Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Jeff Frederick |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Vabio1 ( talk) |
Parties involved | Zeamays and Vabio1 |
Mediator(s) | Tristessa de St Ange ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Requesting editor has not edited since his 48hr block expired at 00:55, 17 September 2011, and appears to have abandoned dispute. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
Zeamays seems intent on the wholesale omission of relevant and cited (by objective third parties, generally traditional news outlets) content, as well as recent updates to Jeff Frederick. It has been requested more than once that Zeamays outline his specific objections so that they can be addressed, but he has declined to do so. He has simply stated in one instance that things can't be said without being cited, so we provided additional citations to justify statements made; and second that votejeff.com references can't be used, which we have also addressed why those are used ad nauseam. See discussion here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Frederick) and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vabio1). We believe the content currently displayed is objective and well referenced. Most of this content has been posted at this location for nearly two years without any dispute, yet if Zeamays would now like to dispute this information (coincidently only arising now when the subject is engaged in a race for the state senate), he should issue his objections so that they can be discussed and addressed instead of simply the wholesale omissions he declares unfit for the page by fiat.
The list of the users involved. For example:
Addressed above and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Frederick) and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vabio1).
Attempted to solicit feedback as to what the specific objections are with no response. All other editors seem to be content to simply revert back to Zeamays edits without any regard to validity of his edits. They are deleting specific facts, like the fact that subject person has an American father and Colombian mother, and recent updates, like the subject's current campaign for the state senate. They provide no justification for such omissions or deletions and refuse to be specific about their objections.
Zeamays is not communicating. He is simply restoring his wholesale and wanton edits to the page with no discussion or willingness to engage in attempting to find consensus.
Again, we believe that the content on this page as we have edited it is relevant, objective, and well sourced. If you disagree, help us address any objections you might have so that if Zeamays then continues to try to exert his attempt at fiat rule over the page, we can take this matter to the next level to be addressed -- with the fact that we have engaged you to try to improve upon the page and you have found it meets necessary standards and requirements.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Yes.
Based on the page history of Jeff Frederick and the discussions at User_talk:Vabio1 and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeff_Frederick, it would appear that there are several more editors involved in this dispute other than Vabio1 and Zeamays. Those other editors should be added as parties and Vabio1 should notify all of them of this mediation request and also post a note about it in the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard discussion. Finally, in light of the long-running edit war about these edits, I'd recommend that any accepting mediator condition his or her acceptance of the case on the agreement of all parties to engage in mediation. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I confirm that all named parties have been notified, along with WP:BLPN. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 17:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the requesting editor may not return to Wikipedia from his user block. I'll leave this pending as "new" for a couple more days, then close it as stale if he does not return to editing. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Vabio has persistently refused to acknowledge the actual heart of the dispute, which is the use of partisan political websites as references for facts. Partisan political websites, while useful for "see other" information, are not NPOV references. Votejeff is not an passive, neutral, inert container for secondary references; it is inherently biased, not consistent with Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia policy for WP:RS and Wikipedia:original research are clear that references should be direct. He keeps repeating the same stale arguments, without addressing my point. The length of time this non-compliant article has used Wikipedia:NPOV citations is irrelevant. I deleted the references and material that clearly dependend on those references, and this edit was the starting point for this case. -- Zeamays ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
My only connection here is that WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, and violations of it are not a "mediation" topic in the first place. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As with Collect, my only connection here is that WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, and violations of it are not a "mediation" topic in the first place. I have no interest in the subject and my only (two) have been to remove unreliable sources and by extension unsourced information about BLPs. I have nothing to discuss here, no interest in this process and will not be making any further comment here. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The requester is now blocked for two days for revert warring on the article after a couple of final warnings. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wandered upon this page as I was learning more about wiki MedCab. Therefore I have no prior knowledge of the article in question; in fact, I have not read it at all. Hopefully my comments will add to the discussion as an insight from a neutral party. I have no interest in the subject so please do not solicit me to delve further in the matter.
