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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Request for investigation
1) At the bottom of the npov dispute dogpile at Biological psychiatry, at the time of intervention on behalf of Cesar Tort, two of the usual suspects can be found, JFW and Midgley.  There has been an ongoing, broad based campaign to stifle non-mainstream content in medical articles through aggressive wikilawyering, cascades of accusations of personal attacks, numerous articles put up for AfD, and other procedural diversions.  These actions have been chronicled (in lieu of pursuing onerous procedurual remedies that favor large, entrenched cabals) by several editors targeted by editors encumbered with their own conventional medicine conflict of interest issues.  Among the editors who have had these chronicles attacked vociferously are Whaleto, Leifern, and 86.10.231.219. Other editors, feeling outnumbered, have simply left the Wiki out of frustration with the behavior, and that only compounds the problems associated with trying to keep a relatively flat playing field with a balanced complement of editors for the sake of creating and maintaining relatively npov articles. Given that several members of the medical lobby are named, a broader investigation into their numerous and concerted procedural maneuvers, numerous aggressive reverts and deletions, etc., is requested. Ombudsman 10:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We need to differentiate between genuine division of scholarly opinion and crank opposition. Even in a case where there is genuine scholarly opposition we don't want to open the door to positions that lack a rational basis. Fred Bauder 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see examination of the dynamics of participation by medical doctors as equivalent to "examining the behavior of rogue gangs". One characteristic of medical doctors is that in order to become reasonably competent they have narrowed their field of study to the details of medical practice. That is both a strength and a weakness. Another characteristic is that there is a bias towards practical treatment. That is certainly a problem in this case with drugs being an obviously effective practical remedy. Whether a general theory derived from those practical considerations makes sense is a more complex matter. Fred Bauder 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * My involvement in this article has been small, and in the argument around it slight. I think Ombudsman would do better to consider the subject of the RFC than to use it as anotehr chance to attack me or any other doctors around, but I suppose that to be his privilege and choice.  User:Whaleto and his polemical website whale.to and 86.10.231.219 (who insists on representing himself as if a logged in user "The Invisible Anon" in his signature) are the subjects of current RFCsWhaleto RFC,"The Invisible Anon" RFC.  Whaleto has been blocked for incivility, 86.10.231.219 has, unusually, had the user page blanked and blocked for use of it as an attack page, and makes similar use of the talk page.  Leifern has on several occasions been reminded that if he wishes to call an RFC he can do so, as has and could Ombudsman.  Links to the whale.to website were the chief substance of an earlier RFC on Ombudsman.  The description of activities and motives given above is incorrect, although typical of Ombudsman's postings.  Midgley 12:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ombudsman's assertion that having a medical education and Practice constitutes a conflict of interest is interesting. I do not think that a WP where the articles on Nuclear fusion may be written by anyone, provided they have no education in nuclear physics, where law is described by all but the lawyers would be as good as the present arrangement.  My impression is that on the whole the articles which have been deleted after AfD needed to be, and those that have not I am persuaded had some promise of merit.  Ombudsman, in common with the others he names, I do not believe have been persuaded by such community decisions, nor intend to be.  An example of a user who I believe has left the Wiki out of frsutration is User:CDN99 who had produced a quantity of good edits.  His given reason related to the behaviour of, actually, Ombudsman et al in pushing POV through eg apparently biographical articles which consisted almost solely of a note that the person was against vaccination and the perceived ineffectiveness of the WP process in dealing with this.  Midgley 12:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ombudsman cannot resist the temptation to even in this comment make personal attacks. His reference to conflict of interest has been a recurring theme (especially in edit summaries), and has done nothing to improve cooperation between himself and the "medical cabal" at WP:CLINMED. Ombudsman's personal "conflict of interest", of course, is a long-held bias against mainstream medicine, as evidenced by articles he created (e.g. medical resident work hours, much of which was speculative and defamatory).
 * I take personal responsibility for involving fellow medical editors in scrutinising Ombudsman's many forked articles with respect to the vaccine controversy. In my mind, he has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox, insisting that individual researchers adhering to "alternative theories" deserve their own Wiki biographies (e.g. Mark Geier, Boyd Haley, Dan Olmsted etc).
 * I have cooperated with Leifern on various issues, and we have corresponded about the merits of autism treatments; I never edit warred with Leifern and do not plan doing so. I have indeed discussed with 86.10.231.219, usually in a civil tone whenever possible, and do not recognise myself in the characterisations made by Ombudsman. My disagreements with John Whaleto are well known, and this editor is presently the subject of an RFC.
 * I am outraged by Ombudsman's insinuation that I am paid by the drug industry to edit Wikipedia. This is a complete violation of "assume good faith". Like Midgley I lament the departure of CDN99 specifically in reaction to the deafening crossfire. JFW | T@lk  23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ombudsman's diatribe reflects his own biases in a rather blatant manner. His language and vituperative style are not conducive to discussion or compromise.  Those who disagree with him are accused of being members of a far reaching conspiracy.  Such behavior is not helpful.  Ande B 10:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I renamed this from the vague "Template" to "Request for investigation". Having said that, the arbcom doesn't investigate. It expects you to present evidence. If you don't, it won't bother examining your claims. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite true, but taking a fresh look at the situation in ways not suggested by the parties is not often done. Fred Bauder 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the evidence available to you is laid out on user pages and subpages by three of the editors named above. In any case, much of the evidence has been deleted by way of page deletions, including pages chronicling bad behavior by majority groups.   As a semi-formal but alternative dispute resolution body, and because of the flexibility inherently necessary for dealing with seasoned Wikilawyers is plainly codified (Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules), certainly the arbcom has the necessary latitude to apply common sense if it recognizes the systemic problems presented by the growing medical lobby.   Such problems of scale are becoming more common, wherein groups gang up on new editors like Cesar, all the while speaking in Wikilawyerese to avoid sanctions themselves.  In fact, Cesar's avoidance of engaging in the dispute is quite interesting, in that a lack of response to the threatening spectre of abitration was used as an excuse to go ahead with this process.  Better still, take a look at the powerful trauma model article he wrote, it debunks much of the biological psychiatry article's current Pollyanna pov.  It is powerful evidence in and of itself, as it presents knowledge that the arbcom should keep in mind when examining the behavior of rogue gangs, and for why the pov tag is still needed for the biological psychiatry article.  Too, it speaks directly to how editors, especially new editors that are descended upon en mass, tend to view perceived threats, especially coming from the relatively articulate medical lobby, or when simply having to deal with the behavior chronicled by Whale.to, Leifern, and 86.10.231.219.   Ombudsman 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having just read the Trauma model article initiated by Cesar Tort I agree that, as currently written, it is a decent article. It does not, however, in any way "refute" anything in the BioPsych article.  It simply describes the Trauma model.  Presenting alternatives is not a refutation of anything at all.  If I order lasagne for dinner at an Italian restaurant that does not "refute" my strong affinity for Vietnamese cuisine, even though they are different styles of cooking.  Besides, the Trauma model article has nothing to do with the instant dispute.  This little hissy-fit by Ombudsman is typical of his inability to keep on topic.  Ande B 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cesar seems a decent chap, easy enough to work with, who found that there was a consensus, he was not part of it, and agreed to disagree rather than waste anyone's time. I have no recollection (and no desire to go looking for) any suggestion by him that he even thought that people who disagreed with him were therefore bad people, or that there was a conspiracy against him, or that the Real Trouble was other people ganging up on him.  I'd suggest to the ArbCom that if there is any need for any comment on him at this point it is no more than noting that he should continue to accept the concensus view on that specific article, and I'm not convinced there is any need for that since he has accepted it.  Ombudsman's comments above are a bit like his articles - no actual facts, lots of assertions, and when you dig at them mostly wrong and presenting his own POV.  Whale.to's chronicles, when referred to on ANI earlier today, were regarded as something to call RFAR on.  An example would be that if one types "Wikipedia Midgley" into Google, today we find on the first page below a few notes about the genuinely notable philosopher Mary Midgley,  "Midgley has been on Wikipedia a short time, but has a consistent record of personal attacks, borderline vandalism, malicious sockpuppetry and impersonation. ... www.whale.to/vaccines/midgley_h.html - 20k"  It isn't true, and it is a personal attack prosecuted by use of a personal website outside WP and a website moreover that Ombudsman has been active in trying to use as a WP source despite it being unqualified under every point of WP:RS and WP:EL.  It belongs, obviously, to [User:Whaleto]] who presents himself as "John" and has a long history of abuse of doctors in Usenet medical and health lists.  The comment reported was I think Leifern's, made as an irrelevant ad hominem in an AfD discussion.  It is untrue, although Leifern like Ombudsman and 86.10.231.219 has the habit of describing edits with which he disagrees as vandalism.  Leifern's also persistently describes the editing I did before registering a user name - IE with an IP address, as sock-puppetry, and in fact pretty much anything I do as bad, at boring length.  Ombudsman and Leifern did make a treaty to act together, but it isn't obvious to me why Ombudsman has dragged him into what is on the face of it a dispute about Ombudsman's actions, berely involveing me, and not involving Leifern at all.  It does tend to indicate some fixed  purpose, and that purpose doesn't look like making an encyclopedia.  Midgley 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the workshop, not evidence page. Gripes about the dispute resolution process are not a matter for the arbcom to resolve. Add evidence to the evidence page, with specific links to diffs, etc. The Special:Log documents page deletions, etc., and as all the arbitrators are admins, they can view deleted pages. Just add links to the deleted pages on the evidence page. Don't use the workshop to make a vague request for investigation (the arbcom isn't a police force) and expect the arbcom to bother trawling though various pages, hunting down specifc instances of vague allegations. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not hurt to be tentative here, that is what it is for, trying out different approaches to resolution. Fred Bauder 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Remediation of systemic flaws
2) The systemic flaws that have contributed to the problem at hand seem to stem primarily from a double standard in terms of application and enforcement of npov guidelines. Where a majority or conventional pov gang of editors descends upon an article in the role of gatekeepers, threats and intimidation often ensue.  The very notion of npov depends upon covering noteworthy contrarian povs in good faith, but it is strikingly evident that gatekeepers have been ganging up to skew the eventual determination of what any given consensus might be, particularly with regard to deletionism involving medical articles.  This same effect, largely attributable to a cultural conflict between the Wiki's relatively quite flat organizational structure and the growing influence of editors acculturated by rigid hierarchies in the medical community.  That clash of cultures has been relatively mild thus far in comparison to the vast amount of undue influence that big pharma payola has had on the medical establishment's inherently rigid hiearchy, where systemic corruption has almost completely undermined the credibility of a number of scientific investigative bodies. This corruption, which has serious ramifications for the Wiki's npov guidelines, was reported upon last year in the April edition of Scientific American and numerous other publications, most recently in the New York Times, which reported on May 2 that "Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system." To remedy the situation with gatekeeper gangs, perhaps a gang task force,  headed up by mediators or similarly neutral parties, and/or an investigative body to look into reports of suspected or observed abuses referred by admins, who could and perhaps should be assigned mandated reporter responsibilities. Ombudsman, 04:22, 4 May 2006.''


