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

message: For unknown reasons, a blind eye seems to have been cast upon the behavior of User:Jfdwolff and User:Midgley, due to apparent double standards that may contribute to the various reasons why threats and bullying have become rampant within the Wiki's trove of medical articles.  The present case, which properly should have been framed as a simple conflict over content, wherein the Wiki's disciplined medical lobby could easily muster a majority, was instead initiated as a conduct dispute, wherein Jfd and Midgley should well have been relegated to being the minority.
User:Joema's off the wall threat of proceeding immediately to WP:ArbCom, over an npov tag which correctly called attention to the biological psychiatry article's lack of neutrality, was exponentially worsened by the erroneous misrepresentation of a content dispute as a conduct complaint instead.  In a similar fashion, Jfd immediately opted for an WP:RfC after making abrasive statements about Whale.to, escalating a content dispute that was also presented erroneously as a conduct complaint,  Quite unfairly, User:Fred Bauder has misused that poorly wrought RfC not as an opportunity to understand why so many complaints have piled up about Midgley and Jfd, but as ammunition to denigrate attempts to salvage external links to relevant documents archived at Whale.to.  Fred seems to have taken sides with the medical lobby, which has leveraged the sentiment that the individual archived documents should be avoided simply because of their url, regardless of the value of the individual documents.  The truth is, the archives should very well serve to help ensure articles attain the elusive state of npov, as there is every indication that the webmaster has faithfully reproduced the texts without alteration.  Although Jfd admitted to being wrong about presenting the earlier RfC as a conduct complaint, and was again shown to be wrong when aiding and abetting Midgley in this case, the double standards that contribute to such behavior appear to have been reinforced by the way the current proceedings have been framed.  The complexity of the process at hand further compromises the situation, in part because of its resemblance to public stocks, but also because it inherently favors the divide and conquer strengths and strategies favored by Wikistalkers and witch hunters.
Instead of recognizing and addressing the Wikilawyering and aggressive behavior of Jfd, evidenced during these proceedings, in the earlier RfC, and relentlessly in between, Fred has raised the spectre of encouraging editors to use 'cluesticks', thereby participating in and exacerbating the disputes and disruptions that have afflicted the Wiki's medical articles, rather than helping relieve them.  Fred's encouragement is likely to encourage further goading, baiting, and antagonism, which seems likely to discourage civility by the wielders of 'cluesticks'.  Indeed, Jfd has already placed at least one block on the Whale.to webmaster, despite being an aggressive party to the dispute over whether or not Whale.to links enhance article neutrality.
Building upon Jfd's unwarranted case for imposing such unilateral sanctions is one thing, but Fred compounded the many problems inherent in these labyrinthine proceedings by also expressing an utterly misleading statement about all doctors being "butchers".  Fred's dark statement, which looked like a paraphrasing of some of Jfd's aggressive Wikilawyering, came off as inflammatory, and did nothing to enhance the appearance of impartiality on the part of that member of the arbcom, nor to enhance the appearance of propriety of these particular proceedings.  Like pouring gasoline on a fire, the statement further clouded the air of an already murky situation.  Doctors do wield needles containing substances they often do not fully understand,, but generally have been denied the chance to learn about the dangers and side effects of what those syringes contain.  Virtually all doctors enter into their profession, and then go on to practice medicine, with a genuine interest in helping their patients, but Iatrogenic errors can and do occur with excessive frequency, in large part because drug companies are beholden to the almighty bottom line, but also because of constraints on the flow of knowledge from scientists to medical schools.  Clearly, it is not the fault of individual doctors that almost anything and everything related to informed consent has been gravely undermined, nor is it the case that doctors have been unfairly cast as "butchers", as Fred alleges.  
Informed consent and the Hippocratic Oath are essential foundations to the practice of good medicine, yet these pillars have been shaken almost to the ground by the rigid contol over medical knowledge and the brutally aggressive business of drug trafficking.  If, or when, legitimate concerns are raised about any of the sacred cows related to the medical industry, good doctors like Herbert Needleman and Andrew Wakefield typically are subjected to character assassination.  By mimicking behaviors associated with such suppression of medical knowledge, which is enforced mercilessly by the medical establishment's rigid culture, Fred's statements and partipation in these proceedings have not exactly exemplified the inherent  ideals of the Wiki's mission to freely provide access to the wealth of mankind's knowledge.  Such statements encouraging further constraints on the flow of medical knowledge are nothing new; women, who once were the primary heirs to ancient folk medicine and herbal treatment knowledge, were branded as witches during the reformation and in Puritan times.  So what is new?  The sprawling, labyrinthine RfAr process now invites personal attacks, usually not even very well disguised by Wikilawyer sophistry.
Since this case was framed as a conduct dispute, Midgely and Jfd should well have been in the minority, with The Invisible Anon, Pansophia, Jgwlaw, Leifern and Whale.to all invited to air their complaints about the ongoing problems they've had with those two.  If the case had been properly restricted to the basic content dispute at hand, then the advantages of being in a majority would have been more appropriate for the aggressors, which really shouldn't have aided them because they were clearly dead wrong when they repeatedly removed the npov tag.  Instead, these two appear to have been allowed, yet again, to game the system for the purpose of deleting and suppressing knowledge that would enhance the npov of medical articles.  Ombudsman 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RfAR's do not rule on content disputes, so making your point here is somewhat redundant. ArbCom elected to hear the case therefore they obviously considered your conduct to be potentially problematic. Their unanimous ruling on your behaviour makes it pretty clear that their concerns were not unfounded. I would respectfully suggest you consider the implication of continuing with making such tendentious claims on or about medical related articles. Rockpocket 07:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ombudsman, please ramble on. Keep on posting your theories about other editors' motivations. As long as you stay out of the article namespace. So long, buddy. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: misrepresentative picture, misleading frame

message: The reality of it is rockpocket that even a sensible solution may seem justifiably combative if presented by people like yourself, who are combative. And Ande ought to know better than to run an ad hominem driven personalization campaign if he is a lawyer. If you folks had been reasonable and kind, and not full of piss and bile, 
You could have helped Cesar to find the propper modus operandi in which to express himself. Instead, you attacked him, and it makes good sense for him to just stand up to the attacks, and to stand his own ground. The difference between my proposal and any previous is that i demonstrated that i was listening and with it, and on Cesars side. Then i looked at the situation and felt out the most reasonable
compromise. Did prior versions make it clear to Cesar that they were trying to help him? Or was it somebody like you, just angrilly and noisilly haranguing and insulting him that also managed to get in a good idea?
The fault lies with you and your approach rockpocket. It lies with ande and his personal attack methodology. If any of you had taken
time and energy to be kind and truly civil, things would have been different. Instead you all chose to take advantage of a newbie to push the pov that there is nothing wrong with biopsychiatry. You let your pov rule you instead of cooperation. You should be ashamed of yourself, and, considering the effort that has been made, to continue
with this pointless and obscene level of animosity only prooves that you never grew up from being an insolent and rebellious teenager. Take responsibility for this incident, and quit picking on Cesar when you know darn well that you are just being mean and stirring up trouble for the sake of being mean and stirring up trouble.
I have been very civil and evenhanded in this, I took a day to deal with you and your noise, and then i more or less backed out. By all means, do yourself the disservice of drawing me deeper into your dysfunctional and sadistic mindgame. Take that to NPA, by all means.
Otherwise, CHILL out and quit being combative.
Prometheuspan 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more noise by rockpocket