Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health/Evidence

I Came under fire?

I was suprised to have a very volatile response to a query I put on the talk page for Alternative Medicine about the validity of a reference[1]. (Reading past disputes, it seems It came under scope of many un-needed links with the 'see also' section of pages having Alternative medicine added to them).

The title was changed and the reply seemed an unjustified attack. [2]. On being criticised on the reply by theresa knott he posted an unsigned personal attack ([3])

To be honest, I find this not very nice, and has left me feeling uncomfotable about editing topics that I was looking forwards to improving, for fear they will be instantly reverted without consideration.

I was going to put this on the evidence page directly, but the sign indicated I should place it here.- Xgkkp 22:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, he's started personally attacking me again (and changed the discussion title to mislead again) [4]I don't have the time or energy to keep up with the changes, and to be honest I'm not that interested in the Alternative medicines page anyway, I was led there by another article and wanted to fix both ends.

I tried to reason with him, but that just met personal attacks.

- Xgkkp 23:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AND AGAIN [5] - I am going to give up now, this is stupid. And I feel cross. Every time I try to make a useful argument, he just posts nonsense and messes up the title of the page. Thing is, I know if I change the article He'ss just revert it without leaving a reason other than "I AM RIGHT, THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG" - Xgkkp 23:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, possible his most useless comment yet [6]

Hello, Bigot. How are all you bigots doing today? -- John Gohde | Talk 08:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is obviously a direct personal attack, without even pretending to try and contribute something. I have half a mind to just make the changes (which everyone else has agreed to) and see what happens. - Xgkkp 09:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like user:ALargeElk has put this reference on the main page already (see under ==Relevant behavior on Talk pages== / ===Personal attacks===) --bodnotbod 14:07, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Right, yes it looks like he has, but it wasn't there before all of this was placed, and is only a brief mention. this section I have constructed overviews much of the initial problems. - Xgkkp 16:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Multiple users have disagreed with categorizations yet they continue

A number of articles related to health have been categorized by Mr-Natural-Health as Alternative Medicine. A number of users have edited out those Category:Alternative medicine notations. After such a removal he puts them right back. While alone that would just be a disagreement on content, the wide consensus that is displayed by these many users has been ignored. Thus it rises to a behavior issue. The consensus is that articles should be placed in categories that are reasonable for the given article, not any category that might be related. For example, an article on Minerals that has mostly information about rocks, volcanos and minerology and a small section on dietary minerals is not an Alternative Medicine. While AltMed folks might recommend walking, the article Walking should not be in category Alternative Medicine. While Depression is health related, it is not an alternative medicine. High and Low density lipoproteins are important in health, but are not part of category alternative medicine by the consensus of the group.

The following persons have each at one, and in many cases more than one time, expressed that view to Mr-Natural-Health: (parenthetical expressons are the edit sumary for each edit as found in histories)

Theresa knott (revert MNH innapropriate category)

Erich gasboy (please keep your idionsyncratic categorisations to yourself)

Kd4ttc (Books)

Dwindrim (See also - Remove alternative link as irrelevant. I'm depressed and like to drive; can I link Cars?)

Bodnotbod (-Category:Alternative medicine Good grief! "Clinical depression" is NOT an Alternative Medicine.)

Erich gasboy (del cam link)

Xgkkp (he changed the title - again.) (see above [7] - Xgkkp)

Geni (See also - Remove alt med)

PFHLai (revert to version from 23:12, 2004 May 25 to remove spamlink.

John Foley (Delete reference link to alt. medicine until such time as the article covers it.)

Marnanel

Daveb (Physiotherapy / physical therapy is not an alternative therapy)

Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 02:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note to people putting evidence on the talk page

The bit that says "only complainants can edit this page" means that MNH and his supporters are not allowed to edit that section. It doesn't mean only David Gerard can touch it. Make life easy for the AC, put you evidence on the evidence page. theresa knott 11:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Right, after looking up definitions I agree, I didn't want to incur anyone's wrath if it meant not to. I can be rather conservative about editing main article pages.I'll move my section onto the main page later today. - Xgkkp 12:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, I made the same assumption as User:Xgkkp and it appears we are not the only ones. Perhaps the template for future arbitration requests could be reworded? I confess, though, I have sat here for a few moments trying to think of a good alternative and I'm stumped at the moment. --bodnotbod 14:20, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Me too.Um what about Accused persons or their supporters are not permitted to edit this section no that sounds confusing too. theresa knott 14:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about Only the complainants can edit this section. Responses by the accused/supporters should be placed in Responses by the accused/supporters? There's no need to say it all with a single sentence. Bryan 15:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still think your going to get people think "I'm not an official complainent, so i'm not allowed to edit here". theresa knott

Yes, I agree that it's the word complainant that seems to throw people. How about only those wishing to complain about the user..., sounds less official. --bodnotbod 15:39, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think even creating a stub with the definition of 'complainant' (or at least an external reference to dictionary.com) so the definition could be looked up with a click on the word would be helpful. After looking the word up it made sense. At the moment the page seems to imply: only people who were involved in the original allegations directly may place evidence - Xgkkp 16:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, are we supposed to sign evidence? I seem to be the only one who has done so on the project page at the moment. --bodnotbod 14:31, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) ~ No the evidence is supposed to speak for itself. theresa knott 14:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) OK, I've removed my sigs --bodnotbod 15:52, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I signed submitted evidence to facilitate answering any questions about evidence I submitted. Kd4ttc 22:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've attempted to confuse you all by changing the header. Sorry folks. I don't want to discourage people from adding evidence, including those who may feel uninvolved. Martin 15:03, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question about duration

I've read the arbitration page and a bit about the committee, what I don't remember seeing anything about is how long people have to submit evidence and so on. My instinct is that it's a fairly loose arrangement, but if someone can confirm or put me straight I'd appreciate it. --bodnotbod 13:37, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think it carries on until people stop submitting evidence. There are a limited number of arbitrators and they all have to look over the evidence so don't expect a decision very quickly. I expect that at least some will have examined the evidence submitted so far. I think I'm correct in saying that in other cases, (Wik?) evidence of new bad behaviour has been added whilst the arbitration process is ongoing. So it would appear you can keep adding evidence right up until a decision is made. theresa knott 15:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Though given the amount of evidence, and the fact that he seems to still be making all these comments daily I can't see how it would take so long... and that all the link have been provided in nice, easy to use diff links (I noticed in his other case, most of the defenses weren't diff links, but direct links to the page, making it hard from the AC to trace the actual comments..) - Xgkkp 17:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, diff links seem to me to be key. This is why I wonder about the wisdom of having:

This page can only be edited by arbitrators and people who were directly involved in the cited disputes. at the top of the evidence page.

Which, in fact, is in complete contradiction to the arbitration page itself which says Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

But, frankly, between losing a slaved over piece of correspondence in a database error just now, trying to navigate around the pages, slow response times and so on, I'm rapidly losing the thirst to try and help tie these things up efficiently with lovely, damning, bulleted lists.

I've just been approached by someone deeply involved in an arbitration dispute suggesting I submit evidence through him. This seems to me to be a great way for evidence to go missing or make me appear completely partisan in the arbitration process. When I feel the strength would be that I am not involved and am merely putting up illustrative diff links with summaries where helpful.

I've lost all my vigour for it right now, perhaps I'll feel differently tomorrow.

If any AC committee members are reading, perhaps they'd comment. --bodnotbod 18:42, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can add evidence at any point, and we will read it. Generally I do these things in bulk - reviewing as much evidence as I can in one sitting, and trying to get a complete picture with that and from other places.

Your challenge to our wisdom is correct, I think - that's why I fixed it. :) Martin 15:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lifestyle diseases

On the evidence page I removed the assertion that MNH didn't write this article. It seems clear from the history that he did in fact write it. The original submission was by an IP, but MNH made edits to the page under his own name almost immediately. Isomorphic 01:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, the fact that he might have written it does not give him a right to 'own' the article, which he seems to demonstrate that he believed he can, given that any time anybody else makes and edits he reverts with a rv vandalism tag. - Xgkkp 01:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So your saying that the likelihood is that he just forgot to sign in when he wrote the article and then did so once he realised havign submitted it? I'm not questioning your assertion, just making sure I have it clear what happened. --bodnotbod 13:18, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

People often do that. They forget to log in. Having said that Xgkkp's pont remains. theresa knott 13:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Posted on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress by Mr-Natural-Health

The following was posted on Vandalism in progress by MNP. It is not vandalism, but it may be relevant to his content and conduct disputes. Guan aco 03:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Guanaco. Martin 01:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Fuelbottle

User:Fuelbottle systematically vandalized a large number of edits made by me while I was working on the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. I have determined that it was in fact vandalism rather than an edit disagreement because he remove the project's infobox from Lifestyle diseases, an article that I personally wrote. This article is 100% a philosophy of alternative medicine. In addition, User:Fuelbottle removed the infobox from Massage which just happens to be a major branch of alternative medicine. As the removal of our project's boxes was done systematically and indiscriminately, I am reporting catching User:Fuelbottle in the act of vandalizing a large number of my edits just a matter of 30 minutes or so ago.

User:Fuelbottle has repeated his vandalism.

These unsigned accusations are made by User:Mr-Natural-Health who is currently in arbitration for various issues, one of which is his unwarranted accusations of vandalism. I will add this action to the body of evidence that stands against him --bodnotbod 01:08, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Please ignore this accusation

This is a content issue. Fuelbottle unknowingly added his opinion to the consensus that the alt med categorizations were incorrectly applied. The matter has been submitted and accepted for arbitration by the committee. Kd4ttc 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)