Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-31 Military Commissions Act of 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2007-05-31 Military Commissions Act of 2006
Article Military Commissions Act, Command responsibility
Status Closed
Requestor Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Parties user:TDC
Mediator(s) Arkyan
Comment Delisting without resolution



Contents

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

[edit] What are the involved article(s)?

[edit] What's going on?

[edit] Nescio

TDC keeps deleting sourced and relevant material. While massively deleting information on these articles he is not responding to objections. Some examples

  1. Deletes WaPo as source claiming it does not discuss the MCA[1] while the article says the following:
There is more in the Seton Hall report that ought to leave flushed and breathless every single Senator (Republican and Democrat alike) who just voted for the White House's "Military Commissions Act of 2006." If the actual trials of the detainees are as empty and shallow and pre-ordained as were the Status Review Tribunals there is every reason to be mortified at the prospect -- made real by the legislation -- that the federal courts will be frozen out of vital oversight functions.
How this does not apply to the MCA is beyond me.
  1. Deletes claiming SYNTH[2] while material deleted discusses the MCA and its consequences. Absolutely fails to show why these sources are not discussing the MCA.
  2. Removers legal expert Marjorie Cohn claiming it is not relevant[3] although she argues that war crimes may have been committed which certainly relates to the CR.
  3. Deletes source as not-notable although he has his own wiki-article.[4]

To prevent any confusion I limit the request to this. But if need be I can add during this procedure.

Response to comment below: the fact I want WP:NOR to be less ambiguous to prevent this kind of sillyness does not mean I acknowledge to be on shaky ground. It merely establishes I object to the unsavory tactic of rigidly applying policy to get common sense abolished on WP.

[edit] TDC

Nescio continues to re-insert material that I believe violates WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Some are rather clear cut, using a source in a statement, when the source does not mention the statement and using multiple sources to argue for something that none of them independently claim on their own. I think there is reason to believe that Nescio knows he is on shaky ground, as he is currently petitioning for a change in the WP:NOR guideline.

  1. the WAPO article is about the Seton Hall report, not the MCA, its inclusion in the MCA article is tenuous at best, as there is already more than enough mention paid to the Seton Hall report (it has its own subsection).
  2. None of these sources mentions command responsibility (which is a clearly defined term) in relationship to the MCA, plain and simple.
  3. Human Rights Watch was the only source listed that mentioned command responsibility specifically, it was a no brainer that the others were axed and the text modified to reflect this.
  4. Lindorff is no legal expert, and a marginal commentator. I cannot begin to cite examples where material from politically extreme sites like counterpunch and frontpage magazine have been deleted. Just because he is notable enough to have his own article on wiki, does not mean he is in any way shape or form notable enough to comment on this subject.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

[edit] Nescio

Any massive edits as this[5][6] needs at least some debate and consensus. Especially in light of him dropping an earlier discussion in February and the fact this user is no stranger to ignoring constructive ways of editing.[7][8][9][10]

Some clarification on how to apply WP:SYNT, see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Clarification_of_policy.

  • I complied with the suggestion below and also tagged accordingly. Looking forward to productively exchanging thoughts on how to improve the articles.

[edit] TDC

I agree with Nescio that there should be a clarification on the policy, for both of us. If I am misrepresenting or misinterpreting, I will be more than happy to apologize. And for the record, I would be more than happy to leave the article in its current state, or revert it to its prior state with the inclusion of tags to indicate the issues of this dispute.

[edit] Mediator response

I have reviewed this case and am willing to offer my time and services. Participants may indicate below if they accept the offer. Arkyan • (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, tentatively, I think there is some real progress on the talk page and the Mediation request might have been hasty. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you guys have been able to work it out without outside intervention then all the better, makes my job easier :) All joking aside, it's fantastic that you are making good progress on your own. If a mediation case will be unecessary let me know and I'll close the request. Arkyan • (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept for obvious reasons. Also, if acceptable others have shown interest on the talk page. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are other editors more reluctant to avoid edit warring and now start deleting sourced material. See talk page for details on that. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

  • I'm going to delist this case. The above participants seem to have been able to continue working it out without mediation and additional participants in the issue have not expressed interest in mediation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)