User talk:Richardmalter


 * I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks, Xoloz 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is more discourse for you at my talk; the short version is, I think, that you have no need to worry. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About Yoshiaki Omura
Hi! I apologize for reverting your changes to this article without comment. I initially did this because there was a large amount of removal of information. However, looking at it, while I'm still not sure what you were trying to do, I feel you were trying to make the article better. Please accept my apologies, and revert my changes if necessary. In the future, using descriptive edit summaries will help avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura
Your recent edits to this article are verging on trollish behaviour. Firstly this edit violates WP:POINT. Then this edit and this one and this one were marked as minor when clearly they are not.

If you wish to keep editing Wikipedia articles then please stick to accepted wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. These policies have been established for a reason and provide a tried and tested framework in which neutral, factually correct and informative articles can be created. --Spondoolicks 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have stuck to WP guidelines. I could take your comments and apply them to the other editors. Why have you not done so. Please see my arguments on the Talk page.--Richardmalter 10:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura RfC
Hi Richard, I saw your request for comment and skimmed through the article's talk page. Unfortunately, though I'd love to be able to help, I don't have time to read through the article and talk page to provide informed comment regarding the dispute. I did, however, notice your comment near the end of the talk page regarding taking the issue through mediation, and wondered if you'd considered trying the mediation cabal? They're a group of users who try to informally assist in finding mutually agreeable compromises in situations like this, and might be more effective than formal mediation. --jwandersTalk 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, read your comments at the mediation cabal, although I'm not a mediator, I would be interested regarding the possibility of editing this article towards a compromise version. In the first instance, could we break out of this edit war? That is, for your next edit could you make your changes manually, instead of using the revert function. This would allow another user such to edit without being swamped. Thanks. Addhoc 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Addhoc, I couldn't find your talk page. I am very grateful for your offer and fully intend to help you help us in practice. The problem with not reverting is that the version up at the moment which has had tons of 'unilateral' stuff done to it, is so far of the mark that it is not an even approaching 'middle ground' place to start. I conceded to this about 2 months ago! when crum375 decided he/she would mediate with the version that 'the other side' had got up at that point - which in hindsight turned out to be a huge waste of time and got us absolutely nowhere; I am very reluctant to repeat that again. Please see points 1-5 on the Talk page for a general summary of the problem. But I'll spend a few minutes now and see what I come up with. Thank you.--Richardmalter 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi there! My name is Andy and I am taking the case you filed at WP:MEDCAB for the article Yoshiaki Omura. I am going to review everything and post to the article talk page within 24 hours. If you feel mediation is no longer needed since you posted the case, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Richard, as a reminder during mediation, please make sure to post comments and rebuttal under the correct headings for the sake of organization. When I start a heading named "Discussion" it will be only for discussion on that particular passage.  I have moved some of your replies to the correct headings.  Thanks! --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura
I had CowMan reprotect the page.

Let's stop the edit warring. Seriously. It's not worth it. We can settle this like reasonable people. But until we've reached a state where we can clearly handle this rationally, I'm going to recommend against unprotection.

- Che Nuevara  06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm cross-posting this to Crum as well.

Che, I understand your position and request. But Crum is careful to agree to this on the terms that he has managed to effectively impose as I have described. Therefore I will edit as I see fit within WP guidelines. But PLEASE continue your mediation. It is not acceptable to the reasonable mind that one guy like Crum375 (or more than one) with no known knowledge or credentials can effectively 'denounce' as a whole packet of nonsense the work of many eminent people worldwide. WP actually has not a bad set of policies - the problem is they are guidelines open to abuse; so I have no choice to continue to engage. I am also researching other better citations in the meanwhile. But Crum has effectively declared his extreme bias and this needs balancing to say the least.Richardmalter 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Richard, please be advised that you are about to violate the WP:3RR rule yet again. This is a blockable offense, as you know. Please try to adhere to this rule. Thanks, Crum375 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you ignore what has been said to you by many people about the version protected not being endorsed in any way - and that your idea of a stable article is purely your notion. Richardmalter 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for violation of the three revert rule on Yoshiaki Omura. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109 Talk 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, what do I do if Crum375, et al, revert mediated consensus agreed decisions that they were fully part of, the minute protection is off, then pretend all kinds of things that many people tell them repeatedly is not the case - eg the arbitrary protection of a version that they then claim is the 'best' one etc. They are manipulating WP policy ad hoc re their bias. Please see last few comments on the Talk page with links to the mediated decisions. It really is making a joke out of WP. Thanks.Richardmalter 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Content removal on Yoshiaki Omura
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Antonrojo 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not expereimenting, I think you may not have the whole picture. Is removing POV/OR vandalism?? See the bits I discuss on the Talk page for what I refer to. Thanks.Richardmalter 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation
Richard, I believe you have violated the WP:3RR rule yet again, which is a blockable offense. As you know, repeated violations of 3RR result in longer and longer blocks. Please refrain from violating this rule. Thank you, Crum375 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 10 2006 to Yoshiaki Omura
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail: I appreciate your frustration. However... one way to tell the Good from the Bad guys is playing by the rules. Just being Right doesn't give you more reverts. Its better to contact the others who have been recently interested rather than break 3RR yourself William M. Connolley 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

If you read the Talk page, you will read that Crum375 and the other guy that changes his handle continuously, who have in the previous Mediator's own report of about 24 hours ago scuttled the mediation process [for the 3rd time] and also in the Mediator's own report continuously act in bad faith, and revert full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully part of, but try to weedle out of, slandar and lie whenever they need to, etc etc, have once again teamed up to revert a version that is unacceptable to the last Mediator, plus at least two other Admins who have recently contributed, so that I am left to revert them continuously and then one of them then reports me for a 3RR.

You then step in to the story, and effectively, regardless of any other judgement on your part, help them do what I have said they do and which you dont have to take my word for it you just have to read through the Talk and mediation page of the last 48 hours even.

I have been the one that originally requested mediation, that they have sabotaged continuously. You are not helping WP. You are just aiding this nonsense.

You will probably reply to follow the dispute process; the reply to that is it is not working - because there is bad faith and lies, and I have been trying to for months. What do you have to say to that?

Please consider the actual effect of your Admin actions - can you appreciate that if manipulated you might just be an unconscious party to extremely ant-WP behaviour?

Thanks.

Very nice reasoning in theory. But in this case if two editors in point of fact who are intent on sabotaging everything and resist all mediation team up to out-revert me, then the result is as is; and if the others who have been involved just give up - like the last valiant mediator, Che, for these stated reasons that I give, then what you propose does not work in practice. So your 'one way to tell' idea has found an exception that breaks the rule. And regardless of your very best intentions that I have not a shadow of a doubt about - you are just in practice effectievely a lackey to their actions. That is the reality regardless of what you think otherwise. WP is breaking down here because of this and you aren't doing anything about it, but the opposite.Richardmalter 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite why you think calling me a lackey is going to help you I don't know. Anyway: if you have 2 editors against you, then obviously out-reverting them will not work. So... follow WP:DR: find someone to agree with you; mediation, RFC, and if that fails RFA William M. Connolley 09:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And quite why you're stuck at mediation I dont know. Its not the end of DR William M. Connolley 11:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Violation
Richard, I believe you are again in violation of 3RR, having made by my count 4 reverts within the last 24 hours as of this time, both under your username and anon IP. I suggest you restore the previous entry and undo your revert as a demonstration of willingness to abide by Wikipedia processes and rules. GenghizRat 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I regret that as you've taken no action to self-revert, I've reported you as once again in willful violation. GenghizRat 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 13 2006 to Yoshiaki_Omura
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours.

I hope its going to become obvious that you cannot win on this article simply by out-reverting. If you believe that mediation has failed you, please move on to RFC and/or try to interest other editors.

William M. Connolley 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

William, please count again, I watched the clock and did not believe that I was breaking the 3RR rule. I of course know that a revert war is futile. I wish the other side would know the same thing. I request you unblock me.

Also it makes little difference I have requested arbitration because of this ridiculous situation where a couple of people can sabotage mediation by wearing mediators down continuously and not keeping to agreements anyway when they are made - which is of course the height of WP good faith.Richardmalter 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I count 4, including you as the anon. Which do you dispute? If you're heading for arbitration, you'd better be clean, and WP:1RR will help you William M. Connolley 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, 4 but the 4th was outside of a 24 hour period that starts with the first.Richardmalter 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello RM! You might want to note the following from WP:3RR: "Furthermore, making reversions just outside of the twenty four hour "deadline" may still result in a block; Wikipedians take a dim view of people attempting to wikilawyer or game the system." In addition to this, the practice on Wikipedia tends to be to block when a 3RR situation is unclear. --Philosophus T 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura arbitration
''Che I have requested Arbitration because of exactly the problems you wrote. I understand your wish to remain neutral, but what you said you said, very accurately, and your words provide a neutral 3rd party comment during mediation of the underlying situation. I will not pretend that you did not know what you were saying.Richardmalter 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * I understand why you requested arbitration, and I understand your feelings on the matter. I will comment on the request when I have seen what others have to say. I knew exactly what I was saying, and I will explain exactly what I meant when I said it, no matter how you reinterpret it, when I make my statement to ArbCom. - Che Nuevara  01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please leave new comments at the bottom of my talk page, not the top. - Che 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Che; I am sure you will say what you mean :-). I never meant otherwise :-) Richardmalter 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not stated what this case is about. If you are not ready to proceed perhaps it should be removed (without prejudice) until you are ready. Will you be ready soon? Thatcher131 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, didn't see the block. You can place your statement here and I will copy it over or you can wait until the block expires and place it yourself. Thatcher131 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

''Che, I am sure you dont hold speaking straightforwardly a negative quality. I was surprised to read your statement about the discussion around the stub and Starting Over. 1) I think the record very clearly shows that i did agree to this, and 2) that Crum375 did not - or more accurately, did not keep to his agreement as you yourself noted.''

3) I then wanted you to put in a direct quote of virtually word for word what you had written anyway, that is all.

If this is not your perception, then I must in my mind put it down to twiki-type communication that is the problem re this; because this is what I said and meant; and Crum was equally clear.

''Is this not a true and accurate account? Richardmalter 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * Rome did not fall in a day, Richard. You did, in fact, agree to work with the stub, but that is not the only issue at hand. The actions of the anonymous IPs, which I can only assume joined the fray at your behest, reverted continuously to a version which was clearly inappropriate, and there is at least one instance of an IP which I assume is yours reverting to that version. Besides this, past behavior still stands, and Crum was not alone in editing contentiously and failing to act in good faith. Just because the stub incident happened last does not mean it is the only thing that ArbCom will look at.
 * Quite frankly, what you want out of this RfAr is not my concern, nor should it be. I submitted as neutral a statement as possible while still giving my honest opinion of the matter. I will go into greater detail if/when the case is taken up by the Committee. But please do not expect me to champion you in this case: you will be disappointed.
 * I wish you the best, but I won't compromise my neutrality because Crum pushed my buttons at a bad time for me. - Che Nuevara  17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, thanks for the reply; no, I dont expect any championing - after all this (though not before either) I am hardly naive. No, no one came at my behest. But as you can imagine people involved with use of the BDORT (some named on the affidavit to the Patent Office you have seen) have been concerned and surprised at what is happening here - which, like me, they see is clearly a deliberate attempt to deride Dr Omura and his techniques, and they have been trying to do what they can to help - in I guess the limited time they have and superficial knowledge of WP, and some realization that the other two antis are teeth-clenched in their course. Re Rome, it was the last straw and Crum not agreeing as you know destroyed the mediation process which had a last and long term good outcome with no editwarring chance. That is a fact of history documented here. I will quote you (if necessary not that I need to the links in my statement show it clearly) that I agreed to the stub; and it is equally clear from the records that Crum375 did not. I do understand the question of your neutrality - I worked this out when I first started quoting you and you asked me to refrain. I am sure your progression in WP will not be affected if this is part of the picture you refer to. I will repeat that I think you did an excellent job and that I am grateful for your efforts which have my good respect. Cheers.Richardmalter 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Statement
[please don't shorten as the whole picture is made up of the parts and cant be seen in isolation]

Underlying Supra-WP biases are the root of the conflict. Things considered in isolation will not tell the whole story. GenghizRat has used many handles and evaded admitting: "I am Whiffle. You are not . . .". He has a deep, major personal bias, confided in me (I keep faith, no details) he knew Omura personally, had major disagreements with him. He says there's no grudge, but he even tried to mock Omura's residence, "Omura's house (literally – well, apartment, anyway)". This November at a Symposium that Omura Chairmans, he visited Columbia University campus and we know spread comments there aimed at denegrating the Symposium. He will deny this; but gives it away here indirectly "I had, by chance. . .". He created the original entry, with his underlying bias, which shows on line 1, to label the BDORT as 'pseudoscience' [], which he continues throughout. His WP:OR/POV shows in his 'discursive' edits. He repeatedly evades full consensus mediated agreements (FCMA) that he was part of, and states the Mediator's records, Discussion closed and action taken as agreed are "matters of interpretation", etc.

