Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia talk:Notability

Wikipedia talk:Notability

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Matthewhburch (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Masem (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

{{{links}}}

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. User MASEM is attempting to dominate discussion of the Wikipedia talk:Notability page in order to prevent others from discussing changes. He refuses to acknowledge that anyone else might have sufficiently good ideas to overturn his own opinion that the article needs no improvement. I have attempted to bring it to his attention that he is demonstrating article ownership, but he continues to interrupt all attempted discussions, dramatically bloating every conversation over time by saying essentially the exact same thing over and over again. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has defined passive-aggressive article ownership yet, but if not, there's a good example here.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. I don't know how it is possible for any discussion page to be immune to ownership or page domination issues. It's pretty clear to anyone that looke at discussion outside the highly visible RFC on that page that Masem is using passive-aggressive methods to functionally own the talk page by making it impossible for others to discuss potential change without the thread almost immediately becoming a wall of text. "Only being vocal" has a limit. Matthewhburch (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @TransporterMan:If one owns the talk page by disrupting discussion with responses bordering on spam, one owns the page the talk page is connected to as well. It should be a natural outgrowth that monitoring for ownership of a page should extend to the talk page that supports it. It's very possible that I missed a better place to discuss this. I saw nothing on ANI which clearly discusses using passive-aggressive ownership of a talk page with the intent of making it impossible to coordinate change on the page that the talk page is attached to. If you could clearly point me at a place where I should create some sort of request for action to help deal with an editor who is owning a talk page, I'd greatly appreciate it. Matthewhburch (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Refuse. For one, WP policy/guideline pages are not subject to Mediation requests. Secondly, the dispute is basically a talk page issue and is being properly discussed there. Thirdly, the claims of ownership are grossly misstated - the above editor has had one bad experience on WP and is trying to fight the issue through several different pages now, this is yet another forum they are trying to seek to get the change they want, and I'm only being vocal knowing the past problems with WP and notability, not attempting to control the page. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Recommend refusal: Page domination/ownership is a conduct matter and Mediation is limited to content matters. ANI is, if any, the right place for this request. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)

• And the sole opponent has declined mediation, as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reject: Prerequisite for mediation #5 not met, acceptance by a majority of parties. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)