the disagreement is, as several folx have said, would it address anyone's remaining concerns to try to have a civil discussion somewhere (here, I guess) about what kinds scenarios would or would not be an acceptable/reasonable exception, or would that just make things worse?

So in the spirit of trying to get to the bottom of the problem, does anyone have an interest in trying to delve further into the exceptions disagreement, since folx have some pretty diametrically opposing views about what can and should be addressed in mediation? Maybe at least we can pin down more specific points of disagreement, I don't know. . . I just think that we should try to look at this from some other angle. Riverbend 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there seemed to be disagreement about the term "common sense exception". There were some who argued that simply agreeing created a common sense exception and others who felt that there had to be a situation in which the spirit of the rule didn't work the way it was supposed to. Jay32183 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay is correct — speaking only for myself, I felt that the reasons being given as "common sense exceptions" (such as that x% of articles were already disambiguated") were not "common sense" — at least, they didn't seem "common" to me. Frankly, my position on the arguments for exceptions hasn't really changed since I wrote this — I don't find the "precedent", "consistency" or "context" arguments at all convincing. Similarly, I can see how consistency might make things easier for editors, but once redirects have been created for every episode that becomes a non-issue. I don't see how consistency would make things easier or more difficult for readers — they'll be arriving at the page via a link anyway, and (again) as long as there's a redirect in place, it won't matter whether the link is written as episode name or episode name (series name). The important thing for readers is that they arrive at their destination.

All this is not to say that a "common sense exception" couldn't exist — I'm just saying that I haven't seen one yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to divert things a bit but I'm concerned that the focus has wandered from the topic that ultimately brought us here. Number 2 above says:

As the risk of getting too lawyerish, answering this issue wasn't supposed to be the focus of the mediation. The focus of the mediation was supposed to be about whether this question was already answered. That's the issue that we went around and around about. But now that's been lost a bit. Making 2 above the focus of the mediation instead is tantamount to restarting the poll - exactly what so many people have said doesn't need to be done.

Also, the following confuses me:

3) How should tv shows be named?

TV shows or TV episodes? If the latter, then that's what the guideline is for. Is someone proposing a completely new naming guideline? If so, that doesn't need to be brought here - I've seen no discussion of that anywhere. If you're referring to the exceptions issue, that's already covered by the other issues (and the more specific one that I want to see included). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, my typo about episodes, I should have been more careful - obviously episodes are what is being discussed (i usually call episodes "shows" and it slipped through), it was certainly not intended to cause problems. Participants did not agree on why we were going to mediation, which is why it was extended and open for further discussion - to determine the focus. All I was trying to do up there was to pull together what different people were saying (I think that someone other than me proposed that option, I just tried to work it in) and try to find something that met everybody's needs (since that was 'posed to be the task at hand). When that didn't work, I thought that looking at the problem from a new angle in a separate section (to get away from the back and forth about how to frame the issue) might help. Feel free to edit or add to the discussion above about the options, and if you have a constructive framing idea one to suggest, please feel free to put it in up there. But the issues surrounding the "common sense" exception seems to be a problem underlying the discussion and possibly fueling concerns. It isn't the mediation topic, but not a lot of folks seem interested in cooperating to get there, and it can't hurt to step back and look at this from a new angle. Riverbend 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seems that what qualifies as an exception wasn't really part of what needed to be mediated. I think most of us agreed that, if a common sense exception arose, it would be addressed at that time. The Lost episodes did not qualify. But that can be discussed at the Lost project - a discussion that apparently has not happened, or at least not with a proper quorum. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for new poll

Just a little thing here. Ned Scott told me about the poll, and made a comment about Elonka [25]; he did mention one interesting thing. He said, "....the poll in question was changed twice by Elonka herself, where I had to revert the poll back (before anyone had voted). I even went step by step to see who who voted under what poll format and found that only three editors might have not been clear on what they voted on...." If this had gone to Medcabal, many would have noticed this. All mediators should know that even if one person has a problem, it must be reviewed and then action must be taken. I ask the Mediation Committee to support a new poll, under watch by an Informal mediator, not associated with this case. Wiki eZach| talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

~~But we never identified even one person who had a problem with how their vote was interpreted. --Serge 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)~~

~~Just quoting Ned scott, ...."that only three editors might have not been clear on what they voted on...." Wiki eZach| talk 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)~~

That's three people who had the potential of being confused or voting wrong because of changes. They were all contacted afterwards and not a single person said they would have voted differently based on the wording. Besides that, wikipedia doesn't really like polling anyway - if anyone feels the poll is bogus, then just ignore it. The discussion before and after the poll comes to the same consensus. I don't think people will accept a new poll, especially when it is percieved as just an excuse for a do-over and an opportunity to attempt votestacking. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely a discussion of whether to have another poll is getting into the meat of the matter to be mediated, isn't it? I think that on this page we should try to focus on a statement of what we want to be mediated, not attempt to solve the matter ourselves — we've been trying and failing to do that at WT:TV-NC for over a month now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)I agree, sorry. Wiki eZach| talk 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

