| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Darrell Issa |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Casprings ( talk) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Representative Darrell Issa did not allow Sandra Fluke the ability to testify on contraception coverage. I feel that this decision belongs in the controversy portion of his page. Other editors disagree and think that there should be no content whatsoever involving Sandra Fluke and Rep. Issa's decision.
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
There is a basic disagreement on rather there should be a section on Rep. Issa page involving Sandra Fluke. He says that Rep. Issa had nothing to do with the the controvery that happened when Rush Limbraugh made some statements about Fluke. I think that is true. however, his decision to not allow her to provide testimony is still a notable event.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
We have attempted to reach resolution on the talk page to no avail.
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
1. If content belongs on the page in relation to Fluke. 2. What content should be allowed.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Provide us with an objective opinion and help resolve the issue.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
 | Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
I'm closing this, as Bbb23 has indicated he does not intend to participate - mediation is only something you can do when you have the full consent of all involved parties. Also, the consensus at the BLP noticeboard thread seems clearly against including the material. And finally, this is already under discussion in an RfC at the article talk page. However, Casprings, if you have any questions about the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, just let me know, and I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Darrell Issa |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Casprings ( talk) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Representative Darrell Issa did not allow Sandra Fluke the ability to testify on contraception coverage. I feel that this decision belongs in the controversy portion of his page. Other editors disagree and think that there should be no content whatsoever involving Sandra Fluke and Rep. Issa's decision.
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
There is a basic disagreement on rather there should be a section on Rep. Issa page involving Sandra Fluke. He says that Rep. Issa had nothing to do with the the controvery that happened when Rush Limbraugh made some statements about Fluke. I think that is true. however, his decision to not allow her to provide testimony is still a notable event.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
We have attempted to reach resolution on the talk page to no avail.
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
1. If content belongs on the page in relation to Fluke. 2. What content should be allowed.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Provide us with an objective opinion and help resolve the issue.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
| Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
I'm closing this, as Bbb23 has indicated he does not intend to participate - mediation is only something you can do when you have the full consent of all involved parties. Also, the consensus at the BLP noticeboard thread seems clearly against including the material. And finally, this is already under discussion in an RfC at the article talk page. However, Casprings, if you have any questions about the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, just let me know, and I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ( have a chat) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)