Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

TheNautilus (talk · contribs · logs)

NOTE - This user is an alternate account of User:I'clast

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

Statement of the dispute

TheNautilus has pushed a fringe point of view through tendentious editing in the articles on various branches of alternative medicine for a long time. In doing so, he has ignored consensus, objected to reliable sources because he thinks they are "wrong", and been unable to understand or apply our NPOV policy.

Desired outcome

I would like this user to work within consensus and accept that the article is going to report what reliable sources say on the subject, rather than what he happens to believe is true.

Description

TheNautilus objected strongly to the inclusion of criticism of "orthomolecular medicine" in the lead of the article. An article RfC showed a clear consensus for the simple statement that such criticism has been made, rather than his preferred formulation of attributing this to "oppononents and partisans". Similarly, this user objected to the use of the American Medical Association as a source in the lead to show the mainstream position on orthomolecular medicine, and objected to this even being discussed on the RS noticeboard (link to discussion).

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

Fails to understand verifiability policy

diff States that sources must follow "Verification of factuality, not merely verification of printing."
diff States that "These points cite WP:V failures, of your nominally RS sources, when flawed sources have to yield (or modify) to facts."
diff Says of the medical textbook Cancer medicine "however authoritative the book may be on conventional treatments, it is *not* very authoritative on OMM".

Rejects attempts to reach consensus

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

Confuses an NPOV with a sympathetic POV

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

diff I try to discuss this on his userpage.
diff User:Fyslee brings up similar concerns about ownership and lack of understanding of policies.
diff User:Jefffire tries to explain WP:V
diff User:WhatamIdoing also tries to explain the NPOV policy

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

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