Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2

Welcome

Welcome to mediation! It has been quite a while working up to this, but we are finally in a position where we can start. First things first - let me introduce myself. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, and I've been on Wikipedia since 2010. I started off editing articles on second-language acquisition and language education, and I've become somewhat of a metapedian. I first got involved in dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I think I have around 700 edits to that page, and have dealt with perhaps about 100 different disputes there. More recently I've found myself converting templates to Lua modules, but I have still been active here at the mediation committee.

I haven't edited very much (if at all) in the anime topic area, but I do know quite a bit about the subject. I'm an anime enthusiast, and I have watched all of the Ghost in the Shell films, as well as a good chunk of the Stand-Alone Complex series. I also live in Japan, and am fluent in Japanese. So I should be able to assist if you need advice on the subject, or on the language. I won't be dictating any content matters, however, as that's not what a mediator does. My role is to get you all to collaborate, and to find an agreement that you can all accept. I am just a facilitator, and all I will do is to help you if you get stuck in the process of building consensus.

Quite a few people come into mediation expecting that there is going to be a "winner" and a "loser". But actually, that is not how mediation works. There is no winning and losing; there is only a process of finding consensus. Although it is a well-worn Wikipedia saying that "consensus does not mean unanimity", with only three parties to the dispute it wouldn't be a consensus worthy of the name if one of you didn't agree with it. The conclusion that we will reach as part of this mediation will be agreed to by all of you, so you don't have to worry about "losing". That conclusion might not be the one that you thought you wanted at the start of the mediation, but rest assured, if you don't agree with it, then we won't be doing it.

Sometimes the process of building consensus is easy, but the fact that we are here shows that it hasn't been easy in this case. When editors have a hard time finding consensus on an issue, it is especially important that everyone tries their utmost to create an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for each other's views. As Zad68 said, you need to be actually civil, not just WP:CIVIL. It is all too easy to blame other editors when you disagree with them, but that rarely helps to find agreement about an issue. To have the best chance of making this mediation succeed, we need to take care to actually listen to each other - especially when we disagree. To that end, I'd like you all to sign the ground rules below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ground rules

The following are the ground rules that I would like parties to bear in mind during the mediation. If you are ever in doubt about something that you are thinking of posting in the mediation, check the ground rules and see if they apply to your situation. The ground rules apply just as much to me as they do to the mediation parties, so I will be signing them too. Also, if you find anything in these guidelines objectionable, it may be possible to change them, so please ask me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ground rules:

1. I agree to abide by both the letter and the spirit of WP:CIVIL, and to do my best to make the mediation proceed in an atmosphere of tolerance and cooperation.
2. I agree to listen to the other parties, and to treat their opinions with respect - especially if I disagree with what they have to say.
3. I understand that there will be no "winners" and "losers", and that instead we will all be working together to find a solution that everyone agrees to.
4. I agree to keep the mediation focused on content, and I understand that we will not be dealing with conduct issues. However, I understand that if I am worried about the conduct of another party that I am always welcome to email Mr. Stradivarius with my concerns.
5. I allow Mr. Stradivarius to collapse, remove, or otherwise refactor any comments that I make in this mediation, for the purposes of keeping discussions civil and on-topic. However, I understand that Mr. Stradivarius doesn't like doing this, and that such actions will only be taken as a last resort.
6. While I understand that agreements made through mediation are not binding, I agree to respect the decision that we come to. If I am unhappy with a proposed result of the mediation, I agree to bring my concerns up during the mediation itself, so that once mediation is over, the dispute is resolved for good.

Agreement by the parties

1. I agree. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
2. I agree. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

   —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Agreed.Lucia Black (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statements

After you have signed the ground rules, the next thing I would like you to do is to leave a statement, so that I can better understand where you are all coming from, and what the issues are that we need to deal with. If possible, in your statement I would like you to touch on the following things:

1. How you got started editing anime and manga articles, and what made you interested in editing articles about Ghost in the Shell.
2. What you think the issues are that we need to resolve as part of this mediation. Are there any issues that you think should be dealt with that haven't been listed on the main mediation page?
3. How you think mediation can help you resolve the issues.
4. Finally, as this mediation is about a decision to merge articles, I'd like to hear what you think about the concepts of deletionism and inclusionism. What's your take on how inclusive Wikipedia should be?

