Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



NOTE - This user may be an second account used by User:I'clast - see this discussion on AN/I

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
TheNautilus is a single-purpose account used by I'clast to engage in tendentious editing in articles on branches of alternative nutritional medicine, such as orthomolecular medicine, orthomolecular psychiatry and megavitamin therapy. In doing so, he has ignored consensus, misrepresented opinions as facts, objected to reliable sources because he thinks they are "wrong", and been unable to understand or apply our NPOV policy. The use of a second account in this way appears to be both an attempt to avoid scrutiny by I'clast and an attempt to use TheNautilus as a POV-pushing "bad-hand" account.

Desired outcome
I would like this user to work within consensus and accept that articles are going to report what reliable sources say on the subject, rather than what he happens to believe is true. Furthermore, if the community decides that this "TheNautilus" account is being used abusively, then I'clast should be limited to editing with one account.

Description
One very clear example of these problems caused by I'clast when using this account is his objecting strongly to the inclusion of criticism of orthomolecular medicine in the lead of this article. An article RfC showed a clear consensus for the simple statement that such criticism has been made, rather than his preferred formulation of attributing this to "oppononents and partisans". Similarly, this user objected to the use of the American Medical Association as a source in the lead to show the mainstream position on orthomolecular medicine, and objected to this even being discussed on the RS noticeboard (link to RS noticeboard discussion).

Similar problems have been continuous and are found on several articles, for example much of the talk page of the article on orthomolecular medicine consists of multiple editors trying to explain to TheNautilus that whatever it is that he believes is true, if notable, reliable sources state the opposite they can still be included. See this discussion for a lengthy example.

Use of multiple accounts

 * In this discussion TheNautilus refuses to make any clear statement on if he is using using multiple accounts.
 * In this discussion TheNautilus appears to claim that ArbCom has been informed that he is using multiple accounts "The arb bureaucracy and some admins have long been informed, several times." diff. I checked here, and this claim may be untrue.
 * diff I'clast also refuses to provide clear replies to these questions, instead adding a link to a comment on TheNautilus's userpage.
 * Further discussion at AN/I (Link).
 * And at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Fails to apply verifiability policy

 * States that the contents of a source must be "true" to be included in the article on orthomolecular medicine.
 * diff States that sources must follow "Verification of factuality, not merely verification of printing."
 * diff States that "These points cite WP:V failures, of your nominally RS sources, when flawed sources have to yield (or modify) to facts."


 * Rejects the use of mainstream medical literature in the article on orthomolecular psychiatry, since he feels it is biased.
 * diff "In large part what many people see today in the nebulous "mainstream" is hagiograpic, deletionist history rewritten by the commercial victors, pharmaceutically based psychopharmacology & psychiatry, with incomplete accuracy to say the least."
 * diff Says of Cancer medicine, a mainstream medical textbook "however authoritative the book may be on conventional treatments, it is *not* very authoritative on OMM".


 * Argues that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (JOM) and the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine (ISOM) are RS for factual statements beyond describing the beliefs of orthomolecular medicine.
 * diff "ISOM and JOM are WP:RS for a number of things, among others: (1) describing who and what is orthomolecular, and those that are not, (2) describing the history of (ortho)molecular medicine pertaining to orthomolecular medicine, (3) describing what the clinical and scientific evidence is', which often (surprising to incredulous newbies) is more than "conventional medical commentators" position of *nothing* experimentally *relevant* or correct on the subject - some literally rigged "dbRCT" experiment (e.g. long known (50+ yrs?)& stated wrong molecules, quantities, patient subgroup, and/or protocol), Enron accounting, or simply adversarial intrepretations with low science scores."

Rejects attempts to reach community consensus

 * diff Objects to community discussion on RS noticeboard because "many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine"
 * diff Defends revert warring to his preferred version, rather than the version favored in the article RfC by saying "A problem here seems to be that a number of editors think they have a enough technical background to dismiss and disparage the OMM subject while accepting inferior text and references that fail WP:V in the complete fact checking sense, as well as other NPOV, COI, RS problems"

Fails to apply NPOV policy

 * Argues that a statement noting the fact that orthomolecular medicine has been criticized should not be included, since he feels that these criticisms are untrue.


 * diff Describes criticism referenced to three separate academic reviews as "The allegations themselves are based on gross misrepresentations & appear malicious in nature to those knowledgeable about the underlying facts. These are extreme, hurtful, uncivil opinions being presented as if they were authoritative. They certainly are not NPOV, BALANCED summary."
 * diff Again attacks the inclusion of a statement that such criticisms have been made "these are extremist critics being given undue weight, without balance or NPOV, as well as being without a relevant scientific base or technical development on the subject."


 * Presents an opinion taken from a commentary article as a statement of truth.


 * addition to article and argument on talkpage "It contains clear, largely factual matter with minor commentary. In fact, given the complaint about revisions, it makes one wonder to what degree some of the "stigma" still was operating ("go to the back the bus", but at least not walking)."


 * Presents an opinion taken from an article in Life Extension magazine written by a consultant to the neutracutical industry as a statement of truth.


 * addition of reference and quote, addition of statement and a later discussion on talkpage when this was removed.


 * Promotes a particular form of vitamin E supplement as a "premium brand"


 * diff - addition to vitamin E article

Revert warring with other editors

 * Revert warring with User:Jefffire diff and diff
 * Revert warring with me and User:Filll diff, diff and diff
 * Revert warring with me and User:Shoemaker's Holiday diff, diff, diff
 * Revert warring during this RfC diff and diff

Generalized attacks on editors who disagree with him

 * diff "Some old commentators, abusively name calling personal enemies, imprecisely identified parties or practices in one or two rancid paragraphs in non-peer reviewed blurbss, sometimes without a single external reference or relevant data, is *not* a superior science reference as claimed by Tim. Some of my accusers here appear to selectively ignore WP policies, facts, mainstream science & scientific methodolgy that seriously conflict with their prejudices."
 * diff "I think that current situation here is akin to the KKK being allowed to establish WP's labeling of various racial and ethnic groups, where after all, there are WP:V sources sometime in the last two centuries, all the while screaming about its self-supposed authority and purity."

Outing other editors

 * diff (Name was removed from talkpage by User:Avb and the link posted by I'clast has been deleted by User:JoshuaZ to preserve the other editor's privacy, I have asked for clarification on what happened here from the admins involved).

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:SOCK
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:V
 * WP:CON

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Discussion User:WLU asks if and why multiple accounts are being used.
 * Discussion User:QuackGuru, User:JoshuaZ and User talk:Swatjester ask if and why multiple accounts are being used.
 * diff I try to discuss problems with TheNautilus account on this userpage.
 * diff User:Fyslee brings up similar concerns about ownership and lack of understanding of policies.
 * diff User:Jefffire explains the verifiability policy
 * diff User:WhatamIdoing explains the NPOV policy
 * diff User:WhatamIdoing explains the verifiability policy
 * diff User:Shoemaker's Holiday explains the verifiability policy

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * Removal of reference to "scientific consensus" diff on 21st May
 * Removal of attributed criticism from lead. diff an 23rd April
 * Continued refusal to accept reliable sources. diff on 21st May
 * Continued argument to remove attributed criticism from lead diff on 21st May

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fyslee (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jefffire (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Endorse Shot info (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Response
I really consider Tim's presentation extremely distorted, quite one sided with highly slanted definitions, seriously pushing a inflammatory, deprecating POV founded on some very poor references with no real academic substance, ignoring the interaction of many policies (UNDUE/WEIGHT, NPOV, NOR, RS, WP:BALANCE etc) in a complex situation. Despite the claims of being various medical and scientific mainstreams, I will again reiterate that some of Lead parts mirror very unreliable sources that are founded on demonstrable bigotry (severe bias), scientific misconduct, misrepresentation where it is really Tim refusing to collaborate over the summarization and NPOV weighting of a few (inflammatory) words and points of some of the most virulent, scurrilous actors (once) around medical subjects. I am not sure how much time I will have for this to unwind such a pos broadside.

This RFCU seems to so categorically villefy and miscontrue my efforts & edits with miscast, conclusory and loaded statements that it seems that I will have to attempt to find time to dissect and discuss many of them point by point on a separate page. I plan to have a shorter version here. To be cont'd.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside views
''These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Ncmvocalist
There are 7 sections of evidence presented in this Rfc against the subject of this Rfc The second section fails to clearly show that the subject of this RFC does not understand or disregards WP:V. There are 2 diffs in the third section – the first shows an assumption of bad faith, while the second is insubstantial. The forth section shows a clear violation of WP:NPOV on the talk page of the article where the content dispute is occurring. The fifth section shows several instances of edit-warring between both parties. The sixth section is just some noise – not actionable. The final section is unclear, but what is clear is that both parties are involved in a content dispute. There is sufficient evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute – TimVickers (the complaining party) is commended particularly for his first attempt.

The subject of this Rfc - User:TheNautilus, like every other editor at Wikipedia, is expected to comply with policy – he has clearly violated WP:NPOV, WP:EDITWAR, among others and is encouraged to refrain from doing so in the future. Failure to do so may result in him being subject to an arbitration case, or being sanctioned or blocked for misconduct. Both parties are also encouraged to attempt Article RfC or mediation in relation to the content dispute/issues and are reminded of the following principle.

Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions – such exceptions are not applicable in this case.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  II  05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-involved view by Shoemaker's Holiday
WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are core policies, and thus must be enforcable. Happily, policy backs this view:

WP:BLOCK lists as a blockable offense, for instance: ...persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive.

And arbcom members have specifically said that administrators may evaluate content:

...The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions... (Kirill 17:53, 14 April 2008)

We thus must look at how TheNautilus's behaviour affects all policies, even if this means looking at content, and judge his actions on their merits, following the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Repeated violations of core policies are a problem; we must be careful, and good faith must be presumed, so isolated incidents cannot be considered, but if a pattern of repeated and consistent violation, when aware of the policies, can be shown, that is evidence of great disruption to our core purpose of building an encyclopædia, and should not be considered above our notice.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Ronz (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Fyslee / talk 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently involved view by ImperfectlyInformed
Both TimVickers and TheNautilus are tendentious editors intent upon pushing their own point of view. It's difficult to say which is actually more troublesome. However, TheNautilus is certainly more obvious. He does not seem to dialogue well, often posting long rants which clutter up Talk pages rather than concisely stating his point and his evidence. Much of the current disagreement centers around content issues at Orthomolecular medicine (OM). I advise you to glance at the lead. TimVickers has pushed for keeping inflammatory statements that OM is "food faddism" or "quackery", and the TheNautilus has reacted with long ranting objections.

As far as TimVickers' first allegation, that TheNautilus doesn't understand verifiability: yes, statements must be verifiable. But if we find a source which states something, and another, more recent source, which states that this view is incorrect, then at the least we include both together, and at the most we discard the earlier statement for the current research, for the sake of brevity. This seems to be TheNautilus' point, but I'm not sure if he's produced the evidence from a reliable source that TimVickers' source is wrong. If TheNautilus can find it, then this can be resolved; if he cannot, then he should remain quiet and do some research.

TimVickers second allegation is that TheNautilus rejects mainstream medical literature. Mainstream medicine is actually a nebulous thing. MastCell pointed out that only 10-15% of doctors are even in the AMA. There are legitimate concerns with using sources as old as 25 years represent the "consensus of the mainstream". Second, TimVickers has interpreted these sources strangely; in several cases, the sources do point out the many beneficial effects of nutrients, which is, strictly speaking in terms of Pauling's definition, an application of OM and an admission of its medical veracity. Defining OM as strictly the application of nutrients to treat disease when such applications are not substantiated by mainstream science is a rhetorical strategy. Even if you can find a mainstream source which claims that OM prescribes megadoses of harmful minerals, if that mainstream source does not cite that claim, then that source is quite questionable and should perhaps be removed. OM focuses its megadosing on vitamin C and water-soluble B vitamins; it may advocate taking higher levels of minerals, but the megadosing has to be demonstrated. (Megadosing is defined by this article as 10 times the RDA. Incidentally, this article does say that the fat-soluble vitamin D should be taken in "supernormal" amounts to overcome rickets.)