Crum375's undeclared entrenched bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" []. He does not admit this motivation, but as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly". He wants to warn the world of his perceived danger of BDORT. All his behaviour that I could not understand for a while is coherent with this. It explains many actions including his repeated arguments  to have a "disclaimer" after almost each paragraph despite being told by Mediators/Admins, "not appropriate for Wikipedia". He too wont keep to FCMAs, tries to deny, evade them repeatedly. Typically: first he denies agreements, "nothing whatsoever"; when pressed admits they are, "minor technicalities" (fact: usage of a citation, in itself and for what); still evades, "only agreed to by me" (false);later invents reasons why he reverts FCMD which like all his discussion only sounds reasonable in isolation. Even when the last Mediator CheNuevara proposed we begin the most basic, neutral stub and work from there to stop the edit warring, seconded as the "best option" by Cowman109 (coordinator: Mediation Cabal), he was as the Mediator said "resistant" and showed a "continued lack of good faith" to this - and so scuttled the last mediation attempt completely. He has an immovable bias. Also repeatedly misrepresents consensus regarding mediation process, tries to deny (his) agreements "no recollection"; by "interpret[ing] agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith". He continually misrepresents consensus suggesting "wide consensus' and "problem for one editor only". Even when Admins/Mediators give proposals for citations (which I agree to), if he interprets them as being in any way 'pro' BDORT he argues ad infinitum to not allow them against the Mediator's efforts . His 'mediation' effort was a sham, for example, requesting no one make unilateral changes, then he making a "unilateral change" (viz his bias). Re the much disputed NZ Tribunal citation, when Che the last mediator (and also the previous mediator) drafted a neutral version of it, I agreed to it without any major problem; the other parties either selectively quote from it or outweigh one quote from it with many to meet their POVs. ALL real mediators have done a great job. The record shows I have gone along with everything they proposed - content and process (occasionally requesting minor adjustments, never blocking). The last mediator CheNuevara I quote as a neutral 3rd party commentator on the situation. This doesn't alter the fact of his extremely useful, patient, neutral, efforts which I respect very much. My bias: I use the BDORT, am convinced it works, I have always said so - my identity is public . That said, I by chance discovered the original entry; an Admin at the time of the first edit wars told me if I truly want a neutral article then WP policies are my friends. I think this true. I want a basic NPOV, no WP:OR,'encyclopedic' informative entry. Even a stub I agreed to. The record shows that I have argued for this. The other parties are blocking this (which they deny). They have teamed up to evade the 3RR rule by out-reverting anyone, including the last Mediator - their strategy to stall and keep this version up at all cost and 'discourse' endlessly while it remains. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks.144.137.15.193 07:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura Arbitration evidence
Be sure to use third ( === ) level headings for your evidence, or else the evidence page will become quite confusing. Thanks, Philosophus T 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Richardmalter 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon user?
Hi, someone at the IP address 24.39.123.238 just made a comment on Talk:Yoshiaki Omura and signed your name. Was this actually you? | Mr. Darcy talk 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

for the record, no.Richardmalter 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Private evidence
It has been brought to my attention that these edits   may constitute a threat to disclose personal information about another wikipedia user that was sent to you in confidence. If you believe this information is necessary to allow the arbitrators to decide the case, you should send to them by private e-mail, either to one or two of them individually, or to their private closed mailing list, Arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. Publically posting someone's personal information is a violation of the harassment policy and is a blockable offense, regardless of the outcome of the case otherwise. Thank you. Thatcher131 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was thinking the same thing about sending them the info by email, I will do this. Yes I understand the harassment idea within WP. I also understand about slandar in real life and the effects it has in the real world on real, named, identifiable people, (that can be done by WP editors) which is unacceptable. As I have stated elsewhere I am at a loss why biography of living persons criteria have not been applied.Richardmalter 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, you have posted information that appears to release personal details. Please e-mail it to the ArbCom instead. If you post it again, you risk being blocked. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want the ArbCom to know about it, you can e-mail it to them. Your insistence on posting it publicly is starting to look as though that's your main aim. Can you see that? If you repost it, even with material removed, I have to warn you that you may be blocked from editing. If you want to e-mail me to discuss this further, you're very welcome to. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not publish anything on Wikipedia that identifies another editor without that person's consent. If you do, the material will be deleted, so it's pointless trying it. I don't know what you mean by "I still want to publish the blanked out sections because how else are others in the Arb process able to assess matters." No one other than the ArbCom members needs to know anything; they look at the evidence and they alone decide.


