User talk:Arydberg

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

your question at WP:NPOVN[edit]

Well, here's mine perspective (but I had seen this thread and I thought AndyTheGrump's answer was a good one so I didn't bother piling on). You say "Thus if I stepped on a rattlesnake, got bit and got sick from it i would be banned from advising others on Wikipedia to refrain from stepping on rattlesnakes." That's right. As much as you may not want Wikipedia to work that way, we need things to be verifiable in reliable sources.

In one way this avoids silly fights. Imagine a person who was bitten by a rattlesnake at the time their cancer was receding. They might go on an online mission to spread the good news that rattlesnake bites cure cancer. You might come into conflict with them, because you want to warn people of the dangers. But really, we are here to only represent what published sources say. It's a form of summarizing and reflecting "the literature". It's a form of scholarship, if it helps you. We don't engage in our own original research, but we grow thanks to others' work. I hope that helps. Jesanj (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Arydberg, I saw your message at Talk:Aspartame controversy. Because I think the discussion is increasingly off-topic, I will try to answer each of your queries as best I can in this space...

Scientizzle,

Thanks for the review of my sources. I would like to point out that it is to be expected that the industry will publish attempts to downplay any article which is critical of aspartame. Thus it is not surprising that reviews can be found that dispute allegations against aspartame. To be swayed by these reviews runs the risk of ignoring potential harm to public health. Once again if you are comfortable in doing this it is your choice. For me, given the choice between loosing a sweetener vs harming public health I would choose to protect public health. Do you think I am in error here? Here are some more sources that say aspartame causes a: Increased chance of stroke and here and weight gain The point I am trying to make is that the “aspartame controversy” exists in the research literature as well as in the fringe press. I think this should be reported. WP:MEDRS, “Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.” Please be aware of the success the cigarette industry had in promoting the “safety” of smoking for decades before the truth got out. Also could you please tell me how does one go about finding reviews of an article?

Arydberg (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • While industry publications, broadly speaking, do have a propensity for bias in favor of their product(s), to assume any given review is therefore unacceptably biased due to its authorship and/or funding is to commit the ecological fallacy. (See also, in contrast, White hat bias and PMID 19949416.) I personally take industry publications with a healthy dose of salt, but they cannot and should not be ignored. I should also note that the four reviews I noted in response to your prior comment (PMID 20078374, PMID 19778754, PMID 20308626, PMID 20060008) are all from academic labs (click on the four links and you can see the primary author affiliations). Please remember: the ability to imagine conspiratory forces that would explain away a given claim is not actually evidence against that claim nor of something underhanded.
  • You are asserting that the argument is "a sweetener vs harming public health"; this is the precautionary principle twisted into a false dichotomy. Based on this faulty reasoning alone, yes, I do think you are in error here. It is simply not an honest assessment of the situation.
  • There are some active disagreements in the relevant primary and secondary scientific literature. That is true. What is also true is that lay web sources (particularly & egregiously rense.com and other conspiracy sites) often at a minimum completely misunderstand the science they claim to present and some actively mislead and fabricate in order to support their positions. It's almost impossible to argue against those in a conspiracy theory mindset--any evidence countering the theorist's position is taken as part of the conspiracy--so I'll offer at least one sanguine piece of advice: conspiracy theorists have a piss-poor track record of uncovering any actual danger. Conspiracy theorists never said anything about the dangers of tobacco or climate change or laetrile or Vioxx; if aspartame is actually poisonous, it's the scientists that will find it.
  • The links you provided are repeats from your previous comments and criticisms against their inclusion still stand. Do not ignore the parts of WP:MEDRS that are inconvenient for your particular motivations. Namely, in a field well-populated with research and with a demonstrable mainstream scientific opinion, scientific/medical information must be presented through secondary sources (reviews & meta-analyses) and "individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources".
  • What is that demonstrable mainstream opinion? The overwhelming approval of aspartame by government regulatory agencies, health agencies and general lack of widespread concern in the scientific literature; aspartame is generally regarded as safe by relevant knowledgeable professionals. Therefore, per WP:WEIGHT/WP:FRINGE everything that should be presented on Aspartame controversy needs to properly reflect the divergence from this position as reflected in only the highest-quality sources. Those "divergences" must also be discussed in sources of a reputable nature in order to be "notable" enough for inclusion and for a properly balanced discussion.
  • Finding secondary sources is not difficult, but properly evaluating and incorporating them can be tricky. I'm a scientist at a research institution with extensive access to journals indexed in PubMed, which is where one should search. PubMed is a decent high pass filter for some level of editorial respectability but a lot of crap still gets through; Google Scholar can be a wasteland of faked peer review and limited quality control. (However, GS does have the advantage of giving you easy links to other works citing one of your hits.) In PubMed, you can filter for reviews only, which is the simplest way of finding relevant secondary sources for Wikipedia. If you can't access a given journal article, local universities may be able to provide them for free or a nominal charge; many Wikipedia editors are willing to email .pdf copies, too.

