Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 March 2012/Jose Antonio Vargas only positive POV

Where is the dispute?

 * Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas

Who is involved?

 * RightCowLeftCoast
 * Bbb23
 * Tvoz
 * Nomoskedasticity
 * Youreallycan

What is the dispute?
Dispute regarding content, that has become uncivil. Attempts to introduce balanced critical content that is keeping with WP:BLP, WP:NEU and keeps with WP:VER has been meet with edits that have only allowed a POV that is positive of the subject of the article. Attributed content has been removed, content supported by reliable sources have been removed. Attempts to discuss possible compromises have been meet with claims that consensus supports removal of content that is not positive of the subject of the article, even when supported by reliable sources, stated briefly to not create undue weight, and attributed to the source(s).

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
Discussion has been on going at the talk page, and multiple referrals to noticeboards have been made.

See noticeboard discussions:
 * WP:BLPN
 * WP:NPOVN
 * WP:N/N

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Other editors have stated that there is a consensus that material that I am adding advances a POV that violates NPOV and that any addition at all of any POV that is not positive of the subject of the article is in violation of BLP and NEU. This local consensus is actually in opposition of BLP and NEU that says that balanced criticism and balanced POV is supported. Until recently discussions were civil, but two other editors have become uncivil towards myself, stating that local consensus is sufficient and that my citing of how BLP and NEU support my actions has no effect.

I would like to refocus the discussion towards restarting the discussion towards a movement towards how best to incorporate sourced content in a balanced way rather than just keeping it out of the article completely.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Please contact involved editors and speak to them about civilly speaking to other involved editors and attempt to reach compromise rather than adhere to an alleged local consensus to disallow content.

Discussion
I don't quite understand the big issue - but I have not seen anything uncivil at all - I have seen multiple editors reverting additions from the complainant who is spamming this issue to multiple locations and in a not neutral way imo. - Consensus is strongly against his desired additions - You  really  can  03:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is a strong local consensus against any additions, claiming that BLP supports others actions, that provides anything except for a positive POV towards the subject of the article which IMHO is in opposition to BLP and NPOV. That being said LOCALCONSENSUS is not sufficient, IMHO, to stonewall well sourced (to reliable sources (even some of the same sources used presently in the article)) attributed content.
 * Compromise could be reached on how best to neutrally, in a balanced weight manor, but no so attempt to reach compromise is being allowed by other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All your desired additions have been assesed regarding policy and guidelines in general (I don't think there is a focus on BLP - NPOV - undue weight issues also) and removed by multiple users. I just don't get what you want to add thats not already there - that hes an illegal immigrant? What added value specifally expressing that would have for a reader that has all that detail already I just don't get. Why don't you just take it off your watchlist - that would be the most constructive thing fopr everyones time - I still remember you refusing to give an inch on the soldiers nationality - Mendoca, finally I just thought, just give in and you added your desired nationality and  later you were proved wrong, he wasn't the nationality you had pushed and pushed for, you had discussed and discussed and presented sources at noticeboards in that case as well - just like this case.  You  really  can  01:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pushing for the facts as they were known at at that time, only until the fact was proven false and redacted by the publishing sources, regarding Mendoca, did the matter become moot.
 * In that instance the published verifiable sources indicated the subject's ethnicity, this abides by WP:VER; the information that was removed was done so without supporting documents which usually flags actions as vandalism. It did end up that the published reliable sources were wrong, and once that ended up being the case and they stated they were wrong I was on the wrong side of the issue, however up to that point I was on the right side of the issue given what was then known at that time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To state one instance where the facts as we had known at the time ended up being wrong to say that I am wrong here is fallacious argument attempting to attack myself which is not keeping with AGF and CIVIL and I ask that this stop as it is not constructive to a civil discussion and reaching a compromise.
 * That being said, regarding this case although cool down is an option, to not allow criticism and minority significant POVs flies in the face of BLP & NEU.
 * There are reliable sources that indicate there is notable minority opinion that differs on the terminology of description of the subject's immigration status that is entirely left out of the article. As the terminology regarding the immigration status have weighted POVs attached to them only using the POV preferred by the subject creates an only positive-POV of said subject.
 * There are reliable sources that indicate that the action's of the subject regarding the subject's activism was lauded and criticized. Up to this point only positive information has been allowed to be added to the article, in the form of the subject having received an award for his actions; information about other notable individual's criticizing his actions have been removed entirely.
 * Even if I were to take a cool down period, the issues still remain that the present article has an only pro-subject POV and other editors have not allowed any criticism of the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to your edit summary of "see WP:PERSONAL" - I have not attacked you so give over linking to such guidelines - As for your comment here, see Too long; didn't read - you are simply repeating the same refuted comments. - Why do you think no one else is here? Because there is nothing worthy of wasting a single second discussing. Its this elongated discussion and single users refusal to move along to something with a more constructive possibility of project improvement that turns contributors off the project - I am as such removing this last gasp wiki process from my watchlist - goodbye.  You  really  can  00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)