Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Media Matters for America

Formal mediation case
Formal mediation case
Article	Media Matters for America (talk)
Opened	01 Jun 2010
Mediator	Xavexgoem (talk)
Status	Open
Notes	None
	view; talk; edit; delete; watch;

This mediation case has been closed.

For an explanation of why the case was closed, see the talk page. The case was closed on 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) by AGK . If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request should be filed.

Click 'show' to view full details of the closed case

The actual mediation proceedings are on the talk page attached to this request. Please do not modify those discussions or this page.

Media Matters for America edit

Dispute specifics edit

Involved users

Badmintonhist (talk · contribs), filing party
Drrll (talk · contribs)
Arzel (talk · contribs)
~~Soxwon (talk · contribs)~~
Blaxthos (talk · contribs)
Croctotheface (talk · contribs)
SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs)
Yilloslime (talk · contribs)
Ink Falls (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

Media Matters for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Issues to be mediated edit

Primary issues

One set of editors adamantly wants certain information concerning a relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Media Matters to be added to the article. Another set of editors adamantly opposes adding this material.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

May I and others not listed make comments? Where? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary Issue: The core problem here is that tendentious editors are seeking to use Wikipedia to advance their personal political agenda to battle "lefties". This is contrary to Wikipedia:NPOV policy. The process should be, with an open mind, to look at a wide spectrum of reliable sourcing about a given topic and then to set aside any personal agenda and to write an article that fairly and neutrally matches what we see in the sourcing. Instead of that, what we see here is a small number of editors having a political agenda they wish to achieve using Wikipedia, followed by a series of selective Google searches to find snippets of sourcing which confirm that political agenda. I argue that this method of 'agenda based editing' is fundamentally against WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to frame the primary issue as simply and neutrally as I could and I think that I succeeded pretty well. Saltyboatr's biased framing of his gratuitous "additional issue" provides a pretty good clue as to which set of editors is acting tendentiously. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the discussion on NPOV/Noticeboard has been archived: POVN - Arch#13. Also, to SaltyBoatr's point about editors' agendas against MMfA: [1] and [2]. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if such a problem is within the scope of the Mediation Committee, but I propose that the "Secondary issue" pasted by SaltyBoatr is the major (systemic) problem; the "Primary issue" is just the symptom. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

Parties' agreement to mediation edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Drrll (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ink Falls 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional agree -- I decided to withdraw from the discussion (indeed, the whole article) before this request was filed; I will probably be less inclined to participate directly, but will certainly render my opinion if so asked by the mediator(s). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree Soxwon (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Provisional agree -- I decided to withdraw from the discussion (indeed, the whole article) before this request was filed; I will probably be less inclined to participate directly, but will certainly render my opinion if so asked by the mediator(s). Yilloslime ^T_C 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why your comment is identical to Blaxthos'? AGK 20:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was nicely put, and was exactly what I too was feeling, so I thought I might well just steal it. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, since why not, but I'm not sure much I'll be around to participate. Croctotheface (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Arzel (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Users all notified. AGK 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. User:Xavexgoem has kindly agreed to mediate this case. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am asking all editors to create opening statements on the talkpage. Thank you, Xavexgoem (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a procedure for opening statements? I am unsure where it should be placed or the proper protocol. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's on this page's talk page. Create a section for yourself if I've forgotten. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2010 (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.