While it hosts attacks like this [1]
it's well outside my bounds for acceptability at least. Clearing these attacks off the web will be a start towards good faith.Gleng15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re outside view by 66.58.130.26
This seems to be the crux of the problem. What to do about reliable material at sites that overall don't come up to Wikipedia's reliability standards? A similar example came up at Talk:Charles Creighton: accurate historical transcripts about Crichton [2], but framed by personal opinion at a site mostly devoted to a rather ... errmmm ... individual anti-Catholic theory [3]. It's the framing that's the difficulty. I'd have no objection to the Whale.to historical transcripts at Wikisource or Gutenberg. BTW, I think the independent third-party editor idea would get into all sorts of wrangles about how to judge that independence. Tearlach09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing whole pages, articles and books. For historical purposes, the issue is simply faithful content - whether howling mad POV or Newton's Principia - and is it really relevant to the point of an article. Don't even break a sweat. The frames are a small downcheck but not fatal for Wiki unless too much advertising whether POV or commercial. But even for POV, especially in specialized, historical or controversy articles, it may be ok, if its source is truly clear. When you really want to hang somebody you just let them speak, a kind of self-immolation, that truly relates the genre' to everybody in a contained environment.
As for editorial independence, this should be fairly easy to distinguish with the current editors - very distinct personalties, records and interests for most. Of course you may have some close calls but I utterly disagree with the "destroy the village to save it mentality". Better to to sound it out each time in such cases. Only few editors could even be associated with John by frequency. Any funny business is going to stick out immediately. I am not kidding that the conventional medicine clique is verging on censorship issues around the walled garden. Nominally this RfC is about John spamlinking, referencing his own site, the reliability of various material as either true copies or openly acknowledged point of view. Since he occupies a rather unique position, it is too bad that the medical editors can't problem solve to provide a real basis of collaboration. Actually the Wiki rules seem to have been evolving to better exclude John rather than to extract his essential points and material - hmmmm.
I submit that the conventional medical group's biggest problem with John is not where he most looks like a crank, but rather where history, and future history, is clearly on his side - a "carefully expurgated antivaccine.org" with more credibility might be more painful than the whole Whale. And still contended.
Case 1, no frame - I, an indy 3rd party editor, should be able to link a good article even if it is Whale. A protesting editor should move it to WikiSource or Gutenberg etc on their own time and dime without interfering with the original valid ref and link (a very annoying habit), or prepare to contest the reference itself for relevance to the article. If one wants to question my indy status, they can challenge me, won't have any problem finding that I am not John or a shill.
Case 2 framed content, higher level, hallmark article - push it down to a more specialized area or detail where things are more jarring up close.
Case 3 framed content, specialty secondary article, contained environment (adults only?) - some discussion on advertising, POV pushing might be in order but ~50% like case 1, some in, some out. Strip a survivor out to WikiSource or Gutenburg on your own time and dime, or politely re-link to a more palatable site as InvictaHOG did on two Klenner references that were on Whale.
I cannot emphasize enough how ugly & censorial the general link ban is. John has some unique, historical, controversial history of science/medicine/consumerism material - it truly reflects part of the heritage of the subject and the conventional medical group does not fully come to grips with that fact, or even, in some cases begin (they say they can factor out their own biases but of course there are sometimes differences of informed opinion or even emergent facts). A story. Having temporarily worked in several "client state" dictatorships decades ago, while actually living in one, it was interesting how difficult it generally was for US to acknowledge their numerous murders & "security" apparatus out in public with the "mainstream press" (WSJ) when everybody "knew" such "rumors" must be counterfactual. Even college roommates from a wealthy university simply could not believe my stories over the mainstream press until several years later, after the fall and some stories had vomited into the press. And in fact, my particular news journey started with the alleged murder of a US surgeon and some other personal piques about the dictator and -ship. Incidentally, the final (financially) newsworthy part was only the dictator's health condition, the silence of which had been indiscretely compromised by the surgeon while partying in in-country social circles. --66.58.130.2621:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that a problem for a Gutenberg editor or a university librarian offered the material would be that they might also lack confidence in the audit trail - that they would only feel able to republish the material given its route to them if they had actaully checked that all of it was correct as scanned from the original documents. If any of them did - and Google seems willing among others - then it would become a reputably certified copy of the original. At present it is contaminated by its surroundings, and just moving the files would not remove that lack of reliability as to content. Midgley19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for building the web. You too readily impugn John and hold, not just wish, him to asymmetric standards and effort for editors in general (I note that you may demand more of yourself than an average editor). John's editorials and partisan discussions should be very carefully distinguished from his copy service. John's general credibility, and his goals, will suffer greatly if he is nailed monkeying with scripts, not that hard over time (you seem driven enough to check a few, easily if a major library is around). Gutenberg is more effort than should be necessary for John or any editor, actually a reason *he* should not have to do so (some one wants the extras, someone else can do it, I am looking for a fair and practical way to deal with editing and motivation. Too high a hurdle leads to the walled garden, which I feel is an ongoing problem with the medical articles, especially with respect to entrenched medicine).
One of the situational problems that John has is dealing with a larger, antagonistic group - simply too many bodies to deal with. So he is disproportionately pressed for time and effort in a flap. In a lynching situation, my point view is that if one can't make them laugh, then one will have to deal harshly with the ringleaders, or one will not survive. This seems to be a frequent problem around repeated AfD, RfC, fork and merge tactics. I hesitate to even mention another means, perhaps less demanding on John but still burdening him more than I think other editors are required. One alternate means of verification might be to scan a public domain article and temporarily post it on a freebie blog site (I know, but it is just for visual verification), or perhaps WikiSource, linked in the articles Talk section for all to comment on his textual quality. Again, I am not comfortable *requiring* even this much, just that it is an alternative means. I feel one of the abuses that goes on with this ganging up effect is to systematically overwork, demoralize by deletion and merge to drive out independent views rather than actually reconcile them. Actually I find John's persistence kind of remarkable (is that gagging that I hear out there? ;> ). --66.58.130.2621:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear which bit of the RFC that is addressing. If it is a view that WP policies on various things should be different then the talk pages of those policies, the village pump and indeed rfcs on changes of those policies are reasonable places to go to and make proposals. I for one will observer and think about them. It has been noted by Andrew Orlowski of The Register among others that one of WP's weaknesses is fact checking and reliability of sources, It is a fair criticism - unlike several of his criticisms, and there is only one direction to move in response to it. It is clear in WP that it is up to people putting material in to source it, not up to people reviewing articles alter to spot every fault and remove it. I doubt that John has what most people would call a problem in dealing with a large antagonistic group - if indeed he is dealing with any such group or any group whose opinions of him or his actions (which alone are the proper subject here) are relevant or related to anything other than what he has brought into WP - given his history of many years on USENET. Arcadian for instance ... but there is a risk of repeating what is on the neighbour page here. I'll stop before any more huge compound sentences come out. This is an RFC about a user's behaviour, well-founded WP policies, collaborative assembly, and the good of the encyclopaedia. The user at 66.58.130.26 has an interesting range of edits, which sets him apart from some others, and persuades me he should be listened to carefully, but I'm disinclined to be led off into digressions here. Midgley21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This dispute concerns the appropriateness of Whaleto linking to his personal website, and his conduct relating to such discussions." Two parts. ANYbody's links to Whaleto have been a deletion problem (and provocative) and although I think John needs to clean up his act, I see defensive behavior that has, in part, been provoked individually and due to the "pile on" problem. Question: Is 1 heretic sinner worse than 20 small (1/10) and a few fairly big ones (all parties equally deliberate) ? (individual sins spread among many are definitely *safer*)
The intent of this RfC has been unclear to me (my inexperience with RfCs on editors) whether this RfC is really about execution, reform or situational analysis of John as an collaborating Wiki editor, and separately, Whale.to both as content and as a link. To date John's situation has something of an ex-post facto feel of externally imposed policies without realistic human factors design. If the conventional medical editors were truly reform minded to achieve some kind of rough collaboration, I suppose they could pursue several olive branches.
Specific points: 1. I think that just as Wiki text quality can evolve, I think so can references' quality and transparency, sort of an initial progress, acceptance and re-investment theory i.e. if you accept some kind link, perhaps a new site, John may put more effort into verifying them with evidence (scanned jpgs). 2. I think John feels massively squelched and wants to have presence at some level, somewhere. I might suggest that John partially open antivaccine.org to direct criticism and questions to work somewhat on a more limited subset, for a better vetted source and frames while retaining some identity as the Whale, closer to current Wiki policies. I think conventional medical editors try very hard to respect his time, his intelligence, his POV and expenses. And I think this requires more reform in the conventional crowd than has been generally recognized or acknowledged. New Wiki answers may require modified policies.
"If it is a view that WP policies on various things should be different then the talk pages of those policies, the village pump and indeed rfcs on changes of those policies are reasonable places to go to and make proposals." Unusual situations often need custom solutions that are road tested in a specific situation before more general use. I am more interested to see if some workable, constructive consensus can be realistically achieved by ANY route. Before boring the uninvolved, we need to work/try out the useful possiblities here.
Although I suspect that the conventional medical editors feel that their patience has been severely tested, I think "behavioral" resolution was not possible until there was better problem solving with respect to John. I cannot imagine the frustration John has had, and I know a few. The recent external criticism on sources is being used as a hammer rather than a guiding light - I think conditional evolution rather than partisan gatekeeping would work better.
So I guess my proposal is this: (a) to interview John with cases 1,2 & 3, above, for comment; (b) for a more genuinely sanitized site with some outside input to get closer to current Wiki policy specs; and (c) a least effort/invasive text verification procedure (e.g. display compressed source scans, 100 dpi minimum, for 45 days or perhaps a signed editor's "I saw it" always subject to "hey...") that does not require the effort of WikiSource, Gutenberg, the complexity of digitally signed sources, or even copyright surrender; so that some of John's work is more accessible to us and even to him (if it is a verifed copy of an independent notable source, Wiki policy may need to be extended to better include this). And see if anything clicks.
