Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 December 2005/JT LeRoy

JT LeRoy: Does he exist?

 * Request made by: Animated Cascade talk 11:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * JT LeRoy and Talk:JT LeRoy


 * Who's involved?
 * User:83.249.212.92
 * User:Grilledcheese
 * IslandGyrl
 * others?


 * What's going on?
 * The people (and potential sockpuppets) editing the article in question seem to be strictly divided into two camps: those who believe the subject exists, and those who believe he doesn't. What has happened over the course of the last three months or so is that the same people are reverting the same things over and over; they don't seem to ever quite break the 3RR, but they get close. I began editing the article only recently, and I have essentially no loyalty to either camp. However, some of the faulty logic that others are using (e.g., "person A doesn't confirm that person B exists, therefore person B doesn't exist") is severely unencyclopedic.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Ideally, I'd like to see an agreement made regarding exactly what information is included in the article, how it is phrased (there are POV issues, such as the word "Hoax" instead of "Controversy regarding identity" as a header, and even mentioning the "hoax" itself in the first paragraph), etc. The subject of the article, JT LeRoy, is an acknowledged author with books available in nearly any bookstore; regardless of any doubts about his authenticity, calling the subject of an article a "hoax" in the first paragraph has no place on Wikipedia.


 * In coming to the Mediation Cabal, I'm asking someone to step in to offer guidance to all the editors of the article (myself included) about how to resolve these issues, or whether a formal mediation would be in order.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * My own talk page is fine, but if you'd prefer to tag onto the article talk page, by all means do.

Mediator response
Looking into this... Dan100 (Talk) 15:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

 * Replied to Dan100 on his talk page and on the article talk page. In essence, a consensus has been reached on this article through the power of positive collaboration. The big issue now is keeping new editors who haven't been involved in discussion from coming along and sweeping everything away. I've added a  {Controversial3}  tag to the top of the talk page, but it seems not to have helped much. Thanks for the assistance! --Animated Cascade talk 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad things are going better now (closing this request) Dan100 (Talk) 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)