The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- FacultiesIntact (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Philafrenzy (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- David M. Cote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
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)
- Philafrenzy feels that information regarding Honeywell’s political donations and its PAC are relevant for inclusion on Cote’s BLP, in addition to charting the donations out over his tenure. I disagree because it conflates the actions of the company and its PAC with the individual, who is clearly not solely responsible for the actions of the company. As I see it, it’s a violation of WP:SYNTH, especially when combined with the graph created by Philafrenzy.
- Additionally, the Attitude to deficit reduction section obfuscates whose opinions are being shared by quoting one opposition leader alongside Cote and an anonymous lobbyist as well as uses a sole source’s interpretation of Cote’s quote as authoritative.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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.
- Agree. FacultiesIntact (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Sorry but this has already been discussed at length on the talk page where a number of other editors have given their views. FacultiesIntact is a paid PR man for the article subject and therefore cannot be a good-faith participant in any mediation process as they are inherently biased in favour of their client. I suggest they return to the talk page. (P.S. I didn't create the graph) Philafrenzy (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
