Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-30 Kitchen Nightmares

Request details
An Admin deleted a properly cited entry that I made, and protected page so I couldn't edit anything. I tried to discuss this on the Admin's talk page - he deleted that and protected that page, too. He has no explanation.

Who are the involved parties?
LeeStranahan,JzG

What's going on?
See above

What would you like to change about that?
Page unprotected, JzG to stop using Admin power to mess with me

Administrative notes
From what I can gather the page has only been semi protected, so registered accounts older than four days should be able to edit. Addhoc 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This is just the summary of my perspective on what has happened. I'm not an admin and never personally removed any of Stranahan's information, although I made my stance quite clear on the talk page that since his personal research and site is unverified/unverifiable, it should not be included as per WP guidelines/policies concerning verifiability. Here is my summary of the events to act as an introduction to admins coming to the issue.

Someone other than Stranahan wrote a new criticism section in the article, solely citing Stranahan's blog. The content was further expanded upon by an anon account, later revealed to be Stranahan. Several edits later User:Edokter removed the section citing WP:NPOV and WP:RS and the fact that the sole reference is a personal blog. An edit war ensues: Stranahan, still under the anon account of User:71.93.222.223, reverts Edokter's removal, Edokter reverts, Stranahan reverts, Edokter reverts, Stranahan reverts, User:Ultraexactzz removes the section, again citing concerns of reliability, Stranahan edits the page, modifying the content and including a source other than his blog (and does not include the original criticism section or a reference to his blog), User:JzG reverts Stranahan's edits and semi protects the article. I won't go into as much detail but after this point there is an attempt by editors to make a compromise.

Meanwhile, on the talk page, shortly after Edokter's second removal (technically first revert) of the criticism section, Stranahan begins a section on talk addressing the issue. Edokter responds, again citing verifiability concerns. Stranahan's initial defense is that his "facts" aren't disputed. User:Ultraexactzz explains why the majority of blogs aren't accepted. Stranahan responds that his opinions are notable, and again asks which of his facts are being disputed. He says his information is not original research since it was published by himself. Other editors join in explaining that the blog suffers from unverifiability. Stranahan cites common sense and begins debating WP policies/guidelines. Other editors (including myself) again stress concerns on verifiability. Again, I won't go into details but there is an attempt at compromise. Stranahan srgues that the reference to legal documents are valid and complains of admin abuse.

This is just what I see as the main points/events in this dispute. While I clearly believe Stranahan's blog is an unreliable source I'm personally not sure about the legal documents, and have concerns as to whether or not Stranahan's earlier behaviour (edit wars, misunderstanding of WP rules) have had an effect on other editors'/admins' opinions as to whether or not the legal documents should be included. --TM 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I believe the page should be unprotected under the condition that Stranahan and all other parties propose changes on the talk page, rather than continually modify the article and only giving short justifications in their edit summaries. --TM 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * is a single purpose account adding poorly sourced negative material (from blogs and other low grade or fan-edited sites) to increase the weight of criticism in an article. This was the subject of a complaint on the admin noticeboard; Stranahan (then anon) was repeatedly adding a blog so I semiprotected the article; this was my first visit to the article ever.  Stranahan is still there and still promoting blogs as sources for criticism, as far as I can tell - as you see, this is not Stranahan vs. JzG, it's Stranahan vs. all comers.  That's about it, really.  Guy (Help!) 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that summary is a fair accounting. The only thing I'd add to it that the real edit war part was extremely short - the reverts all took place in the course of an hour, I think. I've made all sorts of minor edits over the years to Wikipedia, but had never had any kind of trouble. As soon as I understood what the reverts were about, I stopped doing it and everything else was discussion. As far I know, discussion is not an edit war. The history shows this pretty clear and it's reflected in the summary for the most part.


 * JzG's comments show his bad faith bias that is the source of my complaint. It's bad faith to state that I'm a single purpose account and completely untrue. I didn't add one single bit of 'poorly sourced negative material' - the reference to my site was already there, posted by someone else. The only cite I added was to legal documents. If the other cites in that section were bad, it wasn't my fault; I didn't add them. I'm not still 'promoting blogs' - I'm trying to figure out how the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia work. And his final statement that it's 'me vs. all comers' borders on personal attack.


