Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Summary
This entry and its associated pages reflect a persistent and determined effort on the part of Yoshiaki Omura and/or 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.

Conflict of Interest/Collusion/Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry/POV Pushing

 * 1) Richard Malter's Web Site (Note: Clicking on the Cancel button twice when password is requested will effect page view)
 * 2) Richard Malter vouching for IP's authority and credentials
 * 3) Abbaenok posts what appears to be Omura/RM's official line
 * 4) RM edits the entry in support of Abbaenok
 * 5) RM acknowledges working with Avraham Henoch, Omura's Secretary/Treasurer, to obtain information. Avraham Henoch's Secretary/Treasurer status, p 9, 11:20 am Presentation, Recent Symposium as attended by Richard Malter
 * 6) Extended presentation of what would appear to be Omura's position, presented by Telomere+
 * 7) Listing of sources representative of RM et alia's shoppping list
 * 8) Morpheuz, apparently a puppet, appears in support of RM
 * 9) RM makes explicit his insistence that Omura's journal be treated as an independent source
 * 10) icaet (ICAET is the abbreviation of Omura’s ‘International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics) edits the entry in Omura’s favor without comment
 * 11) Telomere+ (Presumably a reference to Omura's claims as to his techniques' ability to assess and improve Telomere levels) 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.)’
 * 12) Fjagod02 edits the entry massively in favor of Omura . ''(‘Filip Jagodzinski' is listed as ‘Editorial Associate’ of Omura’s ‘Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research: The International Journal’
 * 13) IP 162.84.209.147 (Verizon NYC) edits the entry in Omura’s favor
 * 14) Fjagod02 again massively edits the entry in Omura’s favor
 * 15) Fjagod02 edits out reference to the New Zealand Tribunal
 * 16) Telomere+ edits the entry to excise the New Zealand Tribunal’s statement re BDORT
 * 17) Telomere+ again edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal
 * 18) Telomere+ yet again edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal
 * 19) IP 24.39.123.238 (RoadRunner NY) commences a series of massive Omura-favorable edits on the entry, resulting in blocking
 * 20) IP 24.136.99.194 (RoadRunner NY) commences a similar campaign, also resulting in blocking
 * 21) IP 162.84.148.182 (Verizon NYC) edits the entry in support of IP 24.39.123.238 in further support of Omura's claims
 * 22) IP 24.136.99.194 (RoadRunner NY) presents a legal threat to ArbCom
 * 23) RM evidences confirmation of puppetry with Richard Shinnick – cf #2 above
 * 24) Richard Malter is 'Research Assistant, The Research Institute of Global Physiology, Behavior, and Treatment (USA)' (Note: Clicking on the Cancel button twice when password is requested will effect page view), of which Phillip Shinnick is a Director
 * 25) Richard Malter's website indicates the centrality of Yoshiaki Omura to his own professional researches, practices, and financial interests, as well as Shinnick's pivotal role. (Note: Clicking on the Cancel button twice when password is requested will effect page view)
 * 26) The European Center for Integrative Medicine site, which lists Yoshiaki Omura as 'Founder,' states ‘Diagnostics and therapy of ECIM are mostly based on the following factors: the combination of scientific medicine with the teachings of Prof. dr. Yoshiaki Omura from Columbia University, New York’
 * 27) The site of the European Center for Peace and Development, in 'The ECPD International Postgraduate Specialist Studies of Traditional Medicine and Bio-Medicine' section refers prominently to ‘Yoshiaki Omura, Honorary President of the Council, President of the International College for Acupuncture and Electrotherapist, Columbia University, New York.’ and to the 'International College for Acupuncture and Electro therapeutics at Columbia University, New York (USA)'
 * 28) The site of Thomas Colpitts, which states that he has studied extensively with Yoshiaki Omura, also refers to Yoshiaki Omura as ‘an internationally renowned physician on staff at Columbia University Medical Center.'
 * 29) RM removes the material he has indicated Yoshiaki Omura finds offensive despite its having been recently re-sourced after the initial citation was suddenly 'corrected' as a 'mistake'
 * 30) RM reduces the entry to stub status
 * 31) After Crum reverts the entry to its previous condition new editor AlternativeHealth begins editing the entry
 * 32) AlternativeHealth commences a series of edits leading to a highly positive presentation of Omura's work
 * 33) AlternativeHealth replaces Talk:Yoshiaki Omura with a demand the entry be 'corrected' in accord with Yoshiaki Omura's own demand as presented by Richardmalter and is indefinitely blocked as disruptive and a likely puppet.
 * 34) RM presents Omura's statement contesting the legitimacy of the entry as well as of WP criteria
 * 35) RM presents further statement on Omura's behalf
 * 36) RM continues to press Omura's demands

