Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-19/ER (TV series)

Where's the dispute?
ER (TV Series)

What's the dispute?
Editor Drmargi is engaging in ownership of the page and has recently violated the three-revert rule. She persists in reverting the same edit by multiple editors because--in her opinion--her source is more valid than other editors' sources. I have tried to get her to agree to a mutual break, to no avail; most recently she has accused me of ownership of the page, and I think she really sees it that way (so I took a step back and asked other editors to comment). Nonetheless, she regularly makes positive contributions to the article and I'd rather not go directly to reporting her violation or official arbitration. Hopefully unofficial mediation will help. Dave Golland (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening remarks
Firstly, I would like to open by saying that I am absolutely appalled by the conduct that has occurred at ER (TV series). There have been blatant violations of WP:CIVIL, as well as a general trampling of the spirit that created this encyclopedia in the first place by both parties involved. First of all, the three revert rule isn't about giving each user three free passes to revert another editor's contributions, it's about preventing disruptive editing. Second of all, even if it were about the strict text, you, Dave, are still wrong in its interpretation, judging by your comments here. Threatening to turn someone for the three revert rule when 1) it takes four reverts to turn someone in and 2) you're guilty in spirit, too, is not very constructive. However, you, Drmargi, should not identify Dave's edits as vandalism and try to revert them under that guise when they clearly do not meet the standards set at WP:VAND. Namely, to both of you, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit should have never happened. For one, they are blatant violations of WP:AGF, esp. the last one that I mentioned, and also, at WP:REVERT, the text reads: "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution." You two have started a revert war by attempting to use the article to dispute instead of using the talk page enough to solve disputes. Nonetheless, there is nothing that can be done for that now, except assuming good faith and remaining civil. I recommend staying cool: doctor's orders [pun intended]. Despite violations of these, I have also reviewed the controversy itself and am interested in reaching a workable solution. I will make some findings shortly, and please do not hesitate to post here. Regards,  Jd 027  talk 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking such an active interest in this! I acknowledge my own wrongdoing now, and I apologize to Drmargi. I will try to be a better editor. I look forward to your findings. Dave Golland (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you: all that can be done now is to keep it civil, resolve the case, and move forward.  Jd 027  talk 21:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've Found
I've decided to do a little digging around (talk page, article, article history, etc.) in order to make a few suggestions. The first thing I noticed when I visited the ER (TV series) article is that the cast list in the InfoBox was not in alphabetical order: though this may appear trivial, alphabetical order is a symbol of neutrality, and the fact that the subject in controversy, Noah Wyle, is at the top of the list, regardless of the merits and disadvantages of keeping him there, does not help to ease tensions. I understand that is important below to keep them in that order for date of first appearance purposes, but since that is not provided in the InfoBox, it is pointless to keep them in that order. Symbolic, yes, but nonetheless important. Although I'd prefer to focus more on the dispute itself than civility, as I've covered it above, please, please, both of you, do not violate WP:OWN. Moving along, first of all, we must realize that Noah Wyle won five Emmys for his performance on ER, and was a very popular character. So, it would be in NBC's best interest to promote the return of someone that is well-liked, and this partially means inserting their name into the credits even if this only means five episodes. Even though the episode stars Noah Wyle, however, this does not necessarily mean that the series itself stars Noah Wyle. Hence, the dispute. However, we do have a deciding factor, and this is that Noah Wyle is a temporary addition onto the show. Thus, I think the following would be fair to both sides, and that is that Noah Wyle should not remain in the main cast list section in the article, for the reasons listed above, but that, in the InfoBox, the cast list (notice how it says Cast, not Main Cast, referring to the present) should be alphabetized, with the exception of Noah Wyle who should be at the bottom with a parenthetical designation that reads something like (Temporary Guest Star), that should be removed on the date of the airing of the last episode to temporarily star him. Any thoughts?  Jd 027  talk 21:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with this, as it accurately represents Wyle's status. It's never been my intention to do anything but represent the cast (main v. guest) accurately to an encyclopedic standard, and have always maintained that placement in the credits alone is evidence of nothing, particularly in the face of considerable media content from NBC that he is, indeed, a guest star.  As long as Wyle remains listed as he is among the departed cast with the notation regarding his guest cast status for these five episodes, I'll agree to this recommendation.  Drmargi (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per DJS24, please consider all proposition related to alphabetical order void.  Jd 027  talk 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have concerns. First, this doesn't appear to be a compromise, as it runs fully contrary to the consensus on whether or not Wyle's appearance on the current five episodes is as main cast or guest star. Second, whatever my own transgressions as listed above, Drmargi has made no similar concessions regarding her own behavior. Drmargi's opinion on the validity of one source versus another should not be used as some sort of filibuster to trump the consensus. If you're basically saying that she's right and the other editors are wrong (including another editor who has accused her of ownership), and she refuses to concede any of her own improper behavior, then you're leaving the door open to her continued ownership. I'm trying to analyze what I'm doing, so that I can improve relations on the entry, but for now my overtures appear one-sided. Dave Golland (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are a couple of factors that must be taken into consideration. One factor is that both of you were being disruptive. A second factor is that only you, Dave, apologized for your behavior and looked to progress towards a workable solution. A third factor, unrelated, is that the show ends in about two weeks and the entire organization of the chart will need re-done since no characters will