imported>Gareth Leng |
imported>Boris Tsirelson |
| (40 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
|
| |
|
| == Blanking == | | == Content ruling by the Managing Editor == |
| This is not acceptable. I am now referring this to the ME and Constabulary. The article is not scientific and is written to win the argument about terminology. It has no references and NO SUPPORTING FACTS for the claims made in it. Just an opinion piece. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :I have also referred it to the Constabulary. It did, in fact, have one reference in the early draft that was blanked, as well as many wikilinks. I only discovered it was blanked when I was about to add references from the [[International Criminal Court]] | | [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=War_crime&oldid=100732352 The current version of this article] does not provide the reader with any information about the topic at hand, so it is simply not suitable for the main namespace. I thus rule that the current version be replaced by the following: |
| | <pre> |
| | {{subpages}} |
| | '''War crimes''', along with [[genocide]] and [[crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]], are |
| | serious violations of [[international humanitarian law]] (both customary |
| | and treaty) that have been determined as [[criminal offence]]s with |
| | individual responsibility. |
| | </pre> |
|
| |
|
| :Even an Editor in a group can only mark something for deletion, or perhaps move the contents to the talk page. I am a History and Military Editor. Martin is not an editor in these groups or in Law. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | The article should then remain locked until further procedures to allow content development have been worked out. This talk page shall be locked for 24h as well. |
|
| |
|
| :I don't want to revert the blanking, but let me save here what I was about to add:
| | --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) ([[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]]) |
| ::The [[International Criminal Court]] has " jurisdiction over [[genocide]], [[crimes against humanity]] and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the [[Rome Statute]]. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime. " Its jurisdiction applies to both the direct perpetrators "as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute." <ref>{{citation
| |
| | http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/ICC+at+a+glance/Jurisdiction+and+Admissibility.htm
| |
| | title = Jurisdiction and Admissibility
| |
| | publisher = [[International Criminal Court]]}}</ref>
| |
| :Given wikilinks to [[Hague Conventions]], [[hostis humani generis]], [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] and [[Geneva Conventions]], I'd hardly call the article unsourced. Now, it would be one thing to claim ownership, and not take edits, but it's hard to edit that which was blanked. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :: Martin, I think you are wildly out of line here. Granted the article could be improved, in particular it could be better sourced, but I see no justification at all for blanking it. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC) | | :Text replaced on the article page consistent with the above ruling and talk page locked for 24 hours per ME. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
| :::Sandy, you are not in possession of the facts, so you will not know why. This has become a serious disciplinary issue involving Howard and the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::: Where should I look for "the facts"? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) | | ::This talk page is now unlocked per the above ME ruling. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Ombudsman== | | == Citizen confused about the history of [[War crime]] == |
| By Article 39 of the Charter, an Ombudsman is available to mediate any dispute. Agreements worked out through mediation shall be binding but may be appealed.
| |
|
| |
|
| I have been asked to intervene here and on [[Josef Mengele]].
| | The Talk page does not help in following the reasons for the events that led to blocking this article. To wit, Martin's reasons for blanking the Main Article are not detailed on the Talk page, and his brief note seen on the History page does not enlighten. David's reversion, possibly based on Martin's lack of detailed explanation, was again reverted. |
|
| |
|
| As far as I am aware, I have no conflict of interest, I have not contributed to either article or to any related article, nor have I formed or expressed any view on the merits of the arguments either formally or privately
| | Why cannot a Citizen see what's going on by reviewing the Talk page? Perhaps Martin had good reason to blank the article, but if so, he did not exemplify or amplify. David's justification for restoring also were not justified on the Talk page. |
|
| |
|
| Do those involved in this dispute agree to my intervention here? My role I think would be to summarise the substantive issues raised, make an interim ruling based on the Charter, and pre-existing policy guidelines, and report to the EC.
| | Nor did Howard, who initiated and begin developing the article, comment on the Talk page. |
| Are those involved willing that any interim ruling be binding pending future decisions of the EC?
| |
| [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :I have blanked the page again, since I object to the whole tenor of the article, which is deliberately being written to support Howard's position in another dispute. i have referred the matter to the Constabulary and Ombudsman, and this will likely appear before the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | I'd like to see this important topic developed, in part selfishly as I'd like to learn about the topic. I don't see any collaborative work being done, and now I cannot add my meager contributions, should I have any. |
|
| |
|
| :: I think we need an immediate interim ruling from the ombudsman on whether this blanking is justified. I'd say obviously not, but it is not my call. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | Houston, we have a problem. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
| | | :Yes. It's up to the EC now, since the Ombudsman cannot act. And the EC is minus two people, and another three who are largely absent at this time...[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
| :::As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority. He obliges me to take all of this to the two Councils (when there are more serious problems to be sorted out than Howard's rejection of CZ policy). [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| | ::Yes, we have a lot of problems here. However, a cute Citizen (or even non-Citizen) is able to find [[Talk:War crime/Archive 1|more information in the archive]]. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
| | |
| We now quite obviously have a '''revert war'''. Martin has now blanked the page three times. David Finn restored it twice, in my view correctly. '''Ombudsman, please rule.''' [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| : We are now at four blankings and three restorations. This is absurd. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 15:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Gareth, with all personal respect, I do not accept mediation. I believe this can only be resolved by disciplinary action; it's but one manifestation of a continuing problem. | |
| | |
| ::::"As I see it so far, Howard is not accepting the Ombudsman's authority." This is logically flawed. First, I'm just seeing this, and the Ombudsman has not made any ruling. Second, the Ombudsman, even if invoked, is a mediator that tries to make informal actions, which are preferably accepted but may be appealed.
| |
| | |
| ::::Since I do not accept mediation, then the Ombudsman has no role here. Again, Martin is interpreting what I believe, and, in this case, not very logically, since the Ombudsman process has not started because one of the sides does not accept it, quite within the rules of the Charter.
| |
| | |
| ::::I am not "forcing" Martin to do anything. Be very clear that the matter is a question of my rejecting his usurpation of authority -- his blanking is quite outside the rules. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::In going through edit notes, I discover that Martin claims this is a dispute between two Editors, both on the Editorial Council. That is a distortion. Yes, we are both EC members and Editors, but we are Editors in different workgroups. I am a History and Military Editor but Martin is not. Since there are other History Editors, the Charter principle of going to the lowest level would apply before the EC asserts any authority -- which Martin has not yet requested. Unfortunately, the most active other History Editor is Russell Jones, and I both hate to bother him at the moment, and he might have a conflict of interest as MC Chair. Roger Lohmann might be able to help, although I know he has heavy job responsibilities.
| |
| | |
| :::::Nevertheless, if it were simply the matter of "war criminal", there is no reason that an Editor decision is not relevant. That decision could be appealed to the EC. If no Editor is available, the next step, in an urgent matter, would be the Managing Editor. The advocate for creating the ME saw him as appropriate for situations that need urgent attention, and I think this qualifies. Martin's statement that there is a behavioral issue between me and the EC is fantasy, in that there is no discussion of my behavior either on the EC wiki or mailing list. I have drafted, before this incident, a preliminary work item proposal on article policy; if it's not seen to be conflict of interest, I shall try to finish the draft later today. Incidentally, it doesn't directly address objectivity/neutrality, other than recommending a task force structure, as I have done for other major issues, to get direct Citizen expert input. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ← Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, this is exactly the kind of behaviour that deters people from contributing to the ''Citizendium'': bickering over comparatively minor issues while there are hundreds of articles on far more neutral soil that could be written right now. I understand that there is an underlying interpersonal dispute here, and I trust that the Constabulary will deal with it appropriately; but, for the time being, please cease this pointless reversion-warring! I suggest that, for the time being, the article is left blanked, but a precedent should be set by the Ombudsman or by the relevant authorities as to the correct course of action in future disputes that bear similarities to this one.
| |
| | |
| At any rate, some vaguely adult behaviour would be greatly appreciated right now. [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :You do not understand correctly, Tom. This is about Howard trying to rewrite CZ policy without the approval of the EC. It is not personal, it is not childish, it is about politics and people who think they can get their own way on CZ. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: As far as I know, it's also outside of ''Citizendium'' policy to completely blank articles in which one holds no editorial authority; at any rate, please let's not get into name-calling here. And exactly, it's politics and an inability to compromise—I'm not blaming any particular party here—that deters many helpful people from contributing to this project. [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC) | |
| | |
| ::: The only urgent issue in this matter is to stop the "revert war" without accusations of committing a "war crime" ''';-)'''. Personally, I do not see serious problems with leaving the article blanked nor with leaving the article as written, possibly with an addition to the intro written by Martin that has to be kept until an official decision is made. Both options must not be interpreted as taking one side and must not be claimed as victory. Since not all participants accept dispute resolution on a lower level the EC will have to decide, and both the ME and the Ombudsman need not become involved at this stage. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Clearly I have no role here at present in mediating between disputing parties. By Article 32 (5) [The Editorial Council shall] adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium; by Article 36 the Managing Editor can make an interim decision on behalf of the EC. How the EC wishes to proceed in adjudicating disputes is up to the EC. However, by Article 40(2). "When a formal decision is necessary or demanded, the Ombudsman shall facilitate the presentation of the issue to the appropriate body — Editorial Council for content disputes, Management Council for disputes involving violation of the rules." This stands alone, and does not appear to require any agreement from any parties for the Ombudsman to act in this way. Clearly it would be inappropriate and unproductive for the Ombudsman to duplicate work being done by others. I therefore suggest that the Ombudsman should act in accordance with Article 40(2) either by agreement among the disputants, or at the invitation of the EC or MC. I am repeating this message on [[War crimes]].[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == General remark on expertise ==
| |
| | |
| Expertise defined and granted by Editorship in Workgroups is necessarily vague and not precise.
| |
| It will often happen that an Editor in a related field, or even a non-Editor, knows more about a subject than the corresponding Editor.
| |
| Such expertise should also be respected.
| |
| Disputes on such issues should always be carried out by '''arguments''', not by wielding the Editor's sword (i.e., a reference to Editor status),
| |
| in particular, if the Editor is defending his own work.
| |
| --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :This has been a bone of contention for some time on CZ. We are going to have to sort it out on the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
Content ruling by the Managing Editor
The current version of this article does not provide the reader with any information about the topic at hand, so it is simply not suitable for the main namespace. I thus rule that the current version be replaced by the following:
{{subpages}}
'''War crimes''', along with [[genocide]] and [[crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]], are
serious violations of [[international humanitarian law]] (both customary
and treaty) that have been determined as [[criminal offence]]s with
individual responsibility.
The article should then remain locked until further procedures to allow content development have been worked out. This talk page shall be locked for 24h as well.
--Daniel Mietchen 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) (Managing Editor)
- Text replaced on the article page consistent with the above ruling and talk page locked for 24 hours per ME. D. Matt Innis 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This talk page is now unlocked per the above ME ruling. D. Matt Innis 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Citizen confused about the history of War crime
The Talk page does not help in following the reasons for the events that led to blocking this article. To wit, Martin's reasons for blanking the Main Article are not detailed on the Talk page, and his brief note seen on the History page does not enlighten. David's reversion, possibly based on Martin's lack of detailed explanation, was again reverted.
Why cannot a Citizen see what's going on by reviewing the Talk page? Perhaps Martin had good reason to blank the article, but if so, he did not exemplify or amplify. David's justification for restoring also were not justified on the Talk page.
Nor did Howard, who initiated and begin developing the article, comment on the Talk page.
I'd like to see this important topic developed, in part selfishly as I'd like to learn about the topic. I don't see any collaborative work being done, and now I cannot add my meager contributions, should I have any.
Houston, we have a problem. Anthony.Sebastian 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It's up to the EC now, since the Ombudsman cannot act. And the EC is minus two people, and another three who are largely absent at this time...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we have a lot of problems here. However, a cute Citizen (or even non-Citizen) is able to find more information in the archive. Boris Tsirelson 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