 * By all means send me the version you want to publish, but it may only contain Dr. Omura's generic statements about the article and the alleged defamatory statements. It may not contain any claims about an editor's identity. It also has to be a clear statement about this case. Dr. Omura can't use Wikipedia as a platform to expound his views in general.


 * I'm sorry to speak harshly but this situation has gone too far, and I don't want to see you blocked because of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you a version for your approval. It certainly has gone too far - with real world harm being done - personal and professional!! I hope that is really clear. I cannot comprehend how the WP is going along with this.

Your request
Richard, can you say which material you want to have removed, and say exactly why for each example? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. This section needs removing:. The reason is that it is WP:OR to strongly suggest that Dr Omura has dishnoestly affiliated himself to Columbia University, using honest mistakes in other websites that attribute that he is 'of' or 'from' Columbiua University (which is the problem with the idea of third-party reporting BTW). Dr Omura has stated clearly that this is an absolutely false suggestion that has no basis in fact. See Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. here ; furthermore it is deliberately intended by GhengizRat to be malicious by using WP as a tool to defame Dr Omura and make it difficult for Dr Omura to continue with his Symposiums at Columbia University as a simple renter of space (you have read the statement about GhengizRat and his real world malicious actions). Moreover, this statement has already done and continues this minute to do real life harm to a living person confirmed as fact by Dr Omura in his statement when he relates the response of Columbia University to this passage remaining public which Columbia University also knows to be falseby This WP:OR is malicious, deliberate attempt by GhengizRat to construe an argument based on patched together citations that do not actually say what the paragraph strongly and deliberately suggests.

Richardmalter 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Next instance for immediate deletion: re Use of categories : Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. WP:BLP. This is especially the case when it is intentionally malicious.

Omura is the creator of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), a form of applied kinesiology[2] which has been characterized as pseudoscience,.

First this has already been discussed months ago in Mediation with Aguerriero as the Mediator, who I think was also an Admin. It was agreed in full consensus Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. that this citation cannot be used as it is here (even though Crum375 and GhengizRat have edit warred to keep this up). In the second round of Mediation with Che it was agreed again by full consensus. (You also stated yourself many months ago that this is saying loud and clear "that you dont rate it" to these editors who put it up originally.) The citation does not discuss the BDORT directly which is why GhengizRat has had to label the citation note en passant. Most importantly, it is a malicious and deliberate attempt at labelling and catagorizing Dr Omura's work. The Catagories section catagorizing of Dr Omura's work as 'Pseudoscience' is also based (solely) on this agreed inproper use of citation. Furthermore, Dr Omura has stated that:

''Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery. However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor] uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery. However, in many of my lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful. Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts. Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.''

This means that the article is referencing a citation that is contrary to the facts stated by the subject of the entry about himself. And Dr Omura is the best source to say what he thinks and claims about himself.

Jimmy Wales has said:


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:


 * "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

Thanks.

I will document more instances soon. Richardmalter 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Richard,

Re: 1. Nothing that Omura or anyone else has posted on Wikipedia may be used as a source.

Re: 2. Anything that Omura self-publishes on his website or in one of his journals may be used as a source so long as, in the opinion of the editors on the page, (a) it is relevant to his notability; (b) it is not contentious; (c) it is not unduly self-serving; (d) it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; (e) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. See WP:V.

Re: 3. The POV template may only be used if you've made suggestions for NPOV improvement that are actionable within our policies, and those suggestions have not been implemented. The templates can't be used simply to signal dissatisfaction. I would suggest leaving the template off, and working instead to find ways to improve the text.

Re: 4. Regarding the statement from the tribunal, I can't tell whether it's confusing without reading everything else that they wrote. It may be that it's confusing out of context, because there may be other things they say that qualify the part of the statement you posted on my talk page.

