| Revision as of 17:46, 14 June 2012 view sourceLord Roem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators10,811 edits →Perth wheel war: opening case← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:31, 14 June 2012 view source AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Sigmund Freud: decline as mathematically impossibleNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Sigmund Freud == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Hypoplectrus}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Polisher of Cobwebs}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Polisher_of_Cobwebs&diff=497266152&oldid=497153685 | |||
| *Diff. 2 | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sigmund_Freud | |||
| *Link 2 | |||
| === Statement by Hypoplectrus === | |||
| Misplaced Pages needs to deal formally with the very divisive and important topic of Sigmund Freud, whose ideas have many adherents and many harsh critics, a well known and longstanding controversy akin to the evolution controversy in its scale and the passions of its partisans. A very aggressive editor, ], has written a lead to the Freud article that gives undue weight to criticisms of Freud and underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience. It isn't an accurate reflection of the controversy, which is more justly reflected in the "Science" section in the body of the article. | |||
| ] refuses any alterations to the lead and has reverted all my edits. He refuses good faith discussion or compromise and is bullying and uncivil. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497167818 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497166629 | |||
| I reached out through recommended dispute resolution steps in the Talk pages, and I proposed a number of small changes that left the majority of his lead intact and restored some balance to the lead with reputable well-sourced material. He rejected them all with much hostility. | |||
| ] says openly in the Sigmund Freud Talk pages that a negative / critical view of Freud is the only correct one. His user page lists numerous articles he has created that rely exclusively on sources that roundly disparage Freud, biographies of Freud, and anybody who dares to find value in his work. | |||
| The "Freud Is Dead" / "Freud Is Not Dead" wars have been ongoing for a hundred years now, but ] does not acknowledge his partisanship and is determined to ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead. The page used to be rated a "good" page, but is no longer, and with good reason. ] and other Freud-bashers have made the Misplaced Pages entry on a very important figure biased, warped, and inaccurate. | |||
| The page ought to be defended from this editor and others that have inflexibly distorted the Freud legacy as partisans of the Freud wars. ] and those who agree with him have ample opportunity to vent their spleens in veiled form and quote all the Freud-bashers they want on the Freud page and in many other pages, but people who know and value Freud's work ought to have a say in characterizing Freud as well, no? I notice that Creationists are not allowed to deface the Darwin page lead in this way. | |||
| :@PhilKnight: Thanks for the advice, but alas, I think my just budding career as a Misplaced Pages editor has come to an end. Even if I had the time or was paid, I don't think I could endure what is required to prevail over the Kafkaesque machinery that has arisen here at Misplaced Pages. The result of this system is that he with the most spare time or with the biggest lunatic obsession with fighting these petty battles owns the truth. A pity.] (]) 02:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Moved this comment from the voting section and appended <code>@PhilKnight</code> to retain the context. ] ]] 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :@Polisher of Cobwebs. This dispute is not run of the mill because it is about Sigmund Freud, one of the most influential and controversial figures of the twentieth century. It is not run of the mill because a dispute regarding Freud is more than an accidental contretemps between individuals with dissimilar views; disputes regarding Freud belong to a hundred years' war of ideologies with at least two significant camps, much like the evolution controversy. There is no way Misplaced Pages can hope to have a neutral article about Freud without some layers of protection against uncompromising partisan activists like Polisher of Cobwebs who denies with ferocity that the lead mention Freud's continuing influence on psychiatry, even when Nobel-prize-winning neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel said Freud's theories "remain the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind" in a 1999 review of the state of psychiatry and mind science in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Kandel ER., “Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited.” American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156(4):505-24. (Polisher of Cobwebs suggests on the Talk pages that Kandel's opinion--which is only one of many that could be brought out in support of Freud's lasting influence on psychiatry--is only relevant because I "happen to like him," as did the Nobel committee, I might add, as well as every medical school in the United States, virtually all of whom have used Kandel's classic neuroscience text for the last two decades.)] (]) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Polisher of Cobwebs === | |||
