Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Yoshiaki Omura

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
- 1.1 Template
- 1.2 Template
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Questions to the parties
4 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

1) GhengizRat is effectively presently, and in fact, in the past personally, involved with the subject of this entry and has had major disagreements with Dr Omura, and has a personal bias against Dr Omura, which has been clearly displayed over many months in his editing and disruption of discussion, and he should not be allowed to edit this entry further as he does not have a neutral position towards Dr Omura (but the opposite).Richardmalter 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Crum375 has developed a personal involvement in this entry based on his indirectly stated bias about the subject of this entry that I have documented in the Evidence (such that he has been led by his bais to be continuously resistant to mediation and so caused the past break down of mediation which would have ended all edit warring as documented by me with diffs and confirmed by the last Mediator with his diffs presented by me) and should not be allowed to edit this entry.Richardmalter 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

3) GhengizRat has obviously attempted to defame Dr Omura: his use of citations in the Affiliations heading of the entry is WP:OR and a clear instance of 'case-making' and this paragraph should be deleted or drastically amended. Richardmalter 10:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

4) GhengizRat and Crum375 should be obliged to keep to full consensus mediated agreements that they have been fully, voluntarily part of. These have been documented by me in the Evidence together with their evasion of keeping their agreements.Richardmalter 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

5) RE [WP:BLP]: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.

I have acted according to this, as can now be understood from the statement by Dr Omura (partly delivered privately to ArbCom), aiming to stop the malicious and determined efforts to discredit Dr Omura, catagorize his work as negative, etc.

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." ^[2]

Richardmalter 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first motion would appear to depend solely upon WP:COI for its justification. If not having a neutral position were a reason for banning from a topic, no articles would ever be written in Wikipedia. I know of the details of the situation with GhengizRat, and I do not see how they cause a conflict of interest per WP:COI. While, for example, Richardmalter has a clear financial gain, self-promotion gain, campaigning gain, and close relationship conflict, it doesn't seem to me that GhengizRat has any of those problems.

As for the second motion, it doesn't appear to me that any justification for such banning is given in policy or guidelines. Again, nearly everyone interested enough in a topic to edit it has a bias, and in this case, far from editing contentiously, Crum has has wide support for his edits, and has acted very reasonably. To bring into consideration some ArbCom precedent, it should be remembered that editors who have edited in far more contentious manners, such as ScienceApologist, have not been banned from editing in the applicable topics when their edits have complied with policy. --Philosophus ^T 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum has wides support for his edits is incorrect - this has been documented; though he does continuously attempt to misrepresent the situation as the last Mediator noted as have I; his disclaimers have never been agreed on by anyone else - and he has been told by a number of Admins that it is against WP policies and would be a precedent that needs widespread discussion first; this is fact; the version up at the moment that he edit warred even against the last Mediator - which is the height of unreasonable editing - did not have the support of at least three other completely neutral editors including the last Mediator, (proved by the fact that there was an edit war even involving the last Mediator) the Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, and one other. GhengizRat is prepared even to go to Dr Omura's seminars and attempt to spread disrepute about him - his is a very very entrenched and strong bias. As one of the other Admins commented: (as I presented with diffs) he is not willing to listen to any kind of reason. He is entrenched in his defamatory intentions. I understand that you are sympathetic to his views. You have simply listed some of your opinions. Richardmalter 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing Philosophus. Previously, repeatedly, I have corrected Crum375, as I correct your mistake now, that I do not have any "financial gain, self-promotion gain, campaigning gain" from this entry; my livelihood does not depend on this entry or any publicity; (not everyone in the world is motivated by financial gain even though the capitalism of life is virtually ubiquitous); my professional 'success' or 'failure' depends on plain objective clinical results in the place where I work or lack of them. That is, helping unwell people (who have often failed to be helped by mainstream western medicine) or not being able to do this; You do not know my position here; and cannot know about it from where you are. You can only speculate - which is another word for guess; I ask you to refrain from your guessing as if it is factual because if you do not it will then be deliberate misrepresentation by you; Crum375 did not listen to my requests and seemed to be willing to attempt to slander me, repeatedly; I hope you do not follow his example but instead show good faith.Richardmalter 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The representation by Richardmalter above as to the role Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test plays in his own practice may be judged, if only in small part, by consideration of his web page [1] [Note: Clicking on the Cancel button twice when password is requested will effect page view]

I'll also note, briefly, that I've addressed my judgement as to RM's persistent personal attacks previously [2] and that that statement stands. GenghizRat 02:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rat, see [[3]] for comments on my website, which explains how this attempt re the website to construe according to whims is already answered. Would you also like to judge with equal veracity the colour of my shirt; or maybe the colour of the shirt of the guy next door? You will note that I only quote facts to make my arguments - for example what you have related to me re your disagreements with Dr Omura; good faith requires you do the same - only use what you know; not what you wish to know, or guess at.Richardmalter 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will let the evidence speak for itself.
I have no disagreements with Omura.
The facts, as per Wikipedia criteria, must speak for themselves. GenghizRat 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As you have related to me by email, you have had major 'disagreements' with Dr Omura, to say the least. And it is believed your entrenched views still affect you to the point that you are the individual who went to the premises of the recent conferences in NY which Dr Omura chairmans and attempted to spread disrepute about them there as well as many other recent activities of the same nature.Richardmalter 07:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could both of you keep from getting into an argument here? These sorts of arguments don't tend to add much to the discussion and have the tendency to make reading very difficult and tedious. --Philosophus ^T 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I'll simply note my assertion that RM's representation above is an outright lie, once again direct to my statement [4] as per above, and say nothing further. GenghizRat 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The fourth motion here would create a precedent which would destroy formal mediation. No one would participate in mediation if they know it could become so binding. --Philosophus ^T 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The fifth motion here is, for the most part, just BLP. BLP is not being disputed here and is already in the proposed decision, if I recall correctly. I can assure you that this is not the case that Jimmy Wales was referring to by "speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". --Philosophus ^T 13:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

6) It has now been confirmed and remedied within WP [5] that the version that was edit warred over for months contained BLP defamatory information.

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles and In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. and It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

This means that, according to clear, written, accepted WP policies, the Proposed findings of fact [6] regarding my editing are incorrect. Oppositely, I am in fact, the ONLY WP editor that has edited to uphold the WP:BLP rules, strongly, 'aggressively' and against a lot of opposition to them, from ALL the other parties involved, even though this was repeatedly pointed out to them. In fact, I am the only WP editor that has KEPT to BLP WP polices. (Che, the last mediator, also directed the mediation against the defamatory version). Richardmalter 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Full Consensus Mediated Agreements

Parties involved in an edit dispute must keep to full consenus mediated agreements that they have been voluntarily and fully part of. Not doing so should be considered disreputable behaviour in Wikipedia in terms of integrity and honesty as an editor and good faith towards other editors. They should be strongly encouraged to keep their agreements.Richardmalter 11:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Autobiography

1) Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, editors are highly discouraged from editing articles about subjects in which they are personally involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

1) Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem here for this principle that I personally agree with, is that there is much clear documented evidence[7] to the contrary, as also the last Mediator noted clearly[8]. Facts can't be ignored.Richardmalter 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

One certainly shouldn't ignore facts, but facts should be in the facts section, not the principles section. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Cowman109^Talk 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

3) Edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Ban for disruption

4) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally invested in a subject from editing the article about it. However such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive. In such cases a user with a conflict of interest may be banned from editing the affected article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

GhengizRat is very personally involved - he was previously employed by Dr Omura and had serious disagreements with him - and has a definite aim in his editing of this WP entry as can be seen in the Evidences that I have documented in detail. Crum375 also has a clear bias and is certainly personally involved with this entry - he has an agenda/strong opinion identified by me and Che the last mediator concerning Dr Omura/BDORT; the fact that he does not practice the BDORT is effectively a technicality viz his involvement - his repeated blocking of mediation efforts and willingness to not even accept a completely neutral stub while discussion proceeded (which was the best chance we all had to stop an edit war resuming) clearly show his entrenched personal involvement and supra-WP bias.Richardmalter 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you provide a WP diff where Rat, in any of his identities, says that he a) was employed by Omura and b) has had falling-outs with him? - Che Nuevara 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

He told me by email, where he gave many details. Why dont you ask him? Possibly a detailed statement about him is shortly forthcoming. Richardmalter 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Who's who

5) In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

6) Two-pronged principle, both of which are referred to in WP:POINT:

Editing in a way which is clearly disruptive in order to prove a point or to discourage other editors is both inappropriate and reprehensible.
"Gaming the system" so as to technically stay within the letter of policy (for example, with 3RR) is undesirable and an irresponsible interpretation of policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Che Nuevara 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:edit war

7) Even outside of actual WP:3RR violations, revert and edit warring in any fashion, regardless of how good a point an editor has, is strongly discouraged and, as per WP:EW, "are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles" and "reflect badly on participants".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Che Nuevara 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

8) As per WP:STALK, "posting another person's personal information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct, is harassment." Using an editor's personal information as leverage in a dispute or in an arbitration suit if that person did not personally put that information on Wikipedia, either directly or by link, is a serious breach of privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In principal I could agree; but if someone has a personal attachment and agenda (of defamation) towards the subject of an biography of a living person, how is this to be established (if their blatant attempts at defamation go uncorrected by the WP community)? Slandar is also a real world issue involving real people; WP ideas are fine, but if an editor displays a commitment to cause real world harm, distress, disrepute etc to a named individual, which is what is happening (by Ghengiz rat, and to Dr Omura), then this situation is not acceptable. GhengizRat has tried to create a WP:OR argument that Dr Omura has dishonestly misrepresented himself to the world. This is a very serious issue. If necessary I think that he needs to be identified to prove that he has serious personal problems involved with the subject of this entry and so stopped from his malicious attempts. Otherwise harassment is (effectively) being allowed unilaterally by WP and I do not agree to this: WP rules do not stand above the protection against attempted slandar of a living person. WP, made up of people, should act respectfully towards other people. I am also at a loss to know why WP:Biographies_of_living_persons are not being applied, to such obvious attempts at 'case making'. I am referring to GenghizRat's attempt at defamation in the Affiliations section. Richardmalter 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound juvenile, but two wrongs don't make a right. There are avenues for dealing with BLP problems. Violating privacy isn't one of them. We can't make it policy that policy breaches can be addressed with further breaches. - Che Nuevara 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Che, I agree; I have sent a full statement by Dr Omura by email to ArbCom. I am working with SlimVirgin on a version that addresses the WP entry only (without mention of anything to do with GhengizRat) to publish here - so editors can actually reference what Dr Omura says and - rather than guess and deliberately defame him - which has already caused real world harm which I understand is the actual intention. You would know this too if you read the full statement which describes very extreme actions. I am sure WP has BLP "avenues" - the question is why they have not been used!! which in my opinion - since they have already caused very significant real world harm - is disgraceful and totally irresponsible and should be ackowledged as such by the WP community - who are not above such things regardless of what they may think or policies they may write.Richardmalter 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Che Nuevara 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Richardmalter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), a single purpose account, identifies himself as an Australian practitioner of alternative medicine using the BDORT technique click "cancel" twice to access.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Identity Fred Bauder 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It should also be noted that in his evidence, Richardmalter asserts that he knows Omura and discusses Wikipedia's coverage of BDORT with him, making this even more of a WP:AUTO issue. --Philosophus ^T 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Disruptive editing

3) Richardmalter and other accounts and anonymous ips with the same editing pattern have edited Yoshiaki Omura in an aggressive biased manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I restate as I did on the Evidences page that I was not the individual, and did not ask, or have any knowledge of anyone, who wiped out some of the Talk page using 'Richardmalter'. I request that the differentiation be made; and state that any statement of fact regarding me about aggressive editing is untrue.Richardmalter 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Ban for disruption

1) Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous ips with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. Alternate accounts and anonymous ips, as identified, to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yoshiaki_Omura#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If this applies to me I see this as grossly unfair as I have not edited in an aggressive manner whatsoever. I am not the individual who wiped out some of the Talk page recently. This needs to be made clear so that it is not carried over into other discussions/agreements. I would not be surprised if ti was actually an attemp to discredit me by the other parties - one who I know resides in NY. Also, the other parties generally have edit warred strategically against even the last Mediator - which I would describe as definitely aggressive behaviour.Richardmalter 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As a practitioner of this technique, you would have to have been very discrete for your edits to not be disruptive. You have not been. You have clearly used Wikipedia to advance your mode of practice. Fred Bauder 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Another point, Fred, is that if I state to you that you are mistaken in your interpretation of what you think are my intentions, then good faith strongly suggests to you that you correct your misunderstanding; otherwise you are strongly suggesting that I am a liar - which is height of not being civil. If I do not hear from you, I will take it that you have corrected your hoenst mistake.Richardmalter 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only answer straightforwardly that this is your interpretation, not a correct analysis of actual motivations and events at all. Can I ask you to please note what I documented with diffs in the Evidence, that I was the sole party that did agree to all proposed versions by both mediators (who I believe you will agree were neutral), the neutral stub being the last and easiest to remind of these, and that this documented fact, even on its own (which it is not), I trust you will consider, refutes that interpretation. Every part of the last sentence can be verified by the diffs I have presented. The other parties did not do any of those things. I do not seek to advance my mode of practice whatsoever from WP; this is gross misinterpretation - these are not my motivations at all; as I have stated I want and have argued for over many months for a neutral article; you will see the mediators' comments accept my suggestions as very positive in many cases during mediation; the other two parties have consistently blocked mediation attempts either outright, or by the process of wearing any attempt at mediation down - all of which I have documented in detail with diffs. I find it very hard to see from the evidences I presented, how such an interpretation comes about. I ask you to read through and consider again. Thanks.Richardmalter 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I further ask you to review the following documented-with-diffs facts (that are confirmed by the last Mediator, Che, with diffs), as it really sums up the true picture in a condensed form:

After months of arguing, it was finally suggested by Che and seconded by Cowman that we start over from the most basic neutral stub - DR Omura is .. and invented BDORT.
I agree to this; Che, confirms that I agreed to this.
GhengizRat and Crum375 do not agree to this (after first giving agreement which they later renege on to the frustration of the mediator and me).
They edit war with me and the mediator 8 minutes after the stub is up.
Appeals to them do not give any shift in their position.

Obviously, a neurtral stub like Che drafted and I agreed to does not 'advance' my practice/modality etc in any way whatsoever. An apple is roundish and of various colours is never going to be an advertisement for an apple - its just a plain, minimal, neutral stub. I agreed to it. So why did the other parties not? (They gave their 'reasons' - which I and Che pointed out were "unsubstantiated" - their preferred version could "not possibly" be more neutral than the stub). The answer is that they had adopted the strategy to keep up their preferred version at all costs - as a kind of default - and then while it remained up discuss ad infinitum; the one thing they could not agree to was that this version did not remain up during discussion; a stub totally blanked their biases to defame and discredit Omura and his techniques. The interpretation, that I want to advance what I do by means of WP cannot be maintained in light of the straightforward documented, third-party confirmed(Che, Mediator) facts I note here. The motivations of Crum375 and Ghengiz375 can, very very straightforwardly. A neutral minimal stub wou;ld have stopped all the edit wars and we could have discussed at our leisure in a civil manner for as long as it took to reach agreements. Crum375 and Ghengiz rat chose an edit war instead. So I requested Arbitration as a last resort (just as I had requested all previous mediations). Again this is just the last and easiest example of the thread of what has been happening here: please see all my Evidences for a comprehensive analysis. Thanks.Richardmalter 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Yoshiaki_Omura_Workshop_fdd5.html"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Full Consensus Mediated Agreements

[edit] Wikipedia:Autobiography

[edit] Assume good faith

[edit] Conflict of interest

[edit] Ban for disruption

[edit] Who's who

[edit] Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

[edit] Wikipedia:edit war

[edit] Privacy

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

[edit] Richardmalter

[edit] Disruptive editing

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Template

[edit] Ban for disruption

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

[edit] Enforcement by block

[edit] Alternate titles

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Analysis of evidence

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] General discussion

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search