Talk:Yoshiaki Omura: Difference between revisions

****See: /Mediation for details****

Archives
May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006

Proposal to allow edits during mediation

Should edit be allowed during the mediation process? The mediation process was started on or before August 17th (based on the edit history for /Mediation on this page) and the edit history since then shows various efforts to create a stable version of the article until mediation was resolved.

The argument for not allowing this is the difficulty it creates in resolving an ongoing dispute related to the article and this argument has some weight--other mediators have walked away from mediating this article, and making more work for the mediator may increase the difficulty in resolving an already difficult mediation.

My argument, which is also discussed below, is that we should not effectively freeze edits to an article due to a content dispute between two editors. Pages should only be frozen during mediation (if at all) for a limited period using a protected tag and a deadline set which is tied to specific goals that the disputing editors must achieve or see their case closed, to not waste the time of editors who want to fix the article and aren't aware of the 'informal freeze' on edits (since there is no policy stating that they cannot edit). Changes coinciding with mediation can be integrated into the article if they are still relevant to the current version or dropped if consensus has build against them through the normal editing process.

Allowing edits should have the effect of getting more outside input into the article since most editors don't want to wade through a long mediation history to make contributions and this may also resolve some or all of the disputes that are being mediated. Antonrojo 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Allow edits. Mediation is one of several dispute resolution processes and peer review should get its chance. Antonrojo 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, I have no doubt that you mean well and you want this article, and WP in general, to become as well sourced, informative and objective as they can be. The situation here is that there is a fairly intense conflict, that has been going on since the article was created. The conflict resulted in prologed edit warring that has driven at least two editors to leave WP. The solution that was agreed upon is to stop the edit warring and try mediation. The concept of mediation was that instead of making multiple conflicting edits and reversions per day or even per hour, we would try to agree in the Talk page (or subpage) on a mutually acceptable version, and only then include the change in the article. This was and is the premise for mediation. If we start editing the article directly again, it will again become a free-for-all, a major time and energy drain for all involved, and a sore spot for WP as a whole. I think the bottom line is simple: either we mediate and agree on changes in a civil discussion on the Talk page before they are entered in the article, or we resort to the old free-for-all. I thought that decision was already made, but obviously we can revisit it at any time. Crum375 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'quiet mediation'. If edit aren't allowed on the article at all it should be protected and if only edits of a specific type are allowed, this should be indicated by adding the mediation template to Talk, as well as in the article if an appropriate template exists since editors don't always read Talk when editing, to avoid wasting editors time. Note that this template states only that substantial edits should be avoided until editors have read the applicable talk page discussions, in other words that editors don't need to get involved in the mediation process to make changes. Antonrojo 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I am no expert on templates, if there is something that would be appropriate, then I would have no objection to it. I don't see however, how any editor could just start editing a contentious article that is undergoing mediation without instantly provoking mayhem. Yes, if you change a typo I can see it being 'safe', but I doubt there are many typos left. Anything else would step on some delicate issue that is under mediation and immediately disrupt the mediation process. I think the mediation is not between some specific parties with specific view points - it is intended for any or all editors interested in this article. If you would like to help, by all means join the mediation and feel free to voice your opinion on any issue (or raise new issues). But if someone just makes arbitrary changes to the article at this time, it will be disruptive and will nullify the effect of the mediation process, IMO. Crum375 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits during mediation

See: /Mediation

I think it only stands to reason to refrain from editing the article during mediation. Otherwise it would be a major waste of time to spend days and weeks debating issues that are no longer in the current article. In addition, if anyone starts editing, the parties to the mediation will edit also, while mediation is ongoing, which will create a major disruption. bottom line: please leave the article as it is for now, until mediation is completed. Thanks, Crum375 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it's thoughtful not to edit an article that's being mediated, an admin did see fit to unprotect the article, which means that editing it is sanctioned. I don't think it makes sense to start edit warring about whether editing during mediation is okay. If the changes made conflict with the outcomes of mediation, they can be, in whole or in part, reverted -- that's not a problem. - Che Nuevara 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think that during mediation we should have a stationary target. Otherwise the mediation process becomes a meaningless exercise. In addition, the article was protected because of edit conflicts that occurred due to the issues that required mediation. Those issues are not resolved. If we were to start editing the article, it would end up in an edit conflict within a day or 2. I think it makes no sense to invite this unnecessary disruption at this time. Crum375 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that I have seen outside edits of a contentious article result in a version that passed consensus (Kaiser Permanente, maybe six months ago). Often long edit debates get caught up in a wealth of details and the interested parties have a difficult time moving forward without debating even small changes in detail. Shifting targets are the nature of the wiki philosophy, even if a more traditional editing approach, such as 'versioning' would be easier to manage.

So for what it's worth, I'll add an edit comment to the effect of 'first edits since mediation was begin, roll back to this point if edits made disagree with the consensus'. If this sets off another edit war, or violates policy, or a consensus builds against doing so, I think a rollback to that point would be called for as well. Antonrojo 04:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I disagree with your approach:

1. Other editors may soon join you, and spend a lot of effort on a version that is 'precarious' in that we are mediating an older one
2. The mediation itself might get affected by the 'current' version, which will be a moving target as people are modifying it on a daily or hourly basis
3. The parties to the mediation, not wanting to be outdone, will start editing the 'current' version themselves, soon culminating in an edit war
4. Other contributors, who unlike you may not be aware of the situation with the potential rollback hanging over the article, will invest effort in good faith and edit, with their work potentially disappearing when we revert to the pre-mediation version

