Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman
Article	Joe Lieberman
Status	Closed
Requestor	Smedley Hirkum
Parties	User:LionO User:Stephenzhu User:SandyGeorgia
Mediator(s)	Fishhead64
Comment	Last activity: 5 Aug 2006

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Discussion of LionO as possible staffer

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Smedley Hirkum 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Joe Lieberman.

Who's involved?

User:LionO, User:Stephenzhu, User:SandyGeorgia and me.

What's going on?

Stephenzhu charges that LionO is trying to make the article pro-Lieberman, while LionO charges that Stephenzhu is trying to make it anti-Lieberman.

1. . LionO would like to spend only one sentence on Lieberman's vote supporting Jesse Helms' bill banning funds to schools that provide "gay-sensitive counseling." Stephenzhu would like to spend a few sentences on it and include a sentence about how Lieberman voted for prohibiting HIV-positive immigrants from entering the United States and against a measure to grant domestic-partner benefits to District of Columbia employees.

1. . LionO prohibits the use of facts whose cited sources are secondary. When either me or stephenzhu tried to add information about a bill Lieberman voted on, LionO insists we must use the senate voting records (which are very hard to search through) and not articles from newspapers, magazines, or opinion columns. I don't believe there is a Wikipedia policy stating this, so I just want to clarify.

I hope I am allowed to add to this. Please note that I don't think the above sums up my complaint, and I hope that when the mediator arrives, I will be allowed to give my side. LionO 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on most of the content disputes, just trying to clean up the page along with Smedley. There has been some edit warring, which along with vandalism, makes it very hard to work on the article. Smedley and I have been trying to encourage a consensual process. Sandy 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I think by adding a Criticism section to the article, we could help portray some people's problems with Lieberman and why he is faced with such a contested primary. Me, LionO, and Sandy agree on this. (Stephenzhu has not expressed an opinion.) About this though--LionO wants the criticism page on the 2006 CT senate race article, while me and Sandy want it on the Lieberman page. This is because the same criticisms of Joe Lieberman have existed before the primary and will exist after the primary too.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I don't. You can post on my talk page or however you normally do these things.

[edit] Mediator response

Hello all - I'm volunteering to mediate this case. As a Canadian, I don't have any particular opinion on the makeup of the United States Senate or Senator Lieberman. A couple of initial thoughts:

• Reviewing the pages of other senators, one sees a range of detail, from the cursory (e.g., Mark Pryor) to the exhaustive, such as the present article. Some bios are relatively adulatory (e.g., Barbara Boxer), others more critical (e.g., Ted Stevens). Some focus on discrete issues (e.g., Robert Byrd), while others take a more comprehensive approach (e.g., Maria Cantwell). There is no right way of doing it.
• However, editors should familiarise themselves with WP:BLP and WP:RS. With respect to the former, verifiability, NPOV, and sourcing are keystones. Of course critical material can be included - and in the case of an elected public official, one would scarcely expect otherwise. As WP:BLP states: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Reputable news organisations are reliable sources (see WP:RS), and their use in articles as references is standard. We can't hold Mr. Lieberman to different standards than those to which we hold other elected officials. I am going to suggest a rigorous level of citation in this article.
• With respect to the level of detail concerning certain votes, I am going to suggest that contentious issues be hammered out on the talk page. By and large, brevity is better than prolixity, and a record of the vote should in most cases be sufficient. If Lieberman's explanation for his position is offered, any defence can appropriately be balanced by a criticism from a reputable source, in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. But again, there is no need to engage in a lengthy exhortation. That's what references are for. I suggest that the parties pledge to abide by this guideline.
• With respect to the identity of users, to my knowledge, WP doesn't prohibit the editorial contributions of anyone, but see WP:AUTO. What is of concern here is content, and it should not be surprising that editors might have a stake in the content of certain articles, either as employees or partisans. WP:AUTO already cites the other guidelines mentioned here, and all editors must be vigilant to ensure those factors stay in place. I suggest that editors refrain from focusing on identity and focus instead on content.
• Please add your views of my analysis and suggestions to the discussion section below. Fishhead64 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! One more issue. With regard to the 2006 Connecticut primary and election, please see Ned Lamont. In comparing the two pages, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 seems to be more of a survey page of the campaign, focusing on endorsements. Lamont's page dwells heavily on what has occurred in the campaign itself. Is there any reason why the two candidates should be treated differently? Or is it the opinion of editors that any and all 2006 election info. be moved to the article on the election? That doesn't seem to be the case with similar senatorial election campaigns, which currently read much as the Connecticut one does. Fishhead64 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Case seems to be dead. Closing. --Ideogram 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Discussion of LionO as possible staffer

