Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 American Hunters and Shooters Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-02 American Hunters and Shooters Association
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: John Broughton 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- American Hunters and Shooters Association
- Who's involved?
- FactsAndHonesty and myself (John Broughton)
- What's going on?
- F&H wants to insert a large amount of text from a blog into the article. I believe it is inappropriate. I have no problems with additions to the article - in fact, after the first time the text was inserted by F&H, I added a section to the article with what I thought was the substance of the his text, including a link to the blog entry, while removing the lengthy addition. My position is that since the article now has a short section based on the text, adding it is worse than pointless. F&H's position, as I understand it, is that the entire text should be added, as is, in addition to the short section.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like a "neutral third party" (to use F&H's phrase) to evaluate my reasons for rejecting the proposed addition to the article, and either explain to me why I am wrong, or explain to F&H why I am right, or something inbetween.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- You're welcome to post on my talk page, the talk page of the article, and/or the talk page of F&H.
[edit] Mediator response
I'll take a shot at this. -- Deville (Talk) 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made a reponse on the talk page here about what I think should happen here. -- Deville (Talk) 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
An update on the status of this case. One of the users mentioned above (FactsandHonesty) has not shown up since I've done anything with this case, so of course I have no idea if the results are agreeable to F&H. I did come to a compromise position with the other user (John Broughton) which I think is fair. So, for now, I'm considering this, if not settled, then at least fallow. (I'd hate to close this without ever hearing from the second editor.) Everything was resolved on the talk page. -- Deville (Talk) 11:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll close this and we can reopen if necessary. --Ideogram 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
