Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Ombudsman
[ Final] (6/27/8) Ended Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:15:39 UTC

– Ombudsman has made very large and informative contributions to Wikipedia. He has also done policing work. He is a very fair and rule-abiding person from what I've seen. The user Osbus had previously recommended that he run for admin, but did not officially nominate him. Even the name 'Ombudsman' is a sign of good character (an ombudsman is a person that fights abuse of power). I therefore conclude that Ombudsman would make an excellent administrator. GoodCop 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted appreciatively.  Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-Nom I've more or less stopped editing on Wikipedia, due to personal thoughts on the project. I've shared my thoughts with Ombudsman; though he agrees with me on a few points, he, unlike me, has had the faith and strength to continue to better the WP project. One of the qualities that I believe an admin must have is faith in the project. As demonstrated above, Ombudsman will continue to put effort into ultimately creating the ideal encyclopedia.

Since I've been gone, Ombudsman has been through a lot. Users who choose to continually harass him, abusive admins, and not to mention some dealings with ArbCom. It would have been easy to simply just stop and quit. Once again, I stress that Ombudsman is determined to stick through to the ultimate goal: creating an encyclopedia.

I dont think anyone will argue that he does not have enough edits; if one shall doubt it, I suggest looking at his userpage. With an impressive number of articles started and edits, it is without a doubt that Ombudsman has devoted much of his expertise and knowledge of the medical field to the Wikipedia project. These contributions have been valuable. There is also a lack of admins who specialize in medicine.

Wikipedia is constantly changing, and constantly facing new challenges. An admin should always be steadfast and determined. Ombudsman has the characteristics mentioned, the edit count, and the experience, not to mention the friendliness/approachibility not to be had by every admin.

I rarely feel that admins make a difference. However, I feel Ombudsman would be someone to step up while being fair and doing the right things. ArbCom's ruling, if I dare say it, is faulty, due to reasons stated by SLgrandson.−Osbus 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: That's not easy to forecast, having always concentrated on contributing articles up to this point, but helping out on an 'as needed' basis will probably consume a lot of spare time initially.  Finding a proper niche will probably happen within a couple of months.  Keeping an eye on what needs to be done with the aforementioned backlogs will help with the learning curve, but in general the objective will be keeping a sharp focus on accomplishing tasks that will most effectively contribute to building the Wikipedia community, especially by encouraging collegiality, civility and party directed mediation, and by fostering a better community understanding of best dispute resolution and prevention practices.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: The 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference article immediately comes to mind, perhaps because the event itself has come to be more widely recognized as a major turning point in the autism epidemic controversy, but also because the article still manages to briefly cover the issues debated at the event with some detail, and because the article seems to have remained fairly stable while withstanding scrutiny from a number of perspectives.  Starting the Holonomic brain model article, albeit inelegantly, was significant, in that the model of cognition, developed by Karl Pribram and David Bohm, adds a critical dimension to the Wiki's institutional memory cache, and offers a strong alternative to prevailing concepts like biological psychiatry and the chemical imbalance theory.  Otherwise, contributing a variety of biographies and starting the WikiProject Running has also been a distinct pleasure.  Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Supporting other editors who were dealing with Wikiturfing/astroturfing conflicts has led to an RfC (due to intervention on behalf of User:Whaleto) and an RfAr (on behalf of User:Cesar Tort); both cases were hastily initiated, and as a result they wound up taking much to longer to resolve than necessary.  The situations required a great deal of patience, and it was helpful in both cases to concentrate as much as possible on sticking to the content issues, rather than buying more than necessary into the many threads focused on personalities.  Among a number difficult aspects of the cases was the feeling that the interventions may have contributed to the grief experienced by the new users, who understandably took umbrage at the fierce Wikiturfing tactics and the apparent suppression of their good faith contributions.  In the future, trying to use more diplomacy, as well as continuing to focus on content issues, will be the top priority.  Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from 
 * 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: WP:IAR is an essential policy, but one which must be used with due caution.  The snowball clause looks like a simple admonition to use common sense when confronted by overwhelming opposition, e.g., to such things as an ill-advised application of WP:IAR.  The policies will be applied in good faith.