I'm looking forward to reading all of your statements. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about the mediation process, or about what I've written here so far. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I see Chris has left his statement below - thank you for that, Chris. I'd like to add another point as well. Please don't comment in each other's statement sections, as I'd like to stick to just making statements for now. Discussion about these issues will come later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement, too, Lucia. I notice that you haven't signed the ground rules yet - could you take a few moments to read over the points and sign them if you agree with them? Also, if there's anything there that you don't agree with, just let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

• In a very roundabout way I got started editing Anime and Manga articles. I like to review potential Good Articles and I am well-versed in the artform, so I took Lucia Black's GAN. After the dispute became protracted I decided to see just how Wikipedia's coverage compared against my knowledge and the factual accuracy and depth of its information. It has become clear since filing this mediation that the core of the dispute is not just these two editors; but the toxic and battleground behavior of the Wikiproject's members. In particular is the manual of style, MOSAM, and the combative to abusive interactions of the Wikiproject's members that refuse to compromise, abide site policies and roots their responses in bad faith; however it is Ryulong whose behavior has been mimicked and set the tone of the project. This mediation needs to expand the views of the Wikiproject and the mediation's participants in order to ensure a meaningful resolution of the problems which have been rehashed and repeated as proxies of this original and core dispute.
• I am not a deletionist or an inclusionist; but I have been repeatedly attacked and slandered for being one or the other by both sides. I prefer to keep meaningful information over its deletion; but I do not want to put Wikia on Wikipedia or move Wikipedia to Wikia. In my opinion, a deletionist is the most dangerous type of individual on Wikipedia. Deletionists are defined by their lack of constructive contributions and the removal of other people's work with disregard for the impact on that editor and the loss of shared knowledge. Wikipedia is not of finite size, so WP:NOTPAPER is important to remember, and topics should not be duplicated, but a certain level of overlap is not redundant inclusionism. Inclusionist arguments are strong by the nature of Wikipedia, but the value of information should be based on its ability to be in summary. Esoteric and fictional topics are valuable, even if they do not generate much coverage; information on Wikipedia should be accurate and verifiable and not necessarily demonstrating a national level of coverage to impart inclusion. It is not an easy test to measure, but the question "Is your uncle Bob's garage band notable?" should be based its general notability "Your Uncle Bob opened for Megadeth and toured with Halestorm as part of their Gigantour Tour?" Likely notable? Your afterschool club, likely not. I stand in the middle of the road with WP:PRESERVE as a guide and I don't want to be portrayed as some extremist, but when asking the question "Does this change/content improve Wikipedia?", if your answer is a resounding "Yes", you do it. You do it so it can be built upon, you do it to pave a road, you do it for the uninformed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; drop all the policies and ignore all rules if you must to improve Wikipedia in coverage and credibility. There is no deadline and there is no time like the present. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black's statements

1) I've been editing anime and manga articles for years. I like it and i'm knowledgeable on the subject, simple as that. I've watched all of the main media of ghost in the shell, and decided to invest time in the articles.

2) I think part of the issue is the way ChrisGualtieri wants things to go, and how he doesn't always gets his way. He's knowledgeable and has access to a lot of information but he's trying too hard to change WP:ANIME's way of editing, and sometimes he will get his way in edge cases, but doesn't recognize that they are and attempts to do the same for all articles. i'm sure even he knows not all of it is objectively the right way, just something he personally wants. But worst of all, he wants us to take his word for it when it comes to making decisions in Wikipedia. And it leads to other issues in Wikipedia.

3) If mediation does go in my/ryulong's favor, I would hope that Chris realizes that he can't change everything, and not everything is taken by his word. But even if it doesn't, i still hope that he learns that. Wikipedia is for everyone, and doesn't revolve around one person, even if we wanted that. Or at least ask himself why things are set up like that before contesting them.

4)Objectively, a franchise page of "ghost in the shell" and a separate article for the original ghost in the shell manga is unnecessary. The works of original Ghost in the Shell (manga), the Ghost in the Shell (film) adaptation, the Stand Alone Complex tv series (alternate telling), and Ghost in the Shell: Arise prequel, are all heavily inspired by the original telling of the manga. All related to the manga, so it has to mention these spin offs in the manga article just as if it was a franchise article. Therefore It provides practically the same page, only the franchise summarizes all.

However, each work are independent from each other and are not all connected. It is not a collective franchise, and each work was done individually by their creators (yet inspired by the original manga). There's not much information covering Ghost in the Shell as a franchise nor is there hardly any third-party sources covering multiple releases as a whole either. S/o there's not much information establishing it as a franchise. Not only that, but many people tend to give inaccurate names for a work that "seems" to be a franchise, but isn't really.WP:NOPAGE.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that each work has their own article and their own respected media spin offs as well. For example: Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex, and Ghost in the Shell: Arise both have their own manga adaptations. both Stand Alone Complex and the films have had novel spin offs. ChrisGualtieri previously attempted to add all media together and it would look odd because a "manga" section would mention the original manga and the adaptations of the other series. He also wanted to add a "music" section in this proposed franchise article(i am unaware if he still wants to do this) despite all music was done individually by separate artists for their respected series.

The idea of having the manga as the main focus also helps organize information easily without edit wars or future edit wars sprouting out even after a consensus because it provides more of a branch style organization. The first article focus on the original media and covers partially the other adaptations directly inspired by the original media (the films, the alternate telling, the prequel) in their own sections and briefly the adaptations of the spin offs. completely linear. The current format however once the manga article information is restored to get to GA-class, will look like both the manga and the franchise article are competing to which one comes first.

So the fact that

A) all individual series were done by individual authors/directors B) All inspired by the original manga C) No concrete information of it being a franchise. D) makes it easy to organize if we had the manga article alone and not a franchise article

makes having the manga article more sensible than a franchise article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

I'm not in the mood to touch on all of these points that you request so I am going to try to be short and to the point.

ChrisGualtieri is part of a very small minority of users who believe that every single piece of media produced for an anime or manga is worthy of its own separate article because it is notable on its own. During the whole time where this mediation was being considered and Lucia Black's topic ban was to be lifted for her involvement, ChrisGualtieri's concepts for article formatting such as the one he instituted at Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) have been rejected by the community of anime and manga article editors as seen at WT:MOS-ANIME#Nonsense instructions when he attempted to do the same thing with Bleach (manga). Both Lucia Black and myself independently came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to keep this content separate but ChrisGualtieri kept vocally opposing the format and after Lucia Black got banned it was just an argument between me and him that Kim Bruning did her best to mediate, but everything fell to shit when Chris misunderstood me and User:Only in death sided with Chris's decision. The constant bickering over whether or not the pages should be merged led to this and here we are, the last step before ArbCom ends up banning the three of us from anime and manga articles.

My goals for this are simple: Ghost in the Shell (manga) is merged into Ghost in the Shell as it is an unnecessary WP:CFORK that has simply existed for far too long before 2013, and ChrisGualtieri needs to understand that just because he had an RFC eliminate a piece of wording on WP:MOSAM it does not mean it is now mandated that if something is notable it must have its own separate article when in many cases standalone notability is not clear and similar subjects are best to be discussed as a single article rather than several.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues to be resolved

Thank you all for your statements. I get the impression that you are all frustrated by the events that have led up to this mediation, and given the discussion that has occurred already that is quite understandable. Now that we are all here, we can work to relieve those frustrations and fix the underlying issues. My plan is to deal with the issues to be resolved one by one, starting with more easily resolved issues and leading up to issues that might make more time. But before we can get started on that, we need to work out exactly what the issues are.

I think I worded my statement question #2 a little badly, as all of you pointed to conduct issues that you wanted to be resolved. However, Medcom doesn't deal with conduct issues, only content issues. I will only deal with conduct issues to the extent of keeping discussions here civil and on-topic; anything more than that is beyond the scope of mediation. I hope that you will all be willing to give mediation a shot, and to try and solve the underlying content issues that have been frustrating you. However, I should say now that if you are 100% certain that the problem here is conduct, not content, and that no amount of discussion can change this, we can just stop the mediation now. There's really no point in discussing things here if you don't believe there is any chance of anything changing. However, if you are willing to suspend your disbelief for a few moments and give discussion a try, you might just find that we can work all the issues out more easily than you had thought.

