Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-19 Mike Del Grande

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Mike Del Grande

Who's involved?

User:Spook`

User:Adidas98

User:Councillor1

What's going on?

Dispute over wether a subsection should be included. the subsection is about an allegation of racism.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd for everyone to come to a concensus about what the article should or should not include.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

on the talk page above is fine.

[edit] Comments by others

There have been a lot of controversies with other members of city council. The article on this one is inconsistient with the others. There are allegations being used to reprsent historical fact. The allegations on deeper research are unfounded and were perpetrated by opponents in the 2003 election. Adidas98 13:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Spook for initiating this, mindless reverting has gone one too long. I think it should be noted that several other Toronto city councilors do have unpleasant facts in their biographies, such as Rob Ford, Norm Kelly, and Tom Jakobek. All these issues received significant media attention, and should be included in a detailed biography. - SimonP 15:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, I feel like I should be delisted as an involved party. I don't know anything about Mike Del Grande and was entirely uninvolved with the article until I saw a new user blank large sections of text without appealing to discuss his changes first. Taking a look at the page history, I saw the article had been under attack by many anons, semi-protected, and reverted by several established users. Furthermore, Adidas98 was an account that had a blank user page, had been created recently, and had edits solely on the Mike Del Grande article. Based on this evidence, I reverted Adidas98's edits and reported him to the WP:ANI/3RR when he broke WP:3RR. Thus, I have no real opinion (yet) as to whether or not the disputed text should remain.

That being said, however, I'd like to point out in response to Adidas98 that unfounded claims or even patently false claims have a place in an entry if the information is both notable and presented accurately as claims and not as fact. It is for this very reason that Wikipedia has articles on topics like conspiracy theories. I have no idea if that's the case with the disputed text regarding Mike Del Grande. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for delisting me, Spook. I may become involved here as a third-party if that becomes necessary, but I wanted to make sure that my previous uninvolvement was noted first. I want to also point out that I take issue with the way Adidas98 went about his reverts, marking most of them minor (something I noticed only recently). This seems very probably both intentional and deceitful, as the text he removed (rightfully or wrongfully) was not minor in the least. I'm also disturbed by the fact that he wrote an edit summary for only two of his six reverts; though this could be attributed to negligence rather than deception. However, marking an edit minor combined with the lack of an edit summary for controversial edits is extremely bad form and very troubling.

I'd like to make the distinction clear, however, that this does not reflect very much on the actual accuracy of his edits, only his editting behavior. It may come to light that the controversies are indeed both non-notable and unfounded. I present the above evidence as a sign of caution. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe wikipedia should stick to fact and items recorded by actual history or transcript. Wikipedia biogrpahies shoudl stick to who people are and what they have done. I have not seen an article so heavily weighted by media "reports and commentary". It also strikes me that many of the contributers are not even from the Toronto or let alone Ontario area and therefore cannot substantiate or claim to know the context or situation.Councillor1 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How interesting. A new account created yesterday with three edits (counting the last one), two being related directly to Mike Del Grande. Yeesh. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, as should be done, I disagree with Councillor1's point. I think that events such as a comment being (possibly) blown out of proportion relevant to the article. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK! This section is only for comments by third parties about the case, not to continue discussing here. All right, where do you want to make the mediation? In the article's talk page (as said above)? Or what? --Neigel von Teighen 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

First of all, reverting should stop. I suggest to leave the article without the controvesial text until a solution is reached. As a starting point, why not try Hinotori's proposal about including some paragraphs about the racism allegations and also the quotes that might be interpreted as racist? --Neigel von Teighen 20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn by requester (see [1]) --Neigel von Teighen 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)