For an explanation of why the case was closed, see the talk page. The case was closed on 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) by AGK . If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request should be filed.
Click 'show' to view full details of the closed case
The actual mediation proceedings are on the talk page attached to this request. Please do not modify those discussions or this page.
One set of editors adamantly wants certain information concerning a relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Media Matters to be added to the article. Another set of editors adamantly opposes adding this material.
Secondary Issue: The core problem here is that tendentious editors are seeking to use Wikipedia to advance their personal political agenda to battle "lefties". This is contrary to Wikipedia:NPOV policy. The process should be, with an open mind, to look at a wide spectrum of reliable sourcing about a given topic and then to set aside any personal agenda and to write an article that fairly and neutrally matches what we see in the sourcing. Instead of that, what we see here is a small number of editors having a political agenda they wish to achieve using Wikipedia, followed by a series of selective Google searches to find snippets of sourcing which confirm that political agenda. I argue that this method of 'agenda based editing' is fundamentally against WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr get wet21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to frame the primary issue as simply and neutrally as I could and I think that I succeeded pretty well. Saltyboatr's biased framing of his gratuitous "additional issue" provides a pretty good clue as to which set of editors is acting tendentiously. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if such a problem is within the scope of the Mediation Committee, but I propose that the "Secondary issue" pasted by SaltyBoatr is the major (systemic) problem; the "Primary issue" is just the symptom. //Blaxthos ( t / c )
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
Provisional agree -- I decided to withdraw from the discussion (indeed, the whole article) before this request was filed; I will probably be less inclined to participate directly, but will certainly render my opinion if so asked by the mediator(s). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional agree -- I decided to withdraw from the discussion (indeed, the whole article) before this request was filed; I will probably be less inclined to participate directly, but will certainly render my opinion if so asked by the mediator(s). YilloslimeTC14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
