Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole

[edit] Juan Cole

[edit] Involved parties

• Armon (talk • contribs)
• Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)
• Isarig (talk • contribs)
• Elizmr (talk • contribs)
• note - the most recent edit war has only involved the first two parties named here, but all four are involved in the ongoing issues that have led to continual edit wars and unproductive discussions on talk.

[edit] Articles involved

• Juan Cole

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:AN/I Armon filed an AN/I against csloat; it was determined to be without merit, but the admin recommended mediation
• csloat contacted the admin about further deterioration of the dialogue that he perceived as resulting from disruption by Armon

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Background - This is a BLP of a well-known academic who also maintains a weblog about current affairs; the controversies stem from issues raised on his weblog.
• Issue 1 - should there be four long paragraphs of discussion about an appointment to Yale that Cole never received? (Armon says there should be; csloat believes 2 sentences is more than enough)
• Issue 2 - should the article include an attack by another academic (Efraim Karsh) on Cole's expertise along with Cole's response? (Armon says yes, csloat says the attack is not notable).
• Issue 3 - should the article include an attack on Cole's alleged "new antisemitism" sourced to questionable periodicals (Frontpage Magazine and Middle East Quarterly)? (Armon says yes; csloat says no).

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

• How much "criticism/controversy" is appropriate for a WP:BLP about an academic such as Cole?
• What is an appropriate standard for notability of such controversies? (an admin who has occasionally entered the discussion on talk has proposed that such "controversies" should be commented on by a neutral third party in a WP:RS; according to such a standard, the "Yale" controversy would be somewhat notable, whereas the "new antisemitism" controversy would not.)

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

• csloat 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC). Agree.
• elizmr Agree.
• Agree Isarig 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree <<-armon->> 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the involved parties agree, I will be happy to take this case. To make it clear, I am not a member of the mediation committee, but am hoping to take this case to gain valuable experience and a deeper understanding of mediation through MedCom as part of an application to become a mediator. Could the involved parties please sign below indicating their agreement (or lack of) and their preference towards public or private communication. Thanks Martinp23 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree csloat 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC). I'm not sure what you mean by public vs private comm -- doesn't all the communication take place on the disputed page's talk page?

It can do, but should you wish, we can mediate through email (see here for some reasons that this may be preferred). Martinp23 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Accept Martinp23 as mediator. <<-armon->> 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didn't state public or private preference: Public <<-armon->> 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• AcceptElizmr 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC) And yes, please communicate PUBLICLY. Elizmr 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Public, please. Isarig 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou - we'll be conducting public mediation on the talk of this mediation page (at least to start with). I'll post some instructions there Martinp23 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)