 * 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
 * A: Basically, no.  The policy is pretty straightforward here, blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption and should not be used punitively.  The policy is also common sense.


 * 6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
 * A: If a case can be made that an article needs to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic, then the arguments for speedy deletion would have to be considered.  Otherwise, 'blatant advertising' should routinely be speedied.


 * General comments

Ombudsman's editcount summary stats as of 18:55, October 27 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Ombudsman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Discussion In the end, the ArbCom found the NPOV tag at the center of the dispute, originally placed by Cesar Tort, was justified. During the ArbCom case, the most reasonable course of action was to wait out the storm, as much as reasonable, while continuing to make good faith efforts to participate. Under the circumstances, it would have been unseemly to partake in the mudslinging that was unleashed.
 * Ombudsman placed on Probation: "Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing."  How can you assure potential voters on this RfA that you fully understand and apply the WP:NPOV policy in the light of the above arbitration case? (aeropagitica) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute may have been triggered by an NPOV issue, but the RfAr (perhaps due to faulty design) turned out to be little more than a springboard for whithering personal accusations, seemingly for the purpose of suppressing non-medical establishment views (i.e., Wikiturfing). The new editor who filed the case may have gotten the wrong impression from the wrongful tag removal by other, more established editors. It wasn't exactly the ArbCom's fault that, because the process allows open-ended personal attacks (which makes bunkers the only safe vantage point), the committee only succeeded in playing pin the tail on the donkey. Too, the discussion leading up to the ArbCom hearing the case didn't lend itself to cooling off the situation, or achieving NPOV, but instead amounted to little more than smoke signals indicating a prospective whooping.

Since the matter had been turned upside down from an NPOV tag issue into a personality conflict, what was learned from the situation was that personality conflicts can be manufactured or magnified beyond recognition to distract attention from achieving NPOV. That seems to be the strategy being used on an ongoing basis to sustain the Wikiturfing that apparently is taking place along the entire spectrum of the Wiki's medical articles (it was intimated early in the ArbCom proceedings that the issue would be inestigated, but it was not).

Getting back to NPOV, as a fundamental tenet of the Wiki, NPOV should be the paramount objective, in order to assure content quality. NPOV can best be collaboratively developed, which means that RfAr discussions should be made safer for discussing NPOVing, without having to wait out personal assaults in a bunker. Fully understanding NPOV involves developing an appreciation for and skills necessary for developing consensus on issues.

