Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Place evidence regarding the allegations in The Matter of User:Irismeister (see Wikipedia:Matter of Irismeister), a matter listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration here. It is very helpful to the arbitration committee if any material referenced is accompanied by a link back to an original document which demonstrates the point.

Iridology article[edit]

  • The iridology article before the major revision by User:DavidWBrooks [[1]
  • Revision by User DavidWBrooks [2]
  • # (My dear fellow Wikipedian, use good old polite habits: let people FINISH their own articles before you cut! ARGUE what you have to say or do, DOCUMENT your acts, use COMPETENCE and PROFESSIONALISM!) Comment by User:Irismeister January 21, 2004 [[3]
  • A request to reduce the amount of jargon in the article [4], or at least to provide explanations or wikilinks to other articles, elicited this response [5]

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • Your honors, I am unable to retrieve from Wiki iridology edit logs earlier than 2004, February 10 [49] What I find here on the spot is [6]: Needs more efforts. Good luck, fab :) which I maintain is hardly a non-collegial injunction. Should the record not appear on Wiki again, [7] I will have to ask my lawyers to retrieve the earlier page edits from a trusted third party they used for purposes of conserving all evidence.
  • I can however point to an interesting double pattern right now:
  • The first is hindering evidence by eliciting false edit wars. The very section of this page - while I prepared detailed answers to the false allegations I am subjected to - was deleted and spuriously reparsed ten minutes ago. But the most obvious instantiation of this pattern is the history of iridology edits: page was resting calmly for weeks - but the very moment I started adding one word, two different editors, fabiform and theresa jumped in so that I couldn't possibly write - a tactic reminiscent of filibuster.
  • The second is mixing evidence - cutting and redistributing material from the pages where it was contributed, to several locations so that retrieval of evidence becomes a difficult process. Retrieval is not difficult, due to the temporal cross sections of this interesting case, in the trusted third party used for the record. I can again see this pattern on the panicked response by fabiform ten minutes ago - PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE - Thank you - irismeister 19:25, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Thank you :O) I will address this immediately - irismeister 20:23, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Disinfectant article[edit]

  • (STOP calling me a lier or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours !) [11]

Irismeister responds[edit]

This was the record of the edit war in the disinfectant talk page, assorted as it were with intense correspondence between Theresa, fabiform and Jrosenzweig, followed by intense destruction of the evidence on their talk page, despite my collegial request not to do that, or, alternatively, to stop once and for ever writing about me in public lier, assorted by an offer of decency and peace. What I received was something like - there will never be peace until you (me) stop spamming ? with my link:


  • (I cannot physically "spam" and article which is protected. Your obsession in proving others wrong blinds your critical judgement, and as you see, does not brings you service. I frankly invite you to cool down, think twice, apologize, and we'll live happily everafter. Sincerely, - irismeister 23:27, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)) Theresa addressing Plautus [12] (Do you think it acceptable that irismeister lied) Also lier in countless interventions on the respective talk pages, Theresa and Jrosenzweigh, the evidence was destroyed by the authors, with fuzzy comments since this is blatantly against good Wiki habits.
  • The definition of libel is simple, and comes from the Wiki trusted, NPOV source:
Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.

Reflexology article[edit]

  • Removal of edit by Teresa Knott [13]

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • What I can find above is only a continuing slander and libel about Irismeister is a problem user - which is in my view and if anything, NOT a way to address newbies, to set examples of collegial behavior or to reinforce the always assume good will policy. Not evidence - not to be received - irismeister 19:36, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

User:Irismeister/wipe syndrome[edit]

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • What is this ? An article I wrote two days ago, on the iridology talk page, in preparation of the iridology case. It was instantly moved from there by Uncle Ed on an unknown location, only to appear, as a malevolent, stand alone page, with edits which are not recognized by the trusted third party. Two issues arise here:
  • A pattern of panicked movements of evidence around Wiki - with modifications in the text during the cut-and-paste sessions, so that evidence might be hard to retrieve.
  • A pattern of using post hoc as evidence. Arbitration was started before the WIPE syndrome was described by me in writing. So, if anything, this section is evidence against the accuser, and in favor of the WIPE syndrome as described. - irismeister 19:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

