|
BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I have placed a request at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive4#User:Richardmalter .)
BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please take a thorough and careful look at this, as I believe it is clearly defamatory and anti BLP when inspected closely:
[16] and
[17]
. I am representing Dr Yoshiaki Omura on wikipedia with his permission. There have already been malicious defamatory statments about him removed by an Admin[18]. I believe the editor, Crum375, left as the sole editor of this entry is biased against Dr Omura/BDORT as I have outlined here [19]
. I requested the Arbitration that has just closed and which decided I am banned from editing the article. Be that as is, it has been confirmed and remedied [20] that the version that was edit warred over for months, including by 'Crum375', against my repeated reversions of it and my support of the stub by the last Mediator in order to end the protracted edit war - contained BLP defamatory information. I know that the remaining BLP information I refer to in the article is presented in a not obvious way, but this subtlety does not lessen the BLP issues one bit, nor the lack of basic accuracy; protracted discussions by me about the points raised with this editor are fruitless. I am trying to prevent further real life damage (which has already happened and which the ArbCom has acknowledged privately to me due to privacy issues) and continuing BLP problems remaining. Thanks.Richardmalter 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP as well as due weight. I welcome a review of this article and comments, and would be happy to improve it while adhering to WP's rules. Thanks, Crum375
Crum375, is there a WP policy about you tracking my every comment on WP or the like? I find it like stalking.
Richardmalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
To others here, Please note the ArbCom as it does ruled on 'behaviour' as they saw it not content, which was not addressed. An admin unrelated to the ArbCom case deleted the defamotory material championed by Crum375 et at. I have three times set out the problem I refer to here above, and three times Crum375 has replied in a generalized way that has not addressed the actual problem whatsoever. There is a continued resistance to any cooperation without Admin intervention, andthis editor has also edit warred with the last Mediator. Please also note that this is due to the supra-WP bias of this editor as documented by me with diffs in the Arb case and confirmed in his view by the last Mediator. Crum375's bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" [[21]]. And 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][22]. There is much more to this than seems. Thanks.Richardmalter 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, 'stalking' would be if I followed you around to different unrelated articles. AFAIK, following your posted comments and responding to them on an Admin's Talk page, or on a noticeboard, where you are addressing the same topic and the same article, is the proper and expected behavior of a good wikipedian.
- ArbCom has reviewed everything you mention above - you presented it all during that case. They ruled that you edit tendentiously and have a 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you do not focus on issues raised. You respond in generalized ways that do not actually address points made. And to reiterate, you are the ONLY editor I have been involved with - amongst numerous Admins/Mediators etc who NEVER accepts any of my suggestions - and only accepts changes with outside 'pressure' or Admin ruling. You have also as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions of defending and editwarring and reverting pro the defamatory version for many months against me, an Admin, and a mediator - all who are completely neutral, that the Admin SlimVirgin deleted straightaway as as soon as I pointed out the WP:OR defamatory statements in it, that you advocated for repeatedly. You were 'deaf' to all my requests in this regard. That means your record in terms of WP:BLP is extremely poor regardless of your intentions ... Outside help is therefore certainly needed because of this, and your very poor WP:BLP record, with this entry. I may have a conflict of interest technically, but this does not change any actual event, or fact noted here. Richardmalter 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, the statements you make about me above, that "as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions" can easily be seen as personal attack on me. If you have such documented proof, please present it. Otherwise, please focus on the issues at hand. As far as the more substantive points you make, you have presented all of them to ArbCom during the case you initiated, that was just closed. They reviewed all your points, and decided that your edits are tendentious and that you have a
WP:BLP as well as due weight. If any neutral editor would like to review this article and suggest improvements, s/he would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375
- I would suggest, as has Crum375, above, that anyone concerned with Richardmalter's assertions consult the record of ArbCom re Yoshiaki Omura, of whom Richard Malter is a proponent, as well as the entry itself. These, I would think, speak with startling clarity for themselves, as does the persistent disposition to personal attack, innuendo, and threat, of Yoshiaki Omura's advocates. GenghizRat 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
GhengizRat, the defamatory statements on Omura that you wrote and edited and tried to support with many references and arguments have been Admin deleted. Crum375, again you do not actually' address the actual' points raised. You defended a version tenaciously that you championed with many arguments over many months that contained the clear defamatory statements on Omura that clearly violated WP:BLP, that have been Admin deleted, at my request. That's the factual record.Richardmalter 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Quod erat demonstrandum. GenghizRat 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I think the article is improving (re WP:BLP). But there are still serious (BLP) issues remaining. The first is as follows. If WP is representing the work of a living person, then the representation of their work has to be accurate. I realize all the WP editors here are non-experts but basic journalist/encyclopedic standards need to be maintained - especially since Dr Omura is a living person. Dr Omura's devloped technique, the BDORT, is currently described and explained almost totally inaccurately throughout the article. I have gone through many other WP articles on science and other technical subjects and there seems to be no problem giving accurate information in WP, so I am insisting that this article describing the work of a living person also has the same basic level of accuracy in description of the BDORT. Please see for a correct description:
[23]
especially the section:
'3. Finding the right fingers for the Test'
NB. "A correct match of fingers is able to give a reliable Bi-Digital
O-Ring Test, if it satisfies all three conditions." - ie this is the
so-callled 'three conditions for reproducibility'. Without this, the technique is NOT
BDORT BY DEFINITION (because BDORT is said to be reproducible, repeatable). WPedians have to be reasonable reporters as well. Currently the article contains correct information but which is fragmented. If you ask why did the Patent Office initially refuse the application (which they did - as correctly noted in the article), it was because they said it was subjective. So Omura got the Affidavits (uploaded to WP and public docs available from the Patent Office for $25) to show that it was objective. Currently the 'threads' of the report are not linked narratively or accurately. But again, most of all, and please focus on this point, regardless of the poor 'narrative' currently, the actual description of the BDORT given is totally inaccurate. You will see also then if you read the correct description I point to above, the idea that the "forefinger" is used by the testee - as currently reported repeatedly in the article, is also completely inaccurate. Can we just get a basic accurate description please.Richardmalter 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, this is clearly a non-BLP issue, and hence this is the wrong page and forum. But addressing your point about the BDORT technique nonetheless, I did use the language from Omura's patent abstract. Although it's not as detailed as the one you describe, I think it's sufficiently detailed for our readers. They can always follow the links to Omura's writings and get more detail if they wish, about the exact finger selection, decision criteria, etc. Crum375 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Crum, this is a very BLP issue - VERY misdescribing the technique developed by a living person (for which by re-adjusting the page to focus on this very technique even more so makes this a big problem) is clearly a BLP issue. I cannot see why your resistance to a simple accurate description!. I do not see what problem you have with this. As usual you are for whatever reason "resistant" to any change, I propose - even though many other Admins/mediators/Editors have found ways to easily justify and incorporate those necessary edits I have asked for. It needs to be done in this instance, straightaway. Your record is that of defending and edit warring for many months a blatant BLP violation version which was eventually Admin deleted. I ask you now again not to continue in this vein.Richardmalter 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because a technique was developed by someone who is living does not make a description of that technique, accurate or not, a BLP issue. That's making a mockery of BLP. Additionally, merely because affidavits were made to the USPTO that something is "repeatable" or "objective" -- that does not make that a fact either, even if those arguments were accepted by USPTO and a patent granted. Patent filings are primary documents, and any claim stated in them is simply that: a CLAIM. Quatloo 10:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Quatloo, hello; I follow what you are saying, and generally I would say the same as you. However in this specific case Dr Omura and colleagues are saying that the BDORT is repeatable and objective - and that that is a key characteristic feature of it. Right up front (even for a minute ignoring the current technical misrepresentation), the article says "subjective". This is immediately an editorial POV, and moreso a POV comment on the work of a living person that is contradictory to the statements that living person makes about his specific work described in this article. That makes this instance a very BLP issue. To repeat, a WP editor is saying something contradictory regarding a technique to what the living person says about this, their technique! Even if, as I know, some non-expert third-party citations use the word "subjective", to include that and not to include even as claims, the statements of Dr Omura and colleagues about the reproducibility and objectivity of the technique, is also clear POV editing, ie selectively patching together an article that has a definite bias/opinion. But even beginning from a correct technical description (which no reasonable WPedian/person could argue against having in the article), the three conditions for reproducibility must be included otherwise what is described is not BDORT - and no one can argue with Omura about what BDORT is or isn't (though value assigned to it is another thing). And so even with this approach, we end up back at the same point. Thanks.Richardmalter 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Statements about a technique are just that, statements about the technique, and not about the individual who invented it. To say otherwise would mean reporting a criticism of a book, film, TV show, etc. would be also bring BLP into play and thus stifle almost all discussion of any contemporary creation. BLP was not intended for such cases, and cannot be reasonably applied. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- One other point, and I don't mean this to apply specifically about BDORT, since I am ignorant of it and have no opinion regarding its validity. If a topic is overwhelmingly acknowledged as quackery by the scientific community at large, it is not POV to report it being quackery while devoting no time to the opposing viewpoint. Fringe views need not be presented at all. POV would be presenting the fringe as anything except the fringe. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Quatloo, I do follow and agree with what you are saying re techniques etc. The problem here is I think though different: there is a discursive 'statement', or description, that is not citated, written by an editor that is completely contradictory to and summarily and conclusively dismissive of the claims made for the technique by its developer and colleagues (that can be citated). So it is not a question of reporting a negative criticism here that you comment on. It is an editorial expression/POV that contradicts the citatable material and which completely dismisses the key aspect of the work - described by his descriptions - of the developer of the technique. Richardmalter 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No argument you have raised brings BLP into play. If a technique's description (accurate or not, that is not important here) impacts BLP then we are dealing with a subject that is outside the realm of science and very much inside the realm of personality cult. *If* BLP applies, the subject is pseudoscience. Quatloo 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|
