User:Thatcher131/Sandbox3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Statement by User:Crum375
This case stems from a content dispute involving the article BDORT/Omura. Yoshiaki Omura is a man who invented an Alternative Medicine procedure he calls the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), in which a patient forms an 'O' with his/her fingers, with the diagnostician trying to pry the patient's fingers apart, while subjectively estimating the patient's finger strength. This procedure is then used by adherents to diagnose and/or treat many/most diseases known to man, from common cold to cancer. If the diagnostician is far from the patient, the procedure can also be carried out remotely via telephone.
The BDORT entry was created by the user now known as User:GenghizRat. It was initially two separate entries, BDORT and Omura, which were subsequently merged. The merge occured just around the time I arrived at the entry. I notice that User:Philosophus, who was there before I arrived, has described some of the early history of the entry, which matches my recollection.
Over the past 8 months or so, a single-issue editor User:Richardmalter (hereafter RM) who openly praises BDORT's merits, works with BDORT, teaches BDORT, and participates in BDORT seminars, having a clear conflict of interest in BDORT related matters, has been persistently trying to shape the Omura entry to a pro-BDORT version, in a tendentious fashion, over objections of virtually all other neutral logged-in contributors, but with the occasional help of anon-IP's, who are apparent sock or meat puppets. RM has tried multiple reversions (often exceeding WP:3RR) and failed, tried to use sockpuppetry when blocked, tried insulting fellow editors and still failed to get his way. He then asked for mediation, which was a prolonged process, lasting months (partly due to frequent change of mediator - we had 6 total), which despite a valiant effort on the part of all mediators, failed to find an acceptable middle ground.
After the final mediation attempt failed, the other 3 (now 4 and possibly 5) independent logged-in contributing editors in the article, all agreed on a common version (as a basis for future improvements), but RM still considers that version unacceptably POV. After a few more episodes of 3RR violations and numerous bold faced and/or capitalized allegations, insults and threats against the other editors, RM filed for Arbitration. Even after filing for Arbitration, RM continued his tendentious editing pattern, becoming blocked for 3RR violation yet again.
Despite RM's behavior and attitude, including frequent insults of other editors, frequent and repeated allegations of other editors' 'misbehavior' in bold face font and/or caps, and vandalism (deleting other editors' civil and pertinent comments from the article's Talk page), the other editors have consistently invited RM to participate on the Talk page constructively and civilly, but he declined.
Lately, some anon-IP's, who refuse to identify as another user and/or participate in the Talk page, have also edited in a similar fashion to RM. The anon-IP's also sometimes appear to threaten legal action unless their preferred version of the article is accepted or are unblocked. These IP's resolve to the NYC area (RM resides in Australia, although he has travelled to, and edited WP from the U.S. at least once) and have a different writing style from RM, so it's unlikely to be an RM sockpuppet, but could well be meatpuppet associates. The anon-IPs seem to edit more during periods when RM is blocked, and have lately begun to edit even more aggressively - and like RM were just now blocked for 3RR violation, even after this RfArb case was already underway, and are issuing apparent legal threats for being blocked, while insisting they are not 'threats'. According the the blocked IP's, WP is "conspiring to suppress proven, documented, revolutionary new diagnoses and treatments which have been repeatedly demonstrated around the world, and widely evaluated and published, and which could ease the suffering of MILLIONS.".
I got involved in the article in May 22, 2006, when by chance I spotted a frustrated comment on User:SlimVirgin's Talk page, from a user who asked SV for help with someone's tendentious edits. I went over to try to help, knowing how swamped SV always is. After 3 days of learning the issues there and some minor comments, I had a fairly good perspective of the situation, and posted this message to RM - I think it is worth reading, since as I read it now, it is still relevant today, and fully expresses my position then as well as now, after 7 months of hard work have gone by.
During the entire 7 month period, to the best of my ability, often alone in the entry and Talk page with RM, as other editors simply 'had enough' and went looking for greener pastures, I tried my very best to be civil, and follow WP's policies and guidelines. This article has cost me countless hours that could have been productively spent elsewhere, on other more enjoyable (for me) WP articles I would have preferred to create or improve, so this prolonged saga has already taken a significant toll for me and WP. I could have jumped ship at any point and just gone elsewhere on WP like some others, but decided that if I believe in WP's mission and its future success as I do, I cannot buckle under to single-issue conflict-of-interest tendentious editing, or melt away under scathing insults to my integrity, or pass the buck to someone else; I need to stick around to help keep the entry informative, neutral and well sourced, in a collaborative and civilized manner, per my best understanding of WP's rules. As I noted in the case summary above, we recently got to a point where we have 4 to 5 independent and neutral, logged-in, collaborative editors, who are all supporting one version as a basis for improvements, and we are in the process of addressing those improvements on the article's Talk page.
In closing, here is a message I recently posted to RM on the article's Talk page, after yet again being on the receiving end of a torrent of capitalized bold faced accusations, allegations and insults from him. And also this message, which I posted 2 days earlier.
If this case ends up in pointing out mistakes I made anywhere along the (very long) way, I'd be happy to understand them and learn from them. I welcome a review by ArbCom and the community of all my actions, and any criticism or comments.
