Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-06/Corrib Gas

=General notes= Most of the discussion will occur on this case talk page. I'll be conducting this case quite formally (despite this being informal mediation) so I'd ask proper editing decorum be maintained at all times. As always, please keep discussion civil. I'll watch this actively, provide suggestions and compromises, as well as advice as I see fit, and will deal with user conduct issues if necessary, though I hope there are none. I'd ask that you all leave your external feelings at the door, and edit this case page with Wikipedia's best interests in mind (Not that you already don't :) Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting started
OK, first of all, I'd like each of you, in your own section, tell me a short statement about why you began editing this category of articles (we all have a reason, I edit the articles relating to 24 because I like the show) as well to how you are involved, or what your viewpoints are in relation to the Corrib gas project/Shell to Sea/etc/, and any conflicts of interest you have that could affect this case, as well as your view on the dispute, and how you best think the dispute can be solved. We'll proceed after that. Keep your statements concise. This isn't ArbCom, but I'd prefer less than 2,000 words each if possible. Also, most people will call me Steve. I'm pretty formal, and refer to people by their first name if i know it. I'd consider revealing your first name as not really revealing much about yourself. I'd much prefer to call you by your name than by your username. While I'd prefer if you didn't, if you aren't comfortable, just make one up. But no Voldemorts please. Thanks :) Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brief introduction from Steve Crossin
Hi, I'm Steve. I'm nineteen years old, married, and studying Computer Systems Engineering. I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2008, and my main interests on Wikipedia are editing articles related to 24 and dispute resolution, as I like helping others solve their problems, and I'm not afraid to take on large, controversial cases. I've mediated four cases at MedCab:


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-17 Spore (video game)
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 Joint (building)

I also mediated a few cases informally, including Ming Dynasty and Sovereign Grace Ministries

I've not had a perfect past, and was previously sitebanned for half a year, but I've learned a lot from my past mistakes. But anyway, the focus here is on you, and how I can help you resolve your disputes. So, with that in mind, let's get started. :) Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Falcon9x5
I'm Fin! This was originally quite different, but I rewrote it in the past hour to suit Keith/Gainline's template.


 * Why I began editing S2S articles/Where we are now:
 * I first began editing Shell to Sea related articles in September last year. After stumbling across the main article by accident (think I was reading about the IRA->The North->RUC->PSNI->Gardaí->Corrib Gas->Shell to Sea, or so says my contributions), I saw it was pretty biased and set about fixing it. My changes were fairly quickly reverted, which is where this whole thing started. I began to trace through articles related to Shell to Sea/Corrib gas and began to see a pattern - most (if not all) the articles and sections were distinctly biased. I edited a lot of these articles to remove their WP:POV, but was usually reverted. The two other users involved were User:Garda40 (who is no longer active in the area) and User:Lapsed Pacifist. I brought up LP's conduct on the WP:COIN, but nothing happened. After a lull where the articles stayed fairly neutral (LP didn't really edit for October, November and December 2008), I decided to enlist help with dispute resolution in early January. This led to the closed MedCab case, which led to the closed MedCom case, which led back to here! After the closure of the first MedCab case, LP began editing articles again, but I decided to self-impose a ban on editing contested articles. I've tried discussing stuff with LP, but when even the smallest of edits (changing the word "violence" to "force" on the Gardaí Síochána article) results in a long argument laced with WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOXing, it's hard to stay motivated, which is why I've avoided the talk pages too (trying to stick to just mediation).
 * Which brings us right up to now!


