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

NPOV in medical articles

I'm not sure if the ArbComm should be inventing policy here. NPOV applies throughout Wikipedia, and I don't think medical articles are an exception when it comes to alternative views and treatments. Medical featured articles, such as asthma and multiple sclerosis, already contain well-sourced "alternative" sections.

However, there are some problems:

• When a treatment is listed, there needs to be at least some form of indication that it is used commonly.
• The website of Dr John Doe, M.D. propagating his own patented treatments (without indication of notability/user base) is not to be regarded as a reliable source.
• Claims of efficacy need to be accurate. Just saying "Bolivian earth works against sunburn" is WP:NOR. Saying: "Many people use, and feel they derive benefit from, Bolivian earth as a remedy for sunburn" (with a source that supports this) is better.
• Criticism of mainstream viewpoints needs to be well-sourced from reliable and notable publications. Some guy's website is not notable when it comes to criticising a large volume of peer-reviewed research.
• Allegations of a medical conspiracy (Big Pharma falsifying medical research data) need to be treated with utmost caution.

This is not much different from any other Wikipedia article. If Jim Common writes an anti-George Bush satire on his homepage, this is not notable (unless it hits Google Zeitgeist). I cannot see why there needs to be a seperate ArbComm vote on this. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that medical articles may need particular care because some of the deliberate (as distinct from casual) attacks on them may tend to do harm more closely than weird ideas on engineering or physics for instance. Midgley 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JFW that allegations of a conspiracy (big pharma falsifying research) need to be treated with caution. But how industry influences research in biological psychiatry is not a conspiracy theory. As psychiatrist Peter Breggin states on page 365 of TOXIC PSYCHIATRY: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love must replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical theories of the New Psychiatry:

"What we have been examining is a giant combine similar to the military-industrial complex and involving the psychiatric profession (APA), goverment (NIMH and FDA), private industry (drug companies and health insurers), education (medical schools), and organizations representing the parents of the patients (NAMI and other family groups). But the psycho-pharmaceutical complex is not a ‘conspiracy’ in the usual sense of a wholly secret or covert collaboration. Much of it involves aboveboard frank cooperation among like-minded, self-interest parties [...]."

"The only interest group not included in the psycho-pharmaceutical complex is the true consumers —the patients and victims of biopsychiatry— as represented by the National Association of Psychiatric Survivors. Not surprisingly, the patients and expatient leaders have no significant voice in the psychiatric power structure."

"Given the power of the psycho-pharmaceutical complex, it is no wonder that the public hears so little criticism of the biopsychiatric approach and almost nothing about psychosocial, human service alternatives." [1]

—Cesar Tort 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note:

• The website of Dr John Doe, M.D. propagating his own patented treatments (without indication of notability/user base) is not to be regarded as a reliable source. Rockpocket 23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this quote seems to me the perfect justification why the biopsych article is appropriate in its current state. Breggin admits the anti-psychiatry movement has "no significant voice" in the biopsych field and subsequently the public "hears so little criticism." It is not Wikipedia's place to give a minority view an equal platform against a "psycho-pharmaceutical complex", irrespective of whether it is a big conspiracy involving self interested groups. It is Wikipedia's mission to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. By the admission of the main critic put forward by Cesar, the anti-psych viewpoint does not belong in the biopsych article beyond a brief mention according to WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The perfect reply to the above wikilawyering games appears in this Mother Teresa (MT) wiki discussion [2]. —Cesar Tort 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the relevence. Perhaps you could elucidate. Rockpocket 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevance is crystal-clear. —Cesar Tort 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. All you do in that discussion is applying a John Stuart Mill quote to an unrelated discussion, and now you expect us to understand what John Stuart Mill has to do with biological psychiatry. Thankfully we cannot read your mind. Could you please elaborate?

Cesar, I suggest you stop playing the underdog. Minority view is a minority view. And a very large majority of psychiatric patients are quite happy with the support and treatment they are receiving. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you said “playing the underdog” I gather you did understand the Breggin/Hitchens similarity and the On Liberty argument I use about the latter. It’s unnecessary to elaborate (incidentally, Mill did mention psychiatry at the end of that book). If we follow liberty principles, as I’ve said in other page, I don’t see anything wrong with the happy treatment you mention. But I trust you agree with me this is not the same of the involuntary drugging of sane people? —Cesar Tort 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presently there are literally millions of children under psychiatric drugs administered by their parents such as Ritalin, Ritalin SR, Adderall, Adderall XR, Dexedrine, Focalin, Concerta, Metadate ER, Cylert and Strattera [3]. Many are sane and complaint about its side effects: becoming robotic, lethargic, depressed or withdrawn and involuntary tics including Tourette syndrome. This may be big business for pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis or Elli Lilly. But strikes me pretty much as “involuntary drugging”. —Cesar Tort 16:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Using inaccurate info about psychostimulants andTourette's doesn't help your argument. Sandy 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

JFW wrote:

And a very large majority of psychiatric patients are quite happy with the support and treatment they are receiving.

How can that possibly be true? There are Big Pharma funded organizations like NAMI, in which parents acclaim the drugs that have been administered to their children, but organizations representing the patients themselves have been marginalized and discredited by the psychiatric profession. What those people have to say is dismissed. So when Rockpocket says "It is Wikipedia's mission to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." he neglects the fact that psychiatric survivor organizations are not given a fair hearing by the profession or the media, who receive advertising dollars from Big Pharma. Where are the organizations representing psychiatric patients (not their caretakers) who are issuing press releases saying they are "quite happy" with the treatment they've received?

Some individual patients who've received antidepressant medication say they obtained relief by taking the drugs. Many others complain about the unpleasant side effects. But that's just one category of psychiatric patient. What about the patients who've been institutionalized and forced to take medication against their will? How often do such people turn up on TV chat shows saying they are happy about how their mental state was transformed?

If no pro-psychiatry patient organizations exist, then it would be disingenuous to suggest the ones that do exist represent an insignificant minority. The big question is "Why are all the other former involuntary inmates keeping their mouths shut?" Is it because they know they risk being re-incarcerated against their will if they speak out? Or is it because they're so happy with the treatment outcome they're lost for words?

Has there ever been a large scale, impartial survey (not funded by Big Pharma) which conclusively proved that a very large majority of psychiatric patients are quite happy with the support and treatment they are receiving? And if so, have the published reports been peer reviewed by psychiatric patients? Those would be the peers in such a study.

Are any survivor organizations for medical conditions unrelated to mental health complaining bitterly about the treatment their members received? There are organizations for parents who believe their children have been harmed by vaccinations, but I'm specificly referring to organizations whose members are the patients themselves. Occasionally one reads in newspapers about individuals who sued for malpractice, but those cases relate to one particular practioner, not the treatment methods used by a whole class of medical specialists.

If psychiatric treatment was as effective as other types of medical care why wouldn't former patients want the world to know? Do they just thank their caretakers in private because of the fear social stigmatization? If so, how can your claim be proved? And why would there still be a social stigma if the "vast majority" of patients achieved peace of mind via psychiatric treatment? There seems to be a double standard of POV here. -- 81.174.211.181 04:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is true or not. No-one is trying to say in the article that "a very large majority of psychiatric patients are quite happy with the support and treatment they are receiving". That would be POV. In contrast, we are being told that "it strikes [Cesar]" that "children are being "involutarily drugged" and that this is a good enough reason to put it in the article. The whole point of this RfAR is to ensure POV statements like either of those are not in the encyclopaedia.

Moreover, you are correct that i neglect to mention "that psychiatric survivor organizations are not given a fair hearing ... in the media". That is because it is simply not relevent. Whether it is fair or not is not something we need consider. We don't report "the truth", remember, we report what is verifiable in proportion to its representation among experts on the subject. We all (anon above, Cesar, Breggin at al included) seem to agree that the anti-psych voice is barely heard in the biopsych field. That itself is enough to resolve the locus of this dispute, everything else - the politics, the opinion, the conspiracy theories - is simply beside the point. Rockpocket 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) It does matter whether it is true or not, and the characterization of those statements as pov is false. Many psychologists and psychiatrists struggle with this issue in their private practice, and there are hoardes of cases where people have sued and won on such grounds, and thousands of proofs that there

is a real problem here. Thats not pov, its fact. These facts ARE verifiable, you just haven't availed yourself of them. The antipsyche voices being barely heard is NOT cause to not listen to those voices, it is cause to stop and listen to those voices, because npov requires us to give EACH VOICE IN A DISPUTE their just say. Groupthink in the medical profession keeps a tight lid on antiestalishment sentiments, thats the causation factor. This is why we don't hear a lot about it FROM the Establishment. Go hang for fourty minutes on an aspie bbs, and you can pick up a very different choir of voices than the mainstream. These people are right because they have lived through being misunderstood, misdiagnosed, and abused by the system. They know whats up because they learned the hard way. Cesar is only representing a voice that in general is silenced, but a voice that nonetheless is echoed by thousands if not millions of other voices. NPOV requires us to give a fair hearing to that voice, and due weight requires us to admit that voice because its claims and issues are factual, not propagandistic, and not fictional. Prometheuspan 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it would appear the architects of this line of argument are well aware that the anti-psych viewpoint is such a minority that it does not merit more that a brief mention per WP:NPOV:

"What you and I have tho factual and impeccably logical is still a "minority opinion". NPOV policy states that all voices in a dispute should be given equal time. Except where due weight renders one or more voices to be in too small a minority. We have to make a case for at least minimal due weight, and for the responsibility of the Information to factually adress a problem which effects millions of lives. Our best argument for due weight is unfortunately a strong attack against the system; That millions of people are in fact being abused by overmedication, and that this has life altering and life threatening consequences, would ethically compel our minority opinion to be given at least some due weight." [4] (my bold). In other words, they appreciate that they working against policy, but can only promote inclusion on the basis of their ethical beliefs. Surely the absolute definition of POV pushing. Rockpocket 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) The only relevant question is how much due weight this minority opinion should have or does have logically. For you to call it pov pushing is only for you to label it as such, and in no means and by no method have you shown it to be pov pushing. In fact, npov policy requires each voice in a conflict to be given an equal voice. The fact of the matter is, there is a serious amount of real discussion over this issue even in the medical profession. Many psychologists complain that their schema have been reified by Psychiatry and misaplied towards abuse. It is wikipedias responsibility to give a fair hearing to even a minority viewpoint, the only relative question is how much or how large a percentage, based on due weight. The above is relative to that question. Certainly at least as much as the basic argument and its minimal level supporting details are relevant. As wikipedia is not paper, it has no reason to exclude relevant details unless those details are being excluded specificaly because of bias. Prometheuspan 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket: you want to strictly adhere to the letter while we have a broader humanistic worldview. I don’t remember where I read that Wikipedia doesn’t have iron rules. I can only hope ArbCom will not be as legalistic as you.... Cesar Tort 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the case from the start. I visited Cesar's talk page because he made an edit to a page on my watchlist. I prefer not to divulge my username because the proceedings here seem positively Kafkaesque.

I don't know whether Cesar provided evidence to back up the claim that children are being involuntarily drugged, but the evidence is abundant -- both in the mass media and from evidence gathered by concerned medical practioners. I have links to relevant articles that are available online. But it seems to me that sound evidence has already been brushed aside by supporters of the status quo. As yet, I haven't gone through the complete record of the proceedings with a fine tooth comb. So I'm not sure whether this case is simply about controversial edits that were made without prior discussion, or whether it is about systematic bias in Wikipedia's coverage of contentious issues in psychiatry.

However there is cause for concern that JFW seems to want to play down the heated debate going on in medical circles about Big Pharma falsifying medical research data. I visited his user page. He presents himself as a doctor and "an incorrigible Wikipediholic." Maybe he should find the time to bring himself up-to-date on this issue by visiting the websites of reputable medical journals; the BMJ for example. Many doctors are up in arms because they have been provided with good evidence that some conference papers and journal articles were not written by the doctors to whom they were attributed. They were ghost-written by pharmaceutical company employees to present proprietary drugs manufactured by their employers in a favourable light, regardless of the reseach data. In other words, a practice that is known as Sock puppetry to Wikipedians. Then there is the scandal of corruption within the FDA. Once again, there has been extensive coverage of the row in the mass media and medical journals. -- 81.174.211.191 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact there is more than sufficient and compelling evidence to support the idea that big pharma is victimizing society as a drug pusher, that children (like myself) are and were and have been drugged against their will, that in fact many of the so called cures have side effects equal to things much worse than the "cure", that

Drugs as administered to children for problems such as ADHD don't solve the childs problems, but only make the child easier for the system to roll over, That many pharma drugs are badly abused and that addiction and addiction related problems are rampant...The list goes on and on. These are serious problems, they are real, and they deserve a fair hearing in any article on the topic of drugs or drug use or pharma subjects. Prometheuspan 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a topic about "drugs or drug use or pharma", if that is your concern, take the debate to drug, drug use or pharmaceutical company. It is about a psychiatric theory.

Every child is "involuntarily drugged" when they are given childhood vaccinations. Every child is "involutarily drugged" whenever the visit the doctor with the parents, before they can speak, and most continue to be "involutarily drugged" for a long time afterwards. Like it or not, parents have the choice of how to deal with their children medically in most societies until a certain age, and then the state has a limited role in deciding how people get treated medically. That is a societal problem, not a medical one. If you don't like it, too bad, but it has nothing to do with an encyclopaedia article describing the theory of biological psychiatry. The anti-psych voices have all the space they need to explain their factual assertions in the anti-psychiatry article, and they do without the biological psychiatrists having their due weight criticising them. That article is not the place to descibe anti-psychs as loonies, conspiracy theorists and cultists (although some of them clearly are).

"Social problem not a medical one". That would be true were it not for the fact that medical science is being used to justify the social problem. The social problem is dependant upon medical ignorance. The problem resolves when the medical ignorance is defeated. Hence, it is sensible to adress the problem here, factually. "loonies" et. Okay, I agree with that. I don't know whats been said, and, I'm not looking. However, it is appropriate to offer

links to articles which provide the factual information regarding this problem and issue. I believe a pov fork is in order. 25 percent may be a little bit high, but certainly a paragraph or so is warranted. Prometheuspan 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing said in the responses above provided any justification for why anti-psych views should be represented in any futher abundance in the biological psychiatry article than they already are (i.e. present, but in a minority per WP:NPOV). Infact, quite the opposite, as Cesar openly admits, the position of those bringing this case is "sticking to the letter" of Wikipedia policy. A small group of editors' with a minority "humanistic worldview" should not get to enforce their will over policy made by consensus. Rockpocket 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Small group of editors should not"... And aren't. Again a characterization. Humanistic worldview is a characterization, and is

at least false of me personally. Nobody is enforcing will against or over policy. In fact, your interpretation of policy is apparently different than ours; As far as I am concerned having legit coverage of this issue is exactly what and why npov is supposed to make happen; conflicting voices each getting their turn. So your reasoning is fallacious, nobody is opposing or changing any rules, they are operating inside of the rules as they exist. Prometheuspan 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The “minority” are literally thousands. Here’s another article not yet referred to in this discussion: World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. —Cesar Tort 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes no difference whatsoever. Do you not think there are millions of creationists that believe their "worldview" deserves to supercede our policy on pseudoscience? How about the billions of Muslims that would rather not have Muhammed represented in Wikiepedia (or enywhere else). Should their "worldview" supercede policy? Of course not. My "worldview" - shared with many thousands of others including many 'experts' - is that most animal rights activists are "terrorists". Does that means they should be labelled terrosists in Wikipedia? No. So tell me why should your "humanistic worldview" overrides policy in this case, when no other interest group gets to push their agenda? Rockpocket 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning by false analogy. Those voices are not given a chance to voice their opinion because they don't have >>Any<< due weight.

You are missing the simple logical reality here. This is a minority opinion which rationally does have due weight at least enough to be included as a paragraph and a link to other articles. And, other interests do get to have their voices heard. Wikipedia policy isto give all legit voices their say. Prometheuspan 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket: You are comparing again human rights fighters with creationists. —Cesar Tort 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

misrepresentative picture, misleading frame

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)

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)

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)

okay devils advocate now...

The below is as appears in the article. Cesar, whats missing? I have been arguing pro your position, but i have read the article now, and my question is, what are you hoping to get more than that, and what in wikipedia policy makes you feel that you should have it? You have a minority opinion, it is represented in about as much due weight as its got coming to it, possibly even a little bit more. If there is information you would like to add, you should add it to the antipsychiatry article, or, to new articles which branch from there. (And we should rename that to "Criticisms of Psychiatry, "Anti" is predjudicial.) I hate to hop the boat on you, but what are you asking for more than you've got? Prometheuspan 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Criticism ==

Main article: Anti-psychiatry

A vocal minority of patients, activists and mental health care 
 professionals, including some psychiatrists, dispute biological 
psychiatry as a scientific concept, arguing that there are no known 
biological markers for recognised psychiatric conditions. This  
position is often represented in a scholarly journal, Ethical 
Human Psychology and Psychiatry, that publishes material  
specifically countering "the idea that emotional distress is due to 
an underlying organic disease."  Instead some prominent  
critics, such as Colin Ross, propose a '[[Psychological 
trauma|trauma]] model' for explaining mental disorders.  The movement, bolstered by groups with similar criticisms of biological psychiatry (such as the Church of Scientology), is often labeled, sometimes derogatorily, as Anti-psychiatry.

Others with an anti-psychiatry point of view do not dispute the
notion that certain behavior phenotypes have an organic basis,
but  dispute the labeling of neurological differences as  
disordered 
and inferior. (See, for example, the autism rights movement  
and  the neurodiversity concept).

I didn’t write that paragraph. I would delete everything from “The movement, bolstered by groups...” and introduce instead reliable sources; even psychiatric ones like the DSM. Yes: I agree with you about a pov fork. That would end immediately this pointless Rfar discussion. Actually, the main Anti-psychiatry article is a fork of the main Psychiatry article (and of course: the word “antipsychiatry” is terrible and needs to be changed). So if we already have that pov fork, Psychiatry/Anti-psychiatry, Anarchist42, you, me and others may create still another article, Criticism of biopsychiatry. Thoughts? —Cesar Tort 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Why don't we agree on that between us and maybe spread it around a little? I am sure there are a few people who wouldn't mind being notified that we have come up with what we think is a very reasonable solution to this issue.

Actually, I'll go drop notes. Prometheuspan 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have no problem with rewording the above section if it can be improved. A few points:

• Why delete "the movement, bolstered by..."? Is that not true, if not what is technically wrong with it?
• Cesar, continuing his track record of never proposing specific content when asked, has still not said what he would like to see in there. I would like to know exactly what three sentences he would like to replace those he proposes be deleted before giving carte blanche for him to "improve" it.
• As we have all said consistantly, the criticism section as it stands is appropriate in size and detail for the due weight it deserves according to WP:NPOV. I'm glad that Prometheuspan now appears to agree, but i'm puzzled what all the debate was about today. No-one was ever proposing this section be removed, it was all about whether more extensive criticism was appropriate according to due weight. Are we all now agreed that the current amount is appropriate per policy? That would be a huge step forward.
• I don't care what the primary critical article is called, however it is important if moved, that anti-psychiatry be redirected towards it. Terrible title or not (and i agree it is), it is what the movement is widely known as, even among those how support it [5]. It should not be just ignored because it is confusing or has attracted pejorative connotations. Moreover the anti-psychiatry article makes very clear that the title itself is something of a confusing misnomer in its introduction.
• I disagree about it being a POV fork. Neither Psychiatry and Anti-psychiatry promote a view, they describe a medical field and a movement against it, respectively. Just like the biopsych article describes a theory and its applications, and the trauma model article describes a contrasting theory and its applications. Saying this is a POV fork is like saying the CND article is a pov fork of nuclear proliferation. Both deserve their own article.

If this proposal can end the whole locus of this dispute then i would be over the moon. I very much doubt this will satisfy Cesar and Ombudsman, though would love to be proven wrong. Rockpocket 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... Rockpocket: How could I not be satisfied with a proposal I myself proposed?

Re the “carte blanche” I am merely suggesting that instead of using precious space in religious attacks of psychiatry (or fringe autism views) we may well mention the fact that DSM does not make bioreductionistic claims nor recommends any sort of psychiatric drugs for any disorder (and non disorders like ADHD). And of course, include at the top of the article the relevant link to Criticism of biopsychiatry. —Cesar Tort 05:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason i question it is because it doesn't seem to address most of the points you have raised at this RfAR. For someone that held their stance ("the entire article is hopelessly biased") so resolutely, one can hardly help wonder why a simple rewording of three sentences suddenly is acceptable to you. I'm not complaining though. I thought the Scientology mention was relevent as they are among the most vocal (and therefore notable) anti-psychiatry groups. I was never a fan of the autism section, however. Perhaps you would like to draft the section as you envision it, then. Rockpocket 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scientology mention is inappropriate since it confuses scholarly dissent within the mental health field itself with controversial religious views. Of the main professional critics of biopsych, and even leaders of the psychiatric survivor movement, none is religious. And almost the same can be said about the autism section: it’s not a standard view within the professional critical literature. If a simple rewording of sentences is OK with me it’s because I want to compromise with you and save further waste of time in this already long process; not because I have changed my mind about a dubious science. With the help of Prometheuspan I will draft the proposed section that includes the DSM points but I’m concerned that not everybody seems to have accepted this compromise. —Cesar Tort 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose forking the criticism of biopsychiatry. There is absolutely no reason to do this and it would lead to an article full of rambling nonsense. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We don’t have much choice, JFW. The alternative would be to continue this endless and unhealthy debate and I doubt that the gatekeepers will agree with Bauder’s 25% critical section advice to avoid the fork. On the other hand, I don’t think the new article will contain nonsense. I propose that, besides Anarchist 42 and Prometheuspan, you and Midgley work with us. In the previous incarnation of the biopsych article I found myself totally at ease working with Midgley. And I didn’t see any uncivil behavior from you during the heated discussion of the Psychiatry article when Francesca Allan, a psychiatric survivor and activist, debated with you six months ago. —Cesar Tort 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears i misunderstood. I thought (as Prometheuspan proposed, "If there is information you would like to add, you should add it to the antipsychiatry article") that criticism was going to be limited to the Anti-psychiatry article (and futher that this article be moved as is to criticism of psychiatry, with a redirect from its original home.) Cesar appears to be suggesting that yet another article be written to specifically refute the biological psychiatry article. That clearly is a POV fork, therefore against policy, and would not last long in the Wikipedia community. Hence there is little point us agreeing to it, as we would all be breaking policy. As i stated above, the "opposite" article to biopsych is the trauma model article, they both state theories and methods of psychiatry that are opposed. Anything else can go in the anti-psychiatry article (and indeed, most of the points are already there). Therefore if, in contrast to what Prometheuspan proposed, we are compromising on the creation of a POV fork, then i withdraw any indication of support. Moreover, your proposal that only editors you approve write it is remarkable, and entirely indicative of the purpose of such an article - to enforce a POV.

Finally, Cesar, you keep repeating "Bauder’s 25% critical section" like a mantra. This comment has no more legitimacy the anyone else's opinion (some might say less, in fact, as a principle it appears to flirt with violation of WP:NPOV). Bauder is not authorised to make policy, and the proposed decision relating to this ("As presently constituted biological psychiatry is simply a restatement of "mainstream medical opinion" containing minimal critical material") has been opposed by the only other voting ArbCom member. Therefore there is no indication that this proposal will be approved and unless it is, quoting it kind of pointless. That Prometheuspan (who clearly is not a psychiatry sympathist) realises that further criticism should be limited to anti-psychiatry speaks volumes in my mind (i.e. that this opinion is not borne out of advocacy, but out of an understanding of WP:NPOV). A consensus is forming on that, and that is what will resolve this issue, not POV forking. Rockpocket 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am merely following Prometheuspan and Joema’s proposals. You seem to have forgotten Joema’s advice in talk biopsych article:

"Unlike a regular encyclopedia, with Wikipedia you can write an entire article detailing a contrary position. I'd estimate Cesar could have written a large Anti-Biological Psychiatry article for the amount of time he's spent trying to put his beliefs in this article [...]. My advice is skip the time-wasting arbitration and just write the contrary article. That will likely be the inevitable result anyway. Joema 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

And also:

"Properly written, an anti-biological psychiatry article is no more a POV fork than having [...] abortion and abortion debate articles. The idea is describe the biological psychiatry controversy, basis and history. Possibly a better name would be "Biological psychiatry debate" [...]. Joema 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

According to Raul’s razor, presently the Biological psychiatry is pov; and pov are also the Psychiatry and Anti-psychiatry articles using the razor. But the only easy way to escape further unhealthy debate is to accept a fork (though I would much prefer to follow Wikipedia’s standard policies if all parts concerned recognized biopsych is biased and work together toward the 25% balancing compromise). —Cesar Tort 17:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am disheartened to see that the compromise wasn't picked up. There are good reasons to have pov forks, a disparity of due weight between different opposing points of view is a good reason to have one. This makes the pov fork into a detail article from the main article, and there are plenty of good precedents for this. Wikipedia does not prohibit pov forks, it just says that they are a bad idea in general, and that they should be avoided in general. There are good potential reasons to make a pov fork, and this is one of them.

As far as the difference between creating a new article and simply moving the old one. That is a prime detail which is important to the "anti" side. There needs to be sufficient room to make the case. Finally regarding "we don't write critiques." Good point. We do report on factual criticism from within a science community regarding itself, because that is what reporting factually about science in a world of pov requires. So we are only reporting about the criticism generated by the science community (and others) regarding biopsychiatry.

We have offered a very reasonable compromise, and it seems that this is not being taken with the credence it is due. People are still fighting for their side and not looking at the bigger picture here. People are not apreciating that this is a realistic and fair solution and that it is within the rules and sphere of the rules that do exist. That is unfortunate.

Last but not least, While I cannot speak for Cesar, I think that it is apparent that the issue here is only that the minority opinion be given a fair hearing. I think its true that its a minority opinion of the sort that obviously should be given only a fractional space in the main article. This rationally leaves us with only one good answer. A lot of arguments here seem to imply or be based in the fallacious idea that we are trying to circumvent or ignore rules. That again is simply not true. We are doing the best we can to deliver an information service which is factual and appropriately neutral in that it includes the different points of view as per their due weight.

I ask all parties to please consider again the merit of the compromise as proposed; That Cesar (and others) be allowed to write articles in response to main articles as a detail of those articles, creating minor and necessary pov forks to resolve this issue for articles related to this issue. Again, pov forks are in general a bad idea, however, they are the only good answer in this case. It would be unfair to psychiatry or biopsychiatry to have on the article page a full and complete exploration of criticism, as that would bestow unearned due weight upon the "anti" perspective. It would be unfair to that perspective to not allow its depth levels to be explored due to this, thus; due to the disparity of due weight, the only good answer is a pov fork. Thanks again for reconsidering this solution thoughtfully. Prometheuspan 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All of which begs the question, why doesn't the criticism go in the anti-psychiatry article (which says: "Anti-psychiatry refers to approaches (sometimes seen as a coherent movement) which fundamentally challenge the theory or practice of mainstream psychiatry in general, and biological psychiatry in particular." Anti-psychiatry - and all that is described in there - is describing the case that the antis want to make in fundamentally challenging biological psychiatry. Should anyone wish to rework this article, or move it to another title with a redirect, to incorporate futher criticisms then they are free to do so. Doesn't that solve the problem? That said, nothing is stopping Cesar or anyone else making a seperate criticism of psychiatry article. If that is what he wants to do the he is welcome to make it. He always has been. However, i personally, don't think it is required or appropriate when there already is an anti-psych article which it will largely duplicate.

Since i don't support it, i am not willing to make some "compromise" that acknowledges that it deserves to exist as a condition of abiding policy in this article. Should Cesar make it and it turns out to be a critique (like what has drafted on his subpages, for example) then i would tag it as such, copyedit it, or propose it for deletion. Should he make it and it turn out to duplicate Anti-psychiatry, then i would propose it be merged. Should it have novel content, be sourced, accurate and NPOV in tone, the chances are i will have no interest in it, and if the rest of the community agrees it will stay and everyone will be happy.

The only compromise i am interested in is the crux of this RfAR. That means, in the biological psychiatry article, everyone agreeing on having criticism represented in the minority it is due, as it currently is. And to have Cesar, Ombudsman and now Solo, cease from tagging the article as NPOV because it does not contain further criticism or because it is (in their opinion "big pharma" "pseudoscience"). Should that occur, as far as i am concerned the issue is resolved and what other articles Cesar and/or anyone else creates is entirely different from this issue that can be judged on its own merits or otherwise. Conditional editing (the existance of one article depends on another) is not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you abide by policy regarding biological psychiatry and incorporate any criticism you think is notable in the Anti-psych article (which you can then expand, rework or move should you see fit). I can't see anyone having a problem with that and I would actively support it. I spent a long time editing Anti-psychiatry from the POV mess it was previously into something acceptable. But it is far from perfect and a rework would do it good. If that is unnacceptable to you then by all means create a new article. But if it gets deleted or merged by community consensus in the future, it should have no bearing on the content of the biological psychiatry article which already abides by WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the new article will be tagged. None of the articles I have introduced have been tagged; not even the biopsych article I rewrote with Midgley (who I hope will team up in this innovative effort). —Cesar Tort 19:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We should not be having a content dispute on the article over here. What Prometheuspan asked was: given the space, what details would Cesar Tort like to include in the "criticism" section. The discussion has taken a rather big detour. I'm asking the same question now: Cesar, what material would you like to include that is not presently there? We can discuss each "criticism" individually and see why it should or should not be included.

What can be included is well-publicised views or views held by authorities in the field (I would personally accept the insertion of the opinion of Szasz or Breggin without much reserve). What cannot be included is views floated by some uneducated moron on a blog somewhere. Can we take this route and stop bickering? JFW | T@lk 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I take this route and wholly agree with you to stop the impolite bickering in other pages once and for all. Once we reach a little more consensus that a link to Criticism of biopsychiatry will be allowed in biopsych article I will write the short draft you are asking for. —Cesar Tort 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I draft the short sentence (perhaps about DSM and not about Szasz or Breggin as JFW suggested since that may appear in the new article), the crucial question is whether the link to Criticism of biopsychiatry will be allowed to appear in biopsych article as there is the relevant link to Anti-psychiatry article in Psychiatry article. Actually, those articles are perfect paradigm of what Prometheuspan and I have in mind [6]. —Cesar Tort 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article exists and the community is happy with its content, then there is no reason it shouldn't be linked. It is clearly relevent. Why don't you write the article and then add the link when it is made. I can't imagine would anyone contest it.

That said, I simply don't see how it will survive independent of Anti-psychiatry though. One of the major issues in anti-psychiatry is to refute the biological basis theory (As the article says, "the movement is often seen as promoting a type of psychiatry itself, albeit one that is in stark contrast to current mainstream thinking" [i.e. biospych]). Therefore it is a de facto Criticism of biopsychiatry article in all but name. One would imagine pretty much anything you write in there will be appropriate for the anti-psychiatry article, so the end result will likely be a merge. In which case you may as well just rework the anti-psychiatry article in the first place. You seem to completely ignore this point, at some point it is going to come up, so it would make much more sense to address it now. But the answer you are looking for is: if you write a Criticism of biopsychiatry article, then i can't see any reason one could oppose a link to it as long as it exists (which, imho, would not be for very long). Rockpocket 17:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If there already exist two articles, Psychiatry and Biological psychiatry, one describing medical approach and the other its theoretical basis, it makes sense to have two other articles about the history of the debate on both. As to the section of criticism of biopsych theories in Ant-psychiatry article [7] that could be moved to the new article so they don’t need to be merged in the future. —Cesar Tort 17:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my draft for biopsych article. —Cesar Tort 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Main article: Criticism of biopsychiatry

Nowhere in the latest edition of the official psychiatric manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV-TR, published by the American Psychiatric Association it is claimed that the major mental disorders are biomedical entities. Also, nowhere in the DSM psychiatric drugs are recommended for the DSM conditions.

A vocal minority of patients, activists and mental health care professionals, including some psychiatrists, dispute biological psychiatry as a scientific concept, arguing that there are no known biological markers for recognised psychiatric conditions. This position is often represented in a scholarly journal, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, that publishes material specifically countering "the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease." Instead some prominent critics, such as psychiatrist Colin Ross, propose a "trauma model" for explaining mental disorders.

I don't actually think it is an improvement (as we should be briefly describing the critics in this section, not making unattributed statements that do not appear to me to be inherently critical of biological psychiatry). But, i'll go with the consensus. I would also recommend a link to anti-psychiatry somewhere, as it is relevent in the critical section. Perhaps:" So called anti-psychiatrists (a vocal minority of patients, activists and mental health care professionals, including some psychiatrists) dispute biological psychiatry as a scientific concept..." Also, a minor grammatical point should the consensus be to agree to this edit, "nowhere in the DSM are psychiatric drugs recommended..." Rockpocket 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants to be labeled “antipsychiatrist”. It was a very popular word in the 1960s and 70s. Not today. While I don’t necessarily object a link to the Anti-psychiatry article somewhere, due to its pejorative connotations I wouldn’t post the word “anti-psychiatrists”. —Cesar Tort 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is clearly not true unless this site, this site, this site among many others, are set up by the psychiatry lobby to smear critics.

Whether you personally like the use of the term or not, it is still used to describe the movement by both sides of the debate. That article holds information on a notable movement critical of biological psychiatry, hence it should be linked. If you have concerns over its pejorative connotations, move it to critical psychiatry (the term some of the former anti-psychiatrists like to use now [8]) and redirect. Except, of course, you have already stated you do not want to do that.

You can't have it both ways, either move it and link it, or just link it. I don't care where or how, but it should be somewhere in that section since you deleted if from the [main] template. Rockpocket 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just link it is OK:

Main articles:

Criticism of biopsychiatry

Antipsychiatry

BTW, I translated about ten articles of the first citation you mention above, and remember many activists complained about the term “antipsychiatry”. —Cesar Tort 05:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that is true (the name does the movement no favours, in my opinion), but that doesn't change the fact that the the coalition is currently and verifiably called that, and lots of others still use that term for themselves also (though, admittedly, more and more appear to be adopting the term 'critical psychiatry' instead). Your proposition above is fine by me. Rockpocket 05:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI the “coalition” is a one man business: a lawyer named Douglas A. Smith. He was perfectly sane when his parents committed him decades ago. You can see the translations signed by me in the Spanish page of that very site. —Cesar Tort 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Douglas C. Smith runs the PsychRights.org website, but doesn't appear to be a lawyer. Douglas A. Smith features his namesake a bit much at AntiPsychiatry.org. Ombudsman 21:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(Ombudsman is responding above to my Edit summary: doug A. smith not to be confused with doug C. smith :)

Actually, “Douglas A. Smith” is a pseudonym and therefore I have removed the red color just posted for his name. “Smith” confesses in both his webpage and in personal communications that, since he was unjustly committed long time ago, he wants to avoid stigma thru pseudonyms. Can you imagine a respected and successful lawyer having being committed? Actually, he is the same guy that signs the articles in the site you mention with still another pseudonym, “Lawrence Stevens”! —Cesar Tort 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the term perjorative ("Nobody wants to be labeled 'antipsychiatrist'"), why would you openly associate yourself with it by translating articles? Quite frankly, i think we would all be better off if more lawyers were committed. Sane + successful laywer = oxymoron.

(thats a joke, by the way) Rockpocket 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will again register my disapproval of Wikipedia:Content forking. There isn't terribly much to say about the criticism of biological psychiatry, other than that there are opponents, and they oppose biopsych for X, Y and Z reasons. Wikipedia should not under any circumstance become the forum where individual critiques of individual studies are published in extenso. Nobody is saying anything about anti-psychiatry (although the lines between antipsych and anti-biopsych are blurry in the extreme). Cesar Tort, if you don't want anti-biopsych associated with old-school antipsychiatry, then simply leave out the "main articles" template. JFW | T@lk 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at the draft in User:Cesar Tort/discussion you’ll see we are basically moving material from a section that already exists in Antipsychiatry to the new article: a section which will be subsequently deleted in the old article. You can edit the new draft anytime. —Cesar Tort 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They way i see it, if Cesar et al can successfully split the anti- article into anti-psychiatry and critical psychiatry, each containing different NPOV content, and also make clear the difference between the two (something that itsn't clear to me personally), then good luck to him. If he can't, the articles will end up merged anyway and no harm will be done other than waste a lot of his time. As they stand at the moment, the difference between the two is not clear, the new article says almost exactly he same as anti-psychiatry does. But its early days. When Cesar is ready to move his draft to article namespace we will have a better idea of how its going to work out. Rockpocket 19:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Antipsych activists don’t do much research; dissenting scholars don’t do much activism. The above objections are double standard since, using the same rationale, why not merge the Psychiatry with the Biological psychiatry articles? —Cesar Tort 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Biological psychiatry describes a theory, psychiatry descibes a field of medicine (currently largely based on that theory). Just as the trauma model descrives a theory and anti-psychiatry describes a movement (or field) promoting therapy based on that theory (as does criticial psychiatry, which appears to be a relabeled offshoot). The focus and content differs between the psychiatry articles, so its not a double standard at all. If your two articles are as different in focus and content as those two are you should have no problem. Thats a big IF based on the evidence so far. Rockpocket 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the debate above about the word “antipsychiatry”, three days ago MindFreedom International issued this statement: “...the loaded and undefined term ‘antipsychiatry’. Most of the individuals and groups involved do not apply that term to themselves”. —Cesar Tort 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Except from the ones i linked to above (and the many others i didn't provide links to). Tell me this though, what term do "most" use instead. Let me guess: critical psychiatry? Which again leads me to ask, why you don't move a reworded anti-psychiatry article (from its "loaded and undefined" title) to your new project title? I simply don't understand what your argument against this is. Rockpocket 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The original proposal to create an independent critical article about biopsych was advanced by Joema and approved by Ande B (only later the same idea occurred to Prometheuspan). There is already a rough draft for that proposal in User:Cesar Tort/discussion. We have now reached the end of the road and it is unnecessary to continue this discussion. Time is ripe for ArbCom to reach a decision. —Cesar Tort 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Infact, i think you'll find Ande approved putting it a trauma model article [9] or the anti-psychiatry article [10]. Its funny how "this discussion" always comes to an end when you are challenged to justify something. Only to start up again soon after when you decide to make futher assertions.

Still, at least the dispute over biological psychiatry appears to have been solved. I had to smile at your insistance that this was Joema's idea. If that is the case, does it not occur to you to question quite what the point of your tagging was? If you had agreed to this position that was (in your words) "advanced by Joema" at the time, instead waiting until "the same idea occurred to Prometheuspan" now, then all of our time wasted on this could have been put to better use. Or perhaps its the person making the proposal, not the proposal itself, that makes it acceptable? Rockpocket 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You’re assuming bad faith. But since I’d like to end this discussion, from now on I’ll try to refrain myself from responding to personal criticism. —Cesar Tort 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

more noise by rockpocket

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)