User:Vassyana/mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Steven Alan Hassan
State: Open
Requested By: John196920022001 (talk • contribs)
Other Parties: tilman (talk • contribs), Smee (talk • contribs)
Mediated By: Vassyana (talk • contribs)
Comments: Truce accepted. Sandbox drafts completed. Comparing differances between two versions of drafts for review. Asking for a compromise draft to be written.

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: John196920022001 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
... Steve Alan Hassan, Talk:Steven Hassan
Who's involved?
... User: tilman, User: john196920022001
What's going on?
...Tilman changes my RS citation because he personally thinks it is questionable, and my way of citing is propoganda (please see discussion). Persona attack against me and my citations. It got me to respond in kind there for a while. The personal attacks have got to stop
What would you like to change about that?
... Want the attacks on me to stop, and for Tilman to used Wikipedia policy when making changes, not personal opinion
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
... john196920022001@yahoo.com

[edit] Mediator response

Case reopened per requestor. Contacting involved users. Vassyana 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Requests made of participants. Subpages made for draft editing of disputed section. Hold requested on editing disputed section of article. Vassyana 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

I must strongly request the following:

  1. Assume good faith. Assumptions of bad faith will not lead to an agreeable solution. Please assume the other editors are acting in a good faith effort to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
  2. In this mediation, I must strongly urge all involved editors to read and adhere to WP:COOL and WP:NAM. They are not policies or guidelines, but are central principles to a succesful mediation.
  3. Please refrain from editing the section under dispute at the main article until this mediation is resolved.

Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truce

This is an active truce.

  1. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict.
  2. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia.
  3. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of the coverage of this mediation. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity.
  4. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor take the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and should try to be understanding of others, but also aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If an editor chronically engages in unacceptable behaviour, they may be reported as appropriate. Also, if another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.

[edit] Participants

  1. Accept. Smee 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  2. Accept John196920022001 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Accept --Tilman 05:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

John, please edit this draft version of the section in dispute. Please edit it to reflect how you would like the article to read.

Smee, please edit this other draft version of the disputed section. As with my above request, edit it to show how you would like the article to read. If you are satisfied with the current version, simply sign off as "Done" below.

Tilman, please edit this other draft version of the disputed section. As with my above request, edit it to show how you would like the article to read. If you are satisfied with the current version, simply sign off as "Done" below.

The point of this exercise is to clearly show what changes each side would like. Once we have both versions of the draft to compare to each other, it may be easier to find points of agreement and work out a compromise. Vassyana 12:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completed drafts

Please indicate below when you are finished working on your draft, so we can review it together and try to harmonize the two. Just sign your name with ~~~~ when it is done.

Proposal draft complete

  1. Done. --Tilman 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Done. --Smee 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
  3. Done. --John196920022001 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance of Mediation

Please indicate if you accept my assistance as an informal mediator:

  • Accept
  • Accept John196920022001 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept - Smee 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Accept --Tilman 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

First archive.
Second archive.

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Hello everyone! I am going out of town for a couple of days. I should be back early next week. If anything new arises, and I do not respond immediately, I will once I get back into town.Take care John196920022001 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Two participants approved the current version, with no changes. One participant, in draft, have proposed the following changes:

  • Hassan confirms that he took part in a number of involuntary deprogrammings in the late 1970s.
  • Hassan took part in a number of involuntary deprogrammings in the late 1970s.

Moderator comments: This seem to be a simple cleaning, making the sentance more concise.