Personal Attacks/Threats/Attempts to Intimidate

 * 1) RM makes accusations of slander
 * 2) Denial
 * 3) RM extension of accusation
 * 4) Implicit insistence on truth of accusation while 'letting it go'
 * 5) Counterpoint accusation/question as to conflict of interest in RM's presence at Omura colloquy where RM alleged slander occurred
 * 6) Further insistence on and escalation of accusation of slander
 * 7) Further denial of accusation of slander
 * 8) Flat denial on RM's part as to suggestion of COI with respect to funding of NYC trip
 * 9) Accusation and legal threat made and removed
 * 10) RM insistence on Whiffle denial
 * 11) Clear and unequivocal personal threat to editor
 * 12) RM extensive accusation that Crum and GR were responsible for failure of Mediation
 * 13) RM, while reverting the entry in accord with IP Dots, attacks Crum and GR, insisting on their culpability for failure of Mediation, in defiance of Che's assertion that blame was widespread
 * 14) RM persists in his accusation
 * 15) RM continues extended personal attack, insisting it is not an attack, just 'fact'
 * 16) Attack on GR's good faith, combined with blame for failure of mediation and expression of unwillingness to work further with GR
 * 17) RM presents ultimatum combined with personal attack and legal threat in Evidence which he represents as on behalf of Yoshiaki Omura
 * 18) RM threatens personal attack/outing in course of Arbitration
 * 19) Extension of #16
 * 20) RM continues with personal attack via threat and innuendo in course of Arbitration in apparent attempt to shape entry in accord with his representation as to Omura's demands
 * 21) RM continues personal attacks against GR and Crum in Workshop in attempt to shape entry
 * 22) RM persists in presenting personal attacks
 * 23) RM continues with personal attack
 * 24) RM persists in personal attacks, stated as in cooperation with Omura, presented on SV's Talk page

[] statement by Dr Omura MD ScD
The private sections of this statement sent to ArbCom (not published on WP) confirm in detail the real life events referred to [] regarding GhengizRat's supra-WP biases as I have referred to them and his deliberate attempt to defame a living person using WP as his tool.Richardmalter 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

''Underlying Supra-WP biases are the root of the conflict. Things considered in isolation will not tell the whole story.''

REQUEST to Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS
I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. The section with the heading Affiliations/Credentials is particularly misrepresenting (and WP:OR), as it suggests that Dr Omura has dishonestly attempted to affiliate himself professionally, which is a completely false suggestion. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.


 * This also of course shows the intent of GenghizRat - the author of the WP:OR Affiliations/Credentials section - to try desperately to spread disrepute and defame Dr Omura - a living person:

''Omura's credentials suggest affiliation with Columbia University, [27] though he is not known to have any affiliation with Columbia. Similarly, Omura's sites prominently feature the statement that he has long held and continues to hold an 'Annual International Symposium on Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics' at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. [28][29][30] There is no known credible independent source to confirm Omura's presentations which suggest affiliation with Columbia University, nor known reference to him on any site or publication of Columbia University.''

