Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-27 Unsourced material in Paleoconservatism

Mediation Case: 2006-08-27 Unsourced material in Paleoconservatism
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Psychohistorian 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...the article Paleoconservatism


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Yakuman
 * ...Psychohistorian


 * What's going on?
 * ...Yakuman continues to put unsourced and highly emotionally charged content in the article


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...That the article abide by Wikipedia policy regarding NOR


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ...I don't care if you work discreetly or overtly as long as the end result is that the Wikipedia article adheres to policy

This fellow demands citation for every proper noun in the article. At one point he set an arbitrary time limit (one hour) before he would start lopping off paragraphs. 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I marked unsourced content as unsourced using specific tags on the individual pieces of content and at the same time wrote that I'd remove the content at the end of a week. A week later, the content still wasn't sourced or removed.  Some comments had been sourced over the span of that week, but upon examining them, I found that the sources didn't actually say what they were being used as sources for.  Yakuman removed the specific tags identifying the content as being unsourced and replaced them with general tags over some areas of the content.  One section he had removed specific tags in, he didn't add a section tag to.  I added a section tag for that area. He removed it.  By this time it had been well over a week since the  tags were originally added. I wrote that I'd start deleting unsourced content in one hour.  I didn't remove the content in one hour, but did remove it several hours later.  He readded the unsourced content claiming that what I'd done was vandalism.  I removed it again. -Psychohistorian 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of Order
I've been repeatedly defamed by this "cabal," so I'm not sure they should deal with any controversy concerning my contributions. These issues are presented in full on my talk page (although they have nothing to do with the matter at hand). I was forced to leave defamatory statements against myself standing and barred from presenting a reasonable defense. Legitimate concerns were brushed away as a "pointless topic." At minimum the "cabal" has a conflict of interest here. Yakuman, 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Information that is potentially negative and unsourced about a person or a particular group of people should indeed be removed immediately per Biographies of living persons. Here is the specific quote:

''Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.''

However, you both seem to be misinterpreting Vandalism. This is not vandalism by any means - it is a content dispute, and as such you must remember to assume good faith of one another and not resort to attacks. However, it is the responsibility of those who add information to source it, per Verifiability. Of note are the claims that such groups oppose abortion and capital punishment, along with other political stances. Such information, if not sourced, should indeed not be in an article. This is official policy. However, as to the removal of entire paragraphs, that indeed is going a bit far, and simply politely requesting sources may be best for that case. You both have expressed incivility, however, and it would be best to simply look past that and continue working on improving the encyclopedia. So, would you both be willing to just look past this and go to the talk page and determine whether such information is factually correct? Feel free to reply just below this. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You've asked me to just politely ask for the removal of the unsourced content.

However, I pointed out that the content was unsourced over a week ago. I left the unsourced content there for over a week so that editors would have plenty of time to find sources. I think that's being more than polite. Its certainly going beyond the customary process regarding removing unsourced content. Yakuman flat out refuses to provide sources claiming that they aren't needed. "As to the removal of entire paragraphs", if those paragraphs consist of nothing but unsourced claims, what should be done with them if not removal? I went through each section looking for sources before I removed the content and I removed only unsourced content (and that was after Yakoman removed the tags and then removed the sources tags without providing sources). Insisting on adding unsourced content after it has been pointed out and removing tags which identify it as such is an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. That's the definition of vandalism. This is not a content dispute. It is a dispute over whether or not Wikipedia policy should be enforced.-Psychohistorian 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have others on the talkpage put forth their opinions on the matter? That is important as well as the information might be commonly accepted knowledge to others. Consensus is important in these matters, of course. Cowman109 Talk 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * People have posted on either side of the issue (some saying sources are not needed, others saying they are). But where is the policy which states that consensus that a source isn't required may overrule WP:Verifiability?-Psychohistorian 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've jumped into the talk page of the article. Cowman109 Talk 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am closing this case as it looks like the requestor sought assistance from the village pump which should hopefully settle things, and one of the disputants is unwilling to have the mediation cabal involved. Cowman109 Talk 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.