Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism

[edit] Involved parties

• Will314159 (talk • contribs)
• DNewhall (talk • contribs)
• Isarig (talk • contribs)
• Intangible (talk • contribs)
• Cberlet (talk • contribs)
• Sxeptomaniac (talk • contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

• Neo-Fascism

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

• Discussion on the article's talk page.
• Message sent to WP:AN/I twice about this:
  • First on August 14, 2006 by Intangible (talk • contribs): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=69685213
  • Second on August 16, 2006 by Intangible (talk • contribs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#User:Will314159

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Is Juan Cole's opinion notable enough to be added to the Neo-Fascism article?
  • More specifically, is Juan Cole qualified enough on Neo-Fascism to have his opinion considered notable?
• Is Juan Cole's blog a reliable source?

[edit] Additional issues to mediate

Is Juan Cole's analytical non-conclusory opinion suitable for inclusion in the subject article?

• Must Professor Cole be a Hebrew speaker in order to express an opinion whether the Israeli Likud members' treatment of the Palestinians meets that factors he has identified as fascist?
• Is Professor Cole a sufficiently notable person that WP would care about his opinion?
• Is the opinion itself notable in that it is non Godwin's Rule because it is analytical, nonconclusory (conclusory means coming to a conclusion without analysis), identifies factors and relates facts to them?

This is the same issue listed above, namely "Is Juan Cole's opinion for inclusion in the subject article?" Isarig 05:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is stated more generally, note the deletion of the word notable. This allows the inclusion of sub-issues under the main issue. Best Wishes Will314159 05:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:RS verifiability with respect to blogs apply to OPINIONS as well as facts?

Is the opinion indeed verified as Professor Juan Cole's opinion when it is located on his blog at www.juancole.com and bears his signature and the date of the opinion and then there is another subsequent opinion on that site that references it and clarifies it?

• Because Cole's factor relate to an Opressor/Opressed pair, does the expert have to be an expert on the alleged Oppressor Likud and Israel or can he also be a mideast scholar familiar with the alleged Opressed Palestinians?

• If there is a requirement for an expert, does the expert have to be an expert on fascism or can a scholar of wide reputation and experience on the Mid-East give an admissible opinion?

Given this recent edit by Will, I think it's pretty obvious that not even he believes blogs are WP:RS. Rather, we have an attempt to include blog sources when it suits his POV, but exclude them when they oppose his POV. These aditional "issues to mediate" were added in bad faith. Isarig 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

that was a 5 second short experiment to see how close Isarig has been stalking me. Recently I've started several articles to have him follow close on my heel. I went to a place he frequents where I haven't visited for two months and did a blog revert on WP:RS grounds to see if he was stalking. The proof is in the pudding. It has been restored. Best Wishes.Will314159 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Revised Edit Will314159 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking you? Your egocentric fantasies notwithstanding, Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole is a page I had been editing before you began contributing to it, and have on my watchlist partly because of your POV edits. Your violation of WP:AGF is noted, and you might want to review WP:POINT as well. Your bad faith here is amazing. Isarig 16:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did one [[WP:RS] and to draw Isarig and reverted it. How many has he done for ppure POV purposes? Watch to see if he reverts blogs suiting his POV. Please quit ffollowing me around. And quit trying to poison the mediation well. There's not much hope for it anyway is there? There was an informal mediation on the site and a compromise position, which you promptly deleted. It's all in the talk page. Bad faith indeed. As you would accept the results of any mediation. Best Wishes! Will314159 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out on the relevant article's Talk page, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here - it is not a playground for you to indulge in editing games to satisfy your personal whims. I repeat: I have been editing that page since before you showed up, if anyone is stalking it is you. Your bad faith here is amazing - every edit you make is a vioaltion of some WP guideline. Isarig 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[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.

• Agree. - DNewhall 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. - Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 05:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Isarig 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Intangible 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Sxeptomaniac 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Cberlet 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)