Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-08 Acupunture 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 2 Mediator Findings 2.1 Regarding Dunc's Conduct 2.1.1 Regarding violation of WP:CIVIL 2.1.2 Regarding violation of WP:FAITH 2.1.3 Regarding violations of WP:DR 2.1.4 Regarding violation of WP:TPG 2.1.5 Conclusion of Findings on Conduct of Dunc 2.2 Regarding Jim Butler's conduct 2.3 Note on Findings 3 Miscellaneous 3.1 Compromise offers 3.1.1 Preliminary Compromise Offer 3.1.2 First Compromise Offer 3.2 Discussion 3.2.1 Comments by Slowmover 3.2.2 Comments by A Y Arktos 3.2.3 Comments by William Avery 3.2.4 Comments by Ground Zero 3.2.5 Comments by Jim Butler 4 Comments by pproctor 5 Case Closed

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-08 Acupunture

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Jim Butler^(talk) 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Acupuncture, Acupressure, Acupuncture point, Category talk:Alternative medicine, Category:Quackery, my user talk page.

Who's involved?

User:Duncharris (aka Dunc), Jim Butler^(talk)

What's going on?

I want to remove category:pseudoscience from some pages, per NPOV cautions expressed in WP:CG (relevant excerpts here, e.g "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories."). I've always been careful to explain my reasoning and have been happy to discuss these edits.

Dunc has been continually reverting my edits without discussing them even in edit summaries [1][2][3][4][5], which is a gross violation of WP:DR. Rarely has he discuss his reverts, and then in a cursory and uncivil manner [6]. I tried to engage him on his user talk page [7], but to no avail: his response was to disdainfully state his intention to continue his behavior [8].

Recently on acupressure he reverted and wrongly called my good-faith edit vandalism [9]. He then took the positive step of discussing his edit on the talk page, but asked me to provide evidence that was already clearly cited in the article [10]. This suggests that he hadn't even read the article he was editing. He appears to be making the default assumption that my edits challenging his view of pseudoscience are wrong, trollish, vandalism, and not worth discussing.

On acupuncture point, Dunc told me I shouldn't remove category:pseudoscience without first justifying them on the talk page. I did so, and he ignored my comments and reverted anyway without explanation[11]. That borders on over the top.

Disturbingly, Dunc also removed (see [12]) some of my comments on Category Talk:Pseudoscience. This included discussion germaine to the article. This also included my defending myself against an accusation of disruption, which included criticisms of Dunc's failure to discuss. Removing the latter off-topic stuff is OK for refactoring, but Dunc was wrong to do so while letting the accusation I was defending against remain.

What would you like to change about that?

Dunc ought to abide by WP:CIV, WP:FAITH and especially WP:DR. Reverting without discussion should end immediately. I'd prefer for Dunc to engage discussion civilly and substantively, and refrain from making edits to pages where he is unwilling to do so. Other editors have expressed similar concerns. As an admin Dunc ought to set a better example for Wikiquette.

I would also appreciate editorial feedback on my reasoning on the use of categories: There are shades of grey in pseudoscience, and WP:CG suggests not using categories when in doubt. WP:V is clear that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain". Putting a topic in the category advances a POV; removing the category advances no POV and lets the article present who says what, and why. The latter is far more NPOV.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Doesn't matter. Thanks for taking your valuable time to consider this. Jim Butler^(talk) 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (revised comments 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Mediator response

I will take up this case. Discussion remains here and on the talkpage. --physicq210 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant to the case at hand, but looking at the numerous allegations from a diverse number of editors regarding Dunc's edits, and from Dunc's lack of cooperation in this case, an RfC may be more appropriate unless the allegations are answered to in a satisfactory way or if Dunc agrees to (and actually) cooperate in this case. However, an RfC will be issued only at the last resort. Therefore, Jim Butler, do NOT request an RfC until I have deemed this case a failure, and only if I recommend it. --physicq210 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator Findings

[edit] Regarding Dunc's Conduct

Due to overwhelming evidence by Jim Butler expressing misconduct by Dunc, and due to Dunc's refusal to cooperate with this case [13], I hereby declare my findings of the conduct of the defendant.

My findings are as follows:

[edit] Regarding violation of WP:CIVIL

Dunc has engaged in petty incivility in edit summaries on Acupuncture, Acupressure, and Acupuncture point, regarding Jim Butler's edits as "vandalism", in violation of WP:CIVIL, which states:

   Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
   * Rudeness
   * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
   * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
   * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
   * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
   * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than
     resolve a dispute.

Note: emphasis added to show violated portions

[edit] Regarding violation of WP:FAITH

Dunc has stated repeatedly that Jim Butler's edits were "vandalism," without just reason, in violation of WP:FAITH, which states:

   So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling
   it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider
   using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and
   prevent problems from escalating.

[edit] Regarding violations of WP:DR

Dunc has repeatedly refused to elaborate on his reverts of Jim Butler, often with a blunt "rv [revert] vandalism by Jim Butler," in violation of WP:DR, which states:

   Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit,
   rather than [simply] reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

Also, Dunc refuses to discuss his edits on talk pages and related channels, in violation of WP:DR, which states:

   The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page...Never carry on a dispute on the
   article page itself...Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other
   person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

[edit] Regarding violation of WP:TPG

Dunc has deleted Jim Butler's comments [14], in violation of WP:TPG, which states:

   As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission.

[edit] Conclusion of Findings on Conduct of Dunc

I hereby declare these findings to be true and backed by evidence and policies of Wikipedia.

[edit] Regarding Jim Butler's conduct

Equally, the conduct of Jim Butler has been questioned, and has led me to the following conclusion:

Insofar as I can see from the talkpages, most editors believe that the topics submitted by Jim Butler (Acupuncture, Acupressure, etc.) are pseudoscientific. WP:NPOV states:

   The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task
   is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the
   minority view...

In short, Jim Butler did not obtain consensus with editors prior to removal of the category.

[edit] Note on Findings

Any of these decisions may be challenged on the talk page of this case. Grievances will be considered. These decisions, like all decisions of the Mediation Cabal, are not binding.

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Preliminary Compromise Offer

Change Category:Pseudoscience to Category:Protoscience as it does fit the description. --physicq210 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawn pending developments. --physicq210 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Compromise Offer

Leave Category:Pseudoscience as is. Instead, discuss on talk pages with editors to reach consensus. Removal shall be an agreement instead of unilateral action.

Dunc should attempt to explain his reverts of Jim Butler. While it may be justified (depending on interpretation), try to explain the reason of the reverts in detail, instead of just labeling them "vandalism." Vandalism is defined in WP:VANDAL as:

   Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

which does not fit the description since the matter of the addition (and deletion) of the category is in dispute.

Dunc, please try to use a more conciliatory tone in your edit summaries and talk. Although we understand what you are trying to say, they often sound offensive to others, and that may have sparked this case in the first place.

Any discussion related to this compromise offer should go on talkpage. --physicq210 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Discuss here only when necessary or if you wish to submit comments regarding behavior of one or more parties in this mediation case.

[edit] Comments by Slowmover

In an unrelated matter, I also found Dunc's behavior assumed bad faith and lacked civility. Specifically, this concerned the disambiguation page Them. Dunc spotted an earlier edit I had made which had removed some content he had added, and immediately reverted it as vandalism [15]. I decided to revert Dunc, but explained myself on his talk page [16], and complained about the accusation of vandalism. His response was to ignore my complaint, revert me again, and repeat his accusation of vandalism [17].

After this, I decided to check Dunc out, discovered he was a sysop, and that there were other examples of similar conflicts in his talk archives. I began to wonder if Dunc was trying to lure me into a 3RR violation, so I decided that I would stay away from him. Before walking away from this conflict, I documented my position on the discussion page Talk:Them, and added a final comment on his talk page [18]. Dunc finally paid attention to at least one of my points and made a minor correction to his reversions [19]. He then immediately archived his talk page, which I found curious. I found his behavior and attitude to be unacceptable in a sysop, and his 3rd "vandalism" accusation in his edit summary here to be inexcusably rude, since he was now aware that I was editing in good faith. I was also surprised that he didn't seem to care that his edits weren't really conforming to WP:N and Mos:DP.

Overall, I found my interaction with Dunc dispiriting, and my concerns increased about the future of Wikipedia with admins behaving like this, which drives good editors away. -- Slowmover 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by A Y Arktos

Like Slowmover, I also have had a less than civil interaction with User:Duncharris on an unrelated matter whereby he accused me of vandalism in an edit summary. Had not discussed the matter first on the article's talk page. I had discussed it there and had requested citations for the article more than one month ago. Duncharris seems unaware of, or unwilling to accept the WP:Cite policy, commenting that "this place can get verification-happy". In my case he breached civilty as far as I am concerned. I was interested to see this mediation on his talk page immediately above my posting to him asking for an explanation. I thus note I am not the only victim of his incivility. --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Incivility continued at Talk:Kangaroo court where he accused me of trolling, being lazy and stupid! He also used the rollback button inappropriately, still failing to meet WP:Cite - antoher editor commented on this behaviour also.[20]. --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by William Avery

Further evidence of Dunc's tendency to escalate the emotional temperature will be found on his talk page at the Commons. Seeing that he replied to the civil request "please try to find those permissions (I'm sure, you got them)" with "I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am lying" fills me with foreboding about trying to pursue similar issues with other images he has uploaded there. --William Avery 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Ground Zero

I, too, am appalled by the persistently aggressive and uncivil behaviour by an admin. When I copyedited Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen, an article full of deadlinks, I fixed numerous deadlinks, adjusted the text, and removed several deadlinks. Duncharris restored the deleted links with the edit summary "reinstate vandalised links". When I pointed out that I had made several unquestionably useful improvements to the article and asked for an apology, he continued to insist that removing deadlinks "might be interpreted as vandalism". He still has not, as far as I know, created articles for any of the deadlinks that he restored. See his talk page and mine. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Today he accused me of vandalism again. See User_talk:Ground_Zero#Adrian_Knatchbull-Hugessen. Sadly, it does not appear that he is paying this mediation effort any heed. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Jim Butler

I'm not terribly heartened by Dunc's removal without discussion today of Template:POV-title that I placed on category:pseudoscience. From Category_talk:Pseudoscience, it's obvious that disagreement exists over how to handle this cat. I thought the whole point of dispute templates was to flag the articles and attract discussion so as to help build consensus. Removing the tag without discussion is not only poor Wikiquette, but contrary to the bedrock principle of consensus itself. Unfortunately it doesn't appear Dunc has taken this MedCab request to heart. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Using my own judgment, you may have used the wrong tag. Many of the included articles are obviously pseudoscience, and your tag may give the impression that the undisputed pseudoscience articles are true. Maybe use the {{cleancat}} tag? --physicq210 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, that was used before and does fit better. Thanks! Jim Butler^(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again Dunc does it on acupuncture[21]. Implicit agreement or not, reverts need to be discussed unless they're simple vandalism. Admins should uphold WP:DR, not flout it. Jim Butler^(talk) 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful - that argument comes in my experience mostly from frustrated POV-pushers who add contentious text and then edit-war about its removal. The pseudoscience category has been reviewed more than once, it definitely has a place, so physicq210 is right. Whether or not acupuncture should be in it is a question which can be addressed by answering one simple question: is it represented as pseudoscience by multiple reputable authorities. If so, then it can and probably should go in. If the definition is disputed this should be discussed in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask that you be careful too -- innocent people will protest their innocence just as loudly as the guilty. Are you sure there's POV-pushing here? Edit wars are lame, but sometimes they do happen over legitimtate differences of opinion. Please read WP:NPOVT#Categorisation and what it links to, and Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. They don't quite support your suggested criterion for category inclusion: "is it represented as pseudoscience by multiple reputable authorities". Also read recent discussion on Talk:Pseudoscience and Talk:Chiropractic, and you'll see I'm not the only editor who is concerned about overuse of this category. I don't think we're not at consensus yet. But refusal to discuss won't get us there any faster. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be continuing this discussion here? This case has been closed. --Salix alba (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by pproctor

I also second Dunc's bad behavior. Everybody has bad days, but this seems far too much and with too many people. In fact, as a physician, I wonder whether there isn't some psychiatric issue. Normal tussles are normal. But this guy is completely over the top.

We went round and round on Raymond Damadian. He put me thru all of the above-- reversions without explaination, lots of abuses, insults, misstatements of "the rules", etc. I put on a "disputed section" tag and he removed it. I would try to put in something to bring the POV to neutral and he would just revert it. No discussion, nothing.

In fact, I can't believe this guy is an administrator-- something which should be reviewed, ASAP. If Wikipedia wants good editors, it cannot treat them like this. And his continual flouting of "the rules" is not conducive to having them followed.

Even worse, I made the horrible mistake of letting my true ID be known. Next thing I know, he is seeking out my other posts on Wikipedia and giving them "the treatment". Totally nuts-- like when you set off some psychotic. I don't need this trouble. Wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger has long noted the difficulty of keeping good editors in the presence of such "fools and trolls". Pproctor 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case Closed

I hereby declared this case to be closed. --physicq210

Case Closed: 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)