Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura

Case Opened on 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties

 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's
 * anonymous IP's

Statement by Crum375

 * See my complete statement here for more detail and background.

is a man who invented an Alternative Medicine procedure he calls the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (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 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 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.

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. 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' 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.

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.".

Examples of recent uncivil talk comments 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)", on December 9, 2006
 * 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

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.

Statement by Richardmalter
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.  I initated all mediation rounds. 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)

I realize this is not the place to debate; but complete misrepresentation(again) provokes a response: I never used sockpuppetry; neither purposely deleted Talk page info; my personal details are public; in one case that I considered that Crum375 slandared me, I sent a message to Wiki tech people to ask it be permenantly removed; I of course know that deleting Talk page info is useless for any reason. That's the actual record. Re 'me calling the Admin a lackey' - please actually read the actual words I wrote that Crum375 links to. Thanks.Richardmalter 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Statement by Philosophus
This dispute has a rather long and complex history, and so I thought I would write a preliminary statement on its history. The dispute started on Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which was created by SnarkBoojum (possibly an account of GenghizRat?) a few days after the account was created, as a short stub linking to the NZ tribunal findings and giving a short description of the test, from a somewhat mainstream point of view, classifying it as pseudoscience. A month later, RichardMalter came to Wikipedia, and as his first edit (I assume 203.220.167.134 is RM), proceeded to completely change the article to be sympathetic to Omura and BDORT, and to refute the NZ findings by saying that it was biased and Gorringe was not using BDORT properly (though no sources were given for this). The essential disagreement has not changed significantly since then, though the BDORT article was merged into Yoshiaki Omura. It has principally consisted of Richardmalter (aka User:RichardMalter and a few IPs) and allies pushing an article discounting the NZ tribunal findings and praising the technique and Omura, using Omura's website and writings as sources, and GenghizRat (who has used various accounts in the past for complex reasons) and others (myself, Crum175, SlimVirgin for a time, ...) pushing an article based heavily on the NZ findings being one of the only reliable sources. Crum175, if I recall, originally came to mediate, convincing me to remove the Pseudoscience category, but ended up joining one of the sides.

As GenghizRat noted, I nominated the article for deletion very early on. The nomination, and subsequent withdrawal, were due to the NZ tribunal findings. In the version I initially read, the findings were not referenced, and the article thus, in my opinion, could not satisfy WP:V as there were no reliable sources to provide for verifiability. When I later found that reference (we have just now found another tribunal report as well, making for two reliable sources from a medical standpoint), I realized that the subject was in fact notable and not just the vanity article that the contemporary revision seemed to be, leading to my statement that GenghizRat quotes. I now believe that the subject easily satisfies WP:V and thus WP:N, but this is due to the NZ findings alone. Without those, the only medical sources are those written by proponents of the technique in journals run by themselves or other proponents.

This statement is certainly not my actual statement, and I will prepare a statement which will include my opinions on the matter and its relation to policy. I see this request for arbitration as being necessary to give support to the following policy idea that Che brought up - that even if the only reliable sources give a negative viewpoint, unreliable sources should not be used to balance the statements given in the article. --Philosophus T 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by GenghizRat
This entry’s history reflects a persistent and determined effort on the part of advocates of Yoshiaki Omura’s practices, of whom the most visibly and consistently determined is Richardmalter, to shape the entry in their favor – or, failing that attempt, at a minimum to remove or recast available, verifiable information which they find other than to their liking.


 * The entry was first created in stub form 20060411. As noted by Philosophus, IP 203.220.167.134, which resolves to APNIC, Australia, therefore likely RichardMalter, first touches the entry on 20060515, changing neutral statements such as ‘claims’ or ‘asserts’ to read instead as simple declarations of fact as to Omura’s claims and methods. These changes are reverted by Will Beback.


 * Philosophus proposes AfD based on non-notability 20060516 . In the course of a brief discussion RichardMalter argues 'The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc,’ and further asserting ‘What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors.’ Richardcavell, per his user page a physician, observes: *Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep.' Philosophus withdraws his AfD request 20060523, stating ‘After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought.'


 * 20060522 separate entries on Omura and Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test are merged by Karada.


 * 20060522 SlimVirgin addresses a number of matters relating to the entry


 * 20060619 the entry is again nominated AfD, by myself . ‘The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious.' Xoloz


 * 20060706 Icaet [ICAET is the abbreviation of Omura’s ‘Internation College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics] edits the entry in Omura’s favor without comment.


 * 20060718 Telomere+ edits the entry in Omura’s favor with the observation ‘(The above six paragraphs were inserted as an edit by a student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000, and Dr. Omura’s voluntary assistant since 2005; the content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as his personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.)’


