User talk:Awilley

Awilley — User talk — Contributions — Email

Welcome to my talk page. Please click here to leave me a message.

Picture of the day

John C. Dancy (1857–1920) was an American politician, journalist, and educator. For many years he was the editor of African Methodist Episcopal newspapers Star of Zion and then Zion Quarterly. In 1897 he was appointed collector of customs at Wilmington, North Carolina, but was chased out of town in the Wilmington massacre of 1898, in part for his activity in the National Afro-American Council which he helped found and of which he was an officer. He then moved to Washington, D.C., where he served as recorder of deeds from 1901 to 1910. His political appointments came in part as a result of the influence of his ally, Booker T. Washington.Photograph credit: Turner; restored by Adam Cuerden

Welcome

---

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page User:Adjwilley, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for third party comment

Hello Adjwilley, I was wondering if you can bring in a third-party view to the editing and discussion that is happening at Huqúqu'lláh and Talk:Huqúqu'lláh (and actually a lot on my own talk page, which I'm trying to get onto the talk page of the article). The discussion is on the use of primary source material, as well as the removal of views which have secondary source citations, with them being replaced with views which have no secondary source citations.

It would be helpful if there can be some other viewpoints brought into the discussion. Warm regards, -- 10:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting; can you keep the page and the discussion on your watch page for a while to see if you think my edits are heavy-handed or not. The anonymous editor is removing a well sourced sentence from secondary sources, with either his understanding of the primary source, and/or a statement that is not collaborated by the secondary sources. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I've watchlisted the page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Concern/query

Hello Adjwilley. I am concerned about this note Srich recently left on Carolmooredc's talk page: [1]

This looks to me like Canvassing or Meatpuppetry with respect to the Arbcom request. Am I mistaken? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Adjwilley but I can address this: Yes, you are mistaken. Canvassing is trying to recruit likeminded editors to support one's side. Meatpuppetry is having another editor edit secretly on one's behalf and at one's direction, to avoid scrutiny of one's own edits. In the linked diff, SRich was expressing concern about the length of Carolmooredc's comments at the ArbCom request, and suggesting that she hold off on providing detailed diffs until the case is opened. There is no element of recruitment by SRich; Carolmooredc was already participating at that case request when the comment was made, so it cannot be canvassing. There is no element of secrecy or proxying either: the comment by SRich was made openly on Carolmooredc's talk page and was not couched in terms of doing anything on SRich's behalf, but rather a benign bit of advice that could have been offered by anyone. alanyst 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we've also got this: [2] in which @Carolmooredc: solicits @Binksternet: to consider adding certain diffs to his Arbcom statement. I'd hate to think that WP dispute resolution is about team play. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So did Binksternet follow the supposed solicitation? No. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alanyst. @Specifico, I pretty much concur with the above. Both look pretty much like people giving and receiving advice. I've made similar talk page edits many times myself. The second could potentially be read as a request to file a report, but it was just as much a request for advice and opinion, and I commented on the thread myself yesterday with my 2 cents. Either way I think that stirring this pot is probably not the most productive path forward. Thanks for dropping by. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It didn't even occur to me that that would be anything like canvassing. And I did add it myself when it became relevant. Mea culpa if it was bad. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You're fine Carol, I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's good to be careful in situations like this, as it's easy to misinterpret others' intentions during a prolonged disagreement, but I understand your question was in good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Decision regarding Murzyn

Hello, thank you for your comment regarding Murzyn and the problem there. I will try to get along with VM, but to be honest I've tried to steer clear of him over the last two years following (what I still claim was) his outing of me to another Polish editor, but he edits Murzyn, Racism in Poland, and other pages which I started so it is hard not to come into contact with him. I do feel hard done by his gaming of the system - telling me not to post on his page then emailing me (he did it twice, not once as he claimed). He was previously banned for off-wiki activity (the infamous EEML) so it would seem part of his MO, as would passing on my email address and name. Anyway, I can assure you there was no hounding of him by me. I was the one who almost left WP due to the unpleasant atmosphere. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I am on my phone right now so I won't be able to give a complete response, but I just wanted to say that I didn't mean to imply that you had actually hounded him, only that he may have felt that way. I am sorry for your experience as well ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Malick78, I would very much appreciate it if you stopped lying. If you stopped lying about me outing you, which I never did, and if you stopped lying about stuff that happened five years ago, stuff you weren't at all involved in (or were you? Either you're lying or you were involved but under a different username. These are the only possibilities). You are of course free to believe whatever fantasy pops into your head but you are not allowed to make these kinds of fantastical accusation without proof. Do not accuse me of outing you again.

As to I can assure you there was no hounding of him by me - the fact that OTHER users had to instruct you to leave me alone belies that statement. And let's recall that you did in fact use your talk page to allow anonymous users who were harassing me in real life, to post all kinds of nonsense about me. In fact you were downright gleeful about it. There's very few things as disgusting and distasteful as when an abuser tries to play the role of the victim. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bleh, not sure how much I want to get involved here, but Volunteer Marek, please. You complain about Malick78 making "accusation without proof" and in the same breath accuse Malick78 of "lying" four times and siccing anonymous editors on youentertaining the accusations of abusive anons...without proof. Please, both of you, try to leave the past behind you and avoid each other in the future.

@Malick78, I appreciate the thought behind this post, but you don't need to defend yourself on my account. If you're up for a little light reading, I highly recommend this Meatball essay. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You complain about Malick78 making "accusation without proof" and in the same breath accuse Malick78 of "lying" four times... ......without proof. Sigh. Well, yes. Please think for a second. He accused me of outing him. Without proof. I denied it. He accused me of it again. Without proof. What exactly am *I* supposed to "prove" here? That I didn't out him? Am I supposed to prove that I didn't kill John F. Kennedy too? If I say somewhere "Adjwilley beats his wife!", and you say "no, that's not true", then I say it again somewhere, "Adjwilley beats his wife!", then you say "you're lying!", would you really expect others to *require* you to prove that you're not in fact beating your wife? Like I said, think for a second first. It is up to a person making allegations and attacking others to back up their claims, not to the person being attacked!

Nevermind that what he is calling "outing" wouldn't even be "outing", even if it did somehow happen, which it didn't. How about I "accidentally" email you under my real name, then for the next couple years I'll go around telling everyone that Adjwilley "outed" me.

If you want proof of him enabling (not "siccing") the anon IPs you can look through the history of his talk page yourself.

Unfortunately, that "meatball" essay works only in functional communities. Not dysfunctional ones, such as ones, for example, where baseless accusations are cheap, and it's those who are being baselessly accused that are required to "prove" their innocence. Sheesh.

Goodnight. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

VM, I believe the Meatball essay applies to you too, though your point about the "ideal" community is well taken. I think though that in practice it is possible to follow the essay most of the time. (I try to do it myself, and other than the occasional clarifying when someone has misunderstood my intention, pointing out a lack of evidence, or correcting a particularly bad accusation, I think I do a pretty good job. And I do occasionally beat my wife at Chess, Settlers of Catan, and Bananagrams, by the way.) Anyway, and this is just my opinion, you shouldn't have to defend yourself against the "outing" accusations, other than to say that you didn't do what he thinks you did when the occasion demands (like at AN/I). You certainly shouldn't go on the offensive by calling him a liar.

Re: It is up to a person making allegations and attacking others to back up their claims, not to the person being attacked! I agree 100%. You don't have to prove anything when he's making accusations about you, but if you start making allegations about him (enabling anons, lying, possibly socking...) then it's you who needs to start linking diffs. But I'm not asking for diffs here...especially if some of these issues are as old as 5 years. I really think both of you need to let this go. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley, thanks for your time and thoughts. I did try to put the past behind me but I started the Murzyn page and if VM edits it by mis-citing sources that were correctly quoted and then being rude when I ask him to desist, then problems are bound to happen. Over and out and thanks once again. Malick78 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On African American vs. Black American...

Okay what we need to understand is that the United States was formed on the basis of White Supremacy. Therefore, the entire cultural and historical identity of black people in the U.S. was formed by victimization by white supremacy/race/racism.

So the descendants of slaves in America are "Black Americans." "African American" is still useful as an umbrella term to refer to them AND African immigrants to the U.S., but "Black American" is us. "Black" is what we are now. This is how we think of ourselves, and that's what we call each other. "African American" is technically correct, but it's not our name.

See, "black" exists outside the U.S. as well, in the UK, there is an article for "black British." They have a different history.

We we don't REALLY identify with "African" except in name. It's really a PC name shoved on us without consensus. We call each other "black" but since we're in the U.S, we can be reasonable certain we're all black Americans. "Black" can either refer to the race, more internationally, or a local ethnic group.

But PLEASE get rid of "African American." It's really grinding my gears. And it also gets frustrating when people are too scared to call us what we are, or use "African American" when they're not even talking about people in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPhBeast (talk • contribs)

Hi DPhBeast, thank you for the message. That's good to know. Is there a particular article you had in mind when you were writing this? Some use of the term somewhere you'd like me to fix perhaps? ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the name of the article "African Americans," I'd prefer it to be named "Black Americans," but I don't have the authority to do so. Also, on the article on African Immigration to the U.S, I think it may be best to name that article "African Americans," then qualify on that article that the term can also be used to describe black Americans and/or those who have integrated with them.

On this issue, it's my understanding that most black Americans like the term "African American," though certainly OP's position is far from unheard of. We could note that some black Americans don't identify with the term, but it's hard to justify renaming the article altogether.

We can't equate "African Immigrants to the U.S." with "African Americans" because African immigrants include white (Afrikaaners) and brown (Berber/Arab people) people, not just blacks. The common sense definition of African American (reflected on the WP page) is American of sub-Saharan African descent. This is also the definition used by the federal government. Steeletrap (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Crossing vs. deletion

I'm puzzled by your comment apparently saying I shouldn't be concerned about this. First, I believe that crossing is generally (and strongly) encouraged over deletion in a talk page type setting. Second, in this particular case, another user has admitted that two of her allegations of misrepresentation against me were based on false statements. (all of them are, but those two were particularly easy to falsify.) Deleting the accusation, or rewriting it with a completely different rationale, is not fair to me, because it renders my (correct/conceded) accusations of misrepresentation in the evidence unintelligible. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, strikethrough is encouraged in threaded talk page discussions when you're editing your own comments that others have already responded to. Carolmooredc's edit was to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence which is not a talk page, nor is it threaded. What I don't know is whether it was responded to on the evidence page before she removed it, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether it's stricken or removed completely. I imagine the arbs are most interested in the evidence itself, not so much the process in which the evidence was compiled. (A stricken diff that's not evidence on the evidence page isn't very helpful to anyone.) Like I said on the talk page, if you think Carol's mistake is serious enough to be used as evidence, you can add it to your own section. I commented because it seemed that Carol was acting in good faith and the strong language in the section heading ("...attempt to cover-up (admitedly) false allegations...") and subsequent piling on seemed out of proportion to what Carolmooredc actually did. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Adjwilley! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Adjwilley:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

WP:AGF

Your criticisms of "stalking" are not only hypocritical (since they omit Carol, who admits to having followed me to pages recently) but false. It makes little sense that I would "follow" Carol to an article she hasn't frequented for a year. On the other hand, it makes a lot of sense that I (someone who has previously edited pages on anti-Semitism and the BLP of Alan Dershowitz, and is a proud Ashkenazi jew) would correct an attempt to portray Dersh's criticism of an explicitly pro-Holocaust denial book as mere opinion. I came to the page because I recently read an essay of Dershowitz' on the subject. That Carol was the one who misrepresented Dersh was incidental to my motives. She frequents pages on jewish subjects and tendentiously pushes for the inclusion of 'anti-Zionist' themes (was one of only a few regular editors to the deleted page "Allegations of Jewish Control of the Media", and pushed against its deletion until changing course after criticism. She also fails to live up to the common-sense standards outlined on the WP:Competence essay. So while it is a coincidence that she was the one I reverted, it was hardly an unforseeable one. Steeletrap (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I do watch Steeletrap's edits to see where she's been inserting or deleting questionable material per her POV and vs policy, I did notice your exchange at her talk page (and we've banned each other, cutting out that round of back and forth anyway).

Of course, she's wrong the two places she accuses me of stalking her. WP:Competence was already being edited by Srich and Binksternet to deal with questionable Steeletrap edits during Arbitration when I joined in. And Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism is on lots of Wikiproject deletion lists and TFD nominated it so I was curious what TFD had to say. (And there's no consensus on the AfD since wikipedia is not as censored as some might like, which is why I was bold enough to opine.)

Considering that Steeletrap has barely learned a thing about presenting material in an NPOV way since she started, Senior editors do have to monitor her. (Though I haven't paid much attention on articles outside my areas of interest, especially since it looked like experienced editors were dealing with Steeletrap issues.) However, given Wikipedia's continuing failure to enforce BLP, I won't argue on the Atzmon edit. Unless of course something actually happens in next few days to show Wikipedia is serious about BLP... I think I would have complained to an Admin about enforcement in WP:ARBPIA about her edit summary, to get a warning on those only, if we weren't already in an Arbitration and don't want to double down.

Feel free to reply on my talk page to hopefully more quickly finish the discussion off. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox the Tenth

I left a note for you here. Also I thought I'd point out the older discussions on that page that might need archiving, being no longer related to the present contents of the sandbox. alanyst 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute faculty

Can you please edit the "faculty" section of Ludwig von Mises Institute? There are several typographical errors there involving the dashes; a couple names (Huerta de Soto and Napolitano) need dashes while the dash after Sam Francis is smaller than the others, and should be changed to match them. Also: Francis is dead and thus his lifespan (1947-2005) should appear before the dash as it does with Rothbard and Sobran. Also: Rothbard's work as a "theorist" is more informative and important than his work as a "pundit"; I would replace the latter term with the former after "paleolibertarian" in Rothbard's description. I almost made these changes, thinking that even though doing so would technically violate the no edit rule, common sense would absolve me of any criticism for it. (who can object to fixing typos?) But common sense rarely rules the day on WP. Thus, I ask you to do it for me. Steeletrap (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Thanks for erring on the side of caution. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 editing AE pages

This is unacceptable. Rich made an agreement not to edit these pages during the Arbitration. You should block or warn him for violating it. He also violated the IBAN by reverting my edit on another (non Austrian/LvMI/libertarian) article. I will not edit the lib/Austrian pages, but I am no longer abiding by the IBAN, because it is illogical to do so when the other parties insist on interacting with me.

You should ban him (from the AE pages) until the end of the proceedings or, at the very least, admonish him not to violate formal agreements with other editors.

Note: To my chagrin, SPECIFICO continues to edit AE articles. While this is inadvisable, he cannot be accused of breaking his word and breaking faith with the Committee because he never agreed to refrain from editing. Steeletrap (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my statement at Arbcom. I take responsibility for my edits and, unlike some of the others who continued to squabble and denigrate others, mine do not violate policy or civility. I note that there's been no similar "agreement" at Gun Control, where the same cast of characters continues to edit during their jury deliberations. As to why Srich would pledge not to edit and pledge not to interact -- and then proceed uninterrupted to do so, I have no idea. I think we all expected better of him. He's engaged in some EW behavior at Walter Block where he is deleting impeccably sourced factual statements. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, too, regret that Specifico continues to edit certain articles. As he has done so, no one has the right to say I "blatantly violated" anything. What should I do – sit on my hands when improper editing occurs as it did here? Basically I reverted the material the IP put in (which Specifico seemed to endorse), and I opened a discussion about the particular edit. Specifico, the IP, and Steeletrap have yet to comment in that discussion. As for the template, Steeletrap should mention that she is the one who reverted the edit to the template parameters, but Steeletrap Template_talk:Infobox_economist had said nothing to rebut the March 4th rationale for keeping the parameter out. Is my edit to Block unacceptable? I had opened a discussion regarding the particular piece. Specifico (and Steeletrap) did not contribute to the discussion. "Edit warring" indeed – a completely unfounded accusation! – S. Rich (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: while I don't see any problem with your edits, I'm disappointed that you chose to break your side of the agreement. There might be an argument that this edit fell under the "exceptions" (as calling an organization a "cult" in the Lead is almost always unacceptable) but on the others I don't see what was so pressing that it couldn't wait.

@SPECIFICO: I'm not impressed with your behavior either. It's one thing to decline to participate in the voluntary edit restrictions, but continuing to edit disputed topics when everyone but you has agreed to stop is poor form in my opinion.

@All, if this continues, the voluntary edit restrictions are soon going to become much less voluntary. It looks like the arbcom case is making some progress. Please take some time off and find something fun and unrelated to edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: -- With all due respect, I stated that I take responsibility for my edits. If any of them violate policy, that is my responsibility. On the other hand I do not feel it's appropriate for you to judge me for doing ordinary course edits or for declining your invitation for a restriction. We have editors in the Gun Control arbitration continuing to edit. To be perfectly frank, Adjwilley, many editors have expressed disappointment that you and other Admins did not fulfill your responsibilities after the Community Sactions were put in place. If Admins had done so, this time consuming and unnecessary arbitration might have been avoided. With all due respect, you appear to me to be covering your ass by compensating for earlier lapses. That's my frank personal reaction to your gratuitous opinion of my conduct. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for sharing your frank opinion. Just to be clear on my perspective here, I am just as much a volunteer as you, and as such I tend to put real life ahead of my responsibilities on Wikipedia. I am sorry that my attempt at mediation failed, and I frankly admit that it was at least partially my fault, but please don't pin the arbitration on me or other admins, many of whom tried and unfortunately failed to head it off. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'm just concerned that, again to be frank, some of us have stopped the squabbling and ad hominems and as one of those, I don't like to be mentioned in the same breath with others who have not. On WP unfortunately there are many casual readers and amateur arbiters and guilt by association seems to be an unfortunate byproduct of the very important and otherwise productive openness of the project. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to question your judgment for thinking there is 'nothing wrong' with Srich's edits. He removed tons of superbly sourced content, from the New York Times and Inside Higher Ed. He claimed this was because the subject of the BLP disputed the RS reporting. Why not just include (as I did) Block's argument (which is not supported by any of the RS that have commented on the matter) that he was quoted out of context? It does not seem to be in compliance with policy to remove RS-supported material en masse, just because a subject of a BLP doesn't like it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood. I'm talking policy and you're thinking content. There's no policy saying that reliably sourced material can't be removed. Whether SRich's edit was editorially sound is debatable, but from a policy and procedural perspective I don't see anything wrong with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad Page

Hi Adjwilley I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to be a critical analysis of the content on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: It looks like people aren't having issues as much with the content or the references, but the fact that you are using long quotes from the references. (WP:COPYVIO is the policy on this.) Even though the quotes are attributed, it can still be problematic. I suggest that instead of using quotes, you paraphrase what the authors said, using your own words, but still attributing the ideas to the authors in the text, and still providing the source. With that out of the way, it will be easier to see what the actual content issues are. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you have TB'd Steeletrap on AE subjects (because of the Hoppe edits), I wonder if hatting the first section of the ANI would help resolve the second section. I believe my request for restrictions as to Steele (because the the Walter Block edits & reverts) is moot. My goal is accomplished – we have general sanctions applied in at least one case. I am sorry it is Steeletrap who got sanctioned first. Until Steele did that last Block revert I thought we were making progress on improving the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Should you be signing the sanctions page? [3] 04:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit War on Hoppe

Hello Adjwilley. You recently protected Hans-Hermann Hoppe but there's now been a resumption of edit warring there, and some manifest incivility: [4]. I am not getting involved in the ANI except to respond to various false statments about myself but it seems to me that Darkness Shines should be added to the ANI at this point. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please block Darkness from the page. Look at his block log and tell me with a straight face that he's a good-faith editor. Also, many of the earlier "reversions" you posted on my page were attempts to restore to a consensus version established by (of all people) Binksternet. DarknessShine, who has an incredibly long block log, edit-warred them out. But my new additions are of a different kind -- and I stopped them after two reverts. Why I am being singled out is beyond me, but please block Darkness as well. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

On the ANI, can you edit your post to specify that the topic ban you gave me is temporary, pending the Arbcom investigation? I also would appreciate if provided your reason for topic banning me on the ANI.

By the way, I'm sorry for blowing up at you earlier. The whole situation is making me anxious and sometimes I edit impulsively when I feel that way. You are right that I shouldn't have been editing the Hoppe page. I think the topic ban might be a good thing for me as an editor in the long run, particularly if it includes the other users mentioned on the ANI. It might be more productive to move to less contentious matters and be satisfied with the fact that most of my edits to the Austrian pages over the last 12 months have been upheld and improved the encyclopedia. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: I suggest you go to the "blow up " and strike what you said. – S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)15:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich, your heavy-handed admonitions are not appreciated. I am apologizing and taking a topic ban in stride. Your 'mansplaining' is not a good addition to the discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's mind-boggling, actually. An editor volunteers for an IBAN. He violates it. He brings an ANI drawing many others into discussing whether to impose the same IBAN he chose to ignore. Then while advocating he be forced to stop the behavior he will not voluntarily adopt, he visits this page to demonstrate the same behavior which he seeks to have forcibly prevented. "Who is that masked man?" "That's no outlaw... He's the Lone Ranger!" SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap, thanks for the note. I hope this helps a bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoppe

Could you add "He is Distinguished Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute" to the lede? Apart from UNLV, LvMI has been the focal point of Hoppe's work. Steeletrap (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you there. I had been spending all of my wiki-time on a tricky close, and this slipped my mind. You might try making an edit request on the article talk page. (This particular topic ban does allow for that.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Actors profile image

I was wondering if you could change a actors profile image for me? I can't figure it out. Thank you JamieDalton089 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been offline for a while. (Fairly literally actually) We had been sharing Wifi with a neighboring apartment and they moved out...still working on a solution for internet that doesn't involve my phone's data plan. I'll have a look at it when I can. If you'll let me know which actor and which image you want changed I can probably help you. (It will probably be a matter of changing an "image=..." parameter in the infobox.) Sorry for the delay! ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Thanks for agreeing to help close this discussion - and thanks for your update saying that you have reached a conclusion and are working on wording. However, there is a problem: somehow the entire note at the top of the discussion (with TP's "discussion suspended" comment and your update note) has disappeared and is not visible at the page. Offhand I can't see why; can you figure out how to make that note visible? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton‎

Hi Adjwilley, I read your analysis (with TParis) and I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the careful thought you put into it. This was a very difficult decision to make in assessing consensus as understood on Wikipedia and the only way to do it correctly was the way you broke the problem down into its various subcomponents and assessing policy together with empirical evidence. I know you are going to catch a lot of heat for this decision, but you made it using a thoughtful rational process, which is all one can ask for. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the note, it is very much appreciated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another thank you...with a gift:

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work on a complicated closing on a yet another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other half goes to TParis. Thanks again for all your hard work! (Mark Miller)Maleko Mela (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mark, I appreciate that very much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Adultery article

Since you are well versed in religious topics, do you have anything to weigh in on with regard to this edit made by Ewawer? Seems to me that the term adultery has "an Abrahamic origin" and that the term adultery did not exist in the "Greco-Roman world," though the wording Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis is noted in the Greco-Roman world section of the Adultery article. The Abrahamic wording prior to Ewawer's edit clearly distinguished "term" from "concept," stating that while the concept existed pre-Abrahamic time, the term did not. I made this note in response to Ewawer's edit, quoting a line from the source in the first paragraph. I know that we could also take this matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually didn't know about the origins of the word myself. I'll have a look at in on Sunday, as I probably won't get to it tomorrow. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the cultural objection to adultery was a common cultural feature of at least the Near East well before Abraham's time.Enthusiast (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if so, was the cultural objection termed adultery at that time? That's my point. The text you altered was distinguishing terminological use from the concept. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Enthusiast (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I spent a half hour today looking for sources to clarify the issue for me, but I haven't found anything yet that would significantly alter the discussion. I'll return to it later when I get another chance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), I'm not sure what you are agreeing to there.

Thanks, Adjwilley. No rush. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pending move review notification

Per WP:MR - "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." - This is notification on your talk page that resolution is being sought over the closing of the Hillary Clinton RM7 discussion in which you were involved. The "issues" with the closing are obviously extensively discussed on the Hillary Clinton talk page. Do you feel you can offer resolution to the issues discussed? Thank you. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that NickCT quite properly approached all 3 closers, and I have already replied on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NickCT for the notification. If I had to do it again I probably would have put the statement in paragraph 6 about WP:RS in paragraph 3, so as to not imply that WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RS was what tipped it into the no consensus zone. (WP:RS took some weight out of the pro-WP:COMMONNAME arguments, but WP:TITLECHANGES was the main tipper for myself and at least one of the other admins.) I also sympathize with the criticism that the move request was closed early. At the time it seemed like a good idea because the discussion seemed to have entered into a phase of more bickering and squabbling than new ideas, and we felt a speedy resolution would be less disruptive to Wikipedia overall. (We had no idea that real-life issues would be crippling one of our number for so long after the initial suspension of discussion.) It might have also been good to let it run for a little longer to let people adjust to the new information that had become available about Clinton's preference toward HRC, which apparently would have caused at least one person to change their vote to oppose, and may have influenced new voters, though probably not in a way that would have significantly changed the discussion or close, and probably not in a way that would help the case you plan to make at move review. I hope that provides at least a bit of "resolution" for yourself and other supporters, though I don't expect it will change any minds. Best, ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It probably won't change minds. But the attempt is appreciated anyway.

For the record, I agree that WP:TITLECHANGES was probably the strongest "oppose" argument. The applicability of the "don't switch one controversial title for another controversial title" idea is clear. That said, >2/3 of folks supported HC, right? What level of support does a particular title actually need before you can say it's non-controversial?

Obviously this conversation could descend very quickly into one of those "What does consensus really mean" debates (let's not go there), but I think it's fair to say that HC was clearly the less controversial title (as evidenced by the considerable majority that supported it).

If you took WP:TITLECHANGES to its extreme, you'd say that you can never change titles because almost every potential title might be controversial to someone. Clearly that's wrong. Clearly one has to say that when a certain level of agreement surrounds a new title WP:TITLECHANGES no longer applies. What is that level? Is 2/3 not enough?

Anyways, regardless of your position, as I mentioned to Brown, your efforts, thoughts and attention on this matter were appreciated, and this move review is done with respectful dissent. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES clearly discourages title changes for no good reason. In this case that requires dismissing WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONCISE, not to mention WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as good reasons to change a title. I'm baffled as to how that could even be given any serious consideration.

Anyway, just to be clear, Adjwilley, have you seen the move review draft lately? We want to be sure these issues cannot be resolved with the panel in the hopes that we can spare the community a move review, if possible. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, B2C. Just to be clear on our side, none of the policy you listed above was dismissed or ignored. We didn't throw anything out the window, but did our best to weigh the competing issues and policies and the strength of the underlying arguments. Is shaving 7 bytes off an article's title per WP:CONCISE sufficient reason to move a high profile article that has been in the same place for a long time? Is systemic bias an issue? (Probably over 90% of the voters were male...did they consider what it means for a woman to keep her maiden name instead of taking her husband's name?) Does the subject's preference matter? How much? Should the random passerby who says "Move per commonname...I've always heard it X" get as much weight as someone like WastedTimeR who has obviously read several books on the subject and has made as many edits to the article as the next 20 contributors combined? Which name is the common name, and is there evidence to support that? How much weight do we give the "Official names" essay? Are book/print sources better than news/online sources? Few of these questions were fully answered, but I assure you that none of them were ignored, and none of them, by themselves, tipped the balance in one direction or another.

I just wanted to make one other thing clear, since I seem to remember you mentioning suspicions of personal bias clouding our decision. When I (naively) volunteered to close this I thought about how I might vote if I were participating in the discussion, and about as much as I came up with was "I dunno...flip a coin". I really didn't care enough about it to form a hard opinion, and I still don't. That is the reason I felt comfortable enough to volunteer as one of the closers. (A negative side effect of this, however, is that I fail to understand why people care so much about the issue.) While reading the discussion I know that I and at least one of the other admins changed our minds a number of times as to which way to close it, but we ended up on the same page in the end.