I can probably think up of some more reasons, but for me this is enough to be convinced that a changing version during a mediation in which the version is being debated is unproductive and disruptive. OTOH, I can see doing something else, that we have done before: you can start a test version, that will be in a temporary subpage of the pre-mediation version. In that version you can make all your proposed edits. As long as there is nothing outrageous in it (WP liability extends to subpages too) I personally see no problem with it. Crum375 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, I have restored the mediation version and moved your version to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Test. Please feel free to present your proposed changes in that version, while keeping this one stable for mediation purposes. I hope this is acceptable to you. Thanks, Crum375 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And Antonrojo, as Che noted elsewhere, please feel free also to join in the mediation discussion. As background, be advised that I personally joined this article while trying to informally mediate it, and got stuck here ever since. Crum375 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your objection, Crum, that simply isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't own this article just because we're discussing it extensively, and nothing we can do will supercede the wiki process. Editing an article which is under mediation is not inherently bad faith. "Moving targets" are the way of the wiki. If the mediated parties start edit warring "not wanting to be outdone", then that's bad faith action on their part and action can be taken accordingly. Any post-mediation version can easily incorporate appropriate material written during mediation -- that's not a problem at all. I highly recommend you not start telling other editors not to edit an article -- it is a slippery slope that you would be wise to avoid. - Che Nuevara 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no one owns an article, individually or collectively - that is not an issue here. The issue is one of practicality and temporary stability. The issues I raised all had to do with practicality and stability - how do we mediate a moving target, how do we prevent an edit war during mediation. I think the current solution is logical - Antonrojo (and possibly other neutral parties, not involved in the mediation or with BDORT/Omura) can continue to edit the test version while we focus on the stationary target version during mediation. I am open to other ideas to prevent conflict and to preserve stability during the mediation process. Crum375 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't how it is. The mediation does not ask for article "stability", but only for cooperation among the mediated. It is an informal, unofficial process. You can recommend, if you like, that people editing the article join the discussion, but asking people not to edit the article is unreasonable. We mediate a "moving target" by addressing the issues in the conflict -- mediation is about conflict, not about content, and once conflict is over those involved can back to normal editing. We avoid edit warring by not edit warring, period. It's simple, really. - Che Nuevara 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Che, I understand the theory very well, and I appreciate all your efforts thus far. I would be extremely happy if we can continue to mediate the article in a civil and orderly fashion. Let's just keep going and see where we get. Do you have a suggestion of how to proceed from here? I guess we are still waiting for Richard to chime in on the Mediation page? Crum375 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously mediating one person is rather easy, so there isn't a lot we can do until we hear from Richard about this source. But I'll discuss that on the med page. - Che Nuevara 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked a few moderators to post feedback on this page since there are good arguments on both sides and because there doesn't seem to be any specific policy that is relevant. Antonrojo 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this, and it seems to me that edits shouldn't be made that relate to the conflict that has gone to mediation. If you end up with an edit war then by definition you're not mediating - and any edit war has to be laid at the door of the person who made the first disputed edit, not the person that reverted or altered it. (It may take two to tango but someone still has to lead.) So the rule has to be - if your edit is going to be controversial, don't make it in articlespace for now. That may mean that most of the editing on the article might stop, but it still leaves room for stylistic edits and for outside editors to come in (if they come in on the same issues that are being mediated, they can be invited into the mediation), so full protection isn't necessary. It's often a good idea to work on a version of the article outside articlespace, like Crum created at Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Test - that way, you can show exactly how you think the article should look when making your points, while the fact that the article isn't being shown to readers dampens the urgency that people feel when they're edit warring (the "must revert before someone reads the article and thinks this idiot's ramblings are true" syndrome.

I don't believe there's an actual policy on this, and it doesn't seem to me an issue that needs one. There's a common sense issue which is that you can't mediate while edit warring - and if you find simple discussion insufficient, then use a 'sandbox' version of the page, while allowing business as usual to continue on the main article itself, until you've settled on a version that's acceptable to all. I might suggest paring down the sandbox to the paragraphs that are under dispute, otherwise you're more likely to get conflicts with outside/minor edits to the article.

As I was asked to comment on what seemed to be general principle, I haven't looked into the dispute here in any great detail. If anyone thinks my reasoning doesn't work with this particular article then I'd be happy to look into it in more closely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment and am in agreement with Sam Blanning. To summarize, its okay to edit, but not to edit war. However, there's already policies against that. It is generally a bad idea and highly discouraged to edit in regards to the disputed text, since that could easily lead to the aforementioned edit war (See meta:The Wrong Version for a somewhat related and slightly sarcastic essay on this.) Do be careful before implementing Sam's idea of a sandbox though. While this can and does work, the merging afterwards is often messy, error prone, and may even require admin intervention (for merging histories, if required). In my opinion, it's not worth the trouble. I would just recommend waiting until the dispute is resolved before making disputed or controversial edits. Good luck! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand what the two of you are saying, we're talking about someone who was not involved in the mediation. He came along and edited the article, and someone involved in the mediation saying that it wasn't right to edit an article that was being mediated.

If someone not involved in a mediation edits an article, it really ought to have no bearing whatsoever on that mediation. If they begin edit warring, that's another question altogether, but mediation is entirely informal and entirely voluntary. Antonrojo never agreed to mediation, he is not bound to or restricted by it. To say that he is would be illogical, and it would be an affront to everything that is the mediation process. It may be nice and thoughtful of him not to edit, but good faith edits are always welcome. He's not edit warring, he never was, and because he wasn't involved in the dispute, he's not likely to start.

I'm sorry, but the day we start telling people not to edit based on a process that they're not involved in (excepting, of course, when policy dictates it, because that's another matter entirely) is the day we become ArbCom. And the day MedCab becomes ArbCom is the day MedCab should be dissolved once and for all. - Che Nuevara 02:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we are all in agreement then as both of us said that, in our respective opinions, it's okay for anyone, including those in mediation, to edit the article. Neither one of us said people can't or even shouldn't edit the article. We both, however, encouraged those in mediation to refrain of editting the specific text in dispute to avoid an edit war -- which, given your additional context on the basis of the inquiry, sounds like it's not even applicable to this discussion at all. I do apologize, though, for not fully understanding the situation before commenting. I hope this clarification helps unmuddy the waters a bit :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those involved in mediation should refrain from making potentially controversial edits without the consensus of the mediation -- that goes right down to good-faith willingness to participate. I don't fault you (or anyone else) for being unclear on the circumstances of this mediation -- they are many and complicated, and it took me a while myself to figure out what was going on here. Your opinion is naturally welcome and appreciated, and I'm sorry if I came on a little strong in my response. Happy wiki'ing! - Che Nuevara 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern with the 'no significant edits during mediation' approach is that mediation is an open-ended process without a specified time limit. From the few cases I'm familiar with, at least one of the parties involved is a POV warrior and the result of this policy is that editors with a more neutral view of the article are likely to move on to articles where their efforts are more appreciated rather than enduring barriers to editing put in their way by formal edit processes or stubborn editors who effectively freeze changes that don't agree with their POV. Asking outside editors to fork an alternate version of an article is one of these barriers. Antonrojo 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Antonrojo. As you are not a part of the mediation and I assume that the edits you wish to make have absolutely nothing to do with the dispute, I can see absolutely no reason at all why you can't make your edits. Enjoy and happy editting! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask on what you base that assumption? Crum375 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Note: below is a copy of the exchange I had with Shinmawa on his Talk page ---Crum375 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC) ---

Shinmawa, may I ask why you assume that Antonrojo's edits "have nothing to do with the mediation"? Crum375 22:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to bow out of this discussion for now. I really don't have the context I need to understand the issue, and I'm afraid I'm just making things worse. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the situation is now such a mess, with the current version up flying back out of nowhere with hours of discussion effectively ignored, that I dont know how to proceed; if I edit the article as has been done by others just recently there will be an edit war in a few hours; refraining from editing - which means effectively saying that some people will edit while I will not - also does not make any (WP) sense. Anyone can suggest what to do? Che, re the affidavits, I am working on another source. But how can we proceed now?!

