Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor

Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Royalslongbeach1 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Andrew Thomas (prosecutor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Andrew Thomas (prosecutor)‎‎

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. I am the subject of a biographical entry in Wikipedia. The entry is Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor. I have attempted to resolve the issue with the apparent lead editor of the page who goes by the name Fearofreprisal. I have been unsuccessful. Despite my best efforts, the entry contains many clearly inaccurate statements, clearly misleading statements, and is biased overall. The editor has admitted on the Talk page for the entry that he is biased against me, and has shown much evidence of this both in the entry as I found it and in the Talk page itself. He insists that his bias does not infect the entry; however, that is plainly wrong, to the point that he is perpetuating known inaccuracies on the page still. I am a novice and am not sure if I am requesting help properly. I don't know how to use use Wikilinks. I request help at the next level in Wikipedia. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

1. Background on dispute: Royalslongbeach1 made extensive talk page requests for changes to the article. (Royals 1) (Royals 2) (Royals 3)(Royals 4) I responded to those requests, both in the talk page, in through changes to the article. (Fear 1)(Fear 2)(Fear 3) (Fear 4) (Fear 5) Though Royalslongbeach1 seemed to have no problems with the article edits I made, my talk page responses did not satisfy him. He was very concerned about my bias. Another editor came to the talk page, and tried to help. Ultimately, Royalslongbeach1 wanted the article deleted. Both I and the other editor tried to explain the guidelines for this.(Keatinge 1) Royalslongbeach1 asked about dispute resolution processes, and requested help using it. I said that if he felt at an impasse on the talk page, he might consider using the BLP Noticeboard, and I provided him with instructions to use it.(Royals 5) Instead, he decided to file an RfM. And so, here we are.
2. Background on me: I have no conflict of interest, but am certainly biased, as might be expected of most people who are familiar with Thomas' background. I am an experienced editor, having made contributions to the article over the last 5 years.(List of all my edits on the article) My edits have been factual, and carefully sourced and cited. Royalslongbeach1 hasn't expressed any dissatisfaction with the 19 article edits I've made so far in response to his requests.
3. Issues: I don't have any issues. But, I'll listen to Royalslongbeach1's concerns.
4. Additional note: I posted a message at Editor Assitance/Requests on Oct 20, giving some background, and asking for more eyes on the article. See [1]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was concerned about both specific edits and overall bias. Yesterday Fearofreprisal had recommended that I seek dispute resolution if I was unhappy with his handling of Wikipedia's entry about me. This mediation request was my attempt to seek that remedy. Since then, Fearofreprisal stated on my entry's talk page he would open to discussing things further. To be clear, I don't seek to write my own Wikipedia profile. And I don't expect to persuade everyone involved of the justice of my cause or my politics. I just would like Wikipedia to treat me fairly and as it has treated similarly situated public figures.

I have no criticism of Mr. Keatinge.

Nobody has agreed to address my concerns within any time period. This is troubling because, among other things, some of the claims about me are false or clearly misleading.