I pointed out to TimVickers that "food faddism and quackery" are both ad hominem attacks (on an organization), and that using them in the lead was questionable (and, also, rather ineffective for his point). Quackery is a pejorative term encompassed by the more objective statement that much of OM is not substantiated by mainstream medical research. He pointed to an earlier request for comment, in which he asked for people's input on two virtually identical leads, both with the food faddism allegation, both poorly written. The poor writing and the extreme criticism (in fact, the food faddism was not even in the main article at the time) was pointed out repeatedly in the RFC. TheNautilus has repeatedly claimed that the food faddism attack was done by a researcher who personally disliked Pauling; if this is true, then it should be added to the encyclopedia.

In summary, both could improve. TheNautilus needs to stop rambling in Talk pages, which makes it difficult to follow discussions, and simply produce the articles to demonstrate what he thinks. If he can't do it, then he should be silent. Both need to work on creating a balanced article. Both could also improve their abilities to organize articles and use appropriate sources (based on what I've seen at OM).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Michael C. Price talk 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (note that I endorse Alterrabe's view as well; they are comptaible)

Outside view by Alterrabe
Some complaints, such as that TheNautilus can become emotional about a topic guaranteed to raise the emotions are valid. In this regard, he is not the only editor with such a foible. When editors complains that other editors take journals dear to them to be reliable sources for science, and not only beliefs, when they do the exact same thing, the discussion has become close to religious in nature. This is the clash of two POVs.

One complaint seems to me to be less fortunate; the "newssite" whose comments TheNautilus dismissed as "a blog" describes itself thusly:

''"24dash.com is the UK's most up-to-date Social Housing and Public Sector news website, combining national coverage from the Press Association and our team of professional journalists with press releases loaded direct by housing associations, local authorities, charities and other relevant organisations.

''Launched in October 2005, 24dash.com now has a targeted audience of more than 80,000* unique users a month. (Source: Google Analytics)

''24dash.com delivers its content through a range of media including RSS feeds and a monthly housing podcast...

The Press Release area is a unique part of 24dash.com, boasting thousands of stories sent by more than 400 local authorities, housing associations and charities."

Whether or not the source is accurate, I question whether an anonymous webmaster's posting on a site dedicated to "Social Housing and Public Sector news" which is distributed by RSS automatically meets WP:RS, particularly when it is impinges the credibility of a living person (WP:BLP comes to mind). I think a posting on a site that is syndicated by RSS and at odds with the apparent brunt of the site's postings can be taken to be a blog posting in good faith. Not that the wikipedia edit reports that the article was written by one "John Land" a claim that is not supported by the article itself, as presently posted. BLP has wikipedians erring strongly on the side of caution. TheNautilus would have been well within his rights to remove an article whose attribution is inaccurate, and which would have been libelous if its contents had also proven inaccurate. (Note, I corrected some atrocious grammar after posting this.)

I urge TimVickers to immediately retract this part of his request for comment.

I also personally know people who were spared a life of chronic disability by orthomolecular medicine; I urge TimVickers to describe orthomolecular as "controversial," "hotly disputed," "unacknowledged" but not as "fringe," an emotionally charged word that makes discussion and consensus more difficult.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll AGF on that one, it could be an honest mistake. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion of perceived breaches of etiquette ought also do the fact justice that TheNautilus has made invaluable discussion to the articles on orthomolecular medicine in the face of concerted opposition by critics and detractors, and defended his contributions against many criticisms, some valid, and some not. Without his or her efforts, the article would probably at best be a stub.

I hope that this discussion redounds to the benefit of Wikipedia.--Alterrabe (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Michael C. Price talk 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (note that I endorse ImperfectlyInformed's view as well; they are compatible.)

Addendum 1
After reading the criteria contained in WP:SOCK, and reading the complaint against TheNautilus, I do not see what WP:SOCK policy TheNautils is alleged to have violated. WP:SOCK has a subsection WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which lists several legitimate uses of multiple accounts WP:SOCK. I quote:


 * Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:


 * A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.


 * Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.


 * Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.


 * A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.


 * An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks.

If TheNautilus / I'clast was partially posting from a public library, a hypothetical possibility, and using two separate accounts to avoid the risk of having his or her password stolen, he or she would have been completely within his or her rights to maintain multiple accounts.