~~:::::Whether we have a poll isn't the substantive issue, the mediation should probably focus on the naming convention and the wikiproject guidelines. Jay32183 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)~~

And for one final remark here, I wish to point out that Wikipedia is generally not in the habit of deciding issues by poll if those issues can be decided through discussion. Indeed, since the first poll only aggravated the issue, it is a non sequitur that a subsequent poll will somehow fix it. (Radiant) 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"All mediators should know that even if one person has a problem, it must be reviewed and then action must be taken." Just curious, is there a "guide to mediation" on Wikipedia which states this, or has there been such a statement at previous ArbCom proceedings? Or is this more of a "general knowledge" thing that mediators know intuitively? --Elonka 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is simply a person acting as a channel for two opposing sides and trying to see the similarities and make a compromise that all can agree with. It is general knowledge that if one person is STILL in some sort of confusion or dosen't like the compromise, one must be attentive of that and take notice. But action must also be used, or the entire thing will fall apart. Wiki eZach| talk 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See [26], in the second paragraph it reads, "The ultimate goal is to have the parties actively listening to each other". When one is ignored, this rule is broken. Wiki eZach| talk 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...........

Very hard to add if I agree or disagree to a protected page, eh? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's "extended". It will be unlocked once there's some agreement on what the issues should say. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedurally that makes the most sense - because if people agree and then the framework and topics change afterwards, then they can later claim that the mediation process was flawed and unfair by disadvantaging them at the outset by roping them in and then setting up a framework that doesn't meet their needs after they had already agreed to participate under a different framework (same problem as with the poll - the procedural irregularities - it kept changing as people posted responses - invalidated the results in the eyes of some folx). People have moved to conflict resolution to get some kind of end to this long, frustrating discussion - anything anybody can do to ensure both substantive and procedural fairness will go a long way towards getting this issue to a more stable close. Riverbend 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observation from a member of the Mediation Committee

I recently had this exchange with FICelloguy, a member of the MedCom. I thought it might be useful for other editors:

Hi, FIcelloguy. I've recently filed an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I thought there had been a consensus to pursue formal mediation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but I was apparently premature in posting the RfM — some of the participants are objecting to the way some of the questions have been framed (as well as other details), and are editing the RfM page. Is there a way to salvage this situation so that we can still pursue formal mediation? Can we work out the wording and start over again? I know that you and the other MedCom members are busy, but any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you've gotten some advice from other members of the Mediation Committee, but I'll go ahead and chip in my two cents here, though after reading your note I've only briefly glanced over the situation and haven't examined it in detail yet. In general, an edit war (always bad) should not be taking place on a request for mediation: each party should get the chance to explain their positions and views, and state what their view of the conflict is. There's no "official" list of topics to mediate page; instead, once (and if) a mediator takes the case, then s/he should carefully examine all sides of the issue, look at what each person says needs to be examined, and metaphorically speaking, chart the course from there. In the meantime, remember that an edit war on a mediation page accomplishes nothing, and that open communication, instead, should be pursued. Thanks, and let me know if you have any other questions. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, FIcelloguy. The RfM page has been locked, on ^demon's recommendation, and we're trying to work things out on the RfM's talk page. Once we reach a consensus, I presume we'll ask for the page to be unprotected (as an administrator, I could do it, but I think it would be better if someone uninvolved did it). Then... what? Since you say that there's no official wording for the list of issues, does that mean that it doesn't matter how the issues are worded? Or should we change it to a better version if we can come up with one? If we change it, do we need to ask all the participants to sign their agreement again? I suppose I'm just a bit lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The "list of issues" on the mediation page isn't "official", per se; it's there simply for the convenience of both the parties and the mediator and to facilitate the process. From my brief glance at the page, I really don't see a reason why there should be edit warring over this: if there is conflict over whether or not a person (Radiant!, from my cursory glances) is involved, then everyone should simply state their views on the conflict and make a note of that on the page for the mediator, and s/he will attempt to mediate the issue. If someone is listed as a party, then that party always has the right to not participate, and after listening to the comments of everyone else involved, the mediator and the involved parties should decide whether or not to proceed - if the person is a crucial part of the conflict and plays a key role in the issues being mediated, then the mediation would not proceed. As for the page being protected - if the edit warring stops and productive conversation ensues, protection shouldn't be necessary, though I would strongly advised against involved parties unprotecting the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Riverbend's point about the importance of having everyone onboard for the framing of issues is well taken, I'm wondering if, in light of this, we can just leave the "Issues to be mediated" as they are, and describe Radiant's involvement neutrally as "Third party opinion by Radiant, interpreted by some users (including Radiant himself) as informal mediation"? If we accept that the wording of the issues isn't "official" in any sense, but merely a gesture towards the issues being debated, perhaps we can ask for the page to be unprotected, get agreement from the last few parties and proceed with the mediation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That is totally fine with me, and thanks for the nod. I was just trying to steer people in a constructive direction while nothing else was working. As long as the mediator is going to handle that, it sounds best - they locked the page until we could decide what we wanted to talk about, so I was just trying to facilitate some discussion on proposed topics so we could get on with things. It didn't seem like anyone had real issues to procedural questions (and i saw several places asking for a mediator to let us know the procedure), now that those have been cleared up hopefully this can all end sooner! Riverbend 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The "question framing" thing is just retarded. Nothing is being decided by this page, this is only a step to see if the mediation comity will accept mediation. A request for mediation is not the mediation itself. Lets unprotect the page and get this thing going. We all know what this is actually about, anyways, and it has nothing to do with episode titles anymore. This is really about someone and maybe one or two other someones dragging their feet, throwing a fit, and yelling "not fair" just because they didn't get their way. Now the mediation itself is being held up for the same reason. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, that's really not helpful. Avoiding naming names with a circumlocution doesn't change the nature of a personal attack. Cut it out.

