Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Pending: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:13, 12 March 2014 view sourceArcticocean (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,354 editsm →Open requests: added link← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:15, 12 March 2014 view source MediationBot (talk \| contribs)5,654 edits Updating pending case list, 4 listed. Errors? User:MediationBot/shutoff/MedComClerk Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	\|}		\|}
	<!--MEDBOT-Do-Not-Remove-Or-Change-This-Line-->		<!--MEDBOT-Do-Not-Remove-Or-Change-This-Line-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/~~Legitimacy of the RfC on naming pending at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (~~Football in Australia)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Football in Australia}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Garage sale}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Garage sale}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Daniel Amen}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Daniel Amen}}

Revision as of 23:15, 12 March 2014

Open requests

New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot. The bot runs hourly .

Please don't list your case by hand; instead use Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/File. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.)

Request for mediation concerning Football in Australia
Football in Australia The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below. Editors involved in this dispute Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs) – filing party (on behalf of) John (talk · contribs) Articles affected by this dispute Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Australian_sport_naming_rules.3B_please_review_this_process_and_my_block_of_Macktheknifeau Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Soccer_in_Australia Issues to be mediated What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted. Primary issues (added by the filing party) Is the pending RFC legitimate insofar as it seeks to bind the entire Misplaced Pages community so as to prevent certain edits until a future point in time (31 August 2015)? Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1- Can such a legitimacy question posed directly to the participating community? Per WP:RFC section on ending RFC's, Participants can choose to close an RFC and it can be closed by moving it to another dispute resolution forum. This leads me to ask two following questions as well: Can a question of moving to another venue be posed to the participating community? Can a question of closure be posed directly to the community?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion. ~~Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)~~ I'm going to back out. If John would like to bring this here himself I'd be happy to change this position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here. I have filed this request on behalf of the filing party (without his knowledge, so his consent will also be needed) due to the importance of the nature of the question to the community as a whole. Though the RfC is itself a pending dispute resolution process which would ordinarily prevent the acceptance of this case, this request goes to the legitimacy of that RFC so is not precluded by it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (committee member) John has objected at my user talk page that "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content" and that this is not about about that per se. I'll leave it to my fellow mediators to decide that objection, but would argue that what we're really talking about here is content vs conduct. This clearly is not a conduct matter — John isn't being accused of misbehavior due to filing that RfC — so falls within the purview of mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) In this discussion at my user talk page John has indicated that he believe that he rejected this mediation request by deleting the notification templates from his user talk page. I've told him there that he was mistaken and needed to indicate his rejection here, but we can probably consider that a rejection. On another note, I'm now too involved in this matter not to recuse myself and do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Administrative note: I have renamed this request from Legitimacy of the RfC on naming pending at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). AGK 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Football in Australia

Football in Australia

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs) – filing party (on behalf of)
John (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Is the pending RFC legitimate insofar as it seeks to bind the entire Misplaced Pages community so as to prevent certain edits until a future point in time (31 August 2015)?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1- Can such a legitimacy question posed directly to the participating community?
Per WP:RFC section on ending RFC's, Participants can choose to close an RFC and it can be closed by moving it to another dispute resolution forum. This leads me to ask two following questions as well:

Can a question of moving to another venue be posed to the participating community? Can a question of closure be posed directly to the community?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

~~Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)~~ I'm going to back out. If John would like to bring this here himself I'd be happy to change this position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

I have filed this request on behalf of the filing party (without his knowledge, so his consent will also be needed) due to the importance of the nature of the question to the community as a whole. Though the RfC is itself a pending dispute resolution process which would ordinarily prevent the acceptance of this case, this request goes to the legitimacy of that RFC so is not precluded by it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (committee member)

John has objected at my user talk page that "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content" and that this is not about about that per se. I'll leave it to my fellow mediators to decide that objection, but would argue that what we're really talking about here is content vs conduct. This clearly is not a conduct matter — John isn't being accused of misbehavior due to filing that RfC — so falls within the purview of mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion at my user talk page John has indicated that he believe that he rejected this mediation request by deleting the notification templates from his user talk page. I've told him there that he was mistaken and needed to indicate his rejection here, but we can probably consider that a rejection. On another note, I'm now too involved in this matter not to recuse myself and do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: I have renamed this request from Legitimacy of the RfC on naming pending at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). AGK 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Garage sale
Garage sale The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below. Editors involved in this dispute Leitmotiv (talk · contribs) – filing party LoverOfArt (talk · contribs) TransporterMan (talk · contribs) Articles affected by this dispute Garage sale (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted Talk:Garage sale#Saling / Sale-ing Issues to be mediated What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted. Primary issues (added by the filing party) LoverofArt argues that the neologisms "Garage sale ing," "Garage sale'ing," and "Garage sale-ing" are the dominate neologism/s, citing Google SERP as the source. I argue that out of those three, it is not clear which, if any is dominate and have used Google's own suggestion of "Garage saling," and have cited a modern book found using Google Scholar. As a middle ground, I have also added the other neologisms discussed on the talk page. LoverofArt has reverted these edits many times and has failed to add citations. We are now in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC The discussion on the talk page about sums it up, so it would be redundant to repeat it all here again. I'm not a patient teacher and I don't want this to devolve into a bad faith sort of thing so I'd request someone else explain to the above party how Google works in regards to resolving serp, how search works and what is implied by certain search results. As things stand (and as a neologism), the word is in far more common usage iterated as "saleing", sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes not. Sometimes with an apostrophe, sometimes not. Sometimes with a space, sometimes not. The one thing that is absolutely inarguable is that "Saleing" is the most common usage, not "saling". Contra to this would be the formal rules of English (where ing subsumes the e), however neologisms aren't constrained by that, which is what we're talking about. So, either delete as a neologism (as suggested) or if we're going to accept it, then common usage dictates its form and aesthetic. Also worth examining what the above party considers 'adequately cited'. Trying to 'formally cite' a neologism is pointless, but we can, if we want to. Here's a book published in 1979 entitled "Sale-ing" . LoverOfArt (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC) My mention of you failing to add citations is directly related to, and only, for the other neologisms that I added (including sailing, which was overlooked but very popular), but that you reverted completely. Yes you added citations for your other edits, but when trying to meet you half way, you did not. I like TransporterMan's idea to just do away with it all, since there is no definitive source. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC) References http://www.amazon.com/How-Go-Garage-Sale-ing-Smith/dp/B001OBU0CC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394759512&sr=8-1&keywords=garage+saleing Additional issues (added by other parties) I believe that the paragraph in question should be removed as unsourced since the sources proffered so far are only examples of the use of the term and violate NOR as sources for the existence of the term. If a source which actually discusses the term can be found, it (or they, if more than one) will determine which version or versions of the term are used in the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC) In light of the agreement of all parties at the article talk page that my analysis there is correct, I have removed the terminology paragraph from the article. Since part of that analysis is that there is no reliable source for the terminology issue which can be used without engaging in prohibited original research, the primary issue being discussed above would now appear to be moot. This request should be closed or withdrawn. When (and if) someone finds a reliable source which isn't just an example of the use of the term they can propose a proper terminology section built around it at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Is there any other actions needed of me at this point? Btw, I like the idea of proposing at the talk page first before making edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion. Agree. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Agree. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC) (and, obviously, as a member of the Mediation Committee recuse myself as anything other than a party to the dispute) Agree LoverOfArt (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here. I've asked a question of LoverOfArt at Talk:Garage sale#Saling / Sale-ing Sunray (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Reject. Parties agree with resolution proposed by TransporterMan. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Garage sale

Garage sale

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

Leitmotiv (talk · contribs) – filing party
LoverOfArt (talk · contribs)
TransporterMan (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Garage sale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:Garage sale#Saling / Sale-ing

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

LoverofArt argues that the neologisms "Garage sale ing," "Garage sale'ing," and "Garage sale-ing" are the dominate neologism/s, citing Google SERP as the source. I argue that out of those three, it is not clear which, if any is dominate and have used Google's own suggestion of "Garage saling," and have cited a modern book found using Google Scholar. As a middle ground, I have also added the other neologisms discussed on the talk page. LoverofArt has reverted these edits many times and has failed to add citations. We are now in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC

The discussion on the talk page about sums it up, so it would be redundant to repeat it all here again. I'm not a patient teacher and I don't want this to devolve into a bad faith sort of thing so I'd request someone else explain to the above party how Google works in regards to resolving serp, how search works and what is implied by certain search results. As things stand (and as a neologism), the word is in far more common usage iterated as "saleing", sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes not. Sometimes with an apostrophe, sometimes not. Sometimes with a space, sometimes not. The one thing that is absolutely inarguable is that "Saleing" is the most common usage, not "saling". Contra to this would be the formal rules of English (where ing subsumes the e), however neologisms aren't constrained by that, which is what we're talking about. So, either delete as a neologism (as suggested) or if we're going to accept it, then common usage dictates its form and aesthetic. Also worth examining what the above party considers 'adequately cited'. Trying to 'formally cite' a neologism is pointless, but we can, if we want to. Here's a book published in 1979 entitled "Sale-ing" . LoverOfArt (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My mention of you failing to add citations is directly related to, and only, for the other neologisms that I added (including sailing, which was overlooked but very popular), but that you reverted completely. Yes you added citations for your other edits, but when trying to meet you half way, you did not. I like TransporterMan's idea to just do away with it all, since there is no definitive source. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

References

http://www.amazon.com/How-Go-Garage-Sale-ing-Smith/dp/B001OBU0CC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394759512&sr=8-1&keywords=garage+saleing

Additional issues (added by other parties)

I believe that the paragraph in question should be removed as unsourced since the sources proffered so far are only examples of the use of the term and violate NOR as sources for the existence of the term. If a source which actually discusses the term can be found, it (or they, if more than one) will determine which version or versions of the term are used in the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In light of the agreement of all parties at the article talk page that my analysis there is correct, I have removed the terminology paragraph from the article. Since part of that analysis is that there is no reliable source for the terminology issue which can be used without engaging in prohibited original research, the primary issue being discussed above would now appear to be moot. This request should be closed or withdrawn. When (and if) someone finds a reliable source which isn't just an example of the use of the term they can propose a proper terminology section built around it at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any other actions needed of me at this point? Btw, I like the idea of proposing at the talk page first before making edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC) (and, obviously, as a member of the Mediation Committee recuse myself as anything other than a party to the dispute)
Agree LoverOfArt (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

I've asked a question of LoverOfArt at Talk:Garage sale#Saling / Sale-ing Sunray (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reject. Parties agree with resolution proposed by TransporterMan. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Daniel Amen
Daniel Amen The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below. Editors involved in this dispute Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk · contribs) – filing party Alexbrn (talk · contribs) MrBill3 (talk · contribs) ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk · contribs) Articles affected by this dispute Daniel Amen (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted Talk:Daniel Amen#MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening Talk:Daniel Amen#Use of the word "condemned" in the article lead is inappropriate Issues to be mediated What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted. Primary issues (added by the filing party) Problem A) (in short) Use of the word "condemned" keeps being put in the article lead, related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person. Problem B) (in short) large chunks of opening text, all fully supported by factual citations, are being continually reverted in a 24 hour cycle from the article lead. No citation mentioning a non-negative fact can survive more than 24 hours on this site in the lead. Facts, such as that the article subject is a neurologist, or that he works for the American National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) are frequently removed out of hand, in spite of legitimate citations and footnotes. The fact that he is a neurologist, or that he works in this capacity for the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) should not be repeatedly stripped from the article. Problem A) (Fuller detail of problem-- summarized succinctly, but with all of the key points). Use of the word "condemned" related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person. And-- So is the statement that his diagnostic theory has not been accepted by the psychiatric or medical community (the editor claiming this is not properly sourcing such a claim). 1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD. MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories). Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned". Also as per WP:MEDRS, a determination of a WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as effectively "Fringe"). MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". MOS:LEAD also says Science that is being questioned, is not considered to be the same as a fringe theory (paraphrase from WP:FRINGE). From WP:FRINGE-- Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it *should not be described as unambiguously* pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials: 1) He is a board certified psychiatrist. 2) He is a board certified neurologist. He is a graduate of the following schools: Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982. Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu. He also works for the NFL (the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) as a neurologist(a Doctor) (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) (See article). Therefore, as per WP:FRINGE, his diagnostic approach and therapy should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen%29&cmd=DetailsSearch Independent research (not done by Dr. Amen): Here is list of independent studies on attempts to scientifically correlate Dr. Amens theory and diagnosis method (using SPECT imaging to correlate brain scan patterns to ADD or ADHD. Although not conclusive, they do rise to the level of the following, found in WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists** None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGEeither. At worst it is "Questionable science" (as defined by WP:FRINGE, and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine. In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community". Problem B) (added detail and link to contrib and evidence of violent imagery by alleged offender)I was able to find the specific contrib of one of the people doing these wholesale removals of cited text, with links to the relevant contribs. ArtifexMayhem (most recent removal of citations and text about article subject being a neurologist, operating a clinics that treat ADD and ADHD and being employed by the National Football League. (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) See this contrib " 20:43, 11 March 2014 (diff US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 "All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053 "All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619 "All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053 "All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053 "All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053 Additional issues (added by other parties) Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion. Agree. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here. @Cliffswallow-vaulting: Could you clarify your interest in this dispute since you have no edits at either the article or the article talk page? (For example, if you are an editor who has been previously editing under an IP address and who has now created an account, and no longer intends to edit under the IP address, would you please so note, above?) — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (Mediation Committee member) Never mind, just saw the talk page, duh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Reject. Insufficient participants for mediation to proceed. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Daniel Amen

Daniel Amen

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk · contribs) – filing party
Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
MrBill3 (talk · contribs)
ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
Jytdog (talk · contribs)
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Daniel Amen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:Daniel Amen#MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening
Talk:Daniel Amen#Use of the word "condemned" in the article lead is inappropriate

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Problem A) (in short) Use of the word "condemned" keeps being put in the article lead, related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

Problem B) (in short) large chunks of opening text, all fully supported by factual citations, are being continually reverted in a 24 hour cycle from the article lead. No citation mentioning a non-negative fact can survive more than 24 hours on this site in the lead. Facts, such as that the article subject is a neurologist, or that he works for the American National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) are frequently removed out of hand, in spite of legitimate citations and footnotes. The fact that he is a neurologist, or that he works in this capacity for the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) should not be repeatedly stripped from the article.

Problem A) (Fuller detail of problem-- summarized succinctly, but with all of the key points).

Use of the word "condemned" related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

And--

So is the statement that his diagnostic theory has not been accepted by the psychiatric or medical community (the editor claiming this is not properly sourcing such a claim).

1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD.

MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening

MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories).

Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned".

Also as per WP:MEDRS, a determination of a WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as effectively "Fringe").

MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".

MOS:LEAD also says Science that is being questioned, is not considered to be the same as a fringe theory (paraphrase from WP:FRINGE).

From WP:FRINGE--

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials:

1) He is a board certified psychiatrist.

2) He is a board certified neurologist.

He is a graduate of the following schools:

Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982. Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu.

He also works for the NFL (the National Football League (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) as a neurologist(a Doctor) (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist) (See article).

Therefore, as per WP:FRINGE, his diagnostic approach and therapy should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen%29&cmd=DetailsSearch

Independent research (not done by Dr. Amen):

Here is list of independent studies on attempts to scientifically correlate Dr. Amens theory and diagnosis method (using SPECT imaging to correlate brain scan patterns to ADD or ADHD. Although not conclusive, they do rise to the level of the following, found in WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists

None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGEeither. At worst it is "Questionable science" (as defined by WP:FRINGE, and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine.

In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community".

Problem B) (added detail and link to contrib and evidence of violent imagery by alleged offender)I was able to find the specific contrib of one of the people doing these wholesale removals of cited text, with links to the relevant contribs.