All that said, it seems increasingly likely to me that you'll get topic banned from aspartame (etc.) again...my appraisal of your edits since the last topic ban ended is that you're too often on the wrong side of many Wikipedia policies & guidelines. Specifically, your edits are advocacy-based (Wikipedia is not for advocacy, or for revealing the "The Truth") and needlessly repetitious. You've made some strides in understanding WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS, but it seems you're not presently willing to work within that framework...I'd prefer to be proven wrong. — Scientizzle 20:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientizzle, I am truly impressed with your excellent explanations above. Of course an understanding of this is basic stuff for scientists, but few are able to present it so plainly and simply. You're good at it. Thanks for doing Arydberg, and the rest of the community, such a service. It's appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban renewed[edit]

I find that your recent conduct on the Talk:Aspartame controversy page and related discussions you have resumed the same disruptive behaviour that you were topic-banned for earlier this year. In particular, with edits like these [1], [2] you have resumed overt soapboxing, trying to instrumentalize Wikipedia to promote your own political stance over the Aspartame issue, as opposed to discussing how best to improve the article.

I am therefore renewing the earlier topic ban, for a period of one year. Fut.Perf. 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

i contest[edit]

< one year topic ban of arydberg>[edit]

Initiated by Arydberg (talk) at 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}[edit]

Statement by {Party 2}[edit]

Statement by {Party 3}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)[edit]

I would like to contest my being banned for a second time from the topic “aspartame controversy. I really believe aspartame is harmful AND I can furnish peer reviewed journal articles that support this assertion but I am not only prevented from arguing this by being banned without warning for a second time but my postings have been deleted. None of what i said was impolite. Wikipedia is the voice of the aspartame industry and will not tolerate anyone that disagrees with their mantra that aspartame is not unhealthy. People that disagree are simply not allowed to post anything and their material is removed.

Response to your question[edit]

Just a note that I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:Help desk#banned. Hope I can help. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 18:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply. You are probably right about Pat Robertson. My feelings are that a page titled controversy should tell both sides and there is a very real dark side to the aspartame story which is in the public record. If you choose not to tell it, that is your ( and wikipedia's) choice.

Now I understand that my being banned is not a 3 month stint or a 1 year stint. It is permanent to be imposed anytime what I say is not agreed with by the ruling few. This is what I wanted to check on.

"The worst evil is not done by getting evil people to act in concert. It is done by convincing good people to forsake established principle to promote ideas that seem right at the time. "

Al

where am i? what am i? can i post?[edit]

I was told that i would not be banned if i was did not attack other editors. This was not true and i was banned for 3 months. When 3 months was over i assumed the ban was over. It was not. I was then banned for one year with no opportunity to defend myself at all. Now that is over. what will be the next ban? will i have any opportunity to defend myself from it. I assume not. Is my only option to confess to a belief system that is imposed on me. ie that aspartame is really good for me that i should consume it with no regard for health problems. That anything else makes me a heratic and subject to indefinite banning. Please help.


I would like to suggest that when people are topic banned they be told that the length of the ban can be extended without limit and there will be no opportunity for the person to dispute the charges against them. Without this, the assumption is that when the ban is over they can at least try to be heard, and of course they can not. ( There is always the chance they have a valid point)

You are banned from articles relating to aspartame. Feel free to edit anywhere else so long as you follow WP policy. No one is telling you to consume aspartame, I submit that no one here cares what you eat or drink and isn't the slightest bit interested in your personal thoughts about aspartame. We have millions of articles not related to aspartame so edit those and have fun, just don't try to push your personