User talk:Cesar Tort/2006 ArbcomCase

Arbitration request on Biological psychiatry
Cesar, as I explained on the Biological psychiatry talk page, I've filed an arbitration request for the disagreement. Joema 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A rather funny request, since I haven’t touched the Biological psychiatry article since the very first minutes of 17 April 2006 UTC (npov tag). And as can be seen in my latest exchanges with Andre B and Rockpocket in the Talk Page of that article, and Midgley as well (see also my talk page above), lots of previous misunderstandings among us are being ironed out.  —Cesar Tort 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cesar as of today (19-Apr-06) Ombudsman was still POV tagging the article. The situation is not ironed out, even if you're momentarily restricting your opposition to the talk page. Nor did you or Ombudsman respond to the request for mediation. I begged and pleaded with you to cooperate. It's now in the hands of the arbitration committee. I have no idea what will happen. They may reject the request, or disallow further edits to the article by anyone or by only certain people. They could even ban editors from Wikipedia. Joema 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I don’t have the faintest idea what arbitration means, I very much doubt I violated a Wikipedia policy (as I said, I have not made any edits to the article for days; only discussed in the Talk Page). —Cesar Tort 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Cesar, Joema, too. I may be wrong, but I think it's probably preferred form to list all those who are likely to have an interest in the outcome of these disputes.  I'm quite willing to take Cesar at his word when he says he will not re-tag the article.  Clearly it is Ombudsman who has been refusing attempts at dialog.  I don't think any of us like these sorts of bureaucratic processes but at times they are all we have to work with.


 * Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing any number of topics with the contributors to the BioPsy article, even though I have raised criticisms. Sometimes I think that some of the problems we have encountered arise from the unusual situation of having several well educated, articulate individuals with somewhat divergent views on how best to handle this one topic.  If we were dealing with ignorant or semi-literate contributors I don't think we would have spent so much time trying to get through to one another.  And as I learned some time ago, intelligent, educated, articulate people are much more difficult to persuade than those with fewer such credentials.  So, let's go through the process that was designed for these disputes and all agree to abide by the resolution, however it turns out.  (Not that we will have much choice.)  I have great expectations that Cesar will contribute substantially to other topics related to mental health public policies, an area where there is considerable dispute.  I just want the Wikipedia to be the most professional production we make it.  Who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of other articles.  Ande B 05:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather incredible that after my following statements in the Talk Page, which I kept, such steps have been taken. —Cesar Tort 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC):
 * "But no: I won’t NPOV tag the article again for the simple reason that you outnumber me... —Cesar Tort 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Don’t worry Joema: I won’t touch the section that Rockpocket will post. —Cesar Tort 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)"

Hello Cesar I'm new to Wikipedia and have been following the debate on biopsych. Seems like your arguments haven't been taken seriously by rockpocket and co. Did you quit the field/are you currently in exile? solo999 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn’t quit; just intimidated. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you are in a minority, it does not follow that you are wrong. If you feel intimidated discussing the matter on the talk page, yet still believe you are correct in your interpretation on the situation you should make a statement at the ArbCom request. This is a forum where an independent committee of senior administrators will listen to all parties and make a binding decision. No-one should be intimidated into backing away from a matter that they feel strongly about and the ArbCom is not a tool to intimidate. Just because Joema took the case to them, if does not follow that that they would rule in his/"our" favour. So again, if you feel you are correct, you should put forward you case. Rockpocket (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. Is it not enough with my statement in "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others"?   —Cesar Tort 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Cesar, You are not obliged to further respond if you chose not to (though you will be obliged to stick by any decision made, even in the absence of further contribution). You may wish to make a few statements repeating your original assertion on the evidence sub-page with links (as this, not the original statement, is where Arbcom will look for evidence to make decisions). Also, on the workshop subpage there is already a proposition to essentially leave you out of the process, as long as you are willing to agree to continue not POV tagging biological psychiatry and respect the consensus view of the majority of editors. Seeing as you have pretty much already asserted this, and if you have no interest in pushing the issue future, then you may wish to propose that your role in the process be withdrawn from consideration on that basis. This would not mean that you could not continue to contribute to this or any other article. Should you chose to do this, do so on the workshop page. I will support that proposition (and i sure others will to). If you do intend to POV tag that article again (or others in a similar situation) then you should not do that, instead you should probably try and justify your position the best you can. It is entirely up to you to decided how you wish to proceed, i'm not making any suggestions based on how i think ArbCom will rule, just my interpretation of your role. If you need any help on how to navigate the slightly confusing format of these pages, let me know and i can help you say what you want. Rockpocket (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just when I introduced the many FDA and European warnings in biopsych talk page it seemed I was about to win the round against my many critics. But then the threatening specter of arbitration was used and our discussion abruptly ended. I do not know if what I have in mind is OK for Wiki policy. Since I am in a minority, of course I will keep my word regarding not POV tagging the article again, even if the article is clearly POV today. However, if in the future another editor posts the tag —and believe me: I never use sock-puppetry— and s/he has not the knowledge or intellectual muscle to rebut the majority view, I would like to help him/her in the Talk Page.

