Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/RT Network

RT Network

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * []

Issues to be mediated
Kenfree (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Allegation of "disinformation" is not supported by the citations (except in one case, where the source is a US State Department official, and this fact (i.e., the partisan nature of the source) is highly pertinent but not mentioned)
 * 2) The editors listed above, excepting TFD (and Spotter 1, added 10/23) have unanimously failed to address the issues I raised about this in detail on the talk page, but some of them continue to revert my edits each time, so as to sustain the slur against the network in the lede, despite the lack of corroboration.
 * 3) There is a whole section called "criticism" and another called "reception" that is also highly critical, so why does this criticism even belong in the lede in the first place???
 * 4) This unsubstantiated claim in the lede lacks verification, represents a POV shared by these editors but not by any objective, neutral source they are able too cite, and therefore violates the NPOV requirement, as well as the need to source disputed claims directly.

Spotter 1 (talk)11:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Accusation of being a propaganda tool. Arguably any journalistic organization is a propaganda tool, no journalistic organization is embedded in a void (it has it's own cultural background, ideology etc.). If you are asserting the name propaganda to rt because it is reporting from a Russian perspective (finding sources calling it propaganda doesn't make it propaganda), you also have to qualify every other news network from "Aljazeera" to "CNN" as a propaganda tool of the respective government or owner controlling it.
 * Persistent removal of NPOV tag despite regular substantiated disagreement on the neutrality of the article.

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Kenfree (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I do not consider myself a party and therefore refuse to be involved. I already mentioned to Kenfree on several occasions that I do not care whether disinformation is mentioned in the lede or not. I am concerned by their battleground mentality though and tried to explained them the basics of WP:CONSENSUS. Apparently, this is the reason they consider myself to be a party of the dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter says he does not care if this allegation is in the lead or not, yet undid my edit to remove it and place it in the "Criticism" section...actions speak louder than words:  19:45, 9 October 2014‎ Ymblanter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (102,122 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (Undid revision 628964563 by Kenfree (talk)Kenfree (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you removed the whole paragraph from the lede, which, in particular, mentioned propaganda. There was an earlier consensus at the talk page that propaganda is important and should be mentioned in the lede. You never challenged that consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not relevant to this application. Ymblanter has, as is his right, refused to participate and further discussion on other points is pointless and inappropriate. Please do not continue it here. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC), Chairperson
 * Agree in the part of propaganda.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. Agree. TFD (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4. Agree.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject: Failed prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Request for non-deletion
I have edited on the page in question more recently and particularly over matters of usage and grammar, although I do have a strong perception regarding the nature of RT and RF information agency policy. I have not been a party to the RFA and do not intend to be one however it is not clear what benefit there would be in deleting the request after some unspecified "reasonable" amount of time. This article is and will continue to be highly contentious and I do not see what purpose would be served by deleting this request, which might be renewed under a more correct basis at any time. Please advise, thank you in advance. Wikidgood (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)