I have attempted to deal with some of the long running unbalanced frictional issues that drive defensive behaviors, means to improve source reliablity, means to examine & introduce controversial material in part by appropriate placement. --66.58.130.2611:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this is an attempt at a technical solution to a personnel problem, and essentially without the personnel involved. The offer to mediate cannot do any harm AFAICS. An example of how to avoid a purposive website being regarded as a signle person's untrammelled effort is provided by the organisation of Quackwach with its boards of 40 or so medical and a bunch of legal members. Midgley12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem for me: I am on the editorial board of a website, http://www.cyclehelmets.org.uk, which challenges some elements of orthodox medical opinion. We are very careful to fully reference what we write, to identify authors of opinion papers, to point out where conflicts exist in the evidence. All content is peer-reviewed through a number of mailing lists. We name the members of the editorial board, which includes some credible academics, and members have had papers and letters on the subject matter published in medical and other journals. I still don't pretend to be neutral about this site, but I do think I could make a good case for it as a linked source discussing its subject matter. John's site fails on several of those criteria: it is openly polemical, appears to be a monograph, makes no distinction between fact and satire and doesn't even try to account for diaprities in the evidence base; it's sole basis for inclusion seems to be that content agrees with John's prejudices. That's fine for a personal site, and indeed I have my own polemical websites at http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk and http://www.chapamncentral.co.uk, but I would not dream of linking to these as sources, and they are far less biased than John's. I honestly don't think it matters who links to John's site, it is simply inappropriate as a source. Just zis Guy you know?12:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...it is simply inappropriate as a source." With Whale as the original source (current editorial materials) I can understand your viewpoint and that is why I see a need for a more sanitized version, although I am not as fastidious about it (zero vs deminimis). Of the "rare book/article collection" part, I totally disagree with any such restraint beyond normal edit (relevance, authenticity) and for the notability and reliability of the original historical publication. How Wiki accesses the old, independently authored material republished at Whale, who takes what initial steps, and who is responsible for extra steps are the discussions and I do not think that Wikipedians have exhausted this vein. --66.58.130.2614:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the material is of itself acceptable, but is hosted on whale, I, for one, don't see how we can reasonably trust it. If the material is accessible elsewhere, then we ought to link to the elsewhere. If it's only available on whale, we have no way to know that it's an accurate reflection of the material, and hasn't been edited in some way. Michael Ralston16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.58.130.26 - The intent of this RfC has been unclear to me (my inexperience with RfCs on editors) whether this RfC is really about execution, reform or situational analysis of John as an collaborating Wiki editor, and separately, Whale.to both as content and as a link.
The lot really: content and conduct are a package. I think your analysis is fairly accurate, but overestimates medical editors' resistance to the inclusion of such material. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Job Collins, you'll see the afd rapidly collapsed in favour of Keep once I'd added enough material to make a rounded biography. One problem that John could easily help resolve is to show more cooperation in providing biographical material beyond that relating to and supporting an anti-vaccination stance. But the main difficulty is his refusal (or inability) to follow rules of discourse that apply to everyone here. He'd be amazed at the vastly better reception he'd get here if he simply stopped the "it's all an allopath conspiracy" accusations and presumptions of bias that accompany virtually all his edits. Tearlach13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the linkspamming John's worst temptation going forward. The cycles of vitriol are easy to understand, perhaps they possibly can resolve with a better structure. A lot of altmed articles get written under time pressure of AfD, AfD+blanking, rename, speedy delete or merge, fork-syphon and undercut and forked. John's situation is complicated by his heretic goals vs Wiki's goals and interests as well as a clash of culture & professions and that he is simply outnumbered by determined, hyperalert and sometimes aggressive editors. I think the conventional editors need to slow down aggressive manuevers & edits to let his articles gel and collect supportive editors rather than overeager "drown at birth" tactics, perhaps gently asking for more information. Perhaps he would be willing to set a roadmap of articles - unsigned post by 66.58.131.63
A lot of altmed articles get written under time pressure
But only because they attract such pressure by the same besetting sins: failure to cite and/or citation only from sympathetic sources, and zero interest in biographical detail except as appeal to authority. Such promotional articles get jumped on whatever the field. Tearlach15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes mere existence of a useful article subject is sufficient for extreme prejudicial treatment (attempt to drown at birth by "right thinking" conventional wisedom or scientific "authority" before normal evolution can occur). Such self confident "authority" is truly shortchanging the public's interest and even consumer protection (see[4],[5],[6] AfD lynched, blanked, redirected and vanished in 2 hr!)--66.58.130.2621:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
1. Deletion review of an AfD is done elsewhere, this is not about that. 2. The majority of the material invovled here is from the 19th century, and the rest from the early part of the 20th. If 100-50 years is not long enough for it to evolve then I don't think leaving it for another day after it heaves itself out of the primordial sea onto the shore of a WP article is going to accomplish it. Better to select it and see whether the next candidate thrown up by evolution is fit enough to breed. Another idea trying out its legs in the 21stCMidgley14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles' verbiage evolves, often slowly as various editors add their bits, preferably collaboratively rather than adversarially. Rapid fire lurching redirects, merge, delete and violent edits can interfere with others' efforts. Multipled in rapid succession creates artificial pressures to get stuff out prematurely and creates a hostile edit atmosphere where communications are already strained and faith in good faith nearly exhausted. AfD subjects so early is also a denial strategy because it sterilizes a subject heading by raising an economic penalty in effort, and hence strains relations more.--66.58.130.2617:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but:- 1) I question its relevance to this RFC - which articles do you see it as relating to? ; 2) The RFC does not seem to be about the outcomes of AfD listings, interesting though they are and if they are relevant there are deletion reviews for them . Midgley18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
artificial pressures to get stuff out prematurely and creates a hostile edit atmosphere
I don't buy it. If you're implying that hostile edit atmosphere has made John's attitude what it is, that doesn't wash. Just go back to Usenet (1997 onward, misc.health.alternative, misc.kids.health, sci.med.diseases.cancer - presumably you know the name to look for) and you'll find exactly the same cocktail of personal attack and anti-vaccine preaching. It appears to be his preferred mode of discourse. If he can't moderate it, there's no point in trying to negotiate. Tearlach19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hostile edit space problem certainly is not confined to Wiki. I know what needs to happen, I'm working on it - maybe we can get some real progress with simply editorial rather outright combative tension. Nothing ventured... I do appreciate constructive feedback elsewhere here, thanks. --66.58.130.2610:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want section 4.3 of this http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12306.htm#a21 with Sir Iain's comments. But please do a search on USENET archives. I don't think anyone will be unduly informed by remarking here that john (at) whale.to is an obvious address to look for. There are several others over at least 10 years. If you find a conversation that is identical to this one, for reasonable values of identity, I'll buy you a drink. Midgley10:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar "CAM testing"? [7]"At the moment it looks to have been captured by vested interests in the CAM industry. While describing its membership as “broad-based and inclusive”, it has to be noted that the eight committee members include five self-identified CAM practitioners, and specifically represent between them professional/business interests in the areas of: iridology; naturopathy; natural medicines; traditional Chinese medicine; acupuncture; aromatherapy; massage therapy; counselling; sclerology; osteopathy; homeopathy; anthroposophy; culturally defined health sectors"
Yes, the 3/4 that don't have a strong biochemical basis - I can't get too worked up over at all, although I am aware of a number of "relief" case uses. Seems govt-university CAM testing wallows in the weak ones. The thing that annoys me to no end is that "conventional medicine" protractedly, for decades, refuses to test the strongest, simplest, cheapest areas in biochemistry - high dose, high frequency, quality (correct forms)and administration of vitamins, antioxidants and minerals for various disease conditions - i.e. the amounts of vitamin C for a cold in orthomolecular medicine (ca 50-100+g/day [8], divided doses every 2 hr or less at bowel tolerance) vastly exceeds what conventional medicine considered daring (ca 10 g vitC/day, orally, the highest dose conventional vit C test I have ever seen) for refractory colon cancer cases even temporarily, ~10 weeks-Ha!, much less 10 - 20 years.
This whole discussion seems to me to miss the point: if the sources cited are reliable secondary sources, reference them directly, not via John's website. Cite the sources and they can be included - as long as they are authoritative and relevant. If John's site is republishing this material that is not hard to do. If the material on John's site is not from reliable secondary sources, then it has no place here in the first place. If the problem is that the full text is not available from the source then that means John is probably violating copyright, so we shold link to the abstract on the source site and not to JOhn's site. I don't see any circumstances where links to John's site are justified. Just zis Guy you know?10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to make reliable "rare book" material available in as participatory a manner as possible. Verification, with some quality control procedure or other image backup, is the Wiki issue. If this doesn't quite fit current policies, the policies or the procedure should be modified, its not an impenetrable barrier. John's full Whale site has been supplanted by the proposal of a "Wiki clean" slim version, probably primarily rare historical papers and legally republished current articles. How much scanned backup for public (re)view and questions of easy accessiblity to these scans seems a more useful question for public verification of typescripts. Gleng and InvictaHOG seem interested in the "clean" historical papers site, and 'HOG was one of the more diligent whale.to link removers. --66.58.130.2612:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors insisting on Whale.to links
I'm unsure what the proper place for a note on this[9] reversion is. On the one hand it relates to another user - and there is an old RFC still active on him - and on the other hand it contains an assertion whcih is relevant to this RFC, on the value of the site. (Semiotically of course the assertion is that the editor involved shall do as he pleases regardless of anyone else's views, which probably takes us back to the first RFC, but is not news. It is perhaps unusual not to see a remark from User:Ombudsman here on the RFC page - if it was thought to be possible that he was not demonstrably aware of this RFC it might be thought proper and desirable that someone make it explicit on his talk page. This is something he doesn't want me to do so I'll leave it to anyone else involved to decide about. Midgley18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link shouldn't be used, as a copyright violation. It's a verbatim copy of a story originally published on the WFAA.com site, whose terms explicitly say You may not ... republish the Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. Tearlach19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may perhaps go with [10] as an indication of an attidute to COPYVIO and WP:CP by that editor then. At the risk of digression - although Whaleto, Ombudsman an IP address and to a surprising extent the commonly useful Leifern appear to have formed a cabal for a group of purposes including common approaches to some editing matters. Midgley19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know whether the partly "cleaned" Vaccination.org.uk already eliminates most of this kind of current editorial product? --66.58.130.2617:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I surmise that John may have a "fair dealing" interpretation concerning non-commercial use & research that he applies to his website entries generally. Leaving aside some precise "is - is not" settlement over lengths and extent, let's say John mostly uses it correctly for his personal website. The question is whether such a correct usage by a personal website is acceptable by any means that you see for WP or that this is actually the level of cleaning John has to reach to be sanitary wrt copyright.--66.58.130.2623:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resetting indents I think you need to read up on copyright. Generally, interpretations along the lines of x% of an article or x words per article are on the edge of urban myth. Personal use implies exactly that: getting a copy for private study. You can be pretty sure, however, that republishing the entire text of an article from a commercial publication, without explicit permission, even if it's on a non-commercial website, is a breach of copyright. Tearlach11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I needed to improve the wording. I am not British/EU and I pointedly avoid projecting negative presumptions on John's copyright issues/provenance/permissions. I tried to write in a "assume good faith" style for several reasons. I had hoped someone would discuss the rough ins and outs for those articles that John chooses not to sufficiently publish all the copyright provenances that might be necessary for Wiki acceptance, if an excerpted form could do. Perhaps appropriate attributed fragments or situational conditions, contrasted with common gray zone usages, liberal or mistaken usages vs just "Berning" all recent external material to zero. Insightful constructive opportunities are appreciated. --66.58.130.2600:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal website" is a construction that bears another look as well. Berners-Lee's idea was to make sharing, publication, and finding easy. A website that said "I am John and I think vaccination is bad, doctors are bad, mind control exists, and is bad" could reasonably be described as a personal website. Whale is not a personal website. 13:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strange, sounds personal, and I thought the complaints were that he shares too much and makes finding too easy ;> . I have been referring to the current www.vaccination.org.uk as the candidate to be reformed for a while now.--66.58.130.2600:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a deep problem here, and it's not about trying to exclude anything but about verification and reliability. For example, Archie Kalokerinos contains biographical details originating from whale.to details that seem to be duplicated prolifically on many web sites but which I haven't been able to verify. For example, it refers to his being a recipient of The Australia Medal of Merit; it may be true, but I can't find any verification of this, and sources that seem reputable indicate that this is a military honor. He is described as a Life Fellow of The Royal Society of Health, presumably the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, which doesn't list its membership, and this category seems to be one purchased not given as an honor - i.e. it is a wholly different status to Fellowship of the Royal Society for instance, which is rare highly prestigious, not open to self nomination and is accorded as an expression of very significant peer regard. But I don't know, maybe he was conferred a Life Fellowship as a signal honor in this case. This is not isolated, I've seen the same pattern with other information originally inserted from whale.to. The point is that whale.to is not a source for these details, only a vehicle for advertising claims, some of which are not properly sourced. On the other hand, whale.to posts some original historical documents in their entirety, and it would be nice to be able to use these. I do not want to suppress any facts that are verifiable from a reliable source, but I think that any purported fact, if challenged, should be removed unless it can be supported by a V RS. Gleng11:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, given the suspect nature of other content on whale.to (e.g. alien implant removers), I suspect that it will be be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Andrew7312:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general problem with alt-med sites that has been mentioned before - indiscriminate copying and recopying of anything that sounds creditable. "Australia Medal of Merit" gets only four Google hits, so presumably we're talking Australian Medal of Merit. This gets 212 Google hits of which all but 15 are in the usual recopied material about Kalokerinos. It turns out to be a fairly obscure award made by the Legion of Frontiersmen Australian Division. There is actually a detailed autobiography online at www.kythera-family.net, whose Awards section makes no mention of his receiving it. Tearlach12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the historical documents is that we have no way to know that whale, in the repost, has not edited them in some way. If the documents are meaningful, surely they're somewhere else that we can, in some way or other, trust, right? Michael Ralston16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for constructive suggestions on the cheapest, lowest effort, least invasive ways for John (and others) to verify his rare book material. I would prefer a choice of methods that if a contributor were an 80 yr old or a chair bound MS patient on a small govt pension, I wouldn't feel too guilty about being OCD on *some* direct verification. One way that requires a minimal scanner/fax, some computer skills, would be to temporarily post compressed images to a free site for a brief confirmation period for all editors' observation (and signed confirmation/acknowledgement). Still a pain for lots of references, this is why I think some the challengers should bear some work requirements, where there is a continuous track record for the contributor's sourced material and no counterexamples of malicious alteration (legit alteration may involve image cleanup).--66.58.130.2620:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent conduct explicitly regarded as "unhelpful"
Without comment on any Wiki policy or precise execution for taste, I have to say John's page helps track/decode the lengthy (ahem) social and ideological relations in this contentious area where he is the decided underdog. When I started working, one could criticize an office problem, but you had better offer a useful solution also. --66.58.130.2621:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar cases in past at RC or arbcom?
I lack a worked out way of looking for these, but note that there is commonly a section giving precedent or previous illuminating decisions or discussions in RFCs. Possibly it alwys comes from arbcom members? Anyone help? Midgley22:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through old cases and I did not find one which was similar. There is more than one way of interpreting that of course. Midgley14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note side discussion which also would better take place here and perhaps forms part of John/Whaleto's response:-
Midgley had to play the game once you proved he was notable. I knew he was notable but I don't have the time or interest to do full biogs, writing isn't my skill for one thing. My thing is the truth Midgley, which is very simple unless you have had a medical education (especially an interest in vaccines), or a University education. They say intelligent people are the easiest to hypnotise. I'll compile a page to your comments, as they seem beyond my psychology knowledge so far, but it will come. I have to laugh at the paucity of Edzard Ernst, a complete non-entity but a pharma man, but if I was playing your game I'd be hitting it with deletions, numerous tags etc, as you do to all my pages. john10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the latter topic, feel free, actually, if you think an article about a person is misplaced because he is not notable please call an afd on it. I suspect you have other reasons for not doing so. As to university, you have praised the learning of various university-educated doctors in several of your hagiographies. You can of course have it both ways, but an alternative is to attemt to demonstrate consistency and a rational argument. I take it Whale's staff and management is innocent of any such higher education?
On the former, one hypothesis for having many articles listed for review is that there is a conspiracy against you. Another is that the articles are not very good. In my opinion the article when I listed it for review was bad, and gave no indication of notability. I retain the view that the proper place for such single items on even notable people is as items in a list of people who are noted to espouse the particular view, which is actually useful to a researcher following the author. Individuals may then spin off as biographies when a researcher with a wider range of interests and knowledge-resources digs out actual biographical notes. User:Tearlach has demonstrated he is very good at this - I think it is part of his occupation.
Back to the latter, and consistency. We are presented with a series of almost lone individual doctors who are lauded for stepping out of line on a medical opinion. (I suspect that the situation is far less crisp than that, and that discussion of the risk/benefit ratio of new and existing treatments is not an invention of the last three generations of doctors any more than sex was discovered in 1960, and that mostly what is recorded by the mainstream is the conclusion, not the argument, but that is a digression). How odd is it that a complementary (I mean {insert name here} - trained practitioner who steps out of that line, and becomes (correct me if there is another) the only university professor of complementary {blah} medicine {healthcare etc} is said to be not notable? Midgley10:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered to put him up for deletion, for one thing I want to avoid playing your game. You are stuck in the mindset that smallpox vaccine was effective, like the rest of the editors here, eg Tearlach I suspect. The reason for that is the fact these medical doctors views have been kept from the public and medical doctors, so Tearlach and co have never even read one of the 30 books that I have on my site. When I came along to rectify that I came across your antics (and other medical editors) of deleting or attempting to delete their pages, and consequently their books and documents. Ernst isn't even worth thinking about as far as I am concerned. john18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An apposite quote (or is it a cliche?) then is "put up or shut up". If you are here to write an encyclopaedia, and you beleive it will be improved by removing, or as tends to happen, forcing attention and rapid improvement upon, an article, then do it. If you don't list articles that you declare to fall short of notability (IE should not even be started) then don't expect to be taken seriously when you criticise them, and don't expect to be taken seriously when you criticise other future articles either. It would be hard actually not to have noticed the standard for notability - there is a comparison to the average college professor, and I think US college professors are more in line with our lecturers or senior lecturers. Can anyone really suggest that the first CAM Prof is not notable? Use the time more profitably. Midgley21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time or interest to do full biogs, writing isn't my skill for one thing
What about using the time you waste on compiling lists of perceived slights against you? This stuff is easy to find. There's Google; and any decent-sized public library usually offers home access to newspaper databases like the Times. Writing isn't a problem; no-one objects to sketchy material - a stub article - as long as it asserts notability. I can't speak for others, but I've told you before - articles won't attract negative attention if you try to include biographical material that is not fixated on the single issue of vaccination. Tearlach19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, all anti-vaccine people attract negative attention here from the allopath editors (who have even banned being called that directly), most have been put up for deletion for that reason, and your comment about whale being "anti-vaccination porn" doesn't exactly give me much confidence in your impartiality. The only reason they are more notable IMO is due to their courage in going against their profession and following the truth regarding vaccination, so their anti-vaccine documents and stance are the only thing noteworthy. Wiki is meant to be a collaboration effort so someone else can do the other bits, like yourself. I just get hammered for copyvio every time I take something off google, so it isn't that easy. john21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a pungent phrase, but crystalised meaning beautifully. Did the meme just bounce, or has the meaning been absorbed? Going back to Quackwatch, the reason it is not taken as being "a retired doctor's blog" no matter how many times someone repeats that, is that around 50 people who the world regards as reputable have put their names to being a Board of Advisers, and kept them there. Could Whale find advisers to make a board? Midgley13:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you too grand to sign your name Midgley? I was asking Tearlach not you, and I find the word "porn" an interesting one to use, to have a charge on the name suggests unresolved issues around sexuality. "Porn" is used to extract money from people who are sexually unsatisfied, and/or have become addicted to lust probably due porn advertising which you can see on display in all newsagents, one even on the bottom shelf, not forgetting the suppression on sexual knowledge. That could be used to describe allopathy, which, 98% of, is used to extract money from the taxpayer using fraud [11]. As to quackwatch, it is still a pharma/allopath shill, one that has been well set up, hence the "board of advisors", so the likes of you can say what you have just said. It promotes Allopathy 100% and slags off non-Allopathic medicine, and any criticism of Allopathy. I am not interested in going through hoops for you. Signed john11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a private forum, everything we write is for anyone to read, and should really relate to this article - the proper place for discussing Whale.to is the RFC on Whale.to and its talk page, which I urge John/Whale to revisit for that and other purposes. Tearlach's pungent phrase crystalised meaning beautifully, and in fact has that meaning excellently explained as John/Whale has had the opportunity to see and below which he has responded after a fashion. And the meaning given in the paragraph avbove, by John/Whale is emphatically _not_ the meaning presented. The persisting insults to doctors are presumably not going to change, having been running since 1997 at least, but are not acceptable as part of WP discussions. I note that the reason why Whale.to would gain credibility by having a board appears to hav been absorbed, and that this is not something its owner wishes to do. I see no reason why anyone should accept that WP should hold links to a disreputable ([[WP:RS) source whose sole controller wants to keep it that way. Midgley13:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anyone who does not want to see historical sources citable or who objects to material based on them being included; indeed, I'd use them myself. Nor do I see objections to opinions being cited as opinions so long as it is clear whose opinions are being cited and that there are goodgrounds for quoting them (significant minority etc). What I do see objection to is 1) confusion between opinion and fact, and 2)using links to websites to advertise attacks on WP editors. WP hosts within it ample opportunity for debate(!!). Linking to a site that hosts such commentaries on internal WP debates is not and never will be close to acceptable. Medical editors naturally will take an informed interest in health issues or health claims, and thank goodness they do.Gleng15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without dispargement, there is a lot of confusion between medical opinion and fact, hence the need for these discussions as well as the different schools of thought. One of the underlying issues with John is the long running need to surface such roots and fundamental differences in several places, actually part of the reason I am taking such pains to belatedly address the messy issues around John.
I think that commentary and attack need to be carefully distinguished. My initial feeling is that John needs to avoid real names where possible, to perhaps avoid direct hotlinks that would casually inject a Whale reader into WP discussions, and to consider a delay between active WP discussions and Whale commentary. This is really a whole other policy area of discussion. I have sometimes found conventional med attitudes from overexpectant to overbearing, and oversensitive. This is tough to stress enough - fragility of altmed numbers (present at WP) begins to invert the (in)significant minority paradigm if you really expect to keep the peace over pressing, unresolved, societal scale issues where the continuing impact of historical errors and corruptions are a continuing fact, not an opinion. Medicine has not yet well addressed a number of issues that are growing into huge problems or we would not even have this discussion. Unfortunately alternative health/med interactions are a very lumpy, quirky situation here at WP because of some polar differences, the discrete numbers and personalities. The polar differences need to trace the roots of a multifactorial problem (fundamentally difficult), and not blink, to resolve. --66.58.130.2622:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a plea in mitigation. It does not, so far as I can see, address the permissibility of links to whale.to, or whther John should alter his behaviour of making and remaking links to whale.to and clones. It is long. As a specific point I take issue with, although it is not really on topic for the RFC, i find it at least as credible that if the wilder fringe editors representing themselves as the voice of CAM/Alt.Med were dissuaded, prevented, or banished from so doing, other and academic CAM people would be _more_ likely to join in. It is a matter of the company one keeps. Midgley18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually trying to arrive at more balanced process and consideration without "administrative corrections" inciting a deeper conflict. Sanitizing www.vaccination.org.uk content is the permissible site proposal, forget Whale. The medical editors are creating a comfortable space for themselves and a hostile environment for alt med even though they may try to be "fair" in their own terms and preconceptions. I have explicitly asked John to dramatically reduce his linkage level. My perception of altmed editors' strongest cause for non-presence, provocation and disappearance is a distaste for perceived asymmetric treatment or being elbowed, eroded and slighted by overwhelming numbers, not less erudite kin. I see John as a lightning rod that allows conventional medical editors to glimpse altmed issues in brief, jolting flashes, before academic collaboration could even begin. --66.58.130.2622:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does "sanitise" mean? If it means coming into compliance with (or at least not matching any of the "do not link to "examples in) WP:RS and WP:EL (and WP:etc ) then fine. If it means something else ... Midgley23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expurgate or document the site until it is reasonably cleared of indisputable policy conflicts that render it unusable for 3rd party links to WP.
Quoting User:66.58.130.26, "Without dispargement, there is a lot of confusion between medical opinion and fact". I agree, I don't see any asymmetry in how Med and Altmed should be treated; if a statement is disputed give V RS, and make it clear, if necessary, whether the claim is a report of an opinion or a report of evidence of fact. This is an encyclopaedia. We report facts and we describe opinions, and we have a duty not to report opinions as though they are facts. So sources are important and I do not want to suppress access to them, nor does anyone I think. But we need to be able to go to the facts without going via a possibly disputed interpretation of the facts. A "clean" site that hosts primary sources without editorialisation would be an assett.Gleng09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absence of need
There are a number of 17th, 18th, 19th century documents that may be of interest in various matters - although I would say not of such interest and use as 20th century ones. I've noted that if I need to look at some of them, I get on a train to London, and look in the Royal Society, or the Royal College of Physicians. I've also noted that both of those persistent and reputable institutions are engaged in digitising their archives and placing some - perhaps eventually all - of them on the web, that neither of them is resistant to a suggestion that if they are doing it in no special order, a particular document or set of documents or person's correspndence would be a good one to put into the queue and they both look good for reliable service for more than another 20 years. That is a sucession question which is notably important in any archive.
Some of John's material makes great reference to the Royal Commission on vaccination. Biggs' self-published book is in teh main part a rehash of the evidence he presented to the commission (who rejected it as far as I can see - at least in its conclusions). THe proceedings of the Commission are being digitised, with images of the original, at http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bopall/ref5885.html by a project which uses an academic institution and public funding and is going to produce a comprehensive, reliable, persistent and freely available resource uncontaminated by anything else.
As time goes on more of this will occur, and libraries will dig out old volumes (the British Museum will have a copy of Biggs' But I was Right All Along book) and digitise them.
Such efforts can be encouraged, assisted, funded... and will be WP:RS and allow WP:V when they are needed. The amount of effort involved in making John's collection ito a historical archive is not worth the gain, and the likelihood of success is not good. The first essential would be that it was not one man's collection under one man's control. And we have seen that that is not a step-change that is regarded favourably by the owner. Midgley18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live, there is no train to London, and I think staying around the corner(s) from the British Museum at the Landmark costs too much. I expect access *now*, preferably from the comforts of my home. Since a conservative estimate is over 100 years to digitize historical references, I'd druther not wait. Also, at the risk of a longer tour in the Tower as some sort of Disestablishmentarian, I think freezing out individual efforts is very anti-Wiki in concept. John's little historical collection has plenty of merit for the history of science and medicine. Right or wrong, many "authorities" rely on "consensus science", a much different creature than "hard" science - where history is frequently delayed 50-100 yrs if not convienently lost altogether. It is nice to see someone even attempt to keep score at the sausage factory. --00:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There are better places to argue against WP:RS and WP:V than here (Village pump, RFC on policy). They are not anti-wiki in concept. Authorities apply judgement to sources and provide commentary on it, which WP articles are not permitted (WP:NPOV) to do. If an authority chooses to use whale.to or vacc~n.org.uk as a source, and publishes the result on an ac.uk site then they are probably a WP:RS source to quote. If they write a paper and it gets published - in an academic peer-reviewed journal - then they are certainly a reputable source. I don't think these are unreasonable, or even high bars to jump. Midgley00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or "Need of (John's) absence"? I'm for, not arguing against, WP:RS. For example, John's pages copied from an old Britannica, the "reliable source" is still Britannica, not John, not his site, not the British Museum, not some little second hand bookstore in a red light district. As long as John's final site (then current) doesn't violate Wiki policies, I maintain his link to verified, or -able, copies of legally disseminated reliable source material has just as much right as a national foundation's right to republish it. You are seeking to effectively ban John's participation and the *service* of a hotlinked reference that greatly improves readership verifiability and context far more than just any "dead trees" reference. This *is* very anti-Wiki [12] i concept and interpretation. One might argue that the WP:RS verbiage needs to made crystal clear, the concept is simple.--66.58.130.2601:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS seems to me an admirably clear piece of writing. To change what it means, changing what it is intended to mean, which is the reflected will and concensus of editors, would be necessary. Not something to do here - it is just a sophisticated case of special pleading, and as I remarked some time ago, if the view being presented is that whale.to should be an exception to th rule lets hear an argument that it should be an exception - rather than an argument that th rule should be different. Midgley09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not clear enough for you to consider linkage to John's republication of reliable source material on a "clean" site in the normal edit process. I have gone to lengths to agree as to how to achieve an acceptable site for John's materials that meet WP:RS. You continually refuse John the right of existence, view his acts and contributions in harsh lights that some other editors seriously question, and wonder that John shows some strain if he even fractionally responds. --66.58.130.2601:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case I've been reading some other version of WP:RS (and don't forget WP:EL and WP:every-other-thing]]) here is a small section from RS:-
Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.
Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.
At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight..."WP:RS viewed on the last Sunday of May 2006.
I ran an eye over that, and counted 16 points. One might arrive at a smaller or a larger count, and by all means do. Which of those points does not apply to vaccination.org.uk owned by and controlled solely by John? The locus of the problem is not, however hard the blatant or the subtle efforts to suggest or behave as if it is, with me, or Tearlach, or "the medical editors" of WP, or a shadowy conspiracy intent upon denying anyone's rights to have their views republished by an encyclopaedia which so long as there are experts, scholars, and honest men and women involved in editing it partakes of their kudos in projecting its comments to the worl. Go tell the community that hteir policy is wrong, but don't go on and on about how it would be possible to look at it differently and come up with a different answer. Come back when the policy is changed or the material fits it, and the answer will be different - as might many other things. Until then, ** Enough **. Midgley15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...because the information has been self-published" John's rare book material is republished, not originated by John, the "reliable source" is the original publisher. John does need a checker for transcription.
John, I think there is observable progress on getting to a linkable status for your vaccine papers and a pause to reconsider the conventional bias about, treatment of, and the status of alternative health advocates. The issue that is still unresolved is your ability and commitment to deal with the civility issue. The outrage that sometimes flows through your writing into your address of other editors is a grave, self-defeating liability - especially if others did start it and you rise to the bait. And angry exchanges makes it harder for sympathetic editors to support you lest they get their credibility splashed or tarred.
"For John I have to suggest that he try his hardest to carefully consider and address the graded distinctions between engaging, pithy, pointed, and harsh comments, to try to surface elemental technical points missed in the counter parties' assertions and address that directly, ... and to carefully consider his own operating policies... when he feels slighted or injured, whether associated with conventional editors zeal or an ongoing misunderstanding." I feel we are making progress but you have to change your writing style, otherwise you are lost. "Pointed" seems to be as much as is going to fly, for cause, and "engaging" remarks or "pithy" sentences probably will gain the most ground, with the least heartburn - for you, too.
I know this may not be easy when you perceive an ongoing, great wrong that violates your every sense of history, truth, honor, justice and peoples lives/well-being. Different people handle it different ways, often with humor. *You* simply have to avoid direct accusations and harsh comments to other editors - especially when you might tag an individual with some group's actions. Kick the sofa, criticize something abstract, dead, inanimate or remote but just not the other editors. Try to find a point of common reference with them and try to find charitable reasons someone might think differently and discuss things. Channel the heat into some kind of humor, irony or even sarcasm. I am looking at the scoreboards, your progress at Wiki absolutely requires some commitment. Can you try to do it? Thanks. --66.58.130.2600:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sure I can do it" full stop would have been a better answer. 66.58.130.26 is only stressing what others have said many times before. It is not the topic matter, but the inability to post without the package of insults and bad faith. That it still continues - see above - even when this point is raised by a sympathetic critic, attempting to mediate, doesn't give much cause for hope.
I've been pondering for a while whether we're working on entirely the wrong assumptions here. What if John won't stop these attacks because at some level he wants this conflict?
Well, first you folks need to give him a real chance, if you don't fix the process, you can never fix the problem or really find out. Actually I am more concerned that some conventional editors here avoid antagonizing, pushing John at the lower levels of harassment and then run screaming, "mommy, mommy...". This is part why I put the responsibilty of keeping his cool on him underplaying the "under fire" parts from conv'l med land, this is not easy. Conventional medicos presume that they use the best and greatest, while the world looks on and wonders, wringing its hands about procedure oriented medicine and pharma hijinks.