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * You raise a number of interesting questions but as applied to individual medical doctors who may be Wikipedia users it is rather off target. They are expected to deal respectfully with other users who may not be medical doctors and honor our other basic policies such as neutral point of view and using reliable sources. Simple assertions of authority serve them as poorly as they do any other user. That said, we are not going to let quack theories overwhelm our medical articles, however many quack websites can be found to link to. Fred Bauder 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Ombudsman clearly did not see Johnleemk's comments above. Further philosophying about other editors' motives and the delivery of further personal attacks should not be taking place on this page. JFW | T@lk  14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This hyperbolic pejorative drivel, tangential to the topic, is typical. It doesn't build useful articles.  Midgley 21:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I must concur with Midgley. It appears that Ombudsman seeks to be the sole arbiter of wiki content and sole gatekeeper to all contributions.  On the other hand, Ombudsman's display of vitriol directed at the medical establishment makes it clear that his interests are in promoting bias rather than eliminating it.  I find assertions about an individual's motivations are seldom useful, let alone accurate.  Ombudsman seems to insist on making such pronouncements here and seeks to have them inserted into the BIoPsy article in the guise of "fairness."  Ande B 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * No reason for this to be here, it should be on a talk page maybe. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The viewpoint of a party is always of use to the arbitrators. Fred Bauder 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Edit warring
1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Both parties have engaged in edit warring, not just Cesar Tort and Ombudsman. Fred Bauder 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not all members of both parties engaged in edit warring. Thankyouverymuch ;) Rockpocket (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see direct evidence that "other parties" have engaged in edit warring. Use of NPOV tags to push a POV sounds like edit warring to me. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
2) Wikipedia articles are edited from a Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Restated below in a more elaborate form Fred Bauder 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags should be explained
3) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True, but in this case there is extensive discussion on the talk page about the problems. Fred Bauder 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * At the time of the tagging dispute, the dissenting discussion was based on policy, however, instead quoting OR and personal opinion. Rockpocket (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The editors pushing the NPOV tag did so without adhering to the most basic of NPOV principles. I cannot see any instances where said editors have actually rephrased the "critical" material in a form that approaches NPOV. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn’t have to rephrase the critical material in talk page. Before arbitration was requested my simple plan was to limit myself discussing the issues in talk page and leave to others the actual editing in article.  —Cesar Tort 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT, specifically here and here. The talk page is to discuss specific material in and for the article (especially when asserting NPOV), its is not a forum to discuss opinions. Rockpocket (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
4) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits. Edit summaries should not be used to pass judgments on others' edits, or to carry on a discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think edit summaries are used for all those things Fred Bauder 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Edit summaries have been used to make personal attacks, please peruse my evidence. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
5) Users who focus their edits on one particular or subject or area obsessively or tendentiously may be banned from editing in that area. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True Fred Bauder 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A brief look at Cesar Tort's comments (even on this page) reveals he mistakes "his opinion" for something notable. He has a well-thought out opinion about psychiatry, but instead of saying "X says neuroleptics are iatrogenic" he says "neuroleptics are iatrogenic". Ombudsman has made similar errors. It is my opinion that both editors have edited somewhat obsessively in articles where the so-called "medical establishment" has had to endure criticism; in itself, this is not a bannable offence, but it has prompted inexcusable behaviour (NPA, NOR, NPOV) that did not improve after warnings and (in the case of Ombudsman) requests for comments and mediation. JFW | T@lk  19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said “neuroleptics are iatrogenic” in articles (though I think there’s no objection to express, albeit briefly, one’s own pov in talk- or user-pages if such opinion improves mutual understanding and collaboration with other editors). As stated below, I strongly believe that in psychiatric-related articles the critical section must rely on, say, the World Health Organization, dissenting opinion within the National Institute of Mental Health, the FDA or notable psychiatrists. —Cesar Tort 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Examples of User:Jfdwolff's assertion in article namespace   and more personal opinion/OR in justification for namespace editing    . Rockpocket (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket, did you mean to refer to Cesar Tort rather than JFW in the above comments? Ande B 09:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. To clarify, i meant "Examples of User:Jfdwolff's assertions (about Cesar's comments) in..." Rockpocket (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course! Your first three citations refer to my very first days in Wikipedia.  I have already apologized to JFW for that.  Re the four other citations they were made in user- and talk-pages.  I don’t see anything wrong with civil personal communications, however povish they are. —Cesar Tort 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaming the system
6) "Gaming the system" by operating just within relevant rules, or bending but not breaking guidelines, is frowned upon.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I suppose Fred Bauder 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't think this is the issue here at all. Could Stifle explain which behaviour is "gaming the system" here? JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What JFW said. Ande B 05:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
7) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article. Coverage of different points of view should be roughly proportional to their representation among scholarly or other significant authority.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In practice, NPOV is best adhered to when the theory/person/issue is first dealt with from a fully objective perspective (Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq), followed by relevant criticism (critics X and Y say he became president through a coup d'etat). More frequently it is useful to put all criticism in a seperate section that systematically examines criticism.
 * In the article biological psychiatry, criticism should have been split out according to the source (scientific criticism, ethical criticism) or according to the tenet that is disputed (criticism on neurotransmitter theories, criticism of classification, criticism of fMRI/SPECT-based findings). All are acceptable. But that is not what was happening. The criticism was sprinkled liberally throughout the material, making it impossible to discern the views. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * JDW's description is pretty accurate as applied to most of the life of the BioPsy article. This made any editing difficult and led to the need for some rewrites as opposed to simple edits.  Ande B 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the above proposition applies to the article under question, it would appear that at best a minimal amount of coverage of "dissenting" or critical views should be provided. The dissentinng view is already adequately  represented under this proposition.  Ande B 22:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I follow you here, Dr. de Wolff. Independently of my two tags, after Joema rewrote the article I didn’t touch it. —Cesar Tort 19:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NPOV tag
8) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There are circumstances, such as in biological psychiatry, where NPOV tags cause more harm than good. The NPOV policy should be expanded to include guidance when tag placement is appropriate. My suggestions: (1) at least a modicum of discussion has taken place, (2) an RFC has been attempted, (3) a neutral editor (accepted by both parties) agrees that there is a legitimate NPOV concern that cannot be resolved between the two editing parties. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That can be frustrated by a simple refusal to enter into discussion. Read as (1) at least an attempt at discussion has taken place... Midgley 21:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If one or two editors disagree, is that then the end of consensus? That would mean the end of consensus on Wikipedia. Is there consensus on The Holocaust despite the fact that some editors would hotly disagree with assertions made on the number of victims and public participation in the execution of civilians? JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is significant disagreement among the usual editors of an article, consensus has not been reached. It is only when both factions have agreed to fair representation of both points of view that consensus could be said to have been achieved. If one of the opposing points of view is unacceptable for some reason (tendentious nonsense like holocaust denial) then the situation is plainly different.


 * I'm trying to understand the purpose of the proposed comment. I do not consider it relevant to this particular discussion.  There is no false consensus at this time.  There is, however, a loud dissent who has been insisting that the article be changed to reflect opinions that are not held by the practitioners in the field.  When most editors agree on a particular approach, that does not in any way indicate that the person with a minority view has been unfairly marginalized or somehow suppressed.  I'm really rather surprised at the lack of comprehension demonstrated by whoever came up with the "false consensus" comment.  The only falsities are coming from those who want to redefine BioPsy.


 * I propose that we redefine non-Catholic Christians as "heretics" and use that word every time we edit an article dealing with the beliefs of Lutherans, Baptist, and Episcopalians. Since they were classified as heretics at some point in time by some people, we must make sure that we call them heretics anytime we encounter them on the Wikipedia.  Refusal to cry "heretic" with sufficient frequency must surely be the result of a false consensus.  Ande B 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:BITE
10) Established editors with a lot of experiences should be aware that new editors might be unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * However, when more experienced editors civilly explain to newbies, multiple times, the that the above policies must be followed to no avail, then at some point the burden must fall on the new editor to follow those said policies. Rockpocket (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most new editors are welcomed with Welcome, which gives comprehensive advice on how to edit effectively. In Cesar Tort's case, Ombudsman left his familiar "welcome to the Wiki" message on 10 March, only a few hours after his initial edits to anti-psychiatry, which constituted an NPOV violation (removal of the words "are claimed to be"). Our policies are phrased in a way that is fairly easy to understand. In fact, while WP:BITE is a vital policy, repeated maladherence to policy should not be tolerated. And ignoring friendly warnings because they come from ideological opponents is not an excuse. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, we newbies have been treated with courtesy by the vast majority of regulars who take a great deal of time in explaining the esoterics of Wikipedia to us. Ande B 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I can not get away from this principle for this case. Kim van der Linde at venus 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia
1) The general purpose is to produce an encyclopaedia. Activity which hampers that is at best superfluous.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me. Midgley 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:



NPOV requires that minority views not be given "undo weight" or or "equivalent validity"
1) Wikipedia neutral viewpoint policies require that minority or dissenting opinion in any field not be given "undo weight" or "equivalent validity" in camparison with the majority or "mainstream" view.
 * Proposed by : Ande B. 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:



Undue weight to minority view constitutes endorsement
1) When a minority opinion is given disproportionate coverage or "undue weight" it is the equivalent of an endorsement of that view and contravenes the WP neutrality policy.