 * 20060722 Fjagod02 [is listed as ‘Editorial Associate’ of Omura’s ‘Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research: The International Journal’ edits the entry massively in favor of Omura.


 * 20060722 IP 162.84.209.147, which resolves to Verizon NYC, edits the entry in Omura’s favor  and is reverted by Spondoolicks.
 * 20060722 Fjagod02 again massively edits the entry in Omura’s favor


 * 20060725 Fjagod02 edits out reference to the New Zealand Tribunal    and is reverted by Philosophus.


 * 20060726 Telomere+ edits the entry to excise the New Zealand Tribunal’s statement re BDORT


 * 20060906 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal.


 * 20061009 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal and is reverted by Spondoolicks


 * 20061202 IP 24.39.123.238, which resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a series of massive Omura-favorable edits on the entry  resulting in banning.
 * 20061203 IP 24.136.99.194, which also resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a similar campaign  also resulting in banning.


 * 20061214 IP 162.84.148.182, which resolves to Verizon NYC edits the entry in support of IP 24.39.123.238 in further support of Omura's claims

I believe that consideration of this history and its supporting diffs, combined with consideration of the information presented by others, will strongly suggest the desirability of further consideration of this entry and the issues it raises as well as patterns of conduct of advocates of Omura and his teachings and practices.

I will be more than happy to assist in that process as well as I am able. GenghizRat 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by MrDarcy
User:24.39.123.238 just blanked Talk:Yoshiaki Omura, inserted a new comment, and signed it Richardmalter (diff). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/1)

 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. - SimonP 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 13:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting on this case. (now active arbitrator) FloNight 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Conflict of interest
1) Edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See Conflict of interest.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Ban for disruption
2) There is no hard and fast rule which prohibits those personally invested in a subject from editing the article about it. However, such involvement in Wikipedia may be, if not handled with great discretion, extremely disruptive. In such cases a user with a conflict of interest may be banned from editing the affected article.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Who's who
3) In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Yoshiaki Omura
1) Yoshiaki Omura is the inventor of a patented medical diagnostic technique, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT). Information regarding Yoshiaki Omura and the technique is consolidated in.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Richardmalter
2), a single purpose account, identifies himself as an Australian practitioner of alternative medicine using the BDORT technique click "cancel" twice to access.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Disruptive editing
3) Richardmalter, other accounts, and anonymous IPs with the same editing pattern have edited Yoshiaki Omura in an aggressive, biased manner.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ban for disruption
1) 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. Alternative accounts and anonymous IPs, as identified, to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Enforcement by block
1) Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern may be blocked for up to a year if they edit Yoshiaki Omura or its talk page. Blocks to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Care should be taken with anonymous IPs to avoid blocking addresses used by other users.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Alternative titles
2) The remedies in this matter apply to any article concerning the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) or (PMRT) under any title.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Enforcement by reversion
3) Disruptive edits to Yoshiaki Omura made by Richardmalter and the other accounts and anonymous IPs with the same disruptive editing pattern may be reverted without limit.


 * Passed 6-0 on February 2, 2006

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * I blocked on March 22, 2007 for one month for posting to BDORT and Talk:BDORT using a sockpuppet, . A check user request confirmed that AlternativeHealthAdvocate posted from an IP address previously used by Richardmalter.  In addition, AlternativeHealthAdvocate posted a warning notice to BDORT that it was being edited by "malicious" editors,  a position previously expressed only by User:RichardMalter. SlimVirgin (talk)  22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I unblocked Richard today because he insists he is not the anon IP who posted to BDORT. He says 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 says he has no idea who did it. This is a bizarre explanation, but I've given him the benefit of the doubt. I've unblocked on condition that the personal attacks against other editors stop. SlimVirgin (talk)  02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 22:02, 9 April 2007 Newyorkbrad (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 24.39.123.238 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (inappropriate editing of BDORT in violation of Arbitration Committee decision). Newyorkbrad 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indef-blocked new account as 's sock/meatpuppet for posting this, similar to, previously indef-blocked by SlimVirgin. Crum375 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also indef-blocked new account on April 6, 2007, as sock/meatpuppets of the others above, with virtually identical edits. Crum375 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked indefinitely for acting as a proxy for User:Richardmalter. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that himself has not been blocked for any above shenanigans despite that being a remedy.  In light of the numerous sockpuppets and today's proxy editing, I have blocked him for 3 months. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the new information at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Richardmalter it is reasonable to conclude that 202.63.58.223 is either Richardmalter himself or another 'account or anonymous IP with the same disruptive editing pattern'. Such editors are banned by Arbcom from editing Yoshiaki Omura, and by inference BDORT since that is the successor article. I have semiprotected BDORT and am blocking  for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)