WP:SOCK's section on inappropriate uses of accounts describes their inappropriate use as:


 * Avoiding scrutiny


 * Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

TheNautilus was, by no means, avoiding scrutiny with his or her identical strong views on OM, caustic commentaries, and similar mannerisms; if anything, he drew attention to his or her personae. I do not see any evidence explaining which wikipedia policy on multiple accounts TheNautilus is believed to have abused. Nor only do I not see any evidence of abuse, I also do not find any reason to believe that we can exclude that TheNautilus was within his or her rights to maintain multiple accounts.

It may prove best to either explain why we should believe that specific policies have been violated, or remove this part of the request.--Alterrabe (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Wikidemo
This matter neatly divides into three issues:
 * A. Q: Is an alternative account of ?  My answer is "probably" but we need a check user to know for sure.  Why not file a WP:RFCU and see the results.  After that the question is are they abusive sockpuppets, which would subject them both to indefinite blocks.  The evidence of that is not here - you would have to catch them tag teaming on the same articles, vote rigging, trying to avoid detection, etc.  This is not a "good hand / bad hand" thing because they are both tendentious editors.  But at a minimum, if it is the same person we should ask them to choose one account or the other to avoid wikidrama.
 * B. Q: Are the TheNautilus edits appropriate? My answer is "probably not" but we need a community consensus on that.  The likely consensus is obvious - go with mainstream science, report any minority fringe theories, criticisms of mainstream science, etc., for what they are but only if notable / relevant.  Declare the consensus, institute the edits, and if the editor wants to edit war then simply ratchet up a series of reverts, warnings, escalating blocks, etc., until they stop.
 * C. Q: Is there a blockable behavioral violation? My answer is that this merges into #1 and #2.  If we found it is not a blockable sock, and the edits are appropriate (meaning no NPOV, WP:V, etc., violations), I can hardly see how the incivilities amount to a blockable offense.  Blocks are to prevent future disruption, not to punish people.  In the unlikely event we declared TheNautilus the winner of the content disruption, he/she will walk away with no need to edit war.  Assuming we don't, we follow #2 above.  That's why administrators generally don't block for content disputes, by the way.  They can usually be handled through consensus and, failing that, dispute resolution methods.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Wikidemo (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) An excellent summary of the issues. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Shot info (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Gordonofcartoon
I haven't been involved with the current dispute, but thoroughly agree with its basis on grounds of interactions with TheNautilus at Soluble cell adhesion molecules, C. Alan B. Clemetson and the now-defunct Fred R. Klenner. As I said at Talk:Soluble cell adhesion molecules, in my view TheNautilus' sole interest here is tendentious: an open agenda to right a wrong with relation to orthomolecular medicine's status vs. mainstream medicine. The whole edit history has been directed toward adding material, or skewing material, in the direction of positive coverage of orthomolecular and similar topics.

Attention is long overdue, particularly considering the long-running problems of the personal attacks on the knowledge/integrity of other editors, and the open contempt for consensus (in the form of repeated assertions that TheNautilus is the only editor in possession of The Truth). A couple of further examples:


 * "The (pseudo)skeptical errors and 4th hand scientific misrepresentations so hawkishly present at WP have taken more time than I like to think about, to straighten out facts toward something that reflects current, WP:V Science, not biased attitudes from highly mmisinformed, -ing editors that are pushing their obsolete and inaccurate innuendos on subjects they don't even have a good grounding on the historical and scientific facts. That is not "Soap", it is WP:V toward building a factual encyclopedia, where persistant bias, misrepresentations and flat errors abound on the vitamn C topic, ditto orthomed, at "QW-WP", where many editors, who should know better, even think that QW is a reliable scientifc source."
 * "The orthomed area happens to be one where a lot of people and professionals simply have not looked hard enough, past popularized, long running rumors, distortions and innuendos to find the *actual* facts. I have. Again WP:V should trump the literal superstitions of the crowd, the "problem" that some editors have is that I can deliver the V RS *facts* that assualt their ill-informed basis of "knowledge". Since I grew up with the public parts of the story, I often know exactly when & where the those rumors started, how difficult it used to be to assemble and check them out, where the underlying "facts" have changed (corrected or the lying part exposed), and how many people came to uncritically accept blatantly misrepresented & false information. I think that I am correct to insist that factual errors not go uncorrected in an encyclopedia where *facts* should not be misrepresented again by an often distorted majority here with provably misinformed POV, who simply have taken repeated rumors from *now recognized* biased (or in some cases, fraudulent) sources for granted as facts."