This is also the version that Crum375 has edited wared for including with the last Mediator and repeatedly reverted on the basis of his specious claim that it is less POV than the neutral stub that the Mediator failed to get Crum375 to agree too!! Crum375 is by his actions perfectly happy to defend via an edit war material aimed at defaming a living person. This too fits perfectly with his underlying bias noted above.Richardmalter 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

US Patent Office Affidavits public documents that were dismissed must be included as a key source of info
One of the contested sources of information, which I think is critical to this entry and must be considered here, is the uploaded scan of the Affidavits that were presented to the US Patent Office (USPO) with clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test for Dr Omura in order for him to achieve the patent. The Affidavits were presented by well-established individuals from the U.S. and Japan(unsigned edit by Dr Avraham Henoch MD, WP novice). This source has been discussed, and there was not consensus that it could be used as I had uploaded it, though I thought that it was acceptable. If helpful, please see paragraphs 1-7 here for more background.

I stress the point that these Affidavits are public documents which can be obtained by anyone by simple application to the USPO. The procedure is as follows (I have verified this with the USPO today by calling 571 272 1000 and requesting the Document Service Division; my call reference was 1-589-428-74):

Fax: 571 273 3250. Supply details: Patent No., Title, dates, a mailing address for delivery, and credit card details for the fee of US$25.

Crum375, expressed doubts to the scan's authenticity. For this reason, my point is that the verification of this scan is merely a matter of one fax to the USPO. I PROPOSE that I contact the USPO, pay the fee, and arrange for the Affidavit document to be mailed to one of the Arbitrators, who will then be able to verify that the scan is true and accurate in a few seconds.

I think that this document is the most important source of information for the entry regarding the BDORT. The USPO is a neutral, reliable, third party source of information that can verify this information. It would certainly not be balanced, as I see it, to write an entry with disregard for these extraordinary documents that provide extraordinary evidence because of the extraordinary nature of the BDORT.

Please let me know to which mailing address to arrange the Affidavits be sent. Thanks.Richardmalter 07:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

**ROOT OF CONFLICT** is Supra-WP biases described here
''Why are you so averse to starting over? And why do you consistently sidestep the issue. .'' Che (mediator) asks Crum375. The answer I give below:''

GenghizRat has used many handles and evaded admitting: "I am Whiffle. You are not . . ." as well as disrupted real discussion often. He has a deep, major personal bias and personal grudge, confided in me (I keep faith, no details) he knew Omura personally, "I am, as I've indicated, by chance, particularly familiar with this"['Fucyfre' 00:10, 18 May 2006], 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)". He is set on 'attacking' Dr Omura. This November at a Symposium that Omura Chairmans, he visited Columbia University campus and we know spread comments there aimed at denigrating the Symposium. He will deny this; but gives it away here indirectly "I had, by chance. . ." which just happens to be during the dates of the conference. . . He created the original entry, with his underlying bias, which shows on line 1, to label the BDORT as 'pseudoscience' [], and defame Dr Omura however possible with anonymity.. which he continues throughout. His WP:OR/POV shows in his 'discursive' POV, (defamotory) WP:OR edits. As a third party commentator, another Admin noted to the last Mediator, Che, that GenghizRat(then 'Whiffle') is "not interested in working anything out at all".. The reason for this is his desire to defame Dr Omura.

Crum375 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"[CheNuevara 00:10, 4 October 2006]. He wants to warn the world of his perceived danger of BDORT. He is also convinced by his interpretation of the NZ Tribunal so thinks he is defending common sense, people worldwide - he again states this is his "concern"[Crum375 20:51, 28 August 2006] . 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"[Crum375 01:00, 9 July 2006] The test is not known to have been presented  after almost each paragraph despite being told by Mediators/Admins, "not appropriate for Wikipedia"[Aguerriero 21:18, 28 August 2006].

Evading Full Consensus Mediated Agreements (FCMAs)
GenghizRat repeatedly elaborately 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 too wont keep to FCMAs, tries to deny [Crum375 03:26, 23 November 2006], evade them repeatedly. Typically: first he denies agreements, "nothing whatsoever"[Crum375 03:44, 23 November 2006]; when pressed admits they are, "minor technicalities"[Crum375 04:09, 23 November 2006] (fact: usage of a citation, in itself and for what); still evades, "only agreed to by me" [Crum375 04:18, 23 November 2006] (100% false);later invents reasons why he reverts FCMD by trying to retroactively distort his agreement to a completely false, fictitious one and which like all his discussion only might sound reasonable in isolation, but are really coming from his underlying bias (documented above).Richardmalter 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum agreed to 'Starting Over' from a neutral stub (to stop the edit war) and then evaded his agreement
Even when the last Mediator CheNuevara proposed we 'Start Over' and begin the most basic, neutral stub and work from there to stop the edit warring, that as the Mediator restates I had agreed to, and seconded as the "best thing" by Cowman109 (coordinator: Mediation Cabal), Crum first agreed[] but later disclaimed his agreement "no recollection"and so was as the Mediator said "resistant to mediation" and showed a "continued lack of good faith" by disclaiming his agreement - and so scuttled the last mediation attempt completely. He claimed that the stub was POV and so could not be worked from! and so kept reverting to the very POV version he likes (re his said biases), but as the Mediator pointed out clearly his "claims that the stub is POV -- and at that, more POV than the version you continually revert to -- are still unsubstantiated."He has an immovable bias.Richardmalter 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum375 misrepresents (mediation) process re his bias
Repeatedly misrepresents consensus regarding mediation process, for example:. He continually misrepresents suggesting "wide consensus' and "problem for one editor only" which is immediately corrected by others.

Blocking consensus agreements re citations during Mediation
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.

(a) the  'Shinnick' citation[] is one example - a long drawn out discussion that goes round in circles but is basically Crum375 trying to find a way not to include it at all. Even when the Mediator comes up with a bare bones proposal for usage, Crum375 will block any way he can  even by such absurd arguments as: even if we have already established that 'Shinnick uses BDORT for his practice of Chinese medicine', since "we don't know that he only[my italics] uses it for Chinese medicine" we cant say that he does use it for Chinese Medicine!!! He then further tries to tie everything in to his bias and present citations negatively (like this one for example) by including them under his 'punishment for using BDORT' clauses as this coherently fits his underlying bias to warn the world. ..

(b) the New Zealand Tribunal citation(much disputed), 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. In the first round of Mediation called by me, with Aguerriero as Mediator, we discussed this citation. I made my input to the Mediator's proposal which he replied to "Awesome, thanks for your responses. Your assertions are very reasonable and I'm sure we will reach agreement quickly on this particular citation."[Aguerriero 01:50, 23 August 2006]. Crum375 then starts his discourse(misrepresenting what I think on the way). The Mediator makes a Revised Proposal which gets approval by the other previous Mediator "Certainly agree, very clear and well balanced"[Addhoc 15:05, 28 August 200], then "I agree with Aguerriero's drafts" [Richardmalter 23:22, 28 August 2006], but then Crum375 again wont agree and wants that "a statement that BDORT and its variants have not been subjected to scientific testing. . .must follow each section"[Crum375 20:51, 28 August 2006] - his POV 'disclaimer', and again the discussion cannot reach a consensus, and so no agreement is reached. This same pattern has been repeated over and over. .

Towards the end of the next and round of Mediation, the next Mediator, Che, formulated a basic stub version that included the NZ Tribunial. Crum375 reverted this eight minutes later - edit warring with the Mediator. I agreed to it which Che confirmed later as an accurate account of my action in this asking for a minor tweak (insertion of speech marks) which Che agreed to. Crum375, as usual, disagrees because the stub no longer expresses his POV. The Mediator challanges Crum375 one last time to work together which is useless and the edit warring begins again.

General statement
I initiated all mediations. I always wanted to work according to WP policies. 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, SlimVirgin, 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 (see above). The record shows that I have argued for this. The other parties are blocking this (which they deny).Richardmalter 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit reverting/warring strategy by Crum375 and GenghizRat
They have teamed up to evade the 3RR rule by out-reverting anyone, including the last Mediator - their strategy to stall and keep up(ie revert) this very POV version at all cost and 'discourse' endlessly while it remains, even though two completely neutral editors have told them that this their preferred version is unacceptable and that this version is very POV. Thanks.Richardmalter 10:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont use sockpuppetry
I hope the following statements are clear 100%. I dont use sockpuppetry. I have never used sockpuppetry. My name is Richard Malter and that is the name I have at all times edited under. When I forgot my password one time and was in a hurry to log in again when I was still not sure how WP worked and had forgot my password, I created a new account and came up with the completely different name 'Richardmalter' in order to hide that I was previously 'RichardMalter'! I trust the point is taken. In summary: end of petty conspiracy theory. But seriously, I trust this actually shows my commitment to be transparent and straightforward and act in good faith.Richardmalter 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I am also not or have not been User:Morpheuz, the IP locator/Ider is an approximate, inaccurate.Richardmalter 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Dr Phillip Shinnick
Dr Phillip Shinnick also commented directly early on:

''I am a research scientist asked to comment on the Bi-digital O-ring test by a group of scientist since I published on this phenomenon in two article published in the American Journal of Acupuncture and Medical Acupuncture and did a 300 patient double blind study in the 80's. I worked with Dr. Omura for eight years and have been assistant professor at New York Medical College for six years. I now director a research institute. I am completing a book on this as an independent analysis since I have not worked with Omura since 1990. It has great benefit to medicine and science which I will discuss when my work is published which has taken almost eight years.''

The comment was added by Dr Shinnick (amongst other things a former ambassador for UNESCO), who I contacted to help with the discussion who was not familiar with WP and had diificulty navigating this page as he told me by email.

See  'Shinnick'  citation, above.Richardmalter 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

a Richardmalter puppet?
I have not done any of the editing on the Omura Talk page. I have not edited any page on WP since the paragraph immediately above signed by me: 08:44, 22 December 2006. Hope that clears at least some of the mystery up. I have also not asked anyone to, or know of anyone that has acted under my name. I am as surprised as anyone.Richardmalter 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Crum375 and GhengizRat attempt to discredit and use WP for this end
I made the blank obvious point a long time ago to Crum375&GhengizRat (I wont bother looking up the diff) that professionals in the same field are often. . . colleagues! Next point. The fact that people are enthusiastic about something does not have to mean that their motivation for it is monetary or that their livelihoods depend on it. In my case neither applies - both the other parties have been told this but choose to ignore my comments, continue to misrepresent me et al (the height of disrespect and good faith), and fantasize about the contrary - but that is merely their fantasia. Re my website: (by way of 'proof'): if someone untrained in my field reads through some of the information on it they will find very quickly that they dont understand anything of the technical jargon. This is as it should be, for the simple fact that the website is designed to share information with my colleagues around the world; not for general public reading. I have told both Crum375 and genghizRat this too - but they dont (chose to) remember. Furthermore its existence is no revelation - I have pointed to it from the first time I opened a WP Registration.

People often interpret through the prism of their own prejudices, habits etc. I guess that the fantastic interprations of Crum375 and GhengizRat come from that - as well as from their clear motivation to discredit. I trust that real WP relevances such as keeping to full consensus mediated agreements, not resisting mediation, not using WP to pursue personal grudges etc are considered rather than 'fantasias of discredit'.Richardmalter 09:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Many other sources yet to be included held up by resistance to Mediation
These citations are still to be discussed (fully) and integrated but we cant get to them because of resistance to mediation and because they show usage of BDORT globally to some extent and give 'favourable' comment 'on it from the perspective of their bias. Richardmalter 09:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 3.1.3 Manaka
 * 2) 3.1.4 ECIM-Europe
 * 3) 3.1.5 Baobab.or.jp
 * 4) 3.1.6 PFarber
 * 5) 3.1.7 Dental video (google searchable video of dentist giving presentation)
 * 6) 3.1.8 Coriandrum sativum
 * 7) 3.1.9 JSAM.jp
 * 8) 3.1.10 AMBA.org

Deletion of defamatory information (AKA Crum375's 'subterfuge fantasia')
Crum375, and the Arbitrators will note that the link no longer shows the innocent mistake that Dr Omura is 'of Columbia University' - obviously since this was causing undue distress to Dr Omura, people reseponsible for the website ammended it with due respect for Dr Omura's defamation here by Crum375 and GhengizRat. I had no part in this, but when I noticed this (when analysing the defamotory section by GhnegizRat), I ammended my comments accordingly straightaway for the purpose of having no material for Crum375 and GhengizRat to use in a defamotory way whatsoever. This also makes the section Afiliations/Credentials not only 100% WP:OR and very obviously intentionally defamatory, but totally uncited and so first in line for complete deletion. I suggest Crum375 et al find better things to do than obviously intentionally defaming people.