Please, assume good faith, especially on this page. The concerns about how the issues are framed are legitimate ones — it's just that we don't want to get so hung up on them that we never start the actual mediation. FIcelloguy's comment indicates to me that the mediators will take different perspectives of the issues into consideration, and attempt to address the issues in such a way as to include every member of the discussion. To that end, the discussion about issue framing has been useful, but I hope that we can now agree to let the current wording of the page stand (perhaps with a neutrally worded note about Radiant's participation, but even that's not essential). Can we agree to move on? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good faith? This whole thing is a joke. Like I said before, our problem is not about episode titles anymore, it's about specific people being disruptive. If mediation won't let us name names, then we need to take this to arbcom. Why the hell are we framing questions about issues that are already settled? I don't know about you guys, but I'm here as a volunteer on Wikipedia, and I don't like my time being wasted by this kind of bullshit. We're here to write an encyclopedia, lets not waste our time with these games. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

I've realized something just now, we don't need mediation for this. We don't need any more steps in resolving disputes. Why must we have a long drawn out debate about the simplest of issues? We all know exactly what's going on, but we can't say it out loud? How are we expected to resolve anything like that? Forgive me for being blunt, but I like to get at the heart of the issue and not pretend. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, you're free to try to file an RfA if you want, but I honestly don't think that ArbCom will take this if we haven't shown a good-faith effort to resolve the matter like adults. I know that you're frustrated, but being "blunt" really isn't going to get this resolved any quicker. Just take a deep breath, count to ten and move on to something else — this is going to take a while, and will require patience. From all of us. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to take this to arbcom. Why are we doing all of this because of two or three people? Do they really have that kind of power over us, over rational logic? I can't help but think that this is not how things are supposed to operate. If it were then everything would come to a grinding halt every time someone said "I disagree". So now we have to go through this silly process just to prove ourselves? To who? We shouldn't take this matter any farther, not arbcom, not mediation, nothing. All the articles have been moved now, we got the Star Trek example off WP:NC-TV, what else is there to do? If they want to move the Lost articles they'll have to do it via a requested move, and it will get shot down there. The war's over, folks. We don't have to do a damn thing anymore. We are not monkeys to entertain. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on board with this, and really curious about what the result will be. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's no official list of mediation then I'll agree no matter what, I really want the argument to stop at this point. Jay32183 06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - if the "issues" part is really for the mediators, then of couse we don't need to be edit warring - I am sure they will sort it out . . . Riverbend 13:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The people we really need to get agreement from are first, the folks who were edit warring on the RfM page (in order to get the page unlocked), and then the four editors who haven't yet signed their agreement. (Of course, several of them may have been prevented in doing so by the page protection.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, the only person "warring" over Radiant's inclusion is Elonka. Josiah added Radiant's name once, I added his name once, and Radiant added Radiant's name once (I didn't check on the accuracy so please correct me if need be). It's Elonka that has removed it all three times. The page was protected with his name off like Elonka wanted and Radiant, Josiah and I are all admins so page protection is useless. Basically, that "edit war" has been over for days so why is it still being brought up? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Next, I think the concern comment that I made above may be a more nicely worded version of Ned's frustration, which I can understand. The mediation is already drifting back towards re-discussing the issues that most of us think have already been covered. That was the circular argument on TV-NC. Ned's blunt point that the war is over is a valid one to me. With the page moves already happening and no one stopping them (including Radiant who actually did several of the page moves himself), Elonka was supposed to be the one appealing to mediation, not "us". It's turning backwards with "us" succumbing to the attrition and appealing for what? Assurance that the moves we've already done were acceptable? I don't get it. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A further comment - only one side of the argument is mediating at this point. The chief two people holding up finalization at TV-NC (sorry if that didn't come out as nicely as I hoped), Elonka and Matthew Fenton, have made a combined eight edits to this talk page out of nearly 140 - and most of those eight have been in regards to Radiant. I feel like only one side is here - and we're losing! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the discussion, but have not been posting since I have been pretty much in agreement with most of the comments by Riverbend and TobyRush. --Elonka 02:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working toward Real Consensus

Something I have found troubling through this entire debate is what I perceive to be a misunderstanding about the concept of consensus on Wikipedia. I am aware that there is a statement somewhere in Wikipedia's policy pages that says, in effect, "consensus doesn't have to be 100%." However, it seems to me that we are encouraged to strive for true consensus, which is when everyone agrees.

Time and time again throughout this discussion I've seen editors adopting a position akin to "we have a consensus, if you don't count the few editors who disagree." To me, this flies in the face of the spirit of consensus on Wikipedia. Does it bother anyone else?

If we are truly and ruthlessly assuming good faith, then we need to assume that Elonka, MatthewFenton, and any other "dissenting voices," have valid concerns, and we should be actively seeking to 1) make sure we understand those concerns correctly, and 2) resolve them through discussion.

The thing is, there has been has been quite a bit of this going on (especially thanks to editors like Josiah and Radiant), amid the much louder discussions about procedures, polls, and personalities that I think have only served to cloud the issue. If you strip that away, as I've been trying to, I think you'll find that we are much closer to an actual, honest-to-goodness consensus than it seems.

I've been trying to clarify Elonka's position, and she has stated that this accurately describes it:

As a general rule, episode articles should not be disambiguated unless necessary.
If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series.
The TV:NC guideline page should include a statement acknowledging item #2.

Now, one point at a time:

As near as I can tell, we have an actual consensus on this point. Woo-hoo!
I know this point gets people riled up, but think about it: if there is a consensus at a particular series to preemptively disambiguate, and you disagree with that idea, then go over there and bring up your concern. Bring some friends, if you like. The consensus will then go "poof," and a discussion should then ensue to reach a new consensus. There are no closed clubs on Wikipedia: if you worried that there is some group of editors out there maintaining an inappropriate consensus, then go make yourself part of the group!
That makes this point the only issue upon which there is disagreement.

Now, I personally feel that a statement about exceptions is unnecessary. But real consensus sometimes requires concessions, and I think this is a pretty small one to make. If we make the concession of allowing a statement on the page, perhaps we can ask Elonka to make the concession of not naming specific series, so we come up with something like this:

"If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series."

If placing this notice on the TV:NC page means ending this dispute, cancelling the mediation, and putting a bright, happy consensus notice at the top of TV:NC, would it be worth doing? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such thoughtful/constructive/respectful ideas and suggestions. You have said what I was wanting to say, (both concerns and proposal) only better and more eloquently - well done you. Honestly I think this is the most fair and reasonable post on the subject and give it my full support.Riverbend 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, I applaud your efforts, but it all comes down to #2 in your list:

2. If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series.

This sounds just like what Elonka has been proposing all along and completely ignores what those of who oppose it have been saying: it's not consensus that makes an exception, it's reason. There has to be a reason to name an article inconsistently with the guidelines, and "to be consistent" with a small group of other names is not a valid reason. Why do we have to keep rehashing this? --Serge 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you about reason being necessary, Serge. In my view, though, if there is no valid reason to make the exception, the consensus will not succeed, because editors like you and I will join the discussion and disagree. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Riverbend, well said. The problem I still have with the first few paragraphs is the concept that two people or, taking your 100% to heart, even one person could somehow hold up consensus. I disagree. Assuming good faith, we've asked the remaining holdouts why they are holding out and, for the most part, the response was that the poll was corrupt. I tried to prove that that was untrue but they continue to hold out. But maybe that is for the actual mediation stage to address?

The other quibbly problem I have about your #2 above is that no one is ever informed about a decision being made at a project. I don't have every project page on my Watchlist. I've never even seen the TV show Lost but, if "the editors there" suddenly decided to do something completely different than the rest of Wikipedia, I'd want to know, just for overall Wikipedia consistency purposes. But, I'm not sure this was specifically discussed much at TV-NC ---- maybe a little. If someone wants to raise this point, I don't think we need mediation for it. Raise it somewhere where people can see it. "Should decisions made by project members be raised in a more public forum if they conflict with existing guidelines?" is how that could be posed. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, then, and to incorporate wknight's concerns, #2 should say something like this:

If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that there is a compelling reason to make an exception and follow a naming convention that is inconsistent with normal Wikipedia conventions and guidelines, then, if the new convention is publicized at WP:TV-NC and consensus is achieved with a broader population of editors, it is acceptable to maintain a different naming convention for that series.