So, I would like to try question two of your statements again. This time, I would like you to focus only on content. So no comments like "Wikiproject members that refuse to compromise", "he's trying too hard to change WP:ANIME's way of editing", or "ChrisGualtieri kept vocally opposing the format" that I've seen in the statements above. At the moment I see two main content issues that have been brought up:

1. Whether the Ghost in the Shell articles should be merged.
2. Whether there needs to be changes in WP:MOS-AM about the general question of possible anime and manga merges such as this one.

This mediation will of course deal with point one, although we may refine it into separate sub-issues. We may or may not attempt to deal with the second point, depending on how important it is and how connected it is to the Ghost in the Shell merge question. And if there are any other issues, we may be able to deal with them as well.

So if you are willing to oblige, I would like you to make another statement, answering the following questions:

1. Are there any sub-issues relating to the Ghost in the Shell merge issue that you would like to discuss?
2. Do you think that the relation of WP:MOS-AM to the merge question is important enough to warrant covering it in this mediation?
3. Are there any other content issues that you think should be covered?

Again, if you have any questions or comments, just let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues statement by ChrisGualtieri

1. I believe an understanding of the policies impedes the consensus building process. The definitions of "franchise", "set index", and concepts described within policies are also important to address. In particular is the meaning of CFORK as "redundant fork" is important to discuss. It will make sure all participants have the same level of understanding going forward.
2. In order to make this mediation effective and to clarify key policies, it must be tackled, without doing so will limit the impact of mediation to this single page despite at least 4 other disputes of the same and exact nature.
3. Some of the problems are about the spirit and written policies for notability and GNG. This extends into summary style writing including its subsection on splits to accommodate details and specific subtopics of a larger topic. I believe that more than a dozen "rationales" have been proposed; I think Ryulong and Lucia Black should state the relevant policies and rationales to be discussed as I think the burden is on them when all parties agree that N/GNG has been met. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues statement by Ryulong

ChrisGualtieri needs to respect the opinions put forward by the greater group of editors at WP:ANIME and WP:MOS-AM that while they acknowledge that WP:N and WP:GNG may be met for some topics, that does not mean that they are required to be covered separately from other aspects per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This means that while yes, Ghost in the Shell as a graphic novel does meet the notability requirements, there is no imperative to cover it separately from the other media it spawned and produce a page solely dedicated to the manga and a "franchise page" or "set index" or whatever the hell ChrisGualtieri is going to refer to what Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has become. WP:Summary style was very easily met and satisfied with the form of the page prior to several misunderstandings in August when the page was about the graphic novels but also discussed very briefly the other related subjects.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues statement by Lucia Black

Unfortunately, content related issue is being affected by ideals of certain editor. but my concerns are the same as ryulong's. I feel the issues are more according to MOSAM and Ghost in the Shell as an example. I admit, for first-time readers, one might question why the original manga is the focus. But we shouldn't edit articles to what readers "expect" if its not verifiably the truth.Lucia Black (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues discussion

Thank you all for your further statements. First, let me try and summarise the issues that you have indicated that you would like to cover. It's important that we all agree on this, because it will be the single biggest factor determining the direction we take the mediation in.

Both Chris and Lucia have indicated that we need to deal with MOSAM as part of the mediation. Lucia said that MOSAM was the core of the dispute, and that the Ghost in the Shell page was merely an example of that core disagreement. Chris said much the same thing - he said he didn't want the impact of the mediation limited to just the Ghost in the Shell dispute, but wanted to include other, similar, disputes. I couldn't really make out what issues Ryulong wants to cover in the mediation, so I'd like to clarify that further down. Only Chris mentioned specific things in the context of the Ghost in the Shell dispute that he would like to see covered, but that might not be a problem if we end up making MOSAM the focus of the mediation, as it would come later on in the proceedings and we could focus on it nearer the time. And no-one mentioned any other issues that they would like to see covered, so I will assume that there aren't any.

Also, a word on content versus conduct: I'm still seeing mentions of user conduct issues in Ryulong's and Lucia's statements. For example, "ChrisGualtieri needs to respect the opinions put forward by the greater group of editors", "whatever the hell ChrisGualtieri is going to refer to what Ghost in the Shell has become" and "content related issue is being affected by ideals of certain editor". I also think that Chris's comment "an understanding of the policies impedes the consensus building process" might be alluding to conduct, although I'm not sure if that's what Chris intended. I should make it clear that this mediation won't be dealing with conduct issues, so there isn't really any point bringing them up. It will only serve to raise tensions between the parties and make it harder to achieve a real dialogue, so it's really better that we focus only on the content. Once we resolve the content problems, you might find that the conduct problems will just vanish.

Before we go any further, I'd like to ask a question just for Ryulong, to make sure we are on the same page about the mediation scope. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Question for Ryulong

Ryulong, at the moment both Chris and Lucia have stated that we will need to explicitly deal with MOSAM as part of the mediation. Do you also think that the mediation needs to deal with the general question of how MOSAM applies to pages like Ghost in the Shell, or do you think the mediation should be limited purely to the Ghost in the Shell page? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I do believe WP:MOSAM is central to this issue, and I do believe that it is within the best interest to resolve this dispute is to allow other editors from WP:ANIME and those who have been commenting at WP:MOSAM to weigh in.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What part of MOSAM?

All right, so now we are all agreed that the core of this dispute is WP:MOSAM, and that the dispute over the Ghost in the Shell pages are just one incarnation of the wider MOSAM dispute. This puts us in an interesting position. As Ryulong alludes to above, we will need to involve other editors in resolving this, as cannot make changes to MOSAM without a wider community consensus. If it is merely a matter of interpreting the existing guidelines without trying to change them, then we may be able to sort this out between ourselves. However, guidelines reflect existing community consensus and best practices, so if there is any doubt about how they should be applied then asking the community is the usual way to resolve things.

How exactly we deal with MOSAM can come slightly later. For now, I would like to get an agreement about which parts of MOSAM are in dispute. I notice that there is a recent discussion covering these issues at WT:MOS-AM#Nonsense instructions, but at a glance I don't see much discussion about specific wording in MOSAM. So, my question to you is this: What parts of MOSAM, exactly, are at the root of this dispute? To reduce the chances of any possible confusion, I'd like you all to give exact quotes from MOSAM in your answers. You can just leave your answer underneath this post, indented like a normal talk page discussion - there's no need to make extra sections for your comments. Also, there's no requirement that you agree with each other at this stage. I would just like to hear your opinion about this - if there is any disagreement we will deal with that later on. And as usual, let me know if you have any questions or comments about this. I'd be very happy to hear feedback from you all about this process. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with MOSAM

Lead

• MOSAM as a community guideline.

It was never approved and despite an RFC on the matter, has been repeatedly returned to a guideline by Ryulong and Erachima.[1]ChrisGualtieri (talk)

• "This is the manual of style for anime, manga, and related articles." -

Lacks specificity and often intrudes into other areas covered by the Film, TV, and video game wikiprojects manual of style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It is written with a strong eye towards friendliness to new contributors, who make up the majority of edits to anime- and manga-related pages."

Useless line. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This style guide establishes a standard form for articles about anime and manga series, franchises, and characters."

Lacks specificity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It explains the agreed-on naming conventions for series, terminology, and characters in properties with and without official English translations."

This is simply false as none of it has ever been community vetted and is enforced by a clique of less than 6 editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• " It offers guidance for the proper, top-down development of encyclopedic article sets on expansive Japanese media franchises."

Not present and a highly contentious area of discussion. The franchise matter is part of why this mediation was opened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• " Finally, it gives links to other relevant policies and guidelines wherever helpful."

It does this selectively and often poorly to back the local consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Scope

• "Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga."

Avoids the Video Game MOS and "suggested" while MOSAM "applies", this wording is not too problematic, but it puts MOSAM over the other Wikiprojects MOS on the pretext that it is the one to follow over the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Omissions

Scope is also not clearly defined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability

• " In particular, for an anime, follow the guidelines for a television show or film, as appropriate. For a manga, the series must meet the criteria listed at guidelines for books. For a person, follow the guidelines for real people. For a character or other fictional element, editorial discretion will be necessary. Consultation of the general guideline and possibly your fellow editors is advised. Follow the guidelines for organizations and companies for anime studios, manga publishers and foreign licensors and music for songs and albums related to anime."

So much is wrong with this. The action section has been challenged by several editors on the discussion as being a violation of the "policy" page and its suggestions themselves are problematic. Yes, N and GNG pages exist, but this says that a specific set for NFICT must be met for a manga to be made. It says "editorial discretion" which is useless and while it mentions GNG it also opens up the "fellow editors" as a way to circumvent GNG, particularly for its removal rather than its creation. The last line again pushes where it shouldn't. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: they differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or the article becomes too large."