OK, I have, like others have done, reverted to a version that I consider reasonable as a starting point, after a number of changes have been made to it, including all the regular WP policies/guidelines etc and what has been discussed (and agreed) in mediation(s) so far.Richardmalter 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am sure you realize that edit warring is not a reasonable way for us to spend our time and energy. You asked for and agreed to mediation, please let the process continue to its resolution. Thanks, Crum375 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this is a hindrance to our mediation efforts. We can continue to discuss the issues in the article even if the article is edited. So, are we discussing, or not? Richard, if you're still working on that affidvait issue, why don't we move on to a new issue in mediation and come back to this one? - Che Nuevara 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I note that you insist even in the interim on a version that you like, despite that it contains many points that you have agreed are WP unacceptable in Mediation so far. Why should your predilection remain during mediation rather than anyone elses? There are many versions of this entry. It just so happened that the total edit block was put on version-arbitrarily after you reverted to this, your preferred version, a while ago. This does not make the version you like any better than any other version, and since you et al have agreed that it contains many WP unacceptables, it is in fact considerably worse in WP terms than the version I have just reverted. So I do not accept this version remain there if the article is open again for editing. I would, in the interim, agree to the version that was reached at the end of the last round of mediation mediated by Andy, would you agree to that? Che, yes I am working on another source for the affidavits, which I think will arrive shortly. But yes, please lets continue to discuss, thanks for your continued help, which I continue to appreciate very much. I suggest the Shinnick citation next, OK? If so, lets resume on the Mediation page. Thanks.Richardmalter 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the version that was there during start of mediation is the one that should stay, unless we all agree to a change. Otherwise, IMO (and apprarenly I am not alone in that opinion) the mediation process will become disrupted. Let's focus on the mediation and try to move forward. Crum375 13:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, unless you intend to dismiss mediation, which I ask that you declare now in good faith, as you have previously reverted mediated agreements that you were fully participant in, the only version that I agree that remains up in the interim, in this regard, is the one that we had reached at the end of the mediation effort by Andy as mediator, that you were voluntarily fully participant in and that you signed that you would respect. You state things like "should stay", but this lacks validity in the light of mediation that you were party to. Either we respect mediation or we have an edit war. Do you or do you not respect the mediated decisions that you were fully party to or do you not? I do not ask rhetorically. I guess if you answer anything other than a binary "yes", then the best thing to do is freeze the entry again; and I will hope that the freeze-dice will land on this version not the one you like. Richardmalter 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that trying to agree on a version to work from would rather undo the need for any mediation in the first place, so I won't say "hey guys let's agree on a version and go from there". And I won't come out in favor of a particular version, because doing so would undeniably counter my impartiality as a mediator. I will say this: opinion on a topic = bias. So if anyone says that they don't have a bias on a subject which they know something about, they're just being unreasonable. Bias does not mean you can't edit an article neutrally, but it does mean you can't edit objectively. If you'd like me to come out and lay my biases on the table, I'd be happy to do so, but I think that one person recognizing his/her own biases is enough. I think that, if we're going to get anything done, we need to get back to discussing the real issues, not which version is up when. There is nothing to be gained through another edit war, although if you insist on edit warring again, there's nothing I can do to stop you. It's your choice. Do we discuss the issues that are laid out on the /Mediation page, or not? You need not answer that question -- if you want to discuss, let's just go back there and discuss, eh? - Che Nuevara 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that edit warring is not conducive for mediation. I think that the version we had at the start of mediation, before someone needlessly (IMO) unprotected the article, is the one that should stay up while we continue. Otherwise, the constant reversions will only be a distraction. As I mentioned several times, I don't think the current version is perfect. OTOH, tweaking it at this time, before we get the important issues settled, would be disruptive to the mediation process, IMO. Crum375 13:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand the purpose of page protection. There is absolutely no reason for a page to be protected for the duration of mediation, which would in fact be contrary to WP policy. Page protection during mediation serves only the purpose of stopping an on-going edit war and allowing those involved a little time to cool down; after that, the page is supposed to be unprotected. - Che Nuevara 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's always possible I misunderstood it. It was done by Cowman109 to try to stabilize the article and calm the atmosphere while he was trying to mediate. Then he abruptly left us (like his predecessors), leaving the article protected. Let's just get on with mediation. Crum375 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Richard is working on the other source, so which should we discuss next? - Che Nuevara 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you two decide on, I guess. Crum375 22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, just take the fact please, that for the reasons I give above, I dont agree that the version that you like remains all the time we have mediation. Many of these reasons you have explicitly agreed to in Mediation, so I did expect you would go along with. I hope it will be locked for editing - in a version other than the one Crum predilects. We should be clear, that the version Crum likes has no agreed (WP) basis to it - it is merely one that Crum likes, any suggestion of (WP) validity to it should be understood as merely POV. Re what to discuss next, please see the Shinnick citation on the mediation page. Thanks.Richardmalter 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the version protected by Cowman109. I understand Richard doesn't like it, and I have some issues with it also. But this is the one that was protected so let's leave it and get on with mediation. Crum375 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting old. One of you step up and put an end to this by grinning and bearing the version that you don't like. I think that would demonstrate an awful lot of good faith. - Che Nuevara 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I think you know about the wrong version; it is incorrect to claim or imply even indirectly that because it was this version that was up when the page was locked that it is somehow sanctioned. Other than your like, there is no WP preference (and many against) this version. Che, sorry, I will revert now. I hope this demonstrates the need for mediation, and why we need you!Richardmalter 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, will you or will you not agree to the version that was reached at the end of the last round of mediation by Andy? as I have proposed. Bear in mind that your agreement to changes that led to it are fully documented, and I would take it personally as a show or trust and commitment to the mediation process. ?Richardmalter 07:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the version that our last mediator Cowman109 protected is the last stable version before the recent edit war erupted. You did complain to him about it at the time, and I myself was not totally happy with it, but it was the one he picked and froze, and this is the one that was there when Che, our present mediator, arrived. Going back to any other version would require us to argue about numerous issues - I doubt that we can reach quick consensus. If we are to argue, let's focus our energy on the mediation process. Crum375 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, as you know, that is not the whole story at all. Your words like 'stable version' sound possibly impressive, but are in fact meaningless due to the agreements you made and broke, and the arbitrary version that you reverted to at a point in time when you decided to. I will revert it back once you are asleep again.Richardmalter 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I did not break any agreement. If your point is that during the prolonged mediation process I agreed in principle to certain points, you are correct. But agreeing to specific points does not mean I agree to or endorse any specific version, and in fact I have yet to see a version I totally agree with. One reason there is no such version is that I myself have mostly refrained from directly editing this article, preferring instead to accept a 'best version' at any given time. Anyway, let's try to see if we can in fact get to any more agreements in principle by mediation. Crum375 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum: To say that the version Cowman protected is "the one he picked" is misleading -- an admin is in fact expected not to "chose" a version but rather to protect whatever version (barring blatant vandalism) is up when he decides to protect the page. That's what Cowman did. The truth is there was no "stable" version and that one just got picked out of a hat. Richard: The fact that there is now an ongoing edit war over which version should be mediated shows to me not only a desperate need for mediation, but also a complete unwillingness to, in good faith, more forward with the mediation process. Seriously, guys, are we going to work on this article or not? Edit warring is a waste of everyone's time. - Che Nuevara 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Simplification"

