Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/14 September 2011/Jeff Frederick

Where is the dispute?
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:


 * Vabio1
 * Zeamays
 * Bbb23
 * Collect
 * Off2riorob
 * Cameron Scott

What is the dispute?
Addressed above and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Frederick) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vabio1).

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
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.


 * Vabio1 leaves out several steps that were taken to resolve the dispute. Prior to Vabio1's entry into this dipute, an unregistered user repeatedly reverted my edits.  I asked for third-party dispute resolution, but was advised that because the unregistered user hadn't made his/her reasoning known, I should instead request semi-protection, which I did, 12 September 2011.  Semi-protection was granted for a week.  At this point, Vabio1 began reverting the edits, suggesting he was the unregistered editor.  Failing to find closure on this dispute, on 13 September 2011 the incident was reported to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (see that page for further discussion). As a result several other editors joined in this dispute, all of them using my edits as their starting point, so I infer that they were opposed to the position of Vabio1.  Collect has explicitly taken my position on the unacceptability of the partisan political website as a reference.  --Zeamays (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One can argue any source is partisan. Some frequently say news outlets like the Washington Post or the New York Times are biased.  Simply blanketing something as partisan with no further explanation, justification, or cause is unreasonable and objectionable.  If a speech from a candidate is cited in an article, and the text of that speech is listed on a website, partisan or otherwise, as long as there is no dispute that the text of that speech is accurate, there should be no dispute about its validity.  Zeamays should provide specificity of each instance he believes there is use of a partisan political website, at a minimum, so one can determine if such use is valid or not. Vabio1 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Vabio1 asks, "Zeamays should provide specificity of each instance he believes there is use of a partisan political website." The answer is simple, just do a search for the instances of citations to Votejeff.com where facts (other than Jeff Frederick's own views, which I would allow) are to be supported.  Partisan political websites are inherently biased. --Zeamays (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The only facts being supported by links containing a votejeff url, other than Frederick's own statements or views, are those that preserve news outlet content not currently available in other form online (like PDF files of news articles; see discussion below on this). However, if you are referring to press releases issued by Frederick's campaign regarding endorsements, your perspective is understandable on those specific references.  Is that your only specific dispute?  If so, we can attempt to find other sources to corroborate those endorsements, we'd be happy to do so. However, we would think the matter is moot barring someone specifically disputing the validity of those endorsement claims (political endorsements are most frequently only reported by the subject campaign itself, with mainstream news outlets rarely actually reporting on those endorsements; the check and balance on these is that if an endorsement is false, there will almost always be a news story reporting a false endorsement).  Vabio1 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
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.


 * This statement is factually incorrect. I have posted numerous statements of my position and previously taken appropriate steps to resolve the dispute using Wikipedia procedures.  I have addressed this elsewhere on this page (see ).  It is Vabot1 who has just repeated the same tired argument over and over with no new additions.  He apparently wants me to find the references to support the article, rather than doing it himself.  --Zeamays (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have never -- not once -- suggested Zeamays find references to support anything. We have only asked that he identify which specific references to which specific content he is disputing or finds questionable so we can in turn address his specific disputes.  Instead, he has simply done a wholesale editing, removing everything and anything that not only contains references to votejeff (irrespective of the validity -- discussed below -- of using such a reference), and has even deleted content that has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute he is claiming.  Vabio1 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
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.


 * I would request that the judgment be that citations to partisan political websites for facts should be deleted, statements that depend on those references should be deleted also. --Zeamays (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We would request that before any of Zeamays requests be considered, he first provide specificity in his complaints so that we might attempt to address each specific content question. Then, if we disagree with his specific complaints, then we can move on to arguments and judgement about each content item disputed.  Vabio1 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

Mediator notes

 * Well, hello there. I'm Tristessa, your friendly Mediation Cabal cabalist. I'll do what I can to help you out. Before we carry on with the mediation, however, I'd like to ask Vabio1 whether their use of the plural pronoun when referring to themselves (i.e. "we") is to indicate that the account represents an official body or more than one user. If it does, it's going to make it hard to treat this as a mediation, since it's not a discussion between two parties per se but between the position of a group and another editor. Vabio1, can you please clarify this for me? --Tristessa (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Based on the page history of Jeff Frederick and the discussions at User_talk:Vabio1 and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, 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)


 * Other parties have been added per your suggestion. Vabio1 (talk) 15:46, 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)


 * Vabio1 needs to explain the use of "We" as the subject of many statements. Is Vabio1 a group?  --Zeamays (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this is relevant to the discussion. For our purposes, I/we and my/our are interchangable.Vabio1 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW: you might easily be in violation of WP:ROLE: "Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts"—accounts shared by multiple people—are as a rule forbidden and blocked." Ipsign (talk) 11:04, 15 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)

