Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Royal Knights

Who are the involved parties?
User:KrytenKoro and User:156.110.42.10

Statement from KrytenKoro
User 156.110.42.10 constantly reverts the page to a version he had made that is quite frankly, a disgrace to proper English, both grammar and spelling. I explained why I reverted each of the edits that I did, on his talk page (I even tried to assimilate his edits that were actually constructive), but he continuously performed full reverts to the previous page. To not get into a revert war, I withdrew from that dispute until other editors input their opinions and decided for themselves, and explained this to him. He continued to make continuous edits that made the grammar and spelling somewhat worse, and used as his reason that "I'm just improving grammar, so you can't argue with me" - something the other editors complained about. When other editors began to notice the faults in the page, and even reverted his edits on their own, I decided that since others supported my "side", I was allowed to go back to editing that overall version of the page without breaking my word. 156 resumed the full reverts, was asked to stop and even given a vandalism warning*, and continued with "all I'm doing is improving the grammer! TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT!" and "Hey, don't critize me, you were the one who reformated the whole thing, there was no reason to do that, it was good the way it was!" edit reasoning.KrytenKoro 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(*) I had previously explained that since he was not giving any specific reasoning for his reverts, and had been asked to stop, that I could no longer assume good faith, and would start giving him vandalism notices.

Statement from KrytenKoro
I would like 156 to stop performing full reverts, and instead perform grammar "fixes" one at a time, with explanations for each, like I did for my edits. I would also like him to stop acting like we are attacking him, when we are merely trying to improve the article. In short, I would like him to act like an adult.KrytenKoro 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement from 156.110.42.10
I was doing grammer fixes you were the one who, is still doing full reverts. some of my edits done for savers was alot better than yours! it was more broader and precise! Do we really have to put that despite gallantmons attempt to escape, I mean in the end they both were frozen. It would have been alot broader to say a brief battle ensues, ending with both knights frozen done by sleipmons odin's breath, that is alot better and broader! And I wish you would just look up the terms instead of just erasing. I lef some of your edits alon because they worked, but all you did was just erase mine because "You" simply thought it wouldn't work. Some of what you agured made a piont, like using replace instead of substitute. I can agree with that, but as for the other edits there was no need to go revert them back to yours! Alot of people saw ally nothing wrong with my edits except you, and even if they did they simply improved it, not delete the whole thing like you did. You are the one who needs to be adult about the situation and let others contribute what they think is good or not, and if you have a problem with its, all you have to do is give your statement on why, I Know you have done this already, and I agree with some of what you were tryig to say! But this website is for others to gather and improve information others have left! It's shouldn't have to be "my edits are better so its you all should go my way" no that would be wrong! I have agreed and left some of your edits alone because they were okay, and I Also left a reason why I didn't think it would work, so you need to do the same!

1. What page are you referring to?

 * Royal Knights (Talk 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Can you provide any diffs to backup your claims and explain how they do so?
  

There is quite a lot here, but basically, these exhibit that I did not merely revert 156 edits (There were many changes between my subsequent mass-changes ) - I only did this when they were grammar and spelling mistakes. I tried as much as possible to incorporate his edits that appeared constructive. These also show 156's antagonistic edit commentaries, which seem to claim that I am trying to bully him, and that I am not explaining the changes I make. However, this is patently false, as I nearly always explained each change that I made here and here.

I admit that I did start becoming antagonistic in turn, but very rarely did 156 explain his edits besides claims that I was bullying him and that they were "grammar fixes" - which I disagreed with, and explained why on his talk page.KrytenKoro 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Seeing as how the mediator has disappeared, what is the status of this case? Can it be closed? Wizardman 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as the dispute has clearly subsided. Wizardman  19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)