Despite not even being present and its removal following the RFC [2], this is the key issue for half the conflicts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The rest

The section on "Article names and disambiguation" is not contentious as far as I can tell. "Page layout" is too sparse to be useful and this extends to "People", "Companies and organizations" and "Conventions". As this is the important points of a Manual of Style, this is reason enough that MOSAM should not be a "manual of style guideline" and should be scrapped and redone. In the 7 years it has existed, MOSAM has never risen to addressing its reason for existing and has instead served more as a defacto notability guideline and mirroring the Japanese manual of style for article titles and format. I find this the most important and most undeveloped part of the page and consequently its omissions result in conflict over "how it is done" and "A&M's way". There never has been any consensus other than a small cadre of editors who share similar beliefs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mr. Stradivarius

The main contention is that MOSAM's guideline suggested (or stated I can't remember at this point) that producing separate articles on the different versions a work of fiction made into manga and/or anime may have been made in is unnecessary, and a singular article, written to focus on the original work of fiction rather than any adaptations thereof, is best, with lists of chapters, lists of episodes, and lists of characters to take more specified information per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This means that, for example, the article One Piece is about the manga by Eiichiro Oda and the anime based on said manga (with the article written to say "One Piece is a manga..." rather than "One Piece is an anime..."). While both the manga and anime satisfy WP:N, the high level of interrelatedness between the two means making two separate articles is not as useful to present the topic, and more specific information about the manga and anime are located at List of One Piece chapters and List of One Piece episodes, respectively. It is my understanding that ChrisGualtieri disagrees with this combination article, and would prefer that the English Wikipedia have an article titled "One Piece", an article titled "One Piece (manga)", and an article titled "One Piece (anime)", with "One Piece" being a centralized page discussing all aspects of One Piece; "One Piece (manga)" be solely dedicated to discussing the production, publication, and reception of the print media; and "One Piece (anime)" be solely dedicated to the TV series; with "List of One Piece chapters" and "List of One Piece episodes" still existant (all hypothetical). This is how he treated Lucia Black's original merge of Ghost in the Shell (manga) and my own merge several months later, insistent that "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" be the location where the manga is discussed, and only the manga, rather than the page that focused on the manga, and also discussed the films, and AU TV series/whatever the fuck ARISE is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. On your first point there - you say "suggested" and "stated" in the past tense. Does this mean that the contentious wording was removed from the guideline? If this is the case, could you find the latest revision that the wording was present in, and give us an exact quote? I'd like an exact quote, because I think that is the best way for us to be sure we are on the same page regarding exactly what the dispute is about. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I made reference in my section above. The line was: "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: they differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or the article becomes too large." I removed it after the conclusion of the RFC, the text can be seen during its removal,here, and it was included with the page creation (including its unvetted guideline status) by Nihonjoe.[3] This actual text goes back further when it was off the Anime and Manga wikiproject and was never discussed or brought up for consensus. It was just added one day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Chris. Ryulong, is that the text you were referring to in your post? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and just to be clear, the text in its most basic form was added when the A&M project had a mere four members back in 2004 by Pyrop.[4] This was when the wikiproject was 1 month old and was not discussed at all before or after its adding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris, stop whining about the context of the creation. It's getting old. And Mr. Stradivarius, yes, that is the line I reer to.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI ChrisGualtieri

You can use a numbered list if you don't indent the way you are doing. It should be # for one line, and #: for the next.

1. Just

   Like

2. This

   —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Ryulong has decided to continue the edit warring over the principal of the discussion at Dragon Ball (anime) by repeatedly redirecting the content out. He's done it twice today alone during this mediation.[5][6] This should not be done given the circumstances. I have restored the page and informed Ryulong that AFD is the proper venue previously. He is arguing CFORK; a very contentious argument which is the same exact issue as the Ghost in the Shell matter we are currently in mediation for. I asked Ryulong that such interaction stop during mediation on another page as well. There is little point in mediation if Ryulong continues to edit war and do so in proxy to this issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Dragon Ball (anime) is an article in a shit state that only has five references, with most of the content duplicated from Dragon Ball. That's a textbook example of a WP:CFORK and a WP:MERGE. AFD is not a requirement for merging at all but it's been sent there regardless.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has been refactoring and completely removing messages I have sent him and is demanding that I not edit his page because of this side issue. He has previously done this to User:Erachima (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Erachima harassing me on my talk page.). This really just shows how combative he is and how he cannot act within the general standards of etiquette when he gets called out on doing something wrong. Or does mediation not cover user behavior and I have to go through another bureaucratic hoop to address this issue?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not refactor. Both are listed as "undo" in the system. You made the edit.[7] which I undid [8], but you had also made this edit first [9] which I removed as well.[10] Yours together equal my removals.[11][12] No refactoring, just two "undos" because I could not roll them back because of Davidwr's post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted part of a comment I made after I added to one of my comments and then you removed the whole thing. That seemed like refactoring at first.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