What I'd suggest in general is that you try to form a good working relationship with Crum375. He's a very good editor, he's familiar with the policies, cares about following them, and wants to make sure the article is well-written and fair. Your best bet is to try to work with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be editing the article, even to tag it, because you're representing Omura and BDORT, which places you in a conflict of interest. I'm also not sure you've met the requirement of a suggestion that can be implemented within our policies. Crum seems to feel that interpreting the tribunal will involve some OR. I don't know whether I'd agree because I've not read the tribunal's findings, and I don't have time to read them today, but Crum really is an excellent editor. Please try to work with him, not against him, because I'm certain he'll be fair to Omura and BDORT. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

SV, I am not interpreting anything. Quoting the Tribunial directly cant be that. Omission, though can cause massive POV and makes for great 'interpretation'. I have made a positive suggestion, just keep this same-source piece if text in. No neutral editor has had a problem with it yet.Richardmalter 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura
This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. Richardmalter and all other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern are indefinitely banned from editing Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. They may be blocked for up to one year if they do so. Blocks, and any alternative accounts or IPs used, should be logged at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users. The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT or PMRT) under any title. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice
An editor has posted an Arbitration enforcement notice board review request concerning your recent actions in view of the arbitration committee final decision. -- Jreferee 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your posts
Richard, there has been a complaint from an uninvolved editor that your posts to the BLP noticeboard violate the spirit of the ArbCom ruling against you, in that you're posting elsewhere material that you've been asked not to post to the BDORT talk page. I think this complaint has some substance, so I'm writing to ask that you stop posting the same complaints about BDORT, and in particular that you stop posting criticism of particular editors. If fresh issues arise, you're welcome to mention them to an admin, but continually posting the same complaints, which have been looked at, is becoming disruptive. The article is no longer named after Omura, which alleviates the BLP issue somewhat, and several changes have been made to accommodate your concerns. Ultimately, the article can't be entirely the way you want it to be, and it must reflect the legitimate criticism that has been made by authoritative sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SV, this is not correct: but continually posting the same complaints: I posted to you BLP 'complaints' that have not yet been addressed at all including by you, got no response; so I posted to BLP noticeboard. That's it. Crum375 makes a discussion by following me around - this is not my doing. I fail to see why BLP are not taken seriously by wikipedians in action - it took months to get a simple deletion and people are not following WP:BLP spirit as well as policy.Richardmalter 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, if you have new concerns, by all means let me know by e-mail, but please don't keep posting about the issue on Wikipedia, and in particular please don't make any more comments about other editors. But do, by all means, feel free to e-mail me if you have genuine concerns that haven't already been addressed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Block
Richard, I've blocked this account for one month in accordance with the ArbCom ruling prohibiting you from editing BDORT or from posting to Talk:BDORT. You posted today in violation of the ruling using, which posted from an IP address previously used by you. Please note that if you continue to violate the ruling, the blocks will become progressively longer. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you'd be well advised to stay away from issues related to BDORT. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that the ArbCom ruling made clear that it didn't distinguish between sockpuppets and accounts with the same pattern of edits, in case that becomes an issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked after an e-mail discussion with Richard, in which he says the anon IP that posted to BDORT was not him; he said that a previous diff showing him signing as the same anon IP is misleading, and that the anon had in fact copied an earlier post of Richard's, and expanded it, but had retained Richard's signature. He insists that he has no idea who did it. This is a bizarre explanation, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've unblocked on condition that the personal attacks against other editors stop. If they resume, I'm going to reinstate the block. SlimVirgin (talk)  02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Bizarre' explanation - admittedly; however, seemingly true - to the best of my knowledge and my own surprise at what happened.Richardmalter 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

= WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (in the very least)TO THE BDORT ARTICLE =

1) The words, and the diagnostician subjectively and The form of the test is the subjective evaluation and the diagnostician then uses their perception of the strength is clearly editorial POV. Comparing this with the actual patent description text which is used as the main source and with the other two sources cited, you can see how these words are a coherent editorial POV addition, which serves no informational purpose - the plain description could be given just as well without them: they are subjective interpretation (ie POV):

''A method of imaging an internal organ of a patient for purposes of medical diagnosis, where a patient forms an O-ring shape with one of hands by placing the fingertips of his thumb and one of his remaining fingers together and a sample of tissue of an internal organ is placed on the patient's other hand, and the patient's internal organ is non-invasively externally probed with a probing instrument. The internal organ is the same type of organ as that of the sample. Simultaneously a tester attempts to pull apart the O-ring shape by means of the tester placing his thumb and one of the remaining fingers of each of his hands within the O-ring shape of the patient to form interlocking O-rings and pulling the thumb and the finger of the patient apart due to an electromagnetic field of the tissue of the sample interacting with an electromagnetic field of the internal organ being probed and this interaction is detected by the ability to pull apart the O-ring shape thereby permitting imaging of the boundaries of the internal organ being probed.''

