Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 25 April 2006

• ]

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• User:Snowspinner/Arbcom - Recommended reading: A guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Bullshido.net

Involved parties

scb_steve: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Scb_steve Dmcdevit·t: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dmcdevit

Dmc did a speedy deletion of the Bullshido.net article, claiming that the article was too close to other articles on the topic. I disputed this and asked for the article to be reinstated so that a formal review and discussion could be done. I also solicited the help of the admin Fire Star, but the article has not been undeleted. When the article was discussed in Deletion Review, there was a unanimous vote to overturn speedy deletion. Because no action has been taken in light of this vote, I have gone to Arbitration to try to get this situation resolved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Bullshido.net

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review

Statement by party 1

Bullshido.net is a notable website on the Internet, particularly in the martial arts community. It is notable in a fashion similar to that of Somethingawful or Newgrounds. Because of this notability, I created an article dealing with the website itself, distinct from other topics that have been associated with it, such as Bullshido and McDojo. However, the article regarding the website was speedily deleted, as I see it, without justifiable cause. I feel that the popularity of the site and the the content of the article entitle it to be debated among Wikipedian members before being removed from the site. Particularly since a vote on the issue in Deletion Review showed that no one else agreed with deleting the article without comment. --Scb steve 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

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

Muhamed

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

• Cool Cat (talk · contribs)
• Muhamed (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

User:Cool Cat - By posting this I am aware of it. :)

User:Muhamed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Muhamed
• User does not know English (or any language as a native speaker) and all my attempts to comunicate with him resulted with either an insult (in a foreign language) or mumbling (I cant make sense of it).

Statement by party 1 (Cool Cat)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

• This arbitration case is here as Admins are hesistant to take action as I do not believe we ever had another case where a non-english speaking person making mass number of recategorisations before.

1. The user in question mass tags articles of his choosing with Category:Kurdistan which alone is not necesarily disruptive. Initialy he prefered the edit summary Removing Pro Türkish-Mongolian propaganda for his adding of Category:Kurdistan. Later changed it to +Cat... after being warned by an admin I contacted via IRC to investigate the matter.
2. His overal attitude is insultive. The RfC page has more spesific examples of his incivility. Though it should be noted the user does not use talk pages much for perhaps obvious reasons.
3. User votes on AfDs and/or any vote concerning Kurds. Since he cant understand arguments, he really shouldn't be voting.
4. I also did not like his involvement with my RfA which I view as trolling. The RfC has the spesific diffs.

--Cool Cat out 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see language assistance offered below. Not that I object to that but do we really want non-english speakers to show this kind of an edit behaviour? Isnt it disruptive? --Cat out 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by outside party (User:Phr)

Muhammad's German appears sort of servicable . I think he asked Banes there to withdraw his support vote for Cool Cat's RFA, claiming Cool Cat is a Turkish nationalist for trying to get the Kuristan category deleted. I suggest asking for German or Arabic language assitance at WP:RD/L. I'd offer such help myself but my German is not really good enough for something like this. Phr 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by LukasPietsch

Muhamed seems not to have made any edits for a month, since the day after CoolCat's RfC was filed against him. I'm therefore not sure how this is an open conflict right now. Suggest to reject without prejudice now, and wait if and when he comes back whether his behaviour will have changed. As for languages, he says somewhere that his native languages are Arabic and Kurdish; his German isn't much above his English either. Lukas 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

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

Lou Dobbs

Involved parties

• Wizardry_Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Postdlf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• 65.213.7.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- this is a shared ip
  • aka 216.254.126.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • aka Redwolfb14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Case Summary: Disagreement on the neutrality and usefulness of links involving the Lou Dobbs article. Two of the editors refuse to follow the guidelines set forth by Misplaced Pages regarding WP:EL and have shown extreme bias.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A formal and public notice regarding the arbitration was made on the talk page located here Talk:Lou Dobbs diffs available at the following

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've tried disputing NPOV and allowing for other editors to comment. Before any time summarily passes the links in question are readded, the editors in question cite reasons and agreement made between themselves or no one at all. They claim threats have been made but when asked what threats? There is simply no response or the discussion topic is switched. This is all available on the talk page of the article in question. I've had no choice but to refer to the guidelines repeatedly and i'm now here to find some civility.

