Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Case Opened on 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties


Case summary: repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry by Cesar Tort and  Ombudsman


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Cesar Tort
 * Ombudsman
 * Ande B.
 * Rockpocket
 * Fuzzform
 * Jfdwolff
 * Midgley
 * Andrew73

Editors Cesar Tort  and  Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation/arbitration. Request consent for arbitration from Ombudsman (no response):
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiological_psychiatry&diff=49113132&oldid=49107099

Request consent for mediation/arbitration from Cesar Tort (no response):


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABiological_psychiatry&diff=49145955&oldid=49141891

Statement by User:Joema
Case concerns repeated POV-tagging of Biological psychiatry, apparently motivated by strong anti-psychiatry feelings primarily by two editors: Cesar Tort and  Ombudsman

The parties are in two opposing groups: Cesar Tort and  Ombudsman vs everybody else.

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman have repeatedly POV-tagged Biological psychiatry, despite repeated entreaties by several editors to stop. They have strong anti-psychiatry feelings and want the article to extensively reflect that viewpoint. However there's already an article on Anti-psychiatry, where most of such content belongs. That has been tactfully pointed out to them multiple times.

There is broad consensus the article in current form is NPOV, well-referenced, and encyclopedic in tone and content. Two editors disagree: Cesar Tort and Ombudsman.

They've been begged to stop POV-tagging the article multiple times. They have not responded to requests for mediation. They feel very strongly about the topic, but apparently don't understand an encyclopedia article is not the forum to express those feelings, or at least restrict them to Anti-psychiatry. Regretably, at this point arbitration seems the only choice. Joema 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket
While not deeply involved in the dispute this request addresses, i was asked to comment having worked with Cesar Tort on an extensive re-write of Anti-psychiatry. I concur with Joema's position, whose contribution to biological psychiatry i have praised, and attempted to explain Wikipedia's position on pseudoscience and WP:NPOV. I, with others, have also encouraged those who dispute the article's content to contribute their material to a more suitable article. I believe Cesar Tort's position, while misguided, is in good faith and that lack of response to requests for mediation is due to not understanding, rather than wilful disregard for the dispute resolution process. I take no position on Ombudsman's motives, though i believe her/his use of the NPOV tag is also misguided. Rockpocket 06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cesar Tort
I am so newbie to Wikipedia that I did not even know of the existence of this page until today, 29 April, thanks to a personal communication of Rockpocket.

I only posted twice the NPOV tag and explained my reasons extensively in the talk page. When I felt outnumbered, I stated I would not post it again. 

