Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-8/Mohamed ElBaradei

Request details
Mediator User:Kevin has resigned following a dispute with myself, which can be found here: Wikifan.

I asked Kevin if he would be willing to remain as mediator until I could find a new one, but that did not happen. Before the mediator: We went through an RFC that was responded to by admin User:Rd232. He later reverted the article to a previous state following edits by 68.251.187.176 who was the principal editor from March-May of 2009. He has a rapid-changing IP so I think all of the anonymous users are his. I will list them in the user section.

I requested a third opinion following the stalled RFC. After the RFC, we believed a mediator was necessary and Kevin came recommended intro the mediation

Once Kevin resigned and it became clear a resolution would not be made before the lock expired, I requested 2 lock extensions, one got lost in the archives after a user suggested I contact Kevin first. After I posted a comment on his page, he decided to go on a wikibreak. Can't really blame him. :D The lock extension was denied, discussion can be found here.

I also asked user YnHockey if he knew of any mediators that might be interested in replacing Kevin. He suggested User:AGK, who somewhat expressed interest but declined. So, here we are.

MEDCAB was suggested awhile back but many felt the situation did not qualify and would likely be denied, so we went through the above dispute-resolution methods first. I asked all active users involved in the discussion if they would agree to a MEDCAB and it was collectively endorsed.

Where is the dispute?
Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Who is involved?

 * User:Wikifan12345
 * User:NPguy
 * 76.214.161.244, 69.217.67.104, 68.248.155.2, 75.2.19.152, 76.251.250.43, 69.208.130.188, and a couple others. Kevin told me all IPs are the same user after I posted a concerned message. Other users have been "involved" in the past, however their edits were infrequent and didn't join mediation or edit the article beyond corrections/minor additions with the exception of R2's reversion to a previous state following BLP violations. NPguy also posted infrequently so the vast majority of the dispute has been between the IP and I.
 * I've been fairly up-front about my edits, so I'll say again these are my IPs.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, other editors who have come and gone include CarolMooreDC, User:Kevin, User:Rd232, and User:Nathan. They appear to have all moved on to other issues, but CarolMooreDC occasionall drops in to leave a comment.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for Carol's opinion since I've been involved in previous articles with her. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think she might want to chime in from time to time, but I'm not sure if she would be interested in not. It wouldn't hurt to invite her.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
This will be extremely difficult considering how large the issue has become. The dispute moved from article problems to user problems, and this has encouraged a rather hostile atmosphere that I have unfortunately contributed to.

For neutrality and concern of misrepresenting the POV of involved editors, I'll try to be as brief and objective as I possibly can be.


 * Early dispute mostly revolved around core BLP-issues, specially Verifiability and No original research, as well as NPOV policy.


 * I commonly questioned the use of extremely unreliable and COI sources, such as Press TV, Tehran Times, and Xinhua News Agency to support secondary and factual information. From what I understand those sources can be used in certain situations, but the IP exclusively relied on them to support information that should be verified by certified-3rd party references.


 * I objected to the dismissal of references like the The Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Claims were made that editorials aren't allowed in BLPs, I asked for policy to support such a assertion and nothing outside of NPOV was given. I listed articles such as Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz where editorials are used but this wasn't recognized.


 * Most recently we had a dispute over an Israel section and it was collectively rejected by all editors aside from myself. This dispute can be found here.


 * Another dispute was over nuclear fuel cycle proposals. I argued this wasn't explicitly related to ME and no reliable-3rd party references painted a clear picture. IP posted a draft which was rejected by both NPguy and myself, though for differing reasons. Draft can be found above. I pointed out that the IP basically rewrote the entire [Nuclear Fuel Bank article], moving it from 1 paragraph to over 30. The IP and NPguy were the principal editors, and I think only editors of the article for quite some time. I believed information regarding the nuclear fuel bank should be merged somewhere in the article, but a unique section did not qualify under policy. I also couldn't understand why a clearly unjustified section was being promoted while a subject overwhelming supported by hundreds of unique reliable sources was being continually dismissed.


 * Another issue, though perhaps unrelated to the article directly, was the unfair reporting of opposing (and I use this based off of experience) involved in the mediation. I was particularly upset over this, and this. The latter was in violation of an agreement where no editors would file complaints/reports against editors involved during the mediation. I was about to lodge an ANI against the IP but was told not to. The IPs ANI submission was closed by Kevin. I later posted requests at other boards for more eyes/opinions in regards to NPOV violations...though this was not in ANI if I remember correctly and the goal wasn't to punish editors. NPV board, here, and here.
 * The Wikiquette alert was in response in you cursing at me, and the ANI incident was in response to you reverting my edits on other articles. As you stopped cursing and reverting my edits, I felt the issues were resolved and that it would be best to leave them in the past.--69.208.130.182 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
For one, I truly believe the article needs to be locked to encourage mediation-involvement and also prevent the article from hosting an edit war. Mentioned disputes can hopefully be resolved or in the least responded to. Review information above and below for more information.

How do you think we can help?
Though some editors might dispute this, I believe above all the disputes, the most important issue is in regards to the question of verifiability. I am very disturbed by the use of propaganda/state-media while reliable 3rd party references have been persistently oppposed. Here are selected examples of the kind attitude that I found to be rather unsettling: Press TV is a "standard news outlet and Iranian doctor is just as reliable as an American one. I also don't like how the IAEA is being used to promote ME, and I believed it is being over-used to paint an inaccurate image of ME. We wouldn't use white house press releases exclusively to support critical and controversial issues of George W. Bush when other 3rd party sources exist.

Most of these disputes were pushed down to a later date during the mediation and establishing an "outline" was considered most important. I think all of us would like to see a final judgment on what sources should be used in the article and if the mentioned references were abused in some sort of way, as I claimed them to be. The argument was roadblocked because I said x violated this policy, here is why, and it would be responded with I am wrong, here is why, here is the same policy....vicious cycle.

A resolution on what sections are necessary based off the arguments in the talk would also be helpful. Constant characterizations of my behavior by NPguy would hopefully be resolved. He would say I am stalling the editing process and promoting an unproductive atmosphere when I explicitly responded to his arguments and did not attack him. He ultimately posted a request that all editors ignore wikifan. I posted a response at NPguy's user page but it was removed.

I am not sure if this is outside MEDCAB's abilities but I believe the above needs to be at least considered in order to provide a much fuller perspective of what is going on.

Let's recap:


 * Reliable Sources, specifically in regards to state-owned media, 3rd party reliable sources and objection to them, etc.
 * Undue weight, this was argued by IP and others.
 * Verifiability, in regards to over-use of primary and unreliable sources. Burden of proof also applies IMO.
 * Criticism, this was a major concern posted by the IP.

How might you guys help? I doubt everything will be touched on in the event that you guys accept. There is so much that it would be impossible to resolve everything. I believe focus should remain on the article, weeding out unreliable sources and making it clear they should not be used above available 3rd party reliable references. In the least, I hope some members of MEDCAB would consider being a mediator or recommending one if this request is rejected. Without one I'd argue the dispute would simply continue until one or all of us get blocked.

I apologize for the lack of brief-ness, really. But to be honest, when considering the total scale of the dispute, I am actually being brief. If it was my choice I'd write a novel to explain what is going on. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I'm thinking of picking this up - my three other cases have stalled. I'll dig around the archives and check out what's going on, first. So while I am opening this, it's only so no-one else will pick it up ;-) --Xavexgoem (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I didn't think anyone would pick it up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)