Further, I would like to identify some examples of what such "compelling reasons" might be. We've repeatedly asked for this as well, and, unless I'm mistaken, none (other than "to be consistent with each other") have been offered. --Serge 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but to be fair, this smacks of micromanagement and I think that is what Elonka objects to. Wknight, I understand (and share) your desire for Wikipedia-wide consistency, but I really don't foresee this being an issue either theoretically or practically. After all,

Only a very few series in the list at TV:NC remain "noncompliant," so the chances of an inappropriate consensus being reached "under the radar" is pretty slight;
With all the many, many episode pages that have been brought into compliance recently, the guideline has become stronger; this will cause other editors to notice and question inconsistencies;
As silly as it sounds, if a Wikiproject decides to be an exception and none of us ever find out about it, it will never bother us. :)

I've never seen Lost either, but apparently all of its episodes currently follow the general guideline, so changing that will require a new consensus-building discussion to change it back. I'll gladly put it on my watchlist if that will put others' minds at ease.

Again, I agree with both of you, Wknight and Serge, about the exceptions statement being unnecessary. But if that's all it takes to achieve a true consensus, I think it's an easy concession to make. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling about listing exceptions is that we first need consensus for the exception before listing it becomes an issue. But also simply listing it would just cause confusion, the reasoning would have to be spelled out. One of the issues with the Star Trek example is that a lot of people had no clue how it got there. Hope this opinion doesn't cause an uproar. Jay32183 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I just don't like how this is going and I'd prefer not to be a part of it. It's becoming too much of a waste of my time. When the main page is unprotected, please take my name out of the agreement portion. Thanks. (And no, this isn't directly related to the last post or anything else except maybe Thatcher31's comment at TV-NC. He's right, this is getting really stupid and I don't feel like witnessing another SPUI (talk • contribs)-style meltdown. Not over such a dumb issue. It's just not worth it.) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, why are we even bothering with this anymore? With the way things are we can sit on our hands and leave Elonka and Matthew with the burden of convincing others before making another exception to this, or any other guideline. Not ideal for community and all that, but you can't make everyone happy all of the time. I can honestly say that at some point in this discussion I did give the other side a fair chance, and considered their view. But recently it's just been a repeat of the same thing over and over. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the most important course of action is getting the five remaining shows not compliant with the guideline renamed. Other than that, I feel like the issue has been addressed satisfactorily. I don't see a potential mediation as reason to put the guideline on ice. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to address the potential new wording to WP:TV-NC that has been kicking around. I think it's clear that if Elonka and Matthew don't agree that there's consensus against pre-disambiguating at the guideline-level, they surely won't agree that there is consensus at WikiProject Lost. In fact, they've recently made statements to that effect, claiming that the Lost consensus is to pre-disambiguate. See Matthew's comments in the RM here and Elonka's concurrence. If we decide that WP:TV-NC has reached a consensus and send it back to WikiProject Lost, we will only have the same battle over again. It is truly imperative that we bring this up the ladder of dispute resolution, not down. Otherwise the debate will only go on even longer and people will only get more frustrated. – Anþony talk 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the Lost pages as a real issue right now, at least in terms of disambiguating or not. The pages have been moved (per consensus, whether Elonka and Matthew will admit it or not), and the Lost wikiproject pages now just say to refer to WP:TV-NAME. If they want to propose moving all the Lost pages, nothing is stopping them. Based on the requested move of a few days ago, I'd say the chance of it passing would be incredibly unlikely. Likewise, they can propose changing WP:LOST policy. The same battle would likely just be a majority disagreeing and it not passing. If they want to keep complaining about it after that, none of us are under any obligation to keep responding. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we done here?