He also started WP:AN3#User:Ryulong reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: ) over this bullshit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place to complain about other issues you have, this is about mediation for ghost in the shell and possibly how MOSAM. RIght now, i believe Ryulong is right, its a clear issue of content forking and whether MOSAM becomes part of mediation, it won't change the fact that it violates WP:CFORK. You can discuss any personal issues such as edit wars and behaviors in ANI or in AN. For now, irrelevant, and this should be collapsed.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On hold

Hello again everyone. You have certainly been busy since I last logged in - and I'm afraid I don't mean that in a good way. I see several comments about user conduct on this page, as well as several violations of WP:CIVIL. In addition, I see edit warring over Dragon Ball (anime), an AN3 thread, and a new AfD discussion on the subject of this dispute. If it was just the comments on this page, then we might have been able to deal with it through dialogue. (Although I should stress that we really can't have a meaningful dialogue when there are accusations and uncivil comments being made.) But I'm afraid there is no way that we can start a real dialogue about this dispute when the dispute is ongoing in other places on Wikipedia. For this reason, I'm putting this mediation on hold until both the AN3 thread and the AfD discussion have concluded.

Ryulong asked if this mediation will deal with conduct issues. The answer is simple - no, it won't, because mediation isn't equipped to handle conduct issues. Mediation can only function properly when all parties are acting in good faith in an effort to come to a mutual resolution. The only things we can do with conduct issues are to suspend mediation while they are resolved, or to put the conduct issues aside and work together to find a resolution.

For us to really get this resolved, we need to have dialogue. That means getting to a point where we can really listen to and sympathise with the opinions of the other parties. That is not about to happen while we are worrying about whether blocks will be handed out at AN3, or whether Dragon Ball (anime) will be kept or deleted at AfD. So I really have no choice but to suspend the mediation until these things are dealt with. If you like, you can try and get the patrolling admin at AN3 to let you settle things here in mediation rather than through blocks. Ryulong could also withdraw his AfD nomination in favour of working the issues out here, and we could ask Knowledgekid87 to suspend his delete recommendation while we work through the issues. But I don't have any authority to do this by myself, so we will have to go through the normal community processes for getting these things dealt with. I'll let you decide between yourselves how best to deal with this. If you want to stick with the AN3 thread and the AfD then that's fine, but please bear in mind that mediation cannot happen while they are going on, and that it may only serve to escalate the dispute.

We can still work this out if you want to - it is all up to you. And remember, if you want to ask me my opinion in private, you are always welcome to send me an email. And again, if you have any questions or comments, please do let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AN3 will probably be denied as it is now 12 hours after the report was first posted and the AFD is ongoing but I am tired of all of these hold ups. This process is so unnecessarily protracted and should anyone discover that another party is causing problems related to, but not directly involved in this current content dispute then it gets shut down again? I'd rather just retract my participation in this mediation at this point.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• AfD is the wrong process for that decision, so it really should be closed and not a holdup here. --erachima talk 08:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'd with draw the AFD for later. I really don't want this to be on hold another week, but I don't have time for a lengthy response here. This mediation is for the content issue and I hope that the conduct matter can be resolved by finally understanding one another's viewpoints and acknowledging them. I've agreed with Ryulong time and time again at the Pokemon and Death Note mattes; I spent more than an hour digging up the info to prove what he already knew was right. While I feel that any opposing view falls on deaf ears or worse, mediation is to get us to sit down and move past that so we can work together. Ghost in the Shell is the core of the dispute and these little side issues are all mirrored in every facet of the current issue and the past issues. If the AFD is not withdrawn, it'll mean at least 7 days on hold and a week where I have to do nothing but translate Japanese sources, and I'm bad at it still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It has closed. So I believe we can continue now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to discuss the issue at mediation - Ryulong has once again attempted to enforce his editorial preferences by proposing the Dragon Ball anime article for merger. If Ryulong is unwilling to participate in the mediation he agreed to than I believe action needs to be taken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done

