From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by joema

First assertion

Cesar Tort (two times) and Ombudsman (four times) repeatedly POV-tagging Biological psychiatry, despite entreaties to stop, and despite wide consensus current article is NPOV, well referenced, and encyclopedic in tone and content. Underlying reason is they have strong anti-psychiatry feelings, and want the article to extensively reflect that viewpoint. However there is already an Anti-psychiatry article where most of that information belongs. All this has been tactfully explained to them multiple times.

Cesar wants at least 25% of the article to support his viewpoint: [2]

Since starting the arbitration process, Cesar said he'll stop POV tagging the article simply because he feels outnumbered: [3]

Even if Cesar stops POV-tagging, he supports the tagging by Ombudsman: [4]

While the procedural aspect is repeated POV tagging, the underlying issue motivating this is strong anti-psychiatry feelings by Cesar and Ombudsman (see below diffs). They want this article to plentifully reflect those feelings or else be POV tagged. Resolution of this must therefore be broader than the POV tag, else the same conflict will continue just using repeated edits in lieu of POV tags.

Repeated POV-tagging:

Cesar Tort comment explaining his viewpoint:

Ombudsman comment explaining his viewpoint:

Entreaties to stop POV-tagging:

Explanation (to Cesar and Ombudsman) of what tone and content of article should be:

Explanation mediation or arbitration will be required if they don't stop:

Request consent for arbitration from Ombudsman (no response):

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

Background on article history

Article has existed in four major versions:

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Rockpocket

First assertion

Both Ombudsman and Cesar Tort appear to believe their personal critiques of the field of psychiatry, often based on original research, should constitute an important counterpoint to a factual, encyclopedic account of the subject.

Those editors then challenge others to counter the perceived failings of the subject as justification for their inclusion, despite multiple explanations that personal opinions are beside the point when stating facts.

Examples of challenges:

Examples of POV explanations:

Moreover, in contrast to claims of attempts to silence criticisms of psychiatry, multiple editors have encouraged Cesar Tort and Ombudsman to contribute their anti-psychiatry material to more suitable articles:

-- Rockpocket (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Second assertion

Cesar Tort has asserted multiple times that he will no longer POV tag the biological psychiatry article, mainly because he is "outnumbered":

Though he still believes the article to be significantly POV:

Cesar's actions may, to some extent, be explained by him being a new editor (who edits in a second language) with a limited understanding of Wikipedia policy:

-- Rockpocket (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Third assertion

Cesar Tort states: "Consensus in the Biological Psychiatry article ... ought not to override NPOV objectives. On this issue, Joema’s and Rockpocket’s assertions are totally out of place in this process. Consensus simply doesn’t mean NPOV status." [22]. However, Cesar fails to note that the asserted consensus was based on interpreting WP:NPOV policy. This was explained to him [23] as justification for why Biological Psychiatry should not be labelled as a psuedoscience based on fringe opinion.

In contrast to assertions based on policy, and personal attacks nowithstanding, Cesar has previously described himself as an anti-psychiatry "human-rights fighter" from whom it is therefore "crazy to demand an impeccable Wiki-etiquette" and warned that "I happen to know an army of CCHR Scientologists that can help me to put [POV] tags [on psychiatry articles] on a daily basis, 365 days a year..." [24] In defence of his contributions, he also describes POV accounts as "impassioned and searing exposé[s]" and criticises as "pure rubbish" an "objective, neutral, non-emotional, factual" enyclopaedic article. [25]. Tort and Ombusman have not justified their reasons for asserting pseudoscience in terms of Wikipedia policy, with overhwelming evidence instead pointing towards a personal agenda based on anti-psychiatry motives. -- Rockpocket (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fourth assertion

Cesar claims [26] i deleted his apology [27] and my response [28] to his statments detailed in assertion 3. This is blantantly untrue, the page was archived [29]. Further claims of selective archiving are also groundless [30].

I accepted his apology (and did not take offense at being compared to a Nazi), but that does not invalidate this as evidence for Cesar's motives in editing Wikipedia. He also claims he "never stated biological psychiatry should be labeled “pseudoscience” in the article". While technically true, the most of Cesar's comments on the talk page while tagging the article are justification for claims of pseudoscience [31] (Including one under the heading NPOV tag [32]), leading one to assume that this was justification for the tagging, since no other assertions were made. -- Rockpocket (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Cesar Tort

First assertion

Warning: my first assertion only makes sense if what I say in my fourth assertion is taken seriously (Rockpocket’s attack is addressed in my third assertion).

Re Joema’s assertion: Even if, in the future, editors in my side outnumber the other editors in a new dispute of the Biological psychiatry article, I will keep my word: I will never post a POV tag again. Never. (Though I would like to know if I would be allowed to contribute to that hypothetical future debate in the Talk Page.)

In the past, the two POV tags I posted were fully justified in the Talk Page [33], [34]. Significantly, just when I introduced the FDA and European warnings about the dangers of psychiatric drugs in the talk page [35], and it seemed I was about to win the round against my critics, the threatening specter of arbitration was used and our discussion abruptly ended.

Joema states I want “at least 25% of the article to support [my] viewpoint”. But it is not my viewpoint: it is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) viewpoint about the dangers of the psychiatric drugging of children and even toddlers (see again previous citation). If we take the Psychiatry article as a paradigm, it is clear it contains a larger section devoted to the critical aspects of psychiatry [36] than the Biological Psychiatry article. If the current critical section of the Biological Psychiatry article is expanded, there would be some room for the all too important FDA and European warnings I referred to above.

Joema’s concern above, that I “want this article to plentifully reflect [my] feelings” and that “resolution of this must therefore be broader” or “else the same conflict will continue”, is unfounded. I do not want the article or any other articles to reflect my views. This can be attested by pointing out how, despite our very different views, I compromised and acted in consensus with Rockpocket in the rewritten Anti-psychiatry article. Also, before Joema rewrote entirely the Biological Psychiatry article, Midgley and I were in agreement about a previous version of that article we wrote together; and Midgley is known for being very critical of alternative medicine —just like me. I belong to the skeptical and rationalist group known as CSICOP, which debunks fringe beliefs, including fringe medical beliefs.

As can be seen in my own talk page [37] and even in the Biological psychiatry Talk Page [38], the initial differences I had with other editors were being ironed out when arbitration was used. The fact is that I am in amiable terms with Ande B and Midgley. We simply agree to disagree in a civil way, as Midgley has pertinently pointed out in the workshop page [39]. And though I believe Jfdwolff is a decent person, since I arrived to Wikipedia very recently I have not worked with him yet. I even followed Rockpocket and Ande B’s advice to direct my knowledge of the field to the Trauma model article, instead of the Biological Psychiatry article [40]. So there is no reason to believe I will misbehave in the future —I have not misbehaved in the past! No reason at all. Anybody who reads my lengthy exchanges in the Biological psychiatry Talk Page, the Anti-psychiatry Talk Page (e.g., the long debate about autism [41]), or even the occasionally flaming Mother Teresa talk page (e.g., [42]), can attest my civility and good faith.

— Cesar Tort 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Second assertion

As I have iterated elsewhere, as a newbie to Wikipedia I did not respond to Joema’s request for mediation. I had not the faintest idea what she was talking about. I acted in good faith and my lack of response was due for not understanding her rather than open disregard for the dispute resolution process.

— Cesar Tort 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Third assertion

Consensus in the Biological Psychiatry article (including respected MDs such as Jfdwolff) ought not to override NPOV objectives. On this issue, Joema’s and Rockpocket’s assertions are totally out of place in this process. Consensus simply doesn’t mean NPOV status. Just take a look at what Leifern has stated about this very case [43]. Leifern’s explanation makes me think that the tag I posted was retired prematurely by Fuzzform (24.147.141.127) since my critique to the article was not adequately responded by him [44].

Re Rockpocket’s third assertion [45], he fails to mention that I apologized to him in the very first days I arrived to Wikipedia [46]: an apology he seems to have now deleted in his own talk page. I was an absolute newbie and this explains my newbie silly remarks (the “Scientology army” threat, etc) [47]. I believed Rockpocket had accepted my apologies for my remarks [48]: an apology accepted statement he also deleted in his own talk page. For the record, I am not a scientologist and never stated biological psychiatry should be labeled “pseudoscience” in the article. More importantly, Rockpocket’s third assertion does not address at all Leifern’s point.

In his fourth assertion Rockpocket says he archived our exchange [49]. But why he did it so selectively? He left other personal communications in his Anti-psychiatry subpage for everybody to see [50]. For the record, when I wrote “And like the Nazi and communist biological pseudoscientists, I am afraid you are defending an atrocious and powerful bio-pseudoscience, my friend” I was under the wrong impression that Rockpocket was a psychiatrist (which of course he isn’t). This was the basis for my deleted/“archived” apology.

Though I don’t hide my motives for editing Wikipedia (just take a look at my user page), Rockpocket continues to evade Leifern’s pivotal point: the real issue in this process [51].

— Cesar Tort 05:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fourth assertion

Yes: I promised not to tag the article again. But I omitted to say that, if I’ll keep my word, it’s only because I want to avoid undeserved arbitration in the future. As it stands today, the Biological Psychiatry article is hopelessly biased (see e.g. what I have written in my subpage User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion).

Cesar Tort 16:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fifth assertion

The “Criticisms” section should be written by biopsych critics, not by biopsych advocates (just as I wrote part of the Criticisms section in the main Psychiatry article).

Cesar Tort 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Jfdwolff

My evidence shall mainly concern Ombudsman. I have not have major disagreements with Cesar Tort other than what was already outlined by Joema above (and on Talk:Psychiatry, where I was not a major party). As will follow from this chronological narrative: I have requested both RFC and RFM with respects to Ombudsman. Neither have been succesful.

First assertion: pushing inappropriate external links

My history with Ombudsman goes back some time. All started when an anonymous editor ( 86.128.123.85 ( talk · contribs)) inserted a large number of external links into numerous articles, many of which health topics. I checked the links, which led to a site containing what I regarded as extreme fringe views, and removed the links for this reason. Ombudsman was quick to reinsert most of the links. When asked for an explanation, none was forthcoming. Instead, Ombudsman reinserted the links (Ombudsman now claims an explanation was indeed given, not on his talkpage though [52]). I felt this behaviour was inappropriate, and commenced an RFC ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman) which continues to attract comments but failed in its general aim. An RFC dealing specifically with the site in question is ongoing ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto), but this is not relevant to this RFAr.

Second assertion: offensive edit summaries

I note that throughout the debate, Ombudsman has been making offensive edit comments, examples of which are "restore whale.to link; clarity is better achieved by avoiding blinders to the views of others" [53], "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" [54]. These edit summaries were in response to edits made by me, and the veiled references with respect to Big Pharma etc were clearly meant to insult, despite later claims by Ombudsman that they were aimed at nobody in particular.

I was particularly disturbed by Ombudsman's suggestion, on the arbitration page nota bene, that I and another editor were being paid by the pharmaceutical industry to edit Wikipedia [55]. Another edit summary here is typical: "it is the credibility of medical authorities that is, at best, questionable, and increasingly so due to the influence of big pharma" [56].

Third assertion: NPOV violations

Over the next period I time I came to the conclusion that Ombudsman created numerous articles on highly controversional subjects, frequently forking content without adhering to NPOV and using only peripheral sources (newspaper articles and the like, which are poor sources of information in scientific subjects). The main aim of these articles seemed to me to be an attempt to maximise exposure to the view that vaccines cause autism, either through thimerosal (an obsolete and now withdrawn preservative) or through immune system interference. None of these concepts are supported by mainstream science, though Ombudsman continued to present these theories as practically accepted.

A case study: Ombudsman created a page on Gold salts, an oldfashioned treatment for arthritis, touting the use of these substances for autism on the basis of one piece of poor investigative journalism and two excited researchers. Given the fact that gold salts have a real clinical use, I trimmed down the autism material to what I perceived as balance. Some edit warring and an article RFC were issued. At this stage I requested mediation from Ombudsman [57], given my perceptions that our views were going to clash on multiple fronts. The request for mediation was deleted without further comment [58].

Fourth assertion: inappropriate use of tags

Abuse of NPOV tagging was the cause of a further argument on Anti-vaccinationist. On 31 Jan-5 Feb 2006 Ombudsman tagged this article {{ NPOV}} several times [59], despite requests from multiple editors that he make his personal objections known on the talkpage or attempt to edit the article to conform to NPOV. This is similar to the matter of this particular RFAr.

