Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/18 April 2012/Barack Obama

Where is the dispute?


The problem is whether the Barack Obama article is positively biased or not, and whether Hghyux (me) is trying to add negatively biased content to the page.

Who is involved?

 * User:Hghyux
 * User:Wikidemon
 * User:A Quest For Knowledge
 * User:Cramyourspam
 * User:Johnuniq
 * User:Tarc
 * User:JayJasper
 * User:Hoary
 * User:Loonymonkey
 * User:HiLo48

What is the dispute?
I am getting vastly hounded by pro-obama editors who are not willing to understand that the article is not adhering to NPOV and is a CFORK violation.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
I have come here as a first step. But I have tried to explain my side of the argument with no success.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
One editor said "you will not get anyone to change their mind" so I'm requesting a mediation of the issue.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
I want a resolution so that my argument is not going to get trashed by a posse of pro-obama article defenders.

Yes Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Hghyux claims "I have tried to explain my side of the argument with no success." I responded to him, twice. He has not responded to anything I have posted. It has not been a conversation. Bringing this here now is ridiculous, and bad faith, when effective discussion has not occurred on the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is trying to resolve a dispute issue bad faith? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And as for responding to you

A: the first message was simply you agreeing with another user to whom I've already addressed. B: the second message was the most recent and I had not noticed it (until now) my response is simply that Obama isn't controversial IN YOUR OPINION!!! the fact is that in MY opinion, it's ridiculous that there is nothing from a non-pro Obama POV. opinions opinions. They kill this project. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a response. That's just a whinge. I made specific points. Address them! HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone - no arguing on the mediation page, please. You need to wait for someone to agree to mediate it, or to decline the mediation. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What Strad said. Also, try the noticeboard first? May be a better forum than mediation at this early stage. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a "new" editor who arrives at the Obama page, demands that the article include criticism/controversy sections, sourcing those to sites like worldnetdaily, then immediately running to Mediation when no one agrees. We've seen this song and dance before. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not "new". I'm established. I also like Obama and my only goal is to make his article neutral. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a matter suitable for mediation. Let's not waste any more time discussing this here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It already is neutral, buy leaving out much of the tinfoil fringe criticisms. No teleprompters, no birtherism, etc etc. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the teleprompter is suitable for the article. But the birth controversy incident has an article and not mentioning it in the main article is content forking WP:CFORK Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Birther tinfoil hat-wearers are not relevant to Obama's bio. Their movement itself is deemed notable, so they get a standalone article on that.  Birtherism is mentioned in a few of the related articles, such as the 2008 campaign one.  Same with Ayers and Wright; zero relevance to a biography, but relevant to the election article. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But how are they not relevant? The movement is of significant relation to Obama. By the way we can't argue until a mediator comes. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its connection to Obama comes only as a campaign issue, that is why it is in that article. There is nothing to mediate, this proposal is d.o.a. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)