During the legal procedures, I will only address the perpetrators of persitent, aggravated libel and slander against me in the presence of trusted third parties, complete with proofs of removal of time stamps and signatures - which are widely recognized as the golden standard of gathering and maintaining evidence in a trusted repository. - irismeister 19:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Previous complaints[edit]

Irismeister responds[edit]


I would like to make a point: In the process of altering evidence of my case, as much as 90% of it is lost and the rest of the 10% was misinserted on purpose. This is a process of destroying evidence reminiscent of how DNA and some RNA viruses work: They insert their own genome into the host genome, using reverse transcriptase so they become obligatory parasytes. Viajero allegedly "moved" [16] the section of Theresa and Iris "conflict" to /Irismeister as stated here - [17] (where is that ?). The landing page was really "found" to be this one -[18] "only 90% thinner". I had to manually retrieve [19] the history section, verify it, and reinsert it from the Conflict page history, as it should have been done by Viajero in the first place. With such evident disinformation and deletion of evidence, one could not overstate the fact that clearly, a trusted third party repository, complete with time stamps MUST assist legal solutions. Such legal solutions concerning very weird Wiki "editing" habits include the outstanding case: It appears that all those who persistently libel me or only help the perpetrators of libel now alter evidence in panick and a spurious hope that truth will be not known - irismeister 20:19, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Threatening lawsuits (1)[edit]

[20] Threatening user:theresa knott with libel charges. Also in the edit summary here:

  • 00:27, 23 Feb 2004 Talk:Disinfectant (STOP calling me a lier or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours !)

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • This was explained above - irismeister 20:45, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC) under the iridology section

Threatening lawsuits (2)[edit]

[21] Given the discussion on that page and on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister, this edit was perceived by User:Jwrosenzweig as a strongly implied threat of legal action against him.

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • Perceptions are not threats. Defamation in public is. A statement of fact concerning legal procedures is not a threat, but a matter of fact, an information provided bona fide so that the perpetrators of libel might get a chance to organize their defense. Sadly, following bona fide information, the only action that appeared on record was removal of evidence from the talk pages -
  • Theresa here [22] (Statements of fact are never menaces, but statements of fact (much unlike libel which is a malevolent misrepresentation in writing) or here [23] despite my collegial request not to do that, here [24] (I do talk to people who threaten me with nutcase" insults and libel me every day)
  • Jwrosenzweig here [25] despite my collegial request not to do that, here [26]
  • fabiform here [27] or here [28] despite my collegial request not to do that, here [29], (Cutting inconvenient things against freedom of speech is a counter-productive measure called censorship)etc, etc.

Threatening lawsuits (3)[edit]

Also, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Irismeister, "Note for both Theresa and Jwrosenwweigh - my lawyers have all the necessary data, so please relax. If you did nothing wrong in terms of libel and disinformation, then perhaps, like myself, you will have nothing to fear in the immediate future."

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • I maintain that statements of fact are not menaces, malevolent misinterpretation is a menace, and indeed, those who never insulted anyone in public have nothing to fear. Evidence for this position is traditional in my own culture, a culture of truth. It is probably stated at best as such:

„Românii acceptă toate suferinţele, dar ei nu vor accepta niciodată nedreptatea“. (Nicolae Titulescu)

Romanians may accept unspeakable suffering, but they will never accept unjustice. - Nicolae Titulescu (minister of foreign affairs, president of the League of Nations in late 1920s and early 1930s)

Rude comments and personal attacks[edit]

edit summaries[edit]

(can all be found in Irismeister's contributions)

  • (Medical information got right (Baby-watching Theresa as a service to the Wiki community)) 15:24, 7 Feb 2004 Mycobacterium leprae
  • (Dilution factor is 1:5 so one part bleach in FOUR parts water (Theresa is a dangerous ignorant)) 14:41, 7 Feb 2004 Sodium hypochlorite
  • (Removing irrelevant link, correcting bad grammar, bad information, bad taste - again, and again (part three in one thousand : ) Theresa, baby here I am baby-sitting : )) 11:18, 3 Feb 2004 Iridology
  • (Theresa is a paragon of POV, a cut-and-paste addict, a thought police officer and a very poor typist.) 21:13, 27 Jan 2004 Talk:Iridology/archive3
  • (Di-vided means Di-something, Theresa dear. Why do you jump from six grade English to postdoctoral ?) 18:29, 27 Jan 2004 Iridology
  • (Theesa dear, your stubborn attitude in cutting out Wikified material is excessive. So is your blahblah-per-authoring factor.) 14:13, 27 Jan 2004 Iridology
  • (Ther is no German dominance you POVvy addict : ) Repeat after me: P - O - V , pee oou vee : )) 18:21, 25 Jan 2004 Iridology
  • (Fixed a few grotesque homework errors and edited out POVs, mostly from uninformed fellows. Please do not remove historical data according to your POV - we all lose time in the process. Thank you!) 20:07, 24 Jan 2004 Iridology

Irismeister responds[edit]

I beleive the above evidence has no merit whatsoever. Indeed,

How does that compare with such "impersonal" attacks "not at all rude" as (complete list available upon request):

01. Irismeister Bully 02. Irismeister Bullshit (sic) - contributor 03. Irismeister's Bullshit (sic) - insertion (sic) 04. Irismeister Dude 05. Irismeister Full of s*** all the time 06. Irismeister Quack 07. Irismeister Semiliterate 08. Irismeister Sexist, etc. etc.

If anything, I have always addressed issues first. By the very standards of the above mentioned perpetrators of libel against me, I also used a colloquial form of interpersonal communication, for the benefits of friendship, collegial editing, and humor ( a terrible weapon, admitted, but only of mass instruction)

By the unsollicited kind and personal communication I received from newbies in the reflexology contributions, no one was hurt. In conclusion, I maintain that disinformation, and libel hurts, is rude and indeed a personal attack on the quality of our common work in Wiki much more than friendly tit-for-tat which compares to libel against a practicing medical doctor as a smile compares with weapons of mass destruction. - irismeister 20:58, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

talk:reflexology[edit]

Reflexology was being written by a group of newbies. Irismeister's first few comments on the article:

This stub is incredibly puerile. It reads like a DIY manual, has no encyclopedic value, uses the second person, keeps referring to Hong Kong for obscure reasons or POVs, and the thinking behind it could be tremendously improved. Also the English used is less than basic and sometimes inintelligible. I suggest a complete re-writing by a competent editor. [30]

Irismeister later commented: Please apologize me if some other editors on this page made it look like a personal critic. It surely wasn't, and I am glad you came back. You did a great job! ... irismeister 09:48, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC) - [31] on Talk:Reflexology

Irismeister responds[edit]

By the unsollicited kind and personal communication I received from newbies in the reflexology contributions, no one was hurt. In conclusion, I maintain that disinformation, and libel hurts, is rude and indeed a personal attack on the quality of our common work in Wiki much more than friendly tit-for-tat which compares to libel against a practicing medical doctor as a smile compares with weapons of mass destruction. - irismeister 20:59, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

talk:iridology[edit]

snippets from Talk:Iridology/archive1
  • For dummies network authoring miniseries part one of ten : Focus
  • Hello, and welcome to For dummies network authoring miniseries part one of ten. I'm irismeister - the author of most of iris-related, PION-related, you-name-it-related articles in Wiki. I will share with you some of my 30-year-strong experience in the subject, as well as a number of others, including authoring, editing, directing, redirecting and exemplifying. [continues for several paragraphs]
  • So the sclera and the conjunctiva are not colored. Per Christum, why do I lose my time with sixth-graders ? Go back to cutting stuff for a change, authoring is complicated even in its network flavor ! Grrr !
  • Rubbish ! Get an education ! How do you know that my friend ? What are your documents, facts, references for such an allegation ?
  • Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish - offensive racist discriminatory white-supremacist blah-blah.
from Talk:Iridology/archive2
  • How would ya' know, shouldy honey ? Now you're coming to mamma to learn something, then you tell her what she should teach you. Na na, not good : )
  • Na na, it's much more simple to use the potty mummy brought to you. Caca de vaca elsewhere
  • About what, baby ? Revealing the blatant incompetence in would-be competent peers is not a POV, never a personal attack and always saves everybody's time ! To say nothing about lives ! For medical articles, my fellows, like medicine as a whole, is - please repeat after me - that territory where if you are in-com-pe-tent, no matter how hard you try, you may bring suffering, death and - read Primum non nocere as a new homework- lots of sor-row.
  • The ordeal I have to pass through, while I baby-sit you, my dear, needs a good laugh now and then. It mandates it or I will die of boredom. With adult entertainment such as this one you provide us all not being my main concern while I teach you the basics, baby, please bear with me that by the end of these archive pages you will at least go to part three of ten of my mini-series !
  • I see no reason to continue medical, anatomical, historical or even basic English training here for incompetent editors. It's a such loss of everybody's time. We are heading nowhere, my friends. You simply are not competent enough. And really stubborn, reluctant to learn anything.
  • Like babies, they only feel the urge to show mammmma the potttttty they filllllled soooo welllll. Good boys, good work !
  • Potty potty is now fully fully. I will not embarrass you any more, baby, with my baby-sitting corrections. Enough is enough ! Get an education then come back here to do articles people could use more than toilet paper!
  • Not that you don't work, but it's hopeless mediocrity that you increase in the process.
  • Mamma commends you on the potty ! Now put it back where mamma can wash it properly !
  • I certainly do not crush you! I only very, very, carefully train you, baby ! The gentle, patient, compassionate way! Using my time and my energy which could be better used in more Wiki articles ! So, if anything, you should be honored !