 * It's also clear that the semi-protection was aimed solely at me. A number of people said 'Just cite stuff - it'll be fine.' but I had a feeling that I'd pissed off the admins and that no matter what I posted, there'd be trouble. So I cited the most objective thing I could think of - direct quotes from a legal document. And of - JzG swatted me down to prove he could.


 * Additionally, JzG refuses to engage in discussion. I have repeatedly asked for Truce in order to properly expand the section. No response. He erases my comments from his talk page. From everything I have read about how Wikipedia suggests dealing with conflict and newcomers, JzG especially and other admins in general have completely done the opposite of what is suggested. If I were a mere vandal, I would not have argued or tried to understand. The reason I've argued is because I'm a fan of Wikipedia and the gross ignorance of the ideas behind it - good faith, there are no rules - has frankly baffled me. LeeStranahan 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Seicer

 * Regarding the citations,
 * 1. First citation is commentary on a blog and is considered original research, which is not acceptable.
 * 2. Second citation needs a third-party, verifiable source that does not fail what was incorrect in source #1 and #3.
 * 3. Third citation fails just like the first. If you note the ending line, it is a blog, a column, and is considered original research.
 * So please, do some checking up and follow advice. It's not acceptable to point fingers, accuse administrators (and other editors) of nonsense, when it is up to you to provide a burden of proof for the citations. And a user is allowed to delete comments on talk pages as he pleases.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did I make all of those cites? Do some checking up on that before you point your finger at me. And why not just remove the bad cites and put a (CITE NEEDED) up? Why delete and protect? LeeStranahan (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You continuously reinsert the invalid citations. To note, per WP:CITE, it is in bad form to insert factually incorrect statements or statements with no citations, and then apply a "citation needed" tag.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop your baseless accusations. Name one single invalid cite that I made. 1) I didn't make the cite to my site - the only reason I 'reinserted' it is because the WHOLE SECTION was being deleted and it seems like a pain in the ass to put everything back. 2) My legal papers cite IS valid, you're just complaining that it's a problem because of the invalidity of the other cites (which I had nothing to do with, at all).


 * Second - I'm not saying to POST something with Cite Needed - I'm saying it's less disruptive to pull down the invalid cites and ask for a new cite. Or better yet - take the two frickin' minutes it would take to find a cite that meets your standards and post THAT. You see - that would actually make the article BETTER


 * As it stands, all of your rule quoting and admin gamesmanship have made the article worse. None of you have added a damn thing. That's NOT what Wikipedia is about. You're so into the RULES you don't care about the ARTICLE. But you could have both - you just choose rules over the article, which is why you delete and protect but not research, fix and add. Appalling. LeeStranahan (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please be more civil in your comments?
 * As for your first statement, please note that in the first sentence of my prior reply, I did not state that you "made" any invalid citations; just that you continuously revert war and insert them back, despite the fact they are disputed. Your legal papers, as previously stated and by other users, is not valid for reasons already given out several times.
 * If you cannot bear to cite significant portions of text, then it is best to not insert them at all. You have the burden of proof to verify this information, not other editors.
 * So, outside of that, how would you improve the article?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I continously do that? Or I did that 2 or 3 times in the course of an hour, about a week ago? Because you say stuff like that - doesn't make me feel civil, really. LeeStranahan (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lee, how can the current article be improved? Addhoc (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Addhoc, thanks for taking this job on. Can't be fun. Before I answer that, your straightforward reminded me of I am so frustrated. I'm being treated in the most unwelcome way possible. All this time, I've been treated like a troll or vandal or something and it sucks. It really really sucks. No fun at all. And I'm powerless - I'm against admins who all stick together and lecture and can keep me from writing.


 * What I suggest - again - is a TRUCE on this stuff, so I can be allowed to write. I suggest that the 'delete first, don't ask questions ever' stuff stop. If people want to question a cite, they can - but I get the 'rules' now, so trust me it will be all newspapers.


 * Specifically, there are a couple of areas that are important and germain to the show related to lawsuit (all specifics are gone) and the related topic of the documented level of exceptional fakery on the show. These are areas of prime interest to fans of the show and they are very easy to cite.


 * As it is, I'm not willing to put in much work when I feel that people like JzG are out to get me and won't be reigned in by anybody. I don't need the hassle. LeeStranahan (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lee, relax. There isn't some "admin conspiracy" against you. And I would agree to the page being unprotected, if your source meets WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the context of Lee calling for a truce, I've unprotected the article. Addhoc (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)