Though I am willing to keep that promise, I would like to know if I am allowed to (at least) continue to discuss the issues in the Talk Page? Please remember that I arrived to Wikipedia last month and that I was unaware of the policies (which explains why I did not respond to Joema —I had no idea what she was talking about). —Cesar Tort 20:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ombudsman
Steering articles toward the ever elusive npov state is typically very difficult on medical articles, especially given the fact that conventional medicine criticism is frequently rebuffed, reverted, and/or almost uniformly reviled by defenders of medical establishment pov. To name a few among the contrarians and critics who have been hounded, harassed, and/or banned, Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC is no longer contributing to psychiatry articles, Irismeister and Lir have been banned after disputes over iridology, and Leifern has been dealt with mercilessly for having the temerity to try to bring balance to articles related to the vaccine controversy, etc. Joema hasn't seemed to be too much involved with the vexatious shenanigans that have gone on in the past, so the apparent threat to take a content dispute directly to arbitration just looked like an off the wall example of the type of behavior that led Cesar Tort to write, on his talk page, that this particular tempest had intimidated him as a new user. Precisely because of a very pov interpretation of npov guidelines, good faith efforts aimed at restoring and maintining a reasonable amount of context and critical analysis in the biological psychiatry article have been met with the usual cascade of Wikilawyering, dubious accusations and procedural diversions that led to Francesca's departure and Cesar's expression of concerns about intimidation. Joema doesn't seem to have been a ringleader in these unrelenting assaults, but the raw torrent of diversions (and much worse) flowing from the conventional medicine aherents just isn't proper, and some means for mitigating these problems need to be developed. There seems to be a double standard at work here, exacerbated by the fact that most members of the Wiki's conventional medicine lobby are quite articulate, and that they seem to be able to throw up npov tags willy nilly, or delete content, or inflame ruckuses with little or no fear of being sanctioned in any way, shape or form. Attempts to insert noteworthy critical views, explicitly condoned by npov guidelines, often can't be preserved or even inserted edgewise in the first place. The experience suffered by Leifern, who was outnumbered after the vaccine critics article was hijacked and replaced with an extraordinarily pov article, is another sad example of the difficulties associated with going to bat on behalf of another editor dutifully trying to keep an article npov with a simple tag. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if the diversions were allowed to die down again, so that attention to actually writing good and npov articles can resume. Ombudsman 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fuzzform
I agree with the statements by parties one and two. Joema pretty much summed up the entire dispute. Regarding the above statement by Stifle: there is already a clear majority in support of Joema's edits. If you read the talk page, this is quite clear. I don't think that input is needed from non-involved parties. The issue is not so much about content as it is about improper tagging of the article (with the POV tag). If the issue was about content, Cesar Tort would be the one requesting arbitration, as he is the major opponent of the article's content. The POV tag has been removed numerous times by several different people. Ombudsman has nearly violated the three-revert rule by reverting to the tagged article three times in row in 25 hours (1 hour less and he would have been blocked), despite its having been removed by three different people. To sum it up, the issue is over repeated improper use of a tag, not over content, and therefore it should not be rejected and/or moved to the WP:RFC page. Fuzzform 00:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Midgley
I agree with the accounts given by Joema, and JDW. And Andrew73 and Fuzzform. My involvement is quite peripheral, but having done some work on a previous version of the article I was quite happy that the large rewrite of it had achieved NPOV. I do not think this matter is completely separate from the other RFC on Ombudsman, nor from his habit of writing essentially the same article over and over in anything to do with vaccination - and indeed quite considerably on the initial request for arbitration page. The specific page here probably means notably different things to different people, anti-psychiatry is a good example of the meaning to at least one, and is an appropriate place for information on that. Midgley 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Andrew73 on the username issue
This was actually the subject of a prior RfC in August 2005, e.g. see, , , etc., though no consensus was reached. I do find it amusing that there is an Ombudsperson as well "The Invisible Anon" who posts under 86.10.231.219. I guess an Ombudswoman would gild the lily. Andrew73 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 66.58.130.26
This whole affair seems to have escalated too far, too fast to be here. I think that mediation or some sort of work forum needs to be arranged. There are several underlying problems here. First the article seems POV because it tends to present BioPsych as recitation on current procedures and pharmacology, not much underlying history, biochemistry, biology or historically significant alternate biological/pharmacological theses. Second, there seems to be technical background gap issues for both sides, Ombudsman, as well as the conventional medical group and the lack of overlap between them. They don't speak the same language, and the doctors are usually surprised when they overcome enough preconceptions to even look. Third, IMHO, there *are* dominant group power/POV issues, "asymmetric...", which I began to work on for a recent RfC to try to surface blindspots and resolve amicably. I feel that some progress was made and I hope that they feel that way also. Fourth, the medical group members do tend to be better writers, be better at argumentation, have status and resources.

From the conventional medical group, someone would probably need to slog through about 1000 pages of 1950-70s biopsych history, politics and biochemistry (before and when a final series of rupture occurred) to know where Ombudsman's position originates from, screaming all the way (assaulted preconceptions) although built on real biochemistry and documented medical evidence (I assume where Ombudsman comes from). I do not know Ombudsman's depth or ability to articulate this material to a tough audience either. Without some ability to vet from the conventional medical group, he will likely be cut short and frustrated even if he tries to start. The gap is that big. Probably the place to start is to improve the description of the biochemical dawn of the 1950s into the 60s, not just sales leaders in certain categories.

Finally I think that the perceptions and comments about pervasive economic and economically driven influences, with varying layers and degrees of indirect influence, form a whole book in their own right but further charges the atmosphere.--66.58.130.26 15:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User Ande B
First, I regret my late appearance here, I have been incapacitated due to illness. I hope my comments are useful.

I came to the Bio-Psych pages during a routine Recent Changes check and saw that there was an active discussion page and a struggle between editors regarding the NPOV tag. One editor in particular, Joema, had contributed substantially to the article and was regularly defending the majority medical view on the talk pages. It was my impression that Joema attempted to accomodate the concerns of those with contrary views but was still rebuffed by Ombudsman. Ombudsman essentially insisted that the only "correct" view was that espoused by those who objected to standard practices of the medical and psychiatric "establishment."

After many substantive and stylistic changes were made to the article, it appeared that the article, though perhaps not exhaustive, was accurate, informative, and neutral in tone. At this point (16April06), the NPOV template was taken down by another editor, Jfdwolff. Shortly thereafter, Ombudsman returned the NPOV notice, stating in the edit summary "article is still extremely biased toward a pro-psychiatry pov."

Clearly, Ombudsman's objection was not based on the tone or neutrality of the article itself. Instead, Ombudsman's objection is that the medical / psychiatric community, as a whole, does not concur in Ombudsman's assessments. The edit summary shows a lack of understanding of the difference between writing that is biased vs writing that accurately reflects a state of affairs which might not be accepted by all parties.

