Talk:Archive:Ombudsman/Archive 1

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)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

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 intendedGareth 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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. 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.

This page may provide additional material to discover the nature of the dispute. David Finn 05:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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! Milton Beychok 08:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, I couldn't act, because Howard refused to accept my involement. 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.

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.Gareth Leng 12:03, 16 November 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). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I will speak only to procedures, not the content of the article.

First, the Managing Editor does not support Martin's interpretation. See [1] 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.

Third, I question the amount of speculation here, by Martin, about my motivations. The Charter says that disputes should be handled at the lowest level possible, and, in this case, there are two active History Editors who could be consulted. While the workgroup system unquestionably needs review, it remains in effect, and simply to declare one is a social science editor so one should be accepted in related groups -- law being the only one that is a social science, the others being History and Military, is a very questionable assumption.

I could speculate on Martin's motivations, but that would probably be unprofessional. See sauces, goose and gander.

Fourth, I question the phrasing of "refused" mediation. Mediation, by definition, is a voluntary alternate dispute resolution procedure. It is "declined", but not "refused". At least in U.S. Law, a judge will instruct a jury that they cannot make inferences from someone exercising a right, be that the manner in which they are sworn, if they do or do not testify on their own behalf, etc. Martin's inferences that I somehow did something wrong by declining mediation is quite inappropriate.

@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.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.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. I believe several of Martin's comments here deserve a {{nocomplaints}}, but I don't know if that's your responsibility or that of Constables.

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?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.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? 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.Gareth Leng 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On other issues

a) see (..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.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. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I object very strongly to the personalizations and attacks made against me here, especially when the matter has yet to appear before the two Councils for adjudication. I find this damaging and disrespectful to CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)