| This is a run of the mill content dispute that does not need an arbitration case. Hypoplectrus' comments about it are not accurate: the lead of the article on Freud does not "underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience", because it does not mention psychiatry or neuroscience. Not mentioning these subjects is not the same as saying that Freud is not important to them. It is not true that I have tried to "ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead" - the lead states that some researchers believe their work provides support for some of Freud's theories, and I was the editor who added that. Finally, it is not true that I have reverted all of Hypoplectrus' edits. Those interested enough in this tiff to care can check that through the article's revision history. ] (]) 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Bus stop === | |||
| In my opinion User:Polisher of Cobwebs is too controlling at the ] article. I disapprove of this kind of language: That is too confrontational. I want to see what User:Hypoplectrus wants to add to the lead from the views of Eric Kandel. More than that, I would like to see User:Hypoplectrus' influence on the article more broadly. Most of what User:Hypoplectrus says on the Talk page sounds sensible to me. I approve of what I see User:Hypoplectrus trying to bring to the article. It is not that User:Polisher of Cobwebs will be rendered superfluous by allowing for a more collaborative process that allows User:Hypoplectrus constructive input. I think the degree of resistance to normal collaborative editing displayed by User:Polisher of Cobwebs is unreasonable, especially given the wide range of material and opinions and commentary applying to this topic. ] (]) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === An offer from Orderinchaos === | |||
| Perhaps rather than a formal dispute resolution mechanism it just needs someone who's completely uninvolved to mediate the situation. If parties were in agreement, I think the way forward would be to protect the article (I'd hope "informal agreement not to edit the lead until discussions are concluded" would be possible as an alternative), have each person put their case for what it should be and why, and then figure out what the differences are, whether they're major or minor and can be resolved, get some others to offer their thoughts, then edit the final version in accordingly. I've seen this approach work before where the number of disputants is low. I'm not an expert in the field although I've done first year psychology and have access to a university library and online academic materials. ] 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Reading the discussion at the talk page carefully, I think the problem is in part that the article has come to be "owned" by one individual with strong views. Some of those views are sound and well-justified, others are less sustainable, especially in areas where there is controversy or vagueness in the source materials. The problem is that the tone of the discussion (words like "I reject..." - this is a community encyclopaedia) is trenchantly negative towards anyone with a different view. ] 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) === | |||
| *Hypoplectrus, for "previous steps in dispute resolution", you've only provided a link to ] - is there a particular section where an attempt has been made to resolve this dispute? Furthermore, have any other steps listed at ] been attempted, including requesting a ], opening a ], or raising the issue at a relevant noticeboard? Arbitration is the absolute last step in dispute resolution, and the Committee will generally decline to hear cases unless those steps have been tried and failed to resolve the issue. I don't see that this is the case here, so pending further clarification I'm voting to '''decline''' this request and recommend you seek one of those other venues. If you need assistance, please feel free to ask myself or one of the clerks and we'll point you in the right direction. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Hersfold. ] 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at ] - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is ], and if there are more serious problems you could try either a ] or ]. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try ], and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a ]. If after the earlier stages in the dispute resolution process have been attempted, we could look again at whether arbitration was required. ] (]) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' per Phil and Hersfold. Hypoplectrus, I encourage you to take a break from this dispute if it is causing you stress. There are numerous venues for resolving Misplaced Pages disputes, and one ''will'' resolve your concerns; arbitration is simply not one such venue. Essays such as ] touch on the subject of the temporary withdrawal from a dispute for the purpose of regaining perspective, and may be worthy of perusal. ] ]] 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' - the discussion on the talkpage is still ongoing, and no other dispute resolution has yet been tried. Given the popularity and importance of this topic, it does concern me that there is some edit warring taking place on the article, and a strong discussion taking place regarding content, yet so few people are helping out. There are over 1,000 users watching the article. Perhaps some of them could assist? If not, try asking someone at ] to co-ordinate the talkpage discussion, and perhaps lock down the article page to ensure stability of one of our high-profile articles until some consensus has been reached. ''']''' ''']''' 12:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per the above. Acceptance is now mathematically impossible and this request can be closed at a clerk's convenience, with appropriate notification to the filing party. ] (]) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 21:31, 14 June 2012
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.