User talk:A1candidate

Wow...

👣 🐩 🐾 💈 💩 I was out walking my dog, and noticed this very clean TP. I would have cleaned up the mess but it started to rain. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

....................yeah......we need more mess here.............  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi A1 - why did you revert that edit of mine on Acupuncture?

I'm sorry but I was afraid your opponents might use that as evidence to get you blocked. I understand that you're technically under a topic ban, so I sincerely hope that you might consider staying away from this area for the moment. I'm trying my best to help you, and I believe your best option would be to stay away from the topic area or bring this to Arbcom if Beeblebrox does not revoke his decision. What do you think? -A1candidate 22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack

Please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's more dispute resolution than personal attack. I think both of you would benefit from reading this short essay on why it's a good idea to ignore personal attacks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate, I think it is best you redact your comment. The acupuncture page does state "Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive.[77]" QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you've already asked once, I think it's best you drop it and focus on content. Accusing each other of personal attacks and pursuing redaction isn't going to be productive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• So if next time someone makes accusations against me (e.g. A1candidate, your edit summaries are beginning to approach active deceit), can I count on both of you to defend me so that I don't have to defend myself? -A1candidate 03:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about what others do, it's about what you do. You don't have a whole lot of credibility when you are defending yourself. If you don't believe that, go read the DrChrissy AN/I thread again. DrChrissy's responding to every "Support" vote did them more harm than good. If they had just made a single slightly apologetic post explaining some of the circumstances (bad environment, stress, etc.) the thread probably would have been closed in their favor. Pounding the table and demanding apologies or redaction only makes you look bad and annoys the admins. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, DrChrissy was topic banned because they dared to defend themselves against a lynch mob. The solution, therefore, would be to remain silent and let others defend you. I agree with this approach. In fact, I suggest that User:DrChrissy consider the following strategy when handling future conflicts with lynch mobs: 1. Do nothing 2. Reply to the first and/or second accusations (or the most serious accusations of all) 3. Back off from the discussion and put it on your watchlist, knowing that it will always close in your favor if you respond correctly. -A1candidate 18:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) whew. "lynch mob." not good. with this and the accusations of racism at ANI, you are driving right over a cliff A1. I suggest you back off this kind of language. In addition, the longer drchrissy remains unable to acknowledge that his behavior was problematic and the longer he doesn't change his behavior, the more likely he is to conduct himself in ways that bring yet broader sanctions down on his own head. you are not helping him by blaming somebody else... and you are hurting yourself. The way to handle it when you act badly and get called on it, is to authentically acknowledge the behavior, authentically apologize, and to really not do it anymore. That is as true in real life as it is in Wikipedia, including at ANI. (sometimes people get offended/angry over nothing, and wisdom in Wikipedia as in RL is having the insight to know when you really did screw up) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, DrChrissy was topic-banned because he interpreted fairly accurate descriptions of his behaviour as "personal attacks" rather than address the root problem, and because he did not show any sign that he was capable of understanding what he had done wrong. WP:NPA is not a license to describe all criticisms of your behaviour as a "personal attack", nor is it intended to prevent legitimate criticism from occurring. Your own similar attempt to take JzG and I to Arbcom failed for much the same reason. No one was leaping up to champion either JzG or I: both of us are brusque and neither of us is widely loved. Still, it would appear that most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism rather than being "personal attacks", as I can promise you that if either of us did attack editors, we would lose our bits.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Kww. Go back and read the ANI more carefully. I acknowledged that some of my editing could have been perceived as disruptive. I think you are both mis-representing the ANI.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what blame you took, you blamed on being perceived as incompetent, which pretty much proves my point.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@A1Candidate, yeah, it's a good idea to avoid loaded language like "lynch mob". There are a lot of factors that led to the topic ban, and the overzealous defense was one of them. I feel you are being sarcastic with the 3 step strategy you propose, but I think you sum it up fairly well. If you actually haven't done anything wrong, you can sometimes just stop after step 1. I've done it before. [1] If you have done something wrong, then add the advice given by Jytdog above (acknowledge, apologize, change) to step 2, and you're usually good to go. I personally don't like adding AN/I to my watchlist, but it is definitely a good idea to follow the discussion. Of course this only works if you've been well within policy all along. If you haven't, well, you might have to respond to every comment and try to wikilawyer yourself out of it. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the admins closing the discussion know how it feels to be falsely accused on flimsy evidence, and they'll check the diffs. They also know the best way to behave when people make wild accusations against them. For one small example, see Oppose #7 in my RfA. If I had freaked out, given a point by point response, and demanded that the user strike their personal attacks, I would not be an admin right now. Instead I let it sit for a couple hours, wrote a short response after a few others had commented, and let it be. Others read the oppose, evaluated its merits on their own, and a couple of people used it as rationale for supporting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm involved. In fact, I was well aware of the wisdom of the DefendEachOther essay since I've noticed it on John's userpage some months ago, so the strategy I've proposed should be taken literally. You seem to have handled the unfair allegations against you very clamly and politely, which is obviously a decisive factor in an RfA and elsewhere. I am glad that it succeeded (congratulations!) and I appreciate the effort you put in to resolve this current dispute, even though I have to disagree with some of your actions. Perhaps QuackGuru might also benefit from some lessons in dispute resolution? -A1candidate 07:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi AI, would you consider closing the second thread you opened re: the DrChrissy AN/I? There's a risk of causing confusion and ill-feeling. The proposal is only that the ban not cover animals. There's no chance of getting the whole thing overturned (not for awhile anyway) because there was clear consensus for a ban of some kind. It's just the scope that wasn't clear. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah is by nature a mild-mannered type so I'll take the "bad cop" role. Your conduct is dissipating the remaining reserves of goodwill toward DrChrissy. Many of us believe that he is capable of useful contributions outside his hot-button area. Don't screw that up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Before closing, some comments in that repeal ban section seem to be votes that rightly belong in the thread above. I noticed Bull Rangifer's comment as one. Perhaps someone should check before a close. I have no idea how A1's zealous post can reflect on DrChrissy as described in that thread, but I agree the thread is confusing the issues, is certainly creating bad feeling and suggest A1 that you will serve DrChrissy best with a close. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

