Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01-07/Shell to Sea

Addition of Pages
I'm going to add Kevin Moore (An Bord Pleanála) and Statoil as while I haven't directly edited these pages, I feel any outcome will apply to these articles too. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources?
Lapsed Pacifist, do you have additional sources that have been contested? If so, please add them to the list, and add your comments about the listed sources so I can see where everybody stands on this. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many Irish (as well as foreign) papers have limited the number of articles they put online. Often the only way of referencing them is from the Shell to Sea website, http://corribsos.com This is not ideal, but the articles are consistently reproduced accurately, even when they are highly critical of the campaign, so I'm not happy with the wholesale blanking of all links to articles on the website. The controversy is not often reported on outside Ireland, so I would take issue with the blanking of the Washington Post link at Shell to Sea. I also take issue with the blanking of the link to a More4 documentary on the controversy at Corrib gas project. While I know blogs are not usually allowed as sources, the only way of referencing Irish Daily Mail journalist Colm Rapple's articles is through his blog. This link was also blanked, but I cannot recall on which article this was done. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the story?
I have to say I'm pretty underwhelmed by this mediation. It's been dragging on for months and seems to be fairly low down both of your list of priorities. In light of this, I've decided to abandon my policy of not editing the articles concerned until it's completion. Some I haven't edited in almost six months and are in pretty bad shape (9x5's recent confused edits to Maura Harrington being the freshest example). Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with being underwhelmed by the mediation, but disagree with your change of policy. And, of course, the classification of my edits as "confused". Thanks! Fin©™ 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You say you disagree with my change of policy, but a quick glance at the edit histories of the listed articles during the time of this mediation clearly shows you showed no inclination of adopting a similar policy. Needless to say, because of your aggressive edit-warring, the status quo suits you just fine. You've had a good run of it, but after five months I've lost patience. Garda40 and Snappy agree with me; you're over the top. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits to the Harrington article were very confusing; they gave the impression that she was imprisoned for allegedly lunging at McAleese instead of allegedly assaulting a guard. Your lack of background is showing. I know very little about computer games, which is why I don't edit articles about them. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to contact the mediators to see what they're at. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given them a shout =) Thanks! Fin©™ 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at my contributions to the Harrington article, turns out it wasn't me that gave the impression...etc, that was actually an anon ip! I added that she had been found guilty of the lunging charge, the anon ip (incorrectly) added the bit about the sentence. So I'm not confused! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 09:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part of what you're saying. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Garda 40 comment
I was invited to participate before but don't reply because in recent times due to certain reasons I haven't had time to do more than some vandal fighting on Wiki .Lapsed Pacifist has reminded me that this mediation was ongoing and so I have came here to give some  a quick view of the situation as I see it .I probably won't be able to participate much in the future either.

Since in giving a quick read of the project page of this talk page I might not be following rules to present these views I have placed them here.

Ignore them if you want to.

Frankly as far as I can see if Lapsed Pacifist is being said to edit with a bias in a particular direction then I believe that Falcon9x5 is editing with a bias in the opposite direction.

As can be seen in my edits some of the things I objected to was blanket bans on sources such as An Phoblacht ( I have no problem with a note being made of a possible bias ) I also think the Irish Independent in this case is a less than neutral source in this instance,  believe  removal as I saw it of sources such as the Washington Post ( the fact that the Washington Post thought it important enough to have an article was apparently irrelevant )  , Guilt by association of who wrote the report "Great Corrib Gas Controversy " even though a former High Court Judge was on the board of the Centre for Public Inquiry

It may seem if I am against one editor but I have no problem in either reverting myself, or if others see it before me , edits I believe cross the line of neutrality from anyone .Garda40 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)