User:Vabio1 has an interesting point regarding the repository of information. Even if a URL link provided is associated generally with partisan information dissemination, the actual text of articles published by independent publishers should not be discounted as a source. For example, wikipedia has articles with citations from traditional secondary source media like books and magazines. Suppose copies of these books and magazines were stored at the local library. Further suppose that there is nothing objectionable to those forms of media being used as sources for a wikipedia article. Now, suppose not all wiki editors have access to this local library that was used in formation of a contentious wiki article subject. However, suppose the citation material is also available through private channels like bookstores or private databases. We could agree that these traditional private channels for information dissemination might still be considered neutral parties. It should be quickly be pointed out that neutrality of these parties are irrelevant to the core issue: are the books and magazines still viable as sources for wikipedia even though they did not come via public distribution channels? It would seem the answer is still in the affirmative as long as the sources have not be modified or if information has been redacted due to censorship then a disclaimer should be mentioned to note such modification.
I have cited two examples of traditional repositories, the public form in the local public library and the private forms in channels such as bookstores and subscription databases. However, the discussion above regarding the partisan website seems to lend itself to another repository analogy. Supposed the books and magazines we referenced earlier and concluded as being valid when acquired from the previous public and private distribution channels are now given as a private gift or lent from one individual to another. For the purposes of illustation, we consider the individual distributor as being partisan because of the conscious act of giving one set of information as opposed to a contrary set. These books and magazines that we could agree early that were valid when gathered from a library or bookstore, could they be considered invalid now because they were moved from a partisan repository through partisan channels?
I will leave that as an open question to consider. Here's one parting thought to consider; there are some wikipedia articles citing the youtube video repository of news interviews and commentaries however when citations are made, a proper citation will usually reference the original author and publisher. In otherwords, citing "youtube" does not give due consideration to the actual source. Kjmonkey ( talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Jeff Frederick |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Vabio1 ( talk) |
Parties involved | Zeamays and Vabio1 |
Mediator(s) | Tristessa de St Ange ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | Requesting editor has not edited since his 48hr block expired at 00:55, 17 September 2011, and appears to have abandoned dispute. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
Zeamays seems intent on the wholesale omission of relevant and cited (by objective third parties, generally traditional news outlets) content, as well as recent updates to Jeff Frederick. It has been requested more than once that Zeamays outline his specific objections so that they can be addressed, but he has declined to do so. He has simply stated in one instance that things can't be said without being cited, so we provided additional citations to justify statements made; and second that votejeff.com references can't be used, which we have also addressed why those are used ad nauseam. See discussion here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Frederick) and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vabio1). We believe the content currently displayed is objective and well referenced. Most of this content has been posted at this location for nearly two years without any dispute, yet if Zeamays would now like to dispute this information (coincidently only arising now when the subject is engaged in a race for the state senate), he should issue his objections so that they can be discussed and addressed instead of simply the wholesale omissions he declares unfit for the page by fiat.
The list of the users involved. For example:
Addressed above and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Frederick) and here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vabio1).
Attempted to solicit feedback as to what the specific objections are with no response. All other editors seem to be content to simply revert back to Zeamays edits without any regard to validity of his edits. They are deleting specific facts, like the fact that subject person has an American father and Colombian mother, and recent updates, like the subject's current campaign for the state senate. They provide no justification for such omissions or deletions and refuse to be specific about their objections.
Zeamays is not communicating. He is simply restoring his wholesale and wanton edits to the page with no discussion or willingness to engage in attempting to find consensus.
Again, we believe that the content on this page as we have edited it is relevant, objective, and well sourced. If you disagree, help us address any objections you might have so that if Zeamays then continues to try to exert his attempt at fiat rule over the page, we can take this matter to the next level to be addressed -- with the fact that we have engaged you to try to improve upon the page and you have found it meets necessary standards and requirements.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Yes.
Based on the page history of Jeff Frederick and the discussions at User_talk:Vabio1 and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeff_Frederick, it would appear that there are several more editors involved in this dispute other than Vabio1 and Zeamays. Those other editors should be added as parties and Vabio1 should notify all of them of this mediation request and also post a note about it in the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard discussion. Finally, in light of the long-running edit war about these edits, I'd recommend that any accepting mediator condition his or her acceptance of the case on the agreement of all parties to engage in mediation. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I confirm that all named parties have been notified, along with WP:BLPN. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 17:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the requesting editor may not return to Wikipedia from his user block. I'll leave this pending as "new" for a couple more days, then close it as stale if he does not return to editing. — TransporterMan ( TALK) (as clerk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Vabio has persistently refused to acknowledge the actual heart of the dispute, which is the use of partisan political websites as references for facts. Partisan political websites, while useful for "see other" information, are not NPOV references. Votejeff is not an passive, neutral, inert container for secondary references; it is inherently biased, not consistent with Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia policy for WP:RS and Wikipedia:original research are clear that references should be direct. He keeps repeating the same stale arguments, without addressing my point. The length of time this non-compliant article has used Wikipedia:NPOV citations is irrelevant. I deleted the references and material that clearly dependend on those references, and this edit was the starting point for this case. -- Zeamays ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
My only connection here is that WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, and violations of it are not a "mediation" topic in the first place. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As with Collect, my only connection here is that WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy, and violations of it are not a "mediation" topic in the first place. I have no interest in the subject and my only (two) have been to remove unreliable sources and by extension unsourced information about BLPs. I have nothing to discuss here, no interest in this process and will not be making any further comment here. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The requester is now blocked for two days for revert warring on the article after a couple of final warnings. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wandered upon this page as I was learning more about wiki MedCab. Therefore I have no prior knowledge of the article in question; in fact, I have not read it at all. Hopefully my comments will add to the discussion as an insight from a neutral party. I have no interest in the subject so please do not solicit me to delve further in the matter.
User:Vabio1 has an interesting point regarding the repository of information. Even if a URL link provided is associated generally with partisan information dissemination, the actual text of articles published by independent publishers should not be discounted as a source. For example, wikipedia has articles with citations from traditional secondary source media like books and magazines. Suppose copies of these books and magazines were stored at the local library. Further suppose that there is nothing objectionable to those forms of media being used as sources for a wikipedia article. Now, suppose not all wiki editors have access to this local library that was used in formation of a contentious wiki article subject. However, suppose the citation material is also available through private channels like bookstores or private databases. We could agree that these traditional private channels for information dissemination might still be considered neutral parties. It should be quickly be pointed out that neutrality of these parties are irrelevant to the core issue: are the books and magazines still viable as sources for wikipedia even though they did not come via public distribution channels? It would seem the answer is still in the affirmative as long as the sources have not be modified or if information has been redacted due to censorship then a disclaimer should be mentioned to note such modification.
I have cited two examples of traditional repositories, the public form in the local public library and the private forms in channels such as bookstores and subscription databases. However, the discussion above regarding the partisan website seems to lend itself to another repository analogy. Supposed the books and magazines we referenced earlier and concluded as being valid when acquired from the previous public and private distribution channels are now given as a private gift or lent from one individual to another. For the purposes of illustation, we consider the individual distributor as being partisan because of the conscious act of giving one set of information as opposed to a contrary set. These books and magazines that we could agree early that were valid when gathered from a library or bookstore, could they be considered invalid now because they were moved from a partisan repository through partisan channels?
I will leave that as an open question to consider. Here's one parting thought to consider; there are some wikipedia articles citing the youtube video repository of news interviews and commentaries however when citations are made, a proper citation will usually reference the original author and publisher. In otherwords, citing "youtube" does not give due consideration to the actual source. Kjmonkey ( talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)