I've wondered this ever since his strange comment in his Response to the RFC: "I'd be more upset if you weren't trying to block links". Why?
Seems to me that collective hostility and article deletions from medical editors affirms his world-view that the medical establishment is a hostile conspiracy that wants to suppress his views. Quiet collaboration wouldn't provide that affirmation. So it really is in his interest to keep the conflict going.
Well I think you could find that there are confluences of industry-wide global interests, pervasivc influence, rough and tumble corporate antics including the testing games and tilted test designs (common as dirt in the whole specialty chemical industry), and the standard art of "regulatory capture". Part of the problem today is the pharmas have turned their regulations into a corrupt, limited definition of "science" itself to overburden simple, generic, competitive products (but pls let's not go there today). --66.58.130.2614:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not deliberate. Or maybe John sees himself as a gadfly to some higher purpose. Either way, if that's what is going on, I don't see negotiation getting very far. Tearlach01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation, let's test it and see whether both sides can behave themselves after making some improvement to a one sided game.--66.58.130.2614:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of this; it can go on forever. If john removes the attacks on WP editors posted on his websites then let's take this as an indication of good faith, and continue discussion, but if they remain posted I think we must take this dispute to higher stage. We have been patient enough here.Gleng09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that this RfC is so tiresome, it's even more tedious writing it, but there are questions that are deathly important to all the editors outside the conventional med clique.
The denial of something simple like the adversarial interpretation of "reliable source" for signed Britannica articles because John posts them on a website is a decent example of "hostile environment" when repeated in many guises. We need to see, by demonstration, whether we even speak the same language with the conv'l medical group.
1. Can you give a rough idea how John might more suitably discuss commentary and grievances with operations at Wiki inside a online group that is outside of Wiki (larger issue than just John)? I, with a number of others here and outside, am really concerned about "overmedicalization" & influence on issues that should fall outside doctors'/Wiki purview. Although I think we are rapidly coming to a point in this RfC, there are issues that need to be resolved and need not to be short circuited.
2. The hell-or -high water site exclusion policy that affects John's historical papers, still being jammed down our throats, is particularly contentious despite serious effort to define and prepare to meet objective terms of site construction. We're really just seeing flat refusal to allow rare book/historical materials that meet WP:RS. We are also are trying to agree on extra means of verification for John's situation. This site issue has been a running sore for months - we need to fix it, best by properly making and applying neutral Wiki policies. I, for one, am tired of the stonewalling. I have gone to a lot of effeort to begin to examine and fix the problem, pls help me. Thank you.--66.58.130.2614:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed the application of WP:RS being rejected and resisted and no indication of any intention to change. The example offered of pages from Britanica (Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition lacks any need at all for a change to WP:RS or indeed for john to copy them or to point to his own version of them - becuase they are at Wikisource and at Gutenberg and other places, as well as being perfectly good references as the books. Midgley14:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually John is making progress toward agreement of a conforming site and he seems to be waiting for a clear agreement before proceeding rather than getting slapped down again. The primary advance proffered to John, WikiSource, was a decent but inadequate step that overdemands to resolve John's site problems. Individuals should be able to make collections of old (rare) materials that meet WP:RS directly available to Wikipedia and other editors, subject to some kind of verification, without surrendering all rights, format and recognition.--66.58.130.2600:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:RS and WP:EL? In what fashion do materials placed by John on a site entirely controlled by him fulfill either of those policies? If it makes it easier, replace John with me, or you or any single individual. It isn't even necessary for the individual to be committed to a markedly relevant POV and pushing it for the descriptions in those policies to be obviously fulfillled - of sites not to link to. I repeat, if you want WP to have different policies then go to the policy pages and argue and edit them there. That you do not demonstrates that you do not believe the community will alter those policies to your view, and therefore you are arguing for ignoring them here. Midgley06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reformed historical text site falls outside this objection - especially if other individuals help. The "personal site" quote is about *unverified self published material*, precisely where we have tried to produce a cure for John's current site by proposing to pare it down accordingly. All I see is a stonewall of rejection of detested historical materials. John has stated format shortcomings with WikiSource and I see no issue that an external link is not GDFL. The only issue for John is his own linking and WP:EL does cover that, he is going to have to use the Talk page to convince a 3rd party editor unless he can get an exception in order to survive "other editors" handiwork.--66.58.130.2614:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to the bit about rights format and recognition - GFDL includes recognition, but WP in my view correctly declines to include documents that have proprietary rights attached. Again, if the argument being advnaced is that WP should be different, then take it where it belongs, start with the village pump. Alternatively, fork the project. One reason that WP is popular with fringes is that the credibility it posesses from having good policies on licencing and on WP:RS and WP:EL offers them gains in credibility and visibility if they can arrange to be one of only a few individuals or groups to corrupt those policies, thus appearing as though WP editors endorse them. Midgley06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me that John's www.vaccination.org.uk, if pared down as we've been discussing and composed completely of pre 1923 books and papers that meet WP:RS should still be embargoed to link to 3rd party editors? Y/N Because that is what I am "hearing", and I absolutely don't see such a policy in WP:RS. You keep claiming WP:RS - I assume that you are trying to claim "Personal websites" or "Partisan websites" applied to a pared down, *reformed site* for John when in fact WPRS at Personal/Partisan Websites" refers to *unverified "Self-published sources"*. The century old stuff is definitely not "self published" and we have partly discussed the image verification issue, which should cover public verification problems. WP endorses a book - hardly; accepts historical texts? Starting to look doubtful here perhaps, but I certainly would hope so!
Merecat's outside view is pertinent here. The site would still be partisan even if individual papers are OK, because the texts are drawn exclusively from those supporting an anti-vaccination stance. Tearlach17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straightforward, nice simple choices for a complex situation. He does *frame the issues* pretty well (better than me), but seems to skip any attempt to resolve the underlying minority issues.--66.58.130.2603:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, where have we got to?
After 4 months John continues and continues to regard himself as correct, and anyone who remarks on WP:RS or WP:EL as biased, allopaths and conspiring against him. Midgley14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until the process issues resolve, the pain persists - unclean hands make long and difficult cases. John has been handled derisively and adversarially - he tries to show restraint, gets badgered and overwhelmed by numbers and then lashes back defensively. He attempts to use practical, recognizable terminology, he gets incinerated on political correctness. Some portrayals of his statements have been shown be repeated, gross mischaracterizations over a persisting, long period - hardly objective editing. Part of the problem is John's situation with conventional medical editors has always been their "my way or the highway" attitude coupled with his own persistence without a good process to resolve or represent his points. Some of the conventional med group editors can get a little prefunctory when their positions or presuppositons are challenged. Nominal forbearance does not fix process problems! And this is pointedly avoided on a meaningful, mutual basis - whither the less conventional medical editors? --66.58.130.26
John's response has sat for 2 weeks without improving, it is intransigent, and alongside it attacks go on on the people involved. Midgley14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Johns "positive" response:- "get Midgley to stop harrassing me and the other alt med editors with his posse." He insists that he not be subject to RFCs, that "his" pages and text be not subject to proposals for deletion, nor to removal of links. He characterises WP:EL as "you can see why Midgley likes to hide behind" and continues to present it as "just amazing he can get away with it". So a negative response would have been what? Midgley06:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Midgely's talk page, he did not respond to my overtures[27][28] about alt med with respect John's RfC, except to bury my original comment twice in his first archive. My follow up comment "I'll take that as little interest and reading in alt med, seems to be the norm in the US. And a missed opportunity to identify the technical roots of contention." has inexplicably vanished. My reaching out link to Midgely's response has been broken twice now [29] in the end phase of this RfC. (They are his personal pages, so I will defer to his edit placement, of course)--66.58.130.2601:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sure I can do it" then repeating the usual accusations doesn't suggest much commitment. And it continues: see [30] (a post with a link to his off-wiki attack page) and [31]. Tearlach01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Running ahead again. I have made several proposals here to try to keep the disputants out of each other's way, to try to slow down the adverse interactions, to try to give some symmetry and structure in the gradations between generally agreed and hotly disputed articles, to identify speech policy issues and to talk about resolving them - all with little traction. "My way or the highway" is a clear problem with the conventional medical group refusing to fully recognize and address the situational shortcomings or the Wiki concept. Unfortunately such information barriers are becoming broader societal and economic problems. Thank you. --66.58.130.2622:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be playing a differnt game form some of us - the aim here is to write an encyclopaedia, you seem to be aiming to find a way in which the existing policies of the WP can be subverted without changing them so as to allow a contributor who regards alterations to what he puts up as a conspiracy against him can do as he chooses. If you've looked at the Usenet trail I admire your persistence but see absolutely no reason for your optimism. Midgley06:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, it comes down to a form of special pleading. We're asking John to abide by Wikipedia policies that all contributors are expected to buy into, not the preferences of medical editors (and don't forget, this is a misrepresentation anyway - not all of John's critics have that background). Tearlach11:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking for the first time either[32]. Behaviour: Arcadian put considerable effort into that, and I think there was no actual change. "I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you don't accept our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I can't really be much help to you in the future. But if you don't read anything else, please read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. If you keep doing what you're doing, some admin is going to block your account and IP address." Pretty clear warning, 3 months ago. Whale site: article RFA (result: Delete) and then there was the RFC on WHale.to on Talk:MMR[33]Midgley01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How broad minded, real problem solving - every time the kid beats the rules, beat the kid and add new rules. Very effective. Hang 'em at 18, make an example. "We warned you"--66.58.130.2603:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsman wanting to join the RFC on him to this one?
He actually wrote "convert", and in November last year, but I think that is implied. Merecat just seconded it.
There does seem to be a clear group of John, Ombudsman and the anonymous in his three avatars who revolve around a common attractor which includes whale.to links, so perhaps it should all be lumped in together. Ombudsman is already in the queue for ArbCom of course... COmments on joining, and on the mechanism, and on the composition of that group? Midgley06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It started with an anon (86.128.123.85, from John's IP range incidentally) adding lots of whale links. I reverted, because of my long-held belief that external links should not be used to push fringe POVs. Ombudsman noticed, and re-added the links. Someone must have notified John (I guess Ombudsman may have done this, but it doesn't really matter), because he showed up in the RFC on Ombudsman. Anon the Invisible joined later on Talk:Mumps, gatecrashed the RFC, threatened to post my name and GMC number, got blocked briefly, and left in a blaze of fire. Anon returned, this time with the same agenda but less abuse, and resumed the agenda of tailing the dispute with John (and Ombudsman to a lesser extent).