Subsequently, a number of NPOV notice removals and reverts were made. At no time did Ombudsman provide any rationale for the repeated NPOV tagging other than a strong disagreement with mainstream opinion. No amount of discussion could dissuade Ombudsman from insisting on the NPOV tags.

The editors contributing substantively to this article appear to be well qualified health or science professionals (assuming that we have all been honest in describing our backgrounds.) But I do not base my support of the neutrality of the article as it now stands on some sort of capitulation to "main stream" authority. Rather, I support the removal of the NPOV tags and restricitions on further NPOV tagging by Ombudsman based on a review of relevant literature and other sources. I am not a scientist or neuro-pharmacologist but am familiar with standard editorial publishing standards for technical writing. (As a form of disclosure, my own background is as a patent attorney with a decent grounding in bio-technology and related fields. This does not make my opinions "correct," it is merely indicative of the standards I would tend to apply when assessing an article for purposes of substance or bias.)

One editor, Cesar Tort (an articulate editor with significant experience and education), strongly disagreed with the article and, although he would have supported the NPOV tag, has acted with professionalism and written another article that describes a relevant alternative to the main stream approaches discribed in the Bio-Psych article. I have no complaints about Cesar Tort's behavior. I probably even agree with him on some issues. Our disagreement was only about where alternate opinions should be described. That disagreement has been resolved by the new articles initiated by Cesar Tort with links to them on the Bio Psych page.

No such discussions or resolutions have been possible with Ombudsman. Regrettably, only an official action through this forum appears to be likely to be effective in resolving the unfortunate "edit wars" that have plagued the Bio-Psych article.

Ande B 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Fred Bauder 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 15:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. ➥the Epopt 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
1) Neutral point of view contemplates that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented in an article concerning that subject.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
3) In appropriate instances it is permissible to place a tag on an article in order to call attention to Neutral point of view problems with the article. In such instances it is expected that discussion of bias problems will also be conducted on the article's talk page.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
4) It is expected that in cases of disagreement that users will attempt in good faith to negotiate with one another in order to arrive at solutions which result in comprehensive articles which fairly represent all significant points of view which can be supported by reliable and verifiable sources.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

False consensus
5) "At times, a group of editors may be able to...overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV.... This is not a consensus." Consensus.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
6) In situations where a user disrupts the editing of an article by tendentious editing they may be banned from editing that article or related articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is the edits made by and  to Biological psychiatry as well as those made by other regular editors, some of whom complain about the edits of Cesar Tort and Ombudsman.  In the case of Ombudsman his past history of editing medical articles as set forth in Requests for comment/Ombudsman is also considered.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman
2) Ombudsman originally edited Biological psychiatry with an anti-psychiatry viewpoint ; this orientation was continued as Cesar Tort began editing ]. Later editing by resulted in an expanded article which takes a much more positive point of view . There was further editing by  resulting in the current version. Cesar Tort and Ombudsman have expressed dissatisfaction with the resulting article as not containing sufficient critical material. This dissatisfaction was expressed by repeatedly inserting the  tag.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

History of tendentious editing by Ombudsman
3) Ombudsman has a long standing history of tendentious editing of medical articles, often citing sources of doubtful reliability; see Requests for comment/Ombudsman.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
4) The tag was repeatedly placed by Ombudsman and Cesar Tort on the article, , , , , and . When the tag was placed on the article it usually contained only one sentence critical of Biological psychiatry, "The field, however, is not without its critics and the phrase "biological psychiatry" is sometimes used by those critics as a term of disparagement." See for Cesar Tort's explanation.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Contentions that the article is acceptable
6) Despite vocal protests by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman that the article is biased it is the contention of Joema, Ande B. and others that the article as presently constituted represents neutral point of view and is the result of consensus, see Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop, Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop, and Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ombudsman placed on Probation
1) 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. All bans to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort cautioned
2) Cesar Tort is cautioned to limit critical material to that supported by reliable scientific authority.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * Ban imposed on further editing at Notice board for vaccine-related topics. He has recently repeatedly deleted commentry on his involvement on vaccine related topics at the noticeboard (1, 2 and 3 in the last 2 days). Edit summary claim of moving to talk page are not borne out by this where material and Ombudsman name not included. I, like another editor, find this disruptive editing. I've posted to WP:AN/I (WP:AN/I) for other Admins to review my action under terms of the above probation. David Ruben Talk 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Block imposed, when he yet again moved thread on the noticeboard to its talk page (which should be to discuss how the noticeboard functions, not IMHO for the actual notices themselves). For riding roughshot over ban (duely notified to him 5 days prior, and no contrary Admin opinion raised at AN/I), I've blocked for 31hours. I've also asked editors at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics whether to revert back or leave ISQ (in which case I would formally recind his ban on that article) David Ruben Talk 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked for 3 weeks and topic-banned: see for more details. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)