Again from archive 2:

irismeister insulting fabiform:

"Hi, honey ! You know, as I said before, it's becoming tiring to continue with vox clamantis in deserto with people needing basic training so badly and knowing NOTHING about whatever they are so busy editing. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not toilet training. Please, before you do a non-trivial edit in the future discuss it on the talk page. Major edits without discussion will be reverted. Bravo for already doing so and catching the good habit to refer to specific items. That's a great leap forward for you! However, considering that you already were neighboring the precipice, not bravo for taking my time with silly questions, but why should I complain ? Let's go back to toilet training:"

from Talk:Iridology/archive3
  • If you don't have patience, and ALWAYS jump in to cut what I didn't finished writing, you'll NEVER get the chance to learn something. Including manners. Behave like a grown-up !
  • Now ye'all naughty pupils stop reading this and go back to the iridology page - I let you some homework to do.
  • Do you want your mamma wolf to feed you with already digested stuff ?
  • In the mean time let me write the article on colorimeters and stuff, now that I'm over with my all-important babysitting
  • I can already confirm that a thought police attitude, lack of basic critical, scientific, human and even English skills are not encouraging. In the mean time, the fact that you care more for arbitration than for articulation of your thought and mental processes, is even more discouraging. Last, my citizenship, interests, skin and eye color, are more relevant for neo-fascists, communists and Nazi thought police than for a page dedicate to a REAL contribution to iridology. Please rest assured that I take your attitude quite seriously !
  • By now, the tyranny of florid, overt, full blown dyslexic editors outsmarts the tyranny of cranks :)
  • When would you let me stop babysitting, Theresa ? When would you start behaving like a serious grown-up baby ? : )
from Talk:Iridology
  • Hi, Theresa dear ! Forgive? Always ! (This is how babies learn !) Forget? Never!
  • OK, now again, the issue here is quality control, not your school assignment vote! You may vote as you wish! I may continue to do my research and quality control job. And... hello, Mr Orwell...
  • You know, fellows, I spent twenty years of ophthalmologic research designing actuators for near-perfect iris imaging and you feed me this garbage... Did you try a histogram of this garbage under any filter ?
  • Theresa dear, you are not speaking to your daughter, although you could be my granddaughter! A little bit of respect won't harm you. Were it not for your insistance and malevolence, exclusive campaign against me and petty things, I would NEVER have been banned one minute. You know that. Jim knows that. Just ask Jim with whom we have recently established a decent relationship based on trust. Not your case, yet. Not yet, Theresa dear ! I will not talk to you for one month starting now!
  • The strategy of smaring, policing, fingerprinting, silencing, character assasinating/Googling/intimidating me is hopeful thinking at best, miscalculation at worst IMNSHO.
  • "the issue here is quality control, not your school assignment vote!" ... "I spent twenty years of ophthalmologic research designing actuators for near-perfect iris imaging and you feed me this garbage... Did you try a histogram of this garbage under any filter ?" ... "the issue here remains a pathetically poor, unprofessional, not illustrative image for an article on iridology." [32]