Well, it looks as if Wknight94 and Ned Scott are throwing in the towel. I think this is a shame, but I can't blame them for their frustration. It's been a long, tiring road. I do think that we ought to have been able to hold ourselves together at least long enough to get the mediation started properly, but if we can't, we can't. As for what happens next, I think it's really up to Elonka: if she chooses to accept the status quo, then we can all go back to our lives. Any further escalation of this will be completely dependent on her actions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite making a dozen or so edits to the Rfm, Elonka never agreed to mediation. I think we're done. And I don't think it's a shame, since it appears to be over. --Serge 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not over till the crypographer lady sings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

People have a week to agree to the mediation, and people have no way of agreeing if the RfM is locked. I think it's premature to assume that those who haven't agreed so far don't intend to. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not those who haven't yet agreed — it's those who agreed, but have recently expressed sentiments like "I'm out", based on frustration with the fact that the editors who haven't yet agreed to the mediation don't seem to be interested in engaging with us on a consensus for the wording of the mediation — if you can follow all those clauses. That is, since we can't even agree on how the mediation request should be worded, even though a member of the MedCom has said it doesn't matter, I don't think this mediation is going forward. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad thing. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Milo is correct. --Elonka 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't care if Elonka and others accept mediation or not, that's not my reason to say mediation isn't necessary anymore. And if for some crazy reason this mediation goes through, then I will be there. I'm just pointing out that it's pointless. Granted that I thought it was a good idea at first, because we all think it will "end this", but I'm not even sure it will. When the debate started on the Lost project pages I thought it would end when some outside opinions got in, then I thought it would end with the RfC, then..... I mean, really, when you step back and look at it... how did it get this far? It hit me in full force last night about how much time was wasted on this issue. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, we're not supposed to beat things like this to death. It's up to editors such as Elonka and Matthew to convince the rest of us to make an exception, not the other way around. We can literally do nothing and "win" the debate. There's only so long that you can attempt to explain it to other people before you have to move on. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Ned on this one. I only agreed to be part of this to get it over with, but, really, consensus has been more than established, and only Elonka's attempts at recruiting opinions for a new poll have kept it on this far. I think everyone should simply start applying what was largely agreed upon, and if other editors don't like this, report them as vandals. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anyone who continues with controversial moves at this point, is probably going to be in danger of being blocked. Please do not encourage such behavior. --Elonka 07:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to respond to this crap anymore. We're not playing this game. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, if you don't want to respond, don't respond. I know you've lost your patience, but that doesn't excuse incivility. I'm telling you one more time: stop it.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves supported by a couple dozen people aren't controversial just because a couple kick and scream about it. I doubt anyone would get blocked over it (and that's starting to sound like a threat). If someone does raise an objection in a specific case, just start a RfMove for it. A decision is made, an admin declares what consensus is. I don't see a problem, who wants to get things rolling? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If some think it's "controversial" just because the moves happen to be Lost episodes, when every other series has pretty much been done with next to nary a complaint, save from the usual suspects, then be bold and take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. That's what it is for. Use it and see how far the minority gets. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the Lost moves weren't controversial. In that RfM, I think there was only one oppose besides Elonka and Matthew. Lost has already been moved, it's done. On to the remaining five or so series. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are We Fine?

It appears to me as though some of the conflict has been resolved. Is everyone more or less in agreement as to what issues are to be mediated and as to who is participating so that I can have the mediation page unlocked? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that people have mostly accepted that the precise wording of the RfM doesn't matter, so you probably should unlock it so people can state their [dis]agreement. – Anþony talk 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording as it currently stands on the page is acceptable to me -- if the page is unlocked and remains stable, I will agree to mediation. --Elonka 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that at this point the page being locked is doing more harm than good — old conflicts are rearing up again and the goodwill is getting a bit thin. But I don't expect any more edit wars, if that's what you're asking. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unprotection

It's been four days, I think we can try unprotecting now. I believe that everyone understands that the page should not be further edited, with the exception of either adding additional items to "Additional issues to be mediated" and posting "agree/disagree" in the parties agreement section. --Elonka 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. The items on the RfM aren't anything binding, just a starting point. Josiah, you want to ask to have it unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had requested an admin to unprotect, however it didn't happen it appears. I do agree though, that this page can be unprotected and the mediation request continue. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of speeding things up, might one of the involved administrators (perhaps Wknight94 or Josiah) do the unprotect, now that you've requested it? It doesn't seem to be controversial anymore. – Anþony talk 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been specifically asked not to do anything requiring sysop privs. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Posted request for unprotection at WP:RFPP instead. – Anþony talk 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka's request for information

I made a statement at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Need_advice_regarding_TV_series_naming_conventions as follows: "There have been many discussions in the past around whether or not editing should take into account the possible future and the consensus has almost always been that you should not try to predict the future while editing." Elonka followed with the question: "I was interested in Ceyockey's comment, that there has been prior consensus on this issue? Could you please provide a link?"

It appears that you are nearing the end of your mediation. This is good, regardless of the outcome. I was going to simply reply 'all arguments have already been made; I have nothing to add'. However, it is necessary for me to respond, having once opened the door. Further, I made the statement cited above without ever knowing of the existence of this on-going mediation.

This is my response to Elonka's question.

