Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
edit
The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Hogfanjax (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Hogfanjax (talk · contribs)
- Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- Addition present and resolved for months removed with poor discretion with opinion that Hatch act violations without charges are numerous for directors of agencies which is not ture and cited properly. Also removed further additions of controversies that happened at the CFPB with GAO citations of investigations and previous hearing citations leading to additions of controversies. User Moboshgu removed additions out of spite and political partisanship.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
- Agree. There is not much to discuss, I cited a GAO report while under Cordray's tenure, obviously a controversy, where this was posted. User muboshgu removed purposefully. I feel uncomfortable discussing with Muboshgu due to threatening nature of messages (my perception, maybe they are standard which is worse actually) which is why I went right to mediation. As you can see the user refuses to mediate. Secondly doesn't it make sense to discuss cited additions BEFORE removal, this seems counter intuitive which is why i brought my grievances here as well. Hogfanjax (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. I said discuss on the article's talk page. You're jumping past a few steps here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