Statement User:216.254.126.222

I've said all I have regarding this matter on the talk page. To summarize I believe that external links linking to a person should adhere to the guidelines set forth here WP:EL. I also believe that no matter how much one may disagree with a person. Linking to a site that does nothing but lambast the individual without any fact, partiality, neutrality or general deceny should not be tolerated. Misplaced Pages isn't a magazine. Based on the statement below I must update this statement. Concensus has never been agreed upon because the guidelines have not been followed; therefore, we've never been able to come to, or arrive at any general common sense. Furthermore, this is clearly something that is devolving into a revert war. I'd rather a specific guideline be created when dealing with external links to figures in the public and their relation to the articles in question (As WP:EL has guidelines as to what it appropriate and not I don't see the issue). Or at the very least a statement of arbitration on the article in question. So that others who see the links and disagree with them being in the article will have this to refer to in the advent that this request is summarily declined. I'm doing my best to avert future reverts on the article in question while also placating the parties in disagreement.

Statement by User:Will Beback

This is a content issue. The question is whether a couple of critical external links should be included. The consensus of other editors is that the links are legitimate. Reasonable people may differ. This should be resolved through discussion between engaged editors (more are welcome). -Will Beback 08:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Wizardry Dragon

This user has been continually reverting the links disputed despite talk page consensus that the links are legitmate and should be included. He has been warned continually of the Three-Revert Rule and of Misplaced Pages editing policies but has persisted. It would seem that he is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, something I have warned him(/her?) about twice now.

The someone stressful issue is that (s)he would continually cite Misplaced Pages policies while failing to follow them himself, as I've noted above, (s)he seems in breach of both the Three-Revert Rule and of the guideline against disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point.

I've tried to be as civil as possible, despite the fact (s)he's tried my patience - if anyone has suggestions as to anything I could do differently or better, I'm open to them. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Avillia

This extends far beyond the simple content issue. The person in question has been threatened twice by administrators for removing the links. Threatened with blocking for vandalism. Over a editing dispute. If nothing else, this needs to be investigated. Also, as to the removal: What happened to WP:Bold?

Statement by User:Postdlf

I watched the talk page discussion for awhile without getting involved (I had previously contributed a good deal of the article's content, though not the links in question), and finally stepped in only to counter an obviously solitary flouting of consensus because one person is upset that he is not getting his way. After the editor kept unilaterally removing the links, I threatened to block him first for vandalism, and I finally did block one of the above IPs for violating the three-revert rule after four separate editors (including myself) had restored the links. Arbitration is inappropriate because the underlying content issue was already discussed and resolved, and this is only an attempt to avoid that resolution because one editor does not like the outcome.

Statement by non-involved user Stifle

This does not appear to have been posted to WP:RFC yet. I recommend trying that first. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• Reject, trivial content dispute Fred Bauder 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, this is not an issue for arbcom. Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Appeal for leniency on behalf of User:Rgulerdem

Involved parties

• Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Johntex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Case summary: Indefinite blocking of User:Rgulerdem by User:Cyde and User:NSLE (who acted with approval from WP:ANI). User:Johntex is appealing the block at the request of User:Rgulerdem, who is indefinitely blocked with a protected talk page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Johntex has informed the other 3 parties. , ,

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Johntex has posted to WP:ANI asking if there might be room for some leniency in this matter. This did not result in any change to the blocking. Johntex unprotected Rgulerdem's Talk page so that he could detail his positive contributions. This resulted in no change in heart by the blocking admins, and Rgulerdem was accused of continuing to be uncivil. His talk page was reprotected. Given the history between Rgulerdem and the blocking admins, I don't think continued discussion will help. NSLE has posted to Johntex that the next step should be to give the Arbitration Committee a chance to reveiw the situation.