There seems to be little official communication, other than that they feel alternate members of their informal group are being wronged by the medical establishment. There is no law against that, nor should there be.
mediation & remedial approach; back to the main topic
Thank you for that recap and the recognition of the independent editors' efforts. The issues around alt med and proper treatment of minorities have blossomed here, spiralled totally out of control. I suggest that there are two paths, a crucial choice: 1. go head execute John; this looks like a movie, powdered wigs, lots of formalities - few inconvenient insights, the drum, the (headsman's) block - just watch (as witness to ugly corporate warfare I have seen lynchings, even 30:1, where it ended poorly - for the crowd) "Skip the penecillin, just amputate at the neck"; 2. Really reach out, attempt to resolve John's problem in a meaningful way, resolve the "rare book" access dispute with a keyhole to favorable compromise, address the external sites & legitimate commentary (vs attack) questions, institute some formal edit controls/interactions and formal politeness between the sides. Right now I am willing to try to help with John but there has to be some level play. Should this be allowed to mutate and metamorphis to the next level of interaction, please don't expect my help - I have tried (and died). If this happens, any of the guilty that get winged, one will just have to laugh or cry.
JFW, I will observe that some folks are now crossing the Rubicon in haste. I asked earlier for your help, I mean it sincerely. I think you have the stature and ability that could help me implement path 2. Even if it fails, *you* can say you tried. Path 1 is always available, and boringly easy. Challenge yourself.--66.58.130.2602:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66.58.130.26, I have warred with John enough to know that he is not easily convinced of the untenability of his approach. I've had to block him more than once when he'd made ad hominems, and I will not hesitate to do so again if that improves matters.
I hope you realise that RFC does not mean blocking (or execution). RFC means getting the community to comment on either article content or an editor's behaviour. The latter are usually unsuccesful, but there's always a flicker of hope that things will change for the good.
If you are offering to coach John on how to edit constructively, please go ahead. It has been said that every notable POV can be worked into articles if basic editorial policies are scrupulously adhered to. It is just that John's agenda seems to be driven by emotions that he seems to have difficulty detaching from. JFW | T@lk08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...does not mean blocking" well, Tearlach and Midgely jumped the gun here. I appreciate your experience and pov. I need tools, it's got to be a package deal, then we really can see what John is made of. I am getting a lot of flak on narrow interpretations and the new policies as if Moses had chiseled 11-99 and this is why I need help - to create a workable solution by reasonably interpreting policies, that honors the principles and interests of Wiki policies where the ink is not even dry but gives John a meaningful chance at effective contribution without the confrontation (this RfC has also helped me better define how those policies have evolved, and I am still relatively inexperienced). I'll need to really get to it with him to see what sticks and how he ticks, but I think there is more than a just a random flicker of hope here. I also think this exercise might improve things going forward, by dealing with real causes and solutions. If anything, my record should speak for itself on the most basic trust issues for him. And if it's not going work, I can tell you (but you'd know soon enough). Interestingly, people who don't know me think I must be an incurable optimist; those who do, think I am often overcritical - all for the same words. Will you help me? We need to synthesize a package, and as a "heretic", I won't get far without support from the "other side".--66.58.130.2610:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to really get to it with him to see what sticks and how he ticks
And meanwhile, what? Are we supposed to ignore the insults, attacks and bad faith assumptions? These are policy issues that aren't negotiable. Tearlach11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to try process (systems thinking) approaches, fix the causes, fix the problem. And the "non negotiable" attitude here can be pretty one sided and counterproductive. Problem number one is in fact to disengage certain editors, at least part time, from direct confrontation with John, to quit screaming and provoking him, legally or otherwise. Yes, I'm working on a little laundry list to see how fast I can address or douse fires. John is not the only party that needs to improve his public presentation and spirit of collaboration. Hopefully we will get to a point that our previous attempts at conversation and humor are easier to appreciate, but right the tension between "penecillin" and "the saw" is a little thick. I could use a little help here.--66.58.130.2612:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now listen, 66.58. As a group of editors we have actually shown unusual patience with John. This character has been around for months, and we have had to suffer linkspam, verbal abuse, off-site personal attacks and heaven knows what more. Other users have been permanently banned for incurable trolling, and more than once I have been on the verge of doing this myself. I see no reason why he should receive any preferential treatment.
Fixing the causes? Fixing the problem? Are you insinuating that John's pattern of editing is anyone's fault but his own? You are again to be commended for trying to mediate here, and I would really recommend you get a username to improve your own credibility. JFW | T@lk20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to analyze the broad situation and articulate a useful view, so bear with me please. I recognize that a large amount of patience has been invested with John; his *is* an unusual situation. Patience alone could not cure the combined challenges of equally strong assertion of antipodal views with his personal initiatives. That is not incurable, just more complex. My perception is that his earlier initiatives - coupled with views that have been summarily dismissed as broadly & unreasonably counterfactual, obscure terminology, conceptual issues, and absent or nascent Wiki policies that have had less definition and rationale - created an excruciatingly high edit tension from the start between you all. Wiki policy evolution and prior discussions have resolved some issues, and John has acceded on others, slowly. I also know how tough it is to overcome common presumptions that later turned out to have very surprising twists in the journey - I have noticed two such unsurfaced technical issues in some of John's previous comments and would like to address those later. I have asked John about several possiblities. I notice his edits have slowed down even more today, I would respectfully ask others to slow it down and reconsider their positive possibilities, too.--66.58.130.2605:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"absent or nascent Wiki policies that have had less definition and rationale" is an assertion which has no basis in fact so far as I can see and seems a diversion of a type I don't like, from arguing that the rules need not be followed (or are not a basis for legitimate action) to arguing that they are not really rules anyway. It won't wash. The rules cited have been around adequately long, they are available for comment or efforts to alter - not here on an RFC but on their own pages - and their history shows when they were forumlated and how they have evolved. The basis of dispute is not technical, is not obscure, and should not be obscured. And this isn't about whether Ombudsman's use of Whale links should be jooined to this RFC whcih is what th header on teh section says it is. 08:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
How soon we forget. The rules have been evolving very rapidly, quite a bit this year. The very rule on WP:NPA that Tearlach (and you) used yesterday to try to rush a nice offensive block on John, came into existence 11 Apr 2006 [34] and it is somewhat a little wet around the edges on development. How many more examples do I need? I would not even be here if someone had not removed a (then) legal link 3 months ago to an article that I was interested in that had John's hyperlink for a 1950s reference. Today's rules would have prevented it in the first place and Whale link killersremovers are fairly efficient. Instead, realizing he was treading on the toes of two uninvolved editors with rapidly rising blood pressure, the editor politely found and replaced John's link with an alternate source, apologized, improved the text and invited us to join the melee' at MMR. That aberration was a slight heads up, I kept a some eye on it but I wasn't really interested in these kind of free-for-alls. I have always felt a little regret about not voicing my reservations more strongly then, and here I am now.--66.58.130.2609:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should contest the block on WP:ANI, not here. This block is unrelated to the RFC. Please refrain for charged language, such as "whale killers". This can be interpreted as a personal attack.
You are trying to blame a large group of editors for the failures of one editor. The fact that he evokes strong emotions is in direct proportion to the amount of abuse we've had to swallow. I agree that if a more credible source can be found for the material in question, it would be far superior to use that source, but other editors have no direct responsibilty to find credible alternatives for John's sources. JFW | T@lk14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"absent or nascent Wiki policies... no basis in fact..." No WPani contest here, I had already acted on the block; I simply defended my previous stmt from Adrian's gracious assertion with two counterexamples. I think the editor at the time did the sensible, equitable and polite thing; per normal editing, a (seemingly) gratuitous snip 3 months earlier of a still legal hotlink would have been a "longer discussion" than being polite anyway. Blame? more concerned with analyzing the interactions for pot'l resolution - that seems finito. I am done.--66.58.130.2621:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is the corollary, which is enunciated here and there in WP policies, that if the documents are important then someone else will make them available in due course. If nobody does, well, they were not important. Midgley17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We really have different points of view as to preservation, breadth, accessibility & timeliness, as well as the role and potential capacity of individuals. --66.58.130.2621:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on someone not hitherto named here (re: clean hands question)
As I was packing up to leave, browsing, I just noticed that Adrian, for all his WP:NPA complaints, has written a whole freaking WP article on John ---, starting Feb --. John as you may recall, has apparently stoutly protested his personal details even in Talk. Very interesting principles that operate at WP.--66.58.130.2622:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66, the article is not about John alone, it is about anti-vaccinationists, of whom John considers himself a proud member. With regards to the fact that his surname was posted (oh goodness golly me), with the kind of high-profile internet presence he is maintaining it is nota surprise that someone Googled him. I have previously acceded to his request to remove his name from Talk:MMR vaccine and from the Ombudsman RFC, but there is no law or principle that prohibits this. People have threatened to sue Wikipedia for articles on themselves, but having a public personality comes with this kind of side-effects. JFW | T@lk22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. He wants to be considered notable enough to be a reliable source, so he's notable enough for an entry. You can't have it both ways. Tearlach23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About whom?.
John, or Whale.to are not by me. Is there some other article anyone has in mind? Of which they wish to state the subject is the notable John? Or does anyone want to state that John is not notable? Midgley23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all should know the law is different than Wiki etiquette or policies, here's a direct Example, from WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme". This is hiding behind "notable", "public person" legal distinctions, rather than acknowledging another Wiki editor - Y/N? I am not saying John is an innocent, he is not, policies were clearly evolving to legalistically fit, constrain, and with direction & effort, inform him. Rather I felt there was need for some kind balance that was so far toward, ahem, expensive bio-,chemical peddlers (pharmas), he seemed to be one of the few survivors, that with a good scrub and fresh paint job might have useful material (rare books) to inform us about the other faces of history. Medical related articles at Wiki are not in any grave danger of heretical error, they are inherently in danger of the error of omission because of the pharma initiated, FDA enforced interpretation of EBM, which controls the generation and acceptance of data. Once you control data, you can control the results, always popular in corporate offices.
I assume good faith that John, as a Wiki editor, didn't want his personal particulars on Wiki and wanted some degree of separation. We can get too close here, and some *last* line of privacy or separation might be really, really important. Let me bring this into focus. No doubt, some less careful readers might think that I am anti-MD or even anti-vax, I'm not. But I can truthfully say to some of the younger MDs here, if or when you see my kid this summer, try to keep your eyes above the neck. How's that for separation?--66.58.130.2604:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to nominate John Scudamore for deletion. Your bias is showing if you carry on about "pharma initiated, FDA enforced interpretation of EBM". A lot of the data you are talking about is not generated by "pharma" at all, yet it confirms the results of the "pharma initiated" studies. But this is not the subject of this RFC.