As to navigating the format of the pages, Should I state this in the workshop page? Should I paraphrase my statement in my above citation #2 in the evidence page? Will ArbCom see the various editors’ exchanges above in my user talk page (in Arbitration request on Biological psychiatry)? If not, should I copy and paste them for the evidence page? —Cesar Tort 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just paraphrase your initial statement on the evidence page posting links to the diff pages as Joema has done (not cut and pastes, or links to the articles or talk pages themselves). The best way to do it is to boil your statements down to a few key sentences with links supporting each one, making clear what each link supports. I'll make my statements later today. Its pretty clear that Joema wants to widen up the case to consider that fact that both you and Ombudsman appear to dispute the legitamacy of mainstream science as POV, thus its possible that ArbCom may rule on whether or not you will be permitted to assist others in rebutting the majority view in future. Who knows. Rockpocket (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk page
Cesar,

Your points about the deleted talk page as they are both incorrect and pointless, and a back and forth debate about it is just distracting the purpose of the RfA. For the record, there was no selective archiving. Check the dates. Your apology and my reply were made on 16-17 March 2006. Following that, Franzio and i had a lengthy discussion, after the end of which i decided to archive my talk page (as the next comments pushed it over the recommended limit for page size).

Thus my archive includes everything up to and including 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006. The first comment on the current talk page is on 19 March 2006 and contains everything subsequent to that. Thus suggestions that my "deleting/archiving" is selective is therefore groundless. Like every other archive, the break was chosen on date and size only. No refactoring took place and there is no attempt to 'hide' your apology. I suggest, for the sake of statement brevity, you strikethrough those accusations from the RfA before i am required to counter them again with the facts. Patently incorrect claims are not doing your argument much benefit at RfA. Rockpocket (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You started this little war my old friend. —Cesar Tort 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Goodness. "you started it"? Are we in a schoolyard? This is not "a war", we are simply trying to establish the groundrules for how to move forward from entrenched positions. No-one is trying to change your opinion, Cesar, but it is important that your (mine or anyone elses) opinion not interefere with encyclopaedic content. You made your primary motivations very clear when you first arrived here to edit anti-psychiatry. Now you have "learnt the ropes" a little, you are able to mask your aims with policy and try to erase some of your earlier innapropriate comments (i note you deleted your rants from the anti-psychiatry archive, quoting Wiki-ettiqute, yet you have never removed any other dispute, not did you obey Wiki-ettiqute that says Archives should not be edited. Si that not selective deletion?. I have no problem with you removing those, however, as i think your were emotional and did not mean to be offensive. However, to then (incorrectly) accuse others of deleting content is incredibly hypocritical!)


