Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Terry Goodkind

Opening statements

If that is the correect method. I've sit/sat on several boards (IRL) as an advisor, but I've not done this before, so I'm speculating that this is a correct coruse of action.

Well, do we want half-truths? Or do we want be "honest" and publish fact? Goodkind has a well-written and colorful series that deserves an equally well-written encyclopedic page. As Omni stated, "Let's face it, we all agree that allowing a lie or a half-truth is a discredit to all who view and edit Wikipedia". I couldn't agree more. The bottom line is this; some have shamelessly edited his work simply because they don't like the way the series is going. That in itself if not reason or license to post devaluating opinion meant to smear the man. Again, I say fact IS fact and is pertinent to being encyclopedic knowledge. Anyone?

Mystar 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that when other people edit the page, they edit in a way which is overly positive, and sometimes just plain wrong. I'm adding comments to the TG discussion page today, they should contain most of my beefs, and my rational behind them. I'll try to stop shamelessly editing, I'll try to be neutral, and I'll try to include my reasons so they can be addressed by others involved in the page.

198.96.2.93 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with WLU suddenly popping up and wanting to participate. WLU has had nothing of any concern previous to this particular situation. WLU is not identified and who the old SN was/is, and there for it must be presumed that he/she is quite possibly looking to alter the consensus from a positive direction. WLU could be friend or foe, so to speak. But the fact that WLU suddenly and with out any previous edit history or interest in Goodkind, let along Wiki in general, is suspect in the extreme. Mystar 11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in at least one other page, I am user 198.96.2.93. I can't think of any reason why I would suddenly pop out of nowhere and start editing a page at random just because I can. Assume that I'm that person and am acting in good faith to improve the page. I didnt' have a userid before because I wasn't editing that much. Since I became involved in the TG page, it became worthwhile to have an official userid. If you look at the history of 198.96.2.93, I've only been editing for a little while (the stuff previous to June 2006 is from another guy who used to use the internet account). I am neither a friend nor a foe, I'm just trying to get the article to be more neutral, at least in my mind. Anyway, read what I have to write from now on, and it should match in spelling, grammar and tone. Irrespective, I'd rather people paid attention to what I was saying than who I was saying it. Terry Goodkind himself can come in and edit the page as long as he doesn't introduce bias.

198.96.2.93 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As he has stated somewhere on the Talk page (though, granted, it's fairly hard to find anything back given the amount of comments there), WLU is the anonymous user who made several edits and participated in the talk page before. Paul Willocx 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WLU claims to be the same user as IP 198.96.2.93, which did have some previous input on the discussion page and did request being included in the mediation. Ostensibly, the administrator in charge of moderating the case should be able to verify if this is true or not. If they are not the same user, then I assume that they will not allowed to participate. - Runch 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear improvement

It may be a bit early to declare all strife and problems are past us, but we seem to be finding some kind of modus vivendi, in which more attention is paid to improving the articles and less to arguing about POV or not, although some of the controversial topics have just been edited out altogether, so there may be some differences of opinion if they are slowly brought up again. Regardless, let's hope we can continue to cooperate like this. Paul Willocx 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, any positive content about Goodkind is gone, so stops the anti Goodkind crowd from their edit war. Why woudln't it be slower? Mystar 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now speaks well of Goodkind. What NPOV, citable, relavent "positive" material is missing? NeoFreak 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

Anyone know what the next step is? WLU 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we already have the next step, and the next, and the next. The course of action has been laid out and people are working on pages and content. If you look at the Project page. it is really very clear.--Mystar 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which project page? The SoT project page or the mediation page? Please stop insinuating that I'm stupid. WLU 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]