Statement by User:Johntex

I believe there is room for leniency in this case:

1. Upon joining Misplaced Pages, Rgulerdem made good edits and engaged in good discussion. , ,
2. He got into trouble because about showing the cartoons at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: . Although he did made mistakes (Eg. 3RR violations), he also engaged in many attempts to help others understand how some people feel hurt by these images.
3. He started on a proposed policy called Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics. This has not been a popular proposal, and there has been incivility both by Rgulerdem and towards Rgulerdem.
4. User:NicholasTurnbull gave Rgulerdem what he called a "final warning" but he did not provide specific examples of problem behavior.
5. Rgulerdem questioned whether Misplaced Pages has a "final warning".
6. User:NSLE gave a link to a policy that does not mention a final warning., so it did not answer Rgulerdem's question.
7. User:NSLE protected Rgulerdem’s page with the statement that Rgulerdem was engaging in trolling and incivility on his talk page. I don’t agree these actions were trolling or uncivil.
8. User:Cyde indefinitely blocked Rgulerdem, without providing any specific cause.
9. Rgulerdem contacted me by e-mail and asked me to unblock him. I declined to remove the block., but I did unprotect his talk page so that he could speak about his positive contributions.
10. Rgulerdem provided information about his positive. Unfortunately, he also made complaints about those who have blocked him, although I had specifically asked him to “… not make any remarks which could possibly be construed as personal attacks, or which could possibly be seen as being uncivil..." I do not think anything he said was a personal attack or uncivil, though he was argumentative when I had specifically asked him to stick to the positive.
11. Rgulerdem then spoke directly to NSLE saying "Please note that, I am not editing here in Wiki based on your mercy. If I were you I would quit this threatening-style talks as it does not work.". At this point, NLSE re-protected the page.
    

I do believe that Rgulerdem has behaved badly in the past, but he has served his penalties for those actions. I agree he has tested the community's patience and caused many people to spend a lot of time on him.
On the other hand, he has made some positive contributions. He has worked hard and in good faith on a proposed policy that is important to him. He has suffered insults and incivility on the parts of people who oppose his ideas.
Most importantly to me, the "final warning" and "indefinite block" came about without a specific cause. I have no doubt the blocking admins feel Rgulerdem is a time-sink at best and a hazzard at worst. Also, there was little opposition to the block at WP:ANI. However, I wonder if readers at WP:ANI were able to hear both sides of the issue, since the user was blocked and had his page protected at least part of the time. I ask for the block to be reduced to

Statement by User:Aaron Brenneman

• ani link

This seems just a little bit early for ArbCom. Either the block stands (i.e. no ArbCom involvment) or it gets lifted (no ArbCom until when/if something else goes pear-shaped.) I'd suggest a pseudo-mentorship: He's clearly passionate, if more than a little bit rough around the edges. *snort* 11R violation *snort*
brenneman 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Cyde

Rgulerdem's block log speaks for itself. It was hardly just me who felt the ban was justified. I urge the ArbCom not to bother taking this case. In addition, this is my response to the post by Netpari (talk · contribs · count) below:

Rgulerdem was blocked for being persistently disruptive over the span of many months. May I point out that it is ludicrous to (1) compare him to Socrates and (2) suggest that I should be more lenient on him because he is a Muslim. Socrates is a non-sequitur and I practice a strict policy of separation of church and unblock.

--Cyde Weys 02:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:NSLE

Resid has previously been blocked for incivility, disruption, 3RR, WP:OWN and sockpuppetry. I once blocked him 50 hours for sockpuppetry. For some reason, a glitch in the system allowed him to resume editing, and I reblocked him. He then claimed I was biased and had an agenda, claiming I blocked him for no reason, and later claiming that since the glitch unblocked him he should be free to edit.

After his 50-hour block expired, he went back to revert warring at Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiethics. He then accused someone else of vandalism, which violates WP:AGF, and when I reverted his edit, and User:Netscott his next revert, he listed us both, as well as innocent user User:Rory096, at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked him 15 minutes on disruption of 3RR vio page as there was no 3RR.

He has been downright disruptive and I see no reason why the ArbCom shouldaccept this case to lift a block on someone who's obviously not here to contribute cohesively and conducively. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:51 UTC (2006-04-21)

This is not Resid's first block, and in the past when we've unblocked him he's just continued to be incivil and disruptive, and I don't forsee that changing. When the block was posted to ANI (link above) many admins and non-admins alike agreed with the block. Resid's complaint to the mailing list received similar responses. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:20 UTC (2006-04-22)

Clerk notes

This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion . If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Misplaced Pages policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0)

• Recuse, as one of those that blocked him, though I'm still unclear why this can't just be worked out by abministrators on WP:ANI... Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry

Involved parties

• joema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ande_B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rockpocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fuzzform (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jfdwolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Midgley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrew73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cesar_Tort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Cesar Tort
• Ombudsman
• Ande B.
• Rockpocket
• Fuzzform
• Jfdwolff
• Midgley
• Andrew73

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Editors Cesar Tort and Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation/arbitration.
Request consent for arbitration from Ombudsman (no response):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABiological_psychiatry&diff=49113132&oldid=49107099

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABiological_psychiatry&diff=49145955&oldid=49141891

Statement by party 1

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by party 2

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

Statement by non-involved party Stifle

This appears to be a content dispute and does not appear to have visited WP:RFC yet. I urge rejection without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This behaviour spans multiple articles, such as anti-psychiatry, anti-vaccinationist, psychiatry and numerous others. In fact, an RFC against Ombudsman dealing specifically with external links has already taken place (here). JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That RFC doesn't appear to be related to this dispute, though. I'd recommend taking it there first. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While the normal dispute resolution path is RfC, mediation, then arbitration, Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation. At that point, I don't know what other option exists besides arbitration. As Jfdwolff said, he's repeatedly and disruptively POV-tagged other articles. This has been a continuing problem for some time. However if you inhibit solely the POV-tagging aspect, he can just continue by constantly reverting content, merely omitting the tag. I understand your guidelines, but if anybody with extreme viewpoints can roam about Misplaced Pages under the protection of "mere content dispute", stuffing those viewpoints into as many articles as possible, that damages Misplaced Pages's credibility as an unbiased reference. A determined individual can do a lot of damage that way. Eventually he finds articles where editors aren't watchful or get tired of fighting him and leave. Content then essentially becomes a web-based soapbox masquerading as an article. You could argue there are other mechanisms to stop that, but they haven't worked or we wouldn't be here. Joema 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I requested mediation with Ombudsman, specifically with respect to his repeated incivility and reluctance to openly discuss contentious edits. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, the request was removed without further comment. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, because your 'requests' appeared to be deliberately annoying at best, and exceedingly relentless at the very least. Some editors appear to spend far more time agitating animosity than even bothering with the pretense of collaboration. Jfd's behavior has not been so overtly bothersome recently, but the rabblerousing hasn't abated with Midgley taking over much of the duty. There is a certain amount of speculation that perhaps one or both of these editors are actually being paid by corporate or other special interests to be disruptive, though the form that such influence might take in manifesting itself within the Wiki is not yet clear, regardless of the behavior of these two. The sheer number of antagonizing edits and edit summaries by these two editors alone has been staggering, though Jfd was almost at the point where it was time to express appreciation for toning down the rhetoric. It would be appreciated if these editors and their allies would try a little harder to concentrate more on actually building the encyclopedia, rather than on engaging in what equates with the hazing that goes on in medical schools. Ombudsman 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit of a stretch to imply that JFW or Midgley are receiving money from special interest groups! Applying similar logic, perhaps the same could be said of edits from the opposing side, knowing the close connection (and obvious financial interest) between trial lawyers and "vaccination-causes-autism" activist interests! Andrew73 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman does not point to an instance of that "certain amount of speculation" and should be asked to, or else retract that suggestion. Given that he says the form it might take is not yet clear, is one to assume he means he is suggesting something that has actually had no expression in WP? I suspect he cannot. If he could, it is unfounded specualtion and is inaccurate as far as I am concerned. "Hazing" is an Americanism I think, we don't have it as far as I know in UK medical schools. Midgley 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the kind of "hazing" that Ombudsman is referring to...certainly he is not talking about the Animal House variety. Andrew73 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at Ombudsman's failure to assume good faith by suggesting that I (or any editor) am paid to edit. Whatever his feelings, I regard his rhetoric against medical editors of minimally the same severity as that ever has been leveled against himself. All this talk of conspiracy, hazing or whatever actually distracts from the issues, and this has been happening for months.

A request for mediation is a request for mediation. Its removal without comment was an act of bad faith.

As for lecturing about building an encyclopedia, I am sure that most of my edits fall into that category (a look at the list on my userpage will suffice). But an encyclopedia should not be used to relentlessly push views that are fringe, unproved (and unprovable), of limited notability or simply wrong.

