User talk:Richardmalter

I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks, Xoloz 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more discourse for you at my talk; the short version is, I think, that you have no need to worry. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Yoshiaki Omura

Hi! I apologize for reverting your changes to this article without comment. I initially did this because there was a large amount of removal of information. However, looking at it, while I'm still not sure what you were trying to do, I feel you were trying to make the article better. Please accept my apologies, and revert my changes if necessary. In the future, using descriptive edit summaries will help avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Omura

Your recent edits to this article are verging on trollish behaviour. Firstly this edit violates WP:POINT. Then this edit and this one and this one were marked as minor when clearly they are not.

If you wish to keep editing Wikipedia articles then please stick to accepted wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. These policies have been established for a reason and provide a tried and tested framework in which neutral, factually correct and informative articles can be created. --Spondoolicks 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stuck to WP guidelines. I could take your comments and apply them to the other editors. Why have you not done so. Please see my arguments on the Talk page.--Richardmalter 10:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Omura RfC

Hi Richard, I saw your request for comment and skimmed through the article's talk page. Unfortunately, though I'd love to be able to help, I don't have time to read through the article and talk page to provide informed comment regarding the dispute. I did, however, notice your comment near the end of the talk page regarding taking the issue through mediation, and wondered if you'd considered trying the mediation cabal? They're a group of users who try to informally assist in finding mutually agreeable compromises in situations like this, and might be more effective than formal mediation. --jwanders^Talk 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, read your comments at the mediation cabal, although I'm not a mediator, I would be interested regarding the possibility of editing this article towards a compromise version. In the first instance, could we break out of this edit war? That is, for your next edit could you make your changes manually, instead of using the revert function. This would allow another user such to edit without being swamped. Thanks. Addhoc 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc, I couldn't find your talk page. I am very grateful for your offer and fully intend to help you help us in practice. The problem with not reverting is that the version up at the moment which has had tons of 'unilateral' stuff done to it, is so far of the mark that it is not an even approaching 'middle ground' place to start. I conceded to this about 2 months ago! when crum375 decided he/she would mediate with the version that 'the other side' had got up at that point - which in hindsight turned out to be a huge waste of time and got us absolutely nowhere; I am very reluctant to repeat that again. Please see points 1-5 on the Talk page for a general summary of the problem. But I'll spend a few minutes now and see what I come up with. Thank you.--Richardmalter 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi there! My name is Andy and I am taking the case you filed at WP:MEDCAB for the article Yoshiaki Omura. I am going to review everything and post to the article talk page within 24 hours. If you feel mediation is no longer needed since you posted the case, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, as a reminder during mediation, please make sure to post comments and rebuttal under the correct headings for the sake of organization. When I start a heading named "Discussion" it will be only for discussion on that particular passage. I have moved some of your replies to the correct headings. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura

I had CowMan reprotect the page.

Let's stop the edit warring. Seriously. It's not worth it. We can settle this like reasonable people. But until we've reached a state where we can clearly handle this rationally, I'm going to recommend against unprotection.

- Che Nuevara 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm cross-posting this to Crum as well.

Che, I understand your position and request. But Crum is careful to agree to this on the terms that he has managed to effectively impose as I have described. Therefore I will edit as I see fit within WP guidelines. But PLEASE continue your mediation. It is not acceptable to the reasonable mind that one guy like Crum375 (or more than one) with no known knowledge or credentials can effectively 'denounce' as a whole packet of nonsense the work of many eminent people worldwide. WP actually has not a bad set of policies - the problem is they are guidelines open to abuse; so I have no choice to continue to engage. I am also researching other better citations in the meanwhile. But Crum has effectively declared his extreme bias and this needs balancing to say the least.Richardmalter 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Richard, please be advised that you are about to violate the WP:3RR rule yet again. This is a blockable offense, as you know. Please try to adhere to this rule. Thanks, Crum375 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum, you ignore what has been said to you by many people about the version protected not being endorsed in any way - and that your idea of a stable article is purely your notion. Richardmalter 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of the three revert rule on Yoshiaki Omura for a period of 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109^Talk 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Richardmalter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Please follow WP:DR instead of breaking 3RR if you think consensus is being violated. --WinHunter ^(talk) 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Cowman, what do I do if Crum375, et al, revert mediated consensus agreed decisions that they were fully part of, the minute protection is off, then pretend all kinds of things that many people tell them repeatedly is not the case - eg the arbitrary protection of a version that they then claim is the 'best' one etc. They are manipulating WP policy ad hoc re their bias. Please see last few comments on the Talk page with links to the mediated decisions. It really is making a joke out of WP. Thanks.Richardmalter 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal on Yoshiaki Omura