As I have explained to John thousands of times, there is no ban on "alternative views" and "views critical of the medical mainstream". Good articles do indeed have well-sourced sections that deal with this. But what John is doing is aggressively pushing his own website and the off-wiki POV forks that are contained in it. He cannot push one critical author (e.g. Archie Kalokerinos on SIDS) without providing at least some evidence that this author is taken seriously by anyone other than himself ("medical pioneer of the 20th century" is the title of that man's autobiography).
Instead of trying to save John as a Wikipedia editor, how about you yourself try to compose useful material that adheres to basic content guidelines? That is really more productive.
if or when you see my kid this summer, try to keep your eyes above the neck. How's that for separation? I have no idea what you are talking about, but it is certainly not pertinent to either John or the RFC. You have chosen some odd metaphor that can be understood in various ways, not all of them complimentary. JFW | T@lk07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Adrian's WP page on another editor is waaaaay out of line because of personal information that was expressly wished to be private and has been reasonably protected in Wiki space, again perhaps based on Wiki policy and ettiquete. To some other editors this particular behavior might be most unwelcome or even truly threatening. In my eyes this is much more a NPA & privacy protection issue than some Wiki user page or external site commentaries on medical issues that are contaminated with Wiki user-ids or a partial name; issues which I had hoped we could agree as to which parts were legitimate commentary & method, and which parts really were attack related, absolutely needing rewriting, removal or substitution (ie. unnamedMD1 ) cont'd below.
Let us be quite clear here that until you stated the identity, no connection was made. Certainly the article doesn't connect the two. Any clues that are given to us that make it easier are in the control of the user. It wasn't actually a trap to lure anyone into stating that an editor is the subject of an article, but consider - if George W Bush registers as a WP editor under the name say User:HailToMe and says - or implies - that he'd like a bit of privacy, and will put the names of anyone who infringes that up on this hear White House website of his, should the G Dubbya Bush and similar articles then be blanked out of consideration, or should one think that he would have done better to 1) register as User:SomeTexanJr and 2) not make use of such an obvious linked website so blatantly? (As to the question of the VP posting a suggestion that "y'all lay off my good friend here who is actually the subject of that page" - well, one could belabour that point furhter but why should it be needed).Midgley00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state the identity (John---???), you and Tearlach laughed so hard at making the set up to show it. I knew at least you and JFW could recognize it, and hopefully delete it w/o much further ado. I studiously avoided a clickable userID for both you and John. Also the article referred to Whale and whale@ email addresses six times, a little above my idea of "doesn't connect". Georgejr, due to good choice of family, is a very notable person. As an encyclopedia article, John is not notable - you (conv'l med eds) have shot down better candidates. As well as the other reasons as explained earlier. (Sorry John.) "I'm sorry", blank & speedy delete are really the best answer here.--66.58.130.2615:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(cont'd from above)
Because of the internet and previous edit experiences, one may come to know a certain amount about some of the other editors and vice versa. In a large institution, it is a still a big world, lots of people you see in passing, some you meet or know. Special types of interest bring more proximity. Because of an event last month, a kid has a very small but nonzero chance of actually crossing paths with other editors here. I am not otherwise interested, and I'm not telling. We rely on certain separations here. And so, if the same type of data that John as a Wiki editor expects privacy on, for some others' almost unique data, were associated to the kids in an article, some editors might be furious, insecure or threatened. Adrian's WP article is out of bounds, especially given some of John's deletion history and imposed justifications. You, yourself (JFW): "no sign that your page is notable" I can only imagine the censure that would flow to Tearlach's & Midgley's cackling, above, if it were John - an echo of my previous comments about "asymmetry".
Although this is John's RfC, there are concerns about other editors' behaviors and RfCs. Also we are running out of alt med editors, they seem to get run off or run over, so often. If they go down swinging, "tsk, tsk - I told you they were bad".
Have to say I'm not comfortable with that article. There doesn't seem to be anything objectionable in it, but why is it needed? what does it achieve? I'd urge speedy delete, think it's a mistake.Gleng08:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I think John's internet activity does take him into borderline notability, but the page doesn't seem to be useful (nor is it up to sourcing standards - I doubt any reputable published sources verify the information there). Tearlach12:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to anyone to decide whether to link a pseudonymous WP editor to an article about some named individual. I've not done so here. I think that if people make themselves notable and edit WP a connection is likely to occur, of course. So far there seem to be three, rather poor, pages about me in WP, and I note that at least two MfD on them have failed although one succeeded. Midgley00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone cares to assert that John Scudamore is not notable, I'll probably vote in favour. But then I don't generally think that anti-vaccinationists are notable for that. Others have expressed different views, relating to present and past pages mentioned on this page. An invitation to USENET to comment might be in order. I do not think that such articles should be speedied, as the benefits of the WP community having a chance to express a clear view on the notability or non-notability of the individual rise above the level of trivial. The subheading is yet another pejorative one, but I suppose a section heading of "Did you know there is an article about someone who is by the way also know as..." might not look so good. Midgley00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an autobiography has severe problems, fatal for WP, I think that an article generated by persistant WP disputant(s) also generates many reliablity and NPA questions, as does the reliable sourcing (about 50 ????). In terms of privacy etc, one wonders whether the "slow" cure AfD is worse than the disease here. Killing the article yourself would be the decent thing to do. If this article is pressingly notable, let the neutral 3rd parties build it, I think there are far many more significant articles ahead in line. As an article it looks wretched. Failing this, I think the conventional med majority should speedy delete it, for self consistency of stmts if not embarrassment.--66.58.130.2611:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midgley has released the content under the GFDL and has no right, let alone a duty to blank it. Presently the page can be improved to NPOV, and does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If one of the kind gentlemen above can convince me that this is indeed CSD A6 or A7 I will not hesitate to delete this page. Please let me know. JFW | T@lk17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about that article, but it is not appropriate to grumble on about it here. If you want it deleted then use the WP procdure for deleting it - prod or afd, not go on about it here. Again, 66, what progress have you to show us? Midgley17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reformation.org etc
I see Midgley is up to his crank tricks again John Scudamore, [35]. You can see what I have to put up with. I write as someone who treats a small number of psychotic patients, and therefore might come from someone psychotic or a group simulating psychosis for their own amusement. (John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense). It is also amusing to see me, Ombudsman and Invisble Anon being refered to as a group, when you consider the attacks I get from a group of medical people, about 3 "physicians" and 5 or so other mostly anonymous medical people, who delete or attempt to delete my pages, links and text, and then kick up a stink when I get complain! and then try to shut me up permanently. I know alt med is hard to take for a medical person. As for Tearlach attempted block, I am not sure it would be a good idea in the long term for Wiki credibility, although it might win this battle, but not the war. I think it was him who called whale a porn site, so top marks for coming up with a new term to sit alongside crank, quack etc. john18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...I write as someone who treats a small number of psychotic patients, and therefore might come from someone psychotic or a group simulating psychosis for their own amusement. (John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)
John, Midgley is saying that you are not mad, and that your writing does not resemble that of the mad.
I didn't call it "a porn site". I called it "anti-vaccination porn" and explained very clearly what I meant by that: as a metaphor for material that wallows in a sensational manner in a tightly-focused idea, to affirm and excite the feelings of those already sold on that idea. (Compare technoporn, poverty porn, gastroporn etc). Tearlach19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where I grew up, "porn", pornography was highly illegal and widely denounced as "perverse". And there are still places you can get in a lot of trouble.--03:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the repetition of that partial quote. For I think the sixth time, and with no noticeable possibility that John, whatever his surname might or might not be, could have failed to notice the previous corrections, which should cast doubt over why he keeps repeating it and claiming that "John is not mad" is a statement that "John is mad", the rest of that quote makes it perfectly clear that it applies specifically to the reformation.org website. If anyone wishes to say that the site does not give an apeparance consistent with psychosis, then they may do so. If they have any reason to be reliable on that they may disclose, or not disclose it. Tearlach's phrase "a scrapbook of anti-vaccination porn" is actually a rather good piece of writing, it crystallises, as remarked previously (and you have to wonder, if despite all previous disucssions and corrections, John keeps bringing back the same statements, will anything else stick?) a description of Whale.to into a recognisable and unforgettable meme. It was accompanied in the RFC by an explanation, for those a bit slow to understand it. I submit that quoting parts of either of these things without the previously given explanations and amplifications, and without the wiki refs to where they were said, and without noting the previously given replies is not something that demonstrates a wish to avoid being thought to perhaps be trying to mislead readers and other editors about their true meaning or significance.
Putting them under a heading of Midge tricks is, yet again, a direct personal attack, and it is only the constant stream of attacks in assorted unpleasant terms for which John is notable that causes that not to stand out itself. I object to it, it is not necessary, it is not actually informative, rather it is an advertisment, and it makes no attempt to indicate either NPOV or any sort of movement toward committing to consider making attempts at adopting an NPOV by John. Why are we still heare, and hearing it? Midgley23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence "I write..." is hideous, complex & confusing because it is not quite correctly written- seems to be missing the phrase "this statement". It raises the question that someone *is* crazy (else why bother, an important Dr is always in a hurry), a doctor is speaking to an audience, with some authority, about madmen, this particular crazy writing, or perhaps it's a conspiracy/trick then "John..." (confusion, wrestle, wrestle, not paying attn ). 2nd sentence could be read: Well, John is probably not completely crazy, but just a little, maybe half.... And we're all big enough to recognize this interpretation. The other editor did try justify it with relation to humor, and John clearly suspects the intent based on previous interactions and aggressive edits.--66.58.130.26
One reason for it appearing like that is that the whole of the sentence is not quoted. Quoting the whole of the sentence which mentiones reformation.org would make it clear that it does not in any way refer to John. In order to specifically make it clear that it did nto refer to John I specifically said, and it has been quoted above, that it was unlike John's writing. Quite what filter on the gates of perception would account for him seeing that as a statement that he is psychotic continues to escape me and that misquote and attached misnterpretation continues to be republished. It is a characteristic of anti-vaccinationist writing of the 19th C and to date to use partial quotes, and to add an interpretation that suports whatever the writer wants to say whether the quote supports that or not. As for how things could be read, if you are given the diff to read the original you would not be mislead. Midgley09:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe you, Ombudsman, the anon, and Leifern aren't a group, given that all of you are willing to endorse a statement by the anon which has not been made yet. ([36], for the curious). How can you be anything but a group, if you are willing to blindly agree with one another? Michael Ralston02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page John Scudamore is quite obviously a Crank page, and an attempt to "out" my name on a site where everyone is clinging on to anonymity, so I consider it an attack. Every time someone uses the name of someone who doesn't use his real or full name (for whatever reason) it is an attack, fairly obviously I would have thought, I get that all the time on USENET, and it was posted here some time ago on Talk MMR I think, by someone who dislikes me. I stopped using my full name for that reason.
typically asserting that doctors are wrong and act from bad motives. This is an attack. On the Wiki (poor) definition of doctor only medical and chiro ones are listed. I don't have much interest in chiro but I list 3 or 4 on my site as worthy people, so that is wrong anyway. And I have a list of nutritional doctors [37] who I like, eg Fred Klenner, Archie Kalokerinos, and dozens of vaccine critics who are MDs, eg Robert Mendelsohn, Charles Creighton. So he has written that to make me look bad, a crank--he would hardly be trying to make me look good.