More than once, User:ClockworkSoul has pointed out that NPOV eventually seems to be worked out, when a measure of patience is applied. Given the above, it is clear that retaining a positive attitude about the good faith of other editors is helpful, too. Ombudsman 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * Mike |  Trick or Treat  03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Support (being the nominator) GoodCop 03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I see now (due to the edits that Sandstein and Aeropagitica mentioned, which I did not see before) that Ombudsman has some POV-bias in the subjects of psychiatry and George W Bush. Still, I think that the good outweighs the bad. Although Ombudsman is POV-biased on some issues, I think that he is NPOV at times when other people are very tempted to push their POV. GoodCop 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per nom Doc &#9836; talk 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Pretty good user, deserves the tools. Hello32020 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Very nice, intelligent user. Dr.khan 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dr.khan has been indefblocked as CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet, please see [. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | talk 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Support Has a lot of faith in the project &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia]] 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -Osbus 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportNever seen anything less than politeness, even graciousness, from Ombudsman. BTW, the idea that users are somehow more NPOV in editing if they have a mainstream pov doesn't make sense to me. All significant viewpoints should be included, and who better to represent a minority viewpoint than a determined, polite, fairminded, and knowledgeable person like Ombudsman? Supporting minority viewpoints is not tendentious. Further, someone below is still not satisfied with his patient acceptance of an arb decision he (very civilly) disagreed with. That someone wants him to agree with it when he doesn't agree. In most cases, that is an unreasonable demand.Rich 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly oppose due to indications of suboptimal understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I started off with randomly browsing the articles Ombudsman lists as having created, and I'm concerned that most of those I looked at - including those whose history shows he remains involved in editing - tend to be light on (esp. inline-cited) sources; e.g. 1, 2, 3. More pressingly, one of his articles, Bush Crimes Commission, was eventually deleted (AfD 1, 2) due to, inter alia, NPOV and OR issues. His comments in these AfDs (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) lead me to believe that he might have trouble fairly applying policy to articles on politically charged subjects. I remain open to be convinced otherwise about the foregoing, of course, but in general I think we should not seek out administrators who have open, strong controversial opinions on anything, as good as they may be as editors. Sandstein 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Changed from support due to the ArbCom case. - Mike  |  Trick or Treat  19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the diffs that Sandstein gives. I actually want to encourage editors to have strong openly held opinions about subjects, but all editors are expected to strictly abide by WP:NPOV, its one of our core policies. If you let your opinions override this you cannot be an admin. Sorry. I realize the Bush Crimes Commission AfD was several months ago, so I'm open to being convinced that this is a past matter, but the Arbcom ruling does not help. Gwernol 20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the fact that the user is currently under permanent ArbCom sanctions. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Sandstein, I'm not a Bush supporter either but this is troubling "This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US."-Ombudsman ▪◦▪ =Sirex   98=   21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above Buck  ets  ofg  21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose because he is under sanctions 0L1   Talk   Contribs  21:29 29 10 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Users who can block others and protect pages should not have a history of POV-pushing fringe theories. Also, taking up the cause of one-track-mind extremists sounds like gullibility and lack of critical judgment. Opabinia regalis 00:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Per Sandstein. I do not think that adding text such as "Many severe autoimmune diseases are known or suspected to be caused by vaccines" with an edit summary "restore common sense reference to known side effects routinely listed in disclaimers"  with no actual source is appropriate. Ombudsman also has a pattern of interesting edit summaries (e.g.,    ). --Limegreen 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose after reading both the article (deleted but still mirrored) and the recent AfD on Don Paul. I also share Zoe's concerns about the inappropriate username which affects a role the user doesn't have. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, per concerns raised above. --Ter e nce Ong (T 13:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose The ArbCom case is a major concern here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Unfortunately, the ArbCom case raises serious doubts over the ability to maintain true neutrality as an administrator. Dryman 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Was going to stay out of this to avoid pileon, but the comments at the AfD raise sufficient doubt along with the probation to lead me to go ahead and !vote. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose I'd have to say that the user's point-of-view get's in the way of his chances of being an administrator. In my eyes an administrator should be like a judge, no one should be able to tell what he'll decide to do from his tone but that is not possible here. There is a way of having strong personal political beliefs and not letting that get in the way of how you edit.--Jersey Devil 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Spamming user talk pages regarding Don Paul AFD, alerting only users with same viewpoint as his.  , and other issues with POV pushing. --Aude (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose ArbCom case is a concern; a prospective admin shouldn't be the subject of any current cases SunStar Net 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose per concerns raised above, Derktar 07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 19) Under ArbCom sanctions worries me a little. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, due to being under ArbCom sanctions. If you appeal that successfully and come back, I'd probably support. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. I don't feel I can support someone for adminship who is currently under significant ArbCom sactions. Zaxem 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Absolutely not. Treats Wikipedia as Indymedia, history of revisionism in many areas, not collaborative when confronted with accusations of POV editing. Likely to abuse admin powers to further his agenda. JFW |  T@lk  08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is your statement supposed to be an example of restraint? Is this the type of accusation you are talking about?  Or was this intended to get things started off on the right foot?  Did you think this edit would immediately foster collaboration?  Or do you think restraint in such cases might have been warranted, especially since it so happens that it was neigh impossible to think of anything positive to say about that accusation?  Would you describe this shot across the bow as an example of WP:CIVIL?  It would be appreciated if you would begin letting up on the pressure, after one full year, because your latest statement makes it appear you are still using the same foot that you started off on, and only that foot.  Ombudsman 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to being on current editing probation. Yes its an indefinite probation, but that doesnt mean infinite, I'd seek to get that cleared up before going for RFA again. —  xaosflux  Talk  19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Anyone with a long history of having difficulty interacting constructively with those he disagrees with should not be an admin.  I believe that the likelihood that this user would misuse the tools of adminship is too high.  Deli nk 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to current editing probation. Maybe you should have tried after your probation was over? Nish kid  64  21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to indefinitely on Probation. A good name does not a good admin make --Steve 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. In previous interactions with this editor was he displayed very poor understanding of WP:NPOV in pushing fringe science in the biological psychiatry article. That experience leads me to believe providing him with admin tools would be to the detriment of the project. Sadly nothing in his more recent editing has led me to reconsider  Rockpock e  t  05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) This user has been placed on probation by the ArbCom, which I think sends a negative message to many people. Scobell302 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored.  The one committee member that did acknowledge receipt simply couldn't remember the case; several follow up messages did not elicit responses.  The committee based its decision on a vague term (600 google hits for 'tedentious' at the time), and imposed what amounts to being a punitive threat of blocking, while also allowing the impression to be given that it had chosen to ignore the Wikiturfing that has undermined the quality of the Wiki's medical articles, the very reason that the NPOV tag placed by Cesar Tort needed to be restored.  At least the ArbCom did agree about that. Ombudsman 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment TeNdentious : "having a partisan, biased or prejudiced opinion; implicitly or explicitly slanted".--Limegreen 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'm going to suggest withdrawing this RfA for the timebeing, as an Admin who is on indefinite probation from ArbCom for WP:NPOV-related edits isn't someone that I would feel happy having review editors' contributions. I suggest working on getting the indefinite probation lifted, if possible; performing admin-related tasks such as new page, recent change and vandal reporting wouldn't hurt.  So to would be submitting contributions backed up by reliable and verified sources - no one can argue with those. The lifting of this probation would send two signals - that you thoroughly understand WP:NPOV, having been through the mill, and you have raised your game to aspire to the high standards that we all work to uphold. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the ArbCom chose to apply WP:IAR, presumably for the expressed purpose of investigating what had been happening with the Wiki's medical articles. Without a doubt, Wikiturfing has taken place there, due to the double standards that have evolved favoring the suppression of non-mainstream content.  For whatever reason, the ArbCom was unable to address the double standards that have undermined the NPOV of medical articles, and again evidently chose to creatively apply WP:IAR to justify the use of apparently unique and unprecedented 'tedentious' editing standards in coming to its seemingly punitive WP:IAR sanctions.  The rules state that the ArbCom must convene to decide the lifting of such sanctions, but based upon their actions in the case, and the mudslinging that the faulty process induced, the option of making such a request still does not make much sense.  In the alternative, several attempts were made to work things out with the ArbCom via e-mail, but these efforts were met with virtual silence.  The lifting of the indefinite probation would likely be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing by the ArbCom, similar to the prospects for an admission by the pharmaceutical industry that thimerosal should immediately be removed from all vaccines (instead, the industry is fighting such legislation all across the US.  Such admissions by either group would seem to violate the principle of WP:SNOW.  Ombudsman 21:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral; agree with aeropagitica. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: His probation overshadows his potential for adminship (the same thing happened with a new admin,, some time aback). --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I would oppose on the basis of this User's username, which implies a level of authority which he does not have.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Some more time needed (after the ArbComm Case) for Adminship  Doctor Bruno  23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Arbcomm probation. DarthVad e r 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. I'm not happy with Ombudsmans' replies to a couple of Neutral votes above, especially User:Scobell302 where Ombudsman states Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored.. This, for me, smacks of arrogance, where Ombudsman cannot accept he may have been wrong, that he may not fully understand or want to follow WP:NPOV. Heligoland 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.