If there is anything else I should be doing, kindly let me know. Thank you for your assistance. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Agree. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If nobody has agreed to address Rlb1's concerns within any time period, it might be because his list of concerns is over 4000 words long. If he'd like to focus on any specific edits of mine that he disagrees with, we can discuss those at the article talk page, and deal with them expeditiously. But the most effective way to incorporate the bulk of his input into the article is likely to be accepting Richard Keatinge's kind offer, going over to his sandbox [2], and joining in a bit of collaborative editing. Since it's a sandbox, it's perfectly proper for him to contribute. When we get something we can agree is ready for prime time, we can even do a Request for Comments, to gain consensus on updating the live article. Note that Dr. Keatinge is an MD from Wales, and has no "dog in the fight" of American politics. I suspect he'd be an excellent informal mediator. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's comment and inquiry: I'm not at all sure this is an appropriate case for mediation and seek some clarification, primarily from Royalslongbeach1, the filing party. It appears to me (though I am not certain or I would not be asking) that you're more frustrated with Wikipedia's processes and with the rate of progress that's being made cleaning up the article to your satisfaction than you are with disagreements over particular edits which you have thoroughly discussed but cannot come to an agreement upon. To a lesser extent, it appears to me (ditto the disclaimer) that you're also concerned more about Royalslongbeach1'sFearofreprisal's bias than you are over particular edits which you have thoroughly discussed but cannot come to an agreement upon. Neither of those are appropriate subjects for a case here. Are my perceptions correct? Also, how do you perceive the roll of Richard Keatinge? If you feel that he is part of the problem, then you should include him as a party, above; on the other hand, it appears on quick inspection that he is already serving as a volunteer mediator at the talk page. What do you feel that we can do here that Richard Keatinge is not already doing at the article talk page? — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (Committee chairperson) Edited 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reject: In light of the requesting editor's assertion that there was a dispute over specific content of the article, I went back and read through the talk page carefully. I'm afraid that I simply do not see sufficient discussion at the article talk page to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #4, that the "parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page". Up until October 17 both parties seemed to be working together just fine, with no disputes at all. After Royalslongbeach1 posted a long list of requested changes on October 20, Fearofreprisal first made a few changes and said he didn't care to deal with the rest, but then apparently changed his mind and on October 21 posted a lengthy list of responses to which Royalslongbeach1 did not reply except to say to Richard Keatinge, "many of the comments from Fearofreprisal above (e.g., 'Ham sandwich') suggest a bias at this point, either due to pride in previous authorship or something else, and suggests you or somebody else at Wikipedia should take over," which is a comment about conduct, not content, and must be disregarded for purposes of this analysis. At this point I see no extensive discussion over any specific content dispute and this request thus fails prerequisite number 4 and must be rejected. For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Based on matters previously complained of and events after our last communication, I am returning and filing a second request for mediation. If I need to request this in some other way, please let me know.

I originally filed a mediation request due to disputes over specific edits and overall bias by the apparent lead editor for the Wikipedia entry about me. Mediation was declined for the reasons stated above (i.e., so the editor and I could attempt to work through specific issues first).

Since then, as the Talk page shows, the editor, FearofReprisal, was willing to address allegations of inaccuracy, but not his bias. Bias is the gravamen of my complaint. When I first contacted Wikipedia and complained about the entry, FearofReprisal responded by soliciting proposed content from me. Upon receipt, he complained the content made his “head hurt.” While acknowledging merit in many of my proposals, he refused to make any of them. He responded with comments that, in many cases, were disingenuous, unprofessional and insulting.

Following the declination of my first mediation request, I sought to work through the bias issues with FearofReprisal. He refused to address anything other than accuracy issues. He provided disingenuous reasons for doing this, which are documented on the Talk page. When, at his request, I finally put together a long list of the disputed edits--my requests, his responses and my replies--he then complained I had created a new “wall of text” that was too much for him to deal with. After dealing promptly and in less than 24 hours with all issues that did not involve bias, FearofReprisal now pledges to work through the bias issues over the next “couple of months.” He added some insults as well.

FearofReprisal has admitted bias against me. His comments since then on the Talk page further establish this bias. There is no reasonable basis to believe he will honor this “two-month” pledge and work through these issues in good faith any more than he has in the past.

The entry is an ongoing violation of Wikipedia’s policies against bias. That violation continues as long as FearofReprisal is allowed to “string me along.” I’ve provided numerous, specific examples in support of this complaint. FearofReprisal has refused to respond substantively despite repeated requests.

Recently, the executive director of Wikipedia has made cracking down on bias a major priority (http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4865322/wikimedia-foundation-cracks-down-on-sockpuppets-paid-editing-wikipedia).

I respectfully request that my Wikipedia entry be taken down until these issues can be resolved. FearofReprisal’s entry constitutes a continuing violation of Wikipedia’s own stated policies. It is objectively highly unlikely he will address any of these issues in a meaningful way at any time. After all, he is the very person being accused of bias—which, to repeat, he has freely admitted and flaunted throughout this process.

Another editor, Mr. Keatinge, proposed this same remedy of removing the entry for now. If the mediator cannot ensure this outcome, I request guidance.

Also, I respectfully request that this second mediation request be granted, as the conditions for mediation under Wikipedia’s policies now have been met. --Royalslongbeach1 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)