It's funny you should question this because I myself just got something removed from an article by someone else based on this implicit assumption (see this diff, which I've indicated to the editor I will not contest). Most of my experience in this area is as difficult to track down as this diff would have been after a short passage of time. Consensus is sometimes better stated as 'common practice', as 'consensus' has a very strong meaning on Wikipedia. In reality, there are statements of guideline that fall on either side of the matter, so this becomes another one of those 'do as one perceives - but not strongly - until guidelines congeal' cases.

My primary argument is based on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, which applies to 'future reality' and not specifically to the editor activity related here; however, it contains the passage "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item" which applies if the 'future event' is creation of an article which has not yet taken place and the 'systematic pattern of names' is taken as the 'series' of article titles under consideration. There is a significant history in the archives leading to the establishment of this section of WP:NOT.

Reference 2: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/archive5#Ambiguous_but_seemingly_unique_names, which is a 'hung jury' with some comments 'don't anticipate' and others 'google it and build a dab page from the results'.

Reference 3: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#What_we_DO_agree_on, which I believe is the enjoined debate you are currently in, states that one of the things that can be agreed upon is that "Articles about television episodes should only be disambiguated when necessary (i.e., when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name)."

Reference 4: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Precision, which presents an emphasis on 'existing Wikipedia articles': "In this sense it is usually not commendable to use "(book)" or a similar qualifier in Wikipedia article names, outside what is strictly needed for disambiguation from other *existing* Wikipedia pages."

Reference 5: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(precision)#Philosophy contains a passage that would seem to say 'yes, you should anticipate future titles': "Remember that there are famous non-philosophers who might have the name in question, about whom we might eventually want to have articles! Best to do a Google search first."

Similar problems exist for band names, ship names, person names, place names, organizational names (schools, churches, government agencies), etc. I hope that the solution arrived at for the present mediation is transferable or translatable to all these other domains otherwise it would merely add to the fragmented governance of Wikipedia, where every topic area has its own set of guidelines. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice thorough write-up! Unfortunately, the pre-emptive disambiguation you've referred to in each case is based on the prediction that disambiguation will be needed in the future. That makes sense for ships for one example since many many many ships share the same name. Prediction of future disambiguation being necessary has not been mentioned here at all. The pre-emptive disambiguation has been requested here for almost purely stylistic reasons. So all of the titles look uniform in a category. And something about being easier for people with overcrowded Watchlists. That's the best explanation that's been given. Very very weak indeed. Far weaker than the more sensible cases you've given. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page is unprotected

Just to give it a bump on everyone's watchlists. Once again, the exact wording of the issues to be mediated is unimportant. If you feel an issue has been omitted or misrepresented in the RfM, let it be. Everyone will have an opportunity to bring up issues they want addressed during the mediation itself. A show of good faith and trust in the process from all parties is critical to having the mediation accepted. – Anþony talk 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll reverse myself a bit and say I'll at least watch this but I will not sign off if, as I see it, the month of discussion that has gone on so far is discounted, i.e. we start considering how to change the guideline. First we need to address if we should change the guideline and dozens of people weighing in over the last month - even if it was only with a single Support vote - must be taken into account and given due weight. I've put in a lot of work making my case and proving that the first poll and resulting discussion were genuine, and I won't participate in a process that simply throws all of that away. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm.. what case.. :-\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, can you possibly be serious? Are you honestly claiming that there is no argument in favor of the current guideline? Is this misplaced humor, or obtuseness? How on earth is a comment like that supposed to be productive? I'm honestly baffled here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see it with both eyes." — Basically it means you guys should not try to invalidate our argument if you are not willing to back up your own. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, the constant pattern in the discussion has been the presentation of reasons and logic by the defenders of the current guideline, and the ignoring of that reasoning by you and Elonka. My comment above stemmed from sheer incredulity that you would not have seen these reasons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reminds me of his response to my proposal for adding a mention of exceptions to WP:TV-NAME - calling it a "catch 22" and then ignoring a request to clarify that comment. And he still hasn't agreed to mediation or given any concerns about why he might not do so. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves should stop

I've noticed that some people who are signed on to the mediation, are continuing to push through with many controversial page moves[27][28][29][30][31]. As a sign of good faith, may I please ask that all such moves stop? If the result of the mediation is to move pages, I'll help move them myself, but while we're still discussing the issue, moving pages is doing nothing but escalating tension. Especially statements such as, "Report us and see if anyone does anything about it." [32] This is not an example of good faith, and may well cause the mediation to be rejected. Please stop. --Elonka 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I take issue that making edits that follow a guideline are not "good faith". I don't agree with this potential mediation being used as grounds for not following the guideline, or as "evidence" that the guideline is disputed or doesn't have consensus. This mediation is merely an attempt to find something that would satisfy those outside the consensus view (if it's possible, and if the consensus finds that acceptable), and put the discussion to an end. If the potential mediation is just going to be another attempt to gain leverage, that's certainly not a good faith position, and it's not going to go anywhere.

