User talk:Abridged/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pardon my interest, but what is it that brings you back, after 6 months of inactivity, to comment on AC's RfC? Antelan talk 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching the article and topic. When I started, the coverage was very very weak. THe main article, I thought, was a mess. It wasn't well organized into sections that made sense as parts of a coherent whole, it didn't flow, things were repeated all over the place, etc. It was overlong and many articles that should have been subarticles had been deleted and merged into the main article rather than improved.
I thought I could help to improve things. Given my background as a traditionally trained and practicing MD with an editorial background and some knowledge and interest in homeopathy, I thought I could make a contribution to the overall subject area and have some fun with Wikipedia at the same time.
I did (I think strong) work intially when some biographies of some internationally known homeopaths which were being afded by adam (and a few others)---you can look at the stuff on my user page to see some of the comments I made and edits I did. I found this kind of ironic in an encyclopedia which has extensive pages for individual soccer matches and cartoon show episodes :=), but whatever. I looked up the criteria for notability, improved the articles, and pointed out the criteria on the AFD talk pages.
It seemed bizarre that most of the editors participating in the homeopathy pages really didn't know much about the actual topic and seemed less interested in learning more about it than in protecting the encyclopedia from it. There was a lot of labeling and warning going on and not much explication and description.
I stayed away from the main page initially as it was such a minefield, but when I started to make edits on that page I was bashed pretty much immediately. Wikipedia doesn't earn my salary, take care of my patients, get me any publications; it is entirely a volunteer pursuit. When this happened, I turned my energies elsewhere. I have a lot to do.
ONe of the things which I found particularly troubling was the degree to which AC was using admin tools and editing simultaneously. He was never uncivil, but he seemed to be ignoring accepted standards for administrative behavior. It is problematic in a community project like this when selected individuals feel morally justified in not following the rules set forward for participants on various levels. I have a lot of sympthy for Adam. He is without doubt a very well-intentioned young man with hopefully a promising future in the real world. He has made some great contributions to the encyclopeida. However, it is wrong for him to be so personally involved as an editor in a subject matter while also being one of the most involved admins in the subject matter.
When I noticed that the larger community had noticed this problem, I decided to add my voice to the discussion.
I hope this satisfies your curiousity. Feel free to contact me with any further quesitons. Abridged talk 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Actually, I was looking at the Homeopathic remedies category after it was mentioned on Talk:Potassium dichromate. I could see adding a link to the Arnica montana going to a page on the homeopathic remedy, but I don't think that a long list of things it's used to treat is appropriate; it could even verge on inappropriate within the scope of homeopathy, since homeopathy is supposed to be individualised. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't support the removal of sourced relevant content. Abridged talk 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't mean to be rude or anything, but if you're not related to the homeopathy industry, either as a user or producer, in some way, why are all of your edits - or at least the ones I scanned through - about homeopathy? Just a casual interest? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

back when I signed up for Wikipedia, I was looking for a field to edit in. I was exploring an interest in homeopathy and thought that adding content to wikipedia from sources might be a good way to expand my knowledge and also help improve wikipedia at the same time.
I am a traditionally trained and practicing MD, and have research training and editorial background. I make my living practicing conventional medicine and believe in what I do. I do not have a homeopathic practice, but I have sent a few patients who weren't being helped with the conventional approaches and asked me about alternative approaches to a local homeopath on a consultation basis, as I've referred to other alternative providers when it seemed appropriate and the patient asked me to. Most, quite honestly, were not helped but one or two were helped quite a bit.
All in all, I maintain an interest in homeopathy and a skepticism about the field at the same time.
If you don't believe that I do not have some kind of a commerical conflict of interest, I am happy to share my identity with a bureaucrat off line. Abridged talk 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I assume good faith. However, if you are truly interested in improving knowledge as opposed to improving the optics of homeopathy on the encyclopedia, perhaps you could branch your editing out to areas of less dispute in addition to your work in defending homeopathy from skeptics. In fact, I'll make a deal with you - for every article you substantially improve that has nothing to do with homeopathy or any other alternative medicine/pseudoscience (by my definition, not yours), I will make equally substantial improvements in an article that has nothing to do with any of my areas of interest. Deal? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually really busy (I probably work 60-70 hours a week) and don't have much time to do random stuff so I can't promise that I will edit much. I was reading about homeopathy at the time I was editing, so thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by improving wiki in that area. I am not really interested in proving anything to you, or having you prove any thing to me, but as I said if you are concerned about conflict of interest I'm happy to prove that I don't have one :=) Abridged talk 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack?[edit]

While I apologise for any offense caused, your behaviour in every debate about homeopathy - to the point of objecting to an AfD not because of any good reason, but because you disliked me challenging anything remotely having to do with homeopathy, seems to justify the description. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is inaccurate!!! You know as well as I do that I participated in many afds by citing notablility criteria to show articles met them. You know I improved many articles to meet criteria. I'll add links in a moment. Your last AFD request on a bio of a homeopath was a bit ill timed as you are the subect of an rfc, and I don't think there was anything wrong with saying that. The AFD in question was successful, but I think that I also said that I thought the subject was notable and the article should be improved rather than deleted. I also don't think there was anything wrong with that. Abridged talk 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of discussions I participated in about AFDS. See if any of these justify your insulting and inaccurate description:

Here are a few articles which were prodded, which I improved:

Abridged talk 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I note you mentioned that this behavior might be appropriate for an RfC/U. I'd be inclined to agree if that is appropriate in light of the ongoing ArbCom matter. —Whig (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the Jawahar Shah AfD, but never mind. There really doesn't seem much poitn talking to the two of you at this time. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(from AC user page, deleted with the edit comment "Delete section, no point")

Specifically, I was referencing her comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jawahar_Shah. I don't think it'd be helpful to say anything more on this subject, since, well, both of you have been showing very thin skins of late. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at that discussion, what Abridged wrote was:
"Keep and improve meets notability criteria. please note nominating editor currently subject of RFC Abridged talk 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)"
I feel your description of this comment is inaccurate. —Whig (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) moved here by Abridged talk 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Abridged, but over the last few days, you and Whig have been seemingly making huge efforts to feel offended at things. While I'm sorry that you are offended, it's getting to the point where criticism of you and other homeopaths is being met with screams of "Personal Attack!" whatevert the merits - most mnotably where you ignored the attacks on me in the passage that got Peter morrell banned, instead criticising me for saying I thought Peter's bizarre claims were a bit paranoid. If you must do an RfC to get it out of your system, go ahead, but I really don't see how this is at all helpful. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever he said to you, you DID attack him by calling him "paranoid", and I did apologize TO YOU for misstating what Peter had said. The thing is you have attacked me and you should aplologize rather than defending your remarks repeatedly. I am pretty irritated. Abridged talk 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'm sorry for offending you, however, I do feel that the article in question, as the only example and not, evidently, having seen much play beyond its frist appearance, is not worthy of inclusion, and think that you should reconsider what "notability" means in this case, and whether notability, even if there, forces the inclusion. [[User:|AC]] [[User_talk:|talk]] 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What I want you to apologize for is calling me an "uncritical homeopathy promoter". I've done nothing of the sort. Abridged talk 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes when you don't want to be called a WP:SPADE you have to actually stop acting like a WP:SPADE. It's not difficult you do realise? Shot info (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

I think a careful read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be helpful for the current situation. While there are many ways to approach such disputes, I'd have used WP:WQA because of the incivility issues, though WP:EAR would have crossed my mind. I've never found WP:RfC/U to be useful at all, as it's extremely bureaucratic. WP:ANI is a much better option, though only if WP:WQA or WP:EAR wasn't usful. More than likely, you'll find editors in suggesting WP:ANI along the way.

I hope you find this at least somewhat helpful. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is part of WP:DR. —Whig (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And RfCs tend to be a last option, rather than an initial one. While Abridged may not have the experience with Wikipedia to know this, I certainly would expect Whig to know and advise Abridged accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe RfC is appropriate in this case. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before I did this and it said the main avenue was RFC so I did that. This was only after I wrote to Adam twice and he applied uncivilly with a non-apology apology and then just took my comments completely off his user page. Abridged talk 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Then in my opinion you have a great deal to learn about dispute resolution. As you see from the RfC, the overwhelming opinion is that this was an improper action, perhaps even grossly improper. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ronz, I don't think it's improper to request comment from uninvolved editors on the behavior at issue. —Whig (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am finding it suprising that no one takes WP:NPA seriously and everyone defend Adam's right to call me names! Abridged talk 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's policy. —Whig (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC threaded discussion[edit]