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • What REALLY is this ? - perhaps the honorable colleagues and editors care to remain serious and with a sense of humor. I was tolerant, peaceful, friendly, and willing to explain, lose MUCH time, never losing temper and never entering personal attacks for matters of principle. Attacking someone for his own alleged personal attacks only on grounds such as those in the childish quotes above is, in my view, not only naive, but also relevant of an attitude of punishing someone for what he is (a medical doctor and a Romanian) or how his personal style and culture are. These attitudes, revealed by the perpetrators of libel and slander against me, are more fit for punishing thoughtcrimes than for banning a friend who offers peace and much of his time to share basic knowledge only for the meager price of respect. - irismeister 21:06, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

alternative medicine[edit]

A snippit from from talk:alternative medicine

"OK, Theresa baby, I will repeat for your reading pleasure, since you so ingenuously ask me, whatever you already know since I baby sat you first, three months ago. Since I already did that to profusion and you censored this information so disingeniously, now it's time, please, please baby, to repeat after me:" -- rest of this insulting rant can be found here

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • I strongly disagreee! Rant is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, to speak or write in a angry or violent manner - If anything, I should have felt anger for censoring information. Instead, I used good humor, healthy collegial injunctions, and the word please - PLUS GOOD WILL. Always assume good will is a trusted, priceless, time-honored Wiki tradition. - irismeister 21:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Disinfectant[edit]

After following theresa to Disinfectant, snippet from Talk:Disinfectant

  • I STRONGLY disagree !!!! OK, if some of my distinguished fellow medical doctors here want to always be right despite the relevant evidence, please drop it :-) It's not mine over yours, it's not POV or opinion, folks, it's about making Wiki great and disinfectants WORK WHERE THEY SHOULD, not where WE WANT THEM TO BE USED - WHICH MIGHT BRING TERRIBLE SUFFERING and hard to treat BURNS. Do you know or can you only represent how many acute H2O2 burnings I treated during my residency and emergency years because of DISINFORMATION and MISREPRESENTATION of CONCENTRATION and USE WITH CARE tags on bottles ? Anyway, who cares ? It seems that it doesn't matter that someone might suffer if YOU think that what YOU read is irrelevant. So please, by all means, do not revert if you THINK so. Just let everybody believe we use H2O2 to disinfect food packages and forget about cleaning dirty rooms in all those septic hospitals :-) . Hope you'll sleep better tonight as a non-follower of Hippocrates if someone reads this stub and poors H2O2 over food packages only to be found tomorrow in emergency services. HOPE THIS HELPS BUT I BRING THIS IN FRONT OF THE WIKI COMMUNITY ON THE SPOT !!!!!

Irismeister responds[edit]

Your honors, please forgive me for my insistance, but what is this ? If really my fellow medical doctors here, ever encountered young girls burned and bleeding from allegedly safe local disinfectants, perhaps the removal of obsessive insistance on H2O2 allegedly used for cleaning food packages [33] would be understood. The evidence as quoted has no merit as explained (and very politely) [34]. I maintain that ignorance is only a POV, and a very poor and dangerous one too. When associated with persistence and arrogant reversals to one's POV, this is perhaps perseverare diabolicum and MANDATES extra care in editing. Passion your honors, is a matter of character, not an issue and never a personal attack.

user talk pages[edit]

Irismeister responds[edit]

Your honors, if only one instance of my alleged insults is found on these pages, perhaps we'd care to look into the definition of insults or deny truth. I randomly choose one such alleged page of evidence and found no irismeister as a keyword. I also sampled another and only found Raul's mention of my name in an entirely non-relate context. I believe these alleged evidence pages need not to be read - they might be a loss of time - let alone considered evidence. They have no merit whatsoever. It strikes me as blatant malevolence to "milk" bland material into alleged evidence of misconduct only to shift your attention away from the more serious issue of libel and issues vs personalities debate - irismeister 21:33, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

POV edits and edit/reversion wars[edit]

Iridology[edit]

Repeatedly included a link to Iris-Ward.com despite several objections to it (doubts over the site's clarity, usefulness, bias, links to Irismeister). Also added it under a subsection of "balanced" despite it being an advocasy site. [44] and [45]

Irismeister, knowing these objections, has added this link to other pages: Iris (anatomy) ([46]), Iris scan and Proto-Ionian Theory

POV edit [47] plus inserting his own name for vanity.