 * However much more Wiki-savvy you have become, it does not change the fact that you clearly have a strong agenda in criticising psychiatry. I didn't want to drag all the anti-psychiatry evidence into the ArbCom, but since you continued to insist on introducing anti-psychiatry POV instead of bowing out when you were offered the opportunity, i felt i had no choice but to demonstrate a history of motivation. I am sorry, as i'm sure it is embarrassing, but its only fair the ArbCom get the whole picture. Rockpocket (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My final word on your accusations will appear in another talk page. —Cesar Tort 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted. Rockpocket (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Buenas Dias, I have read the whole ArbCom case in which you are mentioned, and I think it is unfortunate that you are on there because I think you are not a problem at/for wikipedia. I have one suggestion, and that is not to try to retroactive justify some actions. At the time of the NPOV tagging, you provided specific reasons, and you can not expect people to know what you are going to add five days later. For that same reason, you can not use those arguments (the ones that you made several days later) in the ArbCom case as a defense for your actions. Personally, I think the best approach in this would be to admit that you did not do a good job explaining it at that time, and appologize for that. I think that that would be sufficient to get you away with just a mild cautioning by the ArbCom on exactly this point, without anything else. I think also that it will be looked upon in a much more favourable way. Everybody makes mistakes, and when people can admit them, and learn from them, others are generally very willing to let it be and move on. Of course, this is just my unsolicited opinion, and 0.02 Eurocents. Kim van der Linde at venus 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good advice. I'll follow it.  However please note that arbitration was requested after I posted the FDA warnings. If we are talking of an apology, I think I deserve it too. —Cesar Tort 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that the arbCom case was filled after your clarified yourself, and I think that they should have left you out of the case. And I can see that the discussions were maybe not up to par, but in general, the discussion at the page seems pretty civil to me (from you and towards you), and addressing the points you raise. I think some of the other people might want to read WP:BITE as it seems more an issue of you being new and some more experienced editors who have dealt a lot with certain type of articles might sometimes forget that, although I also see several times that they mention the appropriate policies etc for you. The response after your second insertion, and the extended critique on the than current version is indeed not always always nice, but I think that you might want to take in consideration that the discussion had been going on already for some days, and that seems to have influenced the responses by some. Having said that, my advise here would be to take a deep breath, let it be as it is, and continue the good work (as you can see, several people have responded quite positive towards you at the ArbCom page) and try not to look back to much. My guess is that the ArbCom case will drag on for some time, but will be mainly focussed on Ombudsman and hardly on you. That will be inconvenient, but ut will pass, and I think that soon after, people will start to forget, especially if they see that you continue to bring the good, well sourced additions to articles. And if you have questions, feel free to bother me with questions, or to ask advise how to respond to certain issues. Kim van der Linde at venus 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent letter in my user page. I’m just curious: shouldn’t part of the ongoing talk in workshop page have already been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop as Stifle has suggested?  .  Also, how long you feel this process will take: days? weeks? more than a month?  I don’t feel comfortable to edit until it’s all over. —Cesar Tort 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should, but I would leave that to others. It probanly will take some weeks, and the voting can take another few weeks. My guess is that it will take at least a month. I would not hesitate to edit articles, even the BioPsych article. However, I would be carefull with providing good arguments, and base everything as good as possible with reliable external sources. One way to do it is to take the paragraph or sentence you think needs to be improved, copy and paste it to the talk page, explain in detail why you think that, and make a suggestion on how to change that. I would keep in mind that you are not a native English speaker, and that your interpretation of the text could be slightly different from how natives interpret it (I live in the US, but I run in the same issues as I am not a native English speaker as well). Maybe there is something small and not so contentious that needs attention. Start with something like that. Or if you would prefer that, feel free to ask me first. You can for example write first what you want to say at a subpage (User_talk:Cesar_Tort/discussion), and I can have a look at it and maybe give you some advise on how to word it and such, and after that you can copy and paste it to the talk page of the article. (btw, I have this page on my watchlist, so I see the reply here.) Kim van der Linde at venus 23:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have written a proposal for my next entry in biopsych talk page as suggested above. —Cesar Tort 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a look at it this evening after work, it is quiote long :-)Kim van der Linde at venus 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you want to let others write it, but that could easily result in no writing at all.Kim van der Linde at venus 06:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ll do it after the process is over. And I must thank you again for your good advices.  —Cesar Tort 08:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, if you want to convince the arbcom, use diffs of the things you are arguing. Take the time they filed the request (with diff), take you mentioning of the FDA with time and diff, and so on, this will make it much clearer. Takes more time to do, but solves probably the discussion that now is starting. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, and to head off a raft of claim and counter claim (probably too late, mind) let me make it more clear what i am referring to. I am talking about the first mention of agreement to go to arbitration (the point being: at that time, as far as the other editors were concerned, the situation had already gone past the point of discussion and into considering a formal resolution process). You appear to be referring to the launch of the ArbCom case (or the numerous subsequent requests). Two different things. As Kim van der Linde mentioned above, in a paralegal situation like ArbCom, we all must present the evidence along the timeline as they happened. Even if you were thinking about the FDA information as you tagged the article, it makes little difference unless you mention it at the time. Retrospective justification may make sense to you, but the other editors that did not have access to what you were thinking only saw what you wrote at the time.
 * To be frank, Cesar, i'm amazed and saddened that this ArbCom has developed in this manner. You were essentially offered the opportunity to be left out of this entire process all you had to do was take the 'newbie' route and accept you were not familiar with policy (which was obviously the case at that time, or else you would not have made those pseudoscience claims). There was even the odd situation of people on the other side of the fence proposing evidence in your defence. However, possibly bolstered by the late realisation that your FDA comments have some support (myself included), you decided to press on with a robust defence. What you (and some others) apparently failed to appreciate is the the FDA assertions are irrelevent in respect to this committee hearing on tagging, as the timeline clearly shows. Please try and consider how other editors interpreted your talk page comments based on their content alone at the time they were written, then you may understand why this was taken to ArbCom in the first place.
 * I genuinely hope ArbCom does not respond with any sort of ban in editing psychiatry related pages (for anyone), but i feel the more you try to justify a rather unjustifiable position (based on the timeline), the more likely it is that those expressing tolerance, per WP:BITE, on your behalf will change their view - something that no-one really wants. I guess what i'm trying to say is that people will only accept a new user defence for so long and i feel, despite Kim van der Linde's sage advice, you are unwilling to accept the the tagging was simply not justified sufficiently on gthe talk page and hence deserved to be reverted. The sooner this is sorted out, the sooner we can then get back to dealing with the addressing the seperate FDA issue and getting some specifics into the article. Rockpocket (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don’t want to continue this pointless discussion. I’m only interested in ArbCom decision. —Cesar Tort 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OR?
Hi Kim: I’m writing you here since you say you have this page on your watchlist. I am curious: What is the meaning of “OR”, which I’ve seen more than once in this process? —Cesar Tort 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Original Research. Rockpocket (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It means Original Research as Rockpocket already indicated, and wikipedia is not the place to publish that (see WP:NOR). The line between original research and combining research done by others into an encyclopedic article can be very thin.
 * When the information is not contencious, or basically the general opinion by scholars and professionals in that field, people take that for granted, and often forget to source it adequatly. However, as soon as it gets (or can be) disputed, sourcing of your statements is crucial because people should be able to verify (see WP:V) the statements, and see whether they are reliable sources (see WP:RS).
 * Outside wikipedia, you can put as much opinion as you like into a webpage, at Wikipedia you can not at all (See WP:ISNOT). I saw that you have edited extensively at other places, briging forward your strong opinion about this topic, and this can be a burden when you get into the environment of wikipedia were things are consensus based (see WP:CON). I can see that this can be extremely frustrating (as you have experienced) because the opinion that you elsewhere could promote without objections suddenly get questioned, and your fellow editors require you to back things up in a way you never had to do elsewhere.
 * Maybe you have followed the Kitzmiller trial on the intelligent design controversy. The proponets of inteligent design normally can write what they want on their blogs etc, but at the trial, they were forced to back up their statements with proof, and they failed misserably. That is one of the reasons they prefer NOT to get into the legal real. At Wikipedia, it works somewhat similar (not that it is a trial) in that you have to back up what you claim. What I suggest is that you take the time to read the policies I linked in here (if you have not done it yet), it might clarify why you have run into the trouble you are in at the moment.
 * Along the same line, try to get out of the school yard like fights (A: 'you where first', B: 'no you where first', C: 'no it was you who started it', etc.). Things went wrong, you messed up somewhat in your inexperience with wikipedia, though luck. If you did indeed provide the FDA information much later than when you inserted the NPOV tag for the second time, well, that is what you did, and accept that.
 * The aim of mediationa and arbitration is to keep wikipedia running based on the philosophy of consensus, Neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), not to punish people. The best way to neutralise the ArbCom case against you is to show the ArbCom that you get the point, and that you are willing to contribute to wikipedia in the spirit of wikipedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What way are you choosing?
First, I am not going to make content decisions in articles that you are editing. I think a mentor (if I decide to take it up beyond this informal advise I am giving sometimes at the moment) can only be effective when s/he is neutral to the issues that are discussed. As far as you have seen, I never taken position in on the content of those articles, nor will I (for the time being).

Second, I always go from the point of view that the way I treat people around me, they will treat me the same way. If I fight, they will fight back against me. From my time here at wikipedia, I have seen people who choose to fight. That is their choice, but in the end, they lost because it conflicts fundamentally with the way wikipedia functions. The same happens when you start to take things personally and start to question the motivations of individual or groups of editors. (Hint, look at your last replies at the arbcom case). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I gather now I misunderstood what I read in both Rockpocket’s user mails and yours about “mentorship”. —Cesar Tort 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, above is what I understand with it. I had a look at Mentorship, and they say it as follows: Mentorship is an arrangement, either voluntary or involuntary, in which one user assists another user, the protégé. Depending on the nature of the mentorship agreement, the mentor may give the protégé advice on more effective editing habits, help the protégé resolve disputes and act as an advocate for the protégé. And that is pretty much in line with how I would see it. But maybe I better ask the question on how you see it? What would you like from someone like me? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I shouldn’t have mentioned you by name in Workshop page. I don’t know why I did it.  Perhaps I was exasperated by the continuous accusations in ArbCom pages and wanted to stop once and for all another editor’s counsel.  I believe the only big misstatement I have done in Wikiland was the “Scientology army” thing.  I was an absolute newbie then and such is the vernacular in other web sites.  Later I learnt Wikipedia is a serious site and I restrained myself from Troll-ranting pronunciations.  But it was a total surprise nevertheless to be dragged to this time-consuming arbitration process.  I can only hope the voting phase will soon start so I don’t have to defend myself any more from accusations.  Rockpocket and Ande B are very good persons and I believe they will understand it too.  I’m sorry the well is so poisoned now.  If things go well, all of us together will improve the article following ArbCom decision with much clearer water.  I am really burnt out by now and only thing I want is ... PEACE.  —Cesar Tort 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, and it is up to you what you want. It was ok to mention my name, I have no problem with that. And if you feel I can be of assistance, let me know. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If that doesn’t take much of your time, yes: I am willing to accept advice from much more knowledgeable wikipedians than me. —Cesar Tort 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it will take time, but I am free to use my time as I wish, and if I had the feeling I was waisting it, I would not do it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Drawing a line
Hi Cesar. I read you last post on the workshop page. In conjunction with what you say above, i think i am correct in assuming that we have both found ourselves at a point where neither of us wish to be. We have both invested way to much time and we are no futher forward than we were last week. The following is my opinion and, since its consistant with a number of trusted editors, i am confident it isn't too far off the mark. But please see it for what it is - it is not an attack - but an attempt at solving a problem (as i see it). You may or may not believe me, but my two main goals of this whole process have been:


 * 1) To try and find a way to make you appreciate that, sometimes, your material (contributed in the best faith) strays into POV language and assertions and that you sometimes struggle to determine the motives of those that are working with you. I have no doubt that this isn't intentional and that you genuinely do not see it yourself, but i think that being so close to this controversial subject makes it near impossible to determine neutrality sometimes. This is problem, though it does not mean you shouldn't edit these pages, it is something i believe you have to recognise and trust others when they try and work with you to improve the articles. You are not unique in this. I, for example, feel i cannot be completely objective in writing about religion, thus i have never touched an article on the subject.
 * 2) In achieving (1.), i wished to make minimise any restrictions put on your editing by ArbCom (as i have a lot of respect for your knowledge as an excellent source of information), try and stop future conflict before it starts and I hoped you would accept the point without the need to drag up all the evidence of unpleasant past misdemeanors.

The problem i have found, is that the harder it became trying to convince you to appreciate (1.) the less successful (2.) has become also. It has now got to the point that, i think, both of us are saying things we don't really believe as a self defense mechanism more than anything else. Whether (1.) will ever be achieved now, i do not know - that is in your hands. What will happen regarding (2.) i don't know either, i expect your eventual position on (1.) will have a lot to do with it.

But i do think that anything else either of us say at ArbCom is unlikely to improve the situation now. Therefore i propose we both refrain from commenting any further (at least about each other, should you wish to respond to any of the other editors that is your choice, but i have said my last word on any subject). I'm not going to promise i will not ever edit an article you have made or contributed to - this is a wiki after all, where everyone can edit unless ArbCom says otherwise - but i'm not going to copyedit everything you write. I really, really hope you will realise its a good thing to actively encourage others to copyedit your work, especially if it is psychiatry related. As i think when you work with other copy-editors - who have less invested in the subject - the results can be impressive (Anti-psychiatry, for example, is pretty damn good now compared to its previous incarnation.)

Thats my opinion anyway. So i'll bid you the best of luck with the ArbCom and be assured, if i feel they are being overly harsh with any decision on you, i will speak up on your behalf. Its not punishment i'm after, its a solution. Should they exonerate you completely, i will offer no criticism, but apologize and reconsider my position on the whole sorry situation. Any decision passed on me, whether positive or negative, will be taken very seriously also.

As always, should i be able to help you with anything in the future, i'd be more than happy to hear from you. Just ask. So here is that line i'm drawing. I'll do my best not to cross it unless invited ;)


 * OK, Rockpocket: we have a deal. We both will refrain from commenting any further about each other.  Peace ;)  —Cesar Tort 06:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the context of not "commenting any further about each other", i'm somewhat preplexed to note this edit, where you appear to be suggesting i am an "advocate" of biopsych and thus am lacking the appropriate critical skills to edit the article impartially. That is both untrue, as i said before my interest is in genetics and i have no interest in promoting any type of psychiatry. Therefore your comments are somewhat lacking good faith. In the spirit of upholding my side of the agreement, i'm not going to reply on the page this time. But please reconsider continuing with this line, as it will simply lead to further accusation and counter accusation.


