Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mr-Natural-Health

Seems User:Mr-Natural-Health (contributions) has decided to take Uncle Ed's friendly advice as some sort of challenge -- see his own talk page before deleting the content, Ed's talk page where he wrote STOP mailing me your retarded comments. and Ed's "watchlist" subpage -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 06:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has admitted that he will vandalize our website even if banned. Please take action immediately. Although many Wikipedia users have privately contacted him over the last few days (see his User page), he has ignored them all, and has publicly threatened to change his ISP address on a regular basis in order to avoid a ban. He also is making remarks about a user's religion, and has repeatedly stated that he will refuse to abide by group consensus. Please see his out of control personal remarks on the Talk:Alternative medicine page and on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. He essentially has made public and explicit admission of intent to committ vandalism on a regular basis. I agree with the other Wikipedia users who have given him warnings on his user page; he needs to be banned. RK 18:45, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has just wrote a series of offensive statements to me on my User page, by admitting that he is a Nazi. He is totally out of control. Can some please ban him, please? This is not only not funny, it is scary. RK 21:47, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

In regards, to Ed_Poor, I the user decide what I want on MY user page *not* Ed Poor.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

People who protect my user page and don't provide e-mail addresses are on the very low end of the ethical spectrum. Websites, like this one, without standard forms of contact, privacy polices, and formalized complaint procedures are at the low end of the quality spectrum. Plain enough?--Mr-Natural-Health 12

15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, email addresses are not an option it is a requirement for proper internet social behavior! User privacy is not an option, it is a requirement! Standard forms of contract through email addresses on a website is not an option, it is a requirement! This form of gossip / mob rule is not only un-social -- it is downright animalistic behavior that belongs to inmates in prison and a pack of wild dogs.

I am going to continue to edit as I see fit. The choice is between doing it all on one account or randomly between several dozen different ISP addresses that I have access to. Any further contact between me and your apes is going to be done the proper way through private email via this website. It is an requirement, not an option.--Mr-Natural-Health 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed some comments towards Ed. Politeness, Mr Natural Health, to be respected here. Muriel Victoria 16:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have no respect for you unless you have earned that respect from me. You have not! You cannot even control the simple edit of a simple article like Alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health This is a polished version by me Muriel Victoria

Mr Natural Health refers to this sentence: "Alternative medicine is about alternative methods of treatment that actually work and not kill people like chemo does" which i removed from the article's introduction. Muriel Victoria 17:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That was a cute edit of mine. Why not, after all? If RK can do his number on it, I can post a perfectly reasonable opinion like that one too. After all, it has just about as much POV in it as the current version of Alternative Medicine does. You would think that in this point in time, doing a simple write up on a top node article would as simple as 1-2-3.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Further, I would like to file a complaint against who every protected my user page. I find it a total outrage. A total violation of my user privacy. These same people don't even provide for private email contact. It seems that I don't like to be violated by a bunch of busy-bodies. And, I am telling YOU that, point blank. If RK don't have to follow the rules, stop crying to me about your pathetic little attempts to control others.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr. NH and I are in a conflict about heroic medicine. He says I edited the article while protected, which I didn't do. In fact, I didn't protect it in the first place. -- Pakaran 08:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that a busy-body is a person who likes to waste time.--Why don't we discuss that issue for six months?--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This user (Mr-Natural-Health) has:

Made few if any useful contributions that I can see in the Wikipedia namespace;
Unnecessarily rude and combative interpersonal interaction habits;
Not made any attempt beyond tantrum to defend his actions

Can we ban him now? (Personally I think that's a good guideline; with any user who fits all three criteria we should be able to just go for it.) (Addendum: we should probably give it a week or so to see if the situation improves, which we've done in this case.)- Hephaestos 17:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, we can't. Only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user, and he has not commented to any extent on Mr-Natural-Health.