ArtifexMayhem (most recent removal of citations and text about article subject being a neurologist, operating a clinics that treat ADD and ADHD and being employed by the National Football League. (NOTE: This citation, although it is mostly about an All-Star-Hockey player evaluated by Dr. Amen, also mentions that Dr. Amen works for the National Football league as a post-concussion specialist)

See this contrib " 20:43, 11 March 2014 (diff

US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
"All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053
"All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
"All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053
"All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053
"All-Star Kariya ends career", Times wires, Tamba Bay Times, Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:51pm http://www.tampabay.com/sports/all-star-kariya-ends-career/1178053

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

@Cliffswallow-vaulting: Could you clarify your interest in this dispute since you have no edits at either the article or the article talk page? (For example, if you are an editor who has been previously editing under an IP address and who has now created an account, and no longer intends to edit under the IP address, would you please so note, above?) — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (Mediation Committee member) Never mind, just saw the talk page, duh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Reject. Insufficient participants for mediation to proceed. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was the "plaintiff" and I'd like to add that we resolved our differences sufficiently to let the mediation time out. So they really didn't ignore it. Thanks! 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I forgot to log in! This (above)^^ is me.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below. Editors involved in this dispute Interfase (talk · contribs) – filing party Divot (talk · contribs) Hablabar (talk · contribs) Roses&guns (talk · contribs) Articles affected by this dispute Azerbaijan (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted Talk:Azerbaijan#Map for the section Name of Azerbaijan Talk:Azerbaijan#New Section Name Azerbaijan Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Azerbaijan Issues to be mediated What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted. Primary issues (added by the filing party) I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" was described. Here we could see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well. But user Divot claims that the map is wrong. I don't agree with him, because there are no any sources saying that "the map is wrong". Hablabar and Roses&guns don't want to see this section in the article. They see there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. In my opinion the section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). --Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) The map is wrong, Details on TP. Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia." Divot (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Additional issue 2 Parties' agreement to mediation If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion. Agree. Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Agree. Divot (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Interfase is not allowed to participate in any discussion within AA2 area because of his recent ban. His non-compliance will be reported. Hablabar (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC) This is not so. According to HJ Mitchell topic ban was a little over the top and he vacated this topic ban. I recommend not to use such arguments to freeze the discussion on this issue. --Interfase (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC) According to clarifications the topic ban doesn't cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. --Interfase (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Topic bans are not necessarily a reason to exclude someone from mediation. Exceptions to bans include engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. In vacating the ban, HJ Mitchell said that a sweeping topic ban would be disproportional to the offence. Having considered the discussion regarding the ban and the comments above, I would be willing to accept this mediation provided that a sufficient number of parties agree to mediate in good faith. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Hablabar and Roses&guns: Please signify your agreement, or not, to this mediation. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here. Reject. Not enough disputants agreed to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation concerning Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

Interfase (talk · contribs) – filing party
Divot (talk · contribs)
Hablabar (talk · contribs)
Roses&guns (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" was described. Here we could see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well.

But user Divot claims that the map is wrong. I don't agree with him, because there are no any sources saying that "the map is wrong".

Hablabar and Roses&guns don't want to see this section in the article. They see there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. In my opinion the section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). --Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

The map is wrong, Details on TP. Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia." Divot (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Divot (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Interfase is not allowed to participate in any discussion within AA2 area because of his recent ban. His non-compliance will be reported. Hablabar (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not so. According to HJ Mitchell topic ban was a little over the top and he vacated this topic ban. I recommend not to use such arguments to freeze the discussion on this issue. --Interfase (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to clarifications the topic ban doesn't cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. --Interfase (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans are not necessarily a reason to exclude someone from mediation. Exceptions to bans include engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. In vacating the ban, HJ Mitchell said that a sweeping topic ban would be disproportional to the offence. Having considered the discussion regarding the ban and the comments above, I would be willing to accept this mediation provided that a sufficient number of parties agree to mediate in good faith. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hablabar and Roses&guns: Please signify your agreement, or not, to this mediation. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject. Not enough disputants agreed to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)