Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Columbo

Where is the dispute?
The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made.

What is the dispute?
My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

 * Talk page RfC
 * Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion

Mediator notes

 * Opening case, brought from agreement of parties to participate initially at DRN. Lord Roem (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Posted notice of mediation discussion on Columbo. Lord Roem (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Query: when can open discussion commence?-- Djathink imacowboy  19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion can begin on the case talk page as soon as the other party signs to the ground rules. Lord Roem (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem: Would you see this, LR, and tell me how you think mediation is going to make the slightest dent in this editor? He's already broken with your good faith. I warned you early that he may or may not agree to cooperate, in his posts, but he'll keep on editing as he pleases. This diff shows the edit done over 8 hours after my last edit - and I intend to stick to my word not to edit at that article for now.-- Djathink imacowboy  19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's enter this discussion with a cool head. I wouldn't consider any edits to be in bad faith unless he signs the Ground Rules and then continues to edit. Let's wait to see what happens, okay? Lord Roem (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hope my head does not seem 'uncool'. All this is really is an attempt to advise you that he will not cooperate. Everyone knows how he edits and what he does. He has already fouled the article talk by reinserting a deliberately disruptive post by another editor. I'm ready and I will abide by your wisdom ... I'm just saying ....-- Djathink imacowboy  20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your feelings. Just be sure to keep your thoughts focused on the matter at hand. Your statement on the talk page was a great example of this approach. Lord Roem (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood and acknowledged. Cheers a lot.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This may reflect negatively on me, but I want to indicate this and state that I disagree with Salvio about withdrawing here. He is involved to the extent that he can assist initially. In general, I do agree that Sal did not have further involvement in the content disputes themselves, though he did make suggestions.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Query - Apologies for being slow, I am happy to sign the Ground Rules, but where can I do so?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to answer, I have just seen that it is on the Talk page.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note. I have been asked to openly withdraw from this case and not only in an edit summary. Well, here I am openly withdrawing. Let the record show that this action is not due, in any way, to a lack of trust in Lord Roem. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let it be noted that the above post is unsigned.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Signed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to Rangoon: You have made no opening statement, in the section below where you signed.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do intend to - within the next few hours - am just thinking about it a bit.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My humble and genuine thanks to both Rangoon11 and Salvio for replying here.-- Djathink imacowboy  21:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sideline problem: There is a problem I am having and I think it wants clearing up: if you will look at the latest activity on Columbo, you will note there is some editing taking place. Because I know that editor, User:MikeWazowski, and his proclivity to cause trouble, can we say anything here about others edit warring whilst we are in mediation? And as to that, LR, does WP allow links of any kind to Internet Movie Database or not? My impression and some past trouble indicates IMDB is never allowed here at all.-- Djathink imacowboy  04:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, lay off the borderline personal attacks - one edit restoring something wrongfully removed is not edit warring. As to the link in question, IMDB links are perfectly acceptable in external links sections, but not as a reliable source for a reference. As a matter of fact, almost every significant movie and/or TV article has it listed under "external links". Your impression about IMDB never being allowed is incorrect. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DJ - I would ask that you take the Columbo page off your mind for the time being. Try to keep your attention focused on the mediation discussions, which are already off to a good start.
 * MikeWazowski, if you would like to join in the mediation, please feel free to add your name as a party to the case, sign the ground rules, and post a statement. Otherwise, I ask that you refrain from arguing with an editor on the mediation page. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece - since the Cowboy decided to drag me into this, I felt it was necessary to respond, both to his false allegations and his misunderstanding of external links policies in regards to the IMDB. I have no interest in whatever current feud he is having with other editors. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I have interest in this issue and hope that the end point is concensus building on the Columbo page and better understanding of proper editting civility, I don't have a stake in the mediation so I am therefore officially withdrawing from the mediation case. Ckruschke (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm pretty sure MikeWazowski has made it clear exactly what his intentions were, but now has been officially chased from here. That also speaks volumes. On another front, he is right about a recent edit he made to Columbo, and I was wrong about that. In this instance, I assumed bad faith from Mike. As you can see, it is still impossible for me to communicate with someone like Mike since everything is a "personal attack". As far as I am concerned, this particular little dust-up is at an end and we can go on with mediation. LR, it is very noble and appropriate what you did.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment My time's been really pushed recently, which is why I haven't been involved in the discussions on the article talk page, and don't really have a handle on what happened around that. I'll try and make time tonight to catch up and get involved. Ged UK  12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish to state that I am really pleased Ged UK has decided to join in and I hope we can accomodate Ged's views and wishes here. Thus far, I have fully agreed to the accomplishments here in mediation and I look forward to another editor's views with the remainder of our issues.-- Djathink imacowboy  20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Though I think the two editors (I and Rangoon11) successfully worked together on some issues, I am unhappy about the mediation's direction and wanted to state here also that some time ago I withdrew from the mediation. I see no useful purpose in it now, and furthermore am very displeased that Lord Roem just dropped it completely. Note the last time LR posted here - and no effort to intervene when we had disruption here either.— Djathink imacowboy  17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)