Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TimVickers (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 22 May 2008 (→Statement of the dispute: ed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• TheNautilus (talk · contribs · logs)

NOTE - This user is an second account used by User:I'clast

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

TheNautilus is a single-purpose account used by I'clast to push a fringe point of view through tendentious editing in articles on branches of alternative nutritional medicine. In doing so, he has ignored consensus, objected to reliable sources because he thinks they are "wrong", and been unable to understand or apply our NPOV policy.

Desired outcome

I would like this user to work within consensus and accept that the article is going to report what reliable sources say on the subject, rather than what he happens to believe is true.

Description

TheNautilus objected strongly to the inclusion of criticism of "orthomolecular medicine" in the lead of the article. An article RfC showed a clear consensus for the simple statement that such criticism has been made, rather than his preferred formulation of attributing this to "oppononents and partisans". Similarly, this user objected to the use of the American Medical Association as a source in the lead to show the mainstream position on orthomolecular medicine, and objected to this even being discussed on the RS noticeboard (link to discussion).

Similar problems have been continuous, with much of the talk page of this article consisting of multiple editors trying to explain to TheNautilus that whatever it is that he believes is true, if notable, reliable sources state the opposite they can still be included. See this discussion for a lengthy example.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Fails to understand verifiability policy

1. diff States that sources must follow "Verification of factuality, not merely verification of printing."
2. diff States that "These points cite WP:V failures, of your nominally RS sources, when flawed sources have to yield (or modify) to facts."
3. diff Says of the medical textbook Cancer medicine "however authoritative the book may be on conventional treatments, it is *not* very authoritative on OMM".

Rejects attempts to reach consensus

1. diff Objects to community discussion on RS noticeboard because "many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine"
2. diff Defends revert warring to his preferred version, rather than the consensus version by saying "A problem here seems to be that a number of editors think they have a enough technical background to dismiss and disparage the OMM subject while accepting inferior text and references that fail WP:V in the complete fact checking sense, as well as other NPOV, COI, RS problems"

Confuses an NPOV with a sympathetic POV

1. diff Describes attributed criticism from several academic reviews as "The allegations themselves are based on gross misrepresentations & appear malicious in nature to those knowledgeable about the underlying facts. These are extreme, hurtful, uncivil opinions being presented as if they were authoritative. They certainly are not NPOV, BALANCED summary."
2. diff Again attacks inclusion of these sources "these are extremist critics being given undue weight, without balance or NPOV, as well as being without a relevant scientific base or technical development on the subject."

Revert warring with other editors

1. Revert warring with User:Jefffire diff and diff
2. Revert warring with me and User:Filll diff, diff and diff
3. Revert warring with me and User:Shoemaker's Holiday diff, diff, diff

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:V
3. WP:CON

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. diff I try to discuss this on his userpage.
2. diff User:Fyslee brings up similar concerns about ownership and lack of understanding of policies.
3. diff User:Jefffire explains the verifiability policy
4. diff User:WhatamIdoing explains the NPOV policy
5. diff User:WhatamIdoing explains the verifiability policy
6. diff User:Shoemaker's Holiday explains the verifiability policy

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. Removal of reference to "scientific consensus" diff on 21st May
2. Removal of attributed criticism from lead. diff an 23rd April
3. Continued refusal to accept reliable sources. diff on 21st May
4. Continued argument to remove attributed criticism from lead diff on 21st May

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Sounds about right. -- Fyslee / talk 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Jefffire (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Ncmvocalist

This-diff provided in evidence is essentially involving content, so I am of the opinion to dismiss it from this Rfc, andthis-one is largely inside of the content dispute too - it is not clear whether the subject of the Rfc fails to understand WP:V here.

The other-diff provided is also largely unclear.

But to be clear, the policy itself states "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Therefore, the source must be reliable, and details of it are provided so that it may be verified. If the source is unreliable however, it may not meet the threshold for inclusion.

The remaining evidence given is of a content dispute (with the exception of diffs of edit-warring) - Rfcs on user conduct do NOT deal with content, and so that evidence is dismissed. But, the parties who filed this Rfc are advised/directed to attempt Article RfC or mediation in relation to those issues.

There is evidence of the subject of this Rfc engaging in disruptive edit-warring and this is considered unacceptable. All editors involved in the dispute are reminded of the following principle.

Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions – such exceptions are not applicable in this case.

In conclusion, the subject of the Rfc is encouraged to refrain from such edit-warring in the future, and both parties are encouraged to pursue Article RfC or mediation for the content issues.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.