| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Apple Inc. |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Arkyan |
| Comment | Final solution recommended, endorsed by all but one editor, see notes below |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Apple Inc.]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Apple Inc.]]
Request Information
Looking for someone to help determine usable reliable sources and NPOV wording for section on Apple's claims about crashing.
Who are the involved parties?
What's going on?
Discussion has reached an impasse and all parties (including myself) seem to be saying the same thing over and over.
What would you like to change about that?
Return to constructive discussion and reach some sort of consensus about this matter.
Mediator response
If the involved parties are willing to accept my assistance I would like to offer my help in reaching a satisfactory solution. Arkyan • (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Offer to mediate accepted. I prefer to keep the discussion on the talk page in the interest of having a wider audience and encouraging constructive input from any and all editors. Arkyan • (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
All parties have stated and clarified what the precise nature of the dispute is. Attempting to summarize the opinions stated thus far and offer some points for consideration. Now requesting suggestions on solutions or compromises from the participants. Arkyan • (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Opinions and proposed solutions have been gathered as well as additional input from additional parties. I have offered a compromise solution and am now seeking input on the proposal on this talk page. Arkyan • (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
After a few rounds of discussion and proposals I have submitted a final proposal to the disputants. This proposal is a compromise that allows for the inclusion of the disputed material with a slight rewrite and under different sections than it currently exists. All involved editors have endorsed this proposal except Zeeboid, who has indicated that he is simply unwilling to compromise on this issue. I have suggested to him that he should reconsider for the sake of cooperation and consensus. As other users independent of the original debate have also voiced support for the proposal and there appears to be no further progress, I am closing this case with a recommendation that the proposal be implemented and that a consensus has been reached. Since one editor has expressed an unwillingness to budge on the issue, there is little more informal mediation can do and will advise this user to seek further dispute resolution measures if the compromise is unacceptable. Arkyan • (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Per request I am clarifying the point that Zeeboid was willing to accept an earlier proposal that had the information located under a section titled "Criticisms" in the Apple, Inc. article, while the final proposal split the information and relocated it to both the Notable litigation of Apple and Mac OSX articles. It was the consensus of the majority that the information is more suited to these articles. It is also this point which Zeeboid refuses to concede, and argues that the information should remain in the Criticisms section of the main Apple, Inc. article. Arkyan • (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)