Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erich gasboy (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 8 June 2004 (my 2c worth, for what its worth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statment of complaint

Complaint by David Gerard

After many running edit wars and extensive talk page discussion on Talk:Alternative medicine and Talk:Iridology, I tried asking User:Mr-Natural-Health if we could sort this out otherwise, or at worst get it mediated [1]. He refused abusively (reply and edit summary). So, with all other avenues of resolution refused, asking the AC if their previous attempt to moderate MNH's posting behaviour worked is what's left. Or should I take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment first, if you think that would be productive?

MNH appears not to grasp NPOV [2] [3] [4]. He is given to combative discussion on talk pages - he appears to see his mission as pushing one side, rather than improving an article [5] [6]. He seems to actually believe that those of differing view are "trolls" [7] talk page and "liars" [8] [9] [10] rather than being people who disagree with him.

He takes questioning his edits or edit summaries and asking for explanation as being "personal attacks" [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] but makes personal attacks on others [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and maintains pages of personal attacks on others on his user page (User:Mr-Natural-Health/2wB1g9Gq, User:Mr-Natural-Health/6pV1g8Gq). Even when his abusiveness is deleted from talk pages, it's still in the edit summaries ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alternative_medicine&action=history Alternative Medicine history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Iridology&action=history Iridology history]). Apparently, getting into a disagreement with him warrants comparisons to Hitler and Nazis [21] [22].

He seems to believe he can take ownership of articles and enforce his views on who should be allowed to edit them [23]. He views article editing as a battle with winners and losers [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. His combative attitude has already discouraged others from contributing to articles he edits (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Theresa_Knott#Response). The analysis there is that his behaviour represents attempted enclosure of alternative medicine articles on Wikipedia; I am inclined to concur. He has constructed a personal style guide for alternative medicine articles (Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality), which is far from an objectionable idea in itself, but he represents it as enforceable Wikipedia policy [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], removes edits of others using it as justification as if it's hard Wikipedia policy [36] [37] [38] and removes others' questions as to it being used like this [39].

He encourages gross disrespect for Wikipedia bans on other users, offering to proxy for them [40]. When asked not to do this [41], he removes the request with an abusive edit summary [42].

  • As a side issue, a lot of medical article are getting a footer "See also:category alternative medicine" by Mr. Natural health. The comment is not relevant to the articles. It would be about as relevent as putting "See also: Category Metalworking" in all articles regarding woodworking. When a reference is made it implies there is something specific to the article at hand in the referenced article. That there is merely a general article is not sufficient reason to direct the readers attention to another place in Wikipedia. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • On further review, there are actually two problems. The category entry on many articles of alternative medicine is just wrong. Cholesterol is not a type of alternative medicine, for example. The second problem is that a number of articles are being described as being part of the CAM project when those articles were never created by anyone involved in said project. They are simply being annoted to imply that there is a group interested in an alternative medicine POV that worked to author those projects. Where inappropriate these links should be removed. Given the large number of misidentifications, the process should be conducted by a bot. Kd4ttc 21:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Additional Complaint

A number of Wikipedia contributors have disagreed with placement of categories in a number of locations regarding alternative medicine. Many of the categorizations as alternative medicine have not been edited. this suggests to me that the editors of the articles are using discretion in judging if the alternative medicine categorizations is appropriate. In the case of Clinical depression a number of individuals have disagreed with the categorization of that article as Alternative medicine. This was discussed in the Talk page for that article. Mr. Natural Health has posted the following appeared in Talk:Clinical_depression:

  • Since these science people have only demonstrated bigoted, obnoxious, time wasting behavior towards this WikiProject they are clearly more interested in trolling then in improving Wikipedia. Everywhere we have actually bothered to state our views, our ASBs etc. have been deleted / vandalized. Everywhere where we have wasted time doing what you people have asked for our ASBs etc. have been deleted / vandalized. Do you really think that I am going to waste my time wading through the above garbage that was written by a bunch of ignorant bigots? ::-- John Gohde 14:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

His comment is inappropriate. Kd4ttc 16:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

    • I find your bigoted behavior totally inappropriate. A bigot is: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." And, I find this bigoted, obnoxious, time wasting behavior of yours totally inappropriate. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 07:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, you do not even have the legal standing to make this complaint. Please stop, wasting more of my time. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 08:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • This is a website not a court. No one needs a legal standing to make a compliant. theresa knott 08:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Good, I want to complain about you. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requested relief

It's hard to put this in terms of specific actions. He knows a huge amount about the area and could possibly contribute brilliantly. What I really want is for MNH to:

  • grasp the concept of NPOV, and not see his mission here as pushing a POV
  • learn how to work better with others
  • understand that the people disagreeing with him are not therefore liars or trolls
  • assume good faith
  • learn what a personal attack is or isn't and stop making them.

All of these are necessary but difficult to quantify.

Can anything reasonable be done short of asking him to go away again? - David Gerard 09:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think David is living in cloud cookoo land if he thinks the AC can get MNH to to stop pushing a POV and start to work cooperatively with others. All attempts so far by anyone to reason with MNH have fallen on deaf ears. A month long ban did not work. I'd like to request something much simpler. A year long ban. theresa knott 11:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me my idealism! *sob* - David Gerard 12:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously: well, yeah. A month time out made the personal attacks less voracious, but didn't affect the grasp of NPOV, add understanding of how to work with others, add understanding that people could legitimately disagree with him, add any tendency to assume good faith or add any understanding of what is and isn't a personal attack. A month didn't do it. Would a year? - David Gerard 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Response by Mr-Natural-Health

It is entirely David's problem.

The facts are that I have reached a compromise agreement with the WikiDocs / Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine on two separate occasions. In each case, agreement was reached within a few hours or less. Click here WikiDocs[43] and CamBottom [44] for complete threads on my talk page.

Here, is the final comments of Jfdwolff.

John, it's truly a pleasure to do business with you!
I would recommend expanding CAM into complimentary and alternative medicine. Not every potential reader of medical articles is familiar with the terminology, methinks.... JFW | T@lk 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Done -- John Gohde 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So to repeat, it is entirely David's problem for I can demonstrate a history of working well with other editors. -- John Gohde 17:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A bit of that history of working well with everyone but David can be seen here and here. - Nunh-huh 08:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to note that consensus reached within a few hours is probably not a consensus that stayed open to debate long enough for opposing views to chime in. Snowspinner 17:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Also, click here [45] for why this compromise was more WikiDoc Project related than private. -- John Gohde 17:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I must state that John's initial approach to participants in Wikiproject Clinical medicine (then "WikiDoc") and the project as a whole was quite hostile; an edit debate between undersigned and User:Heidimo over Allergy changed matters somewhat, thankfully[46].
The above comment, by the way, was made by me on personal title and not on behalf of "our" WikiProject, which has no "foreign policy" on how to approach our brethren from the alternative spectrum.
I have, so far, not trodden on CAM territory proper, so I cannot report experiences similar to David's. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine I can document my cooperation with a number of different editors. And, I do mean a number of. As far as JFW quibbling over private vs. project, it was all the same to me. As far as hostile encounters go, I think the science people have always been obnoxious, if not hostile, to me regarding my CAM activities. David is simply excessively hostile. And, David is totally unable to communicate what the problem is. And, he fails to make constructive suggestions. -- John Gohde 07:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Constructive Suggestions for Mr. Natural Health ??? Here's one: PLEASE STOP putting links to CAM on Wikipages that have nothing to do with CAM (yet). As a user of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia (more of a viewer than a contributor), I have to say that your links to CAM on pages like Atherosclerosis, HDL & LDL, when you have no CAM-related information on those topics, are annoying and distracting. I clicked on the 'category' link on those pages, hoping to read about CAM-related materials on the topics and learn, but I got frustration instead. Please actually post the CAM-related contents rather than just sprinkling the CAM links onto various Wikipages. The links right now are simply functioning as an advertisement, telling people that pages on CAM exist in Wikipedia. Just like those links to "WikiMD.org". Most of the links are not useful at all right now. They are not as bad as pop-up ads, but getting closer after every encounter. I shall remove each bad link when I see them.
A second Constructive Suggestion: PLEASE EXPAND the CAM project with NEW Wikipages on various topics. I believe conventional medical science and CAM can co-exist in Wikipedia. Both have encyclopedic value, and a simple See also: on each parallel Wikipage would be useful. But please don't put up the link when there is no relevant CAM-related content on the new CAM page for the topic. I like what I find on Clinical depression, but splitting the CAM stuffs to a new page will improve readability (if I press 'page down' 5 times and the page is still not done, it's too long !) Another reason to have separate pages on the same topic, one with CAM POV and one with conventional medicine and basic biological science, is to help separate Wikipedians who aren't getting along that well.
A third Constructive Suggestion: PLEASE STOP posting comments like "I will continue this edit war in medicine on the next day, the day after, the week after, the month after and the year after." [47] Such belligerent behaviour should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. If you find "the science people have always been obnoxious, if not hostile, to (you) regarding (your) CAM activities", please ask yourself what you have done to end the hostility, and what you have done to propagate it.
I grew up with herbal medicine (which fixed up my leg when I broke it as a teenager) and I am now studying cell and molecular biology at the university level. I find both conventional medical science and CAM interesting. Can we get back to making interesting Wikipages and stop this silly 'edit war', please ? Sigh .... -- PFHLai 09:12, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
Good on you PFHLai. I personally endorse your three suggestions, although I suspect your youthful leg healled itself. Personally, I have had limited contact with John. But overall I have found I have been able to come to aggreements about the rare times I have found a nonPOV comment on a page he holds dear. My main disagreement with John would be the CAM advertising links as articulated by others. Other than that, in my limited dealings I have found him able to do pretty good NPOV. John, my advice is: stay calm - we are not out to get you even though we don't agree with you. (Just to make my views crystal clear, I wouldn't let a CAM practitioner near my cat let alone anyone I new). My view: wikipedia would be poorer if John cops a long suspension. best wishes to all Erich 14:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I said before (though MNH deleted it), I will save responding further to Mr-Natural-Health until the case is accepted or not - David Gerard 09:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Response to side issues