 * Proposed by : Ande B. 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:



Setting aside specific amounts of space for coverage of minority views is inappropriate
1) Specific set asides of space for purposes of accommodating minority or dissenting views is inappropriate and contrary to WP policy.


 * Proposed by : Ande B. 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:



User names should not mislead
1) User names should not mislead, confuse, or suggest special authority over or function in running WP.  2)  WP:USERNAME
 * Proposed by : Midgley 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:



Cesar Tort is a relatively new user
1) has only been editing Wikipedia since mid-March, 2006 and is not expected to be fully familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Disagree. A welcome message was left hours after his first edit. It contained links to all the policies under discussion here (see diffs above for evidence). JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry, JFW. I should have read those policies the day I arrived to Wikipedia instead of rushing to edit an article.  However, I believe I finally understand the policies. —Cesar Tort 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also am a new user (just a few days longer than Cesar Tort) and can sympathise with the need to understand a new environment that is much different from others (such as usenet) which often have a contentious and argumentative style and purposes quite different from WP.   Ande B 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman's civility
2) Ombudsman has been uncivil.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not only has this editor been uncivil, but his responses to questions on article material have singularily failed to address the topic at hand. Instead, Ombudsman chooses the "guilt by association" route (assuming Big Pharma and the medical establishment are very evil indeed). Evidence on the topic (e.g. with respect to Gold salts) has been provided by myself. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Uncivil" seriously understates the level of hostility (and irrationality) consistently demonstrated by Ombudsman. Ande B 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Persistently. Midgley 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
3) The locus of the dispute is the edits made by and  to Biological psychiatry.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * My proposal Fred Bauder 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The dispute is many months older, as summarised in my evidence. Ombudsman, one of the parties in this dispute, has had numerous conflicts over medical articles (regarding autism, vaccination and psychiatry). The editing to biological psychiatry was simply symptomatic of his views and editing pattern to other medical articles. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Midgley 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman
4) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * My proposal. Fred Bauder 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * What biological psychiatry means remains less clear and agreed than is useful for a good article. Ombudsman's tendency is to rewrite the same articles under multiple titles.  I think that to describe Cesar's view as "lacking sufficient critical material" misses the point, or at least underestimates it - really it is that psychiatry is a fraud and bad thing of n value and never curing anyone since nobody is ever psychiatrically ill, this being made up by doctors, rather than a wish to criticise it. Ombudsman's views seem more complex and less consistent but I don't see the "biological" part of the title as influencing the response to psychiatry there either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, we need a balanced article, but the intrusion of determined anti-psychiatry into the article confuses the issue. Fred Bauder 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that many people are psychiatrically ill and desperately need help in a psychiatric clinic (see for example the article I created today, Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma). However, I have serious doubts about neuroleptic drugs (which Loren Mosher, former headperson of schizophrenia studies in National Institute of Mental Health believed to be iatrogenic).  —Cesar Tort 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be that viewpoint needs to be included in the article. I know nothing about it, just that there would need to be a reliable source. Fred Bauder 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If Cesar Tort could provide reliable sources (not just some person's website), summarise them fairly in an NPOV fashion, and listen to other editors when concerns are raised, then he should be allowed to propagate his view that neuroleptics are iatrogenic. I don't think this is the place to express his personal beliefs. I can equally state that I have seen the havoc that mental illness wreaks on a person and his surroundings, and that neuroleptic drugs (with their imperfections) provide an opportunity to treat that mental illness. JFW |  T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did mention in talk page a World Health Organization study that showed that people in psychotic crises with no NRLs had more recovery chances than people in rich countries with many NRLs. —Cesar Tort 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made fairly minimal edits to the BioPsy article page. I've mostly just made comments and suggestions on the talk pages. I'm not trying to avoid responsibility by saying this, I just don't want to take away credit from those who have made truly substantive contributions.  To the extent that any of my actual edits are at issue, I stand by my edits but acknowledge the many improvements made by subsequent editors.   Ande B 09:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NPOV tag
5) 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 Talk:Biological_psychiatry for Cesar Tort's explanation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'd further propose that, in at least Cesar Tort's case, the talk page explanation for tagging was justified mainly with claims of pseudoscience, contrary to WP:NPOV. Rockpocket (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure prescribing a drug which reduces symptoms could be considered either science or pseudoscience. It is more art. The search for how a drug works is certainly science, but sweeping generalizations that all psychiatric conditions have biological explanations might, as has been pointed out, not be falsifiable; one might as well claim language, art or even science itself have biological explanations. Fred Bauder 20:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This comment troubles me: but sweeping generalizations that all psychiatric conditions have biological explanations might, as has been pointed out, not be falsifiable It troubles me not because of its content or even because it misrepresents BioPsy, but because it implies that this is the nature of the underlying dispute among the editors.  It is not.  The underlying dispute is that there are those who have attempted to provide a neutral viewpoint description of the field as it is practiced by relevant professionals and those who are not content with neutral descriptions because they dispute underlying hypotheses, preferred treatment modalities, and psychiatry in general as it is practiced by those in the field of BioPsy.     Ande B 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After my second tag I did not justified it by claiming pseudoscience. —Cesar Tort 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This comment is not accurate and misrepresents the issue: When the tag was placed on the article it usually contained only one sentence critical of Biological psychiatry The tag was initially placed on the article when it had almost nothing but support for the fringe view and that tag remained there despite reasonable efforts at discussion and compromise edits.  That there was "only one sentence critical" is not relevant when the information in the article accurately reflected the field as it is understood by its regular practitioners and was written from a neutral point of view.  There is no reason to require a specific amount of "criticism" when that criticism is not relevant to the article.  For example, the taggers have insisted that the fact that many pharmaceutical compounds were discovered within the context of artificial dye production proves that psychoactive compounds are not effective.  This reasoning is so far beyond specious that it forms its own category of misdirection and is more properly dealt with in a conspiracy article.  The problem has not been that the majority of editors and BioPsy practitioners fail to recognize valid criticisms.  Rather the problem is that the criticisms are not relevant to an understanding of BioPsy.  Ande B 05:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Biased article
6) As presently constituted biological psychiatry is simply a restatement of "mainstream medical opinion" containing minimal critical material, only a short section, and represents a violation of Neutral point of view. Significant critical published material exists which is not fairly represented in the article, see for example http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743237870/  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471007765/ and ::Talk:Biological_psychiatry. One example, no mention is made of Peter Breggin, a prominent critic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As stated below, article viewpoints should be "roughly proportional to their representation among scholarly or other significant authority". A survey of scholarly papers (not popular level books) shows current article approximately represents that for this topic. Admittedly it's difficult to categorize thousands of scholarly papers, but the article roughly seems to have the mentioned proportionality. Note also there's already a link in the article to the author of one of the above books. Joema 16:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first major re-write I did contained much more critical wording: . In that state there was feedback it was TOO critical, yet others marked it NPOV for being not critical enough, in fact calling it "a poster child for extreme ivory tower POV pushing": . Joema 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness, I'd like to state that I was one of the parties who considered Joema's earlier edits to be overwhelmed by Joema's attempt to accommodate Cesar Tort's criticisms. I urged the removal of the excessive criticism though not a complete and permanent elimination of all criticism.  I read, write, and teach this kind of analysis and drafting stuff for a living and I think I'm pretty good at recognizing the difference between a treatment that is neutral and one that is argumentative or biased.  I've been known to be wrong but I don't think I am in this particular instance. YVMD


 * As far as the article being simply a restatement of "mainstream medical opinion", that would typically be the best way to start an article. But this article, as it now stands does have a criticism section  (which was contemplated all along) and gives quite a bit of history about how the so-called mainstream ideas were developed and sometimes proven wrong.


 * Bear in mind that this article is a general one, introducing a topic that includes many sub-categories. As a consquence, specific treatment modalities are briefly mentioned and links are provided to pages that cover those modalities in detail.  It is on those linked pages where detailed coverage of pharmaceutical dangers are best addressed.  It seems rather counter-intuitive to include excessive criticism of medications that are scarcely mentioned.  Take a look at the section on disorders and biological treatments section.  I am copying it here in its entirety:
 * ==Disorders and biologic treatment==
 * Seasonal affective disorder: Light box, SSRIs
 * Clinical depression: SSRIs, Effexor, atypical antidepressants: (Wellbutrin, Remeron), electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation
 * Bipolar disorder: Lithium salt, valproic acid, Lamictal
 * Schizophrenia: Includes haloperidol, clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, Seroquel
 * Generalized anxiety disorder: SSRIs, benzodiazepines
 * Obsessive-compulsive disorder: Clomipramine, SSRIs


 * That's it. How can this be considered to promote any position?  How can it possibly, in it's present state, accomodate arguments about the dangers of valproic acid or the political and medical arguments against ECT?  Let's be reasonable here, for once. This accusation of bias is simply unsupported by the evidence. Ande B 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cesar was consulted on the section on criticsm  and his suggestions were taken on board and implemented. Ombusman declined to comment or contribute to the genesis of the section. Rockpocket (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That was only a meager compromise when everybody was against me. My suggestion of including a quarter or a third of the article to criticism was never taken seriously.  That the present article is still very biased is explained in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion.  The so-called “critical wording” in Joema’s first draft wasn’t substantial at all.  —Cesar Tort 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Biological psychiatry should be phrased in a form that the field itself would recognise itself in. A section can then be devoted to dissenting viewpoints both within the medical community and without. I don't see why this is so difficult. If we can have a neutral article on The Holocaust, an area fraught with debate, then why can't we have a neutral article on biological psychiatry? JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. —Cesar Tort 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, the BioPsy article may be incomplete, it is certainly not exhaustive, but it does not unduly suffer from being in an early state of production. As far as it goes, it appears to be an accurate description of the field in its current condition without bias.

The Amazon links proffered as some sort of "evidence" that there are "real" experts out there who dispute some of the underlying hypotheses of those who work in the field are not particularly helpful, let alone dispositive. I can find books about every topic from every angle. The mere existence of a "book" does not legitimize the opinions in that book. Nor does the existence of a "book" mean that its contents must be given a full exposition in every article that may touch on a related subject.

I'm not saying that everything proposed by writers critical of Bio Psy methods or hypotheses is bunk. What I am saying is that those who disagree with the underlying hypotheses that the BioPsy practitioners are pursuing do not in any way change the nature of what BioPsy is. It may well be that many hypotheses about why certain medications have certain effects will turn out to be wrong. That only means that the underlying mechanism is not understood. It does not mean that the medications do not have their observed effects or that the medications should not be used. Nor does it mean that space must be reserved in the article to give vent to all manner of fringe diatribes

Just because BioPsy practitioners may be mistaken in some of their hypotheses does not mean that those who write books critical of BioPsy should be given authority to redefine what the field is or be given a protected position on the pages of a wikipedia article.

It concerns me on a professional level that there appears to be no interest or ability to consider the relative value or strength of "evidence" that takes the form of hard-copy publications. Astrologists don't get to define the phenomena that astronomers study, no matter how many astrology books are written, even when the astronomers are mistaken. Even if you can find numerous books that tout fringe beliefs, that does not make the fringe belief "right." It doesn't even remove the belief from the fringes of professional opinion. And when an alternative medical approach disparages the treatment modalities and underlying hypotheses of main-stream medicine, that dispute does not give rise to a right in the dissenting groups to redefine the field of medicine with which they disagree.

The absence of coverage of certain alternate treatments in the BioPsy article does not in any way indicate bias.

Ande B 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Joema and Ande B. advocate biased editing
7) Writing on Talk:Biological psychiatry Joema attempts to justify biased editing with a series of sophistic arguments, summarizing, "It should primarily describe the topic according to mainstream thought: definition, history, and basis, not present major contrary opinion." . See also a similar comment by Ande B. asserting the article is not biased.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not advocating biased editing, as the above full entry shows. What I said is consistent with articles on even more controversial subjects. Just like the evolution, abortion, and global warming articles do not have large criticism sections (in fact evolution has none), it's not necessary for this article to. It has a modest criticism section sized roughly proportional to mainstream scholarly thought, which points to other larger articles about contrary viewpoints: :anti-psychiatry, trauma model, etc. That's similar to how evolution and abortion are structured.
 * I'm not advocating biased editing, as the above full entry shows. What I said is consistent with articles on even more controversial subjects. Just like the evolution, abortion, and global warming articles do not have large criticism sections (in fact evolution has none), it's not necessary for this article to. It has a modest criticism section sized roughly proportional to mainstream scholarly thought, which points to other larger articles about contrary viewpoints: :anti-psychiatry, trauma model, etc. That's similar to how evolution and abortion are structured.


 * By "not present majory contrary opinion", of course I meant the representation shouldn't be disproportionate to mainstream scholarly thought, not that it totally shouldn't exist. In fact the first major re-write I did was criticized for being too critical:  Joema 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this proposal. I interpret Joema's quote as perfectly consistant with WP:NPOV undue weight - not as an attempt to justify 'biased editing'. As the overwhelmingly major viewpoint, the article should primarily describe mainstream thought. Critical minority views are represented appropriately in line with other articles (such as evolution and HIV). Rockpocket (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It’s misleading to compare secular controversies in the mental health field with abortion or evolution: topics that mainly concern religious sensibilities. While creationism is crank science and deserve minimal space for discussion, the FDA and European warnings obviously belong to a different category of science.  —Cesar Tort 21:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is extremely misleading to cite, mantra-like, "the FDA and European warnings" as a defense of Cesar's actions. To do so is complete revisionism, of which Cesar is entirely aware of . The first time they were mentioned by Cesar was more than two days after his last tagging  and over six days after his first  It was also days after he asserted "I won’t NPOV tag the article again"  and after Joema had first requested agreement to go to arbitration . Therefore in terms of findings of fact related to the issue of innapropriate  tagging, I propose this entire revisionist line of defence be discounted. Rockpocket (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted the FDA entry before Joema requested arbitration . —Cesar Tort 01:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See dif above. Rockpocket (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About an hour and a half after I posted the FDA entry, Joema wrote in talk page: “Cesar as I explained above if you and Ombudsman continue, we'd need to seek mediation, then arbitration. We've now reached that point. Do we have your consent for this? Joema 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)” . —Cesar Tort 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "...as I explained above..." Rockpocket (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the important fact is that I posted the FDA entry before Joema requested arbitration. —Cesar Tort 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Assertion withdrawn. It is being held as a straw man to distract from my main point regarding revisionist justification for NPOV tagging. Rockpocket (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am truly confused as to how my comment, referenced above, can in any way be legitimately construed as advocating bias or being an example of "sophistry."


 * I said: the current article, although not comprehensive, is definitely not POV. There is an article on Anti-psychiatry where your disputes with BioPsy belong. This article is only trying to explain what BioPsy is as understood by the scientific / medical community. Ande B 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous discussions had indicated that some editors (Cesar Tort) wanted a set percentage of article space reserved for "dissenting" views. I had stated that arbitrarily setting aside a specific proportion of space for fringe views was not appropriate.  Which is not to say that no mention of fringe views should be allowed, only that it needed to accurately and realistically reflect the current status of the field, which is overwhelmingly in direct opposition to the fringe views of Ombudsman and Cesar Tort. If you are unable to read the comments on the talk pages in their proper context you might as well just state that this entire process is one of arbitrary and capricious grandstanding.  Then we can all get on with our lives and forget about making professional quality Wikipedia articles.


 * The complaint that either I or Joema are advocating bias reeks of newspeak redefinition of terms. Either that, or the writer of the statement has no idea of the meaning of bias or sophistry.  Can the party proposing this gross mischaracterization rephrase it in a way that actually demonstrates a grasp of basic English vocabulary or logic?


 * Sorry if my response here comes off as hostile but I am genuinely puzzled by the introductory statement to this section.  It makes no sense.  It implies that the link to my comment on the talk pages of Bio Psych supports the contention that I advocate bias.  I would really rip my students apart if they gave me misleading references like that.
 * Ande B 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse Ande B's comments. Perhaps of all the participants in this request, his position was the most reasonable, eloquent and inclusive of the opposing opinions. To propose that he advocates biased editing based on that diff (combined with an apparent support for conceding 25% an an article to a small minority of critics in clear conflict with WP:NPOV) leaves me with strong concern that Fred Bauder has not fully understood the context of the conflict. Rockpocket (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Rockpocket. God knows I try to simply help WP to develop into a professional quality reference source.  For this article, it might help to put things into perspective if the arbitrators looked at its entire history.  At the outset it consisted solely of criticism of BioPsych in particular and pharmacology in general.  This was one of the most purely biased articles I've ever seen on the WP (or anywhere else other political campaign propaganda) and early on such others noted this bias as well.  It was only after there was some attempt to correct the exclusively hostile content of the original article that Ombudsman and Cesar Tort began to cry about the removal or dilution of bias as being bias itself.  I felt as if I had walked into a page of 1984.  Still feels that way, come to think of it.  Ande B 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In further support of the complete inconsistancy exposed by Ande B, note that Cesar (who is so insistent on the principle of "conceding 25% to critics") has contributed extensively to Anti-psychiatry related articles including Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, Interpretation of Schizophrenia (book) and Trauma model of mental disorders. All of these have numerous critics exceeding the amount of people that follow the subjects themselves, yet there is barely a mention of criticism in the articles, certainly not 25%. Most damning, the last of these is almost all Cesar's work (with a little copyediting from me). Just yesterday Cesar removed one of the only two NPOV mentions of biopsych (both of which which i added ) for no good reason other than the "phrase already given in [the completely unrelated] Ross Institute article". This leaves just a single sentence about biopsych: "Biological psychiatry dismisses sole trauma models, with most mainstream psychiatrists instead believing that complex genetic factors interacting with environmental factors trigger mental disorders." (again, added by me). Assuming that even counts as criticism - it amounts to 3.5% of the article per word count. So it appears principles only apply to articles that Cesar himself is critical of - surely a textbook example of a POV editing agenda. In contrast, Ande B, Joema and myself have been entirely consistent with our position (explained above) on NPOV, whether editing pro- or anti-psychiatry related articles.  Rockpocket (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong again, Rockpocket, very wrong. Neither Silvano Arieti (author of Interpretation of Schizophrenia (book)) nor Colin Ross (founder of the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma) have been “anti-psychiatrists”.  Nor have they been called that way by anyone.  You just vandalized the recent article I created about the Ross Institute not because it was biased.  You did it because you have a personal thing against me and have been stalking me everywhere I edit something in Wikipedia since this process began.  Your vandalism is not caused by a neutral stance.  It’s caused by ego.  You must change your attitude toward me, Rockpocket.  I agree to disagree with Midgley and JfdWolff.  But our disagreement has never escalated the personal level.  It’s a civil disagreement and I enjoy discussing the issues with them.  I would very much like that anyone in this process take a look to the articles I created, like the vandalized Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, to check and see if it’s true it was biased before Rockpocket’s deletions.  I repeat: both Arieti and Ross are considered psychiatrists by the profession and they never had anything to do with the antipsychiatric movement whatsoever.  Arieti even advocated electroshock for some of his patients and Ross still prescribes antidepressants to his clients!  (BTW, re the deleted phrase, I did it because it was duplicated.  It’s not true that the articles are “completely unrelated” as you wrote: Ross himself coined the term “trauma model”.  But you can add the phrase again, Rockpocket.  I have no problem at all about that.)   —Cesar Tort 08:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I invite Cesar to peruse WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK and WP:AGF then reconsider accusations of vandalism and stalking. If reconsideration is not forthcoming, i urge the arbitrators to consider this as further evidence of Cesar's clear lack of comprehension of policy in general and in differentiating POV from NPOV in particular. As justified on the talk page, the edits i made were entirely appropriate. For example, unsourced statements offered as fact: "This sets up a “sheer force” deep in the child’s soul" and "At all costs, under the highest imperative, young mammals must attach" have no place in an encyclopaedia. Something, incidently, Cesar is already aware of having asked another trusted editor's advice . It is true that i have edited some, but not all, of the articles Cesar has contributed to. The reason why is explained at some length in this workshop: Cesar is a single issue editor with a self confessed strong personal agenda and a demonstrable history of POV editing. I feel he requires mentorship on policy issues and his edits requires NPOV copyediting. Clearly my contributions to that end are not welcome, so i urge ArbCom to recommend another editor to fulfil this role.  Cesar, I'm sorry you do not enjoy our interaction, but i don't frequent Wikipedia to "discuss issues", i try to contribute NPOV material to articles and try to remain within the bounds of WP:CIVIL while doing so. I'd appreciate if you would do likewise. Rockpocket (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you, Rockpocket, that I need another mentor. Fortunately Kim van der Linde at venus has volunteered.  Since she is a professional biologist and a Naturalist, she will decide whether or not my statement “young mammals must attach” is based on science.  I really, really hope she, not you, will correct my articles from now on.  I’m still learning to grasp Wikipedia policies and I’m sure she can help me.  BTW my specialty is child abuse; not psychiatry.  I was dragged to psychiatry-related articles only because I started my wikicareer with the Anti-psychiatry article two months ago (my personal library contains much more books about psychology, arts and the humanities than psychiatry). —Cesar Tort 09:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am perplexed to see Rockpocket accused of "stalking" behavior and "vandalism" by Cesar Tort, who has received nothing but courtesy from Rockpocket, even when Rockpocket disagreed with Cesar Tort's position or wording. I don't want to be put in the position of diagnosing someone else's behavior (I'm not qualified to do so) but Cesar Tort's accusations aren't simply ill founded, they sound of paranoia and persecution complex.  "Stalking?"  Where in the world does that mad claim come from?  Perhaps it is explained by Cesar's further claim that reasonable and professional quality editing of an article he is working on is "vandalism."  And that, I think, is the crux of the problem.  Cesar Tort considers certain articles to be his private property and other contributors are vandals, stalkers, interlopers, tresspassers.  This has certainly been the way he has responded on the BioPsych pages and it appears that is is primary modus operandi.