Summary

I hold Ombudsman responsible for numerous neutrality violations, many civility violations and personal attacks (especially but not exclusively in edit summaries), lack of concern for verifiability (selection of secondary sources when creating articles) and edit warring on NPOV tags.


Evidence presented by Ande B.

First assertion: Criticism is already well represented

Criticism of the field is well represented within the article, roughly equivalent to one third of the entire article.

A significant amount of space is already dedicated to criticism of the standard models. I have done a word count (using WordPerfect) of the article and have found the following data.

Total article length: 1529 words. (Excluding notes, references, table of contents and the headnote paragraphs that appear as a summary before the contents and introductory section of the article)

Introductory paragraphs (4) that describe what the article attempts to cover, defines topic, describes purpose and goals of field of medicine and underlying approach to diagnosis: 605 words

Sections that specifically present criticism
Criticism section: 157 words
Criticism of major hypothesis subtitled Problems with catecholamine/monoamine hypotheses 132 words
Description of most recent hypotheses and sugested explanations as to why prior hypotheses were wrong or insufficient in section subtitled: Latest biological hypotheses of mental health disorders:239 words
Total number of words in sections primarily devoted to criticism: 528 words

Section that names disorders and indicates the major drugs or drug classes used in treatment: 46 words

Section on history that describes early investigations and pioneers with minimal technical descriptions: 347 words

Total of all the above: 1526 words

Number of words left to "propagandize" for conventional medicine: 3

Ande B 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Second assertion: There is no biased language, endorsement or advocacy in the article

There is no language in the current article that encourages the use of any medication or other treatment nor is there any language that endorses or advocates any treatment modality.

Descriptions of medical practices, goals, and working hypothese do not equate to endorsement.

Ande B 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Third assertion: The article was originally written as a screed against conventional medicine

The article as first written in March of 2005 consisted entirely of criticism of conventional mental health care. Although some passing complaint was made about this grave imbalance in 2005, it was not until November of that year when any attempts at neutral language were made (by editor Andrew 73).

The first serious attempts to bring balance to the grossly biased anti-medicine screed was made in March of 2006 by editors Joema and Fuzzform, who attempted to add accurate factual information while accomodating dissenting opinions.

Ande B 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fourth assertion: Cesar Tort is an anti-psychiatry activist

A. Cesar Tort has a strongly biased point of view that he seeks to promote through WP and which poses difficulties when attempting to discuss issues or obtain a stroightforward, consistent statement of his views or aguments.

B. Cesar Tort, as an admitted anti-psychiatry / anti-biopsychiatry activist who has given anti-psychiatry lectures at Scientology conventions, urges that only activists and advocates should write critical analyses of bio-psychiatry, as can be seen in his Fifth assertion, above. This proposed political limitation of editors to those holding specific views is in gross contradiction of any standard that seeks neutrality in crafting well written, unbiased articles of any sort. Since he has also stated that those who are "advocates" of positions other than his own are somehow unrelaible or otherwise lack credibility, it is impossible to envision what type of litmus test would be needed to satisfy his stated preference for strongly biased POV editors.

Evidence by Solo999

First assertion

With reference to my unwise comments in connection with the GESTAPO: According to Joema’s much-loved and over resorted-to Webster’s dictionary, the term means: “A secret-police organisation employing underhand and terrorist methods against persons suspected of disloyalty”.

AndeB’s recent crafted excerpt within the evidence talk page, of my remarks in Biopsych talk page, predictably failed to highlight the distinct point I was making in support of Cesar Tort.

There is a saying: “If the cap fits, wear it!”

Whereas I’d mistakenly presumed that such cap would NOT to be worn, and thus out of respect for victims everywhere, likewise I did not foresee that those persons to whom my comment was invitingly addressed would try on jackboots for size also.

Even so, I am bound to concede my mistake in using such improper analogy. If I directly offended anyone on these pages through unwittingly trespassing upon the territory marked ‘Godwin’s Law’ I wholeheartedly apologise, and especially to all perceived victims.

However I hold reservations about apologising to those persons who chose as a result of my unwise remarks, to strut around both Biopsyche and Evidence talk pages donning cap and boots metaphorically referred to. Solo999 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Prometheuspan 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I am here by special invitation and have no previous knowledge past what i have learned in brevity of this case from talk pages at this point in time. I'm trying to preserve my neutrality for the first pass and just say what I think is most relevant as I understand the issues presented to me.