As for Tearleach defending his use of the term "porn". I can defend my use of the term "allopath". Any unbiased person would thing anyone describing a site as "anti-vaccination porn" offensive, and I was offended, which is the acid test. "Porn" is an offensive term. If "allopath" is offensive then what is "porn"?
Secondly, any mention of the term "conspiracy" is an attack as I think the page Conspiracism shows. "Conspiracy" is in the same category as "crank".
And his use of the term "anti vaccinationist" is pejorative also, like "crank" (and he doesn't deny this, having attempted to link that page to the Crank page [38],[39], here is another editor taking offence at the term [40]. And cranks is a polite term for someone with a mental condition, which his use of the word psychotic bears out.
I am not sure what the point behind this "group" this is. If you want to make out groups are bad you are on thin ice. The Physicians Wikipedians are a group. 3 of them have been acting like one regarding their link removals. john08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a diversion. Anyone who thinks any page should not be here should do something about it, on its own talk page or in AfD. Anti-vaccinationist - shortened by John in previous discussion to "antivax" and applied by him, is descriptive. Midgley11:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John proposes conspiracism as a reference for conspiracy theories. I suggest that conspiracy theory is a better one. Again, it is a description of theories which have in common that they allege or postulate a large conspiracy, and are not the mainstream view of the world. Midgley11:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to close
Per WP:BP, a user may be blocked for disruption, or for exhausting the community's patience. I believe it is fair to say that any further addition of John's websites should be reverted on sight, replaced where possible with a citation to the original source text if it is judged relevant and reliable, and that any further addition of such links by John or any sockpuppet should result in a block, with subsequent offences resulting in a longer block. I believe that this falls within the scope of existing policy and does not require ArbCom involvement. If agreement can't be reached on this, or if John's behaviour does not change, then escalation to ArbCom is the obvious next step. Just zis Guy you know?16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
john is using his websites to attack WP editors, accusing some of, for instance, "dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty", I do not see how WP can function as a community while allowing one editor to behave like this. Frankly I'm astonished at the collective patience shown towards him; it's refreshing and frankly belies any case that there is a conspiracy to suppress inconvenient opinions. However, these would result in a block if published on WP so how can we let this be evaded by publishing them on a website?Gleng21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the previous months of conflict, some medical editors sometimes confuse authoritarian speech with authoritative speech - even a layer of velvet does not make free speech or open discourse. When they persistly blink at gently addressing miscellaneous anomalies and deny or refuse to recognize underlying problems, never mind the rancorous spiral, they undermine medicine itself. I suggest Wiki editors treat with John, *then* measure the results and act accordingly. Collaborate boldly. I don't even insist on a RCT ;> --66.58.130.2623:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go with JzG and Gleng. John shows no sign of stopping the abuse and incivility, even when asked by a sympathetic critic. Apart from the general conduct, I don't see how negotiation can work when he won't believe that his articles attract negative attention not because of their topic but because of faults that would apply whatever the topic. WP:BP looks the right route. Tearlach11:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks hosted on whale.to: action required? http://defoam.net does not host accounts of John's behaviour or attacks upon him. It could...although perhaps not quite in the same vitriolic spirit. I judge that this would on the whole be bad. But admission to WP should be precluded by attacks elsewhere related to actions on WP, as it is - eventually - by attacks on WP. I am unconvinced that that point has not been passed already. Is this something which should appear on ANI? Midgley21:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also am surprised at the administrative and collective patience shown. We have what looks like a firm suggestion that it go to RFAR, so shall we now do that, or has any actual progress been made on any alternative? I don't see any. If within 12 hours all references to all editors on WP had departed from the whale.to site and there was an undertaking here to not replace them, I would be prepared to pause a little longer agianst possible progress in mediation. It doesn't need longer than 12 hours to see if that happens, unless we assume John is absent in which case a message on his talk page, and removal before his next edit would be the minimum. Midgley17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John has not re-inserted his links for some days, since it was made explicitly clear that community consensus was against him doind so. A block is not in order, a strong warning is, and if links to his attack pages can be supplied and these are not removed then a block for WP:NPA will be the result. I will do the needful now. Just zis Guy you know?18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General page on Wikipedia mentioning various editors [44]
Site search that finds sundry references to Wikipedia editors [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww. whale . to +Wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta=]
What about the issue of personal attacks, civility and AGF here on Wikipedia? Is adherence to these (by all, of course) included in this conditional closure? Tearlach19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The linked pages have been or are being removed. The way it works is this: this RfC informs John that his behaviour was unacceptable; from that point John can go one of two ways: he can play nice, or he can carry on. If he carries on then we can either go to arbcom or block him as a community block (or both); if he plays nice then the project has benefited. I believe this is a reasonable approach. Just zis Guy you know?11:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line
I don't believe that anyone wants to see minority views excluded from WP, or to exclude editors with dissenting views. What we do want is
1) No personal attacks. Criticise opinions, not those who hold them.
2) Talk pages where we can freely discuss without personal attacks. This is where we can express our views, make mistakes and sometimes change our minds. Posting attacks on WP editors on external sites quoting comments on talk pages is just an outrageous breach of ethics. These must be removed. I can see no possibility of progress while they remain.
3) The community patience with john is unmistakably stretched. This is characterised as attempts to suppress contrary views. But we are each of us part of some minority or other, probably mostly part of some distinctly unfashionable minority, and we all know the importance of protecting minority rights of expression. When a biography of for instance an anti-vaccinationist is posted, and I see it, I don't think this must be removed, I think are these details true? did he or she really say this and if so on what evidence, who is this person, what expertise and authority do they have and what did others say about them? These are all not just reasonable questions, they are essential questions if we are to act as responsible WP editors - we all have a responsibility to remove unsourced facts in biographies of living people -WP is not a vehicle for gossip and rumour. So posting inadequately sourced material in biographies imposes an obligation on us when we see it. I think that john should recognise that editing for V RS is a responsibility we take on, and if his edits have attracted attention it is because of consistent weaknesses in V RS in the material he adds, not because of the subjects per se.
4) we have to be ruthless in separating facts from opinion; we need V RS. whale.to and vaccination.org are clearly not RS, and they should not be linked to as sources of fact. There may be a case for links to them as references for opinion, but certainly not while they host material in breach of WP ethics.
Gleng09:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's hard to take whale.to seriously or view it as a reliable source when it's being used as a mouthpiece to attack editors that the site disagrees with, e.g. [45]. Andrew7317:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're quite done with this RfC yet. We just got to a remediation point. We can still attempt to straighten out the much complained about "attacks" between ill-defined legit, squelched commentary and real, verboten NPA. We haven't quite addressed proper treatment of a minor body, at say 10:1 or 20:1 with a less confrontational format whether its John or the next poor alt med sod, I've been thinking about an intermediate source solution, and we are just starting to surface the disparities in the conventional perception of what is a level playing field. Do a good RfC avoid a dangerous monculture , create happy results; do a lousy one with a fast cutoff, I half expect that the complaints will be twice as loud next year. I have a "John plan" for article contributions so both might achieve more, with less squawk w/o having to change Wiki policies but get John's agreement - you know sort of like the Magna Carta ;> . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.58.130.26 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 May 2006(UTC).
The purpose of the RFC is not to protect an "alt med sod" from fair scrutiny of edits. Alternative medicine should be presented on the Wiki, but not without the strings attached. If someone suggests that antidepressants are really great for irritable bowel syndrome, I ask for a reliable source (such as a journal article, expert view, patient's group consensus). When someone suggests flower therapy is great for atherosclerosis, I do the same: give a reliable source that this treatment is actually being used and enjoys popularity. Simply saying that Dr Thingy M.D. (notice excessive use of medical qualifications by alternative practicioners) is not sufficient. This has to do with credibility of the Wiki (words borrowed from our dear Ombudsman) and avoiding sounding like a magazine for bored middle-aged women.
John's mistake was that he took criticism to the material on his site too personal, and started blaming other editors for his own maladherence to policy. Unless this can be improved, he will not be a constructive Wikipedia editor. JFW | T@lk16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of John's mistakes is as specified. The ratio is an order of magnitude over the higher bound suggested, probably even on WP, and is not I think relevant to any part of this RFC. Midgley17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Show results. If you cannot show results, with time and pressure as now, I do not believe you can show results later. If you do show results later, then we can revisit .... well, anything worth revisiting, on the basis of those results, and at that time. Midgley17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more help would be appreciated. Basically looking at John's front page the primary potential NPA issues I see are (1) proper form of address or recognition or even lack thereof - name or id vs some code phrase and (2) working on John's writing style a little. This is where I am concerned about legit squelched commentary on content and action vs solving true NPA issues. I would say my aim for John's tone is "pithy" to "pointed". I opened a suggestion box, pls use it, comments about fair descriptives/semi-id are needed, "the esteemed doctor from... points of irreconciliable divergence" kind of loses the flavor.--66.58.130.2611:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I open a suggestion box
I suggest the page be removed. These pages nursing grievances - even with names munged - are still unconstructive and a statement of bad faith. If people want the equivalent of a dartboard with their enemy's face on it, they can keep it at home. Tearlach17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the effort?
It seems that 66.58.130.26 has put in a considerable (and perhaps unusual degree of) effort at improving the output Whaleto. Why all the attention devoted to this one particular individual? Is there some kind of relationship between the two of you? Andrew7312:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zippo, but I do participate in some orthomed topics and watch alt med. Perhaps I should have taken your friend 'HOG's invitation in January, but I usually mind my own business and fight my own battles. And when I do, I'm serious. Although I have crossed John's path about three times before (more with you), in fact I think the last time around John was *editing once between*(after) you and John in February to finish it. I don't think I ever directly addressed John before this RfC. I have my own little lines in the sand, which this RfC seems to have trod on.--66.58.130.2614:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time
I've nominated the biography for speedy delete.
I note though that whale.to and vaccination.org still host attacks. I appreciate the anonymous user's defence of a minority, but this is not about minority views but about WP standards and ethics. Time to close down, and get back to constructive editingGleng16:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closure
Please either endorse or reject the motion to close on the RfC. If it is rejected the next step is ArbCom. I personally think that is a waste of time at this point since the principal problem behaviour appears to have stopped. Just zis Guy you know?19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
