Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras
|
This case was closed at 12:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
Contras
[edit]Involved parties
[edit]- Student7 (talk · contribs), filing party
- Groggy Dice (talk · contribs)
- Annoynmous (talk · contribs), red linked but has user page
- Jpineda84 (talk · contribs), red linked but has user page
- MarkB2 (talk · contribs)
Articles involved
[edit]Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted
[edit]- Talk:Contras - attempted discussion on article page
- Template:RFChist list - requested third party comment June 2, no answer, but I don't see what a third party can achieve at this point
- User_talk:Groggy_Dice#Contras - attempted discussion on one editors web page
- User_talk:Annoynmous#Contras - attempted discussion on another editors web page
- Requested intervention by admin - they responded by locking the page June 3 which was good, but no progress
Issues to be mediated
[edit]- The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
- WP:POV - most editors seem to believe article is biased. This is a general comment. Editors believe that others are slanting their remarks. Disagreement seem to focus around the following two general questions:
- Should the results of the 1985 election be listed? In what way? (Were they completely fair with all sides being given a fair crack at the electorate?)
- Who was enrolled as members of the Contras?:
- Should the Milpistas be listed as a separate section?
- Were many members of the old Guard were involved in forming early groups like the 15th of September Legion"?
- were they Former somozans
- were they mercenaries from argentina or other central american country?
- were they peasants?
- Are all anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front (i.e. Sandinista) groups called "Contras" (automatically)?
- Are there (rogue) military groups that opposed the Sandinistas that should not be called "Contras"?
- Was Jaime Irving Steidel the FDN's field commander?
- Should there be an "atrocities/human rights" section? What should go in it?
- Is the Iran-Contra affair germane to this article? Should it be summarized here?
- How can the Sandinistas be characterized?
- Can they be called "Soviet aligned"?
- WP:Foot - footnotes are infrequently used on disputed material
- WP:RELY - when footnotes are given, editors dispute scholarliness of source. This is a very key point. There are two sources that were debated:
- Robert Kagan, A Twilight Struggle and
- Timothy C. Brown, The Real Contra War. No current editor seems to have a copy of Brown, but this calls into question all the previous footnotes which can't now be checked by anyone and over which othere editors may have inserted their own opinion. Two editors believe both Brown and Kagan to be "too right wing" and therefore (QED) untrustworthy.
- Is Arturo Cruz, Jr. a reliable source?
- Is Gary Webb a reliable source?
- WP:FAITH - Three editors are not assuming that other editors are doing their best. This and attacking others are preventing any productive discussion.
- WP:ATTACK - Three editors are attacking and responding to each other on the article discussion page. Discussions are not productive.
Additional issues to be mediated
[edit]- Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
- Agree. Student7 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. annoynmous (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. MarkB2 Chat 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree Jpineda84 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
- Note. As there seem to have been some changes made to the party list and some of the users named there are not highly active, I think it appropriate to give this request another week for all the parties to sign up.
- For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Accept; Jpineda84 hasn't edited since May 30, and the dispute still seems to be active among the other participants. Should Jpineda84 resume editing, he is invited to simply join in the mediation proceedings.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to Dweller
[edit]Dweller (talk · contribs) has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as Dweller is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM. He has some very good experience from the mediation cabal, and has previously helped solve a number of disputes.
As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Dweller mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.
- For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. annoynmous (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. MarkB2 Chat 05:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree Jpineda84 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)