Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boy Scout

Boy Scout edit

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Failed. Case consisted of two conflicting views. Only proponent of one of the views backed out.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 14:50, October 29 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Boy Scout

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Talk:Boy_Scout#RFC first attempt at resolution
Talk:Boy Scout#RFC2 link

Issues to be mediated edit

I have attempted to add a link to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to the "See Also" section. All attempts either to add that link or to introduce a more detailed explanation have been deleted.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Comments from Rlevse edit

The whole problem centers on GMcGath failing to realize that this is an international article on the individual Scout, not the whole movement and certainly not any individual Scout association, the BSA in this case. Members of the Scouting project have been self-policing this article to maintain this focus for months--for just one example see [1]. GMcGath also accuses us of deleting his paragraph; he fails to understand that was moved unaltered to a more appropriate article, Scouting; the Conceptual influences section which is more appropriate than membership. There is a difference in delete and move. His accusation that this was vandalism is out of place, wrong, and a violation of WP:CIVIL as it's a content dispute, which wiki considers different from vandalism. This shows our goal is the most appropriate article vice censorship. There also the FA Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, which we support, more evidence we are not trying hide issues about the BSA, just maintain article focus. When Horus cordialy tried to discuss it on GMcGath's talk page, his response was "Your placing a message on my personal message page instead of discussing the issue here was entirely out of place.", which I think was inappropriate. Horus made a good faith effort to resolve the issue. GMcGath also asked the "regulars" to not respond to RFC2, which is a violation of community spirit. Venue shopping, GMcGath also tried to get this into the BSAMC article, which someone else removed. Then he files this mediation case, which is his right, but also looks like he's shopping around. Keep in mind during this whole time, he's garnered one "weak include", one include and several opposed. If we include a BSA specific link here, where would we draw the line on other association-specific artiles? There are 150 or so Scout associations around the world. The BSA article has a controversy section with a link to the BSAMC article. This issue also effects the entire movement (Cubs, Rovers, Venturers,etc), not just the Boy Scout section. All member WOSM orgs have a religion requirement, but the details and consequences differ and are out of scope of this article. A section in Scouting or even a separate "Religion in Scouting" article would be better.

1. The idea of the article being on the "individual scout" apart from any organization is not coherent. There isn't any such thing as a Scout apart from membership from a Scouting organization. 2. What I am currently requesting is a link to an article. A link exists in the context of a specific article; it makes no sense to talk about "moving" it.

There are many claims which Rlevse makes which are outside the scope of this discussion. I will not respond to them unless asked to by the mediator. But I need to address one point. Rlevse says: "Venue shopping, GMcGath also tried to get this into the BSAMC article, which someone else removed." As the log shows, I have never edited the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article. The only other page relating to scouting which I have modified was the redirect from Boy Scouts, which I turned into a disambiguation page. This was not reverted.

Rlevse states: "Members of the Scouting project have been self-policing this article to maintain this focus for months." I am very glad for this admission. The content of a Wikipedia article should not be controlled by the organization that the article is about.

The article is one of the likeliest places that people would look for information about the Boy Scouts (not just for information about "the individual scout," whatever that may mean). A single link to an issue which is broadly important to understanding the Boy Scouts is entirely appropriate.

I would accept the alternative of a "Religion in Scouting" article, provided that a link from the Boy Scout article can be placed there and not "moved." GMcGath 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies of the BSA are not "broadly important" as GMcGath claims - there are over 150 other Scouting organisations, and the information GMcGath wants to link to is only relevant to a small section of worldwide Scouting. Horus Kol 09:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GMcGath fails to realize that the Scouting project is NOT the BSA. For example, Horus is British. The Scouting project is dedicated to working on coverage of the Scouts. WikiProjects work to improve content and coverage of particular topics by bringing editors who have similar areas of interest together to cooperate and improve the encyclopedia. His argument would say that WikiProjects should not be allowed to set guidelines or have opinions or coordinate on their topic of interest. On the contrary, the WikiProjects bring diverse views on the topics. Rlevse 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse: I'm not here to argue with you. Until the mediator says something, I'll wait. GMcGath 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job so far. Now I'll wait too.Rlevse 12:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ping) Hello, ^demon? It's been two weeks since the initial request... GMcGath 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be checking back here till Monday after Thanksgiving... GMcGath 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. GMcGath 14:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Horus Kol 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Rlevse 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Accept

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing edit

It's obvious that the mediation committee is seriously understaffed, and that the number of Wikipedia cliques aggressively protecting their turf against any material they don't like is growing. Wikipedia was fun for a while, but has ceased to be. I stuck out the waiting this long because the dishonesty of people live Rlevse is surely symptomatic of the way they treat the children who are given to their charge. No doubt they'll continue to teach kids that any non-theist cannot be "the best type of citizen," and continue to make the Wikipedia pages look as if no one cares that they are teaching this lie. But there are better ways for me to fight this kind of small-mindedness than to engage in revert wars with the Boy Scouts or wait for a mediation that is never going to happen. Go ahead and post all the whitewashes you want, Rlevse and Horus Kol; Wikipedia is going down the drain anyway. GMcGath 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that the above comment is completely immature and unnecessary. There was a significant number of people who opposed the placement of your claims in the article in question (yet supported the placement in another relevant article - where it still is, with some modifications due to the inaccurate claims you originally provided there). If you think that following the wikipedia ideals of relevance is "whitewashing", then I guess there isn't much more than can done - but since the information you wanted is in the appropriate article already (but not this one you are arguing about) then where is the "whitewash"? Horus Kol 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Horus.Rlevse 14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested in mediation, I'd volunteer to do it. I'm not on the mediation committee, but I do have experiance handling various types of mediations, and would be happy to help out to try and resolve your dispute, if all of you agree of course. JCO312 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.