Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-09/British National Party

Where is the dispute?

 * British National Party, specifically British_National_Party
 * Talk:British_National_Party

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:DharmaDreamer (Agreed to mediation DharmaDreamer (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
 * User:Snowded
 * User:Emeraude
 * User:The Four Deuces

What is the dispute?
The British National Party is a political party in the United Kingdom with minority support (6.26% at the 2009 European Election), it is often reffered to as 'Extreme' in the media, the main point of dispute is over the use of two phrases


 * the BNP has become less publicly extreme 


 * the BNP has changed its stance on a number of controversial issues such as compulsory repatriation 

What would you like to change about this?
A consensus to be reached over which of the two is more appropriate, or even proposing a third alternate statement.

How do you think we can help?
Review talk page discussion, consider all points and evealuate how the statement would best be worded.

Mediator notes
I am declining this case, because multiple editors have explicitly declined to take part. Mediation is not compulsory. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I think this is premature. The editor who is bringing the case is pretty much isolated and a declared supporter of the BNP. We have already had Utube clips used to support his/her version and even if they were valid RS then the content doesn't support the edit s/he wants to make. I won't oppose, but there are many other things to do before mediation. -- Snowded TALK  22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I used a television interview as a source, and because you claimed it wasn't verifiable I provided a youtube link for your convenience to prove it. The point I'm trying to make is the consensus will never be reached, there were others supporting my proposition but I didn't include in the list as they only made passing comments and don't seem activly involved in the debate. User:RTG Was also opposed to how it currently stands, User:Slatersteven was also, User:GDallimore Agreed with neither. So infact it's equally ballanced. How else do you propose we reach consensus, debating has gone on for almost a week with no sign of progress. DharmaDreamer (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Utube didn't support your edit as you well know. bad source and even the bad source did not work.  Slatersteven has suggested a compromise which I agreed with along with Emeraude.  This is a premature request.  Debating has gone on for a week as you have persisted in pushing a position against consensus and edit waring (breaking 3rr at one point.  I suggest you go back to the page and look at the suggestions.  I also suggest that you need to be very circumspect in editing a page for a political part of which you are a supporter (although kudos for your honesty).  -- Snowded  TALK  22:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Emeraude seems to be alone in this matter and therefore I see no need for mediation. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what Snowded has already said: there is agreement on either maintaining the existing wording or a minor modification, but not for DharmaDreamer's position which would seriously alter the whole point of the section complained of. No need for mediation, but a serious need for a stop to disruptive editing. Emeraude (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that the mass (20+ edits) stop by both Verbal and Snowded. On 13th march Snowded undid something like 2o edites without discusion []. Some of thematerial removed relate4d to the latest news rgarding the confronation with EHRC [] and [] there is noy way that this is a contentious or contoversal edited, not one that snowded can possible object too. This was mass deletion without checkking whatr was being deleted. Verbal has reverted back to this version recently. I would ask that such mass deletions stop.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)