be "current." So, I think a couple of things need to happen to benefit to the readers of Wikipedia from further disruption. One such thing that needs to happen is that you, Drmargi, really do need to apologize for your past actions, including violations of WP:OWN, WP:REVERT, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. It's only fair, and it's the only way that we'll be able to put matters behind us. Since there are only two weeks left in the show, it would be appropriate to designate Noah Wyle as (Temporary Guest Star) in both the InfoBox and the chart. It makes sense because he is, and Wikipedia is relied upon to be kept current. I also suggest to avoid coming back here, a note is made on the talk page regarding the re-organization of the chart in two weeks by someone noting that there will need to be a re-organization of the chart in about two weeks' time, but I suggest that neither of you get involved. In any case, your time will probably be more valuable elsewhere. Simple, yet effective. Regards,  Jd 027  talk 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) This approach is not working. I'd like to move discussion down to the Discussion section.  Jd 027  talk  20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I volunteer to stay out of that discussion on the understanding that Drmargi will make it mutual. Dave Golland (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will make decisions about my own actions without reference to Dave Golland, and suggest he does the same. I find "I'll do this if you do that" gets us nowhere.  Drmargi (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I'm currently the one fighting hardest against Drmargi's ownership of the page, it would make no sense for me to agree to stay out of a particular discussion unless she would agree to do the same. Dave Golland (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've finally had a few minutes to read this fully this morning, and am very disturbed by what I'm seeing here. This is my first time even seeing one of these, so I'm very new to the process. That alone, along with my own skills in mediation and collaboration, demand some care on my part. I will be replying in detail once I have the opportunity to think carefully about what, and how much, I want to say. For the moment, I must note how sad I am to see the overly-hasty assumption of bad faith on my part, not only by Dave Golland but by our mediator as well, and on so thin evidence. That demands some serious thought on my part, and I find myself wondering if a request for a new mediator is in order. But that will come in time. For the moment, I am agreeing to nothing regarding this mediation. Drmargi (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This mediator has agreed with Drmargi about Wyle, and has pointed out both of our mistakes, including my own. Further, mediation is voluntary. If it doesn't solve the problem, there is always arbitration. I'm still hopeful that it will end at this level, however. Dave Golland (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbitration can get ugly, and is generally used as a last resort. In other words, you probably don't want to get involved with it unless you feel that you absolutely have to. Further, when everything is dragged out of the bag, your name can be tarnished permanently. I'm confident that the issue can be resolved right here in relative solitude.  Jd 027  talk 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * If I may throw in my two cents here, I would need to agree on Jd027's solution. Noah Wyle's name should be mentioned in the infobox, however it should be at the bottom of the main cast chart. Just a note Jd027, as I'm not sure if you know, but the cast names in the infobox are in order as they appear in the opening credits. I would need to disagree putting them in alphabetical order. Just a thought. --DJS24 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that, thank you. I have also added you as a party.  Jd 027  talk 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to ask, how long would you propose having Noah Wyle appear at the main cast chart? If this did occur, a parenthetical designation such as (Temporary Guest Star) would need to appear, and a temporary guest star can't remain on the list forever. To further complicate matters, the show is scheduled to end permanently on April 2, 2009, and how would the main cast chart be organized then?  Jd 027  talk 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That last part is the long-term issue, because all the current and former main cast members will be listed, but the question will be how. Currently they have episode numbers next to their names, and categories differentiating their appearances as "main cast" and "supporting cast." And the current order for former members is reverse chronological based on last appearance as main cast. So if Wyle's current appearances are as "main cast," he'll be above the main cast members who departed in recent years, but if they're not, he'll be below. All of which is highly academic next to the question of decision-making. One editor should not be allowed to substitute her own opinion about changes over that of a consensus. Dave Golland (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that will have to be an issue taken up at Talk:ER (TV series). Second of all, there is no consensus at the talk page about anything there: that's why we're here. I recommend taking the issue up at the talk page ASAP.  Jd 027  talk 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I say "consensus" I don't mean unanimity, I mean big-margin majority, with sufficient time allowed for wide participation. In the original discussion on the talk page that started four weeks ago on this topic, the overwhelming majority of participants believed that Wyle is in the main cast and that the entry should reflect that. Dave Golland (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
It's getting a bit cluttered above, so let's move it down here. Look, I don't have an agenda to push, and I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith. To make this as simple as possible, to clear up any ambiguity whatsoever, I would like each of you to express your own thoughts about this dispute by posting 'a statement which outlines what you'' think would be a fair and acceptable solution to the immediate problem at hand, and how to go about achieving that. Let's move away from the topic of conduct and once all of the statements are posted, I believe when can work forward to a fair and acceptable ultimate solution.  Jd 027 ''' talk 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are seven or eight regular editors on the entry; I think that if good faith is to be assumed, then none of us should revert any of the others' edits before first mentioning it on the talk page and then allowing some time for discussion. This would be the acknowledgement that I'm looking for--that in effect, that all of us are equal and none of us sets the rules alone. (Note that while we have been having this discussion, two other regular editors of the entry are in yet another revert contest.)


