Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jose Antonio Vargas

Jose Antonio Vargas

 * Users involved in dispute
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
 * Lengthy discussion of the issue on the article talk page, which can be viewed here
 * Lengthy discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard can be viewed here, with a request to de-archive found here.

Issues to be mediated
''All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.''


 * Primary issues
 * The content in question was removed here, and after consensus appears to have been reached on the article talk page, it was again removed here. The text was as follows:"In October 2012, Vargas was stopped and arrested on Interstate 35 in Minneapolis, and charged with a misdemeanor for driving without a driver's license as Washington had revoked his driver's license after he stated that he was a "undocumented immigrant".[31][32] He was in the area to talk at Carleton College.[33] Minnesota State Police officers took Vargas to the Hennepin County jail, where he was questioned by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who did not file immigration charges because Vargas did not fit any priority category for detention; the Obama Administration policy is not for "detaining illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes".[34] He was later released.[35]"

Hasteur has suggested the following compromise text:"Vargas was arrested and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a cancelled licence, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay" I have suggested the following compromise text:"Vargas was arrested, questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a revoked licence, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay. Later Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving on a revoked license." I do note that I accidentally replaced Minnesota with Wisconsin.
 * The following compromise text was proposed by Bus stop:"Vargas was arrested and briefly detained by officials in Minnesota for driving without a valid driver's license in October 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were contacted but Vargas was released without any immigration charges being filed."


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation
''All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.''
 * 1) Agree. There was a consensus for inclusion for some form of content regarding the event, which I have shown has received significant coverage, and continued coverage weeks/months after the event occurred. The re-added content was unilaterally blanked from the article. This is what lead to the DRN discussion. Whether good faith has been given, is debatable (with an editor looking forward to myself being banned), and attempts to reach compromise wording by those who support no text regarding the event whatsoever has been meet with WP:SILENCE, up until the declines below. Content which was removed was verified using multiple reliable sources. I can understand weight concerns, and have stated my willingness to compromise on size and wording, as can by seen by my suggestion of reduced wording.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Decline I attempted to try and cobble together a solution that compromised between what remained of the original parties to the dispute, RightCowLeftCoast (hereafter RCLC) and BusStop. Several very good policy based reasons for why the content should not be included were listed several times, yet were objected to each and every time. I note that in the de-archive request there was a suggestion that the DRN volunteers who had worked on the case be convinced to de-archive it, yet no information was recieved by me prior to being listed as a party for mediation purposes.  What we apper to have is a few activist editors who are all attempting to push conflicting POVs and not consider what is best for the encyclopedia as a whole.  Note: My decline is in to way a diagreement to mediation, only that I am not a involved party with the exception of attempting to assist at DRN. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Decline -- complete waste of time; filing editor will end up at ANI for POV-pushing eventually. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Disregard me and recusal — My only involvement with this matter was to give an opinion as a DRN volunteer regarding whether the archived DRN case ought to be dearchived on DRN-procedural grounds. I should be disregarded as a participant in this matter and removed from the participant list. Nonetheless, in light of my initial inclusion here and whether or not I am disregarded or removed, I also hereby recuse myself as a member of the Mediation Committee in regard to any further proceedings in this case so as to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) technical decline. not having been involved very much recently, and given the fact that some of the primary participants have declined, my participation in a mediation that doesnt involve the primary participants would seem to be moot. as I will not be watching this page, please ping my talk page if some of the primary participants such as Hasteur or Nomoskedasticity change their minds. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Decline - isn't this the second request for the same issue? Yworo (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Decline I gave an opinion in the RfC, reiterated it at DRN. I'm not especially interested in the outcome here. Use one of the compromises and move on. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Decline We've been around this block and no consensus formed in agreement with the lister's position on the talk page, RfC, DRN, etc., on this matter or about other POV edits that the lister has proposed over the last couple of years to this article so it's long overdue to move on. I see no way mediation will make any difference.  Tvoz / talk 17:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Decline the horse is at least temporarily dead, and I'm beginning to hope it stays dead. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Decline. Mostly per Tvoz. I don't think there's anything to mediate. There was a consensus on this and the filer refuses to accept it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) I'll be fine with whatever decision emerges, but I don't care to waste any more of my own time on such a trivial matter. —Stepheng3 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
''A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.''
 * Considering the majority of editors have declined, this is an obvious reject. PhilKnight (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)