Right now this article is very much too long and complicated and can stand much improvement. Whiffle will help! Whiffle 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC) It will be a much better article then, clearer and simpler and easier to understand and everyone should be happy with it. Please help, too.! Whiffle 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make it clearer, because it does not accurately describe the procedure. "Dumbing down" of an article necessarily makes it less accurate. Although this version isn't perfect, taking out information and replacing it with opinion and inaccurate "simplification" makes articles inaccurate and thereby not suitable to WP. - Che Nuevara 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you disagree with my editorial judgement. Then work to make it better. There's no reason to think your idea is any better than anyone elses. I'm not dumbing anything down and to say that is insulting. Don't insult me because you disagree with me. Whiffle 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you take the term "dumbing down" as offensive, but it's not meant that way and it's not what it means. No disrespect intended, so let me explain: "Dumbing down" means "making things simpler at the expense of accuracy". You have indeed clearly done that. For instance, how are

The form of the test is the evaluation of opposing muscle strength consisting of the diagnostician's employing thumb and forefinger of each hand, formed in the shape of an O, to attempt to force apart an O shape formed by thumb and forefinger of the person being evaluated, as that person holds a slide of organ tissue, a sample of medication, potential allergen, etc, in their free hand, or is otherwise 'probed' at an appropriate acupuncture point by the use of a metal rod or laser pointer. The diagnostician then uses his or her perception of the strength required to force apart the patient's 'O-Ring' of thumb and forefinger to assess the matter being evaluated

and

n the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test the doctor pulls people's fingers apart to see how strong they are before and after he is testing something. If they are stronger after it means the thing he was testing was good for them. If they are weaker it was bad for them. This is a very simple test. It doesn't take any equipment except the Doctor pulling the fingers apart and the patient, and it is very quick and easy and effective

equivalent? The answer is that they naturally are not. - Che Nuevara 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to insult someone by saying they're dumbing it down then stand up and stand behind your words. My edits speak for themselves. If you can improve it, improve it, stop insulting me then claiming you're not. That's the worst insult of all. Whiffle 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor is it my job to justify myself to please you. That isn't a discussion, and I'm not your student. Are we clear on this? Whiffle 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where that came from. I wouldn't even dream of thinking of desiring to say that you're my student, nor would I fancy that it's your job to please me. I said you have to edit according to WP policy and guidelines, that's all. - Che Nuevara 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee, if someone said to you you had "dumbed down" the article in simplifying it I suppose you'd see that as a compliment, right? Have the courage to say what you mean, not insult someone then take it back. Whiffle 04:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained what I meant by that term, which is the common usage as far as I'm aware, and I apologized for offending you even though I didn't mean to. I suppose that "dumbing down" should be considered no more or less offensive that "Keep It Simple, Stupid", don't you? - Che Nuevara 04:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL just read your helpful message on my page. You have an inclination to casual insult, haven't you? Is this your notion of WP:Civil. Curious interpretation of the concept. Perhaps I'm too simple-minded to follow so subtle an intellect. Whiffle 04:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KISS is a mantra in many design, engineering, and other circles. It isn't regarded as an insult save by those inclined to excessive complexity, so far as I'm aware. It's an ancient attention-getter. Whiffle 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of cite ref corrections

Whiffle, your edits are not helping anything, and you've completely undone all the work done on making all the references fit into the correct citation method. I was only trying to make the references look right, and forgot to address the undoing of your edits (which only made the article more POV) I apologize for forgetting to address that, but your edits are only making the article worse. You need to discuss the drastic changes you're making before doing them, especially on a controversial article like this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed up some of the refs. The article is too long, too convuluted, and too incomprehensible, however much your efforts over time has convinced you otherwise. You need fresh eyes whether you know it or not. If you're uncomfortable with that, then you're uncomfortable with that. I have no reason to trust your judgement over my own. Is that hard to follow or simply hard to accept? Whiffle 04:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've made perhaps 3-4 edits to this article, and they've all been minor outside of the references fixing (and you messed up all of the ref corrections, not just some of them). Perhaps you should do a little more research before you make comments such as this. Based on that, your own judgement comes into question. On top of that, you need to adjust your attitude if you're going to be working here on Wikipedia. Acting in a condescending manner toward others' opinions goes against the civility policy, and refusing to discuss anything before making sweeping changes to a controversial article goes against the etiquette policy. You need to be able to work well with others if you're going to be doing things here. If you can't abide by these policies, you'll likely cause more and more problems and eventually run into problems with the administrators or others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe, but it isn't all about you. It's about the Wikipedia Entry. It's a mess. Quick, let's all look up what different dictionaries say "mess" means, then discuss it for a few weeks before we have a Mediator assist us in the, uh, uhm...MESS !!! Whiffle 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Let's cut through the clutter and cut to the chase here, okay? Is this an entry or an excuse for a virtual circle jerk of people who are Look, I Are A Editor !!! wannabees? Fish, cut bait, or hang, bated, thrashing your wings pointlessly about. I'm not your mommy, and I don't want to spank you. I'm here to be right, not to be kind. Got the concept? Good !!! Whiffle 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Haste Slowly ?

Opinions differ, gentlemen and ladies. Try and keep up.

Night. Night. Whiffle 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please work out your differences here and in mediation. -Will Beback 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the protection. Please edit with consideration for all viewpoints. -Will Beback 07:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have applied everything so far discussed on mediation page.

1) all extensive very obvious POV and OR deleted. 2) disclaimer statments (which would be a precedent for WP as discussed by many Admins) deleted. 3) correct description inserted. 4) 'en passant' citations agreed in mediation deleted. 5) obvious attempts at labelling in See Also section deleted 6) selevtive quoting from NZ Tribunial addressed, key quote of tribunial differentiating earlier on re BDORT and Gorringe included.

