Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-27 Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

Mediation Case: 2006-08-27 Political effects of Hurricane Katrina
Please observe 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AMedcab2&editintro=Template%3AMedcab&title=Wikipedia%3AMediation+Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-08-27+Political+effects+of+Hurricane+Katrina&create=Create+case+page

Request Information

 * Request made by: LonewackoDotCom 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) User:LonewackoDotCom


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina


 * Who's involved?
 * ...User:LonewackoDotCom,User:Derek.cashman


 * What's going on?
 * ...User:Derek.cashman keeps deleting a link to KatrinaCoverage.com, despite that link being highly relevant and having more background information than the entry. It was also on the page for six months before being deleted by that user. More back-and-forth here:

Please note that the site in question has over 1000 posts about the same topic as the entry, which are categorized using over 400 tags, including some which are quite obscure and not mentioned at WP at all, for instance this or this.

Note also the questionable comments from the other editor on the talk page; to my knowledge I have not run across the other user previously.


 * While I still think the site is pushing the bounds of notability, the article in question really doesn't have a major problem with linkspam (only three links), and I don't have time to deal with a 'mediation process'. So who really cares? Personally, I don't think the site has a very long longevity, and will probably be deleted eventually, as it hasn't been updated in several months. But until then, this argument is ridiculous and not worth arguing. Dr. Cash 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...At least either indicate whether the link should be restored or obtain additional opinions on whether it should be restored.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ...Public is fine.

Mediator response
Please can the parties concern review the following section concerning reliable sources:. According to that, the Katrina website would be of dubious credibility as it would come under the "Bulletin boards" section. This is not only because of the nature of the site itself, but also because the poster is also the webmaster of the site, and does NOT come under the exception to the Bulletin Boards rule (ie not an expert in the field). I would thus recommend the link be removed.

If any party is still dissatisfied they can always appeal to an administrator, although I would advise parties only to resort to this if they think a GRAVE injustice has been committed, as administrators only have a limited amount of time to deal with their huge volume of cases. Jsw663 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum - The site concerned would also come under original_research. If you want the links to news sites from your site be placed on a Wikipedia page, I would highly recommend you post the news links directly onto the Wiki page instead.  That way, the relevant news articles can be directly accessed by any interested parties, as well as adhere to all the relevant Wikipedia rules.  Thanks.  Jsw663 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.