Cesar Tort (talk | contribs) m →npov tag: not after my second tag |
Cesar Tort (talk | contribs) →Biased article: only a meager compromise |
||
Line 373: | Line 373: | ||
:: Cesar was consulted on the section on criticsm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biological_psychiatry#Short_Section_on_Criticism] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rockpocket#Biopsych] and his suggestions were taken on board and implemented. Ombusman declined to comment or contribute to the genesis of the section. [[User:Rockpocket|Rockpocket]] [[User_talk:Rockpocket|(talk)]] 18:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
:: Cesar was consulted on the section on criticsm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biological_psychiatry#Short_Section_on_Criticism] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rockpocket#Biopsych] and his suggestions were taken on board and implemented. Ombusman declined to comment or contribute to the genesis of the section. [[User:Rockpocket|Rockpocket]] [[User_talk: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. —[[User:Cesar Tort|Cesar Tort]] 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Comment by others: |
:Comment by others: |
||
:: |
:: |
Revision as of 20:36, 20 May 2006
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.
Motions and requests by the parties
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:
- 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[1] 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[2]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Remediation of systemic flaws
1) 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."[3] 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:
- 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)
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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
Proposed principles
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:
Neutral point of view
2) Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia: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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Neutral point of view
7) Wikipedia: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:
- Comment by others:
npov tag
8) In appropriate instances it is permissible to place a {{npov}} tag on an article in order to call attention to Wikipedia: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:
- Comment by others:
False consensus
1) "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." Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Cesar Tort is a relatively new user
1) Cesar Tort (talk · contribs · count) 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:
Ombudsman's civility
2) Ombudsman has been uncivil.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
Locus of dispute
3) The locus of the dispute is the edits made by Cesar_Tort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Biological psychiatry.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- My proposal Fred Bauder 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman
4) Ombudsman originally edited Biological psychiatry with an anti-psychiatry viewpoint [4]; this orientation was continued as Cesar Tort began editing [5]]. Later editing by joema (talk · contribs) resulted in an expanded article which takes a much more positive point of view [6]. There was further editing by Ande_B. (talk · contribs) 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 {{npov}} 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)
- Comment by others:
npov tag
5) The tag {{npov}} was repeatedly placed by Ombudsman and Cesar Tort on the article [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. 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#NPOV_tag 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 {{npov}} tagging was justified mainly with claims of pseudoscience, contrary to WP:NPOV. Rockpocket (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- After my second tag I did not justified it by claiming pseudoscience. —Cesar Tort 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Biased article
6) As presently constituted biological psychiatry is simply a restatement of "mainstream medical opinion" [13] containing minimal critical material, only a short section, and represents a violation of Wikipedia: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#NPOV_tag. 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: [14]. In that state there was feedback it was TOO critical [15], yet others marked it NPOV for being not critical enough, in fact calling it "a poster child for extreme ivory tower POV pushing": [16]. Joema 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Cesar was consulted on the section on criticsm [17] [18] 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)
- 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." [19]. See also a similar comment by Ande B. asserting the article is not biased [20].
- 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.
- 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 [21] was criticized for being too critical: [22] 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)
- 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 [21] was criticized for being too critical: [22] Joema 16:39, 20 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." [23], see also [24]. See also a similar assertion by Ande B. [25].
- 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 [26]. 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'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)
- Your suggestion regarding a change in Wikipedia policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 17:45, 20 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:
- Comment by others:
Ombudsman's editing history
10) Ombudsman has an history of biased editing of medical subjects sometimes using links to http://www.whale.to/ see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman#Description and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment by others:
Domination by biased editors represented as "consensus"
12) Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) has falsely asserted that the current state of the article is the result of "consensus" [27]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Proposed Fred Bauder 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- 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:
- 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)
- I have always done that —Cesar Tort 05:47, 7 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:
- 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 [28]. —Cesar Tort 06:07, 7 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:
- Comment by parties:
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment. An outright ban seems a bit harsh for either editor. Andrew73 00:16, 14 May 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 [29] that my arguments in Talk:Biological psychiatry for posting my first tag were very poorly formulated (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:
- Comment by parties:
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:
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:
Proposed enforcement
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:
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: