Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar

Where is the dispute?
Events surrounding the capture of Gibraltar in 1704.

Who is involved?

 * User:Wee Curry Monster
 * User:Pfainuk
 * User:Richard Keatinge
 * User:Imalbornoz

What is the dispute?
The events that happened are not disputed, the discussion is going round in circles with no sign of resolution between the parties. A big issue on the talk page is walls of text that break up discussions and deter outside opinion from participating. Whenever outside opinion is sought, anyone who answers is immediately lobbied intensely which deters all input. As a result the discussion is moribund and going nowhere. People are not listening to the argument but simply stating a position. One thing I am finding increasingly difficult is the persistent use of emotive language, which is stymying progress.

The discussion is how to approach and precis the events in a manner appropriate for an overview. I believe there are NPOV issues with stating one opinion, when the sources express a range of opinions.

There are claims that the current text is the "consensus" and thus can't be changed unless a new consensus is established. Text supported by cites is asserted to be WP:OR and WP:SYN.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like the discussion to consider all relevant opinions in the literature, to consider just how much coverage is actually needed appropriate for an overview and for the use of emotive language to stop.

How do you think we can help?
I feel the discussion needs a neutral mediator to structure the discussion properly. In addition, a mediator who is prepared to objectively comment on whether content proposals are WP:OR or not.

Mediator notes
I am willing to mediate, provided the parties indicate acceptance below this message. Also note for disclosure, that I am also working on a second Med Cabal case at the moment and I am a relatively new editor. Nevertheless, I feel I may be able to help cool the situation down for reasoned discussion. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of Mediation
(Indicate your acceptance or rejection of proceeding in the mediation process. All parties must agree to proceed with mediation for mediation to start)
 * Accept. Pfainuk talk 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept with thanks Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Noting that all parties have agreed to mediation and have been directed to post opening statements on this case's talk page. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I ask all parties to this case to a) place this page on your watchlist so you stay up to date with all discussions and b) that you post an 'Opening Statement' in the talk page of this case with the following information:


 * 1. A summary of the dispute in your own words
 * 2. What you believe the central issue is
 * 3. What your opinion on resolving it (i.e. your position/your 'side')
 * 4. Possible areas of compromise among editors

Vassyana has been kind enough to join me in this process to help reach a solution. Until this process closes, I ask all editors to participate in a quasi-moratorium on editing the article in question. I appreciate parties' willingness to mediate, and I will await the final party before personally going through the talk pages. Good luck, Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)