Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-01 Schizophrenia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Talk:Schizophrenia Schizophrenia
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Mihai cartoaje
Parties involved	Vaughan, DPeterson
Mediator(s)	Glen S
Comment	no activity for two weeks, asking to close

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Talk:Schizophrenia Schizophrenia]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Talk:Schizophrenia Schizophrenia]]

Mediation Case: schizophrenia[edit]

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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Mihai cartoaje 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...talk:schizophrenia

Who's involved?: ...user:Vaughan, user:DPeterson and me

What's going on?: ...We are having a neutrality disagreement. I have been placing a pov tag on the article and they have removed it.

What would you like to change about that?: ... Have a pov tag that informs readers that there is a neutrality disagreement.

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

Mediator response[edit]

To me this seems a reliable sources issue, but we'll see. I'll comment further after reading the talk page...

Please fix the case name. --Ideogram 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed as requested in line with Mediation Cabal convention. --Muchness 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator is presently away on vacation. --Mihai cartoaje 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator has recent contributions. I will leave a note on his talk page. --Ideogram 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be best to put a partial block on the article so that only registered users can edit it. If you look at the history recently, you will see a lot of "vandalism" by unregistered editors. DPeterson^talk 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation cabal cannot issue blocks. If you wish to request semi-protection, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Ideogram 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no active discussion of these issues here or on the talk page. Without discussion, we cannot have a mediation. If there is no progress here within the next few days, I will close the mediation. Since this article has been the subject of numerous medations and an RFC with apparently no resolution, I will recommend that future mediation requests on this subject be declined. --Ideogram 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation is not progressing because I stopped arguing with some other accounts when they started using personal attacks against me. I think the mediation might not be necessary because we have already gone through mediation before, I can ask for formal mediation directly. By "future mediation requests", you mean Cabal mediations? --Mihai cartoaje 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cabal mediation. You are always free to ask for formal mediation. --Ideogram 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion[edit]

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.

For issues related to this case, please see the following discussions:

January 2006 discussion: Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive1#Changes
2006-02-12 Schizophrenia mediation and related discussion
2006-06-29 Schizophrenia mediation and related discussion
October 2006 RFC
November 2006 discussion, following the article's protection.
Article unprotected
November–December 2006 WP:AN/I discussion

--Muchness 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this dispute a short while ago. It appears that a large number of editors feel that the section on Schizophrenia and violence is acceptable. As I review it, it is adequately referenced and appears to meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and presenting material in a NPOV with a number of reliable sources. The editor who requested mediation is alone in the view that the material should be deleted and is biased. He has not accepted the results of a poll or RfC and has, on several occassions blanked the page. DPeterson^talk 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been warned about blanking the page on several occassions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=91342889) I am willing to discuss the matter, but it really seems that he is a lone voice without a basis in Wikipedia policy or procedures. DPeterson^talk 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read over the disputes and comments, and I do agree with Mihai on at least one point, the section header Violence perpetrated by people with schizophrenia is very abrupt and unnecessary, and almost implies a connection where the research shows thats not the case. The word Violence says it all, we dont need to stipulate it's "perpetrated by people with schizophrenia" - I also think that perhaps it could be amalgamated into the article better rather than its own section sticking out as if to make a point.

So, I tried to smooth it all out myself. That will be my only attempt at editing personally. Thoughts? Glen 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your changing the section title...good point. I'm not so sure that it should be under dignosis. It seems to legitimately be a separate section...but if it must go some where, maybe it would fit better under Incidence and Prevalence or Prognosis. DPeterson^talk 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree actually. Please change to whichever your preference :) Glen 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am being pressured into writing something,

I don't think the balance has been restored: no other article has violence statistics.

The murder statistics are supposedly from a journal which is not available to the general public, so a high number of third-party wikipedia readers cannot verify them. --Mihai cartoaje 05:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I have read most of the text of one article, but I have not seen the table because it was not compatible with my PDF viewer. --Mihai cartoaje 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If relevant, other articles may, or may not, have such stats...but what other articles have is not relevant to this discussion. The question of violence among the mentally ill is an important question and so has been extensively researched...mostly finding no increased risk for violence among the severely mentally ill; much to the relief of advocates for the mentally ill, such as NAMI. Professional journals are available at any University library. These are reputible sources that clearly meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPeterson^talk 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In doing a bit a research, I see that he has previously filed a mediation case and has an extensive history of disrupting this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=81494077#Continued_deletions_from_Schizophrenia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=81529879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&direction=next&oldid=82657005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&direction=next&oldid=83652089

DPeterson^talk 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did see those.... we'll follow this right thru this time I assure you Glen 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than some recent random vandalism, I don't see any ongoing problems here. It appears that the other party has not followed through...perhaps the case can be closed now.DPeterson^talk 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done here now? DPeterson^talk 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]