Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-10/John Bosco

Where is the dispute?
Please see John_Bosco. In February 2010, a section was added to Bosco's article about controversy attached to a remark he made just before his death. The edit was sourced and stood in the article until last month. Without discussion it was deleted in this DIFF with the edit summary of "I remove this section of "controversy" that I find biased and I wait its author to assume any discussion". The section was given a neutral rewrite by an editor, who at that time had not editted the article, but now feels compelled to preserve the section because it is adequately sourced (if I interpret his comments correctly on the talkpage. A brief summary of the editors involved and their roles appears in the next paragraph.

Editor A added the Controversy section which was sourced. Editor B deleted the section. Editor E opposed the deletion. Editor C supported non-inclusion. Editor D wrote the neutral rewrite. Editors A, D and E feel the section should exist.

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved:


 * User:Contaldo80 - Editor A
 * User:Albeiror24 - Editor B
 * User:Mamalujo  - Editor C
 * User:NatGertler - Editor D
 * User:Morenooso - Editor E

What is the dispute?
Should the section as it now appears with a neutral section header and its citations exist in the article?

What would you like to change about this?
The matter has been discussed fully IMHO on the talkpage. At one point when the dispute seemed only to be between Editor B and Editor E, Editor E asked the article talkpage if Editor B would agree to a Third Opinion that both would support no matter what the opinion was and regardless that the TO is non-binding. In essence, as per this RequestDIFF, the TO was requested but not respected by Editor C, who might have a slight language problem, and Editor D because they clashed in ThisDIFF about how serious the controversy is. Although they were basically discussing the same controversy, their interruption negated the TO which is referenced in TOeditorDIFF. Basically, the article needs a neutral decision as to whether the comment by Bosco and its interpretation as sourced should be allowed to exist in the article.

How do you think we can help?
Please look at the section first. Is it adequately sourced? Then, look at the talkpage discussions which are quite long. Are all the concerns of the main editors involved adequately voiced? Neutral mediation is needed to solve the dispute. --Morenooso (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Old case, I've closed it out. It doesn't appear totally resolved but until the other editors involved can get Albeiror to the table I can't see this moving forward. All parties appear to be working through it on the talk page. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)