 * However, i would remind you that ArbCom doesn't comment on content issues, so there is little point in making specific assertions about content. Moreover, the fact that you are a relative newbie notwithstanding, note that mediation was offered numerous times and was not accepted by any of the editors posting the critical content. Therefore to attempt to reverse the process and insinuate that it should it should not be at ArbCom in the first place is somewhat disingenuous. Joema had little choice when mediation requests were ignored. Since it was accepted by ArbCom, they will rule on it. Pleas for them to refer it back to mediation without a ruling serves little purpose, as it will not happen.  Rockpock e  t  17:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Rockpocket. This is a misunderstanding. I thought our agreement is about not making accusations on each other, i.e., not making statements about behavior.  I didn’t expect I couldn’t make content pronouncements.  However, I will modify that passage you called my attention to in Talk Evidence page and instead of mentioning your name I will simply write “another editor”. —Cesar Tort 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cesar. You may not have meant it, but that passage reads (to me) like you believe that Ande, myself and Joema are POV editing to advocate biopsych. That is most definately a comment on behaviour! I'm sure they will not be enamoured with that suggestion either and may well respond, kicking off another back and forth debate and prolonging the process until we can get a decision. Appreciate you removing my name from it, though. One last point. You do realise, i hope, that whatever judgement that is delivered here will, on principle, be applicable to Anti-psychiatry also. Therefore the net effect of any judgement that there should more criticism, will simply mean the anti becomes "more" biopsych and the biopsych will become "more" anti. Quite what is gained by that, i'm not sure.  Rockpock e  t  20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think that the Anti-psychiatry article needs a 25% criticism section written by pro-psychiatry advocates. —Cesar Tort 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would appear that is exactly what has happened. Moreover, i think Ande makes a very strong point. Your argument that those who advocate a subject cannot be neutral critics is somewhat suicidal. Look through the mine and Ande's edit histories. You will see there are a wide variety of edits to wide range of articles. You, in contrast, are what Wikipedians call a single issue editor and a self confessed advocate. That doesn't look good in terms of your own argument and, if adopted, would be fair grounds for a restriction on you editing psychiatry related articles. I would respectfully advise - and i mean this i the best faith possible - to refrain from commenting further on the subject, as i fear you are doing your case more harm than good (and also alienating editors who, previously, had expressed support for you).  Rockpock e  t  21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But I have to respond to the editor who is now writing about me in Talk Evidence page. If he stops writing about me, I will stop responding. —Cesar Tort 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Letter from Ombi to Ppan
Thanks for expressing interest in the Biological psychiatry (WP:RFAR) proceedings. Although the firestorm initially had all the appearance in the world of being just another run of the mill content dispute, things turned nasty when [some editors] erroneously decided to remove a valid pov tag rather than respect or take time to reflect upon the good faith of Cesar Tort’s eloquent, iron-clad explanations for why it was entirely merited. [Another editor] subsequently threatened to file an ArbCom case after deleting the tag again, despite having arrived at the wrong conclusion in interpreting NPOV tag wikiguidlines. Cesar must be given credit for doing an incredibly good job countering the deletionist dismantling of dissenting content by the wiki’s devoutly disciplined medical lobby. Almost single-handedly, Cesar has managed to stand his ground valiantly on behalf of oppressed stakeholders, while keeping the focus of attention on content. In the face of the fire breathing rhetoric launched at him, Cesar’s resolute dedication has been heartening and amazing to witness. He may or may not want or need assistance, but he definitely deserves something better than a run of the mill barnstar for his efforts. Ombudsman 01:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Help (in WP:RFAR case)?
Hello, Ombudsman referred me to you here. Sorry I don’t have time to make a more complete presentation, but I am at the library. I am an expert in psychology and conversational logic, and would be happy to help you to argue your case, and to provide any means of support that I can. I think it is very clear that there is extreme bias in the medical community for prescribing medications without due cause, both as a money making scheme, and because medicated persons are easier for other people to deal with, not because the drugs work. I am particularly familiar with pain prescription meds and Asperger’s syndrome (which I have) as well as ADHD which I was falsely diagnosed with. Let me know here or on my talk page if there is anything I can do to help, and if there is any place where you would like an analysis of logic. Well, that’s all I can do for now. Prometheuspan 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ad hominems etc
In response to your question, i will be happy to add my comments to any WP:PAIN report regarding Ande B. It looks like you just go there and add your complaint. They have a backlog. They will want you to provide examples of the attacks. So copy the browser adress where you find them, and quote the attacks, and paste it all on the WP:Pain page. Prometheuspan 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all respect and in the best faith possible, i would counsel thinking twice about reporting anyone at WP:PAIN unless you have a spotless record in civility yourself. We both know that is not the case, Cesar. Ande will forensically scour all of your comments (remember, the guy is a lawyer!) Do you really want all that Nazi nonsense being dragged up again? Give yourself sometime to cool off then consider what you wish to do.  Rockpock e  t  05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That was nothing compared to the battery of insults directed at me in this process. —Cesar Tort 05:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I was just saying that admins do not tend to treat people differently in these sorts of things when there is evidence presented against both individuals. So you just may end up reaping what you sow, which wouldn't really be to your benefit. Feel free to ignore me, i was just trying to save you further unpleasantness.  Rockpock e  t  08:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my case the insults are serious, but I will ask further advice to the other editor that endured ad hominem attacks. —Cesar Tort 15:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know Cesar, I am going to be busy today...i have done as much as i can for today. Tomorrow i will be back on your case again.