If any one wants to improve, I ask them to do so with regard to previous decisions made that has included them, and past and previous comments/discussions on the Mediation pages. I suggest, if it is contentious, dont add it.Richardmalter 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, nothing has been agreed to in the mediation process. Please refrain from editing the article while the mediation process is underway. Thanks, Crum375 03:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you must have a problem reading your own words. What was agreed about the refs to quakery etc that you participated in in the last round of mediation have a look at the archives, you will see discussion "closed and action taken as agreed" - you know this.Richardmalter 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as you know, nothing whatsoever has been decided. If you can see me misreading my own words somewhere, please provide a link to my words, so we can discuss them. Thanks, Crum375 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed and action taken as agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/MediationArchive_1

I guess it must be a memory problem, is the only solutionm in good faith i can attribute to you.Richardmalter 03:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it must be a memory as well as a reading problem on my part. I can't for the life of me see or otherwise recall where I agreed to all the changes you just made in the article, including removing the NZ reference from the the lead, etc. Crum375 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but you CAN see some of the changes that you agreed to, and that is the point you try to evade: you disregard all of them which is very disrespectful to me, other contributors/mediators/WP.Richardmalter 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just above you declared nothing has been agreed to in the mediation process. Now you are corrected.Richardmalter 04:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The only changes I agreed to, were minor technicalities and included in other changes that you ignore. For example, regarding the Quackery reference, I agreed the specific linked page was wrong, but another link in the same site made the same point about quackery even stronger. You just removed the reference altogether instead of just fixing it. Hence you cannot just state that I 'agreed' to even that specific change. Can you point me to any of your changes that I actually agreed to? Crum375 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You agreed to the minor technicality that the 'Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant' usage was WP not OK. Usage of a citation, in itself and what for, are not minor. You may consult the wider WP community if you disagree.

You agreed to changes. Be respectful and keep to them please. Richardmalter 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes that I agreed to, were only agreed to by me, to the best of my knowledge (like the better Quackery reference mentioned above), not by the others. Hence, I contend that at this point no changes have been 'agreed to' in the mediation. 'Agreement' by definition is by everyone. Crum375 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, your memory and reading are still lacking. See the archive again for documentation that there was a consensus decision. But at least you now admitt to agreed changes, which is something. So please dont revert mediated consensus decsions. Richardmalter 05:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I think it might be helpful if discussion preceded edit warring, and, hopefully, averted its necessity. Richard, would you care to make the case for your changes? TheStainlessSteelRat 04:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, AKA TSSR, see comments above re the protected version; summary: it is completely arbitrary. Your question just above applied equally to the version you reverted.

If you cannot see that, as one of many examples:

The fact that patent was granted to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has been cited as an example of 'high weirdness' [8] by at least one firm of patent attorneys, and by another firm of patent attorneys as 'just plain offensive,' presenting an illustrative example . . .

is original research, then I think we have a major problem with your understanding of WP policies. If Crum cannot do the same, the same applies to him in addition to his memory and reverting of his decisions.Richardmalter 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that when others disagree with you in discussion you are unwilling to accept that, and will rely upon your own interpretation and understanding to the exclusion of others, and act upon it by editing the entry accordingly. Is that understanding on my part correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both user:Crum375 and user:Richardmalter for edit warring. Protection of the page clearly isn't being productive either, so it seems like blocking is the way to go so minor, uncontroversial edits can be made. Cowman109^Talk 05:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty, then, of reverting to the status quo ante so that, in time, perhaps, a more measured discussion may follow. TheStainlessSteelRat 06:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re starting over - a proposal for the interim

Crum has tried to argue that this version is in some way stable. His own edit block refutes that fiction as do all edit wars in the past. He likes this version because of his undeclared yet self-revealed bias. He has also tried to present this version as endorsed by WP. It has been explained to him many times that he is incorrect on this point. He has forgotten that he agreed to some usages of certain citations (so did Arc and all his other handles) as I documented just above. He has tried to impose a 'dont edit' rule on this version (re his bais) during mediation - even though the mediator has told him this is not agreed.

If we want not to have an edit war, in the interim, since this version is so full of OR, POV, violations of consensus decisions, and especially since we have all agreed to start over completely, I think it is the only workable way and the fairest, to reduce the entry to a mere placeholder while we discuss what we do agree on, ie a snippet in the meantime as part of 'Starting Over'. I will anticipate non-agreement with this proposal obviously re POV and biases involved. But in the spirit and logic of starting over, not to mention all of our time and energy, I strongly suggest you all agree to this. Responses please ASAP?

OK, I have done this. Just plain information. Can we agree to this in the meantime? I also see this as a test of genuine good faith.Richardmalter 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Richard, I would ask that you address the following question, posed above:

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that when others disagree with you in discussion you are unwilling to accept that, and will rely upon your own interpretation and understanding to the exclusion of others, and act upon it by editing the entry accordingly. Is that understanding on my part correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, no, as ususal you choose to interpret me into some kind of hyperbole. You have also never apologized in a simple straightforward manner for misrepresentations. Re the example I noted, the other editor also picked it out straightaway as OR. "A happened, then B happened, and therefore such and such is" OR. If you cannot see this, then I suggest you ask you reread carefully WP policies and ask others until your understanding is clear.

Secondly, although I am by no means certain as to whether this particular form of shortened entry is acceptable – there had been agreement that a minimal entry might be the best way to proceed, but there had been no discussion or sandboxing as to the form of such a hypothetical minimal entry – let alone consensus – I have amended your unilateratally vastly shortened entry to include the New Zealand Tribunal. You will note that in two separate AfD discussions doubts as to the validity of Omura's techniques in general and the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal in particular were found to be the sole bases of notability for Omura and/or BDORT sufficient to justify the existence of an entry for Omura on Wikipedia. It is, therefore, utterly unacceptable to alter the entry to any shortened form which simply excludes the sole agreed-upon basis for the entry's existence.

I would suggest, then, that we simply await the availability of others, and their thoughts, as you had previously agreed on numerous occasions, rather than unilaterally radically altering the entry to any one person's particular preferred form, however well and sincerely intended.TheStainlessSteelRat 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Arc, your bias is that you originally wanted to tell the world that the BDORT is pseudoscience. In some way you want very much to be able to say this in some way. That is the long and short of all of it. Your AfD discussion is selective and what you write is not the whole story at all. "in the only credible bla bla" is just you wanting to scream out about pseudoscience, and is not on. Can you not in good faith actually agree to START OVER!!Richardmalter 19:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you remember when I quized Xolov about his summing up, he replied that what he had written was a "worst case scenario" for notability, NOT that he was given such a decision himself. Crum also noted that So I would say that if someone publicizes a symposium on a mainstream academic institution's official Web site, that would make BDORT, a featured sub-topic of the symposium (note the illustration), and most likely Omura, notable. You are selctively interpreting and quoting from the AfD discussions. Again I ask you, can you agree to not have your desire and genuine belief to label the BDORT pseudoscience spoken to the world? Can we just have an information snippet to save edit warring and everyone's time and energy??! Please?Richardmalter 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it, then, that, in response to my (above):