Regardless of other similar errors on other websites found, the whole section remains 100% WP:OR, defamatory rant, and the zealous citation of them by GenghizRat only digs the hole deeper that he cannot climb out of - confirming his personal grudge and desire to defame Dr Omura. Richardmalter 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

===Crum375 continues to grossly misrepresent consensus even during Arbitration (a prime example)===

His claim here[] on this Evidences page about a rough consensus for his preferred version conviniently omits those that even very recently did not agree to this version: CheNuevara, the last Mediator, Gzkn and Cowman109(Coordinator, Mediation Cabal). Richardmalter 08:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He then covers up his deceit here after I point it out on Dec 29; he 'construes' the justification that the fact that an editor or mediator does not voice disagreement catagorically more than once, must mean they have now agreed!Richardmalter 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

RichardMalter and Richardmalter are same user
Per User:RichardMalter, which refers to same Web site as User:Richardmalter. Also per Check User Clerk and Richardmalter's Evidence on this page. Both are clearly single purpose accounts.

RichardMalter uses sockpuppetry to evade 24hr 3RR block by SlimVirgin
Request for CheckUser result: "Confirmed: 203.220.167.134 is RichardMalter, likely that Morpheuz is as well."


 * 16:29, May 18, 2006 SlimVirgin blocked RichardMalter with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Bi-Digital O-Ring Test)
 * 09:36, May 19, 2006 RM sockpuppet (first ever WP edit) posts this message to BDORT Talk page, using sockpuppetry to evade the 3RR block by SlimVirgin

Richardmalter and 24.39.123.238 are sockpuppets or meatpuppets
is based in Australia and is based in NYC, but this recent message posted by 24.39.123.238 in the Omura Talk page which is signed by Richardmalter, and this post by Richardmalter in the Evidence page of virtually the identical message, confirm that Richardmalter and 24.39.123.238 are in fact sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

24.39.123.238, a Richardmalter meat/sockpuppet is blocked by uninvolved admin
, a User:Richardmalter meat/sockpuppet with a history of legal threats, also signing as Richardmalter (see above), is blocked again for 48 hours: "...please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated." by uninvolved admin Mr. Darcy, with block summary: "blanking talk page; legal threats; general disruption".

Richardmalter is closely related to potential sources in Omura entry
Richard Malter publicly proclaims his general work with, support of and belief in the efficacy of the BDORT procedure, but according to this published information, Richard Malter is also closely 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. According to his own Evidence in this case, Richard Malter is also closely associated with Dr. Omura himself, as Dr. Omura apparently uses him as a spokesperson: "I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP ...". Richard Malter is also apparently closely associated with some of the anon-IP's, as they edit similarly and in at least one case (as noted above) the anon-IP actually signs Richard Malter's name to his message and Richardmalter posts the identical message to his own Evidence section.

Richardmalter was encouraged early and often to collaborate and work within the system
On May 25, 2006, 3 days after I arrived at the entry, I posted this message to RichardMalter, advising him of WP's sourcing and neutral presentation requirements and encouraging him to work within WP's rules, by productive collaboration. On December 12, 2006, despite being yet again on the receiving end of a torrent of capitalized bold faced accusations, allegations and insults from him, I posted this message to Richardmalter, as well as this message 2 days earlier. A common theme throughout my messages to him, over the last 7 months or so, was encouragement of collaboration and working within the WP system to get his views across and improve the entry.

Other editors again invite Richardmalter to participate - he threatens an 'outing'
While the other editors, as usual, despite Richardmalter's frequent bold-faced capitalized accusations of 'slandar' (sic) and other personal attacks against them, try to convince Richardmalter to collaborate constructively (as noted above), Richardmalter issues a thinly veiled threat to reveal personal information about another WP editor unless the editor cooperates with the right 'actions':"You once asked me to keep your real identity private. In good faith I have as I said I would. You have not returned my good faith. When you keep your agreements, I will know that you have decided to - not before. I will only judge by actions not by any words that you will write here."

