Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Suhuf-i-Ibrahim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: Suhuf-i-Ibrahim
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: MP (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Suhuf-i-Ibrahim
- Who's involved?
- Moroniidris, MP
- What's going on?
- Moroniidris insists on inserting information about a very speculative theory without reliable sources. Moroniidris also has not justified the edits he/she made.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Remove the unreliable and non-notable theory unless reliable sources can be found.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- Work as you wish. Contact me at the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim talk page.
[edit] Mediator response
I'll take this one. Reviewing. SynergeticMaggot 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since the page is small, and talk page unused till now, I'll be handling this on the articles talk page. SynergeticMaggot 11:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Going on short wikibreak soon so I have to give this one up. Can someone please take over? SynergeticMaggot 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In continuation to SynergeticMaggot's efforts, I recommend this case be closed. This is because the contentious point above is no longer an issue, as the edit wars have stopped. If this should become an issue again in the future, a new case can always be opened. Jsw663 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jsw663, have you spoken with the editor who raised this case MP, who is also called MPatel? His slow burning edit war concerning the removal of material without references about the Latter Day Saints connection appears to be ongoing. Addhoc 11:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi Addhoc, nice to see your response here. As the other party in this case has abandoned their argument / protest, there really is no issue to mediate. Regardless of personal opinions, mediators should try to avoid handing out 'judgments' deeming what is justifiable content or not when the issue is not even contested anymore. This is why I'm recommending the case be closed. If you think otherwise, please tell me! After all, this is only my take on this matter. Jsw663 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure if I'm supposed to write anything here, but here goes: Moroniidris seems to have stopped editing; however, I have a suspicion that Moroniidris is possibly posing as other anons as the edits made by these other anons seems very similar to those made by Moroniidris. I would actually like to request page protection now, as I'm sick and tired of this edit war, but I will not see the article ruined by POV edits. Thanks. MP (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi MP, I've requested edit protection. Also, I agree the other editors appear to be reintroducing the same paragraph that Moroniidris originally introduced. Addhoc 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, the page has been requested. Addhoc 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Addhoc, how about if I pass this case on to you? Jsw663 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, however, the users who have included the LDS paragraph haven't entered into any form of discussion. In this context, we probably could close the case if you preferred. Addhoc 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is mainly because the fact that the other party hasn't replied that I recommended closing the case - if a contentious point becomes contentious again in the future, we can always reopen this case / open a new mediation case. If you don't mind closing it, then either you or I could do that now. If you prefer to wait, then I'll hand the case onto you - so really, it's your choice, Addhoc. Jsw663 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I completely agree, in the context of the other party not responding, we should close this case. Also, I agree we could reopen if required. I'll close the case now. Thanks, Addhoc 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is mainly because the fact that the other party hasn't replied that I recommended closing the case - if a contentious point becomes contentious again in the future, we can always reopen this case / open a new mediation case. If you don't mind closing it, then either you or I could do that now. If you prefer to wait, then I'll hand the case onto you - so really, it's your choice, Addhoc. Jsw663 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, however, the users who have included the LDS paragraph haven't entered into any form of discussion. In this context, we probably could close the case if you preferred. Addhoc 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Addhoc, how about if I pass this case on to you? Jsw663 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, the page has been requested. Addhoc 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi MP, I've requested edit protection. Also, I agree the other editors appear to be reintroducing the same paragraph that Moroniidris originally introduced. Addhoc 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- Not applicable. One of the parties abandoned their edits. Jsw663 22:00, 1 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.