As you can read in the article the BDORT was initially refused a patent as it was considered to be based on a subjective evaluation. Dr Omura provided affidavits from eminent professional internationally to the US Patent Office to testify to its objectivity (uploaded by me to wikipedia here: ) ,and can be verified by contacting the Patent office - they are public documents) and on this basis it was granted the Patent. Please note, the BDORT is defined by its reproducibility: please see paragraphs 1,2,3 & 4. Please note particularly that the BDORT has the so-called 'three essential conditions for reproducibility' - otherwise it is not a BDORT. Please note: there is no discussion about what is and is not the BDORT - Dr Omura is the inventor and patent holder. Moreover, for basic accuracy, since WP editors don't know what they are writing about at all here - they are complete non-experts - they must simply copy the correct technical descriptions given otherwise their technical ignorance of the subject will be the content of the article.

2) that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT

is factually incorrect. Gorringe did not use the BDORT. If I say I fly to the moon and a medical tribunal also mistakenly refers to me flying to the moon this does not make it anywhere near even approaching a fact that I fly to the moon. Gorringe did not use the BDORT; at best, "he claimed to", is true. This fact of his non-usage of the BDORT can be confirmed by the Tribunal itself - see paragraph 290 of the report and Gorringe's own description of his technique given by him in the quoted Tribunal report:

''Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.[4]''

''For using the BDORT I use quite a simple piece of apparatus. It consists of a square aluminium plate measuring 200mm x 200mm x 10mm which is joined by a wire to another square block of aluminium measuring 100 x 100 x 20mm (called a “honeycomb” because of the holes drilled in it), into which you can place various vials, or onto the flat surface of which you can place larger objects/substances. ''

Please note nowhere, ever in any paper etc does Dr Omura describe such method, apparatus, etc as anything, whatsoever, to do with the BDORT. This is confirmed again by Dr Omura himself in his public statement (confirmed as authentic by one of the ArbCom members below it):

''[] Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003). I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me. I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.). [] Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different. I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings. After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time.''

Please note again, that only Dr Omura can say what is and what is not the BDORT. who used BDORT is factually incorrect. That is the be all and end all of the discussion in this regard. The article needs to amended throughout accordingly.

So What really happened?: Gorringe learnt something second or third hand from a teacher of his in Germany who also learnt this second or third hand, and called this "BDORT" in ignorance and mistakenly. Gorringe then went on and referred his usage of this methodology in the Tribunal as "BDORT". The Tribunal (also being complete non-experts in the BDORT) simply repeated/parroted what Gorringe had quoted, ie "BDORT" - and the mistake just propagated. The Tribunal discussed 'PMRT' Generically, and gave their opinion on it. When they actually checked to see what supporting material Gorringe presented, which was Dr Omura's materials, they noted the simple fact that what Gorringe was doing and what Dr Omura was describing and doing were two separate things. That is it.

Furthermore, The superficial resemblances, that a test of muscle strength was involved, is irrelevant. Tennis and squash ('racketball' in the US?) both use an instrument with taught strings and involves a ball. They are, though very, different. I guess they are generically the same in some sense, but everything to do with technique, rules etc are completely different (except perhaps to a chimpanzee they might look essentially identical, to make the point and no discredit to other primates). BDORT has its distinct, worked out technique, rules for reproducibility, and methodology.

In respect of this simple understanding, all such statements, mentions, references etc such as, relied on BDORT, written by an editor and not as a direct (regrettably mistaken) quote from the Tribunal must be deleted as infactual. Otherwise the article is just propagating mistake on the back of mistake and as a piece of encyclopaedic 'journalism' is very poor and inaccurate work indeed.

