Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13 Easy question for mediators
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
Mediation Case: 2007-02-13 Easy question for mediators
[edit]Please observe Wikipedia: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
[edit]- Request made by: GregBrown Gregbrown 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- United States, Chicago
- Who's involved?
- Just me, for now, because I don't want to unnecessarily cause issues
- What's going on?
- I posted up an External Link, and someone took it down immediately.
- What would you like to change about that?
- My question pertains to the procedure an Administrator should follow with an External Link. This Administrator took the link down minutes after I put it up, and gave me an explanation only after I requested it. I feel that he put little thought into this, and he only spoke to policy after I raised the issue. My link was not an obviously terrible one, so: Should the Administrator have followed a procedure that is different than immediately taking the link down?
I read the powers of the Administrator, and it is clear that the Administrator has the power to delete material. Having said this, is it right for an Administrator to immediately take down a link?
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- You can work in the open! To me, this goes to a much larger question than just my link....
Mediator response
[edit]Compromise offers
[edit]This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion
[edit]While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
- I move to close this one. Several other editors have responded on the user's talk page. A mediation page is not for policy decisions. TheRingess (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like from what they are asking what they really wanted is Wikipedia:Third opinion anyway? Either way, seems kinda reasonable to close this... mainly because numerous editors are already in contact through the user's talk page about a link. Mathmo Talk 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support the motion to close for all of the above reasons. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like from what they are asking what they really wanted is Wikipedia:Third opinion anyway? Either way, seems kinda reasonable to close this... mainly because numerous editors are already in contact through the user's talk page about a link. Mathmo Talk 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)