User:Rossrs/Informal mediation/User:Jack Merridew and User:Wildhartlivie

Aims and ground rules

The purpose of this page is to provide a neutral venue for User:Jack Merridew and User:Wildhartlivie to discuss points of dispute and disagreement with the aim of resolving contentious issues and establishing an agreement that will allow each them to edit their choice of articles and to discuss any future disagreements in a neutral manner.

The process of informal mediation was suggested by Jack Merridew, who suggested User:Rossrs to act as mediator, with which Wildhartlivie subsequently agreed.

The intention is to maintain an informal approach in a sincere effort to reach some understanding. While all parties understand that other editors may be interested in this discussion and may wish to contribute, all parties request that no other editors comment on this page.

All parties agree to adhere to the following ground rules:

1. To speak openly and honestly, within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF
2. To remain on-topic and to keep the discussion as neutral and free of emotive language as possible
3. To frame comments as statements rather than accusations, and to be prepared to support any statement with diffs as examples
4. To attempt to resolve each point with clear discussion, to present an agreed summary of the agreement or lack of, with an assurance of a good faith effort to adhere to that agreement
5. To allow for the addition of other ground rules, with mutual agreement, if further discussion uncovers points not covered here.

Agreements:

1. Agreed : Jack Merridew 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed : (I want to note that there is a current health crisis in my immediate family and for the next couple of days - I hope only - that I will be at the hospital.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Agreed : Rossrs (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (mediator)

Initial points and issues as raised by Jack Merridew

1. Obstruction of appropriate clean-up

   I've been seeking to cleanup the huge mess that is extant in some thousands of filmographies for more than four months. Livie is the user most intent on this not happening. It's all been discussed at great length and it is past time that she cease her efforts at preventing such clean-up.

2. Ownership of articles and of 'filmographies' in general

   All articles and norms are communal; no editor owns them and no one has the right to lock things in amber forever. The wiki changes everyday, by editors editing what is extant.

3. Consensus blocking

   After sprawling discussions all over the place, it is clear that there is considerable support for what I am trying to achieve in this area. Continued insistence that moar discussion is required is disruptive.

4. Preservation of status quo

   Per 'amber', above, per WP:CCC. This is antithetical to WP:BOLD.

5. WP:BITEy behaviour is unacceptable

   The edit to Greta Garbo is part of a pattern of Livie's; she will revert huge amounts of work by others on the slightest pretext. The correct action in such cases is to talk and to make edits that are specific to the issue. The edit given removed more than 30 new sources. The biting is not limited to n00bz.

Initial points and issues as raised by (participant two)

1. (point 1)
2. (point 2) etc