Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

Mediation Case: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state
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.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Zleitzen 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Zleitzen
 * User:RaveenS - also employing 2 anon acounts User:216.95.23.95, User:216.95.23.239


 * What's going on?
 * Simple. This page is called "List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state". Should acts that haven't been labelled as "state terrorism" be carried on this page? I think not. User:RaveenS apparently thinks they should. Therefore User:RaveenS is repeatedly on placing material that is not labelled "state terrorism" by any source onto the page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like User:RaveenS to spend some time re-reading the guidleines on WP:V and the guidelines for WP:NOR which I have placed on the talk page. I would like User:RaveenS to reconsider whether the acts he/she is placing on the page have been labelled "state terrorism" by a notable source. And apply that conclusion to our guidelines of WP:NOR and WP:V.


 * I would also prefer it if User:RaveenS didn't use anon acounts alongside his/her own to revert my edits, nor refer to my edits to uphold WP:NOR and WP:V policy as "vandalism".


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * N/A

Mediator response
This seems like a sensitive issue. I noticed Addhoc is on this case, but has a rather serious caseload himself. To relieve some of the pressure I'll take this case as well. I'll start looking into the material immediately. In the mean time, I'd like to open a dialogoue with the involved parties. DMeyering (talk)
 * Thanks! Addhoc 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On further inspection, it looks like the two parties have almost reached a consensus. Perhaps this isn't sucha hotbutton issue after all. -DMeyering


 * Should we close the case? Addhoc 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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