 * On the Wyle matter, I am personally willing to agree to a complete compromise (i.e. accept that Drmargi's opinion can stand, and Wyle will appear as a guest star rather than main cast this year) IF she can agree to the preceding paragraph.


 * Dave Golland (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll gladly provide the above statement, which will take some time, as I plan to bring in several pieces of evidence from NBC, and have work-related commitments that must come first, so patience and no assumptions regarding the reasons for my actions are requested this time.


 * I cannot agree to so blanket a statement as Dave Golland has provided above. While it seems like a good idea on the surface, it's anything but. It gives any editor license to move Wyle to main cast, then ties our hands to revert the edit back to the form to which Golland has agreed, forces yet another discussion designed to ignore the reliable, verifiable source that Wyle is a guest star (ie. NBC), and we're right back where we started, rendering this process meaningless.  It also implies every edit demands discussion, an excessively time-intensive and pedantic approach to the problem.  Drmargi (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking forward to your statement :). At this point, nobody has to agree to anything, as it's just a place to toss around ideas.  Jd 027  talk 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This all goes to the question of good faith. If you have good faith in the other regular editors on the page, it will be easy to avoid reverting their edits. And even if you disagree with the edit, handling the disagreement in the Talk page is much more civil. But if you think that your judgment--and yours alone--is valid, that is ownership. (So as no to seem inflammatory, please interpret my use of the second person as general and not particularly directed at Drmargi.) Dave Golland (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we wait until she provides her statement. It's better to look forward towards a resolution than continuing to scrutinize past actions, merited or not merited.  Jd 027  (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am presently working on my statement, and hope to post it soon.  Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)