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Antonrojo 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expereimenting, I think you may not have the whole picture. Is removing POV/OR vandalism?? See the bits I discuss on the Talk page for what I refer to. Thanks.Richardmalter 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

Richard, I believe you have violated the WP:3RR rule yet again, which is a blockable offense. As you know, repeated violations of 3RR result in longer and longer blocks. Please refrain from violating this rule. Thank you, Crum375 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 10 2006 to Yoshiaki Omura

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail: I appreciate your frustration. However... one way to tell the Good from the Bad guys is playing by the rules. Just being Right doesn't give you more reverts. Its better to contact the others who have been recently interested rather than break 3RR yourself William M. Connolley 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Richardmalter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please see my emails to the blocking Admin thank you, below:

Decline reason:

3RR is 3RR. You've apparently run afoul of this before, so I'm doubly disinclined to unban you, given the fact that this wasn't even confusion on your part about Wikipedia's policies. -- EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello,

If you read the Talk page, you will read that Crum375 and the other guy that changes his handle continuously, who have in the previous Mediator's own report of about 24 hours ago scuttled the mediation process [for the 3rd time] and also in the Mediator's own report continuously act in bad faith, and revert full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully part of, but try to weedle out of, slandar and lie whenever they need to, etc etc, have once again teamed up to revert a version that is unacceptable to the last Mediator, plus at least two other Admins who have recently contributed, so that I am left to revert them continuously and then one of them then reports me for a 3RR.

You then step in to the story, and effectively, regardless of any other judgement on your part, help them do what I have said they do and which you dont have to take my word for it you just have to read through the Talk and mediation page of the last 48 hours even.

I have been the one that originally requested mediation, that they have sabotaged continuously. You are not helping WP. You are just aiding this nonsense.

You will probably reply to follow the dispute process; the reply to that is it is not working - because there is bad faith and lies, and I have been trying to for months. What do you have to say to that?

Please consider the actual effect of your Admin actions - can you appreciate that if manipulated you might just be an unconscious party to extremely ant-WP behaviour?

Thanks.

Very nice reasoning in theory. But in this case if two editors in point of fact who are intent on sabotaging everything and resist all mediation team up to out-revert me, then the result is as is; and if the others who have been involved just give up - like the last valiant mediator, Che, for these stated reasons that I give, then what you propose does not work in practice. So your 'one way to tell' idea has found an exception that breaks the rule. And regardless of your very best intentions that I have not a shadow of a doubt about - you are just in practice effectievely a lackey to their actions. That is the reality regardless of what you think otherwise. WP is breaking down here because of this and you aren't doing anything about it, but the opposite.Richardmalter 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite why you think calling me a lackey is going to help you I don't know. Anyway: if you have 2 editors against you, then obviously out-reverting them will not work. So... follow WP:DR: find someone to agree with you; mediation, RFC, and if that fails RFA William M. Connolley 09:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And quite why you're stuck at mediation I dont know. Its not the end of DR William M. Connolley 11:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR Violation

Richard, I believe you are again in violation of 3RR, having made by my count 4 reverts within the last 24 hours as of this time, both under your username and anon IP. I suggest you restore the previous entry and undo your revert as a demonstration of willingness to abide by Wikipedia processes and rules. GenghizRat 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that as you've taken no action to self-revert, I've reported you as once again in willful violation. GenghizRat 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on December 13 2006 to Yoshiaki_Omura

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours.

I hope its going to become obvious that you cannot win on this article simply by out-reverting. If you believe that mediation has failed you, please move on to RFC and/or try to interest other editors.

William M. Connolley 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William , please count again, I watched the clock and did not believe that I was breaking the 3RR rule. I of course know that a revert war is futile. I wish the other side would know the same thing. I request you unblock me.

Also it makes little difference I have requested arbitration because of this ridiculous situation where a couple of people can sabotage mediation by wearing mediators down continuously and not keeping to agreements anyway when they are made - which is of course the height of WP good faith.Richardmalter 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count 4, including you as the anon. Which do you dispute? If you're heading for arbitration, you'd better be clean, and WP:1RR will help you William M. Connolley 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, 4 but the 4th was outside of a 24 hour period that starts with the first.Richardmalter 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RM! You might want to note the following from WP:3RR: "Furthermore, making reversions just outside of the twenty four hour "deadline" may still result in a block; Wikipedians take a dim view of people attempting to wikilawyer or game the system." In addition to this, the practice on Wikipedia tends to be to block when a 3RR situation is unclear. --Philosophus ^T 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omura arbitration

Che I have requested Arbitration because of exactly the problems you wrote. I understand your wish to remain neutral, but what you said you said, very accurately, and your words provide a neutral 3rd party comment during mediation of the underlying situation. I will not pretend that you did not know what you were saying.Richardmalter 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you requested arbitration, and I understand your feelings on the matter. I will comment on the request when I have seen what others have to say. I knew exactly what I was saying, and I will explain exactly what I meant when I said it, no matter how you reinterpret it, when I make my statement to ArbCom. - Che Nuevara 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please leave new comments at the bottom of my talk page, not the top. - Che 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Che; I am sure you will say what you mean :-). I never meant otherwise :-) Richardmalter 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not stated what this case is about. If you are not ready to proceed perhaps it should be removed (without prejudice) until you are ready. Will you be ready soon? Thatcher131 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, didn't see the block. You can place your statement here and I will copy it over or you can wait until the block expires and place it yourself. Thatcher131 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che, I am sure you dont hold speaking straightforwardly a negative quality. I was surprised to read your statement about the discussion around the stub and Starting Over. 1) I think the record very clearly shows that i did agree to this, and 2) that Crum375 did not - or more accurately, did not keep to his agreement as you yourself noted.

3) I then wanted you to put in a direct quote of virtually word for word what you had written anyway, that is all.

If this is not your perception, then I must in my mind put it down to twiki-type communication that is the problem re this; because this is what I said and meant; and Crum was equally clear.

Is this not a true and accurate account? Richardmalter 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rome did not fall in a day, Richard. You did, in fact, agree to work with the stub, but that is not the only issue at hand. The actions of the anonymous IPs, which I can only assume joined the fray at your behest, reverted continuously to a version which was clearly inappropriate, and there is at least one instance of an IP which I assume is yours reverting to that version. Besides this, past behavior still stands, and Crum was not alone in editing contentiously and failing to act in good faith. Just because the stub incident happened last does not mean it is the only thing that ArbCom will look at.

Quite frankly, what you want out of this RfAr is not my concern, nor should it be. I submitted as neutral a statement as possible while still giving my honest opinion of the matter. I will go into greater detail if/when the case is taken up by the Committee. But please do not expect me to champion you in this case: you will be disappointed.

I wish you the best, but I won't compromise my neutrality because Crum pushed my buttons at a bad time for me. - Che Nuevara 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che, thanks for the reply; no, I dont expect any championing - after all this (though not before either) I am hardly naive. No, no one came at my behest. But as you can imagine people involved with use of the BDORT (some named on the affidavit to the Patent Office you have seen) have been concerned and surprised at what is happening here - which, like me, they see is clearly a deliberate attempt to deride Dr Omura and his techniques, and they have been trying to do what they can to help - in I guess the limited time they have and superficial knowledge of WP, and some realization that the other two antis are teeth-clenched in their course. Re Rome, it was the last straw and Crum not agreeing as you know destroyed the mediation process which had a last and long term good outcome with no editwarring chance. That is a fact of history documented here. I will quote you (if necessary not that I need to the links in my statement show it clearly) that I agreed to the stub; and it is equally clear from the records that Crum375 did not. I do understand the question of your neutrality - I worked this out when I first started quoting you and you asked me to refrain. I am sure your progression in WP will not be affected if this is part of the picture you refer to. I will repeat that I think you did an excellent job and that I am grateful for your efforts which have my good respect. Cheers.Richardmalter 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Statement