Anyway, thank you again for the note; I appreciate the time it took you to work up the move review draft. I read it, and though I don't agree with all of it, I can appreciate the concerns, as it was a close call. I'm not entirely sure how MR works (I haven't been over there in a long time) but I hope that it goes smoothly for everybody. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just speculating about reasons for the decision, and personal bias was a theoretical possibility. I have no reason to believe that was actually a contributing factor for any of the panelists. Your statements here convince me it was just plain good faith faulty reasoning that lead to the "no consensus" decision.

Yes, shaving 7 bytes off an article's title per WP:CONCISE is sufficient reason to move a high profile article that has been in the same place for a long time, if no comparable policy supports the longer title (no one can identify any such policy), especially if no consensus support for the current title has been demonstrated during that long time (and it hasn't), and participant preference clearly favors the move.

The systemic bias argument is that participant preference should be discounted (if not dismissed) because of the bias of males who fail to "consider what it means for a woman to keep her maiden name instead of taking her husband's name". That might be relevant if the woman in question did not take her husband's name, and did not commonly refer to herself as "Hillary Clinton". Plus, our policy to follow usage in reliable sources protects us from (internal) systemic bias. That's the whole point of following usage in RS. Finally, theoretical possibility alone is no reason to give any consideration any weight, and theoretical possibility is all there is supporting the notion that systemic bias or sexism was at play here.

The Jimbo-supplied information about subject preference only came up after the discussion was closed and should not have been given any weight as the participants had no opportunity to weigh in on it.

Is the more natural and recognizable title to most readers likely to be more like that of a "random passerby", or more like that of a subject expert like WastedTimeR? For questions of appropriate article content I would definitely give WastedTimeR's view more credence - but for title determination the expert's view needs to be discounted, if weighted differently at all.

No one even disputed that HC is more commonly used in reliable sources. The only counter-argument was a novel one based on the claim that HRC was more commonly used in "high quality" RS. There was very little support for this novel counter-argument in the discussion, and none in policy or convention. It should not have been given much weight at all.

I accept that you saw this as a close call, but, perhaps due to a lack of experience in the area of title-decision making and RMs, I also think you made some serious errors in judgement in order to see it as a close call, which explains why TITLECHANGES was the "main tipper" for you. --В²C ☎ 17:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Born2cycle and Adjwilley: - Most respectfully, I think it might be time for MR. All three panel members have generously offered their blessings. It's time to have more eyes look at this. There's probably little benefit trying to re-tackle the same policy questions.

And again Adjwilley, everyone is thankful for your taking the time to be on the panel. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@B2C, I agree with NickCT that further discussion here probably won't be very fruitful, but there seems to be a flaw in your logic I wanted to mention. In your 3rd paragraph above you say that "our policy to follow usage in reliable sources protects us from (internal) systemic bias" but in paragraph 5 you say that when it comes to naming articles the views of subject experts like WastedTimeR (who are arguably most familiar with the reliable sources) should be given equal or less weight than the views of a "random passerby". How can WP:RS protect us from systemic bias when the "random" participants are overwhelmingly male and we discount the views of those most familiar with sources? Just food for thought. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify that one point... yes, of course, participant preference is not immune to systemic bias. That's one of the reasons closers don't go purely by participant preference, and in particular why we weigh usage in reliable sources so heavily, and why participant preference expressed in terms of policy is weighted more than just pure preference. For example, if participant preference is A but usage in reliable sources indicates B is more commonly used, then the closer has good reason to override participant preference.

But that's relative too. The stronger the participant preference is, the stronger the evidence regarding usage in RS needs to be to override it. In practice, conflict between these two is actually quite rare, suggesting systemic bias is not as big of a problem as some may surmise. In this case, for example, no one presented any evidence that systemic bias played a role at all. --В²C ☎ 21:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ruminating on that food for thought.

@Adjwilley - re "experts like WastedTimeR" - Out of curiosity, what's your basis for this? Why is WastedTimeR an expert?

re "participants are overwhelmingly male" - I find these repeated allusions to sexism sorta annoying. Can you identify a single participant who expressed a clearly sexist POV during the conversation?

@Adjwilley & В²Cre - "The stronger the participant preference is, the stronger the evidence regarding usage in RS needs to be to override it." - This in my mind is the point. If 90% of participants said HC was the WP:COMMONNAME than the closers should have been darn sure they had a good rationale for saying it wasn't. The rationale offered seemed to be "Well the HRC sources are just 'better'". That didn't seem right. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, NickCT. You shouldn't override strong consensus of participant preference merely because of a suspicion that there may be some systemic bias involved. You have to have a strong case for systemic bias to do that. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: When I used the phrase "experts like WastedTimeR" I was not making a statement that WastedTimeR was an expert, but simply using a term Born2cycle had used as part of their logical argument. Above, I had pointed out that WastedTimeR had obviously read several books on the subject and had made more edits to the article than the next 20 contributors combined. Born2cycle responded in this post referring to WastedTimeR as a "subject expert". In my response to their post I tried to use their language so as to not inadvertently misrepresent their argument while poking at their logic.

Regarding allusions to sexism, I don't think I or anyone else made any allusions to that. (If you read anything by me that seemed to allude to sexism, I apologize for not having been more clear.) All I was saying was that when you are polling an overwhelmingly male audience about something unique to females (like a maiden name) it is wise to at least be on the watch for systemic bias. (Regarding the middle/maiden name thing, I remember MelanieN and RGloucester having a fair amount to say on the subject, but that's beside the point.) Honestly though if you want to discuss male/female systemic bias on Wikipedia, I'm not your guy...BrownHairedGirl is probably much more familiar with it than I am if you want to ask her about it.

Lastly, I don't recall the closers saying that HRC was the common name. I think we said there was a split in the sources.

You both obviously disagree with the close, you've presented your arguments a couple of times, but without convincing me or the other administrators. Indeed we seem to be nearing a point of WP:IDHT. I suggest the best option, should you wish to continue pursuing this, is to move forward with the move review. I'm not sure how that process works, but perhaps you can get a panel of 5 uninvolved administrators or something to look at it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley - I might not disagree that WastedTimeR is an expert on HC/HRC, but I'm not sure that makes him/her better able to interpret WP policy.

No need to apologize for any "allusions". But seriously, if you start talking about "systemic bias among male editors", how is one meant to interpret that but to think that one is talking about sexism?

Why stop at 5 admins??!? Why not 6? Hahaha... I don't know what the procedure is either. But whatever it is, I do hope you will be there to offer your erudite viewpoints. NickCT (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Adjwilley:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Hillary Rodham Clinton

An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Sorry for the delay! NickCT (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated. I'll have a look. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unapologetic WP:Bite

The facts: 1) Bink erroneously accuses a new user of vandalism. 2) He concedes, after I pointed out that the "vandalism" consisted solely of adding true claims, that he was completely in error, and that his judgment was based on only a 'quick glance' at the allegedly vandalized page. 3) He refuses to apologize to the noob. See Bink's talk page for the full story and the anon user's information.

I don't think sanctions are needed for this. But isn't an apology in order? If Bink is unwilling to apologize, could you (noting your admin status) reach out to the anonymous user, assure them that they did nothing wrong, and welcome them to the community? Being accused of vandalism -- particularly when one is acting in good faith but doesn't yet have a good grasp on the norms of WP -- is harsh. The condescending, impatient, and intimidating manner with which the "good old boys" of WP treat newcomers needs to change. Steeletrap (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: is referring to [5]. This IP made 5 edits to the article. The diff shows that on an earlier occasion the IP received a message about unsourced edits (involving the same material). Binkster's message about vandalism, at level two, was appropriate. (He might have used the level two unsourced template, but so what?) Steeletrap, on the other hand, sought to undermine the advice given by saying "please ignore" the message. Even above Steeletrap thinks the IP "did nothing wrong" by adding unsourced material to the BLP. Steeletrap would have served the community by reinforcing what Binkster had said. Is an apology in order? Certainly not from Binksternet. Two more thoughts: 1. Is misandry at play when Steeletrap refers to "good old boys"? 2. Will Binksternet learn from this that no good deed goes unpunished? – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, clearly you don't understand WP:Vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Addition of accurate, unsourced material -- which is fairly commonplace on Wikipedia -- is clearly not vandalism under the stated definition. The new user was acting in good faith and adding useful, factually accurate (and uncontroversial) stuff to the BLP; s/he should be pointed to RS standards, not accused of "vandalism."

Even Bink concedes he was in error here. He just refuses to apologize. Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that needs to be done here. Bink made a mistake (we all do...see [6] and [7] for a nice combo by yours truly). You repaired the damage to the IP user page, and Binksternet self-reverted at the article, including a citation needed tag. No harm was done to the article by anybody, though the IP edits seem a bit trivial at first glance. I doubt that the IP got the original warning message (they usually don't) and if they did, they probably felt vindicated enough when it was removed. It is doubtful whether any further apology will benefit anybody, and trying to force an apology from someone is almost never the right thing to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: I am admonished and threatened with blocks for using the term "Binkie." But Bink is not threatened or admonished for making baseless accusations of vandalism against new users, and refusing to apologize when his error is pointed out. By admonishing me and not Bink, is 'the community' saying that use of the B-word is worse than what Bink did? Or could the fact that I, unlike Bink, am not one of the "good old boys" of WP be playing a role?

In any case, I did not ask you to "make" Bink apologize. In fact, I expressly said I didn't believe sanctions were appropriate. I asked you to ask him to apologize, and to reach out to the new user if he refused to do so. I think this is an important principle to emphasis, because many of the veterans of WP act dismissively and disrespectfully to newbies. Steeletrap (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I apologize for accidentally posting this stuff to your (Adjwilley's) user page rather than your talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Who threatened you with blocks for saying Binkie? Not I. I just asked you to stop.

As for reaching out to the new user, it's an IP with 5 edits over 5 months. They don't know what a talk page or a template is, and it's doubtful they will get any messages we leave for them. Would it be nice for Bink to apologize, sure, but is it worth making a big deal out of, I think not. As for what is worse, I think it is worse to repeatedly call someone a name when they have asked you to stop than to accidentally mistake vandalism, revert oneself, and not send an apology into cyberspace.

Regarding the "good old boys" club, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you are saying that people don't have equal rights on Wikipedia, you'd be correct. I see Wikipedia as being more of a meritocracy than a democracy. A 1-year-old user with 3,000 edits and a WP:Featured article has more clout than a 3-year-old user who only contributes occasionally. People are judged on the quality of their contributions, the number of their edits, the soundness of their arguments, their civility, and to some extent, yes, the age of their account, but it's more about trust than some exclusive "club" you can join when you're old enough. You also gain more trust by editing a wide range of articles than sticking primarily to a single topic area. Anyway, this is tangential.

I'm afraid I don't have any more time that I can devote to this topic right now, and I think it would be best if it were dropped anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly? I stopped promptly when the threats started. And I was accused of bad faith despite never being previously warned by Bink. But your strong aversion to the B-word is noted.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the community is a meritocracy or idiocracy. Suffice it to say that real-life "merit" (including educational attainment and professional success) does not equate to WP "merit." Also: "Good article status" is a joke, determined by people with no knowledge of the subject matter of articles, largely on the basis that they're chummy with the article's main contributors . For example, User:Legolas2186 was nominated for 62 "Good articles" despite the fact that he was adding fake sources to all of them! (Kudos to Bink for uncovering this fraud.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP is not an idiocracy, but it's clearly politicized because personal relationships with Admins and the ability to muster mutual-protection coalitions among editors are perceived to be valuable advantages. Instead of the insulting "idiocracy", perhaps you'd agree that "mediocracy" is more apt. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, well whatever it is, it is certainly far from perfect. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If the professional world is "revenge of the nerds," the Wiki world is "revenge of the C-students." Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking_IBAN_for_Steeletrap and I have mentioned your name. Thanks in advance for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request

Could you stay away from the disputes in which I'm involved? I believe you are biased against me. Even if I'm wrong, this belief is likely to get in the way of effective adjudication of future disputes. And there are many other capable admins. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The timing of your message is a bit ironic. I was just starting to close the ANI report against you with a warning instead of an interaction ban. I don't think I'm "biased" against you, and I can't think of any reason why I would be. I know other admins who would have blocked you multiple times for some of the stuff I've seen you pull. I am confident that I am WP:UNINVOLVED when it comes to the disputes you are involved in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You should either pledge not to intervene in the disputes I'm involved in or close the ANI. If you do neither, your change of heart on the ANI is inexplicable, since our exchange here has nothing to do with the merits of the HOUNDING charges. Steeletrap (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I also believe that Bink should be warned to be more careful with editing (so as to not post false charges, e.g. of vandalism and disruptive editing, against other users). He should also been warned to stop bullying noobs even when he has policy grounds for complaints. (One user mentioned his repeated threatening of noobs with blocks for adding uncontroversial genres to songs without sources). Steeletrap (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Either or, eh? I'll think about the AN/I, but at the moment I'm more inclined to leave it in the hands of other capable admins. As for Binksternet, I think his block is plenty warning, and judging by his talk page I don't think he's going to be templating as much either. (By the way, your referring to his hasty reading and mistake with the IP template using over-the-top language like "false charges" and "threatening of noobs" doesn't help your case with me.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is "false charges" over the top? Do tell. He made a false accusation of vandalism (he even admits this). The language "false charge" isn't even evaluative; it's descriptive and factually accurate. Steeletrap (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Ditto "threats." He threatened to block them. I simply fail to understand your point that my language is over the top when it (in this instance) is value-free and plainly factual. Steeletrap (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this point right now. You are exaggerating what the template actually says, and using language as if he had hauled a person into court, rather than dropping a very routine template onto an IP talk page. If you still hold that "false charges" and "threats" are justified descriptors, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So, if I randomly posted the vandalism template here, would calling that a "false charge" be exaggerated language? Steeletrap (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. However it would make a difference whether you did it on purpose or not :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know the intention behind a statement was relevant to whether it was true. We appear to have fundamental metaphysical disagreements on a wide range of matters. Steeletrap (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe there's any doubt about the phenomenon that users are often intimidated by Bink's interactions and that he regularly ignores or rebuffs individuals' complaints. Many, perhaps most, editors start out with some IP edits. Of course they're going to be intimidated when they tiptoe out onto this vast website and their errors are met with big red shapes and exclamation points and harsh words from some unseen intelligence. Adjwilley, please review Bink's talk page archives and see how frequently editors have said that they felt he treated them improperly. I haven't seen anything near that many such complaints on other editors' talk pages, and the frequency doesn't seem to have diminished over time. Steeletrap appears to be a rather sensitive lady and we need to respect gender differences in sensitivity and perception here. She's written many times about how she was intimidated as a newbie and there is at least one ANI thread from early 2013 where she reacts naively to having been Bitten. The environment here is rather fraught with formal and informal power relationships and alliances. Even a small amount of gratuitous bluster and confrontation can be intimidating to newcomers such as IPs. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting thread on a related topic. [8]. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with the blocking admin would be nice

Whether two reverts of the same material without discussion normally crosses the boundary into edit warring, doing so within hours of being warned that edit warring will lead to a block certainly is: it's pretty clear that DVMt purposely tested his boundaries and then feigned ignorance. Regardless, unblocking an editor when you know the blocking admin believes the block should remain without discussing it with the blocking admin isn't a really good idea.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Some other things might have been nice as well: if the blocking admin used a blocking template (none was left); if the blocking admin specified a reason for blocking (the block log just said "per previous warning and [diff to normal looking edit]" and no blocking message was left on the talk page); if the block length (indefinite) had been proportionate to the seriousness of the infraction (two reverts three days apart); if the reverts had actually violated the warning (the warning said all alternative medicine articles - the reverts were alternative medicine related, but not in the article space); if the warning itself (what seemed to be a defacto 1RR/0RR restriction) had a clear bright line like, well, 0RR or 1RR. By the way, I didn't know that single administrators could issue 1RR/0RR edit restrictions...if there had been a strong consensus to do so at the AN3 report, I could understand it, but I just saw a bunch of involved users complaining about each other there. Anyway, these are all very minor issues, but I bring them up because your posting here suggested to me that you were concerned about due process. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As pseudoscience, the areas the DVMt focuses on are the subject of discretionary sanctions and DVMt is well aware of that. If I block him again, I will explicitly point at the Arbcom ruling so that people don't miss the point.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's good to know, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If Kww punitively blocks any user, based on a priori judgment in a field, without consideration of the verifiable evidence case-by-case, then he should be taken to task. The attitude that Kww espouses here is not scientific, but religious; though aimed in the opposite direction of those he opposes, its philosophical underpinnings are the same. Following such would have left the origins of the photoelectric effect undiscovered for their heresy, and would relegate a significant part of the EU's European Medicines Agency to quackery, simply because, culturally and historically, there are defining medical philosophies underpinning that system that differ from ours. Case by case rejections of content based on poor sourcing of the facts? Yes, yes, yes. A priori rejection of a type of content from a person, based on the area where they seeking to describe matters? No, no, no. Le Prof (and as much of an anti-alternative meds guy as one can be, based on good science and philosophy of science). Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If history is a guide, most of what we think we know is wrong anyway. (This is coming from a physicist, mind you...I'm used to having my understanding of the universe upended.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: @Jmh649: @Leprof 7272: @Neuraxis: @QuackGuru: I wanted to let you know that I've filed a request for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Pseduoscience that might be of interest to you. Nothing serious, but I figured you'd want to be aware of the discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Edit: I would like to also include WhatamIdoing in this conversation as well. She is well versed in the subtleties and grey areas of policy and think her commentary would be informative. Neuraxis (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

BRD as non-policy, and its potential harm

Thank you for your comments on BRD at DVmt Talk page. It is refreshing to hear such clear thinking. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note.  :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Need a second set of eyes on a physics issue

I know you've got a good grasp of physics so I thought I'd ask you to keep on eye on something. I feel like I'm at loggerheads with User:Montyv on Talk:reactive centrifugal force over some pretty basic physics concepts. I'm trying to pull it back to references as the foray into being a physics TA on the talk page seems to have proven fruitless. However, it's gotten to the point that I feel like I'm losing my cool so an extra set of eyes would be helpful, maybe I'm getting tunnel vision as I respond and try to explain some of those concepts. Maybe I'm also crossing a line that I shouldn't. But also it looks like it's spilling over into another article reaction (physics) where IMO he/she is making edits to support his arguments on the first talk page, and I worry that it may be looking like I'm wikihounding the user over there as I try to contain some bad physics. Maybe I'm wrong in all of this though and his/her edits to the latter article are good. I'd appreciate it if you could at least keep an eye on the issue (assuming you've got time and interest) and warn me off if needs be. Thanks and Cheers. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm probably going to be on a partial wikibreak for the next two weeks or so due to some family circumstances, but I have started reading the talk page threads, and I'll continue as I have time. I'll comment when I feel like I have an understanding of what's going on, but it may take me a couple days at least. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues regarding chiropractic discussions

I am having concerns some aggression with BR. Over the last few days he's been not showing good faith by smearing me by making false statements about my "agenda"[9] as though he is peeking through a crystal ball. I've been very clear about my interests [10], however this has not stopped him about mischaracterizing my position and now is making false accusations [11] that I am edit warring when evidence suggests it is him! [12]. I have also rebutted him for making unfounded claims [13], [14]. Collectively, feel like BullRangider Is trying to distort things, bully me and to get me frustrated, and I would appreciate if you took my concerns under consideration. Neuraxis (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you really should read edit summaries before you act. By ignoring BRD, you were edit warring. You placed your comment in the wrong place, with wording which would effectively derail and misdirect Adjwilley's Clarification Request. It belongs to him, not you. You don't have a right to change the direction of the discussion. I advised you to restore your comment, but in the right place and after rewording it. If you don't understand why it's a straw man, then you should ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My advice is to not make it personal and to ignore anything that seems like a personal attack against you. BR was 100% correct in reverting you on the ArbCom requests page, and if you had looked more closely at their edit summary and read the directions at the top of the page (instead of assuming they were out to get you) you would have realized that ArbCom is not the place for threaded discussion. Forgive me if I'm missing something... I'm on my phone and trying to piece all this together on a small screen is difficult. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Bullrangifer continues his series of attacks presenting half truth, and again trying to mischaracterize me and smearing me with more specious allegations [15]. BR made the claim that I am using a straw man fallacy yet this is not supported by any evidentiary support, merely tossing the allegation. [16]. As User:Leprof_7272 has already mentioned to Kww [17], [18] regarding potentially smearing an editors reputation with false allegations, BR continual attempts to portray me someone with a battleground behaviour, edit warring problems, etc. aren't reflected in the facts, or the diffs. My character is being attacked simply because I am asking a question that challenges the current status quo (that MM for MSK disorders is based on pseudoscience. I have presented evidence [19] that supports the hypothesis I am presenting. I see this as a campaign to discredit my character and competence an attempt to get me blocked and banned for even discussing the subject matter. Neuraxis (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's BS. Your question is worded wrong, and therefore it's a straw man. Also don't push that issue in the wrong place. You need to listen to what people are telling you, instead of blindly pushing on. Rethink what you're asking and then reword it. Those are the problems, as I have just outlined here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't specified how or why it's worded wrong, nor provided evidence that I am engaging in a straw man fallacy. You're just stating it as fact and I am simply asking what exactly is the problem and how would you word it differently? Neuraxis (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would read the link I provided, before making comments, we could save a lot of time. Slow down and practice due diligence. Here's what I wrote there:

He asks above:

• "...the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe?

No, it is their manner of use, and the reasons for using them, which are potentially pseudoscientific. They cannot, in and of themselves, be pseudoscientific and/or fringe, any more than an acupuncture needle can be pseudoscientific and/or fringe. Your question is simply worded improperly, IOW it's a straw man.

Does that clear it up for you? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, the problem is that no one is arguing that manipulation is pseudoscience. It's not. Chiropracty is founded in pseudoscience. It's the difference between a doctor giving you a blue Ampicillin pill because of its antibiotic effect and a shaman giving you the exact same blue pill because the blue frightens the evil demons that have take root in your wound: the latter is still nonsense even if it works for completely different reasons than the ones espoused.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. That is the crux of the straw man argument. No one is claiming that manipulation is pseudoscience or fringe, but the question assumes it, and that's a false assumption. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I disagree. This is pertaining to the science of manual and manipulation therapies for MSK conditions. Using something that does not have effectiveness doesn't mean one is practicing pseudoscience, as conventional medicine is not entirely evidence-based in itself [20]. The application and misuse of the pseudoscience label is very common. This point illustrates that fact clearly [21]. The most common and mainstream of MM is for MSK disorders. Regardless of which profession provides the service, the reasons for use for them is common: to help reduce pain, improve mobility and function. We are attempting to delineate what use is considered 'scientific' or mainstream use of MM and what use (misuse) is considered fringe. I think we agree on the majority of the points, but disagree to what proportions those beliefs and practices are held. You advocate that unscientific MM (and by extension chiro practice) is practiced by the majority of the profession, whereas I have provided evidence that is practiced by the minority of the profession (20%). Also, we agree that non-msk use is controversial, but that doesn't mean it's de-facto pseudoscientific. Given that 10% of chiropractic practice is for co-management of non-msk, we are ignoring the 90% of practice that is centered on spine and MSK. These facts are all supported in my statement at the ArbCom. My question to you, what evidence do you have that supports the notion that the currently majority of chiropractic profession are unscientific charlatans? Kww, yes, current body manipulation is considered to be fringe/pseudoscientific [22]. So the fact that you're admitting that body manipulation is not pseudoscientific is fantastic news. But, currently WP asserts that MM is fringe, period. Given that chiropractors are the largest purveyors of MM this reflects on the profession (and osteopathic medicine and physical therapy as well) I do agree that MM should be re-classified. Thank you for making my point! Neuraxis (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a case of regardless what profession provides the service at all. Chiropracty is pseudoscience, and focusing on the aspect of it that works by accident doesn't rescue it from that status. You notice that physical therapy, which encompasses essentially all aspects of chiropractic medicine that are not nonsense, does not have the same label, despite doing essentially the same thing.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! You're making a lot of assumptions about things which we haven't discussed, at least not recently, or in this context. Try to simplify this, rather than conflate and mix it into some larger issues. Your recent question alone (see above) is the issue here. Stick to that. It's the wrong question. Can't you see that? Your constant use of MM is also far too vague. If you are referring to spinal manipulation (SM), then say SM, don't say MM. Misuse of SM can indeed be PS, but SM alone is just SM. It's the motivation that makes the difference. I'm a PT and use MM and occasionally SM, although a lot less than previously. So what? MM is a huge area which encompasses many techniques and many professions. DCs are the biggest providers of SM, but not of MM. There are far more PTs than DCs, and lots of DOs too, all of whom use MM. So be more precise. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, stating that chiropractic is 100% pseudoscience, through and through. You claim that using MM for LBP, neck pain, and other mechanical disorders is an accident. Here's the rub: PTs do less than 10% of MM in North America. And it is not their primary clinical intervention nor their expertise. So, because MM is the primary clinical intervention used by chiropractors, and because 90% of the time it's being used for MSK disorders, this is an accident? What exactly about chiropractic medicine is nonsense? Here is status report to the World Health Organization. It states "Chiropractic practice emphasizes the conservative management of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of medicines and surgery. Management includes joint and soft-tissue manual treatments, rehabilitation exercises, patient education and lifestyle modification, and the use of physical therapy modalities and orthotics and other supports. Surveys demonstrate that the primary reasons patients consult chiropractors are back pain (approximately 60%), other musculoskeletal pain such as pain in the neck, shoulder, extremities, and arthritic pain (20%) and headaches including migraine (10%). About 1 in 10 (10%) present with a wide variety of conditions caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders (e.g. pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome.) [23]. It's not the wrong question, and I rebutted that point to you already above. MM is encompassing of all joint manipulation, SMT being the most studied aspect. Brangifer you keep speculating behind the motives of using SMT and I've been clear: to relieve pain and improve function in MSK disorders. Provide evidence that DCs aren't the biggest provides of MM. This source clearly states ""Chiropractic was seen by [the] WHO, government officials from many countries and delegates from other professions as the most developed profession internationally in the field of manual healthcare" [24]. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Neuraxis (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note BR has changed the name of the topic away from him (which was my original complaint of aggressive behaviour towards me) and it has since morphed into another conversation. I am unfamiliar with what is the right policy, admin Doc James used my name [25] on the heading of a talk page. So who's correct? Neuraxis (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? It doesn't seem like it. Be precise. MM is too broad a term. If you're referring to spinal manipulation (SMT), then say SMT. DCs do perform about 90% of that (in the USA, unlike other countries, where PTs do far more than in the USA), but not manual techniques in general. Loose language just muddies the waters. Are you referring to SMT or not?

You are the one who asked about pseudoscience in connection with MM (or SMT, if that's what you mean), and that's where motives make a difference. We're talking about the pseudoscience aspect because YOU asked about it. It applies to uses that are based in unscientific ideas like vertebral subluxation and Innate Intelligence.

It would be nice if the profession publicly and unequivocally took a position against both of those ideas, and start punishing those chiropractors who give the others a bad name. It would also be nice if the profession would stop all chiropractors from manipulating the joints of every patient, on every visit, regardless of their problem. There are still too many (the majority) of those chiros around.

I have studied chiropractic websites for about 15 years and have downloaded many of them. Later, after the bad publicity over using the "subluxation" word scared them, many of the most prominent websites were scrubbed of the dreaded "S" word, with the only change made being a substitution of "joint dysfunction" for the "S" word. Otherwise no change in practice, philosophy, sales techniques, marketing, etc.. So there really was no change at all. Just CYA type behavior covering up continued pseudoscientific practices and beliefs.

So, are you going to start improving your communication by reading comments before you react, and changing your communication methods, because you're wasting lots of our time here. We usually topic block or ban time sinks here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, issuing veiled threats isn't improving the situation. I've made myself perfectly clear. You are claiming MM is too broad, but MM encompasses all of it (spinal and peripheral joint mobilization, manipulation, both the HVLA and LVVA types). I am referring to subluxation/joint dysfunction that is the mainstream use, i.e. biomechanical lesion, lesion that falls under MSK disorders here [26] at the ICD-10 which is put out by the WHO. If you are referring to the metaphysical concept of subluxation (with II) then we are discussing apples and oranges. We both agree that the metaphysical or straight/philosophical concept is bogus. I'm glad we clarified that as well. Neuraxis (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how much of this Adjwilley will tolerate on his talk page. Still, the question is not whether most women are sufficiently intelligent that they don't go to chiropractors for missed periods, the question is whether chiropracty holds itself out as being an effective treatment for missed periods. You further imply that a self-serving statement from chiropractors to the WHO somehow becomes reliable or authoritative because it is addressed to the WHO. Your quoted statement even includes the statement, as fact, that pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory disorders, digestive dysfunctions, and infant colic are aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Here's a tip: describing your belief in a letter to a physicist doesn't make it physics, and describing your particular flavour of pseudoscience to the WHO does not make it medicine.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you are focusing on 10% of non-msk management and not the 90%. Since I agree with you regarding the 10%, and we are not disputing the 90%, what is it exactly we disagree with? Are you stating that chiropractic management of MSK disorders using manual and manipulative therapies is pseudoscientific? I'm at a loss here. Quackwatch is rather clear on the subject too, stating Try to find a chiropractor whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of back pain and other musculoskeletal problems and concludes Although manipulative therapy has value in treating back pain and may relieve other musculoskeletal conditions, chiropractors are not the only source of manipulative therapy. Physical therapists, many osteopathic physicians, and a small number of medical doctors do it also [27] So, what is exactly is considered pseudoscientific about chiropractors whose practice is comprised of 90% of MSK complaints, who practice 90% of the manipulations in North America with respect to their scope of practice which is "Chiropractic practice emphasizes the conservative management of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system without the use of medicines and surgery. Management includes joint and soft-tissue manual treatments, rehabilitation exercises, patient education and lifestyle modification, and the use of physical therapy modalities and orthotics and other supports". 80% of the profession practices in manner congruent with biomedical scientific orthodoxy (NMSK focused). It's pretty clear that over the last 20 years things have progressed and evolved, and the sources are reflecting that. We are discussing what the situation is currently not what it once was. Science and evidence evolves with time, and policies shift to reflect this. ArbCom should help decide whether or not a different categorization would be appropriate such as Alternative Theoretical Formulations. Neuraxis (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you want to downplay the fact that chiropracty still presents itself as a cure for things that there is no scientific basis for. That the market rejects chriropracty for such things is not the issue at all.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this and similar conversations quietly and anonymously for several days now. Kww, you do not seem equipped or willing to honestly address Neuraxis' well referenced points. He's asked you the same question several times, in several ways, but you keep dodging. You have a clear vendetta against Neuraxis and your out-to-nail-him attitude will not bode well should you use your admin privilege to penalize this editor again. Brangifer, stop making this about Neuraxis' motives. He has been dealing with formidable editors who are not trying to present the subject neutrally but rather in the worst light possible. I know you know this to be true. It's clear that you don't agree with Kww's pseudoskeptical position that all of chiropractic is woo. The questions on the table here is what percentage of chiropractors have an evidenced-based practice today. Neuraxis has provided some reliable sources to back his position that a high percentage are evidence-based. So far, all you have given us is your original research based on looking at chiropractors' websites. Do you have a reliable source which counters what the sources Neuraxis has presented? If you do, great. Please share. If not, then please say so and then move on. This is how Wikipedia works best... Just a gentle reminder... Not trying to be condescending at all. I know you know this. 198.228.216.16 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't "dodged" anything. Neuraxis has presented a letter from a chiropractic agency that basically says "we manipulate the body to cure dysmennorhea, respiratory disorders, digestive dysfunctions, infant colic, and back pain. 90% of our patients come to us with back pain, but we still are able to cure all that other stuff, too". He would look at that choice of the patients and make it reflect well on the chiropractors.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, even your thinly supported (mis)interpretation boils down to "90% of what chiropractors do is evidence-based". I would even argue that of the 10% remaining, some percentage of that has weak-to-moderate evidence supporting it. Name a healthcare profession where 100% of what the practitioners do or recommend 100% of the time is 100% based on irrefutable evidence. Brangifer, you seem to recognize these percentages as true but still discredit chiropractic because you claim to know what the chiropractors are thinking when they perform manipulations. And your claimed source of this knowledge is that you've looked at a lot of private practitioners' websites. Surely you can see how claimed knowledge of someone else's thoughts seems like a thin argument. Yes? 198.228.216.22 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't boil down to that at all. Let's try another analogy: let's say I came up with a pleasant tasting minty solution and claimed that it cured eczema, cancer, meningitis, depression, and halitosis. If 90% of my sales were to people that gargled with it and were pleased with its effect on their breath, would that in any way excuse the claims that it cured eczema, cancer, and meningitis? Would I be able to say that I must have a legitimate product because 90% of its usage was evidence based?—Kww(talk) 19:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand the analogy but there is a logical fallacy presented within it. Essentially: Where is the evidence that the majority of practitioners are making such non-evidence based claims about the effects of manipulation these days? All I've read here is Brangifer's original research from looking over individual chiropractor's websites. Are you relying on the same original research or do you have some published data? 104.34.169.198 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis's report to the WHO by the World Federation of Chiropractic includes the claim that a "wide variety of conditions [are] caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders (e.g. pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome.)". If the source is good enough for the 90% figure, it's good enough to explain the underlying basis for the treatment.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I am glad to know that you agree that the WHO source is good enough for the 90% figure. Second, so are you saying that there are no digestive dysfunctions (for instance) which are aggravated (not necessarily caused) by a neuromusculoskeletal disorder? Third, even if chiropractors manipulate 10% of the time to supposedly help with something non-neuromusculoskeletal, it does not mean that the other 90% of the time when they manipulate for evidence-based neuromusculoskeletal conditions, that they are concurrently thinking that they are also treating for non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions. You are making this fallacious leap and are not providing any sources to back up such a claim. 104.34.169.198 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as a self-serving statement, it's more reliable for the statement that they believe manipulation cures things that it has no effect on than it is for the 90% figure. I get the feeling that you didn't truly grasp my minty mouthwash analogy. Note that the statement explicitly claims that the listed diseases are caused by neuromusculoskeletal disorders.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, like the IPs suggest, you're having this conversation in your own head. You provide no evidence to support your claim, the quotes that are presented you distort and insert 'cure'. You're using logical fallacies and are trying to appeal to your own authority, yet another fallacy. Unless you're going to bring evidence, facts, you are merely asserting your personal opinion. Is cogntitive bias in play? Neuraxis (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've quoted your own source, but emphasized the points that demonstrate the falsity of your position. You misrepresented a letter from a chiropractic agency that states that chiropracty is effective in treating a wide variety of diseases as having the authority of the WHO, and are using the fact the people generally reject chiropracty as treatment for the majority of things claimed in the letter as a source of legitimacy. Read the letter again. Pay attention to who it's from, and pay attention to the fact that of the six medical claims in the letter, only one of them has any scientific support. Don't twist 80% ineffectiveness into 90% support because even of the people that go to chiropractors, 90% of them are sufficiently intelligent to not seek a chiropractor's help with things like indigestion.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What have you quoted? You seem to be misinterpreting the source. And there's this: New Practice Options and Spine Care Pathways. As a result of two developments since the 1990s, the chiropractic profession’s greatly strengthened evidence base and the continuing move by mainstream and complementary professions to adopt evidence-based practice, there are now expanded opportunities for practice for chiropractors in all world regions. These are found in different forms of collaborative and fully integrated care in primary practice and hospital settings.. 104.34.169.198 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation , Kww, is not grounded in reality. You don't even know what the WFC is, the relationship with the WHO, nor even understand that the WHO requested a status report for the profession internationally. You are assuming my intentions again, incorrectly, and displaying bad faith that I'm trying to dupe people. Also, the practice of chiropractic, once again is Chiropractic (Greek: done by hand) is a health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. So, keep on ignoring the 90% which is the primary focus and keep on putting undue weight on the 10% which may be caused or aggravated by NMSK conditions. It's getting tendentious with many editors pointing out your logical flaws and inability to comprehend what the facts are. It's a medical topic and if you don't understand the topic, the science, the research, the evidence as a whole, then bow out. You're not adding anything new and you're once again ducking the fact that you're not bringing any sources that dispute the one's I provided. For an admin, I figured you would know this basic policy. You really need to read this [28]. Unless you're going to be bringing citations that suggest that currently the majority of chiropractors are practicing pseudoscientifically, I'm not going to reply. Neuraxis (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm ducking nothing, Neuraxis. Your technique is an old one: since you can only support your position by misrepresenting your sources, you accuse those that point out your fallacious reasoning as being too incompetent to understand you.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide me with a link to this WHO source with the 90% number you're arguing about? I'm sure it's been linked to somewhere above, but I want to make sure I'm getting the right link. (All I want is the one link - no interpretations or explanations or synthesis please.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/WHO_Submission-Final_Jan2013.pdf —Kww(talk) 01:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on my quick reading, I'd say that this source would be an acceptable source for parts of the article provided it doesn't violate any of the criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE (no unduly self-serving or exceptional claims, etc.) I don't see many exceptional claims in the article, and the stuff about back pain, neck pain, and headaches seems pretty conservative, though I wouldn't use this source to support any of those claims (I'd dig into the references for that). The numbers at the top of page 3 seems to be what people here are arguing about, and I don't think they support any of the claims people are making. It doesn't say anything about what chiropractors believe or why treatments are or aren't effective. It says that X percent of people who seek chiropractic help have symptoms Y and Z. The statement at the beginning of the 1st paragraph on page 3 that "Chiropractic practice emphasizes the conservative management of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system..." seems to support Neuraxis's position that chiropractic focuses on back pain, etc., while the parenthesis at the end (suggesting that pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome, are "caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders") seems to support Kww's position that chiropractic still claims to cure stuff other than "nmsk" disorders. Not to say the two are mutually exclusive. Overall, though, I'd say that this is a poor source for either position. I couldn't find anything saying that X percent of chiropractors think or believe either way. I'm sure there are divisions within the field, but this source isn't the one to prove that. For that, I'd prefer something scholarly...independent university researchers doing surveys of chiropractors or something of the sort. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It speaks of what patients bring to the chiropractor, IOW the patients' choice. Some chiropractors' practices focus a whole lot on the 10%, and some focus more on the 90%, regardless of what they believe. They treat what they get walking in the door. Straight chiropractors will tend to focus on the spine, often for pseudoscientific reasons, because they believe that treatment of the spine is the key to treating all other diseases. These chiros will be credited with treating back problems, ignoring their pseudoscientific reasoning for doing so. The question of whether we use words like "pseudoscience" in chiropractic articles really has nothing to do with this, but on what RS say. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

:Adjwilley, BullRangifer opinion has been stated ad nauseum with no sources brought to the table. Here is a paper illustrating to what extent factions that practice scientifically or unscientifically, please read this source [29] which illustrates the historical perception vs. the current reality. No spin, it's all yours. Like to see what you think. Neuraxis (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My point was not that it is a good source for the "chiropracty is pseudoscience" position, but that it is a terrible source for the "chiropracty is not pseudoscience" position.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kww, OK.

@Neuraxis, I'll read it when I get a chance. I've exhausted all the time today that I can devote to Wikipedia, and I'll be on a 14 hour road trip all day tomorrow, so it might take a little while for me to get back to you. In the meantime, it might be good for you to take a break from this back and forth discussion that's spreading over multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I fear we are heading down a dead end alley of misdirection, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our job is not to determine whether or not chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience, but what RS say about that matter. Sources are what it always comes back to, not our opinions. The judgment of "pseudoscience" is a value judgment, an opinion, and we simply quote what RS say about the matter, and often attribute the statements accordingly.

So, to reiterate, any discussion of whether chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience leads us away from following our sourcing policies, IOW it encourages policy violations. Let's just stick to the sources. It will always be a matter of opinion whether they are right or not anyway, and we are not allowed to use our own opinions to determine whether to use them or not. If they exist, we must determine how to use them in an appropriately framed manner, giving them the weight they deserve. NPOV requires that.

BTW, Kww, "chiropracty" is not a word. The word chiropractic is a special construction and is properly used in rather odd ways, grammatically speaking, so it's best to just use it, even if it seems grammatically wrong at times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. Not a common one, but it avoids sounding like the oxymoronic "chiropractic medicine".—Kww(talk) 05:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You got me there! That is extremely rare. I thought it was strictly a derogatory creation. It might still be that, which is why it redirects to chiropractic. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The only one being transparent here with sources is me. We do have a RS, that I linked above, that states clearly that the majority of current chiropractic practice is based on biomedical scientific orthodoxy. How about you comment on the source itself? Neuraxis (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't magically remove numerous other RS which say that the profession still has issues with pseudoscientific beliefs and practices. Also, chiropractic researchers have documented that fraud, abuse and quackery are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions.[30] Unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of chiropractic have continued to be made by individual chiropractors and chiropractic associations.[31] One of the more recent and dramatic examples of the profession being caught with their pants down is from England when a well-organized skeptical backlash to the BCA libel lawsuit against Simon Singh caused the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to frantically and privately order its members to shutdown their websites and remove any unscientific literature from their clinics. That order was leaked, much to their embarrassment. The skeptics had already downloaded the websites, so the removals were documented and hundreds of complaints filed against them with the authorities. The BCA's response, using a typical "wall of references approach" (something we see on this page. Homeopaths do that too....), was ripped apart. BTW, Singh won the lawsuit. You can read about it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More speculation and conjecture. I am not disputing there isn;t unscientific practice, I am providing quantification of the preponderance of this across the profession. The source states 20%. Scientific practice constitutes 80%. If 4/5 chiropractors practice according to accepted scientific biomedical orthodoxy, why is WP treating it as though it were 100% pseudoscientific (i.e. status quo). Appealing to the authority is a logical fallacy, so again, let's stick to article in question. Thank you! Neuraxis (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Documentation of problems is not the same as "treating it as though it were 100% pseudoscientific." I'm not sure where you get that idea. You can't expect articles about the most controversial pseudo-medical profession in modern times to suddenly lose all criticism. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing documenting problems. I have never advocated for eliminating criticism or white-washing the article. What I am asking, is should the criticism be in direct proportion (i.e. weight) to the number and type of practitioners espousing non-scientific practice? Your perspective seems to be frozen in time. You have also suggested that the majority of practicing chiropractors are unscientific. This research demonstrates that the reverse is true and to what degree. You've also made another false statement (with no citation) most controversial pseudo-medical profession. We do have this source that states Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation, is the most important example of alternative medicine in the United States and alternative medicine's greatest anomaly. Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. [32]. Getting back to the point, Adjwilley asked for a specific type of source, it was provided and there wasn't supposed to be any spin. So, let's just end it here, for now, let him get on with his analysis and see what turns up. Neuraxis (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies that I have not engaged sooner, @Neuraxis, @Brangifer, @Kww, @104.34.169.198, (and @Adjwilley, commenting if I propose anything problematic) —— I have been sidelined with a major article issue in my direct area of expertise, alongside real life. Responding because some of you have invited me to comment, interestingly, at least one from each side. (This suggests, and I suspect, that no one would be happy if I shared an essay on the broader subject of acceptable and unacceptable scientific content, mdr.) Here, rather than engage on a particular article or issue, I would be so bold as to suggest a possible course that might allow Admins some peace, and lead to less fighting on both sides. Consider this a proposal, if acceptable, for this debate community to implement however it sees fit:

*1 For each article where this crowd has seen conflict, create a new, and renewable Talk section (not going away upon archiving), that is named commonly between articles, perhaps with visual marker to make it easily found; at this Talk section, before major content edits are made to the article, the reliable secondary source that is being proposed is presented, citation only.

*2 A prior agreed upon period of time is allowed to elapse (e.g., a week), and people respond, yea or nay, whether the source presented is considered baseline suitable for consideration. This must be a quick and dirty decision phase, ignored by adjudicators or marginally interested (e.g., admins and chem pharm profs), with the criteria individual, but primarily based on type of article, journal reputation, and related factors. Votes might be N, Y-unconditional, and Y—conditional on grouping with further articles.

*3 After the week, the issue is settled in one of 4 ways (see next for actual content creation): (a) Vote of clear No, article is set aside, and matter is left. (b) Vote of Y-conditional on grouping, clock starts again, perhaps for 2 weeks, for those opposing without appearance of balancing counter articles, to provide the articles. (c) Vote of clear Y-unconditional, article moves to writing phase (see below). (d) No clear vote, or other conflict arises.

*4 In case of conflict — but only after going through this process of article evaluation and consensus building — a small group of outsiders, who have agreed to review (to prevent constant Alt/Wholistic Med visits to noticeboards), have a look and issue a focused opinion on the source. The hope here is that this will (a) be much rarer than in past, for the agreed upon new process, and (b) be much less painful, in its coming in on the simple point of whether an article is a valid source (no edit on the table). If, even with outside help, no agreement is possible, then I think both sides could agree, "no go" (matter too gray, wait for a better article).

*5 Writing phase: When new material is agreed to go in based on a new, solid secondary source (or a group of the same), original submitter goes through three three quick steps, first a brief period (day or two), soliciting guiding input about where and how much to add from the new source to the article; this is a not a vote, just a vetting of the concerns of others before the writing starts, esp. aimed at allowing those outvoted to express concerns. Second, the drafting, taking onto account those concerns, and the article as it stands. Third, a quick review stage, where a new section is created in Talk, "New article content based on Citation X", where the LOCATION AND CONTENT OF THE EDIT are posted for a brief period, for comment. Hopefully, at this stage, having been developing the habits of AGF and collegiality that this process is aiming at —— no more entries into Talk with "That's B.S...", as above —— the review should be cordial, and allow for fast introduction of the new text. Alternatively, if there is conflict, the process can move again to the preceding informal conflict/remediation method indicated above.

Bottom line, the proposal, first, acknowledges that there is no discovery, no subject, that is off limits for discussion, if it appears in a reliable secondary source, and if the content of that source is accurately represented in brief text, and properly placed—within the article, with additional balancing source material as called for by the preponderance of scientific opinion on the subject, but second, that the bar is high for areas where in past such science has been lacking. I think if such a course is followed, neither side will be fully satisfied — sometimes topics will go in, though some of us would rather not "waste the space", simply because reliable academics are researching/presenting/discussing them, making them suitable for WP, and sometimes topics will not, or only go in slowly, because the standard for sources is high, and the demand for balance (true preponderance of opinion) or hard work (giving both or all sides if there is no preponderance of opinion) slows the process down. My view, I have no sense from anyone here of anything less than real intelligence, stamina, and strenght of spirit; if such horses can be trained to pull in the same team ——if we can let go of our prejuduces about unpresented data, and focus on the data —— such a team can accomplish almost anything. Up to you all if you want to.

Now, just to truly confuse, I should tell you the story of my former Natl Acad Sciences member, named Prof, every microbiol-award-under-the-sun winner, and also Macarthur Foundation genius awardee and solid "just the facts. ma'am" evidence-based scientist and mentor (of mine)... that also, for the period I worked with him, had weekly chiropractic visits, pursued wholly for practical reasons, given the inability of his GP, internist, or orthopod to provide any release from his physical pain and discomfort... but I will save that intriguing story for another time. (I remained a skeptic, but have no limit of respect for that world class scientist and that he could make his own empirically based decision, rest his soul.) Cheers, have at it, let me know how this might fit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues regarding chiropractic discussions, Part 2

Begin next phase of discussion, here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just checking

Your request for clarification includes identification of an involved user User:Username2. Is this an error? (I'm a new clerk for the committee, trying to make sure this is actioned properly.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was left over from the template that I copied and pasted to make the request. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That was my guess, thanks for fixing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT, Adj, have to ask your assistance

A particular content conflict has come to involve an Admin, who appeared (it seems) as a friend of the other party involved in the content conflict. I need advice on how to proceed.

How I propose going about it is explained here: [33]. There are no links to the pages involved, yet. This is just a forewarning, asking you to make a little time, and give the request a little aforethought. Cheers, see that link, and then wait for another ping. THANKS. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Have pinged you, but wanted to leave a note to say the necessary information is now in place to jumpstart a review of the Admin COI question. Please see here, [34], when you have at least 15 mins (unfortunately). Thank you in advance, for whatever you can do, regarding this (firestorm preempting) request. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Leprof, sorry to have not responded earlier. I saw your messages on my phone, but I have been busy and for the most part haven't had internet outside of my phone's data connection. It seems to me that Doc James is commenting and participating as an editor, not an admin, which is very much allowed. Were he planning to participate as an admin he probably wouldn't have dived in and started editing the article. If that is the case, you asking him to recuse himself based on a relationship with another editor in the dispute would have been like asking an editor to recuse himself from a discussion based on a relationship, which isn't typically done, and which doesn't make a lot of sense logically, which might explain why he ignored the request. (Although it would be nice if he clarified whether or not this was the case...) I'd say your best bet here is to treat him like any other editor: address his arguments, and work toward a compromise if there is an unresolvable disagreement. But at the same time be careful not to do anything block-worthy. If he does anything that requires the admin toolset (blocking, page protection, setting edit restrictions, imposing sanctions, etc.) then that would be a violation of WP:Involved but as I understand it he is allowed to participate in whatever talk page discussions interest him. If he does take any admin action, please do notify me, but I don't expect he will. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Came to check in on the above discussion on Chiropractic, but glad to see a response to this. Received, thanks, You are too much the model of what I expect here. I will just wait for other two Admins to reply, but feel free to tell them what you told me (perhaps at Bush's page, so it will be, by my choice, out of my view). Cheers, enjoy… Father's day busy-ness, I hope? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Two weddings and a funeral, actually. If I got something wrong above, do let me know. I read most of the discussion 3 days ago (before you had made the compilation on Liz'z talk page) so it's quite possible that I missed something important. If you would like me to look over it again I can do that. Just out of curiosity, what do you "expect here"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So to clarify, yes I am like any other editor in this discussion. Maybe Adjwilley could clarify Leprof's answer to my question "which viewpoint is missing and what text with high quality secondary source will improve the situation"? Supposedly it is in here [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [36]. Settling this there, n that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length earlier. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

Closing of request to you, Liz, et al.

Call for assistance is closed, and matter is summarized thus: For better or worse, matter has settled down. Foregoing non-expert Admin intervention issue: he eventually claimed no bias favouring editor friend, I A'dGF and apologized, but he departed without restoring the Expert tag he deleted. Little outside attention was generated overall, though there was some small acceptance of the need for article change on part of other resistant editor. But, only 1 expert came during the week that the Expert tag was up (before the touch-and-go, non expert Admin removed it). And no experts have come by the article since. So, 2 conflicting editors remain, and without real recognition or sorting of the fundamental concerns that led to the earlier content standoff. Evidences for no real change: First, the other editor WP:RTP'd the article Talk at first sign others had departed, without discussion, and in so doing, severed all the links I created trying to bring in further outsiders. Second, the other editor offered to decide which section I should edit first, to begin to change the article. (TYVM, sir, but no to demand for submission to another editor's authority.) So, call it fragile peace. Bottom line: WP community proved disinterested despite high article importance—neither Wikiproject experts nor independent Admins responded (other than you), either to the call to get involved at the article, or to revert the Expert needed tag. So, it is just us, without real hope for other involvement. I'll give it one last go; next time trouble erupts, I'll ping all, and simply depart the article. Leaving a couple of important articles in good shape was the goal I had before retiring here. But the opportunity cost can simply rise too high. Feel free, remove color/everything here, after you read. Liz was encouraged to delete/archive long message at her Talk, as she pleases. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Leprof, the cynic inside me wants to say, "Welcome to Wikipedia". Seriously though, I apologize for not being able to devote more time to this when you first brought the matter up. I was having a hard time adequately understanding what was the root cause of the dispute, and was having an even harder time finding the time to invest in the matter. From what you said, I think you did the right thing in the end regarding the non-expert admin (AGFing and all).

If I might share one opinion I've formed over the years... It seems obvious, but it's worth saying that disputes make effective editing really hard to do. As soon as people start getting emotionally involved, even minor copyediting can be nearly impossible. This is why I believe that it is the Wikignomes (not the Wikiknights) who actually control Wikipedia. The wikiknights spend all day arguing on the talk pages, reverting back and forth on articles, trolling each others user pages, and reporting each other to various noticeboards, and occasionally getting each other blocked. Meanwhile the wikignomes are out fixing links, adding citations, copyediting, and ultimately writing articles that can go for years without anybody even thinking to post on the talk page. Sometimes the ease of writing an article is inversely proportional to the number of people trying to contribute to it. Sometimes it's simply best, I think, to just move on to a different article. Sure, you're leaving the old one in a bad state, but there's no shortage of articles needing improvement, and you can accomplish much more elsewhere without having to fight for it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally saw this, and glad I did. I hold apparent contradictory convictions, clearly: I am committed to gnome-like contribution and impact, but, because I have limited my major articles to 2-3, am stuck with whatever knights might reside (and one in particular, who seems to derive his interest in significant part based on where I express mine). So, how then does a gnome effectively fight a knight, when the knight attacks? Perhaps, clearly, not through man-to-gnome single combat. mdr Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience arbitration clarification request

Hi Adjwilley, the clarification request you submitted regarding whether Chiropractic was covered by discretionary sanctions authorised in the Pseudoscience case the has been closed with the arbitrators agreeing that it is covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review

Looking to file a request for clarification of the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling. There is some discussion of such on the Talk:Intelligent design Page, particularly the “Request for clarification" section. I was wondering if I might impose on you as an uninvolved knowledgable party to review it and maybe find a way to boilit down enough to file a request. Be warned it might take a while. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I will respond to this soon. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:

When an article's subject is generally considered to be pseudoscience in reliable sources...	Example 1	Example 2
Must the word pseudoscience be used in describing the article's subject, or are alternate wordings acceptable?	"<Subject> is pseudoscience"	"<Subject> is rejected by mainstream scientists"
If the label pseudoscience is used, how prominent should it be? Does it need to be in the first sentence of the Lead, or should the first sentence be a general definition of the subject?	"<Subject> is a pseudoscientific idea that <definition of subject>."	"<Subject> is <definition of subject>...<Subject> is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scholars."
Should the assertion that a subject is pseudoscience be attributed, or can it be stated in Wikipedia's voice?	"<Subject> is pseudoscience."	"<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars."

A good question specific to the dispute would be,

• Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?

The answer to that question would clarify whether ID can be "labeled and categorized as [pseudoscience] without more justification" or whether it "may properly contain that information [that it is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community] and may be categorized as pseudoscience".

In any case, I think a clarification of the wording at #Generally_considered_pseudoscience would be appropriate, since it is not entirely clear how the term should be used, and since the minority of "moderate" editors who are actually interested in NPOV and encyclopedic writing are so often drowned out, ignored, or "tuned out" as part of the "opposition" by the opposing camps of editors that perpetuate the TLDR talk page discussions at the articles in question. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The last part of this edit by John Carter raises some concerns IMO that I think you might wish to consider. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Nick Thorne: Thanks, I had read the talk page yesterday, but it has apparently grown since then. Do you think it would be helpful for me to post the above on the article talk page under the thread you linked? My original plan was to wait here for John Carter's response...see if I've "boiled it down" to his satisfaction, and see how he intends to file the request for clarification, though now that I think about it I can definitely see some benefits of not moving the discussion here to my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome seeing you post your information on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally am not contemplating editing the article page itself at all. Dave has done a good job on the article for several years now and I expect he would continue to do so if the guidelines were a bit clearer. My primary interest is based on the fact that this particular ArbCom pseudoscience case has been such a contentious one in so many areas and would seem to me to be directly relevant to some other contentious topics that tend to get one-sided editing (like "Ethiopian science") that maybe some sort of more detailed guidelines for particularly main topical articles might be of some utility and I was hoping to maybe get ArbCom to ask that some broad guidelines get drafted to make article construction and development easier and less subject to article-by-article disputes. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can I just suggest that the table above looks prescriptive in excessive detail, inviting Arbcom to set rigid rules for article content rather than, as at present, setting principles to be read in conjunction with relevant policies. Since John Carter is expressly not interested in editing the article, his intervention appears POINTy and counterproductive, derailing discussion on article improvement. It may be possible to ask Arbcom to refine the wording in a more general way, but that is clearly a matter for wider community input, not something specific to the ID article. Something to think over: what is the best venue for this discussion? . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should specify I meant edit the article in the srict sense of the phrase and did not at least potentially rule out finding sources and/or suggesting changes and that I guess I thought in context that was obvious? Also, a lot of what I do here is based on sources I find, and "intention" doesn't enter into it. I guess I could call into question the conduct of some other editors who seem to be perhaps overfond of the word "pseudosience" a word already counterindicated by WP:WTW and that the failure to address that to date and attempts to defend it could also be derailing discussion of article improvement by stonewalling or otherwise defending a violation of existing guidelines too but haven't yet. And of course no one was even thinking of attempting to abridge your own right to comment there. I also note what might be perhaps both rushes to judgment about the depth and breadth of these as-yet-not-even-really-proposed guidelines yet. And in many cases the best place for discussion on a contentious topic like ID and pseudosciene in general is probably someplace other than a single article's talk page. Pseudoscience has been one of the more active old rulings lately and it probably would be useful to have some clearer indicators in place to reduce their number. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to lift restrictions, temporarily

Adj, hope you are well, and not too bogged down by matters that are not truly interesting to you. Here I hope is a brief matter. Could you possibly lift the "white lock" restrictions to the editing of the "Jack Andraka" article, say, beginning sometime around 7 PM EST this evening, and leave them off for 12 hours or so? The controls appear to be in place to prevent vandalism regarding LGBT content. My edits will span the article, moving text about and fixing or acknowledging a wide variety of sourcing issues. At the same time, I will add three sections of new content. The best way to do the edits is one section at a time. The best way for other editors to review and comment is on the whole—for instance, though done in two steps, to see the section from which content was taken, at the same time they can see the section to which the content was moved. It unreasonably restraining and invites unnecessary misunderstanding for me to do a section, and wait for its review, then do the second, etc. My editing has nothing to do with the LGBT content (and in fact largely steers clear of the "Personal" section). Given this explanation, can you lift the "white lock" protection for a 12 hour period, so I can place these edits, sequentially, top to bottom, explaining each, without delays? (Rather than all at once, creating a huge change, and a huge Talk section to explain.) TY for consideration. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: As far as I can tell, your editing should not be affected by the whitelock (i.e. WP:Pending changes level 1) protection on the article. The reason you had to wait for someone to review and accept your first two edits is because you apparently made the first edit while being logged out (as an IP). Because that edit was still "unreviewed" when you made your second edit, both edits were then tagged as being "unreviewed" which is why you had to wait for both to be accepted. As long as you stay logged in during the whole editing process, this shouldn't be a problem, unless another IP editor makes an edit in the middle of your editing session. If you're worried about this happening, I can temporarily change the protection of the article as you requested, or, if you never want to deal with this problem again, let me know that you've read WP:Reviewing, and I'll give you the "Reviewer" user right that gives you the power to accept or reject pending changes by yourself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, spot on analysis and I understand the matter now. Let me try to do the edits, no change article protection or in my status. But I will gladly add reviewer at some point soon, via your help, so I can be of more use here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another quick matter

Could you read these three short descriptions, [37] (and following brief citations added Talk section), [38], and [39], and then keep an eye on the Secosteroid page? The thought/request is, if my reversion at Secosteroids is re-reverted, to somehow stop the war in its tracks, and force discussion before further warring. I would like the current opening lede definition maintained, and Boghog to wait with his edit until he has his proposed change in direction discussed. The other links are to where I have brought the matter to the Wikiproject Chemistry Talk page, and have gone to the Wikiproject Pharmacology Talk page and invited them to comment at the Chem Talk page. I am being very communicative, a priori.

Technically speaking, I am not sure what is best to ask of you -- that if he re-reverts, to revert him again, or what? To protect the page in some fashion as it stands (my reversion in place), until the consensus can develop? RSVP here, but please keep an sideward glance at Secosteroid (for my being reverted), if you can. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list, but am reluctant to protect anybody's version. Based on a brief look at the edit in question, I don't see why your version can't be modified to address Boghog's concern about the accessibility of the introductory sentence to the average reader. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you there. But look back sometime, and see my response to the intro sentence accessibility. If accessibility were the only question, and real impetus for change, I would not have come to you! Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I think Boghog's response here is perfectly reasonable. Guessing about ulterior motives and voicing those suspicions isn't going to be particularly helpful, but reading his comments and taking steps to resolve his concerns is. Instead of waiting for the "community" to step in and be the judge between you and Boghog, why don't you just make a bold edit yourself and simplify the first sentence so that an average reader can understand it? That would have the two pronged effect of neutralizing one of his concerns and generating some goodwill between the two of you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Adjwilley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technophant (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I got the echo notification already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruption needs to be stopped

After reading your advice, Technophant seems to have "understood" the meaning of page protection, and is now misusing it to own the Myofascial meridians article.

Also, in spite of your direct advice and warning, he has resumed attempts to force in an edit which has been rejected multiple times, as noted by this comment. The page protection needs to be reinstalled, or the editor blocked and topic banned (from Acupuncture and Myofascial meridians).

Please investigate the forum shopping and controversies created by Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's a HUGE time sink. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm not convinced that they're the whole problem here. I've been contemplating topic bans for a number of editors in this area, but I prefer to do a bit more research before using the Discretionary Sanctions banhammer. In this case, I expect they will be blocked shortly for edit warring on the Myofascial meridians page...if they return to the disruptive behavior after that block, I will issue a topic ban. (I'd rather let the people who usually run AN3 determine whether an edit warring block is in order.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: Upon closer scrutiny of the AN3 report, it looks like at least one of the diffs wasn't actually a revert. (I expected better from User:Jmh649...also disappointed with their participation in the edit war.) Anyway, I'm still going to let someone else sort out that report. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Exactly which of the five is not a revert within 24 hours? I have described them in more detail here [40]

So one can now add a new bit of text supported by a book that introduces a new body system to the standard 11 (this ref [41] in this edit [42]) and then happy edit it into place.

You were expecting that I should allow a new organ systems to be added based on a German text written in the early 1900s and now translated to English? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I could be wrong, but to me this diff does not look like a revert. The content added, as far as I can tell, had not been added or removed from the article prior to that edit, and the re-addition of the NPOV tag, if anything, was a self-revert of this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That was the first addition. Than we have three more additions of the same text all within 20 hours. Plus we have the re adding of the spam link to [43] (take a look at that link it is impressive). That would be four blocks of edits that contain revert. Also typically the initial addition of content is counted as an edit. Thus someone does not get to come along add something that is controversial once without consensus using poor sources. Than when reverted re-add it three more times and claim they won. The prior content used to stand and one used to need consensus to make a controversial change. I know I have had to reach 66% support a couple of times to make a single edit Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A revert by definition means that it is reversing the action of others, so the initial "Bold" edit that is reverted to doesn't actually count as a revert itself. I realize that seems unfair, as it gives "Bold" editors who add new material an upper hand in edit wars, but that's how the reverts are counted. Of course, one should also consider stuff like WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO which give preference to the prior consensus revision. (And if you ask me, there's a strong case for nobody edit warring past 1RR, even if the added material is problematic, but I'm not going to bore you with that soap box right now.) Anyway, to be clear, I too see 4 reverts, and in my opinion, if you wish to make a convincing case for User:EdJohnston to reconsider, you should update the AN3 report to that effect. Mind you, I'm not saying that Technopath was right in any of this...he definitely wasn't...I only commented on it because I had initially taken your report at face value, only to be disappointed later on when I looked into the diffs (this was all before User:BoboMeowCat had commented). ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All one needs is 4 reverts to break the bright line. Those 4 reverts were there even by your counting methods. We do appear to disagree on exactly what counts as a "revert" at 3RR though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct. I think we have been in agreement nearly the whole time about the bright line being crossed, and the only point of disagreement is the academic question of whether an initial "bold" addition of material counts as a "revert" at the 3RR noticeboard. The way I see it, there are at least 3 ways we can resolve this easily.

1. One or both of us could quote language from WP:3RR, Help:Reverting, or WP:Reverting that supports our position.
2. We could refer the question to a higher authority, either someone like User:EdJohnston who is unquestionably well-versed in matters of counting reverts, or someone like User:Dennis Brown whose judgement I believe we both trust.
3. We can simply agree to disagree, and move on.

I am open to any of the above paths toward resolution. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question on tangentially related issue. Is it against policy to remove warnings and discussion notices from one's own talk page? Thanks for your work on this issue, I hope it has not been too much of a time sink. Thanks for all your contributions to WP. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general, no, it's not against policy to remove or blank discussions, warnings, and templates from your own talk page. There are a couple specific exceptions to this listed at WP:BLANKING. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Forever the pragmatist, pardon me while I throw policy out the window and just apply some common sense. I notice he was just topic banned, so the edit warring is moot. To me, the topic ban is a definitive solution. Blocking him for those edits now wouldn't be preventative, it would be punitive. If our goal is to find a solution rather than justice, we already have it in the topic ban. So yes, he got away with a little warring, but he can't edit the article anymore, so accept the victory and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, agreed. Just fyi, when I made the above comment I was unaware of the ongoing AN/I topic ban discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It was really more of a general question than a highly specific one. I think the topic ban handles the issue and have no desire to be punitive (or drag this on). I did post to the EW NB that the filing can/should probably be closed. I appreciate greatly all the work admins and experienced editors put in handling contention with restraint, fairness, courtesy and patience. Best to all. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I figured as much Adj, but there really wasn't any doubt as to the outcome of that topic ban, we all knew it was coming. I was about to ask for a closer myself, then the wife came home, so we hit the gym and the local spaghetti and salad bar, which is why the delay. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this edit User:Technophant has a previous or another account. It was removed and now he is requesting speedy deletion of his user page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I'm actually a bit confused by the history of that account. If it's a so-called "sleeper" account, it must be a very old one, since it was created nearly five years ago. It looks like he made a dozen edits in late 2009, 30 or so more in 2013, and then became more active this year around April. It seems he made productive edits until he got into the Acupuncture area and subsequently fell off the clue train. If his end goal was to sock in Acupuncture, he sure took his time getting around to it. That's one of the reasons that I feel a topic ban is the best solution...if it were an indef block, he would just create a new account, but with a topic ban he still has the ability to edit productively in areas where he isn't as emotionally involved. I'll be interested to see if he "retires" this account or if he chooses to continue editing elsewhere...I think that will say a great deal about how much of a SPA it is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good observation. If he doesn't continue editing in other areas, then he's an SPA who is not here to build an encyclopedia. So far nothing's happening with that account, but I have a hard time believing he's actually not editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the wording of the topic ban:

• "User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year."

Don't topic bans normally cover the topic, which means any discussion related to the topic, even on user talk pages, is not allowed? Shouldn't that wording be amended? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm going to do either. I feel that the punishment did not fit the crime, being that I've never had a contested edit on any other alt-med articles. Also a community ban discusssion is supposed to be up at lesat 24 hours, mine lasted less than 7. It felt like a witch hunt, and probably the worst online experience of my life. There's more to the story, however this talk page isn't private and it seems now I have new enemies. - Technophant (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, all the user refrac's were completely unintentional. I'm having a really had a really hard time finding the right drivers for my mouse and trackpad and if had the issue of the cursor jumping around a lot. Having a neuropathy doesn't help either. - Technophant (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of other subjects where you can edit. You're smart, have lots of knowledge, and have plenty of time on your hands, so you can still be a great asset here. You can gain more experience, avoid any controversies or edit warring, and rebuild the community's trust in you. We're not asking for perfection, we'd just like to see a positive learning curve. In the end there is only one lasting currency here, and it's not number of edits. It's your reputation. People forget quickly and this painful experience will gradually fade into the background. Don't give up. Don't hesitate to ask for help anytime. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• See this edit by the Klocek sock account deleting text from the Nature source.
• See this edit by Khawar.nehal making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source. The suspicious account knows something about arabic.
• See this edit by Technophant deleting sourced text from the Quackwatch source. On Technophant user page I remember reading he speaks a little arabic and he edits articles related to arabic.
• See this edit by Jayaguru-Shishya deleting text from the Nature source. Jayaguru-Shishya also edits articles related to arabic.
• Jayaguru-Shishya wrote: I agree with you Ricflairsbutt and Klocek, there is currently a strong bias in the article, and I hope it can be fixed in the future.
• See this edit by Ricflairsbutt making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source.
• Acuhealth wrote: I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science.
• Am I imagining things or do I hear quacking? QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OMG Quack, you need to stop. Like cease and desist, move on. If it wasn't for your obnoxious behaviour this incident wouldn't have happened. Why is this user even allowed to edit? - Technophant (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the place to complain about socking is WP:SPI, you know that. Doing so on the closing admin's page isn't helpful. If you have a case, go file it properly, please. As to the above, please note that TOPIC BANS cover more than the articles and the talk page, regardless of the wording of the close. They include talking about the subject anywhere on the wiki, period, unless the close explicitly allowed such things, which this doesn't. It would have been better to have the close say "anywhere on the website" or similar, but it is understood and will be enforced as such. And now you know, Technophant.

To address a couple more issues: As for duration of discussion, there is no rule for it to be 24 hours Tech, and it is silly to even imply that. It doesn't matter if you need a new mouse or have issues that interfere, as we don't differentiate when it comes to disruption via refactoring, the result was still disruption and you alone are responsible for your edits and actions.

Now can we please leave Adj's page and go write some articles? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

@User:Adjwilley, I would like to formally appeal your closing decision.I believe that the topic ban is over broad and excessive duration and wish to go to have this case re-considered. The topic ban, initiated by Jmh649, (Doc James) in this destructive redacted diff was retaliatory in nature. The case against me had some critical distortions and some important information was not discussed or included. Also, I believe the discussion was closed prematurely (7 hours, not the 24 hours recommended in WP:CBAN. Sincerely, Technophant (talk)

I tend to agree seven hours seems like a short time to leave conversation open. I was not involved in content dispute, but had been somewhat following case, after I noticed the initial reports on NPOV and 3RR simultaneously. I probably would have commented on the later reports, but it was over by time I was back posting on Wiki. Technophant, with respect to your appeal, from what I can see WP:BATTLEGROUND played a big role in topic ban. While I wouldn’t be particularly surprised if others in that content dispute also engaged in wp:battleground, I think it might help you to keep in mind that most people are only going to see what is brought to boards and won’t have time or energy to wade through lengthy back story of edit history and talk pages to see the entire context of dispute, so in this respect, it is really important to keep your cool on the noticeboards and such discussions....just something to keep in mind for appeal.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedian for a long time. In fact I was just coming back to being a regular editor after a long hiatus. The reason I left was because of things like this. I'm new to all this stuff, there's so many crazy acronyms for new policies and guidelines. MEDRS is new to me, and while I see how it can be very useful in articles such as Cauda equina syndrome I don't see how or why is should apply to organic food (only briefly looked at page, never edited). Information that in no way can be construed as medical advice shouldn't be censored.

Also, back in 2010/11 there was something that happened to me that caused me to stop editing. I was legally threatened and the individual (who I just now found out is "no longer associated with Wikipedia") threatened me legally and personally and was attempting to out me. It caused me much distress and I still have PTSD some issues from it. My attempt to come back with a new username under the WP:Clean Start policy worked well until I tried to come back to an old issue with new information. Unf. the climate at accu has changed considerably, for the worse. I'm seriously thinking about taking this as a sign from God and putting this stuff behind me for good. It's not worth the aggravation. - Technophant (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry all, I was at work for 12 hours yesterday and didn't have time to respond to any of the messages left here.
• @Dennis Brown, thanks for stalking here.
• @Quackguru, if by "quacking" you are suggesting a duck block, I don't think there's enough evidence for that, and I agree with Dennis that such decisions need to be made at SPI, not here.
• @BullRangifer, though I only said talk and article space, if Technophant is wise he will unwatchlist all pages associated with the subject, userspace included. (I think the "broadly construed" implies a lot of that.)
• @BoboMeowCat, I agree it was a short time to leave the noticeboard discussion open, but I think it was a case of WP:SNOW. I had been considering a year long topic ban from Accupuncture the day before (under the Discretionary Sanctions imposed on the topic area), but was waiting to see how the 3RR report would be closed. When I happened upon the ANI discussion (about 20-30 minutes before I closed it) I knew before I had finished reading the first section that I would be making the DS topic ban. Then I saw the sections below. The topic ban by that point was inevitable, so I figured I might as well close. The duration and scope (indefinite, alt-met) came from the preferences of the people voting in the thread. (I would have limited it to Acupuncture-related.) The appeal in a year clause came from me, because I believe that people can change given time and motivation.
• @Technophant, I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. Sometimes disruption reaches a point when the community throws up their hands and shouts "Enough!". I think that is what happened yesterday. I realize you were under a lot of stress, and people tend to do stupid stuff when they're stressed. (See WP:MASTODON.) I tried to get you to slow down and calm down [44] [45] but sometimes those words have the opposite effect. Anyway, I won't lecture you further, but I will say this: nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, but things take time. There is no way I can undo or modify what has been done, including my own closure, without causing way more disruption than it's worth, but if you can manage to move on yourself...go write an article or two on an uncontroversial subject...fight some vandalism...contribute positively and stay off the drama boards...I will be your number one supporter when you come back to appeal the topic ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Technophant

Hello Adjwilley, I wanted to let you know I ping'd you to User_talk:Technophant#Wikipedia:Canvassing regarding some edits that editor has made possibly in the area of their topic ban. Zad68 03:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Good grief, what a mess. Part of this is probably my fault for not being more clear with the topic ban wording, although User:Dennis Brown helped to clarify that above. It really should have said "all pages related to...". That said, I would not have blocked him for this general philosophizing and though the link to accupuncture was borderline, I would have just told him to remove it. I'm also troubled by User:Kww's indef block over these issues, as I've seen him express strong views on the subject matter making me question whether he's emotionally "involved" in the underlying content dispute. It's also discouraging to see the blocks come at a time when the user was trying to come clean: voluntarily disclosing his previous retired account (several thousand edits with only one block) and unwatchlisting all pages related to alt-med. I was hoping that the topic ban would allow him to continue edit productively in less problematic areas...now I don't suspect he'll be editing at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see a voluntary coming clean in this edit. Note that the relationship between Technophant and Stillwaterising was removed, but both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject. The edit he was blocked over was neither of the ones you mention, but this one. Note that the block is indefinite, not infinite. If he makes a reasonable unblock request and you think he will actually comply with his topic ban, I'm not going to whine if you grant it.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm dealing with family issues, so short on time to review in full. I will just say that if reviewed and unblocked, I would tighten and make the topic ban very specific as part of the unblock. Not to broaden it really, just so it is crystal clear. There are some behavioral issues as stake that are larger than this one topic, but to be fair to him, we need to be crystal clear in the restrictions, giving him every chance of complying with community expectations. Personally, I don't think we need to rush and do need to investigate a bit more into the accounts, but at the same time, not be nitpicky about what is and isn't socking, using his intent as our guide rather than the letter of policy. If his intent was clearly to do a proper cleanstart, you overlook a mistake or two. If not, well, that is what policy is for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that clean starts are not available to editors with a topic ban in place, precisely because it prevents enforcement of the topic ban.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't overlook that, that is what the "scrutiny" clause is for. I'm talking about overlapping edits that were cleaning up, or double listing in Project pages and the like. Overlooking sloppiness, not malice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww, thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that.

@Dennis Brown, I'm still trying to get editorinteract to work, but from what I've seen so far the intent was good. In November 2009 Technophant placed the {{User Alternate Acct}} template on his userpage, and in June 2014, following a user page deletion, he added the text "This is a Clean Start account." (You'll have to use your x-ray glasses if you want to verify.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree so far as the original activation of Technophant having been in good faith. I don't think the last day or so's edits were in good faith.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand...you are talking about him adding himself to the Medicine wikiproject? If he were planning on socking to evade the topic ban, why would he publicly link the accounts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at the diff more carefully. As Technophant, he added himself and linked the accounts. Four days later, as Stillwaterising, he erased the linkage and added the second account as a distinct member of the project.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...that is odd. By the way, I am hoping you'll comment on the topic ban wording section if you want to. (I'm taking the blame for the ambiguity in the original wording.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I unblocked, but have no actual optimism. I see his inclusion of WP:BANEX as a case of WP:ROPE and expect that we will be back here within days.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you're wrong. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww your lack of faith is disappointing. I hope to prove you wrong. Agf? Adjwilley, many thanks! :-> - Technophant (talk)

Also, not being aware of banex, I could easily see an overly zealous user or even admin blocking me for even mentioning the ban; that's why I objected to wording "broadly construed". If you want to take that term to is furthest most rediculous extreme, even editing my user page (which mentions the tban) could be a violation. When I was asking about it one user (or possibly admin) was saying "anything related to the topic whatsoever. Banex doesn't except commenting upon, complaining about, or even informing other users or other projects about your ban. WP isn't censored, so as long as I stay off the topic related pages I should be fine, right? - Technophant (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My lack of faith appears to have been wholly justified, based on the antics of San Antonio IPs on User talk:The Banner.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, you write: "Banex doesn't except commenting upon, complaining about, or even informing other users or other projects about your ban. WP isn't censored, so as long as I stay off the topic related pages I should be fine, right?"

What do you mean? You were topic banned because of your battlefield behavior and extreme disruption on several subjects, on many talk pages, and several noticeboards. Do you intend to continue your combative disruptions by discussing the topic ban, which is about the subjects from which you are supposed to keep a distance? That's too short a distance. I'd advise you to move on and stop obsessing about the ban. Failure to do so will only create more discussion and disruption, which will quickly get you blocked again, and this time likely indefinitely, as an editor who is simply incapable of learning. We need to see a positive learning curve.

You really need to let go of this and do something else constructive. Wikipedia is not censored, in the sense that we don't refrain from using pornographic images when they are necessary, or using words like "fuck", "quackery", and "pseudoscience" when they are part of the properly sourced content, but we don't let editors roam around and create disruption. In that sense you have been given a muzzle. Call it censorship if you will, but if you change your attitude, you'll accept it as the way to peace and a regaining of the confidence of editors.

Right now you have zero credibility with the whole community, except for a couple friends, who, BTW, are equally misguided. You need to keep a distance from such types and create a good reputation as someone who can work with ALL editors, especially those with whom you disagree. If you can't do that, and if you just criticize and ban those whom you don't like, then you don't have the collaborative spirit needed to work here. Stop and think about what path you will choose, because it has a fate, either good or bad. You really can regain our confidence if you change your attitude from defensive to cooperative.

I would also advise you to stop constantly deleting, editing, and moving content on your talk page. Only do truly minor refactoring, and when the page gets too long, then archive (you've been deleting, since you have not created any archives) in chronological order. Right now you have made a mess of things and it makes it very confusing for readers to immediately and easily see the correct chronological sequence and context for the content which is left, since you have deleted and moved various comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove their talk page access. There isn't a single sign of a positive learning curve:

• no evidence that they understand and accept why they were topic banned and blocked;
• no acceptance of responsibility for their current situation;
• only self-justification and self-defense;
• no apologies;
• many personal attacks on opposers;
• lots of belligerence;
• battlefield attitudes;
• lack of collaborative spirit;
• lots of anger issues;
• self-admitted mental health issues;
• those issues are then used as excuses for bad behavior;
• a huge time sink;
• They seem to think that some positive contributions on two articles (1, 2) justify massive disruption elsewhere;
• There doesn't seem to be a single plus to them being here, at least not anymore.

I think you get the point. Technophant (and socks/IPs) is not good for Wikipedia, and editing here is likely not good for their mental state in the real world. They'd be better off if they stopped editing and discussing here, and the community will be thankful. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of bad feelings here on all sides and I think at this point it might be helpful if all involved removed each other's talk pages from their watchlists as a proactive step toward ending all this ongoing drama. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It's only a time sink if you choose to devote time to it. If you, QuackGuru, et al. were to unwatchlist Technophant's talk page (as suggested by BoboMeowCat), you would save yourselves and probably everybody else a lot of time, in addition to not making Technophant feel like everybody's out to get him (lowering his stress level and improving his behavior). He's already topic banned from the area that interests you, and in my opinion canvassing for his indefinite block and talk page removal is a waste of time. He's in control of his own destiny...if he is unrepentant and blames others, his talk page access will be removed. If not, he'll eventually be able to go edit elsewhere. Either way, you're not affected. I've appreciated your involvement in the past, and I hope to hear from you in the future, but I think in this particular case it's reaching a point where it's not helpful anymore. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I should note, however, that your advice yesterday for the user that you left above (changing attitude, building credibility) was good advice. Thanks for that, and also for leaving it here instead of their talk page.

Adjwilley: I haven't followed the discussions about his topic bans and behaviour, but I will put in a good word for him regarding his editing on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, which is the only place I have seen him in operation. I only found out about all this when his absence was noticeable and I got in touch via his Talk page. I have worked on those pages since the Iraq crisis broke and always found him very helpful if I or anyone had a query; in fact, I used to ask him for help, as I am fairly new to Wiki editing. As far as I am concerned, he was one of those who stood out as being a good team member, and he found many ways to improve those articles - I thought so right from the beginning. There was no edit-warring, no disputes, nothing like that involving him on those pages. He was always equable and reasonable. Perhaps you should take a chance and permit him back on those pages and see how things go. (BTW, I am not a "misguided friend"; I only speak as I find.) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note User:P123ct1. Part of the rationale behind the topic ban was to allow him to contribute elsewhere while keeping him away from the alt-med topic area that seemed to be so problematic for him. Unfortunately not only did he break the topic ban, but the alt-med people can't seem to leave him alone. I'm trying to work with him and the blocking admin, to get this resolved, and I am willing to take a chance on him, but unless he can stop throwing barbs in the direction of old alt-med opponents, I fear we will end up in the same place again if I unblock now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

It's more interesting this time. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: That is indeed more interesting. I'll be interested to see what the CU says. (Definitely enough evidence there for that.) By the way, sorry for my slow response. I had gotten your message on my phone, but I've been out of town all week and this is the first time I've actually been on a computer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hate to always call on you, but

Here is another sticky request. There is an ongoing Noticeboard discussion regarding a COI case, a Prof and wife editing their own article. The discussion in part has become focused on the tags I placed on the article, and not on the fundamental COI issue. You are welcome to comment on these, link provided at end of this. The issue, rather, is that one editor keeps muddying the discussion by removing the tags from the article (i.e., changing the object of the discussion, before the Noticeboard matter comes to a close). This has as an impact, as I have stated to him, of confusing the discussion, by making changes to the article that make it difficult to follow the discussion for new editor's joining in. I reverted once, asking him to leave it in place until the discussions ended. He near immediately re-reverted, ignoring the argument regarding confusion. (He is simply not a fan of tags, and a following opponent of me.)

Here is his deleting edit: [46]. Here is the ongoing Noticeboard, [47]. If you want to read deeper, the COI noticeboard will link to the BLPN where discussion began, where it veered away from the fundamental COI issue. (It was at the BLPN that I asked that no changes be made to the tags until the matter settled.) Also, FYI, as noted, Boghog is a "follower" of mine — no prior interest in this article, just joining in because he tends to follow me to new articles and discussions, inevitably making the case that I am wrong. This last is neither here nor there, though I wish he would quit, so I can get some things done. Cheers. Replay here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Apologies for my slow response (see excuses above). I have probably come too late for the Church article, and I think the BLPN/COI people are doing a good job with it, and looking at my user page might give you an idea as to my opinion of putting tags at the top of articles. I recall you having concerns about User:Boghog following you around before, and it appears that Boghog has concerns about you as well. If you two are interested in talking things over in a semi-moderated forum, I would not mind that happening here, and I would be willing to moderate a bit, but I'll warn you first that my availability is going to be pretty spotty until about the 19th of this month. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Adjwilley for your offer to mediate. I am willing to enter a moderated discussion here. My main concern is what I perceive as WP:OVERTAGGING. Boghog (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New message on User talk: Jgstokes

Hello, Awilley. You have new messages at Jgstokes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jgstokes (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jgstokes. I'll comment there. Just fyi, Wikipedia has a notification system now and you can get someone's attention by simply linking their username in your comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently blocked Technophant (talk)

Recently blocked Technophant (talk) has started again violating WP rules by repeatedly reverting content that I remove from my talk page, as I am permitted to do. I request your admin assistance.

[48], [49], [50], [51]

Worldedixor (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been notified on my talk page that I was incorrect for doing so. I will refrain from restoring or refactoring your talk page in the future. ~Technophant (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)