 * In the Ross Institute article, Rockpocket made several edits that rescued the piece from purple prose and personal assertions, rephrasing similar ideas in a much more encyclopedic style. And this is vandalism?  Cesar Tort invites people to check out the Ross Institute article then complains that he is being stalked?  I dunno, I'm edited all the time in real life -- and edit others' work constantly.  That's what collaborative writing is all about.  Maybe Cesar Tort  should take a break from all this stressfull contact with other writers and give himself a chance to calm down.  Ande B 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ande B. I was not referring to Rockpocket’s editions but to the fact that he seems to follow me to whichever Wikipedia site I go since this process began.  Some of Rockpocket’s editions of my articles were done on good faith.  Some others...  And he has not always been civil.  Even he recognized this in the Ross Institute talk page when he wrote: “rephrase impolite language and...” . —Cesar Tort 23:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Cesar, thank you for your clarifications. I have found that when you and I actually speak directly to one another, or when I exchange comments with Rockpocket, we seem to be able to get along just fine, even when we disagree.  I should not have said "always," as that is a foolish word to use in most circumstances.  It was my impression based on perhaps too many late night readings.  I am sure we have all said things that can appear to be rude, have actually been rude, or have just been stupid, like my use of the word "always", above.  But in general, I haven't seen behavior that can be characterized as stalking.  It's pretty typical that those of us who get interested in a topic will gravitate to related matters.  I, for example, am strongly interested in ancient Greek poetry and consequently keep running into the same editors on Greek poetry, mythology, and history sites.  This is not stalking.  In fact, if a regular Greek myth contributor's name pops up on another article, I figure that means I'm likely to be interested in it, as well.  You may believe that something more sinister is going on with Rockpocket, but I cannot agree with you about that.  Ande B 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, the so-called lack of civility Cesar refers amounts to a rephrasing of a rhetorical question, changing "laughable" to "unencyclopaedic" and the removal of the word "blatant" in front of "POV". Cesar had just reverted a raft of POV material and asked me to further justify their removal. Soon after doing so, and before anyone replied, I felt my tone, while not uncivil, could have been more friendly so I changed it and furhter elborated in my explanations . This was an unprompted change in an attempt to be more polite. I'm amazed if that counts as being uncivil, especially in the face of counter-accusations of acting like a Nazi, stalking and vandalism from Cesar. Nevertheless, i apologise if i offended you, and ask again, whether you stand by your accusations having read the policies i mentioned? Perhaps you could also provide examples the "other" edits i have made that you consider not in good faith? I guess i would just like it on record whether i am being labelled a vandal, stalker and bad faith editor or not. Rockpocket (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket: I’m really busy.  I leave to others the job of checking all of my contributions and yours and judge by themselves whether or not you have been following my steps in Wikipedia.  I already apologized for the Nazi remark and it’s unnecessary to repeat the apology here (though I do recommend the casual reader to look at the diff you just posted and see the context of that remark).  As I said, at least some of your edits in the articles I introduced were sound and done in good faith.  The only thing I now want is to make peace with you.  I have lots of things to do in real world and I’m truly astonished for the amount of time I’ve spent in this process.  So —Friends?  —Cesar Tort 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Joema and Ande B. advocate placing criticism in alternative articles
8) Writing on Talk:Biological psychiatry Joema suggests extensive criticism of biological psychiatry should be segregated in "Anti-Biological Psychiatry", citing such treatment in the case of evolution and abortion, Joema writes ":Unlike a regular encyclopedia, with Wikipedia you can write an entire article detailing a contrary position. I'd estimate Cesar could have written a large Anti-Biological Psychiatry article for the amount of time he's spent trying to put his beliefs in this article.", see also . See also a similar assertion by Ande B..


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The problem is Cesar Tort, et al want a significant % of the article devoted to criticism, 25% at the minimum . This is inconsistent with having a criticism section sized proportional to mainstream scholarly thought.
 * Just like there are large anti-evolution and anti-abortion movements (with credible material bolstering those viewpoints), there is likewise a large anti-biological psychiatry movement. However that material physically cannot fit within the Biological psychiatry article and the criticism section remain proportionally sized based on mainstream scholarly thought. It just won't fit. I suggested that critical material be represented in Wikipedia, but the bulk of it in a separate article, similar to how evolution and abortion handle their related debates. That way the criticism article can grow unimpeded by the need to maintain intra-article size proportionality. Joema 17:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion regarding a change in Wikipedia policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there may be a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting a change in Wikipedia policy, only that the current policy of sizing criticism proportionally within the article based on mainstream scholarly thought be maintained. Traditionally this has been done using a separate article for the opposing viewpoint, if large. NPOV undue weight lists an example: the Earth article only has a brief mention of Flat Earth theory. Yet there's a useful large article on Flat Earth, but this wouldn't fit within the Earth article and maintain proportionality. It goes in a separate article. That way the contrary viewpoint isn't suppressed yet the policy of proportional sizing is maintained. By contrast as the above refs shows, Cesar, etc are asking for a fixed 25% or more for criticism within the article. Now that would be a Wikipedia policy change. Joema 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse Joema's position. His assertions on this were always justified on interpretation of NPOV undue weight policy as it stands. Rockpocket (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse Joema's position. His assertions on this were always justified on interpretation of NPOV undue weight policy as it stands. Rockpocket (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it is extremely misleading to compare the FDA and European warnings to believers in Flat Earth! —Cesar Tort 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is extremely misleading to cite, mantra-like, "the FDA and European warnings" as a defense of Cesar's actions. To do so is complete revisionism, of which Cesar is entirely aware of . The first time they were mentioned by Cesar was more than two days after his last tagging  and over six days after his first  It was also days after he asserted "I won’t NPOV tag the article again"  and after Joema had first requested agreement to go to arbitration . Therefore in terms of findings of fact related to the issue of innapropriate  tagging, I propose this entire revisionist line of defence be discounted. Rockpocket (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted the FDA entry before Joema requested arbitration . —Cesar Tort 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See diff above. Rockpocket (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About an hour and a half after I posted the FDA entry, Joema wrote in talk page: “Cesar as I explained above if you and Ombudsman continue, we'd need to seek mediation, then arbitration. We've now reached that point. Do we have your consent for this? Joema 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)” . —Cesar Tort 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "...as I explained above..." Rockpocket (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the important fact is that I posted the FDA entry before Joema requested arbitration. —Cesar Tort 04:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Assertion withdrawn. It is being held as a straw man to distract from my main point regarding revisionist justification for NPOV tagging. Rockpocket (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone has criticised the anti-psychiatric movement, then this criticism should be mentioned. Many critics have stated that the anti-psychiatric movement has led to fragmentation of care, increase of violent crime by mentally ill people and so on. What's illegitimate about mentioning this? JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I’d much prefer in the Biological Psychiatry article internal criticism such as the above-mentioned World Health Organization; psychiatrist Loren Mosher who worked in NIMH; the FDA, etc. Re the Anti-psychiatry article, I most welcome your future critical input on that article. I wouldn’t mind if it contains 25% of criticism from the mainstream psychiatrist viewpoint.  That could only enrich the article! —Cesar Tort 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I advocate placing an appropriate amount of criticism within the main Bio Psy article. What that amount actually is I cannot say until I see it.  I refuse to accept the notion that fringe views are entitled to a predetermined amount of coverage in any article.  I do, however, endorse the idea that when there is a fringe alternative approach to standard medical care, that alternative should not be fully explored in the main article about standard medicine but should be addressed in its own article.  Doing otherwise gives undue weight to fringe beliefs and appears to legitimize and endorse them.


 * The assertion above that implies I somehow want to eliminate discussions is erroneous. If I made a comment to the effect that George W. Bush's wiki biography should limit discussion about whether he was actually an extraterrestrial and urged that "Alien George" be addressed in a separate conspiracy article would that be somehow inappropriate?


 * I see no attempt by the person promulgating this comment to give an accurate description of my comments nor do I see any attempt to look at the context in which any of these issues arose.