In regards to the comments of Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc, category:alternative medicine is a collective work of many editors. It was just a matter of going through these lists created by the collective and adding the appropriate box etc. to the respective articles. -- 15:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The reply misses the mark. Many of the articles that have had the alt med category appended are not part of the category alternative medicine. For example, high density lipoprotein is not a category of alternative medicine, while, in distinction, shamanism is a type of alternative medicine. Kd4ttc 21:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Articles on the philosophy of alternative medicine are on topics that covers the very broad area of alternative positions on health, healing, and illness. They are in fact a part of category:alternative medicine. And, this why an article like clinical depression is included in category:alternative medicine (because it is an illness or medical condition that is treated by some alternative treatment methods. Category:alternative medicine is broadly defined, as it should be.
Ergo, HDL is a category of alternative medicine because it is a illness or medical condition that is treated by some forms of alternative treatments. -- John Gohde 18:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Automobiles get you to grocery stores, but grocery stores are not in the category Automobiles. Physicians read electrocardiograms, but electrocardiograms are not part of the category physicians. Gas stations are places where trucks go to get fuel, but trucks are not part of category Gas stations. Now, if there was a list like List of Conditions treated with Alternative Medicine Approaches, Hypercholesterolemia could be put there. Kd4ttc 19:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not at all necessary, but if that will make you happy; I will do. -- John Gohde 19:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My implementation is category:Applied CAM. If you complain about this one, I will indeed use your exact spelling above, which will of course take up half the page on top of each science article. The choice is yours. Either this shorter version or your spelling that will take up half the page. -- John Gohde 20:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As totally expected Kd4ttc went through and deleted the handful of articles that I added to category:Applied CAM which I made to please him/it. Therefore, I conclude that Kd4ttc's only objective is to waste my time. I did precisely what Kd4ttc asked for, and he/it still deleted every article that I added. Kd4ttc is not interested in improving Wikipedia. All Kd4ttc wants to do is waste my time. My conversations with Kd4ttc are hereby terminated, forever. -- John Gohde 03:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Still misses the point. The List would be an article in and of itself. The mistake of creating a category to substiture for a list is not appropriate. After Mr. NH went and reverted my edits of the imappropriate categorizations of AppliedCAM the CAM reinsertions were deleted by a number of other contributors to the Wikipedia project. The choice offered above is a false dichotomy. The problem was that the articles affected were not reasonably categorized as being a type of Alternative Medicine. Too bad the Applied CAM wasn't added to articles about AppliedCAM techniques for health problems. Kd4ttc 15:37, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • On further examination (see above) it is worse than I at first grasped. The categorizations are inappropriate as noted, but additionally, the CAM box falsely states that articles have been written by members of the CAM project. In most every case, the only contribution that may be related to a CAM POV proponent is User:MrNH's annotation with a box at the end of the article. These need to be bot deleted. Just too many to edit out by hand. MrNH has fast fingers. Stephen Holland, M.D., Kd4ttc 21:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The text that falsely implies the articles have been written by members of the CAM project was found in boxes added by MrNH and read as follows: "This article is part of the alternative positions on health, healing, and illness series. Terms and concepts in ... | Philosophy of ... | Branches of ... Famous People in ... | History of ... | Index of topics". The words "alternative positions" was a link to Category:Alternative Medicine. The box was added with some Wikimajik using a term brace brace CamBottom brace brace with the box included here (though future edits of CamBottom could change the appearance Template:CamBottom Kd4ttc 16:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is called an article series box (ASB). (See Wikipedia:Article series) Of all the ASBs, ours is probably the smallest. Your own medicine project uses them and they are bigger. Those who strongly object to them can replace them with {{CamTin}} which is text or with [[Category:Alternative medicine.]] -- John Gohde 16:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is not what is typically considered a good article series box, since it's a list of links to series - not an actual series of articles. Furthermore, it is not sensible to link to a category in a box - the point of categories was to get rid of the boxes and replace them with nice, discrete category links. This box defeats the purpose of that. Snowspinner 17:08, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Many of the articles that had the CamBottom box attached are not part of alternative medicine. The size of the box is not an issue. The box is being used in inappropriate places. Kd4ttc 19:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Anybody with a background in programming knows the power of a list. Why else do you think Wikipedia is full of simple list articles? The various boxes have to link to something. The obvious choice is now category:alternative medicine in order to make them all consistent. I think categories are a great idea and the project is now using them and offering them to editors as an option. -- John Gohde 17:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As noted above, the category issue is different from forming a list. As anybody with a programming background knows, entering data into a text field in a database is different from forming a list and entering the list in the database. Kd4ttc 19:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
???What in the world are you talking about? I do not have a clue. -- John Gohde 03:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I apologize. Your comment above seemed to imply you had a background in programming. Such a background would allow my response to be understood. Kd4ttc 15:37, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators

  1. Accept Fred Bauder. Negotiation or mediation was requested at [48]. MNH made these responses [49] 12:38, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept James F. (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Accept - we should work fast on this one. --mav 02:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept. Martin 09:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Final decision

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health&oldid=3988532"