User talk:Crum375/BDORT Statement

The BDORT procedure in a nutshell
is a man who invented an Alternative Medicine procedure he calls BDORT, in which a patient forms an 'O' with his/her fingers, with the diagnostician trying to pry the patient's fingers apart, while subjectively estimating the patient's finger strength. This procedure is then used by BDORT adherents to diagnose and/or treat many/most diseases known to man, from common cold to cancer. If the diagnostician is far from the patient, the procedure can also be carried out remotely via telephone.

The New Zealand Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (NZT) reports
In 2003, the New Zealand Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in Wellington (NZT1) issued a ruling that PMRT -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT) -- is "not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions ... reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB, of Hamilton, New Zealand, who relied on PMRT/BDORT was fined and stripped of his license to practice medicine. In 2004, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in Auckland (NZT2) found Gorringe guilty of malpractice in the death of an earlier patient, and concluded that Gorringe's reliance on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death. A Quackwatch article provides a summary of these reports.

Creation of BDORT and related entries
The BDORT entry was created on April 11, 2006 by the user now known as User:GenghizRat (hereafter GR). It was initially two separate entries, BDORT and Omura, which were subsequently merged. The merge occurred just around the time I arrived at the entry. I notice that User:Philosophus, who was there before I arrived, has described some of the early history of the entry, which matches my recollection. On May 15, 2006, the related Richard Gorringe entry was created by GR, who also created the related Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on the same date.

User:Richardmalter's single purpose account
Over the past 8 months or so, a single-issue editor User:Richardmalter (hereafter RM) who openly praises BDORT's merits, works with BDORT, teaches BDORT, and participates in BDORT seminars, having a clear conflict of interest in BDORT related matters, has been persistently trying to shape the Omura entry into a pro-BDORT version, in a clearly tendentious fashion, over objections of virtually all other neutral logged-in contributors, but with the occasional help of anon-IP's, who are apparent sock or meat puppets. RM has tried multiple reversions (often exceeding WP:3RR) and failed, tried to use sockpuppetry when blocked, tried insulting fellow editors and still failed to get his way. He then asked for mediation, which was a prolonged process, lasting months (partly due to frequent change of mediator - we had 6 total), which despite a valiant effort on the part of all mediators, failed to find an acceptable middle ground. Also, according to published information, RM appears to be affiliated with individuals whose qualifications and documents were hotly debated as potential WP sources during the various mediation sessions. RM never disclosed these additional conflict of interest aspects (e.g. they all list their affiliation as The Research Institute of Global Physiology, Behavior and Treatment, Inc.) during any discussion on WP, neither to the participants in the discussions, nor to the mediators.

Post mediation efforts and status
After the final mediation attempt failed, the other 3 (now 4 and possibly 5) independent logged-in contributing editors in the article, all agreed on a common version (as a basis for future improvements), but RM still considers that version unacceptably POV. After a few more episodes of 3RR violations and numerous bold faced and/or capitalized allegations, insults and threats against the other editors, RM filed for Arbitration. Even after filing for Arbitration, RM continued his tendentious editing pattern, becoming blocked for 3RR violation yet again.

Despite RM's behavior and attitude, including frequent insults of other editors, frequent and repeated allegations of other editors' "misbehavior" and "bad faith" in bold face font and/or caps, and vandalism (deleting other editors' civil and pertinent comments from the article's Talk page), the other editors have consistently invited RM to participate on the Talk page constructively and civilly, but he declined.

Recent anon-IP's actions
Lately, some anon-IP's, who refuse to identify as another user and/or participate in the Talk page, have also edited in a similar fashion to RM. The anon-IP's also sometimes appear to threaten legal action unless their preferred version of the article is accepted or are unblocked. These IP's resolve to the NYC area (RM resides in Australia, although he has travelled to, and edited WP from the U.S. at least once) and have a different writing style from RM, so it's unlikely to be an RM sockpuppet, but could well be meatpuppet associates. The anon-IPs seem to edit more during periods when RM is blocked, and have lately begun to edit even more aggressively - and like RM were just now blocked for 3RR violation, even after this RfArb case was already underway, and are issuing apparent legal threats for being blocked, while insisting they are not 'threats'. According the the blocked IP's, WP is "conspiring to suppress proven, documented, revolutionary new diagnoses and treatments which have been repeatedly demonstrated around the world, and widely evaluated and published, and which could ease the suffering of MILLIONS.".

And here is a recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=95218895&oldid=95217657#Professor_Omura. apparent legal threat and attempt to intimidate ArbCom] by the anon-IP meat puppet.

Recent uncivil Talk messages by RM

 * Tells Crum: "You avoid repeatedly, slandar (sic), misrepresent, revert your agreements, and hide your biases. We will start from a stub or have an edit war. You have tried your tricks before. Your reputation will be relayed to the Arbitration people as well as widely in wikipedia", on December 10, 2006
 * Tells Crum: "Crum, your memory and reading are still lacking" when there is disagreement about past decisions, on November 23, 2006
 * Deletes other people's civil and pertinent comments from Talk page, on December 8, 2006 (when confronted, claims it was 'an error')
 * Tells Crum: "Crum, it is boring, and I have outlined your biases ... Your bias distorts things as usual", on December 16, 2006
 * Attacks Crum in a bold faced section headline: "Crum should stop slandaring (sic)"
 * Tells the admin who blocks him for 3RR violation he's a "lackey", on December 10, 2006
 * Tells Crum and GR: "You would make a politician worthy of the worst of them ... you must have serious memory problems or that you are liars", on December 12, 2006
 * Tells the last Mediator: "Crum is a very devious character willing to lie if necessary as he has done many times ... liars cant be tolerated forever", on December 12, 2006

Initial involvement
I became involved in the article on May 22, 2006, when by chance I spotted a frustrated comment on User:SlimVirgin's Talk page, from a user who asked SV for help with someone's tendentious edits. I went over to try to help, knowing how swamped SV always is. After 3 days of learning the issues there and some minor comments, I had a fairly good perspective of the situation, and posted this message to RM - I think it is worth reading, since as I read it now, it is still relevant today, and fully expresses my position then as well as now, after 7 months of hard work have gone by.

Informal mediation role, AfD and formal mediation
After a while, when I thought I had a better grasp of the disputed issues, I offered to informally mediate the entry, and tried my best to find a common ground between the editors there, balanced against my own understanding of WP's requirements. We built a 'work' version on the side, and eventually used it to replace the previous version, but RM was still unhappy with it. Although SV was kind enough to step in and help a couple of times, I was not able to get much farther as the informal mediator. After some more time, one of the editors, out of sheer frustration, filed an AfD, as he believed that stubbing or deleting the article would be the best defense against RM's tendentious and relentless persistence at creating a BDORT advertisement. At that point I stopped my role as informal mediator and became simply an editor, and opposed the AfD on the grounds that Omura's notability is well established, mostly due to the published official NZT report.

The AfD ended as a Keep, and RM continued as before with his tendentious one-sided edits. At some point RM initiated formal mediation, which I agreed to. In that process we went over every disputed item with the various mediators (who kept changing), found some minor points we had agreement on, but also many important ones we could not agree on.

RM's allegations
RM alleges that I 'broke' promises or agreements during the mediation attempt, and that I 'slandared' (sic) him. (I will respond to specific points if diffs are available). He also alleges that I have a 'strong bias' -- here is the message I posted to Addhoc's (a previous mediator) Talk page that RM considers most offensive and 'telling'. I did admit to RM, several times, that "my bias is only as a WP policy advocate - if you detect any other bias I have, please let me know." As example of my neutrality in the matter, here is my opinion about the use of Pseudoscience categorization and another admission of my 'strong bias' (which I made known several times). As far as civility, I don't think I have ever posted an uncivil message, even to blatant vandals or trolls, and in general I try my best to de-escalate heated situations.

Personal motivation
During the entire 7 month period, to the best of my ability, often alone in the entry and Talk page with RM, as other editors simply 'had enough' and went looking for greener pastures, I tried my very best to be civil and patient, and follow WP's policies and guidelines. This article has cost me many hours that could have been productively spent elsewhere, on other more enjoyable (for me) WP articles I would have preferred to create or improve, so this prolonged saga has already taken a significant toll for me and WP. I could have jumped ship at any point and just gone elsewhere on WP like some others, but decided that if I believe in WP's mission and its future success as I do, I cannot buckle under to single-issue conflict-of-interest tendentious editing, or melt away under scathing insults to my integrity, or pass the buck to someone else; I need to stick around to help keep the entry informative, neutral and well sourced, in a collaborative and civilized manner, per my best understanding of WP's rules.

Current status
As I noted in the case summary above, we recently got to a point where we now have 4 to 5 independent and neutral, logged-in, collaborative editors, who are all supporting one version as a basis for improvements, and we are in the process of addressing those improvements on the article's Talk page.

Concluding remarks
In closing, here is a message I recently posted to RM on the article's Talk page, after yet again being on the receiving end of a torrent of capitalized bold faced accusations, allegations and insults from him. And also this message, which I posted 2 days earlier.

If this case ends up in pointing out mistakes I made anywhere along the (very long) way, I'd be happy to understand them and learn from them. I welcome a review by ArbCom and the community of all my actions, and any criticism or comments.