I don't see A1's comments as reflecting on DrChrissy, but on themselves. (It still doesn't help DrChrissy). By identifying with DrChrissy's IDHT attitude, it shows that A1 doesn't understand what DrChrissy did wrong and that A1 thinks DrChrissy was treated unjustly and has no fault in their fate. That will only make it harder for DrChrissy to be rehabilitated. DrChrissy can do good work in other ares, and so can A1. It's not good for A1 to get their hands dirty in this one. For their own good they should back off. I don't want A1 to get into trouble over this, so my comment should be taken as a caution in that spirit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, just yesterday I had directed A1 to a meatball essay called "DefendEachOther", and I think their intentions were good, even if the ANI thread was disruptive/distracting. Anyway, it's over now, and definitely time to move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm linking that for convenience. Hope you don't mind. I agree with the principle involved. It's just risky for the defender if they thereby show that they don't understand the problem and are defending what the community sees as bad behavior. That's where boomerang comes in. We've seen it happen many times. The whole thing ends up with a lot of sympathizers getting banned as well. OTOH, if they can prove that the "problem" does not exist, and can show that there has been real injustice, that's another matter. If they succeed in their defense, they are heroes, and we all admire heroes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, just a quick note to say thanks for your help in the boomerang AN/I. I have said elsewhere (including the second closing admin's page) that the end-decision is probably a very good result for me and hopefully also for the project. I appreciate that you spent a considerable amount of time and effort helping and advising me and for that I am extremely grateful. I very much look forward to working with you in the future.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's great, because there's finally some sort of closure for both of us after several months of wikidrama. It seems that we had inadvertently entered a dangerous minefield without even noticing it, but now we've escaped from it (relatively) unscathed with no nerve blocks (pun fully intended!). I feel that I might have some unfinished business though, and that is why I struggle to withdraw from this topic area completely. Regardless, it was a great pleasure to help you out and I'm delighted to know that the AN/I closed with a satisfactory result for you. -A1candidate 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep - I did not notice what I had walked into for a second until it was too late. I really think that bommerang mentality/opportunity is so unfair. I think if someone who raises an AN/I has made unfair accusations/been uncivil, etc, then this should be raised, but to start talking about incompetence, especially when raised about only one example, is just bloody unfair. It feels like I have taken someone to court, I have been found in contempt, punished, and the person I originally took to court allowed to go free without the case ever being heard! I'm sure that would not be allowed in a legal court. Yes, it really needled me - pun intended there too!DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You must understand that your opponents have been playing the same game for many, many years. Some of them have been doing this almost immediately after Wikipedia was created, and they have never stopped ever since. They also know the rules inside out, and that is why they always win. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#JzG, you'll see an example of what I mean. Does this remind you of your recent AN/I? The only difference is that I took it to a higher court, which has slightly higher standards, so the boomerang option was not so readily available. I still think ArbCom is the best place for a fair hearing. -A1candidate 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen?

I thought you might be interested in this.[[2]]DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be watching the discussion closely and will comment when I think it's necessary. -A1candidate 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will be treading cautiously too, but something needs to be done.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

E-mail me please

Hi A1. Please would you email me. This can be found on my user page User:DrChrissy. Cheers.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

CAM discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Bishonen | talk 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, QuackGuru, but that's odd. Neither of those previous alerts seem to have "taken", in the technical sense; they didn't appear in the log (I checked before I posted), and they didn't get the characteristic automatic "tag" in the edit summary — compare my edit summary here, where the tag was added automatically. I don't think Callanec's note could be expected to work technically — it's not an alert in that sense — but your own pseudoscience alert should have worked (=should have had the tag added and been logged). I don't see anything wrong with it; I've no idea what happened. Sorry, A1candidate, this isn't really your problem, please don't worry about it; now, at any rate, you have now been formally notified of the CAM discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

It was not that odd because I cut and pasted the sanctions without including the alert trigger. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Arghh. Well, now you know. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