There have been about fifteen messages on the list already; perhaps someone should summarize the discussion here, especially as regards Mr. NH's threats to contribute even if blocked, and his "interesting" interpretations of NPOV. I would do so myself, but I am driving back to campus and will be offline until at least 5 PM (eastern). -- Pakaran 20:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The "only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user" comment is not strictly true. Any sysop can ban a logged in user for cases of "simple vandalism" (Jeezis is Lard!, Soilguy2) and secondly, Jimbo has said he doesn't have time to make banning decisions now, so it would presumably be up to the new arbitration committee to make this decision. Also, there have been numerous cases of logged in users being banned without any comment from Jimbo before the event (RK, BuddhaInside), and sometimes no comment after it (Nightcrawler, Chris Jones, Non-liberals are stupid). Angela . 20:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I going for another try... Muriel Victoria 18:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Apparently not very successful... Muriel Victoria 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that disciplinary action needs to be taken against mister healthy food. He doesn't follow any of the wikipedia rules and is therefore is a "simple vandal." While I may not agree with the people who have opposite viewpoints from mister healthy, I think that Mister healthy's views are irrelevant. He could have used other ways of improving the article(and it did have some POV), but instead he resorted to namecalling. He should have been panned prior to this. Alexandros 20:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At times like this, I would just like to add that the people who have responded to this zoo like exhibition of animalistic mob behavior are the ring leaders of the gang of thugs, in this joint.

This is the kind of privacy protection, that my mother warned me about. Do you thugs steal credit card account numbers, too? I vote for this website to be banished from the Internet. :(

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) --Mr-Natural-Health 21:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He wrote the following on RK's Talk page:

Mr-Natural-Health, The German Nazi from New York

RickK 22:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gang of thugs delete:

Suggested changes for when the page becomes unprotected

in talk on how to improve Alternative medicine without it showing up in page history.

Very slick gang of thugs. You are obviously operating at the highest levels of corruption.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

I have a question to pose to you.

I at all did not follow the history of "Mister Natural Health", but something me ennnuie.

You apply to him to accede to the social standards on Wikipédia, and in same time, its personal user page is protected. It cannot thus publish its own page. But, on Wikipédia, the social standard is that the user page of a person is personal, and that each user can do what he wants with.

On the other hand, the social standard is that a user cannot do what he wants with his talk page. In particular, it is requested from the users not to blank their talk page.

Therefore, the standard is "the user page is personal", the "talk page is collective".

Therefore, by protecting the user page from Mr...., the social standards are broken with respect to him. Is this correct?

How to hope that a user respects to him same the social standards if these standards are not respected with respect to him?

As i understand it the user page was protect to stop blanking from Mr Healthy. I believe that people can blank their own pages. But MrNH was blanking repeated attempts to reason, several pleas for not being rude and offensive, etc. He is also in the habit of deleting things and then shout that they are not there. So, in this way, at least he can not say he was not warned (begged) to stop his behaviour. Muriel Victoria 16:09, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- Let him blank it. Put it on his talk page instead. -- Sverdrup 16:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- - If he stops acting like a vandalizing troll, his page will be unprotected. If he is banned, his page will no longer be an issue. Neither has happened yet. - Hephaestos 17:57, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that his user page should not have been protected, but I really don't think that it has anything to do with his poor behaviour, and he should probably be banned, thus ending the contradiction posed above. JackLynch 19:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My quick survey of Wikipedia has revealed that I could write an original article on Individualization, Victim-Blaming, Prevention., Therapeutic Nihilism, Medical Scientism as well as a major re-write of the Biopsychosocial model and something linking the basic sciences to their association to Natural Hygiene movement through the philosophy of Naturalism. But, my warm reception to Wikipedia from my new found friends, seriously has questioned in me the wisdom of spending any more time on this project.--Mr-Natural-Health 13:33, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is now up to YOU!

I have decided that in the future I will only be monitoring the Support for Alternative Medicine section. Supporters of Alternative medicine now have provided 9 general arguments in support of their positions. I will welcome any further improvements made to this section in the future, such as a reference for the social critic Ivan Ilich (perhaps a third party web page or a book reference). The other arguments are clearly articulated and most are well supported with references. I will continue to edit out any further attempts by the opposition to interject their POV into the support section. Personally, I do not care what the opposition writes, just as long as they stay out of the support section. I have not even read through all their criticisms and do not ever intend to do so.