For all intents and purposes there has been almost non-stop trouble, frequently involving Ombudsman, for the last few months. RFC and RFM have not had the desired results. I think time is ripe for arbitration. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to also draw attention to Ombudsman's frequent incivil and unnecessarily charged edit summaries. I quote "rv: the objective is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to obscure knowledge that is inconvenient to Big Pharma, corporate special interests and their ilk" and "it is the credibility of medical authorities that is, at best, questionable, and increasingly so due to the influence of big pharma" (in this RFAr nota bene). References to "big pharma", "conflict of interest", "mainstream medical dogma", "pseudoscience & expert worship" and more are aimed at a large group of editors and are actually highly insulting for professionals who aim to rely on scientific judgement rather than the occasional sales pitch from drug company representatives. Again, this is rooted in assumption of bad faith and non-constructive. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jfd's unfortunate tendency to identify with the medical establishment is so strong that, seemingly every time the establishment is mentioned, the depiction is described by Jfd as a personal attack. Perhaps there is something about the Queen's English that infers, to Jfd, a certain plurality of first person pronouns. Again, the sheer number of rhetorical gambits proffered by Jfd has been staggering. Jfd has expressed great annoyance whenever such, uh, fishing expeditions haven't elicited response(s). When the unrelenting rabble reaches a crescendo and a restrained response designed to pierce the intellectual barriers is offered, Jfd seems anxious to jump all over it as if it were red meat, perhaps overly eager to find a morsel that might easily be misconstrued for Wikipoliticking. This behavior pattern has changed little since the time Jfd removed a series of Whale.to links with scathing edit summaries questioning the sanity of the site's webmaster. While Jfd appears to have been a prolific contributor to the Wiki, and that is to be commended, the crux of the matter boils down to a simple question about deletionist tactics, including entire article deletions: In Jfd's ongoing efforts, apparently to ensure deletion of invaluable content and links essential to assuring npov articles, should Jfd be allowed to continue distracting so much attention from building an encyclopedia through methods such as hijacking certain Wikiprocesses (which are often used in a manner akin to public stocks), portraying sources in such unflattering terms, or by filibustering article discussions? Ombudsman 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, Ombudsman. (1) I make an edit, (2) you revert, attacking an anonymous "medical establishment" in your edit summary. You know I'm a doctor, because that's what I've put on my userpage. It takes minimal thinking to understand that these attacks are obviously aimed at me. I do indeed identify with the "medical establishment", if you read for that "a medical profession that aims to use scientific knowledge to improve health". I'd have thought that after I'd asked you a few times to stop, you'd actually cease taking pot shots at some ill-defined "medical establishment". It doesn't resolve edit disputes and just poisons the well.

And I regard your suggestions above that I am paid by the pharmaceutical industry as a personal attack and was rather hoping you'd apologise for that. It's a rather poor show if you use this request for arbitration (against you, I note) as a further platform for the villification of other editors. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear, in an attempt to bring this section back to its point, that this is not a simple content dispute. Ombudsman has (very helpfully) noted here that his agenda is to counter the medical establishment's position (for that read ' the opinion of the mainstream scientific community') on matters of great interest to him. It is this position - one that is alleged to be against the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV editing policy - that a number of other editors wish ArbCom to comment on, not any specific disagreement about content. I'm not sure continuing the debate above will achieve much, perhaps having made our own statements, we would all be better to wait for ArbCom's decision before further comment. Rockpocket 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ombudsman