Don't let rockpuppet intimidate you here. The question is not whether or not you are guilty of being uncivil, but whether or not they are being uncivil, and proportion. If you did start it, then you shouldn't even complain of it to me. If you are being unfairly abused, even a good lawyer is going to have a pretty tough time competing against me. Should you decide to file at "PAIN" i will be happy to prosecute the case to the best of my ability.

Do be sure that you have a case, and that you did not start it, bait the guy, etc.

Anyways, till then; defend the compromise, esp the idea that you get to write new articles in general at the rate that you can totally fill up article space, and with the limit being simple representation of the critical perspective that exists within the science community, and from the perspective of victims of the system only secondarilly in an evidenciary context. Ta ta. Prometheuspan 18:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * [Rockpocket:] Seems you have representation then, i'm sure Ande will shaking in his boots. As i said, i'm not trying to intimidate you not to go ahead. I just think people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and note it is going to lead to a lot more accusation and counter accusation. I would put money of whatever the outcome is, it will be apportioned equally.


 * Prometheuspan says "If you did start it, then you shouldn't even complain of it to me." Let me give you some material to work with, as you'll have to justify your client's entirely unprovoked use of these sorts of comments in response to the perfectly justified removal of a blatantly POV sentence:


 * "I happen to know an army of CCHR Scientologists that can help me to put tags on a daily basis, 365 days a year... Like the Nazi and communist biological pseudoscientists, I am afraid you are defending an atrocious and powerful bio-pseudoscience"


 * ''"I happen to know an army of CCHR Scientologists that can help me to put tags on a daily basis, 365 days a year...


 * That sounds like zealotry to me, and while hateful is not a word i would use, comparing other editors to Nazis is rarely ideal to portray victim status. Good luck.  Rockpock e  t  20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Threat, def no no.


 * "Like the Nazi and communist biological pseudoscientists, I am afraid you are defending an atrocious and powerful bio-pseudoscience"

Inflammatory, but factually true and demonstrable. So far, not ad hominems, but certainly evidence that you had a verbal repost coming your way, I'm afraid. Still, not actually ad hominems, and you did seem to more or less retract and apologize "newbie rashness." Prometheuspan 03:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true or demonstrable whatsoever. This accusation was posted in response to me removing these sorts of blatant POV edits by Cesar . Therefore i was defending nothing except the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I'll give you that he apologised, but don't try and pretend there is any sort of justification for such Reductio ad Hitlerum attacks.  Rockpock e  t  06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket: believe it or not but I much prefer a Ranting Troll who has insulted me than your impolite (though not openly insulting) comments you often post against me. Last example: what you have just written today in a talk page: “Otherwise your assertions in this field are no more than blinkered, uneducated POV”.  This is blatant ad hominem and false to boot, as anyone who knows the criticism to biopsych genetic theories knows.  The fact that you exposed the “Scientology 365 days a year” pseudo-threat in this process, something that was mere brash newbiness as I have explained a dozen times, speaks volumes about something extremely personal you have against me.


 * For the last time: stop this personal thing once and for all! —Cesar Tort 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

“Otherwise your assertions in this field are no more than blinkered, uneducated POV”. -- Factual ad hominem, demonstrably false, there is in fact a science based criticism of biopsychiatry, and Cesar has at least to some extent represnted it. Prometheuspan 03:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I was talking specifically about genetics, and its entirely demonstrable that unless one can justify their genetic theories with even a basic understanding of the subject then they are both uneducated (in that subject, obviously) and blinkered (in that they choose not to learn about it from geneticists themselves, rather from those activists that share their beliefs). It is also clearly his POV. That sentense is not ad hominem in any way shape or form, its a logical position from the conditions mentioned immediately prior: If X and Y, then Z. By the way, i provided only a single example. There are plenty more examples of Cesar calling editors "biased POV advocates of psychiatry", which (by your def) are also ad hominem. My intention was not to get involved in name calling, only to point out that Cesar is not the innocent victim that could go to PAIN without fear of a comeback, and therefore suggest he gives it a miss. Should he choose to do so, is entirely up to him.  Rockpock e  t  06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How quickly you forget, Cesar. All was quiet, and an uneasy truce was agreed. Then, for no good reason, you post five further assertions including one referring to me and Ande as biased advocates. It seems fine for you to cast unprovoked aspersions, but when they come back on you its suddenly a "personal attack".
 * That said, i truly have had enough of this nonsense. Could you please draft your three sentences of proposed edits to the criticism section so we can be done with this whole debacle. Then you can battle the rest of the community over the legitimacy of a clear pov fork, as i have no interest in that whatsoever.  Rockpock e  t  06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I already explained my content assertions were the result of a negative vote. But you still take this at a personal level. May I suggest you restraint from now on coming uninvited to my user page please?  Not even trolls do that here. —Cesar Tort 14:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

what now
As per your address to my talk page. That’s up to you mostly. The weekend is coming, i won't be able to get on much. I had a set of small personal crises today, sorry i wasn't around. It seems like the story here is basically this: The biopsych article is biased towards the establishment until it gives due weight to the minority opinion of criticism of the science. In order to do that effectively, there has to be a reasonably large exploration of the facts in order to allow the facts to speak for themselves. The sheer size of such a presentation would be as large as the biopsych article, and so there may be from the other sides perspective a good reason and a reasonable argument not to include all that on the biopsychiatry page. The due weight which should be given to the alternate point of view has still not been given, thus the article is factually biased. A possible solution which would solve all of the issues mentioned so far would be to make criticism into a full page detail and create a detail page. This is somewhat similar to a pov fork, and could in some ways even be classified as a pov fork proper. However, there are many legal precedents (tho i don't know about wikipedia) to the effect that due weight issues are best resolved by pov forks where the due weight is seriously disproportionate. IE, about 5 or 10 percent of psychiatrists would agree with at least a significant fraction of the criticism of biopsychiatry. (If they were alerted and allowed to do so in a nonthreatening anonymous way, and if they could be made to be interested enough to bother.) About 1 percent would actually jump to the occasion, being motivated themselves to put forth a strong criticism. That means a lot of disparity in due weight, and for this and a lot of reasons, that means that the best solution is again a "pov fork."

To be honest, this exercise has proven exactly the point i was trying to make: that wikipedia has become abusive. There is a part of me that is increasingly of the opinion that adding energy to wikipedia is just tossing off into the jaws of a monster. If that monster can be disciplined and tamed and frankly, deloused, then its worth working for that. Otherwise, this is one minor battle in a much larger war, and the strong way to deal with this if things don't go your way is probably to attack the system itself on the foundation of its abusiveness. It looks pretty clear to me what happened: you posted a non-neutrality flag that’s pretty factual; but you are a newbie and you don't know really how to go about bringing about neutrality or fixing the problem. You spotted a real problem; what you get for your effort is psychological warfare. A little more lucidity on your part about due weight and assorted other wikipedia policy would probably have saved you some pain and stress; but on the other hand, the system itself is at fault for being so unuserfreindly. If the system was sane, it would have accepted your observation and worked with you to arrive probably at the same kind of compromise which i am promoting. Instead, you are facing mob abuse.

I could come over and argue on the biopsyche talk page. You and i could start the new article. We could just wait for the arbitration. I think you should spend your time gathering evidence. Running yahoos "scholarly articles" search engine seems in order. I'm a wikipedia newbie just like you. I know formal logic and psychology, not wikipedia power politics. Think of me as a helpful team mate, don't put me on any pedestals. I don't know what to do next really any better than you, but if you come up with any requests for my help, I'll do the best i can. Prometheuspan 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, even if it’s unwise to put anybody on a pedestal you still managed superbly on the arena with your knowledge of logic fallacies (I’m real newbie on the defensive side when attacked with ad hominem arguments).


 * When this process is over I will write the draft of Criticism of biopsychiatry in my subpage User:Cesar Tort/discussion and invite Anarchist, JFW, Midgley and you for critical comment before posting it according to NPOV.


 * Thanks for the links below by the way. —Cesar Tort 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become abusive
To be honest, this [WP:RFAR] exercise has proven exactly the point I was trying to make: that wikipedia has become abusive. There is a part of me that is increasingly of the opinion that adding energy to wikipedia is just tossing off into the jaws of a monster. If that monster can be disciplined and tamed and frankly, deloused, then it’s worth working for that. Otherwise, this is one minor battle in a much larger war, and the strong way to deal with this if things don’t go your way is probably to attack the system itself on the foundation of its abusiveness.

It looks pretty clear to me what happened: you posted a non-neutrality flag that’s pretty factual; but you are a newbie and you don’t know really how to go about bringing about neutrality or fixing the problem. You spotted a real problem; what you get for your effort is psychological warfare. A little more lucidity on your part about due weight and assorted other wikipedia policy would probably have saved you some pain and stress; but on the other hand, the system itself is at fault for being so un-userfriendly. If the system was sane, it would have accepted your observation and worked with you to arrive probably at the same kind of compromise which I am promoting. Instead, you are facing mob abuse. Prometheuspan 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

After Ppan defeated a troll in WP:RFAR
I am pleased to see that things are going so much smoother now. I can’t help but feel some small amount of pride. What do you think would have happened if I hadn’t intervened? Would you recommend me to others? Was it hard at first to deal with the “devil’s advocate” side of things? Did you feel any sense of betrayal with that? What criticism of my performance might you have so that I could improve?

Feel free to answer over on my talk page. Thanks again for everything! :) Prometheuspan 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hadn’t you intervened, the newbie Cesar wouldn’t have been taught the lesson How to Defend Yourself against Fallacious Ad Hominem Attacks. I can refute biopsych with pure reason.  But I’ve to learn a lot about how to handle prosecutors.  Yes: I felt much betrayed by another editor (who has stalked me since I arrived to wikipedia).  And no: no criticisms of your performance occur to me.


 * I think the recent conflagration is not strictly a wikipedia problem. It’s a problem with the whole mankind.  A sincere, brutally honest and full response to your question would require disclosing my Weltanschauung (I’m working on an ambitious 10-volume work about it).  It’d be an unimaginably strong response that, for civility purposes, would be much better suited for email discussion (cesartort@yahoo.com). Suffice it to say here that all has to do with what Lloyd deMause calls the clash of psychoclasses.  —Cesar Tort 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others
This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

Wikistalking (from wp: help desk)
“It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith” says WP official policy. Where can I address a formal complaint about an editor who has been stalking me? What can I do to stop him? —Cesar Tort 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Start at Resolving disputes or get the advice of a friendly admin.  &middot; rodii &middot;  19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume you are talking about me when you refer to your RfAR "stalker" and "troll" (though i also note you have been very careful to avoid naming names explicitly. Is there a resason for that?) I would advise against throwing those terms around lightly, as you have been doing at every opportunity since the RfAR  . They may be considered personal attacks if not fully justified. The important part of WP:STALK you omit is as follows:


 * "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful."


 * The only articles we have co-edited since the RfAR (where, remember you were cautioned for breaching WP:CITE policy and therefore it is not unreasonable for your edits to be checked) are:
 * Biopsychiatry controversy where you removed perfectly suitable and verifiable content without justification . I replaced it with an explanation why and provided sources when questioned on your subpage
 * Controversy about ADHD where you added a non existing category . I removed it.


