Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 National Federation of Republican Assemblies

Who are the involved parties?
Anonymous IP vs. CorpITGuy and others (see discussion page)

What's going on?
Anonymous IP editor is changing article repeatedly.. many of us disagree strongly with these edits and feel they are not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Article: National Federation of Republican Assemblies

What would you like to change about that?
Would like article locked for editing with agreed to changes through mediation

Mediator notes
I'll mediate this case, if that's ok with everyone. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Please post on WP:RFP -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, that was my mistake... I have reopened the case. Have a nice day! -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessarily right to describe the edits as vandalism, and although the discussion isn't in the best humour I think that we need to assume good faith on the part of 63.3.5.2.  I do not believe that this case should be closed as I have posted on TheHelpfulOne's talk page. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * -Duly noted. Thanks for your help!  I have edited my comments. CorpITGuy (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The most important point in response to the idea that the things being written are "plainly sourced and clearly not defamatory" is that they are so out of context and so unrepresentative as to constitute defamation. I have several examples of this.
 * 1. Even if the article were about Mr. Martin, which it is not, a $200 or $400 fine from the FEC for a late filing is hardly news. MoveOn.Org had a $750,000 fine which is not mentioned on its Wikipedia entry.  Similarly, the Republican Party of Arkansas was itself fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, requiring a bailout by one of its richest (and unfortunately, now deceased) backers.  Again, it's entry contains no such language.  These organizations have themselves experienced these problems but do not have entries.  Why then should the NFRA be subject to a three-figure fine write-up for a late FEC report on the group's elected leader (who himself doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry).   :2.  To complete the idea upon which I wrote about in item 1; I will not call the IP address's intentions on the floor but I will say this-- The IP seems more interested in posting one or a few tidbits of negative information without providing biographical information.  That is, by its nature, not from a ::neutral point-of-view and violates the spirit of writing on Wikipedia.  It isn't neutral to say, "this guy is important, let's post about the time in his life when he made a 'B' in school" and ignore his higher education, accomplishments, business achievements, etc.  Furthermore, I don't see it as noteworthy that Mr. Martin voluntarily surrendered his bar license in Arkansas.  He hadn't lived there, best as I can tell, for 7 years.  Why, pray tell, would be pay dues if he isn't practicing law?  I'm going to stop defending this stuff now, because I don't think it is relevant.  Mr. Martin's life story (especially this one-sided account) doesn't belong in the NFRA article.
 * 3. I have been labeled a sockpuppet (accused by the IP) and wanted to defend myself by pointing some things out: a. The IP offered no proof b. The irony of being accused of this by an anonymous IP is dripping wet with irony and ought to be documented. So here it is.
 * 4. A quick scan of similar organizations doesn't yield bio info about their leaders. I have seen that happen with some articles, however, when vandals arrive.  Generally that seems to have been dealt with promptly on Wikipedia.
 * I will have more to add later.  CorpITGuy (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think CorpITGuy makes some very convincing comments. There is not a history of allowing this data on other pages so they should not be allowed here.


 * I also am disappointed that someone that only post with an IP address can get by with labeling someone a sockpuppet, that is totally out of line. Cbrown285 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1.	Rod Martin or an associate of his has a history of what I would call pranks or bad behavior or rulebreaking on Wikipedia. These largely consist of (1) setting up numerous articles about him and his non-notable associates, which are partially fictitious or so vague as to have no content whatsoever, which link to each other and are clearly done for self-publicizing reasons, (2) vociferously responding to any criticism of this behavior with edit warring, attacks on other Wikipedians’ integrity, Wikilawyering, etc., (3) participating in vote fraud on notability elections, and (4) losing those elections when they are conducted without vote fraud. Because there is a very similar pattern with respect to the NFRA article, there is reason to consider the possibility that Rod and/or his associates are at it again. This is clearly the case with at least one edit to the NFRA article, in which one of Rod’s original associates, “Mars-Sekhmet,” was the first person to add Rod’s name to the article.
 * Following are some notes on the NFRA article. Obviously, the crux of the disagreement is whether and to what extent the entry should contain any information about Rod Martin, its president. It is most surprising to me that this question has sparked such a heated response.

2.	“CorplTGuy”’s arguments for whitewashing the entry are not strong and resemble the Rod Martin pranksterism/rulebreaking of years past.

a.	He says that the two sentences about Martin are “so out of context and so unrepresentative as to constitute defamation.” Even putting aside this ridiculous definition of defamation, this makes no sense on its own terms. It’s unrepresentative to take note of the fact that the leader of a political organization is a former political candidate? It’s unrepresentative to note in a 2-sentence bio that he was once a lawyer and is no longer one?

b.	His argument that other political organizations do not have brief biographical statements of their founders/presidents is plainly false. Take a look at the Wikipedia entries of, e.g., NOW, NAACP, People for the American Way, and the Heritage Foundation. There is nothing remotely unconventional or unusual about having a brief biographical sketch of the organization’s president.

c.	His argument that the biographical sketch needs more context leaves out the obvious implication: CorplTGuy should have added context, rather than reverting without explanation 5 or 10 times, an action which itself is against Wikipedia rules. I personally do not think these descriptions are out of context but it would be nice to see CorplTGuy follow Wikipedia rules rather than repeatedly revert everything he disagrees with without explanation.

d.	I have no idea why CorplTGuy thinks it is important that I do not use my registered Wikipedia handle. I lost my password some time ago and do not see the point of registering an entirely new handle (which arguably could be a violation of Wikipedia rules?) I would invite anyone to explain to me what the problem is of just using my IP address. Contrary to the repeated accusations that somehow being an “anonymous IP” is wicked, I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with it as long as the Wikipedia changes made are appropriate and substantive.

e.	CorplTGuy, not content to continue edit warring, decided to argue that I was ”vandalizing the NFRA article anonymously with illegitimate guilt by association charges.” Obviously, there was no anonymity, no vandalism, no guilt by association charges, and no illegitimacy. CorplTGuy is referring here to fully footnoted statements about the NFRA president, which are both true and relevant. CorplTGuy would do well to understand that there legitimate differences of opinion that he cannot solve by namecalling and manufacturing of incendiary, groundless charges.

3.	Obviously it is most frustrating to deal with people like CBrown and CorplTGuy, who want to deal with legitimate differences of opinion by edit warring. I am aware that it takes two to make an edit war, but surely there’s a difference between the person who wants to put information into an article and the person who wants to whitewash it out! I do not believe that these people have dealt with the main issue seriously, which is that in my opinion it is appropriate to have a brief biographical sketch of an organization’s president in an article about the organization – especially so in a case where Wikipedia has already independently determined that the person is not by himself sufficiently notable to carry an entry himself. (There is a related question as to whether the NFRA entry itself should be deleted on non-notability grounds. I would want to think further before answering that.) I am happy to discuss the issue with reasonable people, but there are only so many times that CorplTGuy et al. can throw out red herrings about “vandalism”, “anonymous IPs,” “defamation,” “hate speech,” and hilarious hagiography about Rod Martin is a “leader of the conservative movement” that I should have to put up with. I have explained why I make changes and I think I make a pretty good case. Their history is one of repeatedly reverting without providing justification and refusing to work it out on the talk page until they are practically dragged over there. And it is hard for me to accept that it is just a coincidence that their conduct is quite similar to the Rod Martin sockpuppets that accomplished nothing except for the authorship of fictitious articles, vote fraud, and their own banning from Wikipedia.
 * Please note that the previous comment was made by 68.46.254.47 who continues to not sign his posts. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 06:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire post from 68.46.254.47 is personal in nature (very few actual arguments and a lot of implying that I'm a sock-puppet or that I am Rod Martin, which I am not. If he can't prove this stuff, it is clearly in violation of Wiki rules.  I've replied time and time again to the material, only to be personally insulted.  Additionally, beyond just posting anonymously from an IP address, this particular person is solely and completely interested in attacking Rod Martin.  This sort of personal animosity makes it hard to justify taking a stub article and filling more than a third of it with material that is both out-of-context and has nothing to do with the NFRA, its affiliates, et al.  I've made my case, which has not been refuted and has barely been addressed; only ad-hominem attacks made.  CorpITGuy (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hardly “personal in nature” to argue that there are rules and standards for Wikipedia or that CorpITGuy et al. fails to meet them with his repeated, edit-warring changes to the NFRA article. Please note that he completely fails (for instance) to respond to my argument 2a, which discusses prevailing Wikipedia practice that he ignores, or my argument 2d, which discusses use of Wikipedia handles. Instead, he continues to attack my intentions, manufacture lots of groundless accusations about my conduct of breaking Wikipedia rules that do not in fact exist, and refuse to respond to the (at the very least, arguable; to me, obvious) point that the political history of the president of an organization has some relevance to that organization.


 * According to the WP:BLP policy, there should be reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Phil, if you will look at the history of the original article, you will see that I footnoted reliable sources (namely, an FEC report, a USA Today story, et al.) However, CorpITGuy repeatedly reverted the article and deleted these footnotes without explanation. I will find that version shortly. See, e.g., the first March 18 version of the original article, and the section entitled "References." Please note that the controversy is in part over whether a brief biographical sketch of an organization's president is appropriate in the organization's entry -- relevant to which, see my discussion in 2b above, which relies on what I would think of as standard Wikipedia practice.


 * Phil, I am sure you have read the discussion on this page, particularly my long and numbered post. CorpITGuy says "This entire post from 68.46.254.47 is personal in nature (very few actual arguments and a lot of implying that I'm a sock-puppet or that I am Rod Martin, which I am not." Phil, is it your view that this appropriately characterizes what I am saying?
 * Please note that the previous comment was made by 68.46.254.47 who continues to not sign his posts. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Additionally, if you're going to post information about a person of a biographical nature it should be scholarly, i.e. linking to the part about Martin surrendering his law license without explanation clearly attempts to demonstrate wrong-doing whereas any attorney in Arkansas knows that is the only way to quit paying bar dues--and of course, why on earth would a Florida resident be a member of the Arkansas Bar Association?  So in addition to not demonstrating relevance to Martin's notability, the edits do not provide the entire story, which of course a scholarly article should.  CorpITGuy (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a summary of what you have demonstrated with this post. (1) You don't understand Wikipedia; the rule is that information is supposed to be relevant to its subject, not that it is "scholarly." Furthermore, there is no rule that there has to be "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." You are simply replying to my posts without reading or responding to them. I have already listed numerous articles on Wikipedia that supply brief sketches of their president's bio. This is information relevant to its subject. You simply ignore this argument despite the fact that it has been made repeatedly (2) You don't understand the presumption of good faith. You are simply wrong to argue that the point of Martin's surrendering his law license is just an attempt to demonstrate wrongdoing. In fact, the description of Martin is an attempt to summarize his political and professional history, which is appropriate for the entry. If he were still a lawyer, I would have listed that. Perhaps you know better than I do what his current profession is; feel free to put it in rather than continuing your whitewashing behavior. (3) You don't understand how the editing process works. You are free to add in relevant information, but your practice of continuing the whitewashing and unexplained edit wars violates the rules. Wikipedia can provide "the entire story," but what you keep on doing is censoring "the entire story," rather than adding context. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that anyone is whitewashing, it's that your edits aren't from a NPOV. Furthermore, taking a stub article and filling 30% or more of it with information (all negative in nature, and without explanations that clearly show they AREN'T negatives) is not only from a non-NPOV, but it additionally pollutes the article itself.  CorpITGuy (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that a brief discussion of the political and professional biography of an organization's president, in the context of an organization's entry, is necessarily "negative" and non-NPOV is hilariously uninformed. Most people are not too close-minded to see that a political activist's candidate history is relevant to their bio. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Phil, there are a couple of things here that need to also be addressed. First off I am insulted that 68.46.254.47 has classified me as a sockpuppet that has a history of fraud on Wikipedia.  I am from Missouri and if you follow my IP history, you can tell that I have never been involved in the activity I was accused of.  It does seem that 68.46.254.47 is a little to familiar with all the accused problems, that one must question his involvement to the past fraud he indicates.


 * Cbrown is apparently being insulted by his rich imagination and fantasy life, because no one has ever classified him as a sockpuppet or fraudulent Wikipedia user. In addition to his misunderstanding of prior comments, here we have a display of his total ignorance of Wikipedia's rule to assume good faith. No, CBrown, just because I am familiar with your rulebreaking or Rod Martin's rulebreaking does not mean that I am involved with or condone either. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the content of the NFRA page, I tried to add more information and new sections to the page, but it was removed by either this unnamed IP person or one of his associates. If they stop trying to personally attact the president and let the page focus on the organization, you will see more content.


 * Here is another example of the way that CBrown is edit warring. If you think there is relevant information, put it in: there is no need to bargain with or threaten anyone else with deletions or condition your behavior on anyone else's silence. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I look forward to getting this edit warring over and getting back to relivent information about organizations on the page, not personal attacks like those of 68.46.254.47 and associates. Cbrown285 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As can be seen on the main page, you are once again edit warring. This time while you are supposedly participating in mediation.68.46.254.47 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The NFRA is a valid and notable organization. This article is meant to be ABOUT the organization. I find no additional value is added to the article for NFRA when random statements are made about Mr. Martin. Why not include his favorite football team, color and television show? Or maybe provide his birthplace and shoe size? It's obvious--because if this was an article about Mr. Martin that MIGHT be relevant. Once again, IT IS NOT. There are valid Wiki users (as opposed to an anonymous one who only seems to be concerned with Mr. Martin's biography) in this argument who want this article to be relevant and truthful regarding the NFRA. it is me i thik (talk) 12:43 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you ignoring the routine Wikipedia practice of inserting biographical information about an organization's leader in the organization entry? Furthermore, a brief summary of the president's political and professional history, in the context of a political organization, is in no way comparable to someone's favorite color, shoe size, etc. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Biographical information should be factual and not slanderous.it is me i think (talk) 12:43 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to look at the entry, you would see that Rod Martin's biographical information was not slanderous, was completely factual, and was wholly footnoted. Despite this, CorpITGuy deleted this fully referenced information four separate times while CBrown deleted this fully referenced information five separate times. Please attempt to discuss the matter at hand, not other unrelated matters.68.46.254.47 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my understanding for content to be 'slanderous', at least under US law, it has to be false, and I'm not sure that is the case. However, under Wikipedia policy, content is determined by consensus, and clearly, at the moment, there is no consensus for the material to reintroduced. Also, I think reasonable concerns have been raised about Rod Martin's biographical material relating to the biography of living persons and neutral point of view policies.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, PhilKnight. What happens next?  I've never been involved in formal mediation before.  Thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As taken from the neutral point of view on Wiki: "the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."it is me i think(talk) 5:23 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as being slanderous (libelous, actually), just not NPOV. It was sourced. But why are those things true? I followed the source links, and all they say is this:

1) Martin's campaign committee (not Martin himself) was fined several hundred bucks for turning in a report a few days late, AFTER his campaign had been over for months. It obviously couldn't have been an issue in the campaign, and I've personally had speeding tickets that cost more.

2) Martin "surrendered his law license" in Arkansas. But Martin doesn't live in Arkansas and hasn't for years, according to the other people in this debate (and if he has a bio that should be easy enough to confirm).  Saying he's "surrendered his law license", while technically true, is obviously intended to suggest guilt of something, but there is not the slightest evidence of this, and every reason to believe he was just cutting ties.

3) Martin lost an election (which has nothing to do with the NFRA: lots of political people, including lots of NFRA members, have won and lost lots of elections, but why does that have anything to do with this?).

So my point is, if you were to put enough stuff in here to make these assertions NPOV, there would be more about Martin in the NFRA article than there is about the NFRA, and that's even assuming that no one adds anything about the positive details of his life, which one would think must be reasonably significant for him to have gotten elected President of the thing.

Does any of that really make sense? The guy doing all the squawking about "the public must know" also seems to think that Martin isn't significant enough to merit a biographical article, but he seems to want to write a non-NPOV bio here. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all. 207.47.78.86 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these points. I would like to make it known to all reading that I agree with these points, especially the general idea that the remarks being inserted and being questioned here are entirely negative in nature, not written from a NPOV, and seem to make the article into an article about Martin rather than the NFRA.  Also, Rod Martin's online bio demonstrates that he lives in Florida. CorpITGuy (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have nailed my problem with the edits in question on the head.  For the record I find Mr. Martin's politics abhorrent, but I do believe that it is important to attempt to adhere to NPOV. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the comment by 207.47.78.86|207.47.78.86 above. it is me i think(talk) 9:45 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Attempt
Can I suggest that the following wording be included in the article? While acknowledging Rod Martin's position in the NFRA it avoids the wording which is controversial. --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current President of the NFRA is Rod Martin, and his term expires in 2009.


 * Support:
 * 1.it is me i think(talk) 9:45 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2.CorpITGuy (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3.207.47.78.86 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (And I would suggest that the editors have flexibility to do this in different forms if they like, such as if they want to make a simple list of the national officers)
 * 4."Support" Cbrown285 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)




 * Oppose:


 * If Martin is listed, there should be a brief discussion of his personal and professional history, e.g., "an unsuccessful political candidate and former lawyer." This is clearly relevant. If anyone knows what his current profession is, this should be added as well. Furthermore, the link to the inoperative website and the weblog should be removed. Finally, there should arguably be citations in the article: right now it is still basically just a PR venture.68.46.254.47 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why the massive resistance to a one sentence bio of the president?216.9.250.98 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you've seen other contributors believe that this violates NPOV.  Can you suggest a compromise? --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To put in a one-sentence description of his professional and political background *is* my suggested compromise. I am sure that other contributors will argue that my suggestion constitutes a NPOV violation. They also argue that Martin is a "leader of the conservative movement," that a sourced statement based on a public record is "libelous" and "vandalism," and that they are entitled to conduct edit wars to whitewash any content of any entry they do not like. There is clearly a big difference between the NPOV standard and their understanding of it. If mediators want to ignore standard Wikipedia practice in favor of majoritarianism, the only thing that this will demonstrate is that mediation is a pointless procedure.68.46.254.47 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not attack our moderator. CorpITGuy (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I believe that PhilKnight is looking for consensus which is why the issue is still open and we are trying to find a compromise that you and the other contributors can agree with. This discussion should be about the content of the article, not user behaviour - something none of us are blameless with - and this process has no ability to impose sanctions on editors. There are no references in the article to Rod Martin's leadership of the republican movement. The concern, as stated is more eloquently above, is that the content you wish to add appears to violate NPOV and that to add content explaining the context would mean that the article is actually about Rod Martin, not the NFRA. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 19:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain why a one-sentence description of Rod Martin's political and professional history is not relevant to his bio. Please explain why a one-sentence bio of an organization's president is not relevant here, but is permitted in many other political organizations' entries. Furthermore, I hope you understand that whether other contributors believe that any discussion of Rod Martin is NPOV, the relevant question is whether they are demonstrating good judgment in coming to this conclusion and making good arguments in doing so (I would say the answer is no). Clearly, they believe lots of weird things, such as a belief that Rod Martin is a leader in the conservative movement, so their belief as such is irrelevant.68.46.254.47 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't said it's not relevant, please re-read my comments.  I have said that the consensus of other editors appears to be that the wording you are suggesting violates NPOV.  I don't think it's at all helpful to this mediation, or to your case to descibe other editor's ideas as "irrelevant" or "wierd".   Please can we do without comments like that? --Deadly&forall;ssassin 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that some other editors say that my wording violates NPOV. But the problem is that they also say lots of obviously false things, such as that I am attacking the moderator (CorpITGuy) or that I have posted on my talk page that my entire reason for being on Wikipedia is to "attack Rod Martin." (CBrown). While it's true that whether some of their statements are "weird" or "irrelevant" is a question of judgment, it's beyond doubt that many of the editors here whose judgment for some reason you are giving weight to have no scruples about saying things that are simply false. They repeatedly insist whenever anyone disagrees with them that I am guilty of vandalism, libel, violation of NPOV when it is obvious that they don't understand these terms. That is why I do not find the "consensus" of CBrown, etc., a convincing argument at all. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It violates the NPOV to post only negative material (badly distorted, I might add) about the organization's president, especially on a stub article. We've also explained several times WHY there is distortion in that material.  As DeadlyAssassin commented, we could all do without the constant personal attacks.  You've made it clear what you want to do in your user page.    If your concern is that we give context to Martin's bio, we should add citations to the major national and international newspapers which have run stories in the past year about Martin, absolutely none of which would convey the negativity that the you want, and which could add paragraph upon paragraph of interesting, positive and notable information about Martin.  HOWEVER, I have sought to avoid doing this because the article is about the NFRA, NOT Martin, and given your own user talk page, it seems the side of the consensus is the part interested in keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic and not an engine of publicity.  This isn't because I have anything against Martin, but because this is a stub article about the NFRA.  CorpITGuy (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't understand NPOV. It is remarkable that other organizations have brief bios of their presidents, yet you somehow think it is impossible to propose one. Somehow, these entries manage to maintain an NPOV. Suggest your own bio if you want, instead of mindlessly reverting mine for the sixth or so time.68.46.254.47 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like another editor has made a number of changes to the article without knowing that it is under mediation and part of his changes were to remove some of those links.   Phil - is there some sort of template that can go on the page to send people in this direction while we are mediating this or is that not appropriate? --Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * I've included the text in the article. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moderating. I suppose we're done? CorpITGuy (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Phil thanks for taking care of this issue Cbrown285 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you even consider any comments that come from 68.46.254.47 when the first line of his talk page shows that his entire purpose on Wikipedia is to "attack Rod Martin." Cbrown285 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an astonishing turn of events, Cbrown. Thanks for posting it. CorpITGuy (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing that demonstrates is that CBrown cannot be trusted to report what is on Wikipedia accurately. As usual, CBrown is misrepresenting what has taken place on Wikipedia. In this case, he has manufactured a quote out of whole cloth.68.46.254.47 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "This user is opposed to Rod Martin's attempt to use Wikipedia as an engine of publicity. Martin's behavior violates both Wikipedia's rules and Wikipedia's spirit." -- That was directly from the top of your talk page, your edit. This means your account is a SPA.  I'm not opposed to that, just saying it, combined with your own talk page edit and non-NPOV makes it hard for your argument to get very far. CorpITGuy (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we can add "SPA" to the terms you don't understand (such as NPOV). My edits are not confined to Rod Martin matters, which is what they would have to be to qualify as SPA. That sentence is in response to Rod Martin's history of election fraud and sockpuppetry, including Mars-Sekhmet's entry on the NFRA. Here is a hint for you: I enjoy eating chocolate. I assure you that it does not logically follow that I eat nothing but chocolate. I promise, this is true even if I really like chocolate a lot! You are making an error that is, logically, very similar.68.46.254.47 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear about one more thing. That sentence that you are complaining about was not originally there, CorpITGuy. It was a substitute for another sentence that was placed by a dishonest vandal on my user page: "This user is vandalizing the NFRA article anonymously with illegitimate guilt by association charges." And that sentence was placed there by, of course, you. There is, of course, no justification for either your dishonesty or your vandalism.68.46.254.47 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Referring to me as a dishonest vandal isn't good Wikiquette and it's actually just genuinely unpleasant. I'm yet to see an excuse as to why the text referred to above was included.  Looks to me like a SPA... and since you obviously aren't a noob, I can say that.  Furthermore, the consensus is clear.  Please refrain from personal attacks.  Thank you.  CorpITGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it was dishonest to refer to my fully sourced edits as vandalism, illegitimate, guilt by association charges, etc. If you are saying you can't understand why you made such an offensive personal attack, I agree with you. Please refrain from doing it again.68.46.254.47 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First off 68.46.254.47 I don't know what you think you are doing here, your talk page shows that you have a personal problem with Rod Martin, and this should not interfer with the fact that Wikipedia is intended to be used as an Encyclopedia and not a place to air dirty laundry. I don't know what your problem is with Mr. Martin, but it does not belong on the NFRA page.  Second, the items you referenced are not in question here, it is just the fact that you keep posting them on the NFRA page.  I could reference many articles and interviews that include Rod Martin, but then this page would be about him and not the NFRA.  So let just agree to post NFRA material on this page and not any personal articles.  Cbrown285 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is, speaking roughly, the 20th time that CBrown has completely avoided the ostensible subject of the talk page in order to discuss the motivations of people he disagrees with, which violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. If he is determined to ignore the argument that a one-sentence bio of the president of the NFRA might have some relevance to the NFRA article, that's up to him. It's hard to see why his ignorance should convince anyone else, though.68.46.254.47 (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be impossible to make a one-sentence bio that includes the many articles that have been published and the many interviews that have been preformed with Rod Martin. Leave the article on the real subject the organization. Cbrown285 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be impossible to make a one-sentence bio at the level of detail you demand for just about any person. However, that is not required in Wikipedia; rather, in this case, a one-sentence bio that included only the most encyclopedic political and professional facts about Rod Martin would be appropriate. A discussion of his political candidacy and his profession would do it. Of course, you already deleted that five times or so without explaining why or providing an alternative.68.46.254.47 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been deleted because it makes just as much sense to indicate those fact as it would to indicate the many times Rod Martin has appeared as an Expert on CNN, FoxNews or any other news channel. These items have nothing to do with the NFRA.  The focus should be the organization, not the professional experiences of the president. Cbrown285 (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just searched the CNN site and, mysteriously, found no mentions whatsoever of any Rod Martin appearances on that channel. Maybe he's on there all the time and I just missed it. Can you supply a few dates/times he was on CNN? In any case, people are on CNN as experts largely because they have accomplished something else in their life. What is it that Rod has accomplished? That would be a good base for a one-sentence bio. Please take a stab at supplying it.

Request to close mediation
PhilKnight, as you can see from the many postings above, all that is being asked is to keep this page focus on that of the organization it is about. The page should not be used as a place to define the leaders of the organization. You can also see from the talk page of 68.46.254.47, there must be some personal disagreement in the past, and that should not be used to decrease the creditablity of this Wikipedia listing. I would like to request that you make a decision on this mediation case.Cbrown285 (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)