 * Ande B 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm getting repetitive but reading so many mischaracterizations of my alleged motives and those of others has been personally and professionally irritating to me. Here is what I actually said related to devoting space to criticism within the BioPsy article itself:
 * I agree that there is room for describing the position of critics. That's one of the reasons that a statement to that effect is in the intro. What is not appropriate, however, is for the article to take a position that endorses the critics. I think that's important. Mere description is not endorsement. Excessive space devoted to criticism gives a skewed balance that is tantamount to an endorsement. This article is in development and is bound to change over time. I don't personally agree with all the practices that are commonly used by orthodox mental health care but my preferences aren't what counts here. I just want the article to be as professionally constructed as possible. I think frustrations about our talking past one another for so long has made the atmosphere less cooperative than it should be.
 * That comment was made by me on April 17, 2006 on the talk pages. Anyone who insists on seeing this comment as indicative of a preference to remove all coverage of disputes to separate articles has a real reading comprehension problem.  Ande B 01:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Abortion debate and Creation-evolution controversy
9) Articles critical of Abortion and Evolution do exist at Abortion debate and Creation-evolution controversy as does the article Anti-psychiatry.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 20:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is not analogous at all. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ombudsman's editing history
10) Ombudsman has an history of biased editing of medical subjects sometimes using links to see Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman and Requests_for_comment/Whaleto.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The bias has led to numerous NPOV violations, as summarised in my evidence. Ombudsman has also been unwilling to discuss contentious ideas, preferring to attack the critics. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Medical articles might cause harm
11) It is possible for an article on a medical topic, representing a fringe rather than mainstream view, to cause serious harm if it is followed. This is probably more of a risk with psychiatric content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good point, we would not want to present an article which would steer people who need mainstream psychiatric treatment away from needed treatment. Fred Bauder 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure of potential side effects, to say nothing of disclosing the lack of scientific confirmation of the mechanisms underlying drug therapy is often problematical in practical situations. However, bottom line, some folks simply cannot be allowed to run loose without appropriate medication. This problem, however is a medical ethics problem, not the province of a reference work such as Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgley (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia has a medical disclaimer. I have personal objections to hyper-exposure of "anti-medical" viewpoints in medical articles, but not at the expense of NPOV. Balance is essential. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the notion that we need to be more sensitive when drafting medical articles, compared to other topics, is a sound one. I am not a physician and try to avoid substantively contributing to articles in fields that are outside my own expertise.  But I've seen too many gravely impaired psychiatric patients to be willing to let an anti-pharmaceutical crusader derail a medical article that relates to treatment modalities.  If this article were about controversies over preferred treatments or about proposed regulatory schemes concerning mental health, dissenting views would be more than welcome.  But this article is not about politics, although some want it to be.  Ande B 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Domination by biased editors represented as "consensus"
12) has falsely asserted that the current state of the article is the result of "consensus"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True consensus would be the result of negotiation between editors who have a fundamental disagreement and find a way for both viewpoints to be fairly represented. Suppression of opposing points of view by a majority is not consensus. Fred Bauder 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Consensus does not vanish when one editor makes a fuss. It is the way this fuss is handled that determines whether consensus is present. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely, in Wikipedia, "consensus" is a subjective term (hence why we value the judgement of admins to decide if consensus has been reached in AfDs and RfAs). Thus, it would only be a "false assertion" if JFW used the term to purposely mislead or misrepresent his opinion. That would be lacking good faith, and i see no evidence for thinking that was his intention. Sure, maybe his interpretation of consensus does not match yours/mine, but - given that he justified his criteria for consensus elsewhere - i propose that it is unfair to label it "false" for that reason. Rockpocket (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus between a group was explicitly reached. Two outliers were never going to reach that consensus - the distribution of opinion was bimodal and remains so.  One accepts that a consensus, in which he was not included, existed, the other tends not to discuss such things and does not accept it.  Midgley 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It looks as if the above proposal is presuming facts not in evidence and is irrebuttable evidence of a predetermined mind-set of a supposedly un-biased arbitrator.  I suggest that this proposal reflects an improper behavior and attitude by Mr. Bauder who does not seem to have much interest in evidence and seems to lack the tools necessary to analyze the issues placed before him.  I know that the WP arbitration procedure does not operate within the confines of any official rules as one would encounter in a courtroom but, quite frankly, the above expression, coupled with many other such statements by Mr. Bauder, leads me to conclude that he would have been the type of judge that the Intelligent Design people were looking for in Dover, Pennylvania.  In other words, well, never mind. Ande B 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems excessive, actually. Midgley 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, actually, Midgley, that it does seem excessive. It takes an awful lot to get me so irritated.  Perhaps, by coming to this process so late in the game, and seeing so many rather off-the mark comments at once, I have been seduced by the dark side, as it were, and have begun to respond in kind.  Or maybe not.  Could just be me getting cranky from lack of sleep and poor health.   Ande B 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Cesar Tort's interpretation of NPOV
13) indicates his understanding of a NPOV biological psychiatry article includes "a quarter or a third"  of the content "conceded to critics".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * He suggests 25% for this article, which seems appropriate. Fred Bauder 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder's comment here is worrisome and inappropriate. It is not appropriate to allocate a set amount of space to "dissenting" views on any topic, and most certainly it is inappropriate to have set asides on scientific topics for political or cultural disputes posing as scientific debate.  Some topics may have a great need for the coverage of dissenting views while others do not.  The BioPsy article is not an article about a political or ethical point of view, despite Ombudsman's attempts to turn it into a political platform.  It is, instead, an article that primarily attempts to describe Bio Psychiatry as it is understood by its practitioners.  Even if its working hypotheses are flawed, they will be corrected through further scientific and clinical inquiry, not through politicization on the pages of the Wikipedia.  By indicating that some parties disagree with the premises of the BioPsy professionals and either giving a link to an article with opposing views and/or giving a short statement about the nature of legitimate (as opposed to fringe) disputes, any perceived bias should be eliminated.  But set-asides are inimicable to proper coverage.  Ande B 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dedicating a fixed 25% set-aside conflicts with NPOV undue weight, where criticism space is roughly proportional to representation in mainstream scholarly thought. You won't find 25% of scholarly papers criticizing biological psychiatry.


 * What about non-scholarly viewpoints? Criticism space isn't based on that -- it's not a proxy for a Gallup poll on a subject. Over 50% of Americans don't believe Evolution -- 150 million people. There are many popular-level books supporting this, some written by scientists. However we don't set aside 50% of the space in evolution for this viewpoint, for two reasons: (1) Article is about evolution, not the evolution debate. (2) Mainstream scholarly thought doesn't represent that view.


 * Likewise with Biological psychiatry, the article simply describes the topic. There's no wording about "why drugs are great", or advocating one treatment over another. The lack of space describing alternative treatments is no more biased than the automobile article is biased toward cars for not having a critical section advocating mass transit.


 * Now, if the article was about "Biological psychiatry debate", sidelining one viewpoint would be wrong. However that's not what the article is about. Joema 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by Rockpocket (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly the critical section in the main Psychiatry article is longer than the section in the Biological Psychiatry article. —Cesar Tort 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Marginally perhaps, but certainly nowhere near 25 to 33%. Tellingly, Cesar did not feel the same compulsion to concede any space to a specific section on criticism of anti-psychiatry during a major re-write we were involved in. I concured with this, on the basis that biological psychiatry should describe biological psychiatry and anti-psychiatry should describe anti-psychiatry, with neither article requiring more than a brief mention of the extistance of criticism from the opposing discipline with a prominant link to that page. I position i maintain that is consistant with WP:NPOV. In contrast, Cesar's inconsistant position appears to provide further evidence of a POV agenda in editing psychiatry related articles. Rockpocket (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking about all the section under the heading “Further considerations” in the main Psychiatry article . —Cesar Tort 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to express this numerically. Some people have received so much criticism that it becomes very hard to concede less than 33% to critics. Conversely, some people have critics (who may have vibrant blogs) but their criticism can be summarised in 2-3 lines of text. NPOV, balance and due weight are guiding, not a hard number. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The current article includes a minimum of 20% to 30% criticism
1) Criticism within the current article constitutes at least 20% to 30% of the text.
 * Proposed by Ande B. 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No evidence indicates that biopsychiatry has been rejected by relevant communities
1) No evidence has been provided to show that a significant portion, or any specific per cent, of the the scientific or medical community rejects biopsychiatry.
 * Proposed by Ande B. 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Description does not constitute endorsement
1) An accurate description of any scientific or medical approach, hypothesis, or field of endeavor does not constitute endorsement or advocacy.
 * Proposed by Ande B. 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Cesar is an admitted anti-psychiatry activist
1) Cesar Tort is an admitted anti-psychiatry activist who has given anti-psychiatry lectures at Scientology conventions and has threatened to have Scientologists tag the article en masse, though he later stated that he didn't mean to make good on that threat.
 * Proposed by Ande B. 04:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * That was a bad joke already explained in my user page. Please read what I said there .  Why do you persist in eternal ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the scientific issues I’ve raised in other pages?  —Cesar Tort 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cesar, this is not an ad hom, and I stated you did not intend it. But it does demonstrate an orientation and bias that is strongly reflected in your POV statements. You have never raised a scientific issue. You have made assertions and refused to respond to questions and efforts to understand why you believe them to be relevant or why they are anything other than political issues.  Claims of economic conflicts of interest and involuntary committment do not constitute scientific arguments.  You're an intelligent guy, you could formulate real scientific impediments or valid non-political arguments if you wanted to.  Perhaps you're too close to this issue to see that your bias is getting in the way of effective or convincing arguments.  Ande B. 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Cesar Tort has attempted to use the article to push an activist POV
1) Cesar Tort has attempted to push his POV activist agenda through the text of the article, in violation of WP NPOV guidelines.
 * Proposed by Ande B. 04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * Comment by others:

Effectiveness of Ombudsman on content
1) Articles started by Ombudsman tend to generate more work by other editors than would be needed if the article was started instead by one of them, to produce a satisfactory article. Such work is not available for other articles.  Ombudsman's work represents a net loss of content to WP.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I believe Ombudsman should remain an editor in good standing with the chance to attempt to create medical articles. If he insists on an anti-medical viewpoint those articles may be subject to thorough revision and he may be banned from the specific articles he disrupts. Fred Bauder 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me. Midgley 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ombudsman's effect on morale
1) Ombudsman's fashion of editing and reaction to other views is such as to remove the enjoyment from editing WP from significant numbers of able and knowledgeable editors. The net effect on morale in those remaining is negative.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think probation should handle this problem. He may never get a clue, but repeated treatments with the cluestick are in store if he doesn't. Fred Bauder 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me Midgley 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur on this one. Worse yet, he seems to instigate other editors to over-reach in favor of his POV and effectively derails the ability to discuss issues.  This sets a dreadful example and does not encourage professional quality editing.Ande B. 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Endorse this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman's effect on expertise
1) Ombudsman's fashion of editing and reaction to other views is such as to discourage significant numbers of able and knowledgeable editors from editing or continuing to edit individual articles, ranges of articles, and WP as a whole, temporarily or forever. The net effect on the sum of expertise available to WP is negative.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Users who are unable to function due to an inability to participate in the wiki process are, sad to say, not suitable Wikipedia editors. "I am a graduate of Harvard and a medical doctor" is funny when uttered by Frasier Crane, but not sufficient to establish authority on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think is to be expected that when you argue here there must be substance to your argument. Endless repetition of "doctors are butchers" will not do. Facts about failure to use and follow simple checklists that ensure compliance with clinical practice guidelines are quite appropriate. Fred Bauder 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This makes perfectly good sense to me. Ande B. 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me Midgley 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Civility is expected... sustained attacks should not be expected.  I had in mind CDN99, actually who is a scientist rather than a medic. Midgley 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (I moved this comment from the proceding section because I think it's supposed to be placed here insted. Sorry. Ande B. 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)) I think I'm sympathetic to both Midgley and Fred Bauder's comments here.  Ombudsman's relentless hostility may indeed drive away some very capable people who don'twant to waste their time with his nonsense.  Yet editors must be able to work in a collaborative manner and not be hyper-sensitive to criticism.  In the end, I suppose it depends on whether WP supports   a hostile atmosphere that is more typical of places such as usenet or whether it supports a more collaborative spirited atmosphere, as its "policy" statements would suggest. If I want to waste my time arguing I can do so on usenet, or at work, anytime. Ande B 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) Ombudsman's name is confusing to new users and presents an appearance of authority and status separate from that of any random editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me.Midgley 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman required to use talk pages when tagging articles
1) Cesar Tort and Ombudsman are required to place an explanation on the talk page of articles they tag as NPOV and the like.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There was extensive discussion on the talk page of the basis for the tag. Fred Bauder 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have always done that —Cesar Tort 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this proposal could be made clearer that the explanation is required to be explicitly justified in terms of WP:NPOV, rather than in personal opinion. Rockpocket (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion can be better followed on the talk page rather than trying to follow edit summaries. Andrew73 11:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

CesarTort and Ombudsman counseled
2) CesarTort and Ombudsman are counseled to stay cool when the editing gets hot and to avoid persistently editing in areas where they have a strong point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Despite my determination that the article is biased towards a conventional point of view it may be that either one or both of Cesar Tort or Ombudsman are disruptive rather than effective in editing this article. Fred Bauder 21:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I was unfailingly civil in Talk: Biological psychiatry. The fact that I have a strong point of view doesn’t mean that I’m a pov pusher in articles.  This can be fully demonstrated in two controversial articles I entirely rewrote with people with almost opposite views of mine with respect to psychiatry: (1) the Anti-psychiatry article that I rewrote with Rockpocket, and (2) the 6 April 2006 version of the Biological Psychiatry article I rewrote with Midgley . —Cesar Tort 06:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 'advice' is reasonable, but an implicit appreciation of the context of what has happened on the biopsych article and elsewhere is sorely lacking, especially considering the extraordinary number of times that two of the editors involved have persistently found opportunities to make unsettling remarks, criticize aspects of an article or edit, or make nitpicking, unfounded or overblown complaints about responses. With regard to the biopsych fiasco, even the mere mention of the dye derivative roots of major tranquilizers was promptly deleted.  Reasonable attempts at restoring Cesar's npov tag were rebuffed out of hand, with feeble excuses offered for its deletion.  The gentle and otherwise ordinary restoration of a desperately needed tag was absolutely justified, particularly given that Cesar, a newcomer othewise alone against the Wiki's entrenched medical lobby, likely would be subjected to the same mistreatment that Pansophia, Leifern, Whaleto, The Invisible Anon, Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC, Heathhunnicutt and others have suffered.  Since it happened to be Midgley and Jfd among those who were dead wrong in their insistance upon removing the tag, there was all the more reason to be concerned about the unnecessary stoking of conflict by members of the Wiki's medical lobby.  Avoiding conflict with editors from such an entrenched institutional culture is difficult, made more so now by the fact that the arbcom process very much mirrors the methods used by hunters since the dawn of mankind.  From out of the blue, Joema put the freeze on an already chilly situation by threatening to start this arbcom case, despite the absence of noticeable npoving edits (though Cesar had utterly dismantled the preposterous claim that the article was already npov), and despite the lack of further attempts to restore the tag.


 * Jfd's tendency to find and engage in conflicts, ever since berating and deleting invaluable Whale.to links, is quite intriguing. On the one hand, Jfd demands that discussions take place, usually embedded in a litany of complaints that absolutely discourages collegial communication.  On the other hand, when  painstakingly restrained responses are provided, Jfd routinely reacts in a manner that escalates what long ago became an avalanche of complaints. And Jfd's escalation always keeps getting worse, no matter how clear the message is that it would be best to avoid needless conflict.  Jfd claims not to have witnessed of any sort of hazing in the medical community, yet Jfd's capacity for finding an ever widening range of articles where conflict (reminiscent of both Chinese water torture and, perhaps unwittingly reflected, multi-generational co-dependent abuse) then ensues, seemingly always initiated (consciously or otherwise) by Jfd.  Since restrained responses are dealt with by spin doctoring from Jfd, and when responses are deferred in an attempt to keep things cool, Jfd tends to engage in stemwinding, using a Catch 22 style of setting up conundrums, deliberately or not, a pattern which appears to be Jfd's modus operandi,  Jfd has often ratcheted things up further by making allegations of personal attacks.  Considering the circumstances, the above boilerplate 'advice' undoubtedly should have been doled out to both Midgley and Jfd a long time ago.  In their role as gatekeepers, of their own volition or otherwise (and clearly involving a degree of conflict of interest), Jfd and Midgly have frequently deleted material at the drop of the hat, started or pushed article deletions, or have gone out of their way to rally the Wiki's medical lobby in a manner that is difficult to describe as anything but disruptive.  Indeed, the only reasonable course of action at the time was to let things cool off by avoiding further comments that would likely be used as fodder by Jfd, et al, regardless of Joema's threat.  Ombudsman 10:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's almost comical that Ombudsman refers to the medical training process as "hazing." Yes medical training may be intense and difficult, but far from the hazing "rituals" you would see in a movie like Animal House or Old School.  And no, I'm not the victim of mind control nor is there a conspiracy.  Andrew73 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of aspects of the medical culture, in its entirety, going back centuries, clearly have characteristics of hazing. Ombudsman 12:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Ombudsman, I read this, but find it rather difficult to see how you give an opening to others to do better. While they need to tolerate sourced criticism of a scientific nature, you also need to know that flakey sources are not acceptable, "invaluable Whale.to links" is absurd hyperbole. Fred Bauder 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Plenty of openings are left for members of the medical lobby to do better; the basic point is, perhaps the most pertinent problem is the recurrent creation of Catch 22 situations. Generally speaking, most of the content on Whale.to is faithfully archived articles by serious authors, many of which are often hard to find.  The site is rather comprehensive in this regard.  The sometimes extraneous commentary is hardly what defines the Whale.to archives as a whole, and characterizing the entire site based on the presumption that the commentary outweighs the legitimacy of accurately archived articles is not really fair to John or the Wiki community, much less readers who often find it difficult to wade past the blizzard of corporate media disinformation.  In fact, the legitimate-content-to-cruft ratio for Whale.to is much better than virtually anything proffered by the corporate media, and the Whale.to links to specific articles are largely on par with the quality of typical references cited in the Wiki, especially considering that most medical journals primarily publish marketing cruft these day, as several former major medical journal editors and an editorial in Scientific American have stated unequivocally.  Ombudsman 12:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Invaluable whale.to" links is also oxymoronic as well, judging by the content on the site! Andrew73 11:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The RFC on Whaleto which seems to have worked, dealt with this. The RFC on Ombudsman which included linkage to Whale.to doesn't seem to have worked.   ArbCom is the next line in that.  WP has policies on linkage, and somewhere among them and in that first-mentioned RFC are suggestions that genuinely valuable historical material will a) be likely to find its way onto the web in reliable academic or governmental archives; and b) if it is passed to a university quite likely be checked and put up and maintained, and then be a linkable resource.  So the reason for holding it in proximity to editorial is to get teh editorial read by visitors.  One man sites are ruled out for good reasons, and I for one am tired of having this rehashed by Ombudsman.  Midgley 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ombudsman's reply is typical, and consists of more than just a few unfortunate mischaracterisations of people and processes on Wikipedia. He has obviously forgotten that when it came to editors such as Francesca Allan, I was actually highly civil and made every attempt to cultivate her as an editor. The fact that this was unsuccesful should not be attributed to me and is quite irrelevant to the present discussion. There is a medical lobby, which (thankfully) closes ranks whenever irrational attacks are being made on the profession. Oddly, it was myself who wrote the "criticism" paragraph in the article on medicine. Because the medical profession is capable of self-criticism and introspection, and has for decades now moved away from practices that Ombudsman likes to refer to (such as "hazing"). Instead of the Prussian "Herr Professor is the God King" medicine now employs dialogue, patient-centered medicine, informed consent, public participation, multidisciplinary assessment and more of such.
 * Contrary to his assertions, Ombudsman has made no attempt whatsoever to engage in rational discussion. What he characterises as "impossible dilemmas" posed from my side are actually very straightforward requests to adhere to policy (e.g. NPOV, asserting notability, reliable sourcing and citing). If this is a Catch-22 to Ombudsman, perhaps it's time he reconsider his approach to NPOV. His assertions that I have a co-dependency problem and that I have a conflict of interest are actually insulting (this user has made personal attacks even as part of this RFAr). Ombudsman has not stated what the nature of this "conflict of interest" might be. Nowhere is there an indication that Ombudsman does not of himself have a number of "conflicts of interest", but from the perspective of an anti-establishment agenda. JFW | T@lk  21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman banned from articles
3) For aggressive edit-warring, Cesar Tort and Ombudsman are banned from Biological psychiatry and related articles for six months. This provision does not extend to talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * With respect to the suggestion that "Ombudsman should be banned from editing medical topics" he does seem to be the one who has a tendency to cite unreliable, even crank sources. However this case was framed in terms of this article which I have found to be biased in favor of conventional medicine, leaving out as it does significant alternative viewpoints. I don't think we can do what you suggest without starting over with a request that is framed in the terms suggested. Fred Bauder 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Excuse me, Mr. Bauder, but your comment that "this article which I have found to be biased in favor of conventional medicine" is rather frightening as you seem to be making this statement as a pejorative. BioPsy is a conventional medical approach, thus any accurate description of it will necessarily be a description of conventional medicine.  That you may not like conventional medicine, as this comment implies, is not relevant as to what BioPsy is, what BioPsy does or how BioPsy does or doesn't work.   Nor is it relevant to a finding that there is or is not bias in the article as it is currently written.  Ombudsman has not been seeking to have legitimate scientific disputes acknowledged but instead seeks to have his political or personal positions accepted as being a preferred scientific alternative.  It's one thing to seek a full coverage of issues, it's another thing altogether to allow allegations of bias to seduce us into accepting political arguments as if they were genuine scientific ones. Accepting Ombudsman's demands for coverage of his views would result in an article that is inaccurate, misleading, and viciously corrosive of the neutral point of view to which the Wikipedia supposedly subscribes.  Ande B 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, wait a minute! The two pov tags I posted were explained at great length in Talk:Biological psychiatry. The tags and my unfailingly civil explanations for its appropriateness in no way are “aggressive edit warring”. How can I be banned if I have not violated any policy?  —Cesar Tort 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be disappointed if Cesar were to be banned for relatively minor policy infractions. In contrast, I would prefer to see Ombudsman banned from all medical topics based on the evidence provided. JFW | T@lk  12:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Fred's comment above: Ombudsman's role in this conflict is completely different from Cesar Tort's. Ombudsman simply saw the edit warring on biological psychiatry and used up a few reverts a day to keep the POV tag in - without talk page participation; as can be seen from my evidence this is a symptom of an unhealthy form of editing that Ombudsman has displayed for many months. This case (the NPOV tagging) is simply a culmination of this unhealthy editing. In fact, I was on the verge of requesting arbitration over Gold salts when Ombudsman deleted my request for mediation with nothing but an abusive edit summary (details in my evidence). Not only are there crank sources, there is also selective use of information and an obvious agenda (vaccines cause autism, psychiatrists make odd people mad, Big Pharma is out to kill you and take your money, George Bush caused 9/11). There is a strong feeling amongst many editors that Ombudsman has shown no ability to cooperate on subjects he feels strongly about. For the ArbComm to ignore this feeling on the basis that this RFAr only focused on the NPOV tag will only worsen the situation. JFW | T@lk  19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Cesar Tort is useful.  Ombudsman should be banned from editing medical topics.  For a wide interpretation of "medical".  Midgley 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. I think it would have been better if this RfAr would have been on him alone, and covered the full range of articles he is editing. Kim van der Linde at venus 22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. I would not support an editing ban for Cesar Tort, as he is an excellent content provider on anti-psychiatry issues. However, he should be cautioned about the importance of referring to policy for guidance in future tagging and discussion (or better still, refrain from POV tagging if he cannot confidently differentiate between his personal opinion and genuine neutrality issues). Ombudsman's poor record means i cannot offer the the same sentiments in his defence, however. Rockpocket (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Cesar Tort's further assertions on the talk page accompanying this workshop, i would still not support an overall editing ban, however i do believe strong guidlines must be imposed on Cesar to ensure his contributions to psychiatry related articles remain relevent and not promoting his advocacy. I would support a limited restriction on editing articles outwith mentorship, or a restriction to providing content on talk pages until he demonstrates the willingness to adhere to policy.  Rockpock e  t  17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Cesar Tort seems to be an useful and reasonable contributor, I can't imagine any reason for banning him from anywhere. I can't make up my mind about Ombudsman.--Zeraeph 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot support any ban placed against Cesar Tort. He is an articulate and knowledgeable contributor with whom I have had a single editing dispute.  He responded to that with grace, even when I initially misunderstood some of his comments.  I would want to encourage Cesar Tort to continue his contributions. Ombudsman, however, seems to have a long history of creating problems and has been blocking full development of the BioPsy article. Ande B 05:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)  I regret that I have been mistaken as to the nature of the editing and POV problems created by Cesar Tort and have concluded that my initial support of him was misplaced.  Mr. Tort is an admitted activist who has an agenda to push, he is blatantly anti-psychiatry and anti-medication use by of psychiatrically and emotionally troubled individuals.  He has given speeches at Scientology conventions in support of that religion's hostility to psychiatry.


