Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-25/Glenn Beck

Where is the dispute?
The Glen Beck Article.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is involved?

 * Cptnono
 * DeliciousgrapefruitDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
The problem is, I feel Cptnono is bullyediting the Glenn Beck page, citing rules that don't really apply, to keep content off of the page. As an example, I tried to include something on Beck's statement (and Fareed Zakaria's response) that he thinks the number of Muslims who are terrorists is close to 10%). No real valid reasons were offered for not including (in fact one of the reasons postited is that it isn't a controversial statement because "musilms should take it as a compliment, since that is how they are raised to behave" (or something to that effect). Cptnono kept citing consensus, but failed to offer compelling reasons not to include it, instead insisting it only be included if we create a whole section on his view toward muslims. But the problem with this, is the sheer length of time it would require to go back and find his major statements about Muslims and Islam. I said was fine with doing this, but for the time being we should include the 10% comment, given Beck's stature, the strong nature of the comment and how it was received by Zakaria and Muslims in general. Looking at the history of the article, I feel this is part of a pattern for Cptnono. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
I feel someone should step in, evaluate the article, but also evalutate all the editors' activities, since this page seems to be a war zone for disputing parties, and a few editors (such as Cptnono) have been policing it and bullyediting.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
Start with the "Believes 10% of Muslims are terrorists and work form their.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)