I also strongly suspect an undisclosed conflict of interest. The catch-all clause of WP:COI - COI - is worth considering: does promoting a particular medical discipline come under "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization ..."?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Outside view by Gordonofcartoon
This RFC appears to have gone stale, but a quick glance shows the conduct concerned hasn't stopped. See current discussions at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine: particularly this rant that exemplifies the continued open bias, soapboxing, bad faith assumptions, and personal attacks on editors with opposing viewpoints.

''The pseudoscience POV pushing here remains so much ignorant and/or biased pseudoskeptical rhetoric ... The problem is not OMM, it is corrupt gatekeeprs & malignant pseudoskeptics prating their dangerous falsehoods with a bullhorn to a nutritionally ignorant, gullible medico-technical "elite" with no real education or independent nutrtional research ... Although many medical charities & foundations, government agencies, medical societies can be scored for their systematic errors, neglect and bias on this subject, special criticism goes to certain authoritarian (not -ive) and pseudoskeptical individuals & groups that have derailed many budding efforts by economic, social, legalistic, and unscientific attack. With similar never-ending recurrence here at WP''

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)  Now I remember why that page "fell off" my watchlist.  I'm glad that other editors have had the energy to deal with him.

Second semi-outside view by Shoemaker's Holiday
Having looked more closely, I believe there is clear evidence that The Nautilus is completely unable to work with editors from the opposite point of view. As I show below, he seems to believe the American Medical Assosciation is part of a grand conspiracy against Orthomolecular medicine, and that anyone who does not support Orthomolecular medicine is working for the AMA towards this aim.


 * Poisoning the well fallacy: claims that all evidence against Orthomolecular medicine should be dismissed: "vitriolic critics are notable in the general sense, their inflammatory misrepresentions & coverage promoting distortions & scientific misconduct that scientifically & commercially interferes & unfairly deprecates others' legitimate results should be discussed where there is space for balancing quotes, references and reader's (yawn) voluntary continued interest"


 * "Also many editors *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine." Begging the question fallacy, insofar that his argument that membership in the AMA makes them unable to edit neutrally only works if you accept his premise that the AMA is evil. Also poisoning the well, by his dismissal of all editors on the other side as evil AMA agents or uninformed.


 * "That last sentence has never been agreed on and as far as I am concerned, has all the lede legitmacy of a KKK scholar's published scholarly opinion ca 1915-1924 on various ethnicities." Reductio ad Hitlerum, in an over-the-top attempt to sling mud at a reference he dislikes.


 * Proof by assertion, presumably related to his claims about the AMA. He continues to claim that other editors are "partisian" and have "conflicts of interest". without providing any evidence that this is true.


 * When asked for evidence for his assertion that many editors were members of the AMA, he replies: "Yes, but presenting that would get me in trouble and be improper for several reasons. See also Doctorfinder. I think that it is easier to confirm that they routinely claim here to be physicians and often have similar views. Also note the "or" part, which is largely my OR, but the Talk pages here (and elsewhere) are my evidence" Appeal to authority fallacy.


 * Association fallacy. Claims that because Tim Vickers edits in ways that he doesn't like, therefore TimVickers must be a member of the evil AMA, and therefore, he must be working for them in their supposed quest to oppress orthomolecular medicine.


 * General attack on the AMA.


 * More poisoning the well: Talking about information on Orthomolecular medicine in a chapter in a textbook on Cancer, TheNautilus launches into a series of ad hominem attacks on all researchers whose conclusions he doesn't like, including the bold assertion: "Many are not sure what the "clinical trials" (~1975-1985) really proved, but hubris, incompetence, systematic bias, scientific misconduct, breeches of social contract & specific promise seem to have had a pretty strong demonstration."


 * Ignoring logical fallacies for the moment, here TheNautilus claims, in violation of WP:NPOV/FAQ, that all mainstream material is unreliable and cannot be in the article.


 * "its critics usually have no relevant data but are too dishonet or incompetent to admit it, especially on the vitamin C part" He classes everyone on the other side as either dishonest or incompetent. If that is his view, then there is no way he is capable of working with others to build an encyclopedia, and he should be completely topic banned, because, frankly, there is no hope for his reform.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.