[please don't shorten as the whole picture is made up of the parts and cant be seen in isolation]

Underlying Supra-WP biases are the root of the conflict. Things considered in isolation will not tell the whole story. GenghizRat has used many handles and evaded admitting: "I am Whiffle. You are not . . ."[3]. He has a deep, major personal bias, confided in me (I keep faith, no details) he knew Omura personally, had major disagreements with him. He says there's no grudge, but he even tried to mock Omura's residence, "Omura's house (literally – well, apartment, anyway)"[4]. This November at a Symposium [5] that Omura Chairmans, he visited Columbia University campus and we know spread comments there aimed at denegrating the Symposium. He will deny this; but gives it away here indirectly "I had, by chance. . ."[6]. He created the original entry, with his underlying bias, which shows on line 1, to label the BDORT as 'pseudoscience' [[7]], which he continues throughout. His WP:OR/POV shows in his 'discursive' edits. He repeatedly evades full consensus mediated agreements (FCMA) that he was part of [8], and states the Mediator's records, Discussion closed and action taken as agreed [9] are "matters of interpretation"[10], etc.

Crum375's undeclared entrenched bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" [[11]]. He does not admit this motivation, but as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly"[12]. He wants to warn the world of his perceived danger of BDORT. All his behaviour that I could not understand for a while is coherent with this. It explains many actions including his repeated arguments[13] [14] [15] to have a "disclaimer"[16] after almost each paragraph [17] despite being told by Mediators/Admins, "not appropriate for Wikipedia"[18]. He too wont keep to FCMAs, tries to deny [19], evade them[20] repeatedly. Typically: first he denies agreements, "nothing whatsoever"[21]; when pressed admits they are, "minor technicalities" (fact: usage of a citation, in itself and for what); still evades, "only agreed to by me" (false[22]);later invents reasons[23] why he reverts FCMD which like all his discussion only sounds reasonable in isolation. Even when the last Mediator CheNuevara proposed we begin the most basic, neutral stub [24] and work from there to stop the edit warring, seconded as the "best option"[25] by Cowman109 (coordinator: Mediation Cabal), he was as the Mediator said "resistant" and showed a "continued lack of good faith"[26] to this - and so scuttled the last mediation attempt completely. He has an immovable bias. Also repeatedly misrepresents consensus regarding mediation process[27], tries to deny (his) agreements "no recollection"[28]; by "interpret[ing] agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith"[29]. He continually misrepresents consensus suggesting "wide consensus'[30] and "problem for one editor only"[31]. Even when Admins/Mediators give proposals for citations (which I agree to), if he interprets them as being in any way 'pro' BDORT he argues ad infinitum to not allow them against the Mediator's efforts [32] [33]. His 'mediation' effort was a sham, for example, requesting no one make unilateral changes, then he making a "unilateral change" (viz his bias). Re the much disputed NZ Tribunal citation, when Che the last mediator (and also the previous mediator) drafted a neutral version of it, I agreed to it without any major problem; the other parties either selectively quote from it or outweigh one quote from it with many to meet their POVs. ALL real mediators have done a great job. The record shows I have gone along with everything they proposed - content and process (occasionally requesting minor adjustments, never blocking). The last mediator CheNuevara I quote as a neutral 3rd party commentator on the situation. This doesn't alter the fact of his extremely useful, patient, neutral, efforts which I respect very much. My bias: I use the BDORT, am convinced it works, I have always said so - my identity is public [34]. That said, I by chance discovered the original entry; an Admin at the time of the first edit wars told me if I truly want a neutral article then WP policies are my friends. I think this true. I want a basic NPOV, no WP:OR,'encyclopedic' informative entry. Even a stub I agreed to. The record shows that I have argued for this. The other parties are blocking this (which they deny). They have teamed up to evade the 3RR rule by out-reverting anyone, including the last Mediator - their strategy to stall and keep this version[35] up at all cost and 'discourse' endlessly while it remains. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks.144.137.15.193 07:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]