The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Houstoneagle (talk · contribs) – filing party
- houstoneagle (talk · contribs)
- Longhair (talk · contribs)
- meters (talk · contribs)
- Gladamas (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Joseph diGenova (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)
- Should the second sentence of the article remain: "He is known for promoting conspiracy theories about the Department of Justice and the FBI." I, houstoneagle, deleted this quote because the only sources provided are opinion journalism. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is loaded, and there could at least be a better wording that does not connote irrationality on the part of a distinguished former U.S. Attorney. I also want the person who sanctioned me for 24 hours to be sanctioned, because he or she falsely accused me of failing to engage in the proper procedure. I am doing my part, and his or her opinion is of no more value than mine. The person who sanctioned me abused his or her power, and the people repeatedly reverting my edit probably have not even considered the fact that the sources are garbage opinion sources. Just because they were in a well-known newspaper doesn't change the fact it's opinion. This is an encyclopedia type article, not Mother Jones.Houstoneagle (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Houstoneagle (talk) 02:36, 20 June 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.
- Reject. Fails to satisfy our prerequsite requiring extensive talk page discussion. Filing party has only posted once there and most of that was about conduct, which we don't handle, not content. However, if this hadn't been rejected for that reason it would have been rejected under prerequisite #9. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