 * Hardly trolling or stalking, especially since those articles are on my watchlist. A brief perusal of your contribs shows plenty of articles you have edited i have no history of editing. Therefore please either ask an administrator to investigate or refrain from such insinuation. Should you continue with these groundless allegations I will ask an Admin to intervene myself. Thank you.  Rockpock e  t  02:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It never occurred to me to call you a troll, rockpocket: he is another editor. And the stalking has nothing to do with your copyedits in the articles you mention above.

You didn’t grasp what I was talking about. —Cesar Tort 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear it, and apologise if i misinterpreted the subject of your comments about trolling. I take if from your careful reply that i am the subject of your stalking claims, however. If those edits are not your justification then what is? As far as i am aware i have not edited any article you have since RfAR, and our only discussion on a talk page was after Bookish had explicitly inquired about and edit i had made. Bearing that in mind, I am really perplexed how you could be a victim of wiki-stalking ("Following an editor to another article to continue disruption"). As i said, as you had made such claims numerous times now, including on Jimbo's talk page where you describe your stalker as an example of "scum". Its time to - if you'll excuse the turn of phrase - put up or shut up. If you can't provide a name and evidence for you claims then your comments are no more than personal attacks by insinuation. Thanks.  Rockpock  e  t  03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered question to ArbCom
Only one question. If the 6 April article I rewrote with Midgley was a NPOV correction of the previous pov incarnation (in which Midgley, not I, removed the tag), how can this be considered "Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort  [...]" in Proposed decision? . —Cesar Tort 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted identical letters to the six ArbCom members. NO REPLY. —Cesar Tort 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I offer you my red pill, Austerlitz
threaded discussion from the Psychiatry article; Jeffrey Masson article, and my subpage

“Why should people who have been abused in their childhoods not be able to feel empathy toward another victim?” you have asked me in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion.

Good question. Unfortunately I am behind schedule to finish my literary project and cannot discuss the details (I’m editing in wikipedia only on Sundays). If German is your native language I suggest you purchase Abbruch der Schweigemauer by Alice Miller. Alternatively, you can read for free another of her books here.

If you want to delve deeper into it you have to read another book, Lloyd deMause’s The Emotional Life of Nations. You can start with a section, “The seven stages of historical personality” that explains the evolution of psyche and society re child abuse from gross Neanderthalism to overman.

I won’t discuss these works with other editors because the way disagreements are handled in Wikiland is a colossal energy sink.

But I can state that, unlike you, many wikipedians promote mechanistic views of human nature. They were Vulcan-trained at home and in the academia to kill their own emotions. Trying to argue with them is like trying to make Mr. Spock behave like your high school sweetheart. Tort’s law: No matter how persuasively the arguments are presented; in subjects about emotions, Spocks —i.e., the majority of wikipedians— will always miss the point.

For instance, the fact that parents give their kids psychiatric drugs to control them cannot be grasped by emotionally handicapped humans. As an outsider acutely observed, you can tell what kind of people become Wikipediholic by the quantity of articles in certain subject areas. Lots and lots of Star Trek, Star Wars, science and software engineering and 70 articles about autism. What does that tell you? Autistic Spocks badly handicapped in real life are Wikiland’s masters. But you have to have developed empathy to a high degree to see the colors of life and feel the tragedy of child abuse. If you want proof that the intention of administering Ritalin is to control rather than help the kid you are advised to read still another book, Thomas Szasz’s Cruel Compassion. And you must understand psychohistorians’ critique of socializing modes of childrearing which includes compulsory schooling. The point is that even without Ritalin compulsory schooling is abuse and parents who practice this form of childrearing are still Neanderthals. To boot, since the child cannot know s/he is being abused by schooling s/he cannot feel empathy toward other victims and will repeat the same abusing pattern in the future: an evil introject that metamorphoses a loving child into just another adult without empathy or compassion: a Neanderthal.

This is very strong meat, Austerlitz. It runs against everything we have been taught. But some human beings have unplugged themselves out of The Matrix and discussed it at length. Take a look at the psychogenic mode table where physical and sexual parental abuse is rampant. These are parents more primitive than our socializing-mode parents; they even practice mutilation and infanticide. For example the Muslim world where, among many other abuses, girls are genitally mutilated belongs to a much inferior psychoclass than ours (“psychoclass” means the level of child abuse in a given family or culture). This explains why they, not the Americans, are killing innocent civilians in the Iraq bombings right now. Many native Indians also belong to an inferior psychoclass —as the Germans were inferior during the Third Reich too. There are 32 million women “missing” in India. According to sociological studies this can only mean massive filicide (I’ve seen a National Geographic photo of a Western man rescuing an Indian baby girl thrown to the public garbage). About this unheard of holocaust I urge you to read the flaming discussion in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing/Archive. As Daniel Mackler, one of the very few overmen I know, wrote (and I am paraphrasing him a bit):


 * In our Neanderthal society, the West included, telling the truth about who one’s parents really are and what they really did is the greatest crime of all. We murder criminals who did similar things to that which we can’t accept our parents did to us.  And we psychiatrically medicate and numb children with upwelling symptoms of their traumas to keep ourselves, like the autistic wikipediholics, emotionally deft to the screaming child inside us.

Taking a neutral stance in the face of such universal crime is simply fiddling while Rome burns. If you embark on the serious project of reading those authors and feel your emotions you will understand my letter to Jimbo and the utter idiocy of the NPOV policy.

This is my ultimate response, Austerlitz, and cannot argue it any further because of editorial pressure in real world. I can only hope that unlike our fellow editors you will swallow my red pill and become unplugged from the Matrix. —Cesar Tort 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)