POV edit [48] cutting out a lot of info he doesn't like

Irismeister responds[edit]

Your honors, this is perhaps the crux of the matter. If iridology deniers are allowed to misrepresent iridology on the basis of skewed judgement, deletion of links to justified material, and no competence whatsoever, perhaps we should maintain the disputed tag on the article permanently. This is especially important in view of my impending next ban, which I feel as unjust, but possible. I would like to stress that the link might be replaced with one with similar merit in demonstrating, with the same merit, and beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that iridology is currently addressed by dozens of competent MEDICAL DOCTORS and researchers such as myself - all holders of the honorable and coveted FIVE STAR IRISMEISTER CERTIFICATE. As a declaration of bias, I might in truth feel morally obliged to link to the site where I learned iridology as an ophthalmologist. But if another site of equal merit could be found to make the point about non denying scientific iridology, then the burden of proof be upon people more competent than myself. I for one fail to identify a more competent and comprehensive free resource in matters of bridge building between iridology and ophthalmology.

Nevertheless, facing stubborn POVs from the perpetrators of libel against me, I offered to link to the iris ward thing under any heading, provided my expert comment on the site value is not obsessively cut en bloc with the link. I therefore offered to link to Bryan Marcia, to Jon Miles, to Matt Karwowski and a dozen other irismeisters instead. But my insistance on matters of fact has never been addressed by stubborn, indeed furiously insulting fellow editors. Moreover, the diversion of the debate towards my character, style, person, academic track record, use of English, eye color, sex, etc. - only helped reveal a blatant, persistent anti-iridology agenda. This agenda is by definition a POV and will remain a POV as long as iridology is THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL BRANCH WITH A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION. The case of iridology is key to making the point about alternative and complementary medicine and saving in excess of 100,000 lives per year only in the United States of America - by the admission of tort of the very conventional medical doctors published in JAMA (see Conventional Medicine and the respective talk page for references. If we can save one life from collateral damage of industrial force medicine by the tolerance of alternative views, then we must profess those views marked as such, and we must not wipe them away under the spurious doctrine of neutral editing. - irismeister 21:51, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Alternative medicine[edit]

The page history shows Irismeister inserts POV about iridology four seperate times ([49], [50], [51], [52]):

Alternative medical systems such as iridology have perfectly validated physiological explanations, and are subject to advanced official research.

As Irismeister's edit summary shows, this is brought over from Iridology where is was also removed: (Spotted a few typos, added iridological validation (repeatedly cut by Theresa from the iridology page before she asked for a freeze so that nothing else could be added there)) 00:16, 8 Feb 2004

Irismeister responds[edit]

This alleged evidence has absolutely no merit. Iridology is, as explained, the only AM branch which has a proven and accepted physiological explanation and as such is not to be dismissed. Moreover, we are not into wiping POVs - we are into editing great Wiki articles complete with all data - which should never be hunted down to oblivion and deleted as an Orwellian thoughtcrime - irismeister 21:55, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc[edit]

Irismeister keeps adding what the other contributors see as POV content ([53]), despite reasonable objections being raised on the talk page.

Irismeister takes this POV material, when he cannot get it included in the above article, and creates Proto-Ionian Theory with little attempt at NPOV, eg:

Recently, as of 2002, Mr Jean Faucounau, a French mathematician and false dilletante discovered on statistical grounds that the language of the Phaistos disk could be coherently and perfectly (i. e. in a verified manner) read and understood.

Irismeister responds[edit]

Blatant, malevolent misinterpretation ! Quoting from the same page as here [54] I find OK. Be as you wish ! Sincerely, irismeister 18:47, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC) I can hardly look at this alleged evidence as a case for maintaining POV. What we have here your honors is nothing but a case of scholarly dispute of fine matters of fact. This, if anything, is evidence of inserting thoughtcrime as leverage in a case against characters not issues. Not recommended. The alleged evidence has absolutely no merit. Moreover the fallacy of this alleged evidence of misconduct is obvious - the well known absence of evidence is not evidence of absence canard - and perhaps needs no more attention from your honors - irismeister 22:03, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Ammonium chloride[edit]

Again, page history shows a series of reverts and edits of doubtful value.