Would you be willing to move your response in the AC2 RfC to the discussion page (along with my reply)? I didn't want to move your response for you without permission, but I hope to prevent this RfC from becoming disorganized and hard to follow. —Whig (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to move stuff around. The admin on that page is saying that we didn't meet the two person minimum for certification anyway and he's going to delete the page in 48 hours so it is probably a moot point. Abridged talk 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to correct any defects that I made as soon as I understand what needs to be done. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved it. Fill just wrote that action should be brought against me for starting the RFC. This is bizarre. Abridged talk 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the return fire, for now. Just respond if appropriate in the discussion area. —Whig (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the main page, could you put the evidence in strictly linear time order? I'd like to add some items and rather than making a separate section, it would be easier to make insertions where appropriate. For instance, I feel this is highly important. You could add it in yourself when you're reorganizing or I can add it when I don't have to edit your text too much. —Whig (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my complete permission to reorder and edit in any way you like. I think that is important too. Adam completely misrepresented what I said. And you called him on it, which I appreciate. Abridged talk 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It will be a few hours before I can get to it, if you'd like to go ahead and make additions in the meantime go ahead, I will check all links and make sure that I agree with everything de novo and add my own statement later. We have 48 hours since you opened the RfC to correct any defects, lets make the best of that and clarify this entire issue fully. I know you feel the personal attack more strongly, I don't see that as being very important compared to the misrepresentations and I'd like that emphasized. —Whig (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not writing anything else on it. They are now calling for a community ban against me (and also you) for bringing the RFC in the first place. Abridged talk 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll make the change in a bit. I don't want it to be decertified, and I'm not worried about the community ban threat personally. 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talkcontribs)


It appears you made the Rfc in good faith, not realizing that it was overkill for the situation, and inappropriate given that there is a current Rfc on Adam. I suggest you withdraw the Rfc and simply re-state that you thought it was an appropriate step in dispute resolution for this situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to do that if Adam will strike his personal attack against me and also strike the associated misrepresentations he has made concerning me. Could you talk to him about maybe doing that? If that can't happen I am OK being banned if that is the way things are done here. I would rather have my name cleared first. Abridged talk 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're calling his assertion that you are an "uncritical promoter of homeopathy" a personal attack, yes? That's not a personal attack. It may be an erroneous assertion, but its not an attack. A personal attack usuallty looks a little more like this. I think you'll agree that Adam's assertion does not come close. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats certainly profanity, but I think your definition of personal attack is a bit narrower than what the policy states. Adam uses his perceived notion of me as "prohomeopathy" to dismiss and discredit my views. Abridged talk 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had some follow-up conversation with Ryan Postlethwaite, who thinks it would not be helpful for me to add more complete details to this RfC. I'm not really sure what to do at this point but it may be helpful to place this into evidence in the Matthew Hoffman case and let the ArbCom consider it. —Whig (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I saw you might be thinking of leaving. I hope you'll reconsider. We need more editors willing to stay and work for NPOV. —Whig (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, you are right that it was an attack. However, it wasn't the level of attack for which anyone gets anything on WP. There are other ways to stand up for your rights than to continue this RfC. About the request to get you and whig banned at AN/I, in point of fact I believe you will not be banned there, or blocked. You did what you did in good faith. There is really something you need, which would have helped diffuse this situation, just for one: email. Could you get an address, even create a different account from your regular one so that people can contact you off WP? ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: check the block log of anyone who offers you advice, and don't take the advice of those who have problematic histories or are under ArbCom restrictions themselves - their advice is likely to be bad. Example of checking a block log: - change the user to whoever you're checking. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I set up the email and will keep this so I know how to check block logs. Abridged talk 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult compromise examples[edit]

What compromises have you made with respect to this issue? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the main homeopathy article since July, when I was run off of it. Recently, on arnica, someone said the bit about homeopathy read like a "how to" so I shortened it considerably. That bit is gone now becuase others would not respect a source from 1993 (not this decade), or a homeopath MD authored book because not written by a "plant expert". YOu can look through the edit history on that article to find my contributions. Abridged talk 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So what is your prefered version of the article that you made "difficult compromises" to get away from? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a "preferred version". Look, what is your point? Are you trying to bait me? Abridged talk 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm trying to figure out what kind of compromises you are talking about. You stated that you compromised on one article, but, in fact, your only edits to that article were to insert more and more homeopathic content. I don't see how that was substantially "difficult" for you. Perhaps I missed something, though, because I was of the impression you were still dissatisfied with the Arnica article. If you have agreed with the editors who oppose inclusion of homeopathic information on that article, you could have said something. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your characterization above is untrue. Look back from here. You'll see I took some content out and did a rewrite. Now even the little sentence I had put in has been completely removed. This plant is used to make one of the major homeopathic remedies, and I referenced from one of the major homeopathic ref books. Abridged talk 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff shows you adding homeopathic content - adding less content than you first added, but still adding homeopathic content. "Difficult compromise" would be where you did something you otherwise would not have done. Is there an example of this, or is your statement that difficult compromise will be required one that is forward looking? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So "homeopathic content" is per se evidence of non-compromise? Is your idea of compromise to be removing all "homeopathic content" from Wikipedia? —Whig (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not the one who believes there is a need for "difficult compromise." I will have no difficulty writing the relevent bits about homeopathy unfettered. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone had taken out the entire section that I had written previously. When they expressed their concerns about what they found troublesome about the section, I was able to respond by putting content back in a shortened form which addressed their concerns and left some content there at the same time. That is an example of compromise. I do not really understand your example. Abridged talk 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So you believe that what is needed is back-and-forth edit warring where you settle for less and less of what you want and others settle for less and less of what they want, but you and your cohort remain dissatisfied and so when a new editor shows up, as opposed to stopping them from fighting the prior "consensus," instead you ignore their constant attempts to push more and more homeopathic material into the mainstream and hope that that tilts the article your way just a little more? Is that what "difficult compromise" means? Doesn't work for me. You'll have to demonstrate some good faith by taking the first move to remove some homeopathic content from an article where you feel it doesn't belong. When you've done so I'll review where it might. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't an edit war, that was an example of a few editors interacting rather civilly to reach a common ground which was better than either starting position. And by the way, the wikipedia policy is ASSUME good faith, not DEMAND that others DEMONSTRATE it. wp:agf. Abridged talk 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are acting in good faith, as I assume you assume I am doing the same (WP:AAGF). However, I don't think you are able to understand that other people think your homeopathic additions damage the encyclopedia - and this fundamental disconnect is your problem, because I'm well aware you think that my removal of homeopathic content damages the encyclopedia (I just think you're wrong). Remidy that by showing you have some balance here by doing something, anything, against your "side" and I'll reciprocate. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Demanding Abridged remove homeopathic content is absurd, especially since PouponOnToast and his/her cohort would already have removed any such content that did not belong in Wikipedia along with much RS/V content that does belong here. —Whig (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So you believe every single pro-homeopathic statement added to the encyclopedia at the current time is acceptable? Every one? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Look, above you said, you'll have to demonstrate some good faith...". That's why I said that good faith should be assumed not DEMANDED. Look, I am demonstrating good faith by even answering you. Last time you came here it was to insinuate that I had conflicts of interest. I still haven't figured out exactly what your point is this time...

Now for this last question. How could I possibly know the entire content of wikipedia on this topic at this moment??? Also, I don't think in terms of proH or antiH. It is about accurate or inaccurate description for me. That is the job of an encyclopedia, to describe, accurately. I don't think this is served by going around deleting any reference to homeopathy. Abridged talk 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification[edit]

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. I am making you aware of this due to your recent edits of Dana Ullman. Thanks! --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


I see this response to your comment.[5] Just curious as to how that is done as I am being asked to walk away from a similar problem.[6] Anthon01 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It really irritates me to be characterized as a "combatant" subject to "enforcement" when I haven't done anything wrong and am bring up what I think is a reasonable point in a reasonable way. This is sort of an adolescent boy environment with adolescent boy methods and values. Last week, a number of people, many of them admins, voted to community ban me from Wikipedia because I took exception with being called an "uncritical promoter of homoepathy". It is screwed up. I left before, might leave again. Abridged talk 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your shiny new archive.[edit]

Yup, fine. You now have a choice of moving any conversations - once they are old/redundant enough - into this archive using cut and paste, or after a while you can move a batch of subjects into a new archive using the same method. It really depends on how busy your page gets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing a user[edit]

Would you like me to do the same replacement I did in my own talk and archives? —Whig (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks Whig, but I'm sure this will go through channels and turn out ok and there will be some way worked out to let him properly vanish. Although most of my talk page is made of of people attacking me, I didn't feel it was right for anyone to delete most of it by fiat. It was also symptomatic of the general way "vanished user" tended to wield his adminship. Abridged talk 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you, however I am seeking to reduce or end conflict if that is possible and the user would apparently like to be vanished as quickly as possible. While that may be a very rude request, I figured I'd honor the spirit of it by doing a replacement that preserves the conversations intact, just omitting the vanished user's real name. —Whig (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well that shows that you really are a gentleman. I have gone through the archive and replaced the name with initials. Abridged talk 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. There are a few AC's with a wikilink to the vanished user, I'd be grateful if you could consider removing the piped links. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did it. No more wikilinks. If AC had asked me to do this nicely originally I would have done it then. Abridged talk 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's very much appreciated, thanks for sorting that out. .. dave souza, talk 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)