Discussion
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 NPOV. Wikipedia policy for WP:RS and 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 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)


 * We have no objection to addressing what Zeamays claims as "the heart of the dispute", but it is impossible to do because Zeamays has persistenly refused to be more specific about what content he views as lacking a factual basis based on the reference provided. We are happy to attempt to find alternative or additional references for content stated, but in order to satisfy Zeamays objections, we need to know what they specifcally are, versus his complete blanketing of the entire article as invalid.  Votejeff is only used as a reference in two circumstances: 1) to provide the actual text of a speech or statement made by the principal subject of the article (for example, the term "Separation of Church and State" was derrived directly from a letter Thomas Jefferson write to a bishop -- if Thomas Jefferson has a "Jefferson for President" website in today's world and posted that letter, it would be completely appropriate to link the text of his original letter as a citation when directly referencing that very letter, irrespective if that letter was on a campaign website or not)*; and 2) when original news articles are no longer available on the internet or cannot be found, the original text of those articles are provided via PDF and/or HTML occasional on Votejeff.  There has been no dispute made about the accuracy of those texts since.**


 * '*'Additional Examples: From the version of the article we've edited: "Frederick's personal interests include sailing and cycling". This is a statement of fact that needs to be referenced to determine its validity.  How do we know it is valid?  Frederick's offical bio from his website (http://votejeff.com/about) states that it is so.  It is hard to dispute the validity of a claim that he enjoys cyclying and sailing when he himself has said those are his interests.  How do we know he said so himself?  It is on his own website, which in this case should be appropriately referenced.  The only dispute here might be why only cycling and sailing were included and not the other interests listed like the Redskins, racquetball and softball.  In addition: "Following the once in a decade redistricting approved by the General Assembly, Frederick announced in June 2011 that he would seek election to the Virginia Senate."  It is either a fact or it isn't that he announced he would run.  If it is a fact, how do we know so?  Well, on his website he posted a letter announcing such (http://votejeff.com/jeffs-announcement/).  He either did or he didn't, and a link to his website indicating that he in fact did seems as relevant as any other source.


 * '**'Other Additional Examples: From our version of article: "...after defeating 18-year incumbent John A. "Jack" Rollison III, a senior Republican state legislator from Northern Virginia, in the June Republican primary..." This is referenced by citing an article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41996-2003Jun10?language=printer), which for whatever reason is not completely available in the Washington Post, so the original text from that article has been posted at (http://hod.votejeff.com/news.asp?docID=45). If there is a dispute about the accuracy of the facsimile of this Washington Post article, let's have that discussion.  However, if there is no dispute, then the reference should not be determined invalid simply by virtue of where the valid and actual text of the original Washington Post story is residing for the purposes of a citation in this Wiki article.  In fact, we believe a PDF version of this Washington Post article is also available, but we linked the HTML version because we thought that would be more convienient to the user.  In addition: "...Warner made Frederick a top target for defeat by state Democrats, tapping another long time Prince William politician in Hilda Barg...".  How do we know this?  Well, in an article in the Potomac News, it said "Targeted for defeat by Mark Warner, Frederick quickly..."  Where is this article?  It is no longer available directly from the Potomac News since that newspaper no longer exists (it was merged into the News & Messenger, and when they redid their website, the old content went away).  But, we do have access to a PDF version of the article at http://hod.votejeff.com/fileuploads/pn20051109e.pdf.  Yes, this PDF file resides on the votejeff website, but again, unless there is some question about the integrity of the Potomac News article as displayed in the PDF, it should should be no question as to its validity as a reference, irrespective of where the PDF file resides. Vabio1 (talk) 18:49, 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)


 * We do not agree that there has been a violation of WP:BLP, nor has there been any detailed argument made as to why others believe a violation has occured. And importantly, it seems most of the few arguments being made about the content of this page have nothing to do with challenging or disputing the validity of the content itself, but rather the sources used.  One would think that before you question the sources you would have a dispute with the content itself.  If I say the sky is blue and I am cited as a reference, and no one seems to disagree that the sky is blue, I'm not sure why there would be any problem with me being the reference that the sky is blue.  However, if one disputes that the sky is blue, then that seems to be the best starting point to then dispute me being the reference and then an argument being made that because there is a dispute about the sky being blue, we need to find more objective proof that that is so.  Vabio1 (talk) 18:49, 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)

Vabio1 blocked 48 hours

 * - User talk:Vabio1

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)

Comment from third party observer
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)