'If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that when others disagree with you in discussion you are unwilling to accept that, and will rely upon your own interpretation and understanding to the exclusion of others, and act upon it by editing the entry accordingly. Is that understanding on my part correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is 'Yes.' Correct? TheStainlessSteelRat 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will have to take it, then, regretfully, that your answer is indeed, 'Yes.' I've just reverted (#1 of this cycle) in response to your revert. I'm attempting, here, Richard, to accomodate your preference for the drastically shortened entry, at least pending the return of other editors. I cannot accept, however, as rational interpretation of the AfD discussion anything other than my statement above: That Omura/BDORT were found notable, in both discussions, only on the basis of their being dubious/pseudoscience/quackery, and, more pertinent here, that the NZ Tribunal which you seem to insist on 'disappearing' is by far the most reliable, reputable source on this matter. I am aware of your stated differences with that characterization of the NZ Tribunal. You have advanced, however, absolutely no reliable, verifiable evidence per Wikipedia criteria to contest the Tribunal, only your insistence that your interpretation is correct. That, regretfully, simply will not suffice. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would also ask that you desist from personal attacks on the motives of others. It is a common observation that ad hominem attacks strongly suggest a lack of convincing argument or evidence for one's position, and such attacks, I'm afraid, likely weaken your case in the eyes of most neutral parties. Please, if you have the arguments, and the evidence, simply present them and let them speak for themselves. TheStainlessSteelRat 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, you are avoiding the questions put to you as usual. I will revert after you are asleep tonight.Richardmalter 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I deeply regret, then, Richard, your acknowledgement that you insist on having your own way rather than work with the community. TheStainlessSteelRat 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, re personal attacks, when you get your own house in order re this I will take you seriously, not before. Re your own way - yes applies to you exactly; in addition to not answering questions when you dont like their answers.

Just for the record, as Crum has said in the past, "everything needs to be citated".

In the only known credible independent evaluation and judgement of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body,

does not have any citation. It is OR through and through and is not acceptable. If you cannot find citations for these words, they are out. In the only known credible is pure WP:OR/POV.

the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand heard extensive expert testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test

is not correct, you know that they said earlier on that Gorringe's methods did not resemble Omura's, in those words. You are mis and selectively quoting re your POV. If you cannot find an exact quotation for heard extensive expert testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test then it is not allowable. To anticipate you and Crum, Crum has the answer to you both: "everything has to be citated".

etc.

If you want to cooperate in WP terms, and can let go of your desire to call things pseudoscience - which you have been told here repeatedly by me and others including Admins that unless you have a very good direct citation for you cannot,let me know. Richardmalter 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, AKA, TSSR AKA whiffle, you have also broken your agreement documented as did Crum regarding:

which has been characterized as pseudoscience,

You were part of a voluntary mediated consensus decision and you agreed as part of that consensus that this was not acceptable and should not be used. YOU ARE ASKED TO BE RESPECTFUL TO EVERYONE AND KEEP TO AGREEMENTS MADE. YOU SHOW HUGE DISRESPECT NOT TO DO THIS. Richardmalter 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going along with that. If you are immovable at this stage even in the Starting Over for having the Tribunial info, then I will insist on the line from the report I just added. Regarding all the other OR/POV language, I will not agree to it of course. I have explained to Crum innumerable times re the 'scientific' etc - also that they were not experts in the right field - please see archives - which make the whole thing (to the regret of the anti-BDORT lobby) not much use (to WP) at all. Richardmalter 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo: I would note that I find your edit work on the entry to be, in my judgement, quite helpful, and quite promising.

Therefore, I regret the following, though I'd ask that, if you're willing, you continue to contribute to the process, as I, for one, would very much appreciate it, as, I'm sure, would others.

Richard: I regret that I find your shortened form of the entry unacceptable per my understanding of Wikipedia criteria, and would, respectfully, ask, therefore, that, as a demonstration of faith in the community and its processes as per extant consensus, you revert to the version of the entry as it existed prior to its most recent unlocking, prior to your radical surgery, so that we may return to the process of discussion and consensus building, as most recently so generously and patiently moderated by Che and further contributed to and overseen to varying degrees by other members of the Wikipedia community. TheStainlessSteelRat 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Arc, please explain exactly and in detail why - then we can discuss - which I definetely will. You have not given me any indication of what you think is WP:not OK; whereas you please note that I have discussed why have improved (not deleted) your edits. Please bear in mind re your comments as Crum has said, "EVERYTHING has to be citated" [my upper case] Thank you.Richardmalter 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer to maintain the entry in a radically altered form of your making – with minor but helpful contribution on Antonrojo's part as to neutral point of view with respect to presentation – which was previously controverted as to its particulars on numerous occasions and which found no support in consensus rather than simply restore the entry to that form which it took prior to your personal and radical reshaping I am content to note that fact for the present and await other opinions. TheStainlessSteelRat 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, hello, I have I think improved on your edits, as follows. Thanks for the info re better quoting of statements, reads much better. I put in the citation link - it is from the same source, just a different paragraph. Re: There are no known credible independent evaluations of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body - well this has been hotly disputed for months, the way I see it is not actually contributing information to the article. It is contributing a POV and a bias (albeit in a subtle way prehaps). credible etc are all hotly disputed. For example no one in the Tribunial had the expertise at post doctorate level to be able to comment on the basis of the BDORT - which Omura et al explicitly document in many abstracts as an 'electromagnetic resonance phenomena'. ie they are not expert in the required field - electromagnetism - at all, etc. heard extensive testimony as to claims of scientific validity and efficacy of BDORT is not correct since they earlier on noticed the obvious fact that Gorringe was doing his own techniques, so they generically called them PMRT. I then took out [which they generically meant to include the BDORT] since in the rewrite that is now covered. Richardmalter 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard, everyone on that panel was qualified to judge whether a technique had undergone proper scientific verification. It does not matter whether the technique is supposed to be based on the properties of electromagnetic resonance phenomena, quantum mechanics, cosmic rays, fish oil chemistry, psychology or whatever since knowing how it works is irrelevant to judging whether it works. Either its effectiveness has been assessed properly or it has not. In the judgement of the tribunal, the effectiveness of PMRT type techniques (including BDORT) have not been properly demonstrated in repeatable, well-designed, well-executed, peer-reviewed scientific research. --Spondoolicks 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Spondoolicks: just as an electrician doesn't have to know electron field theory to assess a circuit board, a doctor does not have to be familiar with the methodology of a particular treatment to assess its results. - Che Nuevara 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is they did not actually assess the technique; they also did not comment on Omura et al's research and papers of the BDORT (not surprisningly because they recognized early on theat Gorringe was doing something different) - not even to dismiss them - ie they did not really comment on the BDORT at all. Further, they did not make any clinical evaluation; nothing they did can be described as 'scientific' - they did not even observe the BDORT in order to try to explain it (or refute it). They did not 'assess' the 'circuit board' because they did not even see a demonstration of the BDORT; so what you both write doesn't fit with what actually happened - need to be very clear about this. Giving an opinion is all they did. Actually, I agree with Spondoolicks who summed it up quite accurately: In the judgement of the tribunal, the effectiveness of PMRT type techniques (including BDORT) have not been properly demonstrated in repeatable, well-designed, well-executed, peer-reviewed scientific research is all you can actually say that the Tribunial commented. Shall we say this then in reference to this citation, this wording seems good. Next thing is I showed this entry snippet to a couple of people, and their unprompted reaction was that obviously including the Tribunial info and nothing more ot further about the BDORT obviously smacks of someone (or two or three) trying very hard to give their opinion about the BDORT with this entry. But if we have rough agreement on this citation, then can we go on to examining the next citation that needs our evaluation as editors (see Mediation page for this), thanks.Richardmalter 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tribunal, this wording is, in my opinion, rather conservative, but since there seems to be some disagreement about just how identical the Tribunal considered Gorringe's method and Omura's methods, it may be the best possible compromise. It should be handled appropriately, however, in a way that indicates that yes, the Tribunal is qualified to talk about these sorts of things.

Re: bias, it's important to remember the undue weight segment of WP:NPOV. Citations intended to "balance" an article actually do more to unbalance it if they are present as carrying weight which they do not carry. Additionally, if the majority of qualified opinion come down against something, that should be reflected in the article. I was involved in a discussion about this over at Democratic Underground a while ago: if a useful source which carries real weight is found, then it should be used, but a not useful source should not be used just to "balance" the opposing opinion. - Che Nuevara 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Che, and others here, hello. I am putting the {{POV}} back on the entry as I see it (with the NZ Tribunial citation included) as still not neutral if no other (what I believe will turn out to be through discussion if they have not already) perfectly WP:OK citations completely relevant to this entry are not included. Che, I would welcome very much your continued mediation which I appreciate very much - what do you think, are you still willing to continue? To make myself clear, this snippet including the Tribunial citation is as I understand it a placeholder which has stopped the edit war temporarily which is great - but I dont think is the last word on what will happen here in the (near) future by any stretch. Thanks Richardmalter 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The NZ Tribunal citations currently aren't in the article. There's no material in the article that could possibly be disputed; it's in stub-land now. So let's work on disputing the material before it goes in; that way the tag is unnecessary. - Che Nuevara 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I'm sorry, I had understood from the reversions you had made to include the NZ Tribunial para that that was still in, in which case what I wrote made sense. If that has now gone by agreement in the meantime, then of course there is no POV dispute. Hope you can see why I moved as I did and the situation was confusing? And yes, lets work on the material prior, agree of course.Richardmalter 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted them back in after they were deleted without comment by an IP. They've been taken out again, so it would seem that some discussion on the topic is necessary. - Che Nuevara 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP removed the well-sourced NZT reference, and Richard removed a lot more well-sourced material. I suggest we continue to follow the mediation process prior to making changes in the article. Crum375 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we agree that we were starting over? Why was the article reverted to its previous full version? - Che Nuevara 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I have no recollection, nor can I find anywhere, an agreement to 'start over', let alone to delete massive amounts of well sourced and pertinent material. We did agree for someone neutral to build a new version in his sandbox, we are still waiting for that. We never agreed to just gut the article; leaving Omura without BDORT would violate the last AfD consensus, leaving BDORT without NZT would violate NPOV, etc. If I am wrong and we did agree to it somehow, please point me to that consensus. Thanks, Crum375 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] - Che Nuevara 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, would you mind giving me a diff? The section header you are linking to is a discussion thread we had about 'starting over'. The final concept there was for a new (to this article) editor to try to come up with a brand new version in his Sandbox that could possibly replace this one. I don't see (nor recall) any agreement we ever had to reduce the article to a POV stub, that does not conform to the consensus we had after the last AfD and that includes BDORT without the most relevant and reliable reference we have for it, the NZ Tribunal report. The stub without the NZT reference is simply misleading and represents no agreement or consensus whatsoever. Crum375 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that the previous versions did not conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I strongly support this starting over. I mean, at the end of each paragraph we had a sentence stating that none of Yoshiaki's works were proven by any official medical authority - while that may or may not be true, it is completely unnecessary to repeat these words so many times. Starting afresh is the best thing for any article with serious concerns. From here things can be built up again and individual facts can be properly referenced. Cowman109^Talk 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The so-called disclaimer statements were included near each new description of a new extraordinary claim, which has no scientifically or WP acceptable source. The inclusion of the disclaimer statements can be argued, and we have had some extensive discussions about them, but it does not mean that the entire article needs to be discarded. As far as starting from scratch, I am not totally against it, but the current stub version is totally POV - it includes only Omura's 'evidence' which is not WP-acceptable per WP:V, while it excludes the New Zealand Tribunal's document, which is the most reliable and verifiable source we have for BDORT. At this point, the article is simply an ad for a scientifically unproven procedure, which claims to diagnose and cure most diseases known to man, by the patient making an 'O' with his/her fingers. BTW, the previous version had undergone scrutiny by many people during the last AfD, and the consensus was to keep improving it, not to trash it and start from scratch. Crum375 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I chose that particular version because, if you read the entire section, you said "I am in general amenable to all ideas mentioned here" shortly after I said "It seems that no one objects to a complete rewrite of the article". - Che Nuevara 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my statement above, I am not deadset against any reasonable idea, including a total rewrite if that's the best we can do. But to start with a POV version, that includes items that are not acceptable per WP policy, and does not include the NZT, which is the best source we have for this procedure, is simply wrong. Crum375 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The version that I have reverted to contains no sources about the procedure, except to say that he invented it; that cannot possibly be POV. The information that the anonymous IP was adding was clearly POV and I have removed it. This is a bare-bones version: it says who Omura is, the foundations he founded, and that he invented BDORT. That is all verifiable and objective fact. It doesn't say much, but it doesn't say anything biased. It is not misrepresentative in any way; it's just lacking in thoroughness. If we start from this version, we can add things as we go. - Che Nuevara 01:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the version just prior to your latest reversion. In your version, besides the fact that it's missing a lot of well sourced information that we previously had, it mentions 'BDORT' without mentioning the related New Zealand Tribunal's findings, that it is "irresponsible and unacceptable" to use it, and that the last person that used it was fined and stripped of his license. Leaving out this important and well sourced information is misleading by omission, hence POV. Crum375 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version links to alternative medicine. That contains a number of the criticisms, generally, which you wish to include here specifically. For a stub, that's plenty NPOV. - Che Nuevara 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to alternative medicine does not remove the onus to supply to the reader the most reliable and verifiable source that relates to the subject of BDORT. IMO it should be the primary focus of the article, as it is the best source. Crum375 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: My above comment was deleted by Richardmalter, I am hereby restoring it. Crum375 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Che's and Cowman's points. Crum, are you intent on another Edit War!! Your POV arguments find no consensus here. Many people are telling you the same thing - start over from a stub. Richardmalter 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Crum, by reverting the version you did, you are again breaking a mediated consensus decision that you were part of.Richardmalter 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is currently done with the article makes little difference. The issue is more of just not edit warring and discussing instead. If I find some time over the weekend I'll see if I can get a nice rewrite of the article going. It will probably not be as heavy on information on the bi-digital o-ring test as Wikipedia does not need an essay explaining how it is performed. Cowman109^Talk 04:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Cowman, give it a shot. Clearly the situation here is (surprise) once again at an impasse. I'll operate as seems more or less sensible pending your effort. What do you put the odds at? ;) GenghizRat 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Query As to Removal of My Comment

May I ask, RM, why you simply removed this without comment? [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghizRat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Reality Bites?

