Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/LaRouche movement

Where is the dispute?
LaRouche movement

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Cla68
 * User:Will Beback
 * User:Stanistani

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 *  Will Beback   talk    04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
The dispute concerns the intro to the article.

The old intro was very incomplete. I drafted a more comprehensive one on the talk page and solicited responses. Talk:LaRouche movement. There was a question about one of the assertions, that the movement had "moved to the far right in the mid-1970s". In response, I did research on how reliable sources describe the movement and/or its change in orientation, which I compiled at Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation. While a small number of people say the movement is actually leftist, and a few sources say the movement is either both left and right or is neither left nor right, the overwhelming number of sources say the movement is right or far right, and many of them describe that as being the result of a shift from the left. So the dispute seems to concern how to summarize those sources and describe the historical shifts the movement has made. Also about how to include some short-term alliances with other groups.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to see a productive discussion that works towards consensus and makes the best use of the available sources.

How do you think we can help?
The discussion seems to have strayed into unproductive directions. A dispassionate third party could help.

Mediator notes

 * I would be happy to help resolve this dispute. It has been quite some time since I have mediated, and Will, you know of my old methods, which have changed, and I aim to be a more active mediator. If you are happy for me to take this case, I would be willing. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have taken a look over the AN thread as well as part of Cla68's talk page. I require some clarification, and have some thoughts. Will, you are fully aware that mediation is used solely for content disputes, but for the material I have seen thus far is purely about user conduct. I need clarifiction on the actual content dispue itself, you've told me what is in dispute, but given no details of how this has started, or how it came to be in dispute. From what I've already observed, this is a complex dispute, but without details of what's going on. Stay as focused on content as possible. Separate venues can discuss user conduct issues. Additionally, I need a commitment from all parties that you will participate in this mediation in good faith, keep an open mind and be receptive to ideas I suggest. All parties also need to be willing to negotiate and collaborate on solutions to tnis dispute, and realize that there may be situations were we ca not agree on a perfect solution that fits all parties, so need to be willing to compromise. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. If this doesn't suit the parties, fine, I'm happy to leave the case as is, but realize that while my methods of mediation have changed over the years, I still have some ideas on to what works and what doesn't.  There's no reason a user conduct dispute at a different forum cannot take place simultaneously as a mediation. I'd encourage all parties involved in this dispute (not just Will and Cla68) to comment here, as the more particiation, the better the chances of success.
 * @Will- It's good that you can agree with my ideas of how mediation should proceed, but I still haven't been clarified on the issues at hand. You've written that the dispute concerns the intro of the article, but not exactly what. What in the intro is in dispute? What discussions have taken place in the past? Links? What has resulted, content wise, in the dispute progressing to mediation. A succint explanation with links to where I can view more info would suffice. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have had a look over the discussions in the articles, and the list of sources. While it seems there are a large number of sources stating, from what I can see, that the movement has moved to the far right recently, historical context is important too. once upon a time, the majority of scientists believed the world was flat. While we now know this to be false, it was still once the majority viewpoint. Additionally, from reading the discussions, it seems evident to me that this is not a matter that will come to a solution purely with collaboration, some compromise is needed. While providing undue weight is not ideal, it seems that over the years, from what I gathered, thr orientation, according to some sources over the years, while others are not sure and some others have stated that the movement's orientation has remained left wing. Is this not didcussed further along in tne article? Perhaps a workable solution could be to simply state in the article that over the years the orientation of the group has been under some dispute, and further down in the article discuss what different sources have stated? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this case? We still proceeding with the opening of this case or not? I've not noticed a lot change in the past week. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Before undergoing mediation, I, following the advice of one of the arbitrators at the declined case request, as well as a suggestion by Will himself, would first like to get wider community input via RfC into the current issues in general surrounding the LaRouche articles. Me and another editor will be co-certifying the RfC when it is ready, which will hopefully generate sufficient community input to determine a plan of action for how to proceed with the LaRouche topic area. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're refusing mediation at this time?   Will Beback    talk    05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven, you might should give my talk page a perusal to see what generated this request by Will. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Steven: Yes, I agree to your principles. I'm committed to resolving this dispute, and am flexible about how the text looks.   Will Beback    talk    11:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven, you're on the right track that the dispute here is primarily concerning editor behavior. That's why I'm preparing a user-conduct RfC to get community input.  I'll let you know once it's posted. Cla68 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cla68 has stopped participating on the talk page. Another editor has returned to the discussion. If Cla68 is willing to drop out then we could proceed with Stanistani, if he agrees.   Will Beback    talk    19:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * scratches head* I didn't think Will and I disagreed that much with his version of the intro. I was suggesting leaving out only one word. If y'all don't mind, I just participated in one of the silliest AN/I discussions ever, over 'anal lube as a political attack method' and I'd rather not get involved in any more Wikipedia bureaucratic engines right now. Will, if you're looking for some input on the intro, fine, if not just say so on the talk page.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  00:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to Closer
I don't like having my name on this page, and would appreciate if the closer courtesy blanked this case. Deletion would be even more appreciated. Thanks! &rarr;  Stani Stani  05:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

CASE CLOSED - This case is closed, I would say remove conflicted material or appeal to a higher court. -- J  (t)  14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)