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

message: ===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)
replies: text: Threaded discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration
=== Inquiry by completely and utterly uninvolved party User:PurplePlatypus ===
Not directly related to the case, but here's a factor that might be exacerbating these problems, and in any event may itself be a problem. (One of the above statements does obliquely refer to it.) Doesn't the username "Ombudsman" run afoul of the "No confusing or misleading usernames" rule? I particularly draw attention to the text "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that... gave the impression of being "official". PurplePlatypus 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, never mind; I found the evidence page. --Leifern 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by uninvolved parties

message: Not directly related to the case, but here's a factor that might be exacerbating these problems, and in any event may itself be a problem. (One of the above statements does obliquely refer to it.) Doesn't the username "Ombudsman" run afoul of the "No confusing or misleading usernames" rule? I particularly draw attention to the text "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that... gave the impression of being "official". PurplePlatypus 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry by completely and utterly uninvolved party [[User:PurplePlatypus]] 

message: Both parties are making accusations, but there are few direct links and references to substantiate their points. Might I suggest that they edit their statements and include links to the relevant changes on the page? This will only make it easier for the ArbCom, and I think they're owed that courtesy. --Leifern 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, never mind; I found the evidence page. --Leifern 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples/references 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place for my observations, but I hope that the they are read by the arbitrators:
* Since Cesar Tort is a newbie and appears to have made a reasonable apology and explanation, I see no reason for his inclusion in this dispute.
* If Ombudsman is not in fact a wikipedia-approved ombudsman, is his username not inappropriate?
* Psychiatry is unlike other medical professions in that they can confine and treat patients against their will, which suggests that their methods and theories warrant a more critical prespective than the other medical fields (ie. more than just a paragraph or two in psychiatric articles).  For example, consider that not so long ago homosexuals were considered mentally ill and sometimes treated against their will for it.
* The underlying causes of mental illness are not yet well understood.  Chemical imbalance is often cited by psychiatrists, however that is still an unproven theory; this implies that alternate explanations may have some validity.  Thus it seems reasonable that psychiatric articles devote more space to alternate theories than other medical articles.
* Considering that the average psychiatric patient sees several doctors over a 10 year period before receiving a valid diagnosis (and thus more appropriate treatment), is is not unreasonable to assume that psychiatric diagnostic methods (as typically practiced) are somewhat flawed and that treatment protocols may be dangerous (for example, the FDA warnings about anti-depressants, which is arguably due to misdiagnosis of biploar disorder as depression).
* Disputes among editors of psychiatric articles is not at all uncommon, as should be understood from my above comments.  The use of the NPOV tag in psychiatric articles may be too frequent, but that may be because their is need for a different tag (which may or may not already exists, I apologize for not knowing) which simply labels some psychiatric articles as containing "debatable perspectives".
* Some psychiatric articles, such as Bipolar disorder, had to go through significant editorial discussion and re-writes before reaching a balanced perspective (note: I have made many edits to said article); resorting to arbitration for a relatively young psychiatric article seems to be rather severe.
Please feel free to respond on my talk page - I have seem more than a few heated debates on psychiatric articles, and am rather open-minded and tolerant of the beliefs of psychiatric article editors (some of which may seem unreasonable to editors of non-psychiatric articles - I hope you can understand why, and extend more leeway for psychiatric article editors than you would for typical articles).
Anarchist42 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations by non-involved party [[User:Anarchist42|Anarchist42]]