Irismeister responds[edit]

  • No doubtful at all. On the contrary, maintaing against all hard evidence, against widely known and universally recognized standards of good science as well as common decency, that ammonium chloride "is an expectorant in use" is equivalent to adding insult over injury. Maintaining that to inhale a powder of dubious value if you are a patient who coughs and has irritated bronchi would lead to therapeutical expectoration might be technically correct, but is conceptually equivalent to the methods of Mengele. As repeated politely [55] we need to cut out POVs or reference to promotional sites advertising dangerous OTC drugs! - irismeister 22:26, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Theresa responds[edit]

"Maintaining that to inhale a powder of dubious" A typical irismeister tactic. The fact the nobody actually said anything about "inhaling a powder" does not in any way deter him.

Doesn't understand NPOV[edit]

[56] along with edit summary :

  • (cur) (last) . . 14:55, 3 Feb 2004 . . Irismeister (Removed abusive use of double square brackets on author Dan Waniek - his being subject of a Wiki article is a blatant POV : ))

Corrected a spelling mistake [57] with the summary:

  • (cur) (last) . . 19:24, 27 Jan 2004 . . Irismeister (Iridiology - Theresa why do you insist in making your POV spelling - to remain euphemistic - a norm ? Are you into disinformation, POV or mediocracy ?)

Alters "the neutrality of this article is disputed" message in several ways when simply deleting it doesn't work [58], [59], [60], [61]

  • eg: The neutrality of this article, as well as the sanity of a few of its editors are matters of active dispute.

On NPOV from his user page [62]:

Componentization of culture, disruption of its integrity by vandals, editing experts, and knowledge administrators is rampant. Under the aegis of NPOV as a sort of cult or absolutism, castration and neutralization become the name of the game.

Irismeister responds[edit]

Maintaining a Wikified link on my main competitor in matters of ophthalmological research on the iris, while I myself did not dare to insert an article bearing my name in Wiki is a proof of non understanding libel against my person, and character, by perpetrators of libel against me. If anything, the allegation that I do not understand NPOV is misleading. On a more general and theoretical note, any new article starts from a POV, or wouldn't be here at all. The force of Wiki is network authoring, which amends POVs under the NPOV doctrine. For it to be successful, a spectrum of POVs complete with the most extreme, and in any case, as wide as possible, MUST be maintained in the article's name space - only marked as such. Ignorance is no excuse and is surely a POV.

Let me make myself clear for less academic colleagues, from which I wtill wait for a written apology in order to clear the case (fabiform, Theresa, David, Jwrosenzveigh and Lord Kenneth):

Every matter of fact is a POV for anyone who cares to look at facts. Looking away, in the general direction of insignificance, hardly qualifies as good science, let alone decent logic. Every NPOV thrives on a multitude of POVs of the wildest and widest spectrum. Historically, every mainstream idea was a blatant POV, which, if edited out, would have spelled disasters. Maintaining an alleged POV which is only a responsible way to acknowledge facts, is not only a cultural hero's job, but an obligation under any theory of knowledge.

For instance, maintaining that the Earth orbited around the Sun as Copernicus, Giordano Bruno and others did against the mainstream NPOV about Geocentrism was a blatant POV for which they failed to be killed. They nevertheless maintained their POV even after being FORCED to repeat as parrots the official NPOV mantra. Eppur si muove majestically reminds every NPOV editor, even after five centuries, that POVs MUST be maintained with DATA and CONVICTION and INSISTANCE UNTIL THEY BECOME RECOGNIZED and mainstream - until EVERYBODY cares to look at DATA BEFORE DISMISSING everything as a non-issue. POV is only that - a point of VIEW, no more. NOT looking at DATA is ignorance - a POV of rather questionable value as explained. Both POVs must have similar city rights, or no knowledge would be possible.

If all of this proves that I don't understand NPOV then perhaps I MUST be banned, with a nod, while remaining grateful for avoiding third-degree burns : O ) - irismeister 22:48, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Irismeister's authoring style[edit]

Tends to be oddly wikilinked, jargon/Latin-filled and confusing.

Irismeister responds[edit]

Culture is VERY confusing for those who reject it and resent it, or Wiki shouldn't be written in the first place : O ) Latin expressions and technical terms need to become stubs, not maligned and brought under the Wiki carpet with a broomstick, in a haste more fit for hunting Witches. What does this alleged evidence show, seriously ? There is so much malevolence and shift to personal style from matters of fact that perhaps addressing this allegation has as much merit, close to nil, as the allegation itself - irismeister 22:53, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Evidence in favor of Irismeister[edit]

Really Rude comments and personal attacks AGAINST Irismeister[edit]

  • You're right - it's a semi-literate mess. I've thrown out large chunks of it. It would be great to see some details about how iriology proponents say it works, rather than just "medicine is bad" rants. DavidWBrooks 16:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) - [63] on Talk:Iridology/archive1
(I apologize for the 'semi-literate' crack - typing before I had enough coffee) DavidWBrooks 16:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) - [64] on Talk:Iridology/archive1
(I apologize for the 'semi-literate' crack, which was inaccurate - I was typing before I had enough coffee) - DavidWBrooks 18:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) - [65] on Talk:Iridology/archive1
  • I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) - [66] on User_talk:Lord_Kenneth
  • In case you didn't know already, irismeister is a quack and proponent of pseudoscience. It's not Theresa who is spreading false information. - Lord Kenneth 15:41, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC) - [67] on User_talk:MyRedDice
  • LOL. He's now following me around wikipedia commenting rudely on everything I say or do. He calls this baby sitting as he believes I am a danger to the project. I nominate myself for a new "putting up with nutcases without losing it" medal. theresa knott 08:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) - [68] on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister
Theresa strikes out the word nutcases with the edit summary: (striking out the word "nutcases" I should not have called irismeister it). 10:12, 9 Feb 2004 [69]
i apologise for calling you a nutcase. Rudeness in any form is unacceptable and looks bad to newbies and other editors. I should not have allowed you insulting behaviour towards me provoke me into using language that I would not normally use here in wikipedia. I will try my best never to let it happen again. theresa knott 10:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) - [70] on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister
  • To irismeister - I will not allow you to insert bullshit into the page. I will not allow you to insert links to iris-ward. I don't care how much you harrass me, i don't care how much you follow me around wikipedia. I don't care how many compliants you make about me. Wikipedia will survive the likes of you - I will see to it that it does. theresa knott 19:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) - [71] on Talk:Iridology

Iridology article[edit]

  • Your honors, I am unable to retrieve from Wiki iridology edit logs earlier than 2004, February 10 [72] I find here [73] Needs more efforts. Good luck, fab :) which I maintain is hardly a non-collegial injunction. Should the record not appear on Wiki, [74] I will have to ask my lawyers to retrieve the earlier page edits from a trusted third party.

The above has been brought in front of your honors by an ackward move from fabiform, in the solid tradition of deletions, bit-losing compressions, misinsertions and wiping off evidence. I need no lawyer, and clearly, not fabiform - who only prepared the case against me.

As for my defense, I have nothing more to add. The evidence against me has been addressed beofre and I believe it should not be received, let alone maintained.

Libel[edit]

  • (I cannot physically "spam" and article which is protected. Your obsession in proving others wrong blinds your critical judgement, and as you see, does not brings you service. I frankly invite you to cool down, think twice, apologize, and we'll live happily everafter. Sincerely, - irismeister 23:27, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)) Theresa addressing Plautus [75] (Do you think it acceptable that irismeister lied) Also lier in countless interventions on the respective talk pages, Theresa and Jrosenzweigh, the evidence was destroyed by the authors, with fuzzy comments since this is blatantly against good Wiki habits.
  • The definition of libel is simple, and comes from the Wiki trusted, NPOV source:
Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.


Conclusion[edit]

Every POV is, historically, conceptually and technically the first move in NPOV. Wiki articles should not be cut before they get the chance to become subject to mature and subtle judgement aka balance of POVs from network editing processes. Wiki is great because it does not suppress information. Editors are great because they add more signal than noise. We can all live without bans, if we concentrate on issues not personalities and contribute documented, well digested judgements, not indiscriminate cut-and-pasted stuff from the Web jungle. I will be fully satisfied by a simple good will written apology from Theresa, Fabiform, David, JRosenzweig and Lord Kenneth. I kindly keep for the honorable Wiki community all the legal material from the trusted third party and will provide more material and answers if requested. I believe Wiki is great without me, but I like adding material to Wiki which I am aboslutely sure will not be here without me, because it so happens that I am at the bleeding edge of scientific research in many fields. Let us all prove Pulitzer Prize Winner Carl Bernstein wrong, for he really wrote this:

"We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal."

And they edited happily thereafter - irismeister 23:10, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irismeister/Evidence&oldid=431106042"