User talk:AAPS Attorney

Welcome!

Hello, AAPS Attorney!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 07:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Your recent edits to Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I don't have a problem with the policy you cite. Thank you. I didn't violate that policy and don't intend to. But my polite comment on the talk page was entirely deleted. Are you posting any warnings to the person who deleted my polite attempt to resolve an issue on a talk page? That improper deletion on a talk page prevents those who have the entry page on their watch list from correcting their improper posting there.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with the page on their watch list would have seen the washout. Since your message has been readded, they'll see the net addition of characters. As for a warning to the other editor, I do not think one is in order. When a new account shows up with a username that indicates a strong conflict of interest and is essentially a paid editing declaration, it is not unreasonable to remove the comment—especially when the article in question is in three separate areas of the contentious topics procedure and the comment reads as a soft legal threat. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't quoted the policies because they are against what you're arguing here. Moreover, people are not likely to bother to dig into the history of a talk page to ferret out a deleted comment. And threatening to escalate a matter at Wikipedia is not an improper legal threat - Wikipedia rules specifically say that. As to defamation, which the first sentence in the entry about AAPS is, the Wikipedia policy is this:

“

A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement, email the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org.

”

Presumably you're a Wikipedia Admin (Sysop). You're bound by Wikipedia rules, and the unsourced, unverified, contrary-to-Wikipedia-policies first sentence in the AAPS entry should be removed soon, before this escalates at Wikipedia pursuant to its rules. Thanks.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look, and the only thing I found that I don't see sourced in the body of the article is "non-profit". There's an EIN listed in the infobox and a claim that the organization is a 501(c)6, but that alone isn't reliable sourcing. The rest of the first sentence, I see sections in the body of the article with sources to support. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"promotes conspiracy theories and medical misinformation [unverified examples listed]" is an unverified, defamatory smear. Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy I quote above, it's going to be removed. If you're an Admin (I haven't checked yet), you should do that without burdening others at Wikipedia as the appeal process provides.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It very much is cited, at least in the body of the article. Usually, the lead of the article won't repeat the citations already in the rest of the article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's false and not verified. The medical journal is not AAPS, and that's expressly stated in every issue. What you're doing is like saying Elon Musk "promotes" something offensive that someone says on X. That would be defamatory to Elon Musk.

I can simply email the Wikipedia address above and I'm confident they will delete the defamation. But this is a good faith attempt to obtain fair treatment without having to burden the higher-ups.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would merely like to point out that the email address you refer to is actually answered by volunteer editors as well, rather than any "higher-ups". Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 05:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Writing in The Guardian, science columnist Ben Goldacre described the journal as the 'in-house magazine of a rightwing US pressure group well known for polemics on homosexuality, abortion and vaccines.'^[1]" If not enough to outright support the claim, it is enough to show that Wikipedia is not making the statement in its own voice, which alleviates the defamation concern. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia statement at the beginning of the entry is far worse than the Guardian statement. If you're not going to remove the defamation, then I'll escalate this further pursuant to Wikipedia procedures. I've given notice in good faith, and so far there has been a refusal by a longtime Wikipedia Admin to correct the defamation.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "AAPS Attorney", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use (please see WP:NOSHARING and WP:ROLE). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My account is not a shared account, and the name no more implies that than many other names accepted on Wikipedia.--AAPS Attorney (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AAPS Attorney To clarify, are you an attorney for the AAPS? For the sake of transparency, I am the third Administrator posting to you. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goldacre, Ben (November 1, 2005). "The MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science". The Guardian.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Your username is likely to give editors the impression that you are an attorney. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, please give a clear snd unequivocal answer to the following questions.

Are you an attorney?
Do you hold any kind of legal qualification? JBW (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[goldacre-1] Goldacre, Ben (November 1, 2005). "The MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science". The Guardian.

[1]