I'm kind of a wikipedia newbie, and perhaps this is not an appropriate thing to ask, but I would like to see LionO's IP info. By his edit log, I strongly suspect that he is a Lieberman staffer. Please note, I am not affiliated with any of the parties in this dispute, but I do support Lamont in the primary. I was just curious about what appears to me as an attempt to play down negative aspects of Lieberman's political history and the emphasis on Lamont's wealth in his section in the article. --Wezelboy 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having followed LionO's posts, I think that request is very far-fetched. I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any Lieberman staffers are at work on this article – on the contrary, if they were, we might have a better indication of his positions on the issues. You should also be aware that, unless you have some concrete reason for stating your suspicions, they could be a violation of WP:BLP. Sandy 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no idea of the appropriateness of my request. However, an account created on June 29th with the sole purpose of editing Joe Lieberman's article (and spending considerable time doing it) seems to me a little strange. That is my only basis of suspicion and I realize that it is dubious at best. There are parts of the article as it stands that are clearly not neutral. The first sentences of the Ned Lamont section are a clear attempt to emphasize Lamont's personal wealth, which is has been a major component of Lieberman's campaign strategy. That section could probably be deleted entirely.--Wezelboy 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we know if LionO is a Lieberman staffer? probably we will never able to tell. But if you follow every diff he has made since his account's creation on June 29th, [1]

Evidence: LIonO has never made a single addition which is neutral or critical of Lieberman. He repeated deleted materials which is critical of Lieberman, calling the source suspect. He never once suspected the sources which is favorable to Lieberman. For example, I add Liberman's sponsorship on Clean Air Act (CAA), which is favorable to Lieberman on environment. LIonO retained it. I also added Lieberman's calling Clinton and Gore using the White House as "marketing tools", which is critical of Lieberman. LionO deleted the sentence.

I also uncovered several inaccuracy in the original page which I suspect inserted by LionO. For example, the old article mentioned Lieberman as a "Freedom Rider", I uncovered a source (San Diego Union) which disproved that designation. The old article mentioned that Lieberman got 100% rating from NARAL, I uncovered that is some old data. All the current congressional voting record on this page with accurate citations are researched and provided by my editing. I also wrote a new section on Defense which is systematically deleted by LionO. In all, I have made substantial contribution to the page, including neutral (early life, personal life, religion, israel, free trade, voting records), favorable (environment, senate tenure, early life, israel), critical (gay rights, health care and reproductive rights, vp campagin, presi. campaign, etc).

I think that Lieberman staffer suggestion of is at least plausible. I recall the story of Al Gore's parody video on Youtube, without IP address, we can never know the so called 29 year old CA computer professional is working for Exxon. [2]

As for me, I am not affiliated with any political party or any political organization. I have never voted in any congressional and presidential race and I don't intent to do so in the future. I don't reside in CT. My IP should shall indicate that I am from an academic institution in MA.

Finally, please check [3] as the last version I provided and please make your own judgement--Stephenzhu 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Stephenzhu 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is in violation of assuming good faith, but my first suspicion was that LionO was a Lieberman staffer as well. If this can be investigated, I suggest that we do. Before I arrived, the article was much more pro-Lieberman--whole sections were lifted from his website. Stephenzhu and myself had to fight tooth and nail to make it more neutral. --Smedley Hirkum 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's move this discussion to the Lieberman talk page. That's what the message at the top says we should do. --Smedley Hirkum 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are comments on the Lieberman talk page, about flimsy allegations with no proof that are damaging to Lieberman, they will need to be deleted under WP:BLP. Perhaps I'm not following the edits closely enough, but I don't get a sense at all of the concerns you all have. At any rate, if you think you have enough evidence, request for check user is the place to take it. Personally, I think there is no case, and the same statements could be made about Stephenzhu and Wezelboy, and legions of other users. Sandy 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Stephenzhu, you wrote: All the current congressional voting record on this page with accurate citations are researched and provided by my editing. This is why I think you all are off track: if LionO were a staffer, wouldn't he have a better handle on Liberman's voting record? Sandy 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone with enough time and clicking skills can find the congressional record. The only reason I think LionO didn't do it is that, he doesn't want the voting record up there, which may be accurate proof of Lieberman's mixed record. For example, will he try to find the accurate voting record that Lieberman voted on Helms amendment? Since he insisted, I have to put in the time to find it. I am telling you that is not easy. I still cannot find the DC domestic partner bill. These bills are routinely renewed every year and hard to locate. He never disputed a record which is favorable to Lieberman, such as Clean Air Act which I didn't provide a voting record either. --Stephenzhu 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request for check user was quickly denied, so I deleted your allegatoins from the talk page, per WP:BLP. Why do you think Lieberman would want to hide his voting record? Sandy 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman can't really hide his voting record as much as obfuscate it, which is what I believe LionO is trying to do with this article. The bankruptcy bill, cloture on Alito (and an explaination of why that vote was more important than the floor vote), and many others are good reasons why he would want his voting record to be misunderstood. Lieberman's voting record is more conservative on key issues than most Democrats, but he is in a race where he desperately needs to portray himself as less conservative than his voting record indicates. The idea that a staffer would be able to provide more clarity vis a vis Lieberman's voting record is not really apt.--Wezelboy 00:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree with your analysis, but if someone would put LionO's version and Stephezhu's versions side by side on the talk page, it sure would lend some clarity to this mess. First, I can't understand Stephen's version because of copy edit issues, and second, I'm not sure exactly where LionO differs. Sandy 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)