I don't think it's necessary to stop moving pages. It just needs to be done following wikipedia process to the last detail - announce the move in advance, and use RfMoves in cases where it's necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I somehow get the feeling that as long as there is a mediation request, or case, that comments like above will continue. Who knows how long this "mediation" could go on. Just like the dispute tag that was on WP:TV-NC, just about anything is being used as leverage for those who are running out of arguments. Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore comes to mind as a better solution to our situation. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that of course assumes that these edits are vandalism. I'm sure they're just "good faith edits", or at the very least, I bet that's what Elonka and co. would say. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did not mean to say that I think Elonka or anyone else here is a vandal. I do think she's being disruptive, to the point that it would warrant a block, but defiantly not a vandal. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism no. Breaches in etiquette? I'd say so. Saying that editors (plural) among the Turtles articles went through several iterations to arrive at a pre-emptive disambiguation guideline appears to be an outright lie. Instead it looks like one guy made one edit declaring his preference 9 months ago. After she made the statement at the one talk page, she then went to that one guy and asked where the discussion is. Why would you make a blanket statement like that without knowing the facts beforehand?! There has been no answer yet to my knowledge (although that guy hasn't edited at all since then and I'll happily retract at least part of this if he does reveal a discussion - of more than a couple people anyway). Still, despite the lack of an answer, she repeated her statement at ANI as though she had gotten confirmation. That may go beyond breach of etiquette in fact. Certainly something worth bringing up at WP:WQA anyway. And the statement that people could be in danger of blocks when no one anywhere has said anyone is in danger of being blocked. Again declaring things without evidence. Vandalism no. Etiquette? Worth looking into IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this gonna work?

Yo, Ace here. I notice two possible issues that may result in the RFM failing: 1. Lack of signitures. 2. Disagreement from at least three participants.

Uh...guys, is this gonna work? Matthew has yet to do...pretty much anything truly productive in the discussions or the project page. If he isn't removed from the "involved" list and doesn't sign soon, that's it. I hate to make it personal, but I'm wondering what his deal is.

Secondly, three- no, sorry, four members have made clear, vocal disagreements on the project page. The "rules" clearly state that unless we all agree, this mediation will be rejected. Milo's comment doesn't help, either, though I guess that's moot.

Anyway, that's our situation. It distressed me more last evening, but I'm beginning to accept it now. That's right. This isn't a call for people to "get their act together". I'm just posing the question and explaining why. I don't blame any one, either. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what is your response to the people leaving? The discussion here so far has been driving towards a new poll or something, completely disregarding the last month of discussion and I don't find that acceptable. Do you disagree with that assessment? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. A lot of this stuff confuses me, which is why I haven't been more active in discussions. I didn't get the sense that the RFM would result in that sort of ruling, though. My vote is still "agree" and I'm willing to accept what the mediation community/commitee or whatever decides/recommends. Anyone can leave, though I'd prefer they do it ala PKMN. (Take your name off the involved parties list and go.) The mediation will fail as is now and yet it can be avoided. I understand why people—well, the vocal disagreers. Matthew's a mystery—are bothered. Elonka and co. haven't been spreading the good will—I dare not say the "f" word—with their actions. It might seem better to just give up on this than risk "giving them leverage" or "letting them win". Going in, I had feeling that a true compromise is unlikely. Elonka and co. want what they want; I don't see now that them settling or acting less distruptively. In fact, they're evem hypocritically accusing others of being distruptive by just going about business as usual. Still, even a ruling that showed clear favor for one side over another would avoid what I fear is coming. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But what makes you think a clear ruling would end anything? I've seen no indication of that. The original poll was 26-7. 26-7!!!! Like I said earlier, that's a slaughter in the NFL and they score 7 points at a time! If you can convince yourself that 26-7 is not a loss then you can plow through anything. Of course we haven't addressed what would happen if the votes of another poll were, say, 20-16. That's a no consensus and then everyone would lose! Would that mean the guideline should stay as is? Or would that mean it would go back to when Star Trek had an awkward exception note? Or, as I predict, would it result in total anarchy with both sides claiming victory? If that happened, you'd just put the guideline in full protection and proceed directly to ArbCom, do not collect $200. I haven't heard if Elonka and Matthew actually expect another poll would result in a total reversal - from 26-7 in one direction to 26-7 in the other direction. I don't know what to tell you, Ace. The only time I've seen this much fight from this small of a minority is Ericsaindon2 (talk • contribs) and you can just click on that link to see how that ended up... (And he still haunts Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to this day). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_mediation_Wikipedia%7ENaming_conventions_%28television%29_0d8e.html"