imported>Gareth Leng |
|
| (39 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
| |
|
| '''I have a low tolerance for personal attacks on any member of ''Citizendium''. I expect every message here be civil, professional, and respectful of other members. Complaints about behaviour of other Citizens should be directed to the Constabulary and not to me. By all means explain disputes here - and feel free to debate openly with me on issues. But any messages that contain any infringement of civility and professionalism will be deleted. It should be assumed that their contents are ''completely'' forgotten by me, though not necessarily by the Constabulary.''''[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | | '''I have a low tolerance for personal attacks on any member of ''Citizendium''. I expect every message here be civil, professional, and respectful of other members. Complaints about behaviour of other Citizens should be directed to the Constabulary and not to me. By all means explain disputes here - and feel free to debate openly with me on issues. But any messages that contain any infringement of civility and professionalism will be deleted. It should be assumed that their contents are ''completely'' forgotten by me, though not necessarily by the Constabulary.''''[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) |
| | ==WikiLeaks; Content issues== |
| | The text here has been moved to the Talk page of WikiLeaks, including all discussion. A copy of my review of the content issues may be found on the Ombudsman Decisions subpage [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| | ==Adolf Hitler== |
| | Below is a copy of a request made today to the Management Council. |
|
| |
|
| == [[Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church]] ==
| | "Following the dispute on [[Adolf Hitler]] I gave my interpretation of the Charter, and specifically relating to Article 40 clause 3. "All Citizens shall have the right to a fair hearing, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: the opportunity to present one's case in one's defense, the right to be heard by a fair and unprejudiced body, the right to have others offer testimony on one's behalf" |
| | |
| Is this the right place to post requests? It doesn't seem to say either on this page or on the personal talk page.
| |
| | |
| ::Yes, haven't set up all the guidance yet, but that's what's intended[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| This particular dispute has been on hold for a long time in default of a qualified editor to deal with it. I'll notify everyone else. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| OK, I've notified everyone who's ever posted on the talk page or made a non-minor edit to the article. That should cover all interested parties. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| You seem to have done what you can, so it's now for the EC to deal with. (There's no need for an interim ruling from the ME because there's no edit war going on.) The communication channel from Citizens to the EC hasn't yet been set up, so it's now for you to decide whether to refer it to them now or leave it for me to do when the channel opens. (Unless of course they change their mind and accept Howard's view that they should leave all particular cases until they've worked out general policies.) [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Peter: the official email address is not yet set up, but the right to lodge a "Request for a Decision" (for dispute resolution or detailed ruling on existing policy) or a policy proposal already is in place. Normally, it should be emailed to the Secretary, but as he has just resigned, you need to wait for the announcement of a new Secretary. I can advise you on protocol; we should also try to liaise with Gareth so that he can also provide such advice. So, please wait a few days, then I hope we will have a new Secretary in place. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::The new EC Secretary has now been appointed, so you should email [[Hayford Peirce]] with any requests. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == War crimes ==
| |
| | |
| Please take a look at the talkpage of the article titled [[War crimes]]. It is linked with the history of the article itself. It seems that one editor believes he has the authority to blank the articles of another editor if they don't like said articles, but whether or not that position can be supported it looks like the beginning of an edit war.
| |
| | |
| Please also look at the article [[Josef Mengele]] and it's history and talkpage where you will find further instances of an Editor using the reversion tool to undo contributions by another Editor, and deleting blocks of text before discussion.
| |
|
| |
|
| [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Managing_Editor/2010/2/References_to_war_criminals This page] may provide additional material to discover the nature of the dispute. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 05:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | My interpretation of the Charter is that the Editorial Council has the final say on matters of content (given that their say is consistent with the Charter) and therefore its decisions on content cannot be appealed except on those grounds. I interpret the clause above as applying only to disciplinary actions taken against individuals. |
|
| |
|
| :This was already presented to the Ombudsman, by me, David. We are waiting for Howard to accept the authority of the Ombudsman to make a ruling. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | Can you please either affirm my interpretation or reject it." |
|
| |
|
| ::Gareth, I know nothing about the dispute over [[War crimes]] by Martin and Howard. However, I do know that David Finn has left CZ because of it, probably in disappointment over the continual reversions and blanking (i.e., deletion) of the article ... and Citizendium can ill afford to lose people like David Finn. Something must be done! [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
| | On the Talk page of [[Adolf Hitler]] I also made some obervations that I repeat below |
|
| |
|
| I agree. In this case, I couldn't act, because Howard refused to accept my involement.
