Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-21 John Brignell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Engjs 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Jim Smith

Where is the issue taking place?

the John Brignell article John Brignell

Who's involved?

Tim Lambert, John Quiggin, and others. These people form part of a blog circle; they each regularly contribute to blogs and reference each others blogs. They are leftwing environmentalists and very political.

What's going on?

The history of the article can be found at the top of its talk page, together with links to appropriate spots. John Brignell holds a number of views that are contrary to those held by these people. The article was created to smear him by making him look like a crank. The method used was to pick out people who hold similar views and imply guilt by association, to pick elements from his web site and present one sided criticisms of them without allowing the alternative view to be presented, and so on.

I have tried rewriting their entries to make them NPOV, but they revert any changes. They rewrite my entries and revert any attempts on my part to change them, charging me with vandalism. I have tried adding counter arguments, but these are either reverted as being inapproprate to the forum, new research, or vandalism, or met with expositions of their politics. I have tried to balance the tone of the article as a whole by adding sections that present his ideas in a more positive light; these are deleted because the article is too long.

I have tried to discuss the matter with them on the talk page, but they won't acknowledge that there is a problem. They nitpick my contributions but happily change things without giving reasons.

I have tried rewriting the whole article from a NPOV perspective twice; in both cases it was (predictably) reverted. You can find my latest attempt in the history for the page (the latest entry under engjs).

I am at the stage where I can either revert the article three times a day until they or I give up, or seek arbitration of some kind.

What would you like to change about that?

I want to see the article rewritten as NPOV. Specifically, I want to see the article rewritten so that it does not imply that Brignell is a crank. I do not want to see the individual topics touched up, I want to see the whole thing redone. I'm not seeking to see Brignell presented in a favourable light, but only in a fair one. I'm not seeking to have the criticism removed, but only to have it presented in an unbiased way that will allow the user to judge the matter for themselves, and to ensure that it does not dominate the rest of the article. I do not need to do this myself; I am happy to see it done by anyone who is not a leftwing radical and who is capable of appreciating the issues involved from both sides.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

engjsATccDOTnewcastleDOTeduDOTau

[edit] Comments by others

If you look at the article, you'll find substantial content contributed by Jim Smith, which has been left untouched.

Smith wants to censor references to the fact, acknowledged by Brignell himself, that Brignell's views and arguments are very similar to those of people like Steven Milloy, Michael Fumento and Fred Singer. Since the dispute arose, the (already well-known) fact that Milloy and Fumento are shills for corporate interests has been widely publicised. Hence, Smith tries to delete references to statements by Brignell endorsing them, and their views on issues like global warming and the ozone layer.

I've made a good-faith attempt to produce an NPOV article where Brignell's views on controversial issues are stated, links to critics are presented, and readers are directed to the main Wikipedia article on the topic.

If this makes Brignell look like a crank, my only response is "If the cap fits ..." JQ 12:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"the (already well-known) fact that Milloy and Fumento are shills for corporate interests has been widely publicised." Are we then to refer to anyone who receives support from vested interests as shills? And is that appropriate for a supposedly neutral information source like Wikipedia? Change to "shills for government interests" or "shills for special-interest groups" and see how the cap fits.

[edit] Mediator response

Mediation unsuccessful. Arbitration requested. --Neigel von Teighen 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)