I am officially withdrawing my further involvement in this mediation case as it has not solved nor will it ever solve anything about our idealogical differences in article content. If it has to be shut down every time one of us has a discussion on another subject vaguely related to the issue at hand then what's the point?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sad that you have chosen to avoid mediation just after accepting it. After giving background information to MOSAM's creation you dismissed as "whining" and tried to remove Dragon Ball despite the ongoing meditation. You constantly avoid the input of other editors and meaningful discussion - even when your arguments are disproven, the result has been months of stalled progress and meaningless discussion. Over twenty editors have expressed issue with the merges throughout its history - yet you see this as a me vs you. I do not know what to do anymore; if you won't discuss even under the structured talks of mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot accept the utility of this process if it is constantly delayed by discussions that it originally had nothing to do with. I already stated over a week ago that I was beginning to doubt this was going to do anything and two days ago I was contemplating making the decision I made today. But I held off. Until today.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius are you going to make any statements or what?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, a statement here is overdue. I was hoping not to have to shut down this mediation, but unfortunately it looks like there is no choice now. The idea in mediation is that we have to deal with the root causes of the dispute for it to truly be considered resolved. If we had kept this mediation purely about Ghost in the Shell, then we may have been able to find an agreement about what to do in that set of articles. But I wouldn't consider that a real resolution if you then went off and had disputes about the same basic content questions at Bleach, Dragon Ball, Neon Genesis Evangelion, etc. You have said yourself, and the other parties have agreed, that this dispute is about more than just Ghost in the Shell. This means that we won't be able to find a lasting resolution if Ghost in the Shell is all we try to cover.

Now, mediation relies on all the parties working together in a spirit of cooperation, and that is not likely to happen if you are still continuing the dispute in other venues. We can discuss those other issues here, as part of the mediation, if you like. I am perfectly willing to go through all of the different examples - Ghost in the Shell, Bleach, Dragon Ball, Neon Genesis Evangelion, all of them if necessary. What I'm not willing to do is to try and guide you to a resolution while you are still debating these questions with each other elsewhere, because I know from experience that it is not going to work. For mediation to work you need to drop those other things and debate it all here - anything less than that is going to be a waste of time.

I'm going to officially shut the mediation down now, because I can't see it working given Ryulong's comments here and on my talk page. However, Ryulong, you are welcome to try at mediation again should you have a change of heart, and I would really encourage you to think about this carefully. If you really do not want to continue this mediation, then the next step is to file an ArbCom case. However, I think that would be a shame, as in an ArbCom case any of you could end up being sanctioned, and I think we could have avoided that here. If you want to start things up again, just leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you all for your time and input here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely no longer wish to continue with this process, as the fact that it has in my opinion overstepped its bounds and in doing so crippled itself from being of any use soured my opinion of it. The only thing ChrisGualtieri and I agree on, apparently, is sourcing and nomenclature. I do not believe that this would resolve our issues on article structuring and when an article should and should not be made. The fact that during the pause he performed similar edits on an article that he personally had never edited before but saw that I had turned into a redirect is telling of the differences in ideology.

The issue with Bleach is dealt with (majority of editors disagreed with split). The issue with Evangelion is dealt with (the requested move I made confirmed that the anime should be the primary topic; the recent disagreement over what the newly formatted Music section should contain is also mostly taken care of). And I've started merge discussions concerning Dragon Ball (previously revealed by Chris) and Ghost in the Shell in lieu of having to wait for this process to do anything, and I will accept the final decisions made on those pages. I know you did your best to resolve this, but I just cannot see it happening if every single dispute regarding merges, redirects, and splits between myself and Chris gets taken into account in trying to solve things. And as far as I am aware, arbitration committee will not take on content disputes, anyway, even though there has been a glut of attempts at dispute resolution up until this point. But if someone wants to elevate this to that level, then that's their prerogative. Although if I have to go through ArbCom on this site again I'd probably up and quit all together.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)