Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-30 Democratic National Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Democratic National Committee
State: Closed

Requested By: Jayzel
Other Parties: Jasper23
Mediated By: Addhoc
Comments: Compromise implemented, probably close soon...


Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-8-30 Democratic National Committee

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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Jayzel 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
... Democratic National Committee
Who's involved?
... User:Jasper23 and User:Jayzel68
What's going on?
...Poster Jasper 23 has been deleting factual, well-sourced information regarding a fine the DNC recieved in 2002 for illegal fundraising during the 1996 elections. Originally, there was a two paragraph summary of the issue with a link leading back to the main article (the article 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal is a featured article that has been showcased on Wikipedia's main page). I was under the assupmtion it is standard practice to link articles together in this manner at Wikipedia. The paragraphs were originally deleted without explanation by an anonymous poster. When I first readded the info, I left a comment on the talk page stating that censorship was not acceptable at Wikipedia and that any deletions of accurate info had to be explained. Jasper23 then deleted the information with the comment that the article was too short for any critical history to be allowed. Obviously, I think that argument is absurd. I readded the info (he then redeleted the info) a number of times. Each time I readded the info, I shorted the paragraphs. With the most recent readd, all I had was one sentence with a link. Jasper23 feels this is still too much. I also told him that if an article was too small, then it would be a good idea to increase the length of the article not shorten it even more.
What would you like to change about that?
...All I want is a simple link with one brief sentence explaining what the issue was.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
...I don't care how you resolve the issue. Whatever you feel is best. You can reach me on my talk page or by email.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll take this case and contact the parties involved. Addhoc 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This is my initial suggested compromise, let me know what you think...

[edit] DNC fundraising

In the 2001-2002 election cycle, the DNC raised a total of US $162,062,084, 42% of which was hard money. The largest contributor, with US$ 10,300,000 was the Saban Capital Group, founded in 2001 by Haim Saban, who also founded Fox Family group. The second largest contributor was Shangri-La Entertainment, which gave US $5,175,000. Newsweb Corp, owned by Fred Eychaner, gave the third highest amount of money to the DNC, US $4,755,000.

In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the DNC raised a total of US $61,141,823, all of it hard money. The three largest contributors were Hill Wallack (a law firm), Jonathan Rose & Co. (developers), and Bain Capital (an investment firm). Hill Wallack gave US $100,000 and the other two each gave US $53,400. The overwhelming majority of contributions are coming from small donors, giving less than $100.

In 2002, the Federal Election Commission fined the Democratic National Committee $115,000 for its part in illegal fund-raising in relation to the 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal.[1]

Addhoc 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Addhoc,

Thanks for taking the time to mediate a dispute. Yeah, your compromise version looks pretty good. It works for me. Jayzel may or may not show up, so we may have to wait for a while to get an agreement. If he doesnt show maybe we should just add it in. But thanks again for your help. Jasper23 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I also think the last edit done by Jayzel is pretty good, if we make some small changes. Jasper23 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I agree we should initially wait for a response from Jayzel, however in due course, we could just include the compromise version. Addhoc 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I suggest the compromise version should be introduced tomorrow, unless anyone objects... Addhoc 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[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.