imported>D. Matt Innis |
imported>D. Matt Innis |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
|
| |
|
| == Blanking ==
| |
| This is not acceptable. I am now referring this to the ME and Constabulary. The article is not scientific and is written to win the argument about terminology. It has no references and NO SUPPORTING FACTS for the claims made in it. Just an opinion piece. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :I have also referred it to the Constabulary. It did, in fact, have one reference in the early draft that was blanked, as well as many wikilinks. I only discovered it was blanked when I was about to add references from the [[International Criminal Court]]
| |
|
| |
| :Even an Editor in a group can only mark something for deletion, or perhaps move the contents to the talk page. I am a History and Military Editor. Martin is not an editor in these groups or in Law. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :I don't want to revert the blanking, but let me save here what I was about to add:
| |
| ::The [[International Criminal Court]] has " jurisdiction over [[genocide]], [[crimes against humanity]] and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the [[Rome Statute]]. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime. " Its jurisdiction applies to both the direct perpetrators "as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute." <ref>{{citation
| |
| | http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/ICC+at+a+glance/Jurisdiction+and+Admissibility.htm
| |
| | title = Jurisdiction and Admissibility
| |
| | publisher = [[International Criminal Court]]}}</ref>
| |
| :Given wikilinks to [[Hague Conventions]], [[hostis humani generis]], [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] and [[Geneva Conventions]], I'd hardly call the article unsourced. Now, it would be one thing to claim ownership, and not take edits, but it's hard to edit that which was blanked. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :: Martin, I think you are wildly out of line here. Granted the article could be improved, in particular it could be better sourced, but I see no justification at all for blanking it. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Sandy, you are not in possession of the facts, so you will not know why. This has become a serious disciplinary issue involving Howard and the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::: Where should I look for "the facts"? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Ombudsman==
| |
| By Article 39 of the Charter, an Ombudsman is available to mediate any dispute. Agreements worked out through mediation shall be binding but may be appealed.
| |
|
| |
| I have been asked to intervene here and on [[Josef Mengele]].
| |
|
| |
| As far as I am aware, I have no conflict of interest, I have not contributed to either article or to any related article, nor have I formed or expressed any view on the merits of the arguments either formally or privately
| |
|
| |
| Do those involved in this dispute agree to my intervention here? My role I think would be to summarise the substantive issues raised, make an interim ruling based on the Charter, and pre-existing policy guidelines, and report to the EC.
| |
| Are those involved willing that any interim ruling be binding pending future decisions of the EC?
| |
| [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :I have blanked the page again, since I object to the whole tenor of the article, which is deliberately being written to support Howard's position in another dispute. i have referred the matter to the Constabulary and Ombudsman, and this will likely appear before the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :: I think we need an immediate interim ruling from the ombudsman on whether this blanking is justified. I'd say obviously not, but it is not my call. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority. He obliges me to take all of this to the two Councils (when there are more serious problems to be sorted out than Howard's rejection of CZ policy). [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| We now quite obviously have a '''revert war'''. Martin has now blanked the page three times. David Finn restored it twice, in my view correctly. '''Ombudsman, please rule.''' [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| : We are now at four blankings and three restorations. This is absurd. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 15:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::::Gareth, with all personal respect, I do not accept mediation. I believe this can only be resolved by disciplinary action; it's but one manifestation of a continuing problem.
| |
|
| |
| ::::"As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority." This is logically flawed. First, I'm just seeing this, and the Ombudsman has not made any ruling. Second, the Ombudsman, even if invoked, is a mediator that tries to make informal actions, which are preferably accepted but may be appealed.
| |
|
| |
| ::::Since I do not accept mediation, then the Ombudsman has no role here. Again, Martin is interpreting what I believe, and, in this case, not very logically, since the Ombudsman process has not started because one of the sides does not accept it, quite within the rules of the Charter.
| |
|
| |
| ::::I am not "forcing" Martin to do anything. Be very clear that the matter is a question of my rejecting his usurpation of authority -- his blanking is quite outside the rules. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::::In going through edit notes, I discover that Martin claims this is a dispute between two Editors, both on the Editorial Council. That is a distortion. Yes, we are both EC members and Editors, but we are Editors in different workgroups. I am a History and Military Editor but Martin is not. Since there are other History Editors, the Charter principle of going to the lowest level would apply before the EC asserts any authority -- which Martin has not yet requested. Unfortunately, the most active other History Editor is Russell Jones, and I both hate to bother him at the moment, and he might have a conflict of interest as MC Chair. Roger Lohmann might be able to help, although I know he has heavy job responsibilities.
| |
|
| |
| :::::Nevertheless, if it were simply the matter of "war criminal", there is no reason that an Editor decision is not relevant. That decision could be appealed to the EC. If no Editor is available, the next step, in an urgent matter, would be the Managing Editor. The advocate for creating the ME saw him as appropriate for situations that need urgent attention, and I think this qualifies. Martin's statement that there is a behavioral issue between me and the EC is fantasy, in that there is no discussion of my behavior either on the EC wiki or mailing list. I have drafted, before this incident, a preliminary work item proposal on article policy; if it's not seen to be conflict of interest, I shall try to finish the draft later today. Incidentally, it doesn't directly address objectivity/neutrality, other than recommending a task force structure, as I have done for other major issues, to get direct Citizen expert input. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ← Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, this is exactly the kind of behaviour that deters people from contributing to the ''Citizendium'': bickering over comparatively minor issues while there are hundreds of articles on far more neutral soil that could be written right now. I understand that there is an underlying interpersonal dispute here, and I trust that the Constabulary will deal with it appropriately; but, for the time being, please cease this pointless reversion-warring! I suggest that, for the time being, the article is left blanked, but a precedent should be set by the Ombudsman or by the relevant authorities as to the correct course of action in future disputes that bear similarities to this one.
| |
|
| |
| At any rate, some vaguely adult behaviour would be greatly appreciated right now. [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :You do not understand correctly, Tom. This is about Howard trying to rewrite CZ policy without the approval of the EC. It is not personal, it is not childish, it is about politics and people who think they can get their own way on CZ. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: As far as I know, it's also outside of ''Citizendium'' policy to completely blank articles in which one holds no editorial authority; at any rate, please let's not get into name-calling here. And exactly, it's politics and an inability to compromise—I'm not blaming any particular party here—that deters many helpful people from contributing to this project. [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::: The only urgent issue in this matter is to stop the "revert war" without accusations of committing a "war crime" ''';-)'''. Personally, I do not see serious problems with leaving the article blanked nor with leaving the article as written, possibly with an addition to the intro written by Martin that has to be kept until an official decision is made. Both options must not be interpreted as taking one side and must not be claimed as victory. Since not all participants accept dispute resolution on a lower level the EC will have to decide, and both the ME and the Ombudsman need not become involved at this stage. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::::Clearly I have no role here at present in mediating between disputing parties. By Article 32 (5) [The Editorial Council shall] adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium; by Article 36 the Managing Editor can make an interim decision on behalf of the EC. How the EC wishes to proceed in adjudicating disputes is up to the EC. However, by Article 40(2). "When a formal decision is necessary or demanded, the Ombudsman shall facilitate the presentation of the issue to the appropriate body — Editorial Council for content disputes, Management Council for disputes involving violation of the rules." This stands alone, and does not appear to require any agreement from any parties for the Ombudsman to act in this way. Clearly it would be inappropriate and unproductive for the Ombudsman to duplicate work being done by others. I therefore suggest that the Ombudsman should act in accordance with Article 40(2) either by agreement among the disputants, or at the invitation of the EC or MC. I am repeating this message on [[War crimes]].[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::::Gareth, I have made a formal behavioral complaint to the Constabulary; I believe the blanking to be the bannable offense of vandalism. Please let them rule, because the result may make this immediate crisis moot. Further, the EC has early proposals in these matters, and it's hardly likely that a meaningful policy decision can be made in the absence of approved parties. Much as I didn't think of the ME as a good idea, an interim ruling by Daniel would seem appropriate; a request is on the ME page. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::::::Perhaps I was unclear; what I meant by the above that I would intervene in accordance with 40(2) '''only''' in the event of a request from the MC or EC, or in the event that all disputants wished me to do so; i.e. that I would not comment without authority.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Let us be clear: the blanking is made by an Editor in Politics, Economics and Sociology (two of which this article could fall under) and who is a member of the Editorial Council. This is your idea of a vandal, Howard? Furthermore, the matter has been sent to the EC and MC for possible disciplinary action against Howard Berkowitz. They are the governing bodies, and will make their decisions without myself or Howard. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == General remark on expertise ==
| |
|
| |
| Expertise defined and granted by Editorship in Workgroups is necessarily vague and not precise.
| |
| It will often happen that an Editor in a related field, or even a non-Editor, knows more about a subject than the corresponding Editor.
| |
| Such expertise should also be respected.
| |
| Disputes on such issues should always be carried out by '''arguments''', not by wielding the Editor's sword (i.e., a reference to Editor status),
| |
| in particular, if the Editor is defending his own work.
| |
| --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :This has been a bone of contention for some time on CZ. We are going to have to sort it out on the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::"By arguments", how nice... But a formal dispute resolution begins when arguments appear to be unconvincing for the other side... Or should we return to the consensus in the WP sense? [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::There are relatively few disputes like this, Boris. In fact, I would say that this one is unique. I hope that my colleagues will be able to resolve several issues arising here. It would not be appropriate for me to say in public exactly what those issues are. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Boris, "arguments", to me, are supported. In this case, a non-Editor in the groups is unilaterally blanking text [[Josef Mengele]] or entire articles [[war crime]]. He asserts his opinion, but has not deigned to answer my sourced rebuttals, or the comments of others about the appropriateness of selective deletions from sourced quotes.
| |
| ::::If there is a dispute resolution procedure, I hope it will expect sourcing, not "this is what I say and go disprove it." I've been thinking of additional sourced discussion, but I don't think it's productive to work on either article at this time if I have to fear revert wars. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::As I just wrote on the other talk page, Howard's arguments are understandable for me; Martin's hints are not (and not intended to). [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 18:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Vandalism and other behavioral issues==
| |
|
| |
| Before getting into editorial policy, I believe that unauthorized blanking is a serious behavioral violation that may well meet the guidelines for immediate permanent banning.
| |
|
| |
| There are other questions, under behavior, of abusive language. I have made a formal complaint to the Constabulary.
| |
|
| |
| I do have a proposal on expertise management, including Editor roles, in the early stages of the EC process, which I submitted before this controversy arose. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :As always, Howard, with the formal authority statements. This matter has been sent to the EC and will be sent then to the MC. You can tell them your opinions. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Allow references to be placed and article be completed==
| |
| Let the original author reference the material and go from there. Without allowing the article to be referenced, i.e. left blank, the article can not be finished. Do not support the page blanking based on the fact the author was not given the opportunity to complete his work[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :No, Mary. The article needs to be started from scratch because it was constructed for the wrong reasons. It cannot be allowed to continue in a wrong direction. The page blanking is my decision, and I have asked the Editorial Council to review that decision. Please keep out of it: there are enough problems as it is. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::Martin I respectfully disagree. After suffering from the UFO article debacle, I know how frustrating it feels to have someone circumvent your efforts. Also, you can not arbitrarily decide what should or should not be kept at Citizendium. You do NEED to allow the article to be finished including the references and THEN allow the appropriate Citizendium officials decide on the article's fate. While you may be right about the article, setting the precedent of allowing single contributors to blank a page or make other editorial decisions, is a poor one.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Mary, this is a dispute between two editors on the EC about what is the policy of CZ. It is not an individual (like yourself) trying to write an article. Howard has refused to accept the authority of the Ombudsman to resolve this issue, and the page will remain blanked until the EC can decide. It would have been resolved quickly if the Ombudsman has been allowed to do so. You should ask yourself why someone would refuse arbitration and force it to go to the Editorial Council for a final ruling. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I greatly disagree with Martin's interpretation. As far as the Ombudsman, that is a process of mediation, not policy formation, and it assumes good faith assumptions on both parties. I don't believe either party here trusts the other. The Ombudsman literally has no authority to rule without unanimous consent; the Managing Editor and Constabulary do.
| |
| ::::At least in the U.S. legal system, a judge will instruct the jury not to impute anything to a defendant exercising rights such as taking the Fifth Amendment. I can only refer to Martin's "you can ask yourself" as hostile innuendo. The main reasons that I did not use the Ombudsman is that it properly goes first to the Constabulary on a behavioral matter: vandalism//unauthorized blanking. Let me put it in this manner: if I had come to this article as an Editor of a relevant workgroup, and decided it was irreparably impaired, I would only be authorized to place a <nowiki>{{speedydelete}}</nowiki> for Constabulary action. Blanking is rarely needed, and has been used only for blatant vandalism such as replacing contents with profnity.
| |
| ::::Personally, I'd prefer the talk page battles to reduce until the Constabulary, and possible ME, rule.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Content ruling by the Managing Editor == | | == Content ruling by the Managing Editor == |
