Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | James T. Kirk |
Status | closed |
Request date | 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | Unknown |
Mediator(s) | Gavin Scott |
Character Page: " James T. Kirk"
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)
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.
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)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | James T. Kirk |
Status | closed |
Request date | 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | Unknown |
Mediator(s) | Gavin Scott |
Character Page: " James T. Kirk"
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)
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.
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)