 * Viewpoints: While I do have a viewpoint on this, I'd just like to point out that (at least in my mind) I always try to make my edits as neutral as possible. I think in some cases, when presented with already heavily biased material, I might edit too much in the other direction while trying to achieve balance. If I have that, I need someone to point it out - I'm totally unaware (I know this happened recently in an unconnected case, but I was poked back in the right direction when I went for clarification).
 * Anyway, I don't think anyone is blameless regarding Corrib gas, though there's so much misinformation/lack of information (Do the protesters have political backing? Why did the Green party back down from a promise they made? Who assaulted Willie Corduff? Who broke into the Shell compound? Why did the Gardaí decide a no-arrest policy was the best approach? Why on earth did the Gards act so violently? How many people protesting are actually from the area?) I don't think anyone has a 100% clear view on it.
 * If I had to choose one position, it would probably be leaning against Shell to Sea (though I honestly don't really care what happens, Shell or no Shell my life is going to be exactly the same). This stems from ages ago, when the Rossport Five were jailed for failing to obey a court injunction. I've got a high opinion of law and order (if everyone just disregarded what they didn't like, society would fall apart), so I felt it was arrogant that five people would deliberately disobey an order from a court, then be treated like heroes for doing so. I know there are question marks about some of Shell's actions and whether they're breaking the law, but if Shell had explicitly broken a court injunction first (say, telling them not to start construction), and then essentially celebrated, I'd be writing this from a pro-Shell to Sea perspective.
 * But, as I said, I don't let this affect my editing, I think everything on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral perspective, regardless of the viewpoint of the author. The vast majority of my edits are removing, rather than adding, content - I remove bias and pov whenever I see them, no matter which way the bias leans.


 * Involvement/COI: Like Keith/Gainline, I've no connections to the Gardaí, government, lobby group, community group or oil producer. I'm not committed to any particular party (though I vote left/Labour/Greens), have no record of activism (though, again, I'm pro-renewable energy/anti-fossil fuels) and don't buy or read the Independent (I think the owner, Tony O' Reilly, has investments in the gas field - but I'm a Times reader!) or petrol from Topaz (no car!).


 * Dispute resolution: I think the current state and number of Corrib gas articles really needs to be sorted. There's too many articles that solely exist to push a single pov or provide detail on a single event. I think the entire controversy could probably be well served by three articles - Corrib gas project, Corrib gas controversy and Shell to Sea, merging any necessary information from others into these three. Likewise, I think most of the articles with Corrib gas sections should just have a single sentence with a link.


 * Anyway, that's me! =) Thanks! Fin©™ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist
I'm going to stick with LP. I've been editing since 2005, mostly articles to do with history and politics.


 * Why I began editing S2S articles: I began editing articles concerning the Corrib gas controversy after I became involved with the S2S campaign and noticed that many articles were lacking relevant information and prone to editing by POV-pushers who have, for the most part, biases (many of which I shared until my involvement with S2S) regarding the tactics of Irish police and the political independence of Irish planning and environmental regulatory bodies and media.


 * Viewpoints: I consider the Corrib gas project a disgrace on many levels; civil rights, public safety, public health, environment, democracy, mortgaging of a country's natural resources and energy security, political hypocrisy, corruption and cowardice, the media bias that often surrounds it, corporate ethics, selective law enforcement, circumvention of the judicial system, state violence, etc.


 * Involvement/COI: I've been involved with the campaign for quite some time and now fully appreciate the adage that "a liberal is a conservative who's been hit over the head by a policeman." I attend protests when I can, and I've often stayed in the Kilcommon area for extended periods.


 * Dispute resolution: I believe many articles need more thought as to their layout; the palimpsest nature of many Wikipedia articles is even more in evidence here, as editors (myself included) react to what has been written before rather than considering the article as a whole. I don't agree with the minimalist approach put forward by Keith and Fin; condensing these complex issues will not help explain them. An honest thrashing out of what exactly Wikipedia policies rule in and out is a must for progress. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GainLine
Someone has to start, my names Keith and I'm looking forward to getting things worked out.


 * Why I began editing S2S articles: I've had an interest in the situation since 2005 & the Rossport 5 protests, Last Summer/Autumn things seemed to be heating up with the situation on  the ground in Mayo and particularly the way things seemed to be escalating with the arrival of the Solitaire.  On the foot of this I started paying particular attention to things in the media and then started reading up on the net which led me to Wikipedia.  What I came across there read to me like puff, and what I considered to be practically propaganda.  Unfortunately me being me, I took the piss a bit and started mucking round with the article, to my shame I made a few dodgy edits.  (I'd have done the same in any situation that was similar IE a blatantly pro shell piece).  After that I became more involved but had lost credibility so rebooted to take things more seriously but was unaware of sockpuppetry and was blocked.  This is my effort to take things more seriously on things that interest me.


 * Viewpoints: I have both positive and negative feelings towards both sides but I can safely say that they cancel one another out and that I have a neutral outlook. I am aware of what has lead to this situation and previous governments dealing with this situation have us where we are today. The original deal by Ray Burke leads a lot to be called for and is tantamount to a form of treason.  The fact previous & current governments have failed to make any headway in bringing about a resolution  is also very disappointing.  Shell have seemed to have shown disregard for the local community in failing to compromise of safety and environmental concerns and the policing has at times been heavyhanded. On the other side there are some elements of the response that leave a lot to be desired also. I respect everyones right to protest but there seems to be those that are there to protest not just against the current situation but just for the sake of it especially when I see people being draughted in from other protests (M3 at Tara, Heathrow etc.)  Above all I resent a situation which has seen €15m spent on policing when the situations in Limerick and organised crime are ongoing.  We are where we are and I would like to see all sides work through the proper channels, compromise and bring about a solution.  I think this is doubly important in the light of how bad things are for Ireland economically at the moment.


 * Involvement I have no COIs here, I have no connections to the Gardaí, any protest or lobby group, Shell or any of its sub-contractors, members of the communtity in the area etc. I buy petrol in Topaz but thats about it! The food they sell there is a form of pollution in itself, I'd start a Hot Picks to Sea Campaign if it weren't for the potential damage to marine life! (joke,: ) everyone needs a little humour.)


 * Dispute resolution I would like to see more neutral balanced articles here that fairly represent the topics. There are a lot of articles that need cleaning up to meet quality standards and there are other articles which have info in them that is really unneccesary.  I think its important that these topics are presented in an unbiased manner and that this fact is recognised by all those involved.  I believe these topics should be addressed on  the basis of facts and with the minimum.  I beleive that we all probably need to listen to other points of view and our peers.  Importantly i think all involved need to work towards concensus.

G ain  Line   ♠ ♥ 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the issues at hand
Alright, apologies for the delay. I have more free time in the short term, so let's get started. Looking over the dispute, the main issues, which all others branch off, is part verifiability of content, blended with original research, as well as changing the wording of sources, as well as POV pushing. Edit warring is also an issue, however the agreement you have all made to refrain from editing the articles should stop that. Undue weight is also an issue, however I'd suggest that this issue be addressed later on in the mediation, and that we make some progress to get our confidence built up before we address the more complex issues. I think, for starters, the best way to proceed is to use content, specifically from sources, and while we don't want to plagarise the sources, be sure that we are not twisting the source to promote a certain point of view. However, this case is large, so it may be wise to split the case into sub cases to address each issue individually, eg pov pushing. If there are no objections, i'll do that. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 12:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to that, I think RfCs would be a good way to get additional input too. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I really hate to do this, and apologise to you all, however, I must withdraw as mediator from this case. That said, I have made sure that a mediator will be assigned to this case, and will continue to mediate this case. Sorry again. Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward
To move forward I have removed some of the issues and likewise articles from this mediation. If we we to deal with everything we would be here for months and months on end. I have explained the reasoning behind each one:


 * WP:COI (User:Lapsed Pacifist has a declared COI, currently being discussed at the WP:COIN).
 * This cannot be dealt with here but hopefully nothing will be needed to solve it.