At present the entry exists in stub form, with the sole basis of its having survived requests for deletion having been removed, in a form I judge utterly unsatisfactory per both rational thought and Wikipedia criteria. I therefore withdraw my provisional acceptance of the entry's shortened form, which was agreed to temporarily, pending Gzkn's sandboxed version (which never happened), as noted above, by The Stainless Steel Rat. In this context the form of the entry prior extant seems to me the most acceptable. GenghizRat 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This, as per time stamp, was made earlier, but was removed by RM without comment, prior to his comments and Cowman's subsequent comments. GenghizRat 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Okay everyone, enough is enough. You're taking away my options here. Richard, removing other people's comments is not appropriate. Crum and TSSR, every non-involved party who has come along has agreed that the version you keep reverting to is irreparable and needs to be rewritten. It should be obvious that not misrepresenting information is a much higher priority than including it. Are we going to work on this article, or are we going to bicker? - Che Nuevara 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, as a quick response to your comment about "every non-involved party who has come along has agreed that the version you keep reverting to is irreparable and needs to be rewritten", I'd like to take issue with it: I think that statement is incorrect. We've had many eyes going over this version (or one very close to it) during the last AfD, and the consensus there was to improve it, not to start over. Also, AntonRojo, who would hopefully be 'non-involved' by your definition (?) has just attempted to improve it, and in fact the current version is his. Crum375 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, this will sound like a rebuke, I think, but please appreciate that I sincerely do not mean it as one: This swirling madness has exasperated and driven away any number of folk. It may well simply be that the attempt at mediation, however well intended, is not possible. Might it make more sense, if you're still so inclined, to simply participate, as seems to you appropriate or not, as an editor rather than mediator? If it is possible to get more eyes on the entry, I think that might be helpful as well, but I don't know that that's possible. There are simply sincerely held but radically opposed positions here. They are not capable of reconciliation in my judgement, and there is far too little broad community awareness or interest to stabilize the situation. I frankly don't see how mediation, however well intended or well executed, can possibly succeed here. It was worth a try, but it seems to lead to simply another form of impasse. For whatever it's worth, you have my respect for your efforts. It's the effort that matters. The situation has simply proven infinitely frustrating for all concerned, from all perspectives. Perhaps Cowman or someone else will find an alternate path, who knows? Not every problem has a solution. We all know this. We all understand this. This may, at least for the present, be a problem of such character. So, at least, it seems to one particpant. GenghizRat 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

TSSR aka GenghizRat: I would love to take part as an editor. However, there is little or no real editing going on here. There is plenty of edit warring, and little else. If mediation is futile, trying to edit constructively will certainly be counterproductive. I can't make you edit constructively, but there are forums that can.

Crum: It should be obvious that saying that Antonrojo is "uninvolved" and that "the current version is his" are contradictory. And I meant people who have come along since I got here; that is indeed true. Why are you so averse to starting over? And why do you consistently sidestep the issue with arguments ad hominem?

I'm not kidding, guys. If you're not willing to act in good faith all the time, then this will quickly fall out of my hands. And not for lack of trying on my part. - Che Nuevara 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wild Track

(The Wikipedia entry for the term 'wild track,' incidentally, is substantially in error as any competent audio engineer would tell anyone in a moment, and, no, I don't intend to set it right.)

That said, a wild track of a different sort: Perhaps this is a false problem. In the RfD discussions I believe the record will clearly indicate the New Zealand Tribunal was accepted as a verificable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria. There is to my knowledge no record of any comparable verifiable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria as to Yoshiaki Omura and his researches other than the New Zealand Tribunal.

Perhaps, then, there is no basis per Wikipedia criteria for an independent entry for Yoshiaki Omura, but, rather, there ought be a minor entry for the case of Richard Gorringe, which achieved some notoriety, and apparently resulted in alteration of regulations regarding alternative medicine in Australia and New Zealand.

There is, of course, an entry for Richard Gorringe at present, which RM some time ago edited to suit his perception. Perhaps the Yoshiaki Omura entry might simply be eliminated, and appropriately neutered language with respect to an en passant reference to Yoshiaki Omura might be included in that entry.

Perhaps, in other words, other than in the context of the Richard Gorringe entry, the Yoshiaki Omura entry ought not exist.

I recognize that, given the effort made to date it might be difficult to seriously consider such a possibility, but might it not make perfectly good sense? GenghizRat 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that given enough exposure to the general community, this entry can easily pass muster. I think the current version, after its last AfD scrutiny, is not far from ideal. It may need some tweaking here and there, and we can always do that, but just the fact that one side with a clear conflict of interest refuses to accept well sourced information is no reason to give up. It is reason to carefully scrutinize everything, and I am all for it, but I would not just trash the whole article because someone doesn't like the well sourced facts. WP is all about presenting well sourced knowledge, and that should be our 'track'. Crum375 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Richardmalter

Richard, I don't lightly make accusations of vandalism, but I believe that removing other editors' Talk page comments is considered clear vandalism (see 'Talk page vandalism' under WP:VAN). If you don't like someone's civil comment, unless it contains a personal attack, you can't just delete it, though you may certainly reply to it. Thanks, Crum375 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"unless mediation finds another consensus"

This troubles me:

Rvt to Rat/AntonRojo's last version - this is closest to post AfD - let's keep it unless Mediation finds another consensus

Truth is, it did find another consensus: we all agreed that we could start over and build from the ground up. And we all agreed to stop revert warring. Retracting those comments now does not mean that this consensus was not reached. I find this and similar reverts to be in extremely bad faith. - Che Nuevara 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Che, I am still waiting for you to point me for a diff where we actually agreed via consensus to discard our existing post AfD version and replace it with a POV stub, or one that violates the last AfD's consensus agreement. We did agree to support a neutral (and new to the page) editor to try to come up with a new version in his Sandbox. We are still waiting for it to my knowledge. We never agreed to blindly accept whatever he came up with. I also noticed Cowman offering to try to come up with his own version over the weekend - that's also commendable, and I for one would be happy to see his version. We never agreed to, nor reached any consensus for, any POV version, short or long (and as I noted above, where Richardmalter deleted my response to you, the omission of a well sourced reference that reflects negatively on BDORT is certainly POV). If we need to build up a new version from scratch, either collectively or individually, that can be done in a Sandbox. Remember that the current version by AntonRojo (in a slightly older incarnation) had a relatively wide consensus during the last AfD process. I don't see any major problem with it; if anything needs to be fixed, that can be done in a civil and orderly fashion in the Talk page. If you feel that I have done something in bad faith, please point me to the specific diff, so I can address it. Thanks, Crum375 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)