Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Capture-bonding
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | open |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Jehochman (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | Offering mediation |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
Request Information
Who are the involved parties?
- User:Hkhenson - someone who wrote a 2002 article on capture bonding, and feels he is the expert on the subject.
- User:Sadi Carnot - someone who is trying to clean and organize all the related articles on human bonding.
What's going on?
In short, Keith Henson, i.e. User:Hkhenson, started the article in 2005 with a paste from a 2002 article he wrote. He feels he is the expert on this subject and will not let other views go into the article. The talk page summarizes the situation.
- Admin comment. There appears to be a content dispute as to what constitutes Capture-bonding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which has lead to repeated reverting between Hkhenson (talk · contribs), who prefers an article based mainly on his own publications, and Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs), who prefers a version with a wider base of source material. The revert war has the effect of preventing improvement of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is a biased view of the situation and that Sadi's "improvements" have been making a confused mess of a simple concept. I stand on my comments on the talk page and in addition would appreciate User:Sadi Carnot being asked not to delete white space or otherwise edit other posters comments on talk pages as discussed at User_talk:Hkhenson. Keith Henson 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
Mediation Cabal, please review the situation at article capture-bonding and give your opinion.
Mediator response
Both parties, please confirm here whether you will accept my services as mediator. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you know or are willing to learn the basics of evolutionary psychology I accept. It's a terminology dispute. Keith Henson 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I am not familiar with the topic, but I am a fast study. The only commitment I make is to listen to what both of you have to say, and give my suggestions for how to resolve the dispute.
- I note that you have written yourself into the article, which immediately raises a conflict of interest concern. As a mediator, I do not take sides in your dispute. However, I am not required to turn a blind eye to violations of Wikipedia policy. In this case the proper response may eventually be my filing a report on the conflict of interest notice board. Before doing that, I invite you to read the COI guideline. The other editor's participation and review of your work may actually be a good thing because that can help maintain neutral point of view, if you are open to working together. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 10:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept your services as a mediator and thank you ahead of time for your help. --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sadi Carnot, in what ways would you like to change this article? Can you explain the desired changes succinctly, and also say why you think this would make the article better. Also, do you have any possible conflicts of interest here? I am very keen to know if you have any outside motivations that would prevent you from evaluating Mr. Henson's published works in a neutral way. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I am publishing a new 500-page textbook, in the next two months, on human chemistry, and the twelfth chapter is on the topic of human chemical bonding. Because of this, over the years I have read nearly every book available on the topic of human bonding (which also is an article that I wrote, that several people have nominated for FA status). As to conflicts of interest, I learned early on in Wikipedia that incorporating your own research into articles is a no-no; you can read through the lengthy list of all the articles I’ve contributed to Wikipedia to verify my point.
- My conflict of interest in capture bonding, is that I am getting reverted when I add material from straight-up, published, verifiable, references, from multiple sources. This is where the conflict is. This is not the type of behavior we tolerate at Wikipedia, at least according to the rules I am used to at Wikipedia. In short, I want you to compare this version (4,541 bytes), where Henson is the primary source, with this version (18,551 bytes), where the old version is included verbatim (although I only did this recently to appease Henson, to no avail) with the incorporation of multiple sources that I added to make the article more encyclopedic. Then, in your judgmental opinion, explain to us if I am doing wrong by adding new material or if Henson is in the wrong for his efforts in a continual two-year period of reverts. That’s all I want. Henson thinks he is in the right; hence we need an outside 3rd party to judge in the case Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not here to take sides. I am here to help you two to understand each other. Should we consider getting more editors involved in this article? I find that doing only part of a job is a way to build consensus. Since Mr. Henson is apparently a source, it seems logical that he should have the help of independent parties to judge whether his material belongs in the article. What do you both think about that? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- My conflict of interest in capture bonding, is that I am getting reverted when I add material from straight-up, published, verifiable, references, from multiple sources. This is where the conflict is. This is not the type of behavior we tolerate at Wikipedia, at least according to the rules I am used to at Wikipedia. In short, I want you to compare this version (4,541 bytes), where Henson is the primary source, with this version (18,551 bytes), where the old version is included verbatim (although I only did this recently to appease Henson, to no avail) with the incorporation of multiple sources that I added to make the article more encyclopedic. Then, in your judgmental opinion, explain to us if I am doing wrong by adding new material or if Henson is in the wrong for his efforts in a continual two-year period of reverts. That’s all I want. Henson thinks he is in the right; hence we need an outside 3rd party to judge in the case Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind more editors being involved.
The article as it is presently displayed is a confusing mess, like a mix of planetary science and astrology. It is not "encyclopedic" to stuff a simple concept with unrelated material.
Capture-bonding (with the hyphan) is simple concept out of evolutionary psychology, of evolved mental mechanisms that are activated by the stress of being abducted.
Sadi brings in material completely unrelated to evolutionary psychology if "capture" and "bond" occure in the same paragraph. Capture-bonding as an evolutionary psychology term is not related to abnormal psychology and has nothing to do with John Money's work who opposed the ideas of evolutionary psychology all of his life.
Capture-bonding is either an evolutionary psychology concept or it is a concept of the anti-evolutionary psychology of John Money. It can't be both. One or the other should be cleaned out of the article. I am not arguing for either, only for a consistent article. Keith Henson 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)