Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-17 Leeds United A.F.C

Mediation Case: 2006-12-17 Leeds United A.F.C
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: Coopuk 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ... On the Leeds United A.F.C. page (not the Leeds United A.F.C. History page)


 * Who's involved?
 * ... myself and user Chappy84


 * What's going on?
 * ... I am trying to summarise the page, make it smaller, clarify issues, and remove references to individual players and scorelines which should be in history. Unfortunately, user Chappy84 is consistently rolling back my changes, saying they should be in the Leeds United AFC history page, justifying the action by saying that the page I have edited needs to be kept as a summary. I believe my changes make it more concise, and certainly don't justify a complete rollback.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ... I would like Chappy84 to discuss my changes with me before unilaterally reverting all of them.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ... I don't mind! You can get me via my e-mail coopuk_ebay@hotmail.com, or if you want me to log in via chat, just say

Mediator response
Chappy84 has notified me that he has allowed Coopuk to keep his version and that he will not revert his version. Coopuk's version is now in place at the article.--Natl1 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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



Discussion
Hi Natl, thank you for looking into this, and for helping resolve this particular dispute. However, I think there is a larger issue here at other previous revisions being reverted by Chappy84 without consideration for whether the changes were valid or not. I would like some assurances that if there is a concern about a change that is not obvious vandalism, that the relevant people communicate, and try to resolve the matter instead of simply rolling back changes regardless.