Just a side note: as a party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture A1candidate was already "officially" aware of the sanctions. (I'm going off of number 2 here.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)alert

Oh yes, sure; QG's second diff was in regard to that. See how dumb I am, admittedly, but also see how dumb the automatons are? I was simply told to check the alert log for the user, and encouraged to save once there was nothing there. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

WP:ANI

There is a topic that concerns you opened on ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A1candidate -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing the status quo - revert restriction

You are restricted to 0RR on the Acupuncture article. This means zero reverts. Because of the definition of a revert is broad enough to include any edit that removes content or adds content that has previously been removed, this means that your article contributions will be severely limited. Minor spelling corrections, etc., are allowed, as long as they are not reverts. Otherwise you should treat the article as if it were fully protected, gaining consensus for proposed edits using the talk page. Any evidence of gaming these rules (for instance, by aggressively adding new non-consensus material to the article) will result in a complete topic ban. Engaging in Battleground behavior, focusing on contributors over content, or WP:IDHT behavior will also result in a complete topic ban, as will abuse of Wikipedia processes (including administrative noticeboards) to eliminate ideological opponents. Violations of the 0RR may be reported and dealt with at WP:AN/EW, resulting in blocks; violations of the other restrictions (eg. WP:Battleground) may be reported at WP:AE or dealt with by any uninvolved administrator. You are also restricted to 1RR at other pages related to Alternative medicine.

These sanctions are applied under the Standard Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture. They will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from your most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last. Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE within a reasonable amount of time with good behavior. My hope is that you will use this as a turning point in your Wikipedia career to get out of some of the bad habits you've gotten into. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not view this place as a battleground, and I don't think anyone should, but the indisputable nature of this conflict is well-documented by this administrator's comments:

"Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"

- Administrator JzG, 09:39, 27 February 2015

To what extent should I be sanctioned for inadvertently walking into this administrator's battleground? Remember, I only made a single revert before proceeding to start a new RfC to settle the dispute in a collegial and orderly manner. I participated in the relevant discussion hoping that this might prevent further disruption to the article (ideally the page should have been protected), and more importantly, I voluntarily restrained myself from editing and have not made a single edit to the article since filing the RfC. I have also minimized my participation in the topic area and elsewhere, and will continue doing so. As I've previously told the Arbitration Committee, I have no desire to game the system and I certainly do not wish to see anyone being unfairly sanctioned. -A1candidate 15:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: one revert and two emergency requests[3][4] to protect the article, using an accusation that I intended to start an edit war? See, it's always these things you leave out that cause the trouble.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR? I did exactly what the relevant guideline says, namely:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

One revert and two emergency requests? Please pay particular attention to the words I highlighted in bold. Perhaps you might begin to understand why I had approached another administrator to stop the disruption (And of course I had to explain the rationale for doing so). Besides, who was the one who first took the discussion to the talk page? It was clearly not you, but me. Why should I be sanctioned for closely following the guidance of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, User:Adjwilley? -A1candidate 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch

Olive branch [5]

I just wanted to drop a note and say I have noticed your argumentation has in my opinion considerably improved. While we clearly hold differing philosophical views I consider varied input valuable to WP. It seems to me that the structure of your input now points more clearly to PAG and contains concise reference to RS support. I realize that the atmosphere on WP is very challenging for advocates of alternative medicine and philosophy and think someone with a good grounding in PAG and handle on RS serves a valuable purpose here. I appreciate your contributions and look forward to more. I apologize if I have characterized your position inaccurately based on my own assumptions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I do not consider myself an advocate of any treatments or ideology, except the sole advancement of science and evidence-based medicine. I believe that evidence is required for every disputable claim - even the mere assertion that a treatment is useless or ineffective needs to be backed up by evidence. I am, in that respect, a skeptic - because I do not believe most of the claims made by alternate medicine practitioners (unless the science says so), nor do I believe the claims of those who denounce every untested treatment as demonstrably ineffective and pseudoscientific (unless the science says so). As far as Ayurveda is concerned, its historical practitioners did not treat it as science and therefore it cannot, and should not, be labelled as pseudoscientific. If, however, modern practitioners confuse these theories with science, then I would concur that their unfounded claims of scientific validity are largely pseudoscientific. That is different from saying "Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". -A1candidate 15:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I apologize for making a characterization of your position. It is not appropriate for me to do so. I have interacted with you a number of times and just wanted to comment that your argumentation had sharpened. I certainly don't want to have a discussion that belongs on the talk page of an article and was referring to more than one article or discussion in saying you seem to be presenting more policy based arguements, providing concise reference to sources and being concise and to the point in general. I feel your input can bring more balance and nuance and is more likely to withstand "the claims of those who denounce every untested treatment as demonstrably ineffective and pseudoscientific" or put another way the sometimes over vigorous, occasionally single minded and often pointy members of the community who many would refer to as "skeptics". In fact the position you describe is rather close to what a dictionary would consider skeptical. Regardless, my intent is primarily to say, good to see an active editor sharpening their skills and I look forward to the improvements I am sure you will continue to make to the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Alright, I accept your apology. Thank you for your generosity and kind words, MrBill3. -A1candidate 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)