If the primary concern at issue here pertains to safeguarding the Wiki's credibility, then adherence to npov policies should take precedence over the disruptive hounding, badgering and character assassination mindset that has plagued the Wiki's medical articles. A number of medical journals have witnessed their credibility plummet in the wake of revelations about their reckless publication of fraudulent clinical trial research studies, which have rightly been described, in many instances, as little more than marketing propaganda. Too often, thanks to certain of the Wiki's more relentless editors, the opinions of mainstream medical authorities are presented as incontrovertible facts, while hard evidence to the contrary is marginalized or simply deleted wholesale. One of the Wiki's ongoing, unmitigated problems revolves around the fact that certain editors tend to gang up to ensure the Wiki is basically immune to the questioning of mainstream medical industry dogma. The first priority of medicine, in stark contrast to the dubious premises underlying the propagandistic mass marketing of neuroleptic drugs and vaccines, is to avoid perpetrating harm upon the patient. Vaccines and neuroleptics, in many if not most instances, are marketed on the basis of protecting the community, and the profit driven marketing of such programs rarely bothers to weigh the costs and benefits to individual patients. Such marketing falls well short anything approaching a rational discourse that would assure informed consent, presenting a huge void that the Wiki could and certainly should help fill. While it is widely and justifiably accepted that the polio vaccine helped eradicate a serious threat to public health, a few instances of real benefits accrued via herd immunity hardly justifies the mind bendingly vast expansion of vaccine schedules in recent decades. Single minded profiteering and propagandistic marketing of vaccines, courtesy of big pharma, has resulted an autism epidemic and millions of additional vaccine injury cases. The doublespeak of big pharma endorsed 'destigmatization' campaigns, designed to reduce social resistance to psychotropic interventions, provides further evidence of the manipulative marketing of neurotoxins. The lobbying, corruption and dangerous deceptions, orchestrated by big pharma to promote the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, provides another egregious example of the abuse of power that now defines an undeniably greedy industry engorged with a trillion dollar annual cash flow. When asked point blank, at recent legislative hearings, whether or not ADHD is actually a disease (or not, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), big pharma apologists could not come up with any response at all. In effect, the licit drug cartels willfully vilify enormous swaths of the population as sufferers of mental illness, often portraying their victims as prone to violence, in order to expand their markets for palliative neurotoxins. Such disingenuous marketing ploys, which are leveraged by the rigidly hierarchical medical community, are aided by a code of silence in the mainstream media, where reporting on certain medical controversies can equate with career suicide (as intimated in a recent report in the Columbia Journalism Review - thanks to Jfd for the link). These facts indicate that medical authorities have completely lost sight of what many still consider the first priority of medicine, not harming the patient. In order to safeguard the credibility of the Wiki's medical articles, it would seem, reflecting knowledge relevant to the protection of the well being of patients (and informed consent for that matter) is just as important as espousing the purported benefits of mass vaccination campaigns and mass mental health screening programs. Ombudsman 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

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

Statement by party 4

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

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

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

LaRouche POV on user pages

Could the ArbCom please clarify whether the expression of pro-LaRouche opinions on one's own user page are in violation of its past rulings? There appears to be some activity regarding censorship of these opinions which I find very disturbing and contrary to our whole spirit here. Everyking 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Everyking is referring (I think) to Cognition's user page when in this form. JoshuaZ 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the edits are within what I would consider our intent in the ruling, yes. Cries of "censorship" be damned, we're here to write an encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't interested in the intent of the ruling, but rather in the interpretation of the ruling as it is written. But I guess that's another issue. The main point I want to make is that you are making the assumption that censoring the expression of a political POV on a user page will help write the encyclopedia. Is this accurate? My view, and it seems to be a common one, is that freedom of expression will work to improve the encyclopedia. Also: if it is true that, as you argue, this political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia, does it follow that any political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia? Everyking 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the expression of any general opinion in any way helps the project, yes. I suppose that there is a case to be made for internal politics, such as "I think that the English Misplaced Pages should be more deletionist", but even then... Certainly, expressions of personal faith ("I am a Christian"), of politics ("I am a Labour supporter"), or of non-organised belief ("I believe in animal rights") seem to me to be wholly and absolutely without merit.

As to the execution of our orders, the intent governs the interpretation rather closely, given the immediacy of action and comment afforded to us by the wiki, so I would have thought it rather important. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

James F's opinion is being cited now as if it's the opinion of the whole ArbCom. Could other arbitrators please weigh in on this? Everyking 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder if the ArbCom has read this and is choosing to ignore it, or if they are not aware of the existence of a request on their page. Everyking 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom is aware of this request. If any Arbitrator has anything they wish to say regarding it, you can be sure they will do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the question and James' reply here and I thought he handled it rather well. So I didn't chime in. If I had disagreed I would have made it clear. So frankly: of course I've seen it, and no I'm not ignoring it. You got your reply from an arbitrator, and that's what this space is for. Dmcdevit·t 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not provides that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox to be used for advocacy or propaganda. Fred Bauder 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splash 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

DPSingh

Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case. I recommend a general ban.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rajput is modified to include the following remedy:

DPSingh banned

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year.

Support:

1. Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Jayjg 00:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 12:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Okay, DPSingh is banned. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution