Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: at the Mediator's request
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents

[edit] Medical analysis of circumcision

[edit] Involved parties

(If a notice was left on your Talk page but your name is missing, it means that you were removed because you were probably not essential to the success of this mediation. If you really do want to be involved, please add yourself.)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:
User talk pages:

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit] Issues to be mediated

  • Should this article (and perhaps Circumcision)) make mention of the risk of CA-MRSA infection that is associated with circumcision?
  • Repeated attempts have been made to insert mention of CA-MRSA, and have been met with a combination of immediate reversions and tendencious refusal in Talk. Is this acceptable or indicative of a problem?
  • An RFA has been used to remove one anti-circ user already and a new one is on the way to remove another. Is this in good faith or a sign of abuse?
  • In general, is there a group of people acting as a unit so as to intimidate new editors, impose their POV and own the article?

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

  • "Circumcision as a therapeutic," and "Routine, non-therapeutic infant circumcision is controversial." get top billing but are secondary issues to the topic.
  • The Summary of Research Findings table is misleading. Please see the Masood [[11]] title and conclusion, versus it's depiction in the table and Jakew's insistence on misconstruing he authors conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TipPt/Relevant_quotes



[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
  • Agree. Alienus 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Superdix 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, if this proves to be practical (see note below re absent editor). Jakew 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree.TipPt 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Michael Glass 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Nandesuka 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. DanBlackham 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

  • Accept: Best of luck to the parties, with this many people involved, it'll be a doozie. ;-)
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 04:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: There are a very large number of parties to this request. It would be helpful to trim it down to those most involved, especially if some less-involved parties will agree to work through a common spokesman. (If anyone is involved as an admin only (i.e., protecting the page to stop an edit war, etc.) it may be possible to exclude them.) Large mediations are possible, but generally take a very long time (as time must be given at each step for all parties to comment) and can break down at any point if one of the parties backs out. Ensuring that the listed parties are only those particularly involved is very important. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I took out some people who did most of their editing in Circumcision and were not directly involved with this particular issue. If you have any addition advice on how I might improve this RFM, please let me know. Alienus 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't help noticing that Robert Blair is considered an essential party. Since he has not edited for 13 months, the thought occurs that this is perhaps a little unwise. Additionally, as far as I recall, neither TipPt nor DanBlackham have been involved in the MRSA dispute. Jakew 09:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple edit comments that claim Robert Blair has been inserting text related to golden staph despite the ban you engineered [12]. These comments are invariably attached to reverts. As it turns out, my involvement with this issue (and this article) started when I objected to one such revert.Alienus 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the ArbCom ruling required any of his edits to be reverted, and a temporary block to be imposed. I was in a position to do the former but not the latter. Now think for a moment. Do you really wish to align yourself with someone who edits while banned by the ArbCom? Please consider this carefully, because if an editor has such contempt for Wikipedia and for other editors that he is willing to evade a ruling imposed by the final step of the dispute resolution process, there is obviously no point in involving him in any other step.
Furthermore, if his agreement is required before mediation can proceed, the fact that he hasn't edited (while logged in) for over a year implies that mediation is unlikely to ever begin. Jakew 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If he's the only one who wants that text inserted, then removing it is fine. However, when I reverted it, I was saying very clearly that, regardless of where that text might come from, it does belong in the article. In fact, my comment mentioned the genetic fallacy. At that point, his ban became irrelevant.
I added him to this RFM because it looks like he's still trying to edit in some mention of CA-MRSA, despite everything. Moreover, it was his reverted edit that got me into this. Bringing him in does not entail endorsing editing by banned users, especially since he still has the right to edit Talk pages on these subjects, just not the articles. This page doesn't look like an article to me.
Now, if he just plain doesn't log on, then we can drop him, but let it be his choice, not yours or mine. Alienus 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he is allowed to edit talk pages, but after editing while banned from doing so he is in no position to negotiate. How long do you propose to give him? Jakew 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If everyone else has signed and his absence is holding up the RFM, we can drop him then. As it stands, it's the weekend and lots of people haven't bothered checking in yet. Alienus 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, as promised, I wound up removing Robert Blair. We're ready to move forward now. (unsigned by Alienus)


I'm happy to take the case --Wisden17 18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Please let me know what the next step is. Alienus 04:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that this RfM appears stalled and I wonder what can be done to move it forward. As far as I can tell, Wisden17 is not going to be taking this case. Perhaps someone else could step up. Al 19:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still here! I've not moved any further as Essjay had said that he wanted a member of the mediation committee to take the case. Clearly that has not managed to happen, so I'm still happy to take the case if the parties are happy for that to happen. If so, we need to decide what format the mediation will take: whether we conduct it on Wikipedia, or on an IRC Channel, or via e-mail. My preferred method would be via Wikipedia, but I'm happy with any option. Feel free to e-mail me or leavfe a message on my talk page if you want to ask any further questions. --Wisden17 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't aware that Essjay wanted to have a member of the mediation committee handle this, so I had no idea why there was this delay. I'm still not sure why Essjay had this preference -- perhaps I could ask him -- so I can't comment on it. I have no objection to your taking this case, if Essjay's ok with it, too. As for format, I figure Wikipedia is where it started and it's a fine place to continue the discussion.

I'm going to send a quick note to Essjay to give him a chance to respond. Al 03:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I wanted a member of the Committee to handle the matter because I felt that the number of parties along with the subject matter at hand suggested the need for someone with previous experience in Wikipedia mediation. At this point, the committee is backlogged; if the parties are agreeable, I have no objection. Take it away Wisden17. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections. We did cut down the number of participants somewhat, but if proves to be a problem — which I hope it won't — then I'm sure Wisden17 still has the option of asking you and other committee members for advice. Al 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)