Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/dyshidrosis

Where is the dispute?
I am an expert (if such exists) on dyshidrosis. I am researching it for an article to be peer reviewed. I am a podiatrist. I have read more than 500 articles on dyshidrosis, vitamin A, allergy, immunology. I re-edited the article on dyshidrosis to reflect the most current thinking. MuMind, a softwear engineer, with better technical skills at this 're-verting' keeps reverting the article to reflect his views and out of date medical texts are cited. He is not helpful in explaining why my views, and my capital letters are so wrong. I am really worried that people suffering this condition will be getting out of date, bad information.

Who is involved?

 * User:Carolethecatlover
 * User:Mu Mind

Acceptance of Mediation

 * Carolethecatlover
 * Mu Mind

What is the dispute?
Expertise vs opinion

What would you like to change about this?
Stop mu mind reverting my changes,

How do you think we can help?
Tell mu mind to mind his knitting, and stick to softwear, or prove he knows more about Dyshidrosis than I do.

Mediator notes
Hi there, I've tried to tidy up your formatting a bit Carole, I've also informed Mu Mind of this discussion. We can only go ahead if (s)he agrees, otherwise you'll have to try a different venue. I'll try to help you both through this but I'm relatively new to the process, so I may ask somebody else if we get stuck. Best, Bob House 884 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been discussing some suggestions with user:carolethecatlover on her talk page (and mine). I hope that my suggestions (ways to help her get a feel for editing here) are acceptable to the rest of you and that you feel I'm being constructive. Please comment on this page. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Carole hasn't edited for over a month, there isn't any other dispute here. I think that if she comes back we can all try to keep her on track w/r/t WP:RS, WP:EL, the manual of style and the proper sort of information to include and hopefully treat her fairly and make her feel welcome per WP:BITE and WP:CIV (although I'm certainly not saying anybody didn't this time round). Accordingly I've closed this. Thanks everyone, Bob House 884 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I think the article history and Talk page should explain the case pretty clearly, but I'll just mention that User:Arcadian and User:Soap have done the last 3 reverts (26 May 2011, 28 May 2011, and 30 May 2011), not me, so perhaps they should be included in the discussion. The relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:Dyshidrosis and Talk:Dyshidrosis —Mu Mind (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add them if you think it will help, you can send them a message or if you like I will Bob House 884 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've messaged both of them (on June 2). If they don't respond soon, I'm fine with proceeding without them. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the primary issue here should be about the content. If she is unable to use ref templates, that's not a big deal because her edits can always be changed later on once we come to a resolution about the content dispute, just as everyone else's edits have been changed over time. However it seems to me that she's unwilling to respect the research that has been done on this topic in the past and is determined to get her own unpublished and unverified theories into the article and remove the content she doesn't agree with.  That is my position on the issue and I believe that issue is what we should focus on first.   —  Soap  —  14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We can proceed at any time. I wasn't planning on waiting this long for Arcadian to respond, so hopefully I didn't stall the proceedings with that. FYI, my plan has been to wait until the issue cools off a bit and then try to integrate some more of Carolethecatlover's edits properly with the article, both as a show of good faith and so we can focus down on a smaller diff, but at this point I'm hesitant to make any edits whatsoever because it seems likely my actions will be misconstrued. I'm not planning on making any reverts to this article at least until this case is "closed". I'm trying to limit my involvement to only what's clearly, undeniably mature and productive. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your positive, trusting attitude, but I've looked at her edits and can't say I trust any of them, save for the few parts that you've cleaned up (and only on the assumption that the citations used do actually contain the claims she's making). Which parts of what she's added would you want to add back in?  —  Soap  —  18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly the sources, and whatever factual information can be found in them, assuming they can actually be tracked down and checked (which I'm not at all sure of, but that's what I was hoping). That, and I'm not sure all of the existing content is any more reliable than this stuff (like some of the treatments), so in the absence of more sources, I was thinking about leaving both versions of some claims. That's not to say I think those treatments really need to be mentioned in the article, just that I don't think they're doing much harm. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)