Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Electronic Harassment NPOV

Electronic harassment NPOV

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Jed Stuart (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)
3. Staszek Lem (talk · contribs)
4. Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs)
5. JzG (talk · contribs)
6. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs)
7. Kolbasz (talk · contribs)
8. SageRad (talk · contribs)
9. MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)
10. Jytdog (talk · contribs)
11. Guy Macon (talk · contribs)
12. BroughtToYouByMolly (talk · contribs)
13. Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
14. Jeh (talk · contribs)
15. Johnuniq (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

EH/TALK archive 4: Delusions_of_delusions

EH/TALK archive 4:Article_Structure

EH/TALK archive 6:open_question_that_covert_targeting_could_be_happening

DRN archive 26: section ""electronic harassment" article needs assistance."

DRN archive 138: section "Talk:Electronic_harassment/Archive_4" - Informal mediation

NPOV/N archive 60: section "NPOV dispute in "electronic_harassment""

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

The article violates a fundamental principle of the NPOV policy:

‘Avoid stating opinions as facts.’

In the lede:

" Individuals who claim to experience this call themselves "targeted individuals" and many have joined support and advocacy groups. These experiences are hallucinations or the result

of delusional disorders or psychosis"

The psychiatric opinion is stated as fact rather than as an opinion. In so doing this wording violates what is stated at: Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view NPOV is: ‘non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.’

Thus the wording should be something like: "It is the opinion of some psychiatrists and psychologists that these experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis"

I mentioned this issue more times than editors at EH found acceptable. ‘Leave it how it is’ was always the firm consensus. Mostly the attitude has been to not give any weight, or not give undue weight, to the Targeted Individuals view, invoking another principle of NPOV policy:

‘Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.’

However the seminal Washington Post article Mind Games cited and the other RS articles that have followed suit, give more than no weight to the view of those claiming to be Targeted Individuals.

They explore the possibility that there might be real covert targeting happening and I would say that they conclude there might be.

I found some support for my position at DRN and so started an informal mediation which was closed without resolution. It was suggested at DRN that I take the matter to NPOVN, which I did. There were two editors there without WP accounts who agreed with me and seven, mostly well-established editors, who did not. That was also closed without resolution. Obviously I am holding a minority opinion here, but it seems of fundamental importance to the article and Wikipedia generally that the matter is considered more carefully.

Should the ‘due weight’ principle be achieved by over-riding the ‘not state opinions as facts’ principle? Surely the article can enact both principles. This is what I would hope to get the editors consensus at Electronic harassment to consider.

The rest of the Electronic harassment article seems appropriately worded except for a continuation of this bias towards the delusions POV in the third paragraph of Conspiracy_theories where claims of covert targeting are referred to as ‘these fears…’ rather than what would be neutrally said ‘these claims…’ This is repeated in the first paragraph of Support_and_advocacy_communities ‘people fearing mind control.’ should be replaced by ‘people claiming mind control.’ I have not attempted to change these two instances of bias, but as they are essentially of the same nature as the more prominent one in the lede, which I did attempted to change, but failed, it seems appropriate to include them now in this attempt to get the article to NPOV.

(I have limited time for the internet, so expect slow response: 1-3 days)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Jed Stuart (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Disagree There has been no discussion at all on the talk page since August 16th. There has been no discussion of this issue since August 6th. Jed Stuart has not posted to the talk page since July 4th. This is an ambush tactic. Furthermore, the issue at hand consists of Jed and the occasional IP editor claiming "This phenomenon is reallly real!" (which might be recognizable as a Conspiracy theory belief itself) and quite literally everyone else shutting them down. This is becoming disruptive, and I'm going to go ask a few other editors if they agree that now is the time for a topic ban for Jed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
3. Disagree This is not a place of last resort for WP:IDHT editors. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Disagree. It is time for a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
5. Disagree. Pointless. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Disagree We have no reliable sources saying the government "may be" using electronic means to surreptitiously insert thoughts into people's heads against their will, however we have dozens that say it is a well-documented delusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
7. Disagree for three reasons. [1] My only involvement was writing the sentence "Jed Stuart, you may find the page at WP:1AM to be helpful" -- advice which was ignored. Including me in this case is throwing in everything including the kitchen sink. [2] Jed Stuart has been pushing the POV that the professional medical opinions of psychiatrists should be given equal weight with the delusions of the patients they treat, a POV that is never going to make it into the encyclopedia. [3] This is the wrong venue. As explained at WP:DRR, " formal mediation in an attempt to resolve a protracted content dispute that remains unresolved despite other attempts at dispute resolution." There have been no other attempts at dispute resolution in this case. Jed Stuart needs to be topic-banned from this area of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Disagree I've reviewed most Jed Stuart's missives on this (I think; there have been so many) and in no case I could find has he offered RSs suggesting that the "delusions" opinion is not held nearly universally by psychiatrists. All opinions to the contrary are from those not qualified in the field. Hence there is no question of a NNPOV in the article because no other POV has anyone whom we should listen to behind it. Jeh (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was not setting up an ambush. I was hoping that after over two months cooling off period, that the editors involved might be willing to actually focus on the issue. Obviously Not! Jed Stuart (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou and BroughtToYouByMolly are both indefinitely blocked and are not proper parties since they cannot participate here. That brings the party count down to 13 and with 7 "disagrees" this request fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)