| | "This case also raises some general issues of importance relating to content, - and also raises some issues of behaviour, in particular the apparent "rights" of editors to "own" articles that they have written, and exactly what constitutes relevant expertise. An early principle was that when an editor writes an article he or she is acting as an author not an editor and should not exercise editorial authority over that content. This is a principle best exercised lightly, but editorial authority is generally best exercised lightly. If an article is truly specialist and intended for academic reading, as some here are, it is likely to be written by an expert and unlikely to be challenged unless by other experts. However, if an article is intended for lay readers then its structure and content must be open to challenge and constructive input from those it is intended to reach. The art of good writing is to convey ideas clearly and concisely from one mind to another, and the task of an expert is to achieve that while ensuring that the process is a balanced and objective representation of current knowledge and understanding. Now anyone has a valid contribution to make by questioning whether such an article does in fact achieve those aims. Anyone may question whether the logic of an article is clear, whether the language is fluent and accessible, whether the structure is helpful, whether the evidence is appropriately sourced, whether the content is interesting and appropriate, and no expert judgement is required for these things - for these are the things by which the quality of an article must also be judged. It must be open for readers to judge whether changes to an article are an improvement, and they should not be intimidated from making such judgements; quite the contrary - an expert who ignores his readership is no expert." |
| I think this has revealed a weakness in our processes that needs urgent attention. At present, I can only be involved as Ombudsman if all disputants agree and then it appears that any ruling I make will only be binding on those directly involved. This leaves open the possibility that even if I make a ruling accepted as binding on the participants, someone else may come along and counteract it. This would be idiotic. If participants don't accept my formal involvement, I can't even comment in a personal capacity without prejudicing my possible involvement at a later stage.
| | [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| In cases like this, only the Management Council or Editorial Council can act in their respective areas of responsibility (behaviour and content). However it is open to them to delagate authority to act on their behalf to others to produce a swift interim decision that would be binding on everyone. If either Council wanted to delegate such authority to me (or anyone else) in particular cases, then of course I'd be willing and able to act. Maybe the Councils can come up with a mechanism to facilitate this.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
| | :Since you made this as a formal request, and you presumably have access to the Management Council email that I do not, would you please pass along that I disagree vehemently with your interpretation, and that I request that I be able to formally present the reasons for that disagreement privately, if the Management Council takes up the review of your request. I see no point in arguing it in the unstructured environment of talk pages. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Milt: clearly, the role of the Ombudsman would have been the quickest and calmest way to sort this out. Since Howard chose to refuse Gareth's guidance in the matter, it has had a preliminary ruling by the ME (who supports my position in blanking the page) and is currently before the EC sitting in a "judicial capacity". Depending on the decision of the EC, it may also be sent to the MC for disciplinary actions (as I have requested). [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC) | | ::The Management Council can be contacted through [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,94.0.html their private forum] or you may contact them individually through their citizendium email accounts. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I will speak only to procedures, not the content of the article.
| | :::Indeed, no special access. I should have made it clearer that my request to the MC was exactly as written, - it did not include the comments below that I posted on the Talk page of [[Adolf Hitler]]; they are irrelevant to the issue of Charter interpretation. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
| | |
| First, the Managing Editor does ''not'' support Martin's interpretation. See [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_Mietchen#War_criminals_and_crimes] That which Martin claims was an unacceptable article was actually the page that Martin blanked, not my draft. Reading that carefully, you will find that Daniel opposed blanking the page.
| |
| | |
| Second, if one wants at least an interim binding decision if the Ombudsman is not involved, that is appropriae for the Managing Editor. While I opposed creation of the position, it would be ludicrous for me not to work with a mechanism voted into the Charter and ratified.
| |
| | |
| {{nocomplaints}}
| |
| | |
| {{nocomplaints}}
| |
| | |
| @Milt, it is Martin's assumption that mediation would have been fastest. I do not agree. In fact, the fastest thing would have been to seek the opinion of the other two History Editors.
| |
| | |
| Gareth, I do not think it would be wise for a Council to delegate to you. Your role is voluntary mediation, which I will gladly accept in different circumstances. It's really a conflict of interest for you to do things for a Council. Remember, if the Council decision is appealed, you are to chair the appeals board. How can you do that if you made the Council decision?
| |
| | |
| It may be appropriate, when Charter amendments come up at an election, to designate the Ombudsman or someone else to rule on the applicability of the Charter. If he did that, though, I don't think he could also mediate.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I'm not making any comment on what should have been done in the case of war crime, only what could have been done. The Editorial Council could, in my view, have delegated ''anyone'' to make an interim decision on that article; if they were to do this in normal circumstances, the natural thing would be to delegate a member of that Council to make an interim decision. In this case, given that EC members were disputants, they would have had to ask someone else - clearly the Managing Editor is appropriate and this is explicitly allowed for in the Charter, and doesn't need a request from the EC. But expecting him or me or anyone in particular to be available at any time on any subject is unreasonable. The EC must be pragmatic and flexible, and have options at its disposal. The issue of conflict on appeal doesn't really arise; any decisions made by any delegated authority will be interim subject to ruling by the Council, so can't be subject to appeal. The only conceivable conflict might be if I made an interim decision, the EC overturned it, and then a disputant took that to appeal. In that event, it would be the Council rather than the disputant who might feel that my involvement in an appeal was prejudicial; if they felt that way then I would appoint a nominee as provided for in the Charter, though I would recuse myself anyway if I had any concerns. In fact, I make enough mistakes never to worry about any decisions I make being overturned. If I couldn't happily accept being outvoted, accept occasionally losing arguments, and be willing to change my mind on any subject, I wouldn't deserve the trust of the Community here to do any part of my job.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Gareth, it certainly sounds if you believe you should have become involved. It bothers me that you didn't question Martin's statement "We are waiting for Howard to accept the authority of the Ombudsman to make a ruling", because the Ombudsman has authority '''only''' if the participants agree, and are likely to compromise. There should be no implied criticism of not accepting mediation.
| |
| | |
| {{nocomplaints}}
| |
| | |
| ::::Not at all. If I beleved that I would have said so. Martin's "we" didn't include me - how could it given the structure of the sentence?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I don't recognise anything in Martin's comments here that are in any way exceptionable. Martin's statement above is literally correct and if you read anything into it beyond the words, then I'm afraid I don't.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I just don't follow the point about expecting you to be available. What is the issue there? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::: the issue is that if there is to be a general mechanism for achieving swift resolution of disputes, it can't rely on the instant availability of any one person - there has to be pragmatic flexibility.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| ::::On other issues
| |
| a) see ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refuse ..refuse]. It's quite wrong to think that I would deliberately choose a word to insinuate something that I could have said better directly.
| |
| b) I do not appreciate personal attacks being placed on this Talk page. There is nothing in what Martin has said above that is exceptionable, but Howard's comments about Martin are, and I won't tolerate any such comments here from anyone. I am going to ask the Constabulary to delete them.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::If you will email me what you consider objectionable, I will remove it. I would, however, want to call your attention to what I specifically find objectionable. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| {{nocomplaints}}
| |
| | |
| :It's not for me to decide on the merits, but for the Constabulary; this being the Ombudsman page I can't be involved in the decision or any appeal process resulting from it. I shouldn't comment further on this now that the Constabulary is involved. I have no problem with arguments being raised here, no problem with anyone questioning my rulings or comments, only with them extending to personal attacks, whoever they are directed at and whatever the source. I would have deleted them myself were it clear that I had the authority to do so. It's up to the MC to decide whether I should be able to edit this page to delete inappropriate content; I'll ask them..[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==WikiLeaks; Content issues==
| |
| I'm going to deal with content issues and behaviour issues separately. For now this is ''only'' about content issues.
| |
|
| |
|
| [[WikiLeaks]] is a draft article, ostensibly about a website, but inevitably engaging in a highly controversial topic of wide importance. The issue is how to approach this in a way that is objective and scholarly. The dispute engages two different visions of Citizendium; should ''all'' articles be "a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge" according to principles of academic scholarship? Or are some articles better as a detailed, annotated log of significant events and opinions? Two editors adopt different positions; to one, the second position is flawed; it cannot produce a coherent, objective and neutral commentary. To the other, a log of events and opinions is valuable and informative, can be objective in the sense of avoiding an editorial tone, and can be neutral by ensuring balance in the selection of quotes and events.
| | == Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman == |
|
| |
|
| The first editor asserts that academic objectivity requires a structured approach to the issues, and that extensive use of quotes subverts that process. Specifically, this editor feels that the article at present takes a “US-centric approach” by characterising the issues from the perspective of US interests, and expanding the article to encompass all other perspectives would make it chaotic. By his view, the better, academically objective approach might be more to look at the global significance of WikiLeaks, and to structure the article (for example) by characterising the issues of principle involved: freedom of speech; freedom of information; the roles and responsibilities of a free press in a liberal democracy; ''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?''; the need to hold governments accountable; how governments operate and the rights of the governed to know that; how these things are balanced by threats to individual liberty or national security; the impact that open disclosure may have on the quality of government etc. etc.
| | Gareth, you already have a user page. This is CZ:Ombudsman, not CZ:Gareth, so the phrase "relating to '''my''' role" should be changed to '''the''' role. And then the page should be edited so as not to provide a different version of the Charter than the Charter we actually have. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Any selection of quotes or events on such a hot and divisive issues is likely to be contentious. The second editor has portrayed a broad spread of opinion in his selection of quotes – but at present the article solely addresses the perceived impact on US interests - i.e. they are opinions (positive and negative) about the impact of WikiLeaks ''as it concerns the US'', or they engage in discussion of the particular organisational aspects of WikiLeaks, but do not directly address the fundamental issues of ethos and principle.
| | : Sorry for being slow to respond. This page is for any comments and discussion about my actions and decisions as Ombudsmun, not about the role of Ombudsman ''per se''. I've changed 'my role' to 'my actions'. My user page should not be used for discussion about my actions as Ombudsman. |
|
| |
|
| Past WikiLeaks disclosures have for example included publishing the BNP membership list, with no direct US interests engaged; but even disclosures of US diplomatic information engage not only US interests but global interests. They, for example, engage issues between Saudi Arabia and Iran - and whether disclosing ''those'' matters is in the global public interest is separate from the issue of whether disclosure is in the US interests. It might (or might not) be that disclosing ''that'' is in the long term interests of peace, but not in short-term US diplomatic interests.
| | I've now given the full text of Article 39 rather than just the key sentences that define the scope.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| The WikiLeaks disclosures even before the latest episode were far reaching and controversial. The volume of disclosed material is massive. This article cannot attempt to log all significant disclosures and discuss them all objectively by all their potential implications. There needs to be some basis for selecting what things to report; and one basis would be that those chosen best exemplify particular issues. ''That'' seems to require that the issues be first identified in an article roadmap.
| | ==Political messages== |
| | I have added [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4247.msg45149.html#msg45149 this post] to the forums regarding the recent protest over SOPA/PIPA, requesting Ombudsman input over whether such campaigns are outside [[CZ:Charter#Article 23|Article 23]] and which Council is responsible for future policy. Thanks. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| It's a challenge.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
| | :Thanks; I'll consider this.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
This discussion page is for any requests for my involvement in disputes as Ombudsman, and any comments on my actions as Ombudsman, and any comments of the role of Ombudsman.Gareth Leng 12:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a low tolerance for personal attacks on any member of Citizendium. I expect every message here be civil, professional, and respectful of other members. Complaints about behaviour of other Citizens should be directed to the Constabulary and not to me. By all means explain disputes here - and feel free to debate openly with me on issues. But any messages that contain any infringement of civility and professionalism will be deleted. It should be assumed that their contents are completely forgotten by me, though not necessarily by the Constabulary.'Gareth Leng 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiLeaks; Content issues
The text here has been moved to the Talk page of WikiLeaks, including all discussion. A copy of my review of the content issues may be found on the Ombudsman Decisions subpage Gareth Leng 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler
Below is a copy of a request made today to the Management Council.
"Following the dispute on Adolf Hitler I gave my interpretation of the Charter, and specifically relating to Article 40 clause 3. "All Citizens shall have the right to a fair hearing, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: the opportunity to present one's case in one's defense, the right to be heard by a fair and unprejudiced body, the right to have others offer testimony on one's behalf"
My interpretation of the Charter is that the Editorial Council has the final say on matters of content (given that their say is consistent with the Charter) and therefore its decisions on content cannot be appealed except on those grounds. I interpret the clause above as applying only to disciplinary actions taken against individuals.
Can you please either affirm my interpretation or reject it."
On the Talk page of Adolf Hitler I also made some obervations that I repeat below
"This case also raises some general issues of importance relating to content, - and also raises some issues of behaviour, in particular the apparent "rights" of editors to "own" articles that they have written, and exactly what constitutes relevant expertise. An early principle was that when an editor writes an article he or she is acting as an author not an editor and should not exercise editorial authority over that content. This is a principle best exercised lightly, but editorial authority is generally best exercised lightly. If an article is truly specialist and intended for academic reading, as some here are, it is likely to be written by an expert and unlikely to be challenged unless by other experts. However, if an article is intended for lay readers then its structure and content must be open to challenge and constructive input from those it is intended to reach. The art of good writing is to convey ideas clearly and concisely from one mind to another, and the task of an expert is to achieve that while ensuring that the process is a balanced and objective representation of current knowledge and understanding. Now anyone has a valid contribution to make by questioning whether such an article does in fact achieve those aims. Anyone may question whether the logic of an article is clear, whether the language is fluent and accessible, whether the structure is helpful, whether the evidence is appropriately sourced, whether the content is interesting and appropriate, and no expert judgement is required for these things - for these are the things by which the quality of an article must also be judged. It must be open for readers to judge whether changes to an article are an improvement, and they should not be intimidated from making such judgements; quite the contrary - an expert who ignores his readership is no expert."
Gareth Leng 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since you made this as a formal request, and you presumably have access to the Management Council email that I do not, would you please pass along that I disagree vehemently with your interpretation, and that I request that I be able to formally present the reasons for that disagreement privately, if the Management Council takes up the review of your request. I see no point in arguing it in the unstructured environment of talk pages. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Management Council can be contacted through their private forum or you may contact them individually through their citizendium email accounts. D. Matt Innis 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, no special access. I should have made it clearer that my request to the MC was exactly as written, - it did not include the comments below that I posted on the Talk page of Adolf Hitler; they are irrelevant to the issue of Charter interpretation. Gareth Leng 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman
Gareth, you already have a user page. This is CZ:Ombudsman, not CZ:Gareth, so the phrase "relating to my role" should be changed to the role. And then the page should be edited so as not to provide a different version of the Charter than the Charter we actually have. David Finn 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for being slow to respond. This page is for any comments and discussion about my actions and decisions as Ombudsmun, not about the role of Ombudsman per se. I've changed 'my role' to 'my actions'. My user page should not be used for discussion about my actions as Ombudsman.
I've now given the full text of Article 39 rather than just the key sentences that define the scope.Gareth Leng 10:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Political messages
I have added this post to the forums regarding the recent protest over SOPA/PIPA, requesting Ombudsman input over whether such campaigns are outside Article 23 and which Council is responsible for future policy. Thanks. John Stephenson 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'll consider this.Gareth Leng 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
