Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-29/McMartin preschool trial

Where's the dispute?
The dispute rests in the article "McMartin Preschool Trial" and refers to claims made by children that they witnessed animal mutilations, the severing of a rabbit's ears, and ceremonies performed by people in black robes. I added information under the section "Bizarre Allegations" with proper sourcing for the claims, and then proceeded to note that the claims had been verified by police in a search of a suspect's home. I sourced the evidence for this, as well.

What's the dispute?
A Mr. Arthur Rubin deleted my information just minutes after I had added it and accused me of being a "sock puppet." I declined to respond to his accusation and replaced my information on the page. Mr. Rubin then tagged each of my sources with "verification needed" and called my neutrality into question. He further claimed that the New York Times articles that I had cited did not exist in an online archive, and that he could not verify the San Francisco Chronicle article. When I defended my sources, said he would check his archive again for the New York Times articles I cited, but never removed his "verification needed" tag. When I argued that my San Francisco Chronicle article was indeed valid, he suggested that the article might be an opinion piece rather than a "real" article. When I then provided a factual quote from the article stating that black candles, a black cloak, and a pair of rabbit ears had been found, he deleted my information altogether. User "WLU" claimed that my information was supported by "undue weight" and went so far as to claim that perhaps the rabbit ears referred to were actually television antennas!

I believe my information is more than adequately sourced, and I hereby request comment from a neutral third party.

Wheresthekat (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat
 * Check the page history, User:Arthur Rubin challenged your statement with the very sensible question of sockpuppeting given User:ResearchEditor's propensity for socks. He then engaged in a dialogue on the talk page, as did I, who removed the statements per undue weight.  User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has not engaged on the page at all, and this may be better resolved through a request for comment than mediation.  Both are premature right now anyway.  Please check who has said what.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I acknowledge that I have falsely accused Richard Arthur Norton of having deleted my contributions. I have edited my statements to include the correct names of Arthur Rubin and "WLU" and apologize to Mr. Norton, if he is watching this page. However, I do not retract my request for comment insofar as it is my belief that my contribution is being unfairly suppressed in favor of a slanted view that gives no weight to the claims of the accusers and endeavors to portray all of their allegations as ridiculous and unfounded. Ridiculous? Necessarily. Unfounded? Not all of them, as my contribution demonstrates. Wheresthekat (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat
 * Note that wikipedia is meant to report what the contemporary, mainstream authorities think about topics, not what was reported twenty years ago in coverage that was criticized for being biased. We are bound to give due weight to the relevant experts - contemporary sources name it an iconic example of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.  We do not source everything that can be sourced, particularly not sources from the peak of the panic that have been supplanted and replaced by sources that have the benefit of hindsight.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the entire McMartin preschool episode was the result of hysteria and that the charges had absolutely no merit. The reader is free to believe this, too. I am simply stating that some of the allegations were corroborated by police investigations. Unless you are claiming that the San Francisco Chronicle was so biased that it faked a police report, then there is no reason to prevent my very short and factual contribution from appearing on the page. Readers should be presented with facts, no matter what prevailing viewpoint they support, and allowed to make their own conclusions. Wheresthekat (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat
 * See my reply on the talk page, this should not clutter up mediation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Hey there. I've picked up this case. Let's get started, shall we? Concrete 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If WTK shows up, mediation might be necessary. Their contributions have ceased since May 1.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Agree with WLU, that we only need to "start" the mediation if WTK (or someone else) shows up to support inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, since he appears to be a big part of the case. Concrete 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's the only reason there is a case, and I would venture it's inappropriate anyway - this could be much more easily solved with a WP:RFC since it is a single point and not a dispute about the whole page. I think there is only reason to keep this open if he responds to an acknowledgment.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has 48 hours. Concrete 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, derp. Thanks for showing up anyway. Concrete 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let everyone know, I did check this page every day for over a week, but when no one came to start mediation, I gave up. If I had been given a definite date on which to appear, I would certainly have shown up at that time.


 * It seems that Wikipedia articles are destined to be slanted in favor of the opinions of users who have the most time to sit and repeatedly check the same pages day after day. As a middle-class person with a job and my own responsibilities to attend to, I guess I am just not one of those favored few.Wheresthekat (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Wheresthekat