Richardmalter engages in subterfuge, even as ArbCom case is ongoing
In his Evidence section above Richardmalter posted an allegation that Omura feels that the Affiliations section in the entry is defamatory, since it states that Omura has no known affiliation to Columbia University. But today Richardmalter mysteriously went back to his old message in the Mediation Archive from October 1, 2006, nearly 3 months ago, and without any comment or edit summary removed the Columbia affiliation which he himself originally posted there. While changing one's own old comments in the mediation archives records retroactively may not be a clear rule violation, one would expect at least a strikethrough and/or explanation, especially when it pertains to an ongoing ArbCom case.

Richardmalter engages in uncivil behavior and personal attacks
Recent examples:
 * 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

Richardmalter's meatpuppet anon-IP 24.136.99.194 threatens WP and its editors and attempts to intimidate ArbCom
In a message recently posted into the RfArb page, the meatpuppet threatens WP and its editors:"If Wikipedia and the WikiMedia Foundation support the efforts of an illegal consipracy (sic) which distorts the demonstrated and proven reality, they will expose themselves individually and as organizations not only to appropriate criticism but to legtal (sic) action to redress these injustices." The anon-IP meatpuppet further attempts to intimidate ArbCom and its free and independent deliberations:"The deliberations of the Arbitration Committee and its findings will be closely watched throughout the world, and I am certain the Committee will bear in mind the full weight of its moral and legal responsibilities."

Current version of BDORT is supported by all non-WP:COI contributors to entry
The current version of the entry was last edited by User:Antonrojo. The three other independent non-WP:COI logged-in contributors who have previously contributed to the entry (User:Philosophus, User:GenghizRat, User:Crum375) are in essential agreement with Antonrojo's version (although all of us also believe it can and should be improved, and welcome more inputs, as discussed on the Talk page). Other non-COI editors who had previously expressed support for a short stub or a possible rewrite (Cowman109, previous mediator/admin; CheNuevara, mediator; and Gzkn, brief visitor to Talk page), have not reverted or otherwise edited the entry since this consensus among all four non-COI previous contributors to the entry became apparent.

User:Richardmalter has violated WP:SOCK and WP:LEGAL
My involvement with this dispute has been limited to the following interaction today with User:24.39.123.238:
 * 1) User in question blanked Talk:Yoshiaki Omura and replaced it with a request that the page be changed to the wrong version while protected, signing as User:Richardmalter.
 * 2) I reverted the blanking, then restored the request at the bottom of the page, where it belonged chronologically.
 * 3) User re-inserted the request at page top and was reverted by me.
 * 4) User then blanked the entire talk page except the request at the bottom and was reverted by User:Rawling.
 * 5) User re-inserted the request at page top and was reverted by me.
 * 6) Given the four edits in question - two clear reverts, two blankings - and the user's block history, I blocked the user 48 hours.
 * 7) User then proceeded to soapbox on his talk page, including a legal threat against Wikipedia which I reverted. At this point, I semi-protected the user's talk page to prevent a recurrence.

Evidence presented by User:CheNuevara
I'm still around, I promise; it just seems to me that there's very little in terms of diffs that I could provide which have not already been provided. If something comes up, I'll post it right away. - Che Nuevara  04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was asked of me that I clarify my position. It is my contention that the three editors involved the most in this dispute -- Crum, Richard, and Rat -- have turned this article into a battleground. The dispute at the article is not so much about content as about drawn trench lines.
 * It would be frivolous to repost a list of diffs, as they have been thoroughly covered. Suffice it to say that tendentious and disruptive editing and talk page behavior has been plain to see all around. While the conclusions of fault, in my opinion, are inaccurate, the incidents of incivility, disruptive behavior, edit warring, and the apparent mentality that these are acceptable have been clearly demonstrated. In addition, there can be no question that Richard is a single-issue user, and Rat has admitted to being the disruptive Whiffle identity.
 * That's my opinion in a slightly oversized nutshell. - Che Nuevara  05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.