  • Roselle agreed to listen.<ref>[http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/refuting/ ''Refuting the Disinformation Attacks Put Forth by Destructive Cults and their Agents''] <br>I acknowledge that I was involved with the Roselle deprogramming attempt in 1976. But I was never involved in violence of any kind. One main issue is that the family felt that they needed to secure him with a rope before I arrived at the neighbor's house. Skip had reportedly punched and bitten his father as well as friends of his from the football team who were very concerned about him. When I arrived and learned Skip was in the basement tied up and violent, I turned around to leave. it was his mother's tears and other family members who begged me to speak with him. I decided to go downstairs and with tears in my eyes, begged him to just listen to what I had to share with him and if he wanted to go back to the Moonies, he was free to do so. He agreed and we talked for days.</ref>
  • Roselle agreed to listen.<ref>[http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/refuting/roselle.htm ''Affidavit of Joanne Roselle'']</ref>

Moderator comments: This seems to be a fairly straightforward narrowing of the reference. I do not think this will be problematic for anyone.


  • Hassan states that he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before turning to less controversial methods (see exit counseling).<ref name="refuting"/> Hassan has spoken out against involuntary deprogramming since 1980.<ref>Mind Warrior. ''New Therapist'' 24, March/April 2003.</ref><ref name="refuting"/> He states that he has not participated in any deprogrammings since then. However, in Combatting Cult Mind Control, he states that deprogrammings can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.<ref>[[Combatting Cult Mind Control]]'', Steven Hassan, 1998, ISBN 0-8928124-3-5, p. 114</ref>
  • In Combatting Cult Mind Control Hassan stated, "I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach..." but later stated that " "[f]orcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail." John B. Brown of the "Pagan Unity Campaign" has criticized that statement saying that the passage is "indicating that Hassan might resort to a forcible intervention if all other attempts fail." <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/2006/sd_brown.htm Jehovah's Witnesses and the Anticult Movement: Human Rights Issues], John B. Brown, presented at CESNUR 2006 International Conference</ref>

Mediator comments: I think this change might be most contentious. Would someone be willing to work out a compromise text? Would someone like myself or an outside party to craft a compromise version?

Please let us know your thoughts on these differances. Vassyana 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-10 Beatport

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
State: Closed

Requested By: Xander Llewelyn (talk • contribs)
Mediated By: Vassyana (talk • contribs)
Comments: Requestor could not be reached. Closing case.

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-10 Beatport

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Xander Llewelyn 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatport
Who's involved?
Anonymous Beatport representative(s) and myself
What's going on?
Recent edits to the page have been carried out from a IP address with the Beatport.com domain. It is, of course, appropriate that Beatport should correct any factual errors on a page about themselves. However, Beatport representatives seem to be attempting to "airbrush history"...
In September 2006, Beatport introduced pricing changes that resulted in a price increase of approximately 75% for UK customer and 30% for EU customers. Not surprisingly, these proved very controversial. Some customers were caught out by this policy change (not realising the currency symbol had changed) and had to pay much more for their orders than they had expected. Other customers cannot understand why they should pay so much more - as Beatport doesn't have any shipping costs to worry about! A subset of these customers advocate using proxy servers to avoid Beatport's localisation. (More details on Beatport customer concerns at http://www.beatport.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=7255).
While the page does include Beatport's international costs in the right hand column, Beatport's edits have removed anything that was even slightly controversial from the main copy, claiming that the prices have simply been "localized" with customers "shown pricing in their respective currencies". This only tells part of the story, and I believe it distorts the truth.
Furthermore, the copy is starting to read like an ad for Beatport ("Beatport is recognized as the leader in online digital dance music") which is, of course, completely inappropriate.
Having had my edits removed by Beatport, I understand it would be against Wikipedia policy for me to put them back in. (Maybe a better approach would be to add a "controversy" paragraph instead?) I do not seem to be able to contact Beatport about this, as they seem to have made their edits anonymously. Hence, my turning to mediation...
What would you like to change about that?
Beatport's view is clearly biased. But I can accept that mine may be too. However, this controversy is real, and I believe it should be fairly described on the Beatport page. Maybe Beatport and I should be blocked from editing the page and an independent, unbiased third party (such as a mediator) should ensure that the facts are accurately portrayed, without allowing either side to "spin" them...
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
...

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Morgellons

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Morgellons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
State: Open
Requested By: Dyanega (talk • contribs)
Other Parties: Mukrkrgsj (talk • contribs)
Mediated By: vassyana (talk • contribs)
Comments: Participants engaged in discussion. Posing questions to help organize issues and move forward towards compromise.

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-96 Morgellons

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Dyanega 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?

Morgellons - a page already flagged as under dispute

Who's involved?

as per my note and discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, there appears to be someone in Germany, probably a scientsist at the European Southern Observatory, who has initiated an edit war using anonymous sock puppets (multiple IPs, mostly 80.140.xxx.xxx, and possibly again at 80.135.102.52). For the most part, the other party is myself, though others have undone his/her edits, as well.

RECENT ADDITION: A newer editor, Mukrkrgsj, in a series of comments added to the article's talk page starting on March 22, 2007, has made increasingly personal and accusatory remarks declaring that my editing of the article involved the deliberate introduction of personal bias on my part.

What's going on?

The former anonymous person has, for several weeks now, been constantly editing the introduction of the Morgellons page in such a way as to imply that the condition is real, and accepted as such. You can see in the history of their edits (from multiple IP addresses, originating either from the ESO HQ in Garching or from a nearby IP in Nuernberg) the systematic and deliberate removal of objective and/or attributable statements and rephrasing into POV versions in support of the recognition of Morgellons as a real disease - which is something the medical community has NOT yet accepted, and has quite vocally rejected, in fact, as of this date. I think that the Morgellons page is actually extremely important and timely - there are tens of thousands of people who, upon hearing about the "disease", immediately diagnosed themselves as having it, and are now clamoring for recognition of their claim to true (and NOVEL) physical illness - when all available evidence is that it is a catch-all for a number of known diseases, most commonly psychological. These people will never get the proper treatment if they are permitted to indulge the fantasy that they have some mysterious unknown ailment that science is baffled by. There needs to be at least ONE online resource that states the facts, plain and simple, and WP needs to be that sort of place. It is fine to admit that the "jury is out" in this case, pending a formal CDC report, but NOT to deny that there is no evidence on the pro-Morgellons side (other than that manufactured by the Morgellons Research Foundation), or to inform readers that so far no genuine medical experts have come forward to do anything besides denounce this as a non-disease. These are the facts, and there is no reason the WP article should be unable to state them, simply because this one editor objects.

The more recent editor has recently suggested altering the introduction of the article to remove sourced quotations, and to include the implication that the University of California is promoting that Morgellons patients should be given medication. This is false, irresponsible, and does not appear at all to be editing in good faith.

What would you like to change about that?

If it's only me telling the anonymous editor that this type of editing is inappropriate, he seems to ignore it, and I have limited patience with those who will not listen to reason - perhaps a few more voices and a stern warning or two might have an effect, though I rather suspect otherwise. It is likely that the editor in question himself/herself suffers from delusional parasitosis and, as such, has an immense vested psychological interest in maintaining that Morgellons is a real disease, because the alternative is that he suffers from a psychosis - and obviously very few people will ever willingly admit such a thing about themselves. A person in such a profound state of denial is a very dangerous thing to have editing a page that refers to the very condition they suffer from. Of course, they are never going to admit that they suffer from the condition, nor make their true identity known, so I anticipate that this editor may potentially be here for a long time, and I don't want to enter into an edit war, nor try to maintain the peace myself, nor shut the page down. SOME sort of intervention and backup is likely to be necessary, if my fears about this editor prove true. I suspect this editor is a veritable time bomb, and would like to see him defused rather than exploding. The latest edit originating from this editor's ISP is linked to Chemtrail theory, which suggests another explanation for their refusal to accept statements by medical professionals, but this is also a bit outside of rational discourse. Regardless of their motives, their actions in editing are hardly supportable, in my view, and while I do recognize that a biased editor is always capable of making unbiased edits, I do not believe that to be the case here.

The more recent editor seems at least willing to entertain a limited dialogue, but does not - to me - appear to acknowledge what a truly neutral POV is. If the article can be summarized as "The medical community believes X, public health officials believe X, and those who have the condition believe Y, as do the people who named the condition" then that is a neutral summary, and is how I had edited it, with quotations to back it all up. A third-party mediation can hopefully serve to set things straight - whether I am the one who is mistaken, or they are. However, the tone of the suggested revised introduction, and the tone of the personal attacks, strikes me as a tone of personal resentment, rather than objective disagreement. If this editor considers statements that the medical community believes Morgellons is a mental illness to be personally offensive, then they are not likely to agree about what is or is not objective. I have no personal or professional stake in the matter; ultimately, my fundamental concern is that edits that I have been making in good faith are being undone, in ways and for reasons that are at odds with the goals and policies of WP.

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

As for the anonymous editor, I defer to the opinions and sensibility of those who have experience in such matters (and I will set THIS page on my watchlist); I'm sure that there are many such intelligent but psychologically-driven editors out there, trying to change a great many pages to reflect their own private phobias and neuroses, and undermining the efforts of others to legitimately inform the public rather than sensationalizing things needlessly, or pandering to the gullible. I have encountered similar problems when dealing with pages that mention urban legends or cryptids - someone who adamantly refuses to abandon their belief in something which is patently and demonstrably untrue, and insists that allowing a WP article to state "all available evidence indicates that X is NOT true" is somehow a violation of NPOV.

In the latter case, I am more hopeful that an appeal to reason will be sufficient to defuse the issue.

[edit] Mediator response

Case adopted. Vassyana 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion time allowed. Archived discussion. Posed questions to participants to move forward. Vassyana 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance

Please indicate if you accept my assistance as mediator: Accept - I accept Dyanega 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.


Initial debate, archived.

[edit] Questions

OK I think we have a good idea of people's positions on the general issue, which is good. I want to ask a few questions about things. This way I can get a better idea of some things and we can try to work forward towards a compromise. Please answer all the questions with the assumption of good faith on the other side and address the content not the other editors. Please keep all answers short. Vassyana 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. What do you see as the biggest inaccuracy in the current article?
  2. What do you think is most lacking from the current article?
  3. What do you believe needs to be presented most in the article?
  4. Is the article prone to point of view flaws? If so, what are they?
Please answer below.

[edit] Question 1: Article inaccuracy

Mukrkrgsj

Some of the major inaccuracies in the article are that it does not correctly describe the medical condition known as Morgellons; claims it does not exist; equates it with "delusional parasitosis"; claims it is a neurosis or psychosis, which should be treated with antipsychotic medications; and suggests that the MRF is corrupt.

Dyanega

The article quite plainly does NOT state that Morgellons does not exist. It states that the medical and scientific communities have concluded that (1) Morgellons does not exist (with citations), and (2) that it represents many different known ailments, of which delusional parasitosis is the most prominent (also with citations). It does NOT say that it SHOULD be treated with antipsychotic medications - what it says is that it HAS been treated, succesfully, with antipsychotic medications, and gives a citation. It does not suggest that the MRF is corrupt, it points out that the MRF has a conflict of interest. That is the difference between an encyclopedia and an opinion page; a rather large distinction, which seems to be missed here.

Further, how does one "correctly describe the medical condition known as Morgellons" when the medical community does not accept the condition, nor recognize a formal diagnosis? The answer is that one presents the description given by the patients themselves, which is indeed what the article does.

[edit] Question 2: Article shortcomings

Mukrkrgsj

The article lacks honesty, objectivity, and fairness. In terms of the facts, it lacks accurate and unbiased descriptions of the condition itself, and the MRF.

Dyanega

Obviously, I disagree with this assessment. I do not believe that Mukrkrgsj understands what WP:COI and WP:SPS actually mean, nor understands that ANY description of Morgellons that comes from the MRF or one of its sponsored researchers is in violation of both policies. Further, the article DOES in fact include the verbatim description of the condition itself as given by the MRF! It is not an unbiased description (nor is the aforementioned listing of self-reported symptoms given by Morgellons sufferers), and yet I have not removed it, though WP policy would support such a thing, primarily so that editors would NOT be able to accuse the article of unfairness, as Mukrkrgsj is doing.

[edit] Question 3: Article presentation

Mukrkrgsj

All this article needs to do, is accurately and objectively describe the medical condition; explain that the MRF is a research and support group for those who have it, or think they might; acknowledge that some dermatologists and entomologists think it's psychosomatic; and note that the CDC may study it this year.

Dyanega

Unless we are reading different articles entirely, I see all of those points already covered in the article. Further, it is not "some" dermatologists - it is EVERY dermatologist who has published a paper on Morgellons in the last 10 years, and they have not stated that ALL cases of Morgellons are psychosomatic illnesses (in some cases, it is allergies, or scabies, or lice, etc.). I have said it before, and I will reiterate: if you can find a published citation from an independent dermatologist (not affiliated with the MRF or another Morgellons organization) that supports the recognition of Morgellons as a distinct ailment, then you are welcome to include the citation in the article, and I promise I will not remove it. If the article appears unbalanced to you, it is because the only reliable sources (in WP's sense of the term) are on one side of the debate. It is NOT the job of an editor to try to enforce an artificial balance by either fabricating support where none exists, or by sabotaging the case that exists for the side that DOES have support (as in your suggested amendment to the introduction, where you proposed to eliminate all of the sourced quotations from medical professionals). Trimming the article down to virtually nothing, as apparently proposed, would be a major step backwards, and a disservice to all the readers, especially those who might believe themselves to be suffering from this condition. When all the cards are laid on the table, then - yes - one side will normally have a visibly stronger hand; I do not agree that the best approach is to conceal the cards, so I opt for full disclosure.

[edit] Question 4: Point of view

Mukrkrgsj

As I noted under Question 1, the current article claims Morgellons does not exist, equates it with "delusional parasitosis", claims those who have it are neurotic or psychotic, and suggests the MRF is corrupt. The article is poorly written and incoherent, but it clearly expresses and endorses a single point of view: that of those dermatologists and entomologists who think the condition is psychosomatic.

Dyanega

This assessment is plainly, visibly wrong, as noted under Question 1. This editor's point of view seems to be that the opinions of the medical and scientific community are unacceptable and unreliable, and that the only people with an unbiased view of the condition are those who suffer from it or profit from it. I see very little difference between the arguments presented here from those in the debate over the Church of Scientology article and its associated articles; the CoS proposes (among other things) that people are suffering because of body thetans, and that the Church is doing research and has treatments that can eliminate this suffering, by soliciting money as a non-profit organization. The same organization that has unilaterally defined the ailment (body thetans) has also stated that they hold the cure for it (Scientology), despite strong disagreement from the medical and scientific communites. The conflict of interest in this case is rather obvious, and is not concealed from readers. The articles discussing this topic are therefore constant sources of contention, but the editors have WP maintain these articles well, and objectively - NOWHERE do these articles state that the CoS or its teachings are fraudulent, though it may certainly be easy for readers to draw that conclusion on their own. The Morgellons Research Foundation has also unilaterally defined an ailment, and claims to be doing research to help eliminate this suffering, by soliciting money as a non-profit organization, despite strong disagreement from the medical and scientific communites. This is also an obvious conflict of interest, and should not be concealed from the readers. The same stringent editorial policies apply to Morgellons as apply to Scientology or any other such case where one side of a debate is profiting from the promotion of their cause.

As a final note, I did not write the article; I am an editor, and I am striving to keep the article objective. I do not believe Mukrkrgsj understands or appreciates what that means. Dyanega 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/s/User%7EVassyana_mediation_dac1.html"