Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

successfully resolved without the help of MedCom.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Terry Goodkind

view edit delete watch
Filed: 15:41, August 30 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Runch (talk · contribs)
NeoFreak (talk · contribs)
Mystar (talk · contribs) aka. 68.188.220.8 (talk · contribs)
Omnilord (talk · contribs)
Brendan Moody (talk · contribs)
Paul Willocx (talk · contribs)
WLU (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Discussion on Talk:Terry Goodkind: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Discussion with third parties: NeoFreak (talk · contribs) was initially an outside observer.
Disengaging: Conflicts have been ongoing since July 2, if not earlier.

Issues to be mediated

Should the section Fantasy Author or Novelist? be included?
Should quotes by the author about his own works be included?
- If so, should critical commentary about the quotes be included?
- Which quotes are relevant to the subject matter?
How best can we eliminate POV when including critical commentary?
In regards to commentary on fictional works, what constitutes a legitimate citation or source?

Additional issues to be mediated

Does the subject of a biographical article have the right to dictate the content of that article in any way not available the the average editor?
Is the Terry Goodkind page the approprite place to include content reviewing his published works?

If not are the pages devoted to those works more appropriate?

Does any editor have to authority to overrule another based on claimed or factual "inside knowledge" or relationships relavent to the artilce's subject?
I have concerns with fans of Terry Goodkind editing apparently to remove bias, but replacing blatant praise with a more subtle variety.

I Would like to know where the line is between filtering out positve bias and filtering out respectfulness, or filtering out negative bias and applying respectfulness to the facts. Acturate facts do have have a respectability over +/- zealatious bias. Can an article reflect respectability or is respectability bias?

Specific issues brought up and reasons why people were making edits were recorded, rebuttals consisted of a lot of personal attacks. I don't know if this is where I bring this up so please let me know if it's not the case.
I have concerns with anti-fans of Terry Goodkind editing apparently to remove bias, but inserting in it's place blatant mis-information, negative personal conjecture and half truths.
I have great concerns over people being not only allow, but encouraged by editors to add misrepresentative commentary, and then calling it vandalism when it is reverted back to a neutral POV.
I have a great concern over the fact that positive aspects are labeled unacceptable, yet negative commentary is encouraged and considered appropriate.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. Runch 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Paul Willocx 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Brendan Moody 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. WLU 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Omnilord 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Mystar 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. NeoFreak 05:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's taken so long, but I'd be willing to mediate this if all of you are still interested. Please indicate below if you would be okay with me mediating, and if so, whether you would prefer public or private mediation. If this is a stale issue, just say so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it.WLU 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if mediation is still necessary, and, if so, what we would need to discuss. I think the only real problem on the page in question lately is some edits verging on vandalism by a group of anonymous editors. - Runch 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were able to resolve the dispute. : ) However, I'm going to leave this open for a little while to make sure everyone is happy with the article and do not feel the need to proceed with mediation. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much need for mediation at present, since it appears that the issues have been resolved, but if anyone else still wants to go ahead I will participate as well. Brendan Moody 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside a few minor issues that arose afterward, the reason for initiating a formal mediation request seems to have been resolved. I'm pretty sure we don't need any mediation for the original message, but I do know that mystar is out of the country for a bit of a vacation/celebration and will not be around for a while. There are some issues that he may want to voice (being one of the contributors at the center of the "controversy") but I am fairly certain any issues he would bring up are simply to address and mostly along the lines of clarification for all involved rather than massive administrative action. I'll be watching, Omnilord 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs, waiting for response from Mystar (and anyone else with anything to say).... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just returned from out of the country and I need to catch up. As I've stated in the past, I think the mediation is no longer needed. WLU's see the error of her ways and has pointed out her grievous behavior toward me, as well as admitting to never having read Goodkind. So we can only conclude that it is more than obvious to any that her efforts were to disrupt and cause harm wanting to place material and information she knows nothing about. At my urging Runch has established a Project, which I feel will help end the petty bickering. Having the project up and running will also allow "us" the ability to conform the pages to proper Wiki standards and come to consensus on the material placed. My concern is that the page meet with the highest standards of encyclopedic form, eliminate biased and negative commentary as well as needless blogs of people simply wanting to take pot shots at Goodkind, his views and his philosophy simply because they do not agree or like them. So, I think we've past that point mon!--Mystar 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of other possible motivations for WLU's efforts. But in any case, I'm glad this seems to have been resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as successfully resolved without the help of MedCom. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.