 * As stated in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence: “Yes, and even psychiatrist Thomas Szasz has accepted payment for lecturing against involuntary psychiatry in Scientology auditoriums (though he himself, like me, is totally irreligious). I don’t see anything wrong with giving a couple of such paid lectures to put some bread on my table”. —Cesar Tort 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He is essentially a single issue poster who agitates for the over-representation of his extremely minority view. As such, it is not appropriate to permit him to edit any article that relates to psychiatry, bio-psychiatry, or medications or other treatment modalities utilized by conventional psychiatry. Ande B. 05:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)  note strike out of "anti-medication" Cesar Tort apparently does support medication as long as it is not prescribed by psychiatrists practicing the conventional medicine of biopsychiatry.  I wrongly believed he was also against such use of medication by alternative providers. Ande B. 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. An outright ban seems a bit harsh for either editor.  Andrew73 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * “Cesar Tort apparently does support medication as long as it is not prescribed by psychiatrists practicing the conventional medicine of biopsychiatry”. As stated in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence: “Please don’t interpret my mind. I don’t hold such views”. —Cesar Tort 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading al the evidence, I think this unfairly includes Cesar Tort. I think he needs to be cautioned in being more carefull with arguments (if you add a nonsense argument to your NPOV tag, it should be reverted), but has acted in good faith. Kim van der Linde at venus 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Kim van der Linde that my arguments in Talk:Biological psychiatry for posting my first tag were very poorly not formulated in a thoroughly comprehensive way (though I cannot say the same about the discussion that followed my second tag posting).  —Cesar Tort 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

...just Ombudsman
3) For aggressive edit-warring, Ombudsman is banned from Biological psychiatry and related articles for six months. This provision does not extend to talk pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I will probably propose probation with respect to medical articles. Fred Bauder 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I feel a ban (3 months should be sufficient), followed by indefinite probation, would be an adequate remedy for Ombudsman, taking into account extensive evidence provided by myself. JFW | T@lk  10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like the ArbComm to comment specifically on Ombudsman's outrageous suggestion that other editors have been paid to edit. Apart from being irrelevant (he cannot prove he himself is not paid by advocacy groups) it is also highly insulting. JFW | T@lk  11:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My bias is that bans seem excessive. I agree with JFW that Ombudsman tends to perceive conflicts of interest in the views that he opposes, yet believes that proponents of his own views are somehow immune (perhaps there's a pun when it comes to some of the other topics he has edited!) to their own conflicts of interest.  Andrew73 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the past bans have been necessary against users who continuously disrupted the status quo with non-negotiable POV editing. Have a look at Kosebamse's law (from WP:RAUL): "Kosebamse's law - People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." I think the conditions meet Kosebamse's law. JFW | T@lk  21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of the double standards that have existed in the wilderness of the Wiki's medical articles. By aggressively pursuing sanctions in the current proceedings, Jfd has once again demonstrated an eagerness to ratchet up the rhetoric in pursuit of coercive measures, continuing a longstanding pattern of engaging in diversionary activities that distract from the possibility of bringing articles toward npov. Jfd has presented evidence here of some basic principles at the crux of gaming the system to stymie the development of articles, which have manifest in Jfd's conduct for months, in the form of innumerable provocations, deletions, and inflammatory rhetoric. Jfd seems to forget about why things devolved so quickly after having started an ill-conceived RfC and making needlessly abrasive comments about Whale.to last Halloween. To top it off, Jfd typically feigns umbrage and constantly makes allegations of personal attacks. Jfd's RfC and comments above should bring into focus and highlight the antagonistically aggressive conduct that has distracted far too much attention from sorting out content issues. If Jfd hadn't poisoned the chance for discussion from the very beginning, and hadn't aggressively deleted content, and hadn't backed up Midgley's unwarranted tag deletion, then there would be no reason to discuss Jfd's aggressive pursuit of sanctions, which could be construed as willful gaming of the system, except assumption good faith allows an escape route. Ombudsman 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's odd that instead of responding to legitimate criticisms you always complain about my line of work, Ombudsman. That's no compliment for the material you're defending; it shows it's indefensible and you feel the need to play the ad hominem card. I do admit that I'm the root of all evil, and will not hesitate to scrutinise your edits until they are compliant with WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk  20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear from the passage above that Ombudsman has noticed that we have gathered here to criticise and discuss him. If nobody did anything then nothing would happen.  The presentation here is of a view that none of this is due to any action of Ombudsman's, it is all the unreasonable behaviour of others.  I don't agree with that view.  I anticipate that the rational person will present the best argument they have available here.  Either way, a ban would at least provide some peace.  Midgley 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman banned from boring recapitulation
1) That Ombudsman having bored all concerned with repeated recapitulation of the failed arguments over linking to Whale.to is forbidden to mention the subject for a period of ten years.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yawn proposed by me Midgley 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Username changed
1) Ombudsman's user name is changed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me. Remarked upon near here, and on other occasions.  The chosen name suggests a special function and status. Midgley 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) Should any editor violate the above remedies, they may be briefly blocked by an administrator for up to one week. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks should be logged in the Log of blocks and bans section of this page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by me. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: