Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/James T. Kirk

Where's the dispute?
Character Page: "James T. Kirk"

What's the dispute?
Inconsiderate contributors who feel a chronic need to edit and tinker with this particular article, with this problem having existed over a long, extended period of time apparently. They show more interest in their own contributions than those made by others, pass judgments on contributions made by others and expect their decisions to be heeded as those of a final arbiter, and will often use protocol threats as a means of getting others to see things their way or else. Frankly, I'm tired of it. I dealt with one of them last year over such contribution/editing issues, only to be faced with the same meddling, tinkering and threats again this time around, with no regard shown for the fact that I took the time to give the article a much needed editing overhaul due to excessive grammar errors and other related mistakes throughout the article's content. For having devoted such time and effort to the task, my work was quickly erased in favor of their excessive and gratuitous changes, and please keep in mind that most of the work I took the time to edit and correct had been contributed by others, and were not contributions made by me for the most part. Basically, it would seem that they're more interested in perpetually tinkering with this article rather than improving its content to a final edit that can actually last unaltered for at least several months or so. Globular Cluster1 (talk)

Mediator's initial response
What seems to have happened here is a differing of opinion on the style of the article has split into edit-war where the contributions of some editors don't seem to matter much to others- though I have seen evidence that this is not entirely the case- and are thus reverted. A possible WP:OWN situation. However, what we need to do now though is set out each editors goals for the article and points of contention in reaching those goals. We need to remember we are part of a team, so let's work out the problem and solve it!

The discussion will take place on the article talk page but all users are invited to make a comment concerning the dispute on this article's talk page.


 * They took a quote I added to the Page yesterday, moved it, hacked it up, inserted it into a different Section that doesn't really make sense, especially taking into account its context in the book it was taken from, and systematically reversed everything I did yesterday, basically reverting its form back to where it had stood yesterday before I made my most recent edits there. So in effect, they are making my point, because it illustrates how they are dominating the Page and bending it to their will.
 * And by the way --I was told today by one of these contributors (in a History Summary Line) that Amazon Links were unacceptable for source material, whereas last year, his tag-team partner, when I specifically questioned Amazon.com Links, told me that they were adequate. Suddenly they're no longer "adequate," I suspect because it was a Link to a book I introduced.
 * To say they are making it extremely difficult to work with them as a part of "a team" would be an understatement from where I'm sitting, given what I've been observing.
 * And frankly, I don't think they're really interested in ever reaching a "final form" for this particular article, because it appears to me that they're far more satisfied to incessantly tinker with it. Globular Cluster1 (talk)!

End of Mediation
Having spoken with all parties involved the mediation case has come to and end. The dispute was based around a disagreement over what made valid contributions, all parties were encouraged to take part in discussion in the talk page, indeed the article had a long history of attempting to reach consensus prior to editing. Gavin (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel as though I utterly wasted my time. I added some closing comments to the article discussion Page, for what it's worth, and was not involved with the recent discourse that had been taking place there last week, so I feel that the case was closed with no input from me on that front, which doesn't seem fair. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can certainly reopen the case if you wish- the apparatus exists on the talk page for you to discuss the issues- thats the point of the mediation. You guys are meant to discuss and I am meant to mediate!!! Feel free to add comments to the mediation section on the talk page. Gavin (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's too late to matter at this point. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason this mediation failed to take off is you didn't take part in a discussion on the talk page- I made the initial point and some of the editors who you feel have been unfair to you responded. However, you failed to address their points or bring up what you felt was wrong- I could not do that on your behalf, I am a mediator not an advocate. To be honest without your input the mediation couldn't have happened because only you are able to explain how you feel that you have been aggrieved. Gavin (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took note of what was being said on the article discussion Page until 1/20, then I stopped following after things fell silent there. Had I known that a little later one of the two parties I have a problem with would have been leveling the kinds of outdated and outright false accusations against me that I saw yesterday, I'd have responded sooner. The simple fact is, however, that I didn't see what he posted until when I responded to it yesterday. And I had told you early last week that I don't have as much time to devote to Wiki as those guys do, and that the bulk of my time for such matters is generally on weekends.
 * And I rejected Arcayne's "olive branch" in the manner that I did because he had already gotten his way, he knew it, and was thus strutting his stuff --his own little way of gloating IMO. They had already hijacked the Page and effectively shut me out of their remaking of it, so what's the benefit of him extending an "olive branch" to me at that point? No benefit to me really, and no harm to him or his buddy obviously. I also didn't appreciate his lies that I saw on the discussion Page frankly.
 * So let them "own" the Page. They already did by that point anyway in my view. Globular Cluster1 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)