Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-06 Colin Cowherd

Who are the involved parties?
Bluefield, BrutusBlow and STS01, among others.

What's going on?
Random and seemingly inappropriate deletion of documented and significant actions commmitted by Colin Cowherd, the host of an ESPN radio show. The response is that they are personal opinions, despite the fact that they are documented and neutral.

This is a particularly important point for inclusion due to it being an attack on internet based information sources by a member of the MSM. I could understand advocating for a radio personality on judgment calls, but this is clearly not a judgment call, it is a fact.

My deletions to this article are hardly random. This article is vandalized regularly by persons offended by what Mr. Cowherd says on his radio show. I have worked hard to keep this page void of spam and negative opinions and personal attacks.--STS01 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Working hard to keep out spam and negative opinions is a laudable goal, but you are continually deleting unchallenged fact by deleting any references to the DNS attack on TheBigLead.com. Bluefield

What would you like to change about that?
It would be great if STS01 would stop systematically deleting all additions to the entry that included anything negative regarding Mr. Cowherd. This type of editing is detrimental to the goal of Wikipedia, which is to have accurate and current information on a regular basis.

It would be better if these blog editors would simply voice their negative opinions on their own sites or in forums rather than posting every single topic that they disagree with on this site. --STS01 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blog editor? I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. If I were a blog editor, don't you think I would be focusing on that site rather than on Wikipedia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith) I think you need to refresh yourself with the Good Faith policy of this site. Bluefield

My comment about Blog editors wasn't directed specifically at you. Btw...I have agreed to your last edit so I think we can drop this now. --STS01 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the mediators, but after having factual additions be labeled as "Spam" and "Vandalism", I'd like to see an evaluation from a neutral party. I really feel that your domination of that page needs to be reviewed. Bluefield

My intention is not to dominate in any way. I noticed a significant problem with extreme vandalism of those pages so I started watching them more closely. As a result of my efforts, the vandalism of these pages has been reduced significantly. --STS01 14:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors seem to have already determined that Cowherd's spat with "The M Zone," an incident of similar significance to this one, was worthy of inclusion in the entry. While Bluefield probably provided an excess of links documenting this (indirectly overstating its importance), the "attack" on thebiglead.com nonetheless seems relevant. It should not be difficult to limit references and provide a NPOV account.

STS01's assertions that such an edit should be considered vandalism or mere opinion are inaccurate. He has a long history of "protecting" entries related to Cowherd on Wikipedia, and can't be taken too seriously in this instance. --WNYUSports 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WNYUSports obviously hasn't taken time to fully investigate this edit conflict (which has already been agreed upon) STS01 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WYNUSports has hit the nail on the head. STS01 think his opinion and his alone counts. He only allows edits that he deems approprate to remain on the Colin Cowherd pages, which is hurtful to the goal of Wikipedia. It appears that his editing needs to be reined in and limited.

Mediator response
Are the parties still interested in mediation, or should this case be closed?

If you're still interested in mediation, are you comfortable with me as mediator? Are you willing to withhold personal attacks and assume good faith for the duration of the process? --Moralis (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: After further investigation of users' talk pages, etc., I have discovered that a RFAR has since been filed and closed on the basis that the dispute has ended. With that in mind, I have closed this case page. If the parties are still interested in mediation, please contact me via my talk page and I'll be happy to reopen it! --Moralis (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)