Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-20 John J. McCloy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-20 John J. McCloy 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-20 John J. McCloy

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Deusnoctum 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Page for John J. McCloy

Who's involved?

Me, (apparently) one anonymous user

What's going on?

Edit/revert war threatening to break out. He may be right, but writes with serious POV and doesn't source. I'm still kinda new here, so I'd like if an established community member could take a brief look at this.

What would you like to change about that?

Simply to have a community member (i.e., mediator cabalist) look at what's going on and decide what's valid to keep and what isn't.

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

I'd prefer that it be in the open. You can contact me via my talk page. Thanks for your time.

[edit] Mediator response

Mediation in this case will be awkward, due to the fact the anon is using a dynamic IP (i.e. it isn't fixed). However, I shall take this case. Computerjoe's talk 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I apologize for the delay in commenting, I was on holiday. I came across this article by chance and saw it badly in need of cleanup (much as it currently is), and did just that. I'm not an expert in the subject, but I did research as many of the claims as I could online and tried to see what unbiased sources had to say (e.g., PBS). While it's clear that John McCloy did a lot of things wrong and often failed to do the right thing, the evidence I did find (again, e.g. PBS) was not a wholesale condemnation, though that seemed to be the goal of Anon. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book Anon uses as the source for one (all?) of his claims, and so I can't verify whether the citation is correct, or the source authoritative. Even if they are true and can be properly sourced, however, Anon has a serious POV problem that makes it difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion. I asked for mediation because otherwise, a revert war could break out; I think it would be ideal if a 3d-party expert could come in and write definitively about the topic. Deusnoctum 16:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This disputed seems to have ended. Objections to closure? Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon has since edited the talk page again, though only to highlight a section he wrote earlier (i.e., no comments about mediation). Based on that section, it seems that he thinks the burden of proof rests on me to DISprove his claims. As it stands, I still think that it would be best if a neutral 3d party, preferably an expert, edit this page. I've had my edits substantially reverted (to the version I initially tried to clean up) twice already, and don't really expect anything different to happen next time if I try to add or edit information. That said, I don't intend to edit the page again in the near future, or dispute this further (especially since Anon refuses to discuss this). If there's any mechanism on Wikipedia for enlisting an expert on the topic, I'd appreciate it if you'd point me in that direction; otherwise I have no objections to closure and whatever resolution (if any) you recommend. Deusnoctum 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you head over to WP:3O, case closed. Computerjoe's talk 09:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)