Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-06/Corrib Gas

Where is the dispute?
The dispute centres around the Corrib gas controversy but has spread to a large number of articles, including some closely related - Shell to Sea; some loosely related - County Mayo, Garda Síochána; and others that appear to have no other notability - Pat O'Donnell, Mary Devins. A (probably incomplete) list of articles connected to the dispute is: Not all of these have been actively disputed, but there are or have been issues with all of them at some point.
 * (currently active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (currently active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (currently active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (currently active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (AfD'd)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (active discussion on talk page)
 * (active discussion on talk page)

Who is involved?

 * Several other users have commented from time to time but the above three have been consistently involved (GainLine joining recently).
 * Several other users have commented from time to time but the above three have been consistently involved (GainLine joining recently).
 * Several other users have commented from time to time but the above three have been consistently involved (GainLine joining recently).
 * Several other users have commented from time to time but the above three have been consistently involved (GainLine joining recently).

What is the dispute?
Essentially, the problem concerns multiple issues with articles related to the Corrib gas controversy. These include:
 * Heavy WP:POV and pov-pushing from the pov of the Shell to Sea campaign on some articles (such as saying police beat protesters - there are many more examples)
 * WP:WEASEL (same edit)
 * WP:UNDUE (the Garda-related articles all have sections dedicated to the controversy)
 * WP:OWN (blind revisions of entire edits, many on Shell to Sea)
 * WP:V/WP:OR (addition of uncited material deemed ok an editor "knew" it was "true" - the Integrated Risk Management Services has seen a lot of this recently)
 * WP:RS (using the Shell to Sea website as a reference)

What would you like to change about this?
Having a low number of neutral, unbiased articles that effectively convey the controversy without going into excessive detail or being news.

How do you think we can help?
A third party examination of each of the three main user's actions would be useful (both positive and negative thoughts on contributions), as would an examination of the articles involved (perhaps with comparisons between the proposed neutral versions and current/alleged pov versions). Some contentious individual edits may also be worth examing.

Mediator notes
Accepted case, of course. I'd ask all parties in the case to watchlist this case page, as well as my talk page, and note that if you comment on my talk page, I will reply there.

Additionally, I see there are a large number of issues here, and as such, I think it wise to lay down a few ground rules. I'd ask that you sign underneath to state that you agree. Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * - I am still waiting for an opening statement from . I need this before I can continue. Once I have opening statements from everyone, I can proceed to mediate. Best, Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 10:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everyone. I've read all your opening statements, I will re-read them tomorrow. I'd like to apologise for my recent activity, as a workmate had fractured his arm and I've been working every day since the 8/5, and will finish on the 20/5. Until then, I'd ask that the parties be patient with me. Apologies once more, and thanks. Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 08:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just another note. I haven't forgotten the case, and I do apologise for the delay, I've had almost no time to edit wiki in the last few days, however I will have Saturday and Sunday free. Is it alright if we get fully underway then? Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 04:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sound good to me! Thanks! Fin©™ 08:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ground rules

 * Please keep all comments focused on facts. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur. Mediators don't normally deal with conduct issues, however I'm not a normal mediator, and reserve the right to do so.
 * All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of any of the disputed articles, including for vandalism patrolling. I've watchlisted all the articles, so can pick up vandalism, and if there are proposals to change content while the case is running, I will make them if I feel there is consensus to do so.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case, or move to the next stage of dispute resoltion if you feel unable to do so.

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

 * Fin©™ 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G ain  Line  ♠♥ 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)