  • Premise1 Although it is factually true that complex pharma drugs do have a wide range of useful and beneficial applications, it is also factually true that pharma drugs are chronically

overprescribed. The classic and very reasonable explanations for why this is true are as simple as economics and classroom sizes. Pharma drugs want to make money; they sell a product. We live in a consumer capitalist society. They will sell you as much as they can if you are buying.

  • Premise2 Doctors in allopathic medicine must work according to the actual laws of physics and are now expected to perform miracles. Not surprisingly, they are willing to use something that barely works or has terrible side effects in the absence of being able to perform hocus pocus.

Allopathic medicine has its place. If your bones are broken, don't go see a witch doctor, he isn't the guy to help you. But if you want a neutral explanation about whats going on in your psyche nowadays, thats been transformed into a linguistics field which was created to describe drugs and drug treated conditions. You don't want these people in your head, they don't really know what they are doing.

  • Premise3 For instance, adhd. Is commonly and popularly understood now to be a mislabel and an entire swath of different cognitive problems with different causations. adhd is a catch all phrase, into which a dozen very different things are tossed. Adhd victims are put on ritalin or ridlin, a known neurotoxin with a known side effect of dampening IQ. Some of these kids aren't stupid and don't have a problem; they are gifted and they need more attention. We are euthanizing genius in this country and we don't even realize it.

Premise4. My mother used the wonderful tactic of fooling twenty different doctors into fullfilling her maximum strength pain prescription meds. They don't talk about addiction consquences and they have inadequate methods for dealing with addiction cases.

Premise5. Big Pharma doesn't want psychology and Psychiatry to be about anything more than drugs. In actual reality this is about cognition, self help, psychology, and good social engineering in 99 percent of the cases. We don't need Drugs to solve these problems, we need smaller classroom sizes, attention given to style of learning and types of intelligence in curriculum creation and presentation, and an overhaul of the educational system using what we now know from maslow, pavlov and etc about how to go about motivated learning and ride for instance the wave of child natural development. See how complicated and in how many directions this goes without ever getting into drugs? Big pharma is just capitalisms legalized pusher. Its not going to solve your problems. Thats what the psychologists and sociologists should have done or should be doing. Which takes us to premise 6

Premise6. The reason why we are all here isn't almost even any of that. It is the problem of pov and what happens when ignorance becomes the tool of propaganda. Big pharma can claim all it wants that it only solves our problems, but the facts are, in most cases, drugs even when actually called for create even larger and more variety of subsequent problems that must also be compensated for. The use of drugs is entropy; there has to be sufficient order on the other end to pick up the slack. There is no other end, picking up that slack. Instead, there is a big propaganda monster, spewing ignorant rhetoric louder than any science can counter except in rare cases where a really smart person is really on it and in the right place at the right time with the right piece of info. Otherwise, whats going on out there is info warfare; sponsored by big Pharma.

Premise7. That said, Wikipedia is having a lot of problems right now that could be fixed with the use of logic. Ad hominem and straw man arguments are rampant around here. People are gaming the system and playing propaganda games; on ALL sides. Its become trollish and combative, and that is not the environment in which to advance an Encyclopedia. Recognition of expertise would also be a nice start. Recognition of formal argument and well delivered cogent argument would also be a nice addition. Last, but not least, as i said on jimbos talk page, if there is anybody here who knows what NVC is, that would be a marvelous tool to teach some people how to talk with each other in tense situations like edit wars.

Well, thats all for tonight. Thanks for your time and energy in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan ( talk • contribs)

Evidence presented by Midgley 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Assertion: many people observing an ArbCom case about them would change their behaviour in aspects which it seemed likely would be criticised and sanctioned. Ombudsman continues to make reverts, to his preferred version, without discussion on the article talk page, and with his characteristic disparaging edit summaries, in an article outside the range of medical topics which have been the major focus of this case [60], [61], [62] and to delete and present the appearance of not having received notification [63] [64] on his user: talk page. This demonstrates a general and persisting pattern of behaviour unresponsive to the usual cues. This may be relevant to any control measures decided upon. Midgley 11:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others/Evidence&oldid=852067848"