Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 23 May 2008 (→Involved view by Shoemaker's Holiday: moved to talk page). 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: 02:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

• TheNautilus (talk · contribs · logs)

NOTE - This user is an second account used by User:I'clast - see this discussion on AN/I

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 engage in tendentious editing in articles on branches of alternative nutritional medicine, such as orthomolecular medicine, orthomolecular psychiatry and megavitamin therapy. In doing so, he has ignored consensus, misrepresented opinions as facts, 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 articles are going to report what reliable sources say on the subject, rather than what he happens to believe is true. Furthermore, if the community decides that this account is being used abusively, then I'clast should be limited to editing with one account.

Description

One very clear example of these problems is TheNautilus objecting strongly to the inclusion of criticism of orthomolecular medicine in the lead of this 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 and are found on several articles, for example much of the talk page of the article on orthomolecular medicine consists 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 apply verifiability policy

States that the contents of a source must be "true" to be included in the article on orthomolecular medicine.

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 the use of mainstream medical literature in the article on orthomolecular psychiatry, since he feels it is biased.

1. diff "In large part what many people see today in the nebulous "mainstream" is hagiograpic, deletionist history rewritten by the commercial victors, pharmaceutically based psychopharmacology & psychiatry, with incomplete accuracy to say the least."

Argues that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM) and the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine (ISOM) are RS for factual statements beyond describing the beliefs of orthomolecular medicine.

1. diff "ISOM and JOM are WP:RS for a number of things, among others: (1) describing who and what is orthomolecular, and those that are not, (2) describing the history of (ortho)molecular medicine pertaining to orthomolecular medicine, (3) describing what the clinical and scientific evidence is', which often (surprising to incredulous newbies) is more than "conventional medical commentators" position of *nothing* experimentally *relevant* or correct on the subject - some literally rigged "dbRCT" experiment (e.g. long known (50+ yrs?)& stated wrong molecules, quantities, patient subgroup, and/or protocol), Enron accounting, or simply adversarial intrepretations with low science scores."

Rejects attempts to reach community 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 version favored in the article RfC 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"

Fails to apply NPOV policy

Argues that a statement noting the fact that orthomolecular medicine has been criticized should not be included, since he feels that these criticisms are untrue.

1. diff Describes criticism referenced to three separate 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 the inclusion of a statement that such criticisms have been made "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."

Presents an opinion taken from a commentary article as a statement of truth.

1. addition to article and argument on talkpage "It contains clear, largely factual matter with minor commentary. In fact, given the complaint about revisions, it makes one wonder to what degree some of the "stigma" still was operating ("go to the back the bus", but at least not walking)."

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

Generalized attacks on editors who disagree with him

1. diff "Some old commentators, abusively name calling personal enemies, imprecisely identified parties or practices in one or two rancid paragraphs in non-peer reviewed blurbss, sometimes without a single external reference or relevant data, is *not* a superior science reference as claimed by Tim. Some of my accusers here appear to selectively ignore WP policies, facts, mainstream science & scientific methodolgy that seriously conflict with their prejudices."
2. diff "I think that current situation here is akin to the KKK being allowed to establish WP's labeling of various racial and ethnic groups, where after all, there are WP:V sources sometime in the last two centuries, all the while screaming about its self-supposed authority and purity."

Outing other editors

1. diff (Link posted by I'clast has been deleted to preserve the other editor's privacy).

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

1. Endorse Shot info (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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 views

These are summaries 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.

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)

NOTE: This view will be changed due to substantial changes made to the actual RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by ImperfectlyInformed

Both TimVickers and TheNautilus are tendentious editors intent upon pushing their own point of view. It's difficult to say which is actually more troublesome. However, TheNautilus is certainly more obvious. He does not seem to dialogue well, often posting long rants which clutter up Talk pages rather than concisely stating his point and his evidence. Much of the current disagreement centers around content issues at Orthomolecular medicine (OM). I advise you to glance at the lead. TimVickers has pushed for keeping inflammatory statements that OM is "food faddism" or "quackery", and the TheNautilus has reacted with long ranting objections.

As far as TimVickers' first allegation, that TheNautilus doesn't understand verifiability: yes, statements must be verifiable. But if we find a source which states something, and another, more recent source, which states that this view is incorrect, then at the least we include both together, and at the most we discard the earlier statement for the current research, for the sake of brevity. This seems to be TheNautilus' point, but I'm not sure if he's produced the evidence from a reliable source that TimVickers' source is wrong. If TheNautilus can find it, then this can be resolved; if he cannot, then he should remain quiet and do some research.

TimVickers second allegation is that TheNautilus rejects mainstream medical literature. Mainstream medicine is actually a nebulous thing. MastCell pointed out that only 10-15% of doctors are even in the AMA. There are legitimate concerns with using sources as old as 25 years represent the "consensus of the mainstream". Second, TimVickers has interpreted these sources strangely; in several cases, the sources do point out the many beneficial effects of nutrients, which is, strictly speaking in terms of Pauling's definition, an application of OM and an admission of its medical veracity. Defining OM as strictly the application of nutrients to treat disease when such applications are not substantiated by mainstream science is a rhetorical strategy. Even if you can find a mainstream source which claims that OM prescribes megadoses of harmful minerals, if that mainstream source does not cite that claim, then that source is quite questionable and should perhaps be removed. OM focuses its megadosing on vitamin C and water-soluble B vitamins; it may advocate taking higher levels of minerals, but the megadosing has to be demonstrated. (Megadosing is defined by this article as 10 times the RDA. Incidentally, this article does say that the fat-soluble vitamin D should be taken in "supernormal" amounts to overcome rickets.)

I pointed out to TimVickers that "food faddism and quackery" are both ad hominem attacks (on an organization), and that using them in the lead was questionable (and, also, rather ineffective for his point). Quackery is a pejorative term encompassed by the more objective statement that much of OM is not substantiated by mainstream medical research. He pointed to an earlier request for comment, in which he asked for people's input on two virtually identical leads, both with the food faddism allegation, both poorly written. The poor writing and the extreme criticism (in fact, the food faddism was not even in the main article at the time) was pointed out repeatedly in the RFC. TheNautilus has repeatedly claimed that the food faddism attack was done by a researcher who personally disliked Pauling; if this is true, then it should be added to the encyclopedia.

In summary, both could improve. TheNautilus needs to stop rambling in Talk pages, which makes it difficult to follow discussions, and simply produce the articles to demonstrate what he thinks. If he can't do it, then he should be silent. Both need to work on creating a balanced article. Both could also improve their abilities to organize articles and use appropriate sources (based on what I've seen at OM).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Alterrabe

Some complaints, such as that TheNautilus can become emotional about a topic guaranteed to raise the emotions are valid. In this regard, he is not the only editor with such a foible. When editors complains that other editors take journals dear to them to be reliable sources for science, and not only beliefs, when they do the exact same thing, the discussion has become close to religious in nature. This is the clash of two POVs.

One complaint seems to me to be less fortunate; the "newssite" whose comments TheNautilus dismissed as "a blog" describes itself thusly:

"24dash.com is the UK's most up-to-date Social Housing and Public Sector news website, combining national coverage from the Press Association and our team of professional journalists with press releases loaded direct by housing associations, local authorities, charities and other relevant organisations.

Launched in October 2005, 24dash.com now has a targeted audience of more than 80,000* unique users a month. (Source: Google Analytics)

24dash.com delivers its content through a range of media including RSS feeds and a monthly housing podcast...

The Press Release area is a unique part of 24dash.com, boasting thousands of stories sent by more than 400 local authorities, housing associations and charities."

Whether or not the source is accurate, I question whether an anonymous webmaster's posting on a site dedicated to "Social Housing and Public Sector news" which is distributed by RSS automatically meets WP:RS, particularly when it is impinges the credibility of a living person (WP:BLP comes to mind). I think a posting on a site that is syndicated by RSS and at odds with the apparent brunt of the site's postings can be taken to be a blog posting in good faith. Not that the wikipedia edit reports that the article was written by one "John Land" a claim that is not supported by the article itself, as presently posted. BLP has wikipedians erring strongly on the side of caution. TheNautilus would have been well within his rights to remove an article whose attribution is inaccurate, and which would have been libelous if its contents had also proven inaccurate. (Note, I corrected some atrocious grammar after posting this.)

I urge TimVickers to immediately retract this part of his request for comment.

I also personally know people who were spared a life of chronic disability by orthomolecular medicine; I urge TimVickers to describe orthomolecular as "controversial," "hotly disputed," "unacknowledged" but not as "fringe," an emotionally charged word that makes discussion and consensus more difficult.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll AGF on that one, it could be an honest mistake. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 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.