The quality of the writing in the other sections will determine whether or not the public will rate this Alternative medicine article as professionally written or amateurish. Excess verbiage, redundant text, and POV interjected in any section other than support or criticism will only reflect badly upon Wikipedia. I have spent enough of my time editing the other sections.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stuff copied from Conflicts between users 20th Jan 04

User:Rasmus Faber vs. User:Mr.-Natural-Health

Faber is a twenty year old and his juvenile tactics, in Talk:Alternative medicine are extremely offensive to me. To Mr. Faber: Grow up! To Faber and everybody else, STOP moving my comments! I put them precisely where I wanted to them to be. -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is frivolous, not least because Rasmus is right: arguments over the definition of alternative medicine belong on talk:Alternative medicine, not strewn all over the talk pages of related articles. (Perhaps he should have copied your comments instead of moving them, and I don't know why you didn't suggest this perfectly reasonable solution before coming here, but what he did was still correct.) — No-One Jones (talk) 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When I make a personal comment to someone on a talk page, it is none of YOUR business. It is just my opinion, but I am right as usual. What he did was juvenile. And, I guess that your comments indicate another immature juvenile? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Am I alone in finding Mr-Natural-Health' personal abuse of other users both tiresome and indicative of a layer of insecurity? Mr-Natural-Health: please stop abusing and start co-operating. Bmills 14:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suspect you would be alone only in the opposite view. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In case you cannot read, Bmills, personal comments and discussions made by me are none of YOUR business. Please, STOP moving my personal comments and discussions! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As you so far have signally failed to understand, anything posted in public spaces on Wikipedia is everybody's business. Learn to play the game or resign yourself to ultimately losing out. This place is about co-operative creation of an encyclopedia and your little tantrums are much less significant than you appear to believe. Bmills 14:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you don't want others joining a discussion, then don't start it in the middle of the agora. If you want to keep your arguments with Rasmus private, then use talk pages or e-mail. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:36, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: I had hoped to have a constructive discussion with Mr-N-H about the definiton of Alternative Medicine, since we appararently disagree about it. As such a discussion was off-topic on Talk:Evidence-based medicine, I moved the relevant parts to Talk:Alternative medicine and left a note explaining that we continued the discussion there.

Perhaps I should not have deleted it from Talk:Evidence-based medicine, but I felt it was cluttering the discussion there.

As for Mr-N-H not wanting the discussion placed on Talk:Alternative medicine, I do not believe he can refuse it. After all he has accepted the GFDL, when he pressed the "Save page" button, and I do believe that the discussion is relevant to the page. But I hope we can avoid an edit-war on a talk-page.

Finally, I would like to say, that I am honored by the ad-hominem attacks on me. It places me in distinguished company. Thanks!

Rasmus Faber 14:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott vs, User:Mr-Natural-Health

Theresa has stated that I cannot find anything wrong with the following definition:

"Alternative medicine is a broad term for any method of treatment that stand outside the framework of conventional, evidence-based medicine."

Ha, ... Hah, ...Ha! Alternative medicine has always been paired against plain old medicine. But according to Theresa, it now suddenly has to be evidence-based medicine, because plain old medicine is no longer good enough. Where do these people come from? Not one single dictionary definition in any real dictionary uses evidence-base medicine in the definition. Thanks to the Medical Scientism people Alternative medicine has once again become an amateurish production that turns Wikipedia into a public joke. -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr natural health.Please read the guidelines at the top of this page. This page is for conflicts between users. You do youself no credit when you abuse this page like this. I am very happy to discuss the disputed sentence with you over on alternative medicine's talk page. theresa knott 17:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Theresa knott, I am still waiting for you to follow through at Talk:Medical Scientism or was all you talk so much hot air? -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Kosebamse vs, User:Mr-Natural-Health

You cannot develop and improve a perfectly valid article when you are not allowed to edit it. As long as articles like List of Nude Celebrities are allowed. An article on Medical Scientism is perfectly okay. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Kosebamse protected the page because I (and others) repeatedly tried to undo what I (I cannot speak for the others) consider rank insertion of POV material. In which case, I suggest that User:Mr-Natural-Health's problem is really with me. As the article is listed on VfD, I am happy to leave it protected until a decision is reached there. Bmills 15:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. You want to change it then you have to go sentence by sentence, just like everybody else does. Since, you cronies practice your POV medical scientism on a daily basis, you should welcome the opportunity to support it. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We engage in wholesale deletion of text frequently. Copyright violations, vandalism, polemic rants, etc. Could you please point us to the policy that states that one can not remove a whole paragraph that is hopelessly biased? --snoyes 15:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not aware of being in a conflict with MrNaturalHealth. I protected that page to stop an edit war he/she conducted against at least three other Wikipedians. While Medical Scientism may be worth an article, it's not worth wasting the time of others in a fruitless reversion war. Kosebamse 15:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

YOU are in major conflict with me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:40, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. It is not editing. It is vandalism which Kosebamse is now enabling. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Kosebamse has done nothing wrong! It is a sysops job to protect pages in which there is an edit war going on. theresa knott 15:55, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The statement: "Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable" is 100% POV that is being enabled by Kosebamse. Medical Scientism is making the argument that Medical Scientism is not scientific because it stiffles true science. -- Mr-Natural-Health 19:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health

Adam Carr deliberately wrote profanity in Medical Scientism, to-wit: This article has been listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion on the grounds that it is irredeemable crap. Furthermore, Adam has been making a series of POV personal attack statements due to his inability to make a valid argument against Alternative medicine. Adam should learn to grow up and try being more constructive for a change. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:23, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Troll-baiting is one of my little hobbies. I'm sorry if Mr Quacko is offended. Adam 07:37, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Adam has been making a series of POV personal attack statements. . . Adam should learn to grow up and try being more constructive"

(insert hearty chuckles here) Mr. (crack)Pot, meet Mr. Kettle! NPOV only applies to articles, you know (or perhaps you don't, as all the complaints below would suggest), and Adam ought to be commended, not chastised, for trying to protect Wikipedia from obsessive cranks. &mdash No One Jones (talk) 08:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I don't agree. My assumption has been that users are listed here in order to resolve the conflicts between them. I don't see how User:Adam Carr's "troll-baiting" is helping that along. - Scooter 01:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam is now engaging in wholesale deletion of meaningful text. His tactics are anti-Wikipedian. I am not bannished from, Wikipedia but Adam clearly should be. I will continute, to reverse Wholesale deletion of meaningful text done by Adam and his cronies. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was not me who deleted all your junk from the article - I listed it for deletion. Others are trying to create a NPOV article from your mass of polemic. I wish them well but I am not optimistic. And it's a bit rich accusing me of anti-Wikipedianism when you do nothing at Wikipedia except post grossly polemical and unencyclopeadic rants which you know will be deleted. You're entitled to your opinions (thpugh I'd like to see what happens to them when you get acute appendicitis), but don't pretend that you give a toss about Wikipedia. Adam 14:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MNH just blanked Talk:Medical Scientism. I reverted, naturally. This would seem to indicate that he has no desire to talk about the page, so deleting it should be uncontroversial. --snoyes 14:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just blanked it out becuase because some @#$%^&* just destroyed it by duplicating the an improved verson of Medical Scientism on it. I am not going to wast my time on a talk page that was intentionally rendered un-editable. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That was me :-) please dont call me names, it's not nice. I put your version on the talk page so that we could discuss it line by line if necessary without getting into an edit war on the article itself. Adding stuff to a talk page does not make it unreadable, blanking the page OTOH does. theresa knott 16:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health

RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine. I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine. RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine. Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine. RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RK's rants unsupported by references to web pages, citations to research, or books are worst than ever. When will RK's antics stop? I will correct whatever damage RK does to Alternative medicine. How about a little more professionalism, RK, in editing these articles? -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:56, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. This is basically incorrect, and may be the root cause of some of this conflict. An article about a perfectly legal subject, or a perfectly illegal one, for that matter, should not be in favor or in opposition to it. It should be neutral; that is the meaning of NPOV. Describe what it is, describe the balance of current thought about the subject, whether for, against, or otherwise, and move on. Advocacy has no place in an encyclopedia. - Scooter 19:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The bigotry of medical scientism has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:25, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - By extension, would you argue that science has no place in an encyclopedia? Bmills 14:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Touché! True science is dynamic, not static. Encyclopedias are static. Ergo you can not have science in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, medical scientism is a false religion. It is simply wrong. There is more than one way of science. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard such a ridicuous argument! Mr Natuaral health you need to cool down, because you seem to be letting you emotions lead you into arguing silly things. May i make a suggestion ? Quit wikipedia for a week. You'll quickly find that a time away will settle you mind, and when you come back you can work with other editors to create neutral articles that are neither pro or against alternative medicine, but simple describes it, presents all opinions, and lets the reader make up their own mind. theresa knott 12:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Medical scientism people are so dated in their view points and ignorant of what the facts are and the latest research findings that their comments are often very amusing, if not sad. -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The biggest crock of bull being fostered by medical scientism people is that double-blind and peer reviewed, and peer-replicated, studies, are required in order to legitimize findings. Why? Because their teacher at school told them so! It is simply a form of bigotry used to promote the job security and income of people with basic science degrees. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Despite my comments on RK above, he is right on this one. The Alternative medicine article is a mass of unscientific rubbish. I doubt that RK is the right person to fix it though, given his diplomatic skills. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The only thing that needs correcting is the grossly out of date viewpoints and total lack of the actual facts by the medical scientism people. The latest round of tweaking/vandalism by the science geeks is quite pathetic! -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

I would actually agree that there is no requirement that a given argument (in the sense of a logical construct) or viewpoint on Wikipedia be "scientific", even in the context of an otherwise scientific article - provided that it is presented with NPOV; in other words, only the undisputed facts (probably worded similarly to, "The Council on Non-scientific Medicine believes that...") should be given. Thus, the article should contain these views, scientific or not. However, there is an overriding consideration: the user in question has out-and-out stated his intention to inject his extreme POV into the article on more than one occasion. I would like to suggest some possible solutions for this problem: first, the user should please read up on Wikipedia:NPOV and apply it, preferably on a subject about which he may be truly neutral, such as auto racing or a recent movie or somesuch, as practice. Failing any basic willingness to follow these guidelines, Mr-Natural-Health should cease editing on Wikipedia and work on his own Web page, which perhaps could be linked as a representative example of his opinion. At the very least, and on a more personal note: Mr-Natural-Health should stop doing damage to his own cause. I'm inclined to believe that there is something to many alternative medical methods, but his persistant baseless ranting is causing me to re-evaluate many of these ideas. - Scooter 07:43, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ecuse me, Scooter, but the only people here with a perverse need to interject their loony POV's into Alternative medicine are the totally out of date science people. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is not germane to what I was speaking of. If others are inserting POV, they too are wrong, and that should be dealt with separately. Regardless, they are not the only ones. The point is that you are using POV. You have stated your intention to do so in as many words on separate occasions, by saying "An article...called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it," and "...you cannot have science in an encyclopedia." This is directly against what is mandated in Wikipedia:NPOV. I can't speak for others, but for me, the content of what you say isn't the main problem; your presentation - and the way you present counterarguments - is. In fact, I would support removing your multiple mentions from this list, if you would simply agree to the following statement: "I have read Wikipedia:NPOV, and agree to abide strictly by its dictates from this point forward in all articles that I write on Wikipedia, and in every situation, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject matter." If you can truthfully agree to and apply that statement, I'll personally contact the mods and ask for you to be removed from this list. - Scooter 01:09, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page

Mr-Natural-Health deleted the content of this page, and indicated that he will continue to do so. He wrote on my Talk page:

Excuse me Troll, but adding material is not moving matieral. I will delete anything that they added that was not moved. Just thought that a Troll like you might want to know. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RickK 04:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from wikipedia:requests for arbitration

some time ago

I think the following is more presentation of evidence than a request to join the proceeding and probably ought not to be put into the page:

Though not a "victim" of one of these personal attacks, I am concerned with Mr Natural Health's ability to understand the idea of co-operative article editing. The following quotes from Talk:Alternative medicine illustrate what I mean. When do you get to decide when my last edit was not an improvement: NEVER! I shall repeat it yet again. That is exactly how it looked a week or so ago. Amateurish presentations of material have no place on Wikipedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:23, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) and As stated elsewhere, my latest edits are *always* improvements and your one-way or the highway attitude of Medical Scientism is both juvenile and offensive to me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:16, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC). This inability to accept that others might be able to "improve" an article that he has worked on makes Mr NH extremely difficult to work with. I hope he will now come here and answer the concerns being raised in a useful way. Bmills 13:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But it is evidence. If he is not to post it here, then where? Wikipedia:Arbitration-In the Matter of Mr. Natural Health?Fred Bauder 14:00, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As the original poster of the above on the RfA page, I have removed it. I was considering joining in this process, but I consider Mr NH a troll and am exercising a don't feed the trolls policy instead, preferring to expend my time and energy on some new articles I have in mind and some general housekeeping. Also, I am clearly not predisposed to be open to him, given what I just said, so I would most likely be a poor participant anyway. I will, however, watch with interest. I think that all evidence needs a location and your suggestion seem good. Bmills 14:10, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel you don't want to take part. From my point of view the more people involved the more likely that all relavent evidence comes to the attention of the arbitration committee. I intend to present as much as i can but I might miss something. Still you can always post relavent things on my talk page for me to present instead. I think having a separate page as Fred suggeasted a good idea. theresa knott 14:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in evidence of the multitude of personal attacks made by MNH, they can visit user:snoyes/sandbox. --snoyes 14:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the Matter of Mr Natural Health

Mister Natural Health and Theresa Knott failed to reach an accommodation through mediation. Despite early signs that a mediation could have productively been embarked upon, Mister Natural Health has now indicated that he insists on moving directly to arbitration. This leaves very little room for mediation. On behalf of the mediation committee, I can but regret this case of affairs and wish the arbitration committee good luck in their task. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 01:45, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mr Natural health has made numerous personal attacks to members of the wikicommunity. He refuses to work with people. He has admitted to trolling. He lists people on conflicts between users all the time even when they are not in conflict with him. He write derogatory comments in page summaries. I would like the arbitration comittee to force him to be polite, cooperative and and unoffensive. theresa knott 11:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The issue for arbitration, here, has been narrowly defined by Theresa Knott and myself, Mr-Natural-Health. It is a result of my request to Jussi-Ville Heiskanen for the request for mediation filed by Theresa Knott be split up into two separate issues.

Theresa Knott requested mediation, to-wit:

"I would like the mediation committee to see if they can perseude [sic] user:Mr-Natural-Health to work with myself and many other users on alternative medicine and a number of related articles. In any situation where Mr NH has disagreed with anyone else, he starts dishing out insults, listing out names on conflicts between users and reverting out work. theresa knott 20:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)"

I, Mr-Natural-Health, requested to Jussi-Ville Heiskanen that:

A)the issue of "alternative medicine and a number of related articles" continue to be resolved by mediation, while

B)the alleged "conflicts between users" narrowly defined to work on "alternative medicine and a number of related articles" be resolved directly by arbitration; so that the historical facts can speak directly for themselves.

No other issues were raised by Theresa Knott in her above cited request for mediation.

Furthermore, as I responded to Ms. Knott's request for mediation, I am requesting relief on the "conflicts between users" noted in my response to Theresa Knott above cited request for mediation as well, to-wit:

A)that User:David Gerard made an improper request to have Alternative medicine protected because David (1)reverted Off-topic POV comments, that were written by another user, in the research design sub-section, (2)declared that there was an edit war when in fact none existed, and (3)then had Alternative medicine protected.

1)There was an edit war.2)David didn't have the page protected. David requested the page protected. It was down to the sysop involved to decide if the page really needed protecting. The sysop concerned ( I beleive it was mav) then protected the page.

B) that a yet to be identified user moved Mr-Natural-Health's Wikipedia:Conflicts between users conflicts to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Mr-Natural-Health, while this yet to be identified user clearly added a lot of material from elsewhere which was not from my conflicts listed on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. Further, the yet to be identified user put my conflicts on the very bottom of this page so that visitors to it would first have to page through a lot of unrelated garbage before they could see the actual list of conflicts.

I can clear that issue up straight away. I moved the conflicts to that page. The other stuff on that page was already there left over from conflicts that you were having with others back in deccenber and earlier. A number of different people have been having problems with you for quite a while, so I put all those conflicts in one place so that everyone could see. theresa knott 19:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In short, I have only consented to the above narrowly defined issues for both mediation and arbitration. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)