 * WP:SOAPBOX ( Mary Devins, Pat O'Donnell, Kevin Moore (An Bord Pleanála) have all been created to soapbox, large number of edits are purely soapboxing)
 * If you feel these articles arnt notable and just exist to soapbox then take them to WP:AFD


 * I've done that now, they're on the AFD noticeboard. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide links. Sedd&sigma;n talk 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to deletion debates:-
 * Articles for deletion/An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project
 * Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell

G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

These have now been AFD'ed G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I will go through each article at a time dealing with the sourcing issues, linking issues etc. It must however be accepted by all parties that this mediation has to accept that articles must comply with the need for verifiable information. Sedd&sigma;n talk 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrib gas controversy
Please list under your user name, specific sections of text or sources that you feel is associated with this dispute following the example below:

===User:Example===

*"example reference"

reason its unsuitable

User:GainLine
Sorry for the delay in me getting started, I've been pretty busy IRL tho it seems no one else had a chance either. This is actually probabaly one of the lesser problem articles in the dispute.

LP seems to not fully understand or ignores the WP:OWN policy' and reverts changes he doesn't like
 * Article has seen a lot of edit warring in October 2008 with Fin doing a clean up on the article and then a revert from LP

Subtle POV Pushing
 * Use of language to draw reader to certain conclusion eg. ''" people[who?], including local residents, are deeply concerned about the health, safety and environmental impact of the onshore aspects of the scheme, and, citing Shell's record,[2] do not believe the company's assurances. Others[3] are concerned with irregularities and precedents surrounding the project.

Uncited and again connection of material to lead reader to conclusion, also possible WP:OR in this example 
 * As above also evident here "In 2003 senior executives from Shell sought, and were given, an interview with then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and other Irish government ministers.[citation needed] Within a week, Ahern met with the board of An Bord Pleanála, who are appointed by the government. The board decided to ignore the inspector's report, and planning permission was granted soon after. Not long before, a huge landslide swept away the whole surface area of a mountain close to the intended pipeline route."


 * Negative Bias against police can be seen in this section although bias is more evident elsewhereeg "Injuries were sustained by protesters in November 2006, some being hospitalised" This suggests a level of brutality and it should be noted that no Garda has had any complaint of misuse of force upheld.  This is more of an issue in other articles

Negative Bias against parties the Shell to Sea Campaign opposes


 * Use of Images -This article contains a number of images that I beleive May be against Wp:MOS but they are generally there to S2Sify any article containing them and are obviously there to promote the campaign

eg:

POV imagery

G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Falcon9x5
Also sorry for the delay, I've had other stuff going on over the past couple of weeks.


 * "The level of opposition to the current configuration of the project has led to the gas processing terminal building site at Bellanaboy being the most heavily-guarded in Ireland, with security working around the clock, assisted by sometimes hundreds of Gardaí."

Subtle POV-pushing - while the statement may be true (it probably is the most heavily guarded), the use of this statement in the introduction is pushing the POV that there's overwhelming opposition to the terminal, so much so that it has to be guarded 24/7.


 * Some people[who?], including local residents, are deeply concerned about the health, safety and environmental impact of the onshore aspects of the scheme, and, citing Shell's record,[2] do not believe the company's assurances

Weasel words, unsuitable sourcing - the "people" stated here have never been cited, the source cites Shell's record independently, not citing it in relation to Corrib gas.


 * In 1987, in a move described by Dick Spring, then a member of the opposition, as "economic treason",[5]...drastically reduced the tax rate for exploration companies to the lowest in the world. .

Selective quotation, weasel words, sweeping statement - a quote from a member of the opposition about a government initiative is never going to be positive, a quote such as the one from Dick Spring implies Ireland was just about to sink into the sea. "Drastically" is a weasel world, "the lowest in the world" is speculative as best.


 *  "From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site"[citation needed].

Unnecessary detail to push POV - there's no need to quote the report, stating that permission was refused is fine.


 * "Integrated Risk Management Services(IRMS), a security firm employed by Shell, began working in Glengad in the summer of 2008. Security men soon caused controversy when local journalists caught them filming children swimming near Shell's Glengad compound in the summer of 2008. Local parish priest Fr. Michael Nallen told media that the security men made his parishioners prisoners in their own area."

POV-pushing, practically libel - this section is deliberately written (without sources) to imply that IRMS are pedophiles that intimidate locals.

There's more examples and other problems (like WP:OWN and POV-imagery as Keith mentioned above), but that's just a few I took from a quick skim through the article. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)