Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter morrell

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 07:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Peter morrell consistently and fairly continually attacks any editors who come to the Homeopathy-related articles from any viewpoint other than total support. This makes editing problematic, even for editors committed to neutrality. 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome[edit]

It would be preferred if he could simply agree to be civil, and work with others. He's knowledgeable about the subjects, if not perhaps that good at phrasing himself in ways that laymen could understand, and if he'd be willing to work with others a bit better he could be a valuable resource.

Otherwise, probably have to look at some sort of ban.

Description by [censored username] - see WP:VANISH[edit]

About a year ago, I did a few AfDs on some POV-forks and articles written by the subject of the article which related to Homeopathy, as well as some editing. I'll describe it more at the end, but it doesn't involve Peter much.

A few weeks ago, Filll asked me, because of my work last year, if I could offer any advice on the Homeopathy article. This made me have another look at the series of articles. One, Drug dynamization was particularly bad, with unreadable writing, lack of context, and strong POV-pushing, so I suggested we combine it and another low-context article into a new article that would give the context, salvaging what could be salvaged. This was seconded, and I did what I could to try and make a layman-readable article. This involved some rather severe cuts, but all the cut text, sans maybe a couple sentences, existed in the history of articles that got changed to redirects, as there was a lot of duplication, and the redirection could easily be reverted.

Peter responded a bit later, after I, bolstered by the seconding, was bold and did it. Realise that at this time I had had nothing to do with him for about a year.

I'm afraid I do mind. It is much better and more reasonable to revise a pre-existing article than to simply delete whole swathes of stuff because one editor or another does not have any knowledge of this subject and so is pig ignorant, which is exactly what vandal cuerden did with a host of bios and other stuff some months back. This is outright vandalism. I find his cavalier and abrasive attitude completely out of place and do not trust his edits. He knows nothing about this subject, wants to see it destroyed and has a cynical disregard for the useful content of these articles. His comments and serious interefering with articles such as vithoulkas amount to nothing more than deliberate vandalism. He should be banned from editing anything outside his main areas of knowledge, if he has any. Can we please have the drug dynamization article back?

If that was the end of it, it would be one thing. However, the consensus was against him, leading to more and grander attacks. Admittedly, it seems he didn't at the time know about the history tab [1] However, even after it was explained to him, he continued his attacks. Here's from just this morning:

Talking of 'reflecting reality,' let's get you to start telling the truth, Adam: in truth, you hate homeopathy and have been on a crusade to destroy these artciles, haven't you? you and your pro-science ilk equate homeopathy as a deviant evidence-free belief system akin to creationism, which is really quite laughable. They are very different beasts, laddie. All your previous wiki crimes have been aimed at destroying homeopathy and poking fun at those decent people who use it, study it and endorse it. Why don't you just come clean and admit what your game is? then we can all know forsure out in the open what your unpleasant little mind games with other editors since about february have been all about. Otherwise all your longwinded carping on about spurious definitions and POV are meaningless trash. Homeopathy is a subject with its own right to exist without science freaks like you crawling all over it; get over it and find something else to whinge about. Meantime, what are your personal goals with this article, Filll? reveal all. Peter morrell 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sorry series of attacks will be in the evidence below, but I think that these two are enough to get a flavour. He has also attacked Filll, and various others.

As for the background... About a year ago, the Homeopathy articles were a huge mess. One editor had, a few months previously, spun off three POV-forks from the Homeopathy article These articles were ostensibly on subdivisions of Homeopathy, but actually consisted largely of the main homeopathy article of the time stripped of all critical statements, particularly Classical homeopathy, as I recall. In an effort to clean it up, I put them up for AfD, and they were redirected to the main article as a result of this (with the understanding that it would be reasonable to have an article on the subject later, but not a POV fork of the main article.) There were a few other AfDs, notably of homeopaths, since a lot of the articles on homeopaths had clearly been written by the subjects themselves. Some of them were, however, notable, so salvage efforts went underway, then there was this huge annoyance when George Vithoulkas sent dozens of meatpuppets to Wikipedia... After a while, I moved on, checking th e pages occasionally to remove vandalism and POV-pushing, but not really editing there much.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Peter's first attack
  2. Second and third attacks on Talk:Homeopathy, with reminder of WP:NPA
  3. "Can you please restore the drug dynamization article to wiki? that means revert the vandal's work. If not, then I am not cooperating any further and the only one with any actual knowledge of this subject will leave so think about it. There is no need to do massive dramatic deletions of that kind it just pisses soff and leads to the kind of edit wars he really enjoys. check his record."
  4. Attacks, followed by revealation he doesn't understand the history tab. Had this been the end of it, I'd have been fine.
  5. Fourth and fifth attacks on Talk:Homeopathy, happening after we explained the history tab to him.
  6. Snippy message to Filll
  7. Attack on Orangemarlin
  8. "How can you reconcile your alleged goal of 'a set of readable articles' with requests from 'certain quarters' to define every single term that are perfectly standard terms within homeopathy by PEER REVIEWED jnls? what? this is nuts. peer reviewed by whom? as I have said many times, homeopathy is a subject in its own right that does not need to apologise for its existence or doff its cap to science zealots. Anyone who reads the article will see the terms and can then find standard definitions of those terms anywhere on the web...or you can build into the article links to such defintions..."

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. TenOfAllTrades, two days ago, before the last few attacks
  2. Warning in response to attack on Orangemarlin
  3. The history tab discussion, in which I try to make amends. Adam Cuerden talk 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  2. As stated above, I attempted to make peace at the direct request of some administrators. I remained concerned about the NPOV of the article, but I did not wish to engage in an edit war. Peter did turn from uncivil to civil with me, and I did the same with him, but it appeared that he really felt ownership of the article. His personal attack on Adam was inappropriate, and it is with a heavy heart I endorse this RfC. My hope is that Peter turns from attacking anyone who might disagree with his POV, to a more compromising method of discussion. Orangemarlin 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Peter has the potential to be a good resource for the article on homeopathy, but has significant problems working with editors who disagree with him. This is not limited solely to homeopathy - he has a history of editing from a strong anti-science POV and often (but not always) reacts negatively when others object to his edits. Skinwalker 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's not just users that disagree with him. Users like Filll who try to accommodate, and work with him, he treats in an arrogant and condescending manner. ornis (t) 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep, agree. Shot info (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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.

I have placed an apology on Adam's user page about what has been construed as my uncivil behaviour. I regard that behaviour to have mostly stemmed from his dramatic edits and the fact that I did not realise that edits are always reversible, that stuff is still there even though it has gone from the current version of the article. I do not approve of unnegotiated and dramatic editing that completely ignores a consensus. Nor do I believe such edits are in the best spirit of wikipedia. Maybe I am alone in thinking that. However, I have also agreed to be as civil as I can in future, to Adam & to all other editors. I agree with some of the stuff written here about me, but not all of it, and much of it is taken out of context. There is a regrettably hostile atmosphere surrounding the homeopathy article because of the very strong views for or against which it seems to attract. I promise to try and be a good boy from now on! Peter morrell 13:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{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:

  1. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we can make a fresh start, I'm happy. Adam Cuerden talk 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abridged talk 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

Abridged[edit]

I do think that Peter has been uncivil, but everyone involved in recent editing on the homoeopathy page has been as well. I am suprised to find Peter singled out for this kind of censure. I feel he is being ganged up on. Abridged talk 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Wikidudeman[edit]

Having been browsing the articles talk pages I can say that Peter definitely has been rude and disruptive generally, definitely more so than any other editors of such pages. I don't see this as "ganging up" on anyone and is a legitimate objection to Peter's edits. I believe that Peter should immediately cease the personal attacks and start assuming good faith or else the article in question as well as related articles won't have a chance at progressing anytime soon. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse ~ Wikihermit 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse --Filll 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse Shot info (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Vickers[edit]

I like all the people involved in this dispute a great deal and have worked well with both Peter and Adam. I have also worked on the Homoeopathy page in the past, but haven't been keeping up with it recently. My impression of Peter is that his is a very knowledgeable editor with strong and highly-unusual opinions. He has a rather quick temper, but never bears a grudge with people he has disagreed with in the past. He has a worldview that is unique in my experience - non-molecular, holistic and strongly spiritual. The fact that he will always be in a minority in discussions makes it easy for him to feel "ganged up on" by more reductionist and scientifically-mainstream editors such as myself.

The challenge for the editors involved in this dispute is to reach a compromise where Peter's deep knowledge of homoeopathy can be used to add detailed content, while not giving his strong and unusual opinions undue weight. This does not involved calling the subject that the articles describe "junk" or "garbage", but recognising that it is a complex and controversial subject with a long history that deserves a clear and well-referenced discussion.

It would be easy to write and reference an article saying that homoeopathy is unsupported by modern medical science, theoretically-impossible and practically no different from placebo - that is my opinion of "the truth". However, Wikipedia does not decide on "the truth", instead it aims to give an accurate and verifiable description of a subject and the beliefs and practices involved. Peter is a great resource in achieving this.

As for specific advice for the participants, I encourage Peter to recognise where these conflicts come from and develop ways of avoiding situations where he is liable to lose his temper - particularly methods of de-escalating arguments and focussing on the text, rather then becoming personal. I would also advise Adam and Orangemarlin to try to see these conflicts from Peter's point of view and avoid any appearance of a disparaging attitude towards unusual viewpoints, which should also help avoid conflict in the future. Tim Vickers 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Filll 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adam Cuerden talk 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Peter morrell 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse would like to see Peter encouraged to see things from experienced editors perspective, not the other way round. Shot info (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Collins[edit]

I have read the Evidence of disputed behavior, and I would characterise the contributions of Peter Morrell as not being constructive, not clarifying the discussion, nor are they phrased to persuade other people in a friendly way. Rather I perceive Peter Morell's contributions as an attempt to assert authority or establish a position of superiority over other users with the objective of advancing his own opinion or point of view. He seems to have created and esclated differences of opinion by using language that was likely to appear disparaging to other editors, and the Evidence suggests it is possible that he did so deliberately. In my opinion, the complaint of [censored username] is not only justified, but also that action should be taken to ban Peter Morrell from Wikipedia for the breaches of policies and guidelines stated above. --Gavin Collins 09:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse, with conditions - I would not like to see Peter banned inasmuch as he needs to realise that we are editing an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. If he fails to recognise this (including the fact that he is often "at war" with editors with more experience) then sanctions will apply. Fortunately it appears (far above) that he is starting to realise the errors of his ways. Shot info (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell&oldid=1142569670"