Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-30 Iraq Resolution

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Iraq Resolution
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	GATXER
Mediator(s)	Addhoc (talk · contribs)
Comment	Closing case

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Iraq Resolution]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Iraq Resolution]]

Request Information

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

Nescio

The only contribution by GATXER (talk · contribs · email) is removing factual caveats to the resolution. He calls it POV to mention the fact that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 and that Iraq did not posses WMD's. Instead he has announced,[1][2] and done so,[3][4] [5] to revert on sight any edit I make. He refuses to discuss and I am at my wits end and hope some uninvolved party may be able to resolve the issues.

Response to comment below. The introduction of an ad hominem is usually a sign of the strenght of ones argument. But to respond to the irrelevant other cases, you will find they have been resolved and my position was supported. See articles for details if you really think it is warranted. Second the we know now bit was removed by me[6] and you removed the rest without any attempt at dispute resolution. Further, reading the talk page would result in the conclusion that nobody, except this editor, disputes the information that he is edit warring about. Strangely enough while an anonymous editor is able to engage in a civil debate this editor can only use belligerent language and reverts on sight anything he deems inappropriate.

GAXTER

Nescio thinks "we now know" is not POV. NO ONE on the talk page agrees with him. I cant believe anyone with a open mind would think "we now know" on almost any page wouldn't be POV. Of course when Nescio says "I refuse to discuss" thats just another lie. Check out the talk page his edits have been talked about and NO ONE agrees with him. Nescio clearly has a POV on Bush and the war and his edits clearly show it. He has said "This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution and his attempts to abolish the rule of law need to be reverted." He has called Bush "Fuhr, err, Great Leader" does that sound NPOV to anyone?

Even thought I think almost the whole page is POV. All I have removed is the "We now know" and the Illegal war from the part on the listing of the reason and I have left everything else. You might notice that the References part is 100% anti-War or anti-Bush. This isn't even his only Mediation....he's POV another Bush page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-25_Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-31_Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006 he seems to have alot of problems. You might notice a pattern here.

Response to comment above.

I guess my main problem is the running commentary. This makes the section hard to read and understand....and why do we have a large Criticism section if we are not going to use it.As I have said...and others have said.....the stuff belongs in the Criticism area......doing other wise just confuses the reader as to the reason....which I think is the editors idea all along.

What would you like to change about that?

Nescio

To establish what part of the edit he objects to is inaccurate and why.
To establish what exactly is POV about inserting factual information.
To establish what exactly he wants.

GATXER

Take all POV stuff out of the bill listing and put in the Criticism if anywhere at all.
Take out all of his stuff about the illegal war and put it in the Criticism if anywhere at all.
Since no one agrees with Nescio on the talk page and everyone else thinks he's wrong, Inform him that he is wrong.
Let there be a clear version of the reasons, without a running list of if they are true,Right or wrong. I have never seen a page that had "we Now Know".....of course we don't know who "we" is and since no one has charge America with a Illegal war....take that out.
Most of all I want him to put his Criticism of the reasons in the Criticism section and let the reasons be stated with out a running commentary.

Mediator response

In articles, we can't say "Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11". However, we can say "Many critics, including {give names of prominent critics}, have commented the intelligence reports have advised that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11" or similar, provided references are provided. In this case there are sufficient journalists, political commentators and military analysts to substantiate this view. Addhoc 14:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]