Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Issues to be mediated

In my opinion, there are genuine disagreements over the content of the articles involved here, but the issues therein have not been listed; rather, issues with party conduct have been. If possible, could the filing party rewrite the issues to be mediated, to provide a focus with what content of the article the involved parties can't agree on?

For example, "we aren't sure whether image X is appropriate for the article" is a content issue; whereas, "editor A keeps adding image X, and we want him to stop it" would be a conduct issue. If you aren't aware, of course, the MedCom will not mediate conduct disputes. Anthøny 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Maybe not hard enough! I am a latecomer to the discussion and most likely the very original editors have wandered off. Other potential current editors are most likely discouraged by the lengthy and unpleasant discussion and reversions.

I did not quote specific unpleasantnesses they have exchanged. I've tried to remonstrate with them to no avail.

The problem about being more specific is that there is no "bad guy" that emerges IMO. Their discussion is truly reprehensible but I see nothing particularly wrong with the arguments on either side. They "just" need to coopoerate! It would be easier with a "bad guy" I admit. The article currently needs anonymous and Groggy Dice to cooperate with each other. Either that or wait until a couple of other strong editors emerge. I know nothing about the final editor on the list except he posted in favor of anonymous and attacked (!) Groggy Dice.

So of the four of us, I am the least knowledgeable, but also probably the least opinionated! I would like to see the article progress. They seem content with quarreling. But if you blocked the three of them, I'd be stuck with the article! I certainly want to avoid that!  :)

My problem, as a topic to the article, is figuring out who is right or what the real issues are, the editors digress when discussing and wholesale reversions without footnotes is not conducive to figuring out what is going on! As I've mentioned, I tend pro-Contra (a nice oxymoron!) but hardly believe their hands are clean. In war, no one's is.

The one topic that was easily understandable to me, so far, was the 1984 election which seemed to me to be listed as "fair" (and pro-Sandanista). But then the pro-Sandanista editor backed away from it for some reason!

It is difficult for me, as a topic newbie, to sort out the other topic issues, but I susppose I could try harder. The main problem is lack of references that either side trusts. All of the current major references seem to favor the Contras and is therefore (?) dismissed out of hand by the other who seem, to me, to offer no substitutes. If medication is accepted all around, the Brown and Kagan need to be debated for starters. Then they need to introduce possible substitutes. In discussing these, the other problems will emerge full bore IMO.Student7 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not fully following. What aspects exactly, of the articles' content, is it that the involved parties don't agree over? Anthøny 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've spent awhile trying to characterize the various positions. There are a number of potential editors that might want to get involved, I don't know. I hate to add everyone on the page, so I added the most prominent (and the last).

The other editors, when they become involved, if they do, may have another take on the areas of disagreement. I had to research the discussion page to come up with these. As I have mentioned, I am the least knowledgeable. Or at least I was before I had to come up with this long list. (I liked it better when I was ignorant!  :)

I've got an idea. Now that I know everything, why don't you just lock these other guys out and I will write the article!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Comments

Firstly, Jpineda84 should probably be part of this mediation as well. He's the one who wants a separate MILPAS section, Brown's book as a source, and a section on "non-military" contras. Historically, there have also been other editors, like Ultramarine.

I do disagree with Student7's "pox on all your houses" characterization of all parties as equally blameworthy, but that can be discussed in the course of mediation. It would be a bad idea for someone seeking to resolve the disputes to publicly say that one party is more to blame, anyway, no matter what they might think in private.

There are probably some things I'd add to the "additional issues" section, like what the article should say about the World Court case or the cocaine controversy. Perhaps even Linder, though that's relatively minor.

Also, in the past few days, I've been gleaning what I can from Google Books previews of Brown's books, The Real Contra War and When the AK-47s Fall Silent, so at least I now have some knowledge of it. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure about formally listing Jpineda84. I left him an informal invitation. He hasn't edited since May 30. While I would like him to participate, I would hate for the mediation to stand or fall on one editor's failure to accept when he (maybe) isn't around. Ideas?Student7 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking into the mediation process, and seeing how one mediation got rejected because two disagrees blocked thirteen agrees, I realized it was a bad idea to add too many more people to the process. But if you look at MarkB2's contribs, his response at Talk:Contras was his first edit on anything since October! If his only current role is slinging a few arrows on the talk page, not actively editing the article, I don't see why he needs to be part of this mediation. I'd hate to see this mediation attempt blocked by the failure of an inactive editor to respond. Is it possible to retroactively remove him, or is it too late? --Groggy Dice T | C 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate the mediators responding to the above suggestion for deletion if they are reading this.

When we come to a conclusion at the end of mediation, I believe that we are sort of held "bound" by our mutual decisions. The people who weren't a part of this mediation aren't "bound." So it would be nice to have as many editors as are currently involved. Student7 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)