all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 4 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

NPOV as applied to medical subjects

2) As applied to medical articles Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that in addition to prominent coverage of the conventional medical viewpoint other scientific or scholarly viewpoints shall be fairly represented. Traditional or alternative medicine viewpoints shall be mentioned and linked to but should not receive substantial coverage. The basis for this interpretation of NPOV is to ensure that for most people a Wikipedia article, while no substitute for medical advice, is a reasonably reliable source of conventional medical information.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) This is a sensible reading of NPOV in the particular realm; not really "policy", just common sense.[reply]

Oppose:

I think this is generally good advice, but is far too prescriptive and strays far too close to a content decision, albeit a general and pretty sensible one. We have a policy (NPOV) that covers all this principle in great detail. This is a principle in the AC decision, yet I don't think it can be said to be automatically inferrable from NPOV nor by common sense. The application of NPOV in individual articles or article areas is not a matter for top-down fiat. That is not the AC's role in any case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sam. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

While this is good advice, it feels like making policy. Has this been discussed before? Dmcdevit·t 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is based on what we need to do. Fred Bauder 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

3) 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

False consensus

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman

2) Ombudsman originally edited Biological psychiatry with an anti-psychiatry viewpoint [1]; this orientation was continued as Cesar Tort began editing [2]]. Later editing by joema (talk · contribs) resulted in an expanded article which takes a much more positive point of view [3]. 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

History of tendentious editing by Ombudsman

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

NPOV tag

4) The tag ((npov)) was repeatedly placed by Ombudsman and Cesar Tort on the article [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. 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 [10] for Cesar Tort's explanation.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made link permanent to save it from archivals. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biased article

5) As presently constituted biological psychiatry is simply a restatement of "mainstream medical opinion" [11] containing minimal critical material,

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content. Perhaps CT and Ombudsman contend...? Dmcdevit·t 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, needs to be a finding of fact. Fred Bauder 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely content. This isn't our place, however true it may be. We should be concerned with the behaviour of the users, not the micro-management of loci of disputes. The resolution of such disputes should be made possible by the AC decision, not made by the AC decision itself. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content ruling, yes. James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Contentions that the article is acceptable

6) Despite vocal protests by Cesar Tort and Ombudsman that the article is biased it is the contention of Joema, Ande B. and others that the article as presently constituted represents neutral point of view and is the result of consensus, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop#Joema and Ande B. advocate biased editing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop#Joema and Ande B. advocate placing criticism in alternative articles, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop#Domination by biased editors represented as .22consensus.22

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Ombudsman placed on Probation

1) Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cesar Tort cautioned

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

3) Without addressing the question of specific content, it is suggested that Biological psychiatry be edit~~ing~~ed according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as interpreted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Proposed decision#NPOV as applied to medical subjects.

Support:

Oppose:

I disagree with 2 above. If NPOV issues persist (and it's quite probable that they do), then it doesn't need saying that the article should be edited to sove the issues. However, whether the issues exist or not is not a question for us to answer – judging biased editing is distinct from judging biased content. The first we do, the second we do not. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This goes without saying. Of course non-NPOV articles should be fixed. James F. (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per James. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

1) Should Ombudsman violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked briefly, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others#Log of blocks and bans

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Everything passes 6-0 except

Proposed Principle 2, "NPOV as applied to medical subjects", fails
Proposed finding of fact 5, "Biased article", fails
Proposed remedy 3, "Neutral point of view", fails

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Close. Dmcdevit·t 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. James F. (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close ➥the Epopt 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More