3) In the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body

is infactual. It is also, please note, an uncited editorial statement. As you can read in Dr Omura's statement (linked to above) the New York State Board of Medicine (NYSBM) has evaluated Dr Omura's course for content - which very prominently includes the BDORT, and quality, and found it to be entirely satisfactory to meet the highest professional standards and is fully accredited for licensed physicians - which can also be confirmed by contacting the NYSBM. This statement needs to be deleted as infactual, speculation. Further, in plain common sense, if the above were hypothetically untrue regarding NYSBM accreditation of BDORT/acupuncture courses given by Dr Omura (which it is not) it is rationally impossible to make such a statement as it cannot be known that another body somewhere else has not made an evaluation.

4) Other than the New Zealand Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal's reports, there is no known independent mainstream scientific or medical evaluation or validation of any of the BDORT or BDORT-related claims, including the following BDORT variants:

is also factually incorrect re the above discussion.

5) the The Indirect Method description is incorrect and infactual and needs amending to avoid the current misrepresentation of Dr Omura's work.

6) the Remote Application is similarly incorrect and infactual.

8) the Selective Drug Uptake Enhancement Method is similarly incorrect and infactual, an "acupuncture point" is not stimulated in this method.

11) It is unclear from the tribunal's report whether the 'Omura materials' presented by Gorringe are related to any distinction between BDORT and PMRT or not, since paragraph 290 itself seems to equate them, and the tribunal seems to also equate BDORT and PMRT and use them interchangeably in the rest of the Wellington report

is POV 100% - which is trying to make a new interpretation of already cited material. The Tribunal statement is perfectly clear.

Richardmalter 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1garden's block and the Arbcom ruling
I was not the one who issued the block on. The matter has now moved from here to here, so post your concerns under your heading on that latter page. --Dynaflow  babble  20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for three months for your continued disruption and ban evasion on BDORT and related articles. I see that you have used or attempted to use sockpuppets and proxies to have your way with this subject despite the community's and ArbCom's attempts to stop you. The pattern of behavior has gone on for far too long. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I put out a RfC after I was blocked from editing the article directly, and 1garden got involved. GDallimore later got involved of his own account. I was not blocked from talking to users on their talk page. And GDallimore told me on his Talk page that I was welcome to drop him a line by email - so I did; he is unfair to say my emails were "unsolicited". I do not think in any reasonable way that I have been disruptive in any of this.

2) It is true, as I was advised I could still do, that I have been trying to attract other users to look at this article, as it has serious (BLP) problems with it. This is really completely regardless of what anyone things of complementary medicine, BDORT, etc etc.

3) You can see from the last bit of discussion on the BDORT Talk page that even GDallimore - who is a completely established and neutral editor, found independently the same underlying POV problem that I found, others have found, and 1garden found, a "blatant OR synthesis". There is a major problem with this article and the WP community is failing to resolve it.

4) It is true that I encouraged 1garden to help after he replied to the RfC I made. I also made a 'for-the-record' list on my Talk page of what I think needs doing to the article. And I pointed 1garden to it. But that's all I did. He is not my proxy. And I dont use sockpuupets - I never have. I have always edited in my own real life name (unlike others).

5) Re (2) above, this really needs to stop. As you can see from the last heading section or two from the BDORT Talk page, there is a serious and fundamental 'disagreement' here, that is firmly in the area of BLP also. WP processes have really failed miserably here.

Richardmalter 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone prepared to input into a long standing content dispute with editors tenaciously set on POVing an article to a "blatant OR synthesis". Thanks. Richardmalter 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

do not edit my talk page if you are not willing to help


 * This is not the purpose of the helpme template. Having it on your talkpage causes a bot to leave a message every few minutes in an IRC room, and for me this causes noise every few minutes; it makes me unable to tell when there are others who legitimately need help. If you want unblocked, there are more appropriate ways to go about it. Don't misuse the helpme template. --Sopoforic 12:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Support Team advised me to do this exactly, I am following their advice, after extensive discussion about this particular situation which is to do with blatant BLP and OR abuse issues that need remedying. Thanks.Richardmalter 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not me claiming to have helped your tag, but have you seen [|Wikipedia Dispute Resolution] which may inform you about some options - my advice would be whatever works quickest - the sooner you win (fairly or unfairly) or lose (fairly or unfairly) the better for you and actually for everybody. I also recommend you look at the one form of Dispute Resolution called "Request for Comment" Rfwoolf 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not use the helpme tag to request help of this kind. The template is for newcomers who need help with basic editing. Thanks, Tangotango (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)