Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack Obama

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is in the talk page for the Barack Obama page. At this point, around 2/3 of the talk page has been involved on this one issue alone. The issue is with whether controversy surrounding Obama's voting record on live birth abortion should be mentioned, or whether lesser issues such as knocking off all early political opponents by challenging their petition signatures or the well-sourced record that he asked his political godfather Emil Jones (his own term) to make him a U.S. Senator, after which Jones appointed him head of numerous pieces of legislation.

Who is involved?

 * User:Jzyehoshua
 * User:Wikidemon
 * User:Hoary
 * User:Frank

Primary opposition has been coming from:


 * User:DD2K
 * User:scjessey
 * User:Abrazame (though following discussion on user talk pages, this may be cleared up)
 * User:Tarc
 * User:Misortie

The following chime in occasionally, usually with some degree of opposition, but generally show at least a small degree of neutrality, as though more just following the conversation:


 * User:Sceptre
 * User:Guyzero
 * User:JzG
 * User:Grsz11
 * User:WHSL

What is the dispute?
I have proposed several edits by now. Users keep accusing me of violating guidelines, but then I will quote from them and they will suggest it's another guideline, but each time when asked, refuse to cite what part of the guidelines or how they think violation occurred.

There has also been EXTENSIVE use of personal attacks and logical fallacies such as straw men, cherry picking, etc. as opposed to objective examination of the topic and its validity. I am having to spend much of my time addressing all the mischaracterizations and lies flying about, as well as the vague attacks that never deal with specifics, when this could be better put to use addressing the facts objectively.

This issue is getting drawn right down partisan lines and despite all the sources provided from notable media organizations and concerning major historical events and public figures, the ideological divide is so great that consensus can not be achieved. At this point it is not a matter of Wikipedia guidelines, but of a community opposed based on ideology to such extent that consensus will never be achieved.

What would you like to change about this?
At this point I would like the conversation to deal with whether or not the issue can meet Wikipedia guidelines, not all the personal attacks and straw men flying, and deal with substantiated facts and objective constructive criticism rather than all of this constant opinion.

How do you think we can help?
I would like more objective intervention here as a last resort before arbitration (which might be the best and only option at this point, actually) because we are simply running in circles at this point.

Mediator notes
Hello, my name is ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! and I have volunteered to be your mediator. I recognize that this is a contentious page, that there have been a number of personal attacks, and that civility is becoming harder for some people to maintain. If you accept me as mediator for this issue, you understand that personal attacks and incivility have no place in a mediation (much less on Wikipedia at all), and editors who violate these community standards during this mediation will be listed at Wikiquette_alerts. Bear in mind that this is mediation, not arbitration, so I will not be deciding on the outcomes, although I may suggest solutions, from time to time. My style is to ask a lot of questions in order to move everyone towards an acceptable outcome. To get started, I would ask that all interested parties sign below to indicate their acceptance of mediation and of me as mediator. Thank you, and I look forward to a productive and civil discussion with all. Regards, ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

 * It is now clear to me that DR is not necessary, and not possible if it was, for two reasons: 1) This is a case of one editor's dispute with a number of other editors, which in many circles would count as a U-1 consensus, and 2) Nobody has accepted mediation except for the petitioner. I cannot mediate a dispute where parties are not willing to participate. This mediation is closed. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It's unfortunate that the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama has come to this. Many editors are assuming large amounts of good faith here, and although a topic ban and outright block of User:Jzyehoshua have been suggested (General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement), nothing has come of them. (No quarrel with that; I don't think those results are useful or desirable at this point.) The problem that I see is that when Jzyehoshua writes concerning major historical events, s/he doesn't realize that use of the word major is subjective, and hasn't been able to develop consensus that the event is major. When Jzyehoshua writes ...based on ideology to such extent that consensus will never be achieved.' what seems to be meant is ...my point of view is being suppressed. There is little need to rehash the discussions at Talk:Barack Obama but to some degree, I suppose, it is inevitable. I'll keep my own contribution to a minimum by pointing to my summary of the situation on the probation page here, my refutation of a rogues' gallery of partisan commentators as sources here, and my subsequent refutation of political opponents as sources here. Nobody is denying that people have criticized him - even on this particular point. What's been said all along is that such criticism is not worthy of inclusion in a biographical article of the man, and it's already in United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004. Frank  |  talk  14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will politely decline to take part in this proceeding, as it is IMO premature and unnecessary. Mediation should be reserved for the truly wide-ranging disputes, e.g. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, not single editors pushing for a single issue which a host of other editors have rejected.  What Jzyehoshua is doing here is essentially the ChildofMidnight Defense; "The Wikipedia is a bastion of biased liberalism, I must storm the walls post-haste, and any opposition to such means that my point-of-view is being censored."  There is no content dispute here that cannot be handled by talk page discussion, as it is being handled now.  One user does not hold up or block consensus. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bravely volunteering, but I am somewhat concerned that you have only apparently been editing Wikipedia for a short while. Have you edited under a previous account name? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. I think my experience shows through onto this account as well, considering that I'm editing with AWB, and am about to close another mediation successfully. However, I take no offense if you think I'm not the right mediator for this issue. I'm happy to help where I can, and I recognize that not every editor is the right editor for every situation on Wikipedia. That aside, from the comments made thus far, it is starting to look like mediation isn't the right fix for this problem. I'll give it a day or two and see what others say. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 19:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response, which more than satisfies my query. At this time, however, I would concur with the comment from Tarc that this is probably unnecessary at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will accept you as a Mediator for this case. I looked at your past history of talk page comments and case comments, and thought you've handled past cases and subjects very well.  However, you may be right, as this case is progressing rapidly enough that arbitration may indeed be a required step as well.  Do you know if Mediation and Arbitration are steps to be both handled at once, or better separately?  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Noraft for volunteering to mediate this case. Note that I found it by accident as I wasn't notified that my name was mentioned. Jzyehoshua, please make sure you notify everyone that you have mentioned wrt this case. --guyzero | talk 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I support the idea of following DR, I'm not convinced that mediation (or even further DR) will help as it appears to be solely a content issue and overwhelming consensus has been against the (infanticide) edits that Jzyehoshua is proposing. The latter stages of DR aren't really there be to exercised for content disputes that single or few are advocating against overwhelming consensus per Tarc's comments, above. --guyzero | talk 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First I'd like to note (for the record) that nobody has signed their name (above, under Mediator Notes), in acceptance of my mediating this case. Second, I'd like to say that if none of the "opposition" is willing to undergo mediation, then no mediation can take place, and dispute resolution must move to the next level.  for Jzyehoshua: How many editors are supporting your changes, and who are they? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Right now, I would say myself for sure. The discussion on the edits, Proposed Changes, Notable Controversies, and Neutral Point of View all got shut down fairly quickly and a vote hasn't been put to it yet. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been a minor party in this discussion, and also just found this request. I don't feel mediation is necessary in this issue, as the talk page discussion is completely clear, and overwhelmingly against Jz. I agree with Tarc's sentiments above. Dayewalker (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In brief, I think the civility, discussion page etiquette, and process matters are paramount here, and not secondary concerns. Or maybe saying that the opposite way, if everyone could get past that, I think there are some viable content proposals that could get a fair hearing if everyone would just drop their alarm and try to work through them.  I think the exact content Jzyehoshua has proposed may go too far, and much or most will be rejected in the end, but it deserves a fair hearing and if we take the best of it, it will improve the article.  Maybe the exercise of attempting mediation can help us get there, even if we have not yet first exhausted all the other alternatives to complain about each other.  The article is a huge boulder at this point - many words, a lot of editors, a lot of history.  If you give a huge running shove to a large boulder you can't expect it to sail over the fence, nor would anyone want it to be on the other side of the fence, but it might settle an inch or so in the right direction.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairly similar sentiments to Wikidemon. There's been too much kneejerkery in that talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will again ask for a topic ban here, as now Jzh is currently blocked for continually reopning the threads against unanimous (save him) opinion. Numerous warnings to him have failed to get him to understand, and his comments directly above show he just doesn't care to get it. I think a short topic ban might help him understand. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)