Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-17 KirokLessonsLearnedEssay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-17 KirokLessonsLearnedEssay 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Response by Kirok 1.3 Mediator response 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-17 KirokLessonsLearnedEssay

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: — Mike • 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The issue is taking place on User:Kirok and on User talk:Kirok. It involves matters from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion — cites to the involved articles are linked to below.

Who's involved?

• Kirok (talk · contribs)
• WCityMike (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

On June 5 and 6, I nominated a total of 23 Star Trek-related articles for deletion. Kirok disagreed with this action. I made multiple good-faith efforts to try to address this user's concerns; I refer the reviewing administrators to the user's talk page, specifically subsections Class action against Star Trek Fan productions, Canvassing Warning, and Response to Your Earlier, Calmer Comments. He had a plethora of questions to grill me with, all of which I answered and, aside from one brief lapse into slight sarcasm, all of which I answered civilly, despite some considerable time to compose answers to his numerous questions. Despite marked incivility and personal attacks on his part, I did not seek administrator intervention.

When the nominated AfDs concluded within the last day or two, the final results were that 14 arguably had their content removed [11 deletes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), 1 speedy, 1 merge, 1 redirect)], and 9 had their content kept [5 keeps (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), 3 no consensus (1, 2, 3), 1 withdrawn].

Kirok then posted this multi-paragraph personal attack on his user page. Although I am not named, I am the individual who he is speaking of. I can easily be identified by the very fact that I, per his request, provide him with the statistics he himself inserts into his attack piece, as you can see from our discussions on his talk page. I removed the essay once by utilizing the {{RPA}} template (later counteracted by TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs)). I posted a notice on the personal attack intervention noticeboard [1], but the administrators chose not to take the case.

I believe that the attacking nature of the essay is self-evident, and assure the mediator that there are multiple factual errors within the essay as well. To respect the mediators' request for brevity in the initial request for mediation, I will not now detail those elements of the essay I believe are personal attacks and those elements I believe are untrue, but I will be happy to provide same upon the mediator's request to expound. However, as I said, I believe the personal attack nature of the essay is self-evident and can be easily observed on its own.

What would you like to change about that?

1. I would like Kirok to agree to remove the essay and not publish it anywhere else on Wikipedia.
2. I would like Kirok to agree to refrain from making personal attacks on me and to refrain from casting aspersions on my character whether here or elsewhere on Wikipedia (such as various article talk pages). In the event he has a dispute with my actions that cannot be addressed, I would ask that he would agree to handle our disagreement in a civil manner, and, if he is unhappy with my response, not to badmouth me elsewhere, whether that elsewhere be on the talk page of an article or of a fellow user.
3. I would like Kirok to voluntarily accept mentoring from a mentor selected by a trusted and neutral third party (such as the Mediation Cabal), preferably for a period of no less than six months, with specific regards to the elements of personal attacks and civility required of editors on Wikipedia.

I would furthermore appreciate guidance from the mediator as to the next step in the dispute resolution process should either Kirok refuse to mediate, or should Kirok agree to mediation but then again resort to personal attacks and aspersions in the future. Is the Mediation Committee the next step? A Request for Comment? The Arbitration Committee?

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I do not have a need for you to work discreetly, but I can be reached privately via Wikipedia's e-mail link if so desired.

[edit] Response by Kirok

What's going on?

On June 5 and 6, WCityMike nominated a total of 23 Star Trek-related articles for deletion. I disagreed with this action. I made a comment on the ST Fan prods talk page which did not mention AfD's so it can't be construed as Ballot stuffing then opened a discourse on my talk page. Basically i found things that to my untrained eye seems very strange and I said "I would like a Wikipedia admin or at least someone versed in the ways of Wikipedia to check [them] out. If I am correct, it casts grave doubts about the action that is being taken." At all times I tried to ask questions, to gain knowledge so that I could understand what was going on since the implications could be deemed against the best interests of not only the articles in question but Wikipedia in general.WCityMike made *some* effort to answer my questions but spent more time questioning my own motives and threatening me with administrative sanctions. His threats revolved around three things "Bad Faith assumption", "Incivility" and "Ballot Stuffing". I don't believe that any of these allegations have been proven although in all his later posts he speaks of them as if they are proven fact. Its true I had "a plethora of questions" because there were so many aspects of the incident that I found questionable. Some of these he answered with extreme bad grace. He has complained about the "considerable time" he has had to take to compose answers to the questions and I sympathise since I had to go through all this whilst preparing for a national Sci Fi Convention in which I was to chair an intercontinental teleconference. He alledges "marked incivility and personal attacks" and yet cannot cite individual cases. When the nominated AfDs concluded, 14 of the AfD'd articles did not survive and I place the responsibility for some of them squarly on the fact that, because of the sheer number of the AfDs I could not address them all individually before they had been closed. I don't have an inflated opinion of my own worth, however I am the editor of the only dedicated Fanzine to Trek Fan Productions, The LIEF Erikson, as well as a writer for TrekUnited, SciFi Studios, Planet Fandom, Starfleet International's Communique as well as Moderater and member on multiple ST fan production forums. I have interviewed the producers of five of the six top Trek fan films. In short gentlemen what I don't know about current trek fan productions you can fit on a postage stamp, I bow to the knowledge of others on older productions. The purpose of my essay is to open a discourse on what I see as basic inequities in the system that have come to light over the course of this campaign. i seek to point these out so that either I can be proven wrong - it could happen, and if so i will apologise if necessary - or Users and Administrators can become aware of these problems and hopefully do something about them. It is not a personal attack as i have proven by my rebuttal on the [Wiki Admin Noticeboard of Incidents]. This User seems to think that everything i write is about him which is really a bad Faith judgement on his part however I am Australian, my skin is thick enough to take most any barb. I can't recall ever "badmouthing" him anywhere, either on the talk page of an article and especially not on anyone else's User page. I have absolutely no problem accepting a Mentor as long this person is unbiassed and knowledgable enough to help me defend myself against these continual and unfounded attacks.

What would you like to change about that?

• I would like Mike to address the questions I have raised and if he can't then he should recant and admit that his actions were a mistake.
• I would like Mike to agree to refrain from making administrative threats and to refrain from attacking everything I write as a bad faith judgement, personal attack or incivility. In the event he has a dispute with my actions that cannot be addressed, I would ask that he would agree to handle our disagreement in a civil manner, and, if he is unhappy with my response to follow correct procedure and not to attempt the classic bullying procedures he is using at the moment.
• I would like Mike to voluntarily accept mentoring from a mentor selected by a trusted and neutral third party (such as the Mediation Cabal), preferably for a period of no less than six months, with specific regards to accepting the rulings of the Administrators and bullying.
• I would furthermore appreciate guidance from the mediator as to whether I will be safe from Mike's allegations of personal attack, incivility etc during the course of this mediation. I trust that an unbiassed observor will be able to adjudicate on the spot exactly who is attacking who.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Everything I do is open to public scrutiny, I would especially like this to be kept public so that others can learn as I hope to. I believe I have a Wikipedia e-mail link if you need it.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. I prefer that we discuss this matter on User talk:Kirok. Ideogram 10:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike has decided to drop his objections and withdraw from the mediation. Ideogram 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion