Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-20/Mark Yudof

Where is the dispute?
Dispute about POV and unsourced edits, potential 3rr

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Logical Cowboy
 * User:Scythian77

What is the dispute?
Scythian77 is repeatedly inserting material that Logical Cowboy is repeatedly deleting.

What would you like to change about this?
Give an opinion about what is POV and unsourced. Comment on potential for 3RR.

How do you think we can help?
Give a fresh opinion, interpret guidelines on POV and sources.

Mediator notes

 * I, Mike  moral  ♪♫, have opened his case.


 * Hello, I'm Mike  moral  ♪♫  and I am the mediator. I would like to have an opening statement from the two parties explaining what had happened. Relevant diffs should be included. Rememeber mediation is not absolute, but rather a suggestion. -- Mike  moral  ♪♫  22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a WP:3O from at Talk:Mark Yudof and may be used in this case. -- Mike  moral  ♪♫  23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This MedCab case is closed. Try WP:RFC first before bringing it back here. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * accepted mediation. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  22:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediator's first opinion
Upon looking at the article I have noted there is a WP:BLP violation, specifically when reverted 's compliance to Wikipedia policy. I also fail to see how in this revision Cowboy's edits were vandalism. In this revision, I would like to be pointed to a reliable source that states so. I suggest neither party edits the revert each other per WP:3RR, however, I have no power to make you do so. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mikemoral, this has already been resolved, and the quotes were from a now very recently dead Time Magazine link. Good luck with your WP:BLP, though. You won't get anywhere with it, since that is not exactly how Wikipedia operates. Reverting a unexplained and perhaps hostile deletion of text is actually considered good editing policy, even on living persons. The article still reads like an advertisement for this person as well, and that needs to be brought under scrutiny. After all, this individual is very controversial right now. I also do question your interest now that the issue is resolved, as that is highly unusual and unorthodox. Any thoughts? The Scythian 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, then why has LC filed a MedCab case? I assumed since your reversion of LC's edit was not re-reverted by you here that it was unresolved. I took this case because I saw no WP:COI nor did I even know of Yudof before taking the case. I notice the article POV-pushes slightly and perhaps could use a balanced out "Criticism" section to maintain WP:NPOV on a supposedly controversial figure in California. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "LC" appears to be a bully of sorts. Once a third opinion was brought in, I considered the case over. He chose to take this to the next level for no apparent reason. As far as I am concerned, this behavior is now wasting everyone's time. Threatening a WP:BLP against an editor is a serious matter, especially when the editor being accused of it did not include the original Time Magazine link(now dead), and that link originally had the quotes states in it. The article is about a controversial public figure that could be on the receiving end of two very different forms of POV edits. I will not be intimated by unscrupulous editors who may have an agenda, and think they can throw around threats to get what they want instead of simply opening a dialogue. That should be a concern for everyone here on Wikipedia. If you even bothered to go look at the articles edit history, it went from being an extremely minor "edit war," straight to here. Now, explain to me how often that happens, since I have only been editing Wikpedia since 2003...Oh, and now that I am looking ever it, I intended to remove the "noble" claim myself. It was the second section that was actually in the now dead Time Magazine Article. You see how "LC" could have avoided all this? The Scythian 00:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this case. From WP:3O to a Mediation Cabal case is a bit much, that I must agree with. I suggest to Logical Cowboy that xe try another form of WP:DR, perhaps WP:RFC. And Scythian77, try looking for a saved link at archive.org; the article is all positivity. Although I am unsure of any editor's agenda, I think that I am as neutral as I can be. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  00:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The Scythian 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)