Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Clinical Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Clinical psychology State: Open Requested By: EverSince Other Parties: EverSince, Psykhosis, Steve(?) Mediated By: .V. (talk • contribs) Comments: Open Case

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-02-19 Clinical Psychology 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Opening statement by Psykhosis 1.4.2 Main issue

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-02-19 Clinical Psychology

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: EverSince 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Clinical psychology talk page discussions

Who's involved?

Myself, Psykhosis, Steve

What's going on?

Question marks over appropriate scope and focus of article, including imagery. Several unnecessarily prolonged and unresolved exchanges involving myself and Psykhosis and also Steve and Psykhosis (separate discussions but partly overlapping in subject matter). Queries over sense of attempted "ownership" of the article and talk page, and associated difficulties editing or having comments moved about or reframed despite disagreement. Perhaps some improvement in this through a lot of effort, but I still basically feel the article has drifted from what should be its main focus and is giving a misleading impression of clinical psychology. Would rather have fresh input/mediation than bang head against brick wall or get into edit wars.

What would you like to change about that?

Would like additional opinions and suggestions, making sure no editor dominates things. Have tried asking for third opinion but the person who took the case decided it would probably be better as mediation (see 3rd op page and talk page). I thought I'd try informal first.

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

ever.since@yahoo.co.uk or, if any probs with email, my talk page is OK

[edit] Mediator response

• I'd like to mediate this case. I'm fairly experienced in the field of psychology, so I think this would be appropriate. I'll leave messages on the talk pages of all involved, however, there is a user named "Steve" that is listed that does not appear to have any edits other than one on Meteorology. I'd also like to ask the parties if they'd like to have this issue mediated here, or in a more immediate setting such as IRC or any other instant messaging client. .V. _[Talk|Email] 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I should have clarified that Steve is User:SteveWolfer. I think setting out the issues clearly on the talk page or here would be best first. I could use IRC although there would probably be time zone issues. Thanks EverSince 12:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening statement by Psykhosis

EverSince started out with general, somewhat vague disagreements about certain aspects of the article. Although he insinuated bad faith on my part a few times, the debate was mostly polite and respectful. I stand by every statement on that page, including those made to Steve, as being reasonable, respectful, and grounded in Wikipedia standards. I told him on multiple occasions (as anyone can read on the talk page) that he is welcome to offer specific suggestions or make edits regarding what he would like to see. The last occasion for this was five weeks ago, when I created a simple model for him to outline his proposed changes (since he seemed to want to talk about them before making any edits). After five weeks, no suggestions were made and no third party comments were offered.

I join this mediation on the same grounds as on the talk page...if EverSince wants my agreement to delete large chunks of information, he will have to make a compelling case, since everything in the article strongly reflects the clinical psychology literature. He is certainly welcome to add information based in the literature. If he wants my agreement to change or delete images, he will have to (a) give a reason why the images are not relevant to the article, (b) explain why the images do not illustrate their respective sections well, and (c) offer available replacement images that serve (a) and (b) better, since Wikistyle asks for articles to be fully illustrated wherever possible. As an aside, I have reminded him more than once that he is welcome to add other images to those already there.

To be clear, EverSince does not need my approval for any of these things...I do not "own" this article. However, he seems to want my agreement to certain changes, so I'm willing to discuss them. The paragraph above merely outlines my own standards. Psykhosis 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If this process isn't guided/structured by the mediator, I don't think it's going to help. Please can we both respect that and both assume good faith, as the 3rd opinion person said we both needed to, and not go into who 'started it' either I suppose.

It was my understanding that Psykhosis was actively objecting to changes I wanted to make, including the moving of some content to other closely related pages. Unless this is no longer the case, we need help from mediation to resolve the dispute. EverSince 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EverSince, to make this dispute clearer, what do you consider to be the most important issue facing this article? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main issue

The article's focus, particularly in relation to psychotherapy. Currently it has a section on the history of psychotherapy, in addition to one on the history of clinical psychology; a section on psychotherapy itself, with a significant amount of the same kind of related history or generalized issues; and imagery and info on historical figures related most directly to psychotherapy (including in another section "major influences"). I feel that, if considering what's best for several related Wikipedia pages as well as just building up this page, some of this content should probably be moved (and could be replaced with other content). There is a related issue of whether a broad or strict definition of clinical psychology is being used, and I think both need to be, in accordance with the usage of the term.

Can I clarify if it's been agreed to hold this process on this page? I wonder whether, if guided by mediation and with others invited and allowed space to join in, holding it on the talk page would enable a broader consensus on this issue. Previous discussions there have seemed to all be separate one on ones EverSince 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this is the page to do it, but I'd be fine with having this mediation on the talk page as well. Is everyone alright with that? .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Psykhosis has decided not to participate, here or there. Hopefully the issue can now be resolved in a non-dispute context, although perhaps a mediating eye could be kept on things for a while given the atmosphere that may have been created around it. Thank you for taking up the case. EverSince 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too early to close it (hasn't even been a week yet), but I'll keep an eye on things. Psykhosis may just not have logged in since then. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by what he's been saying, see article's talk page. EverSince 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Mediation requires all parties to voluntarily participate, and if one party is retiring from the article, I'm not sure if this mediation serves any purpose. I think it would be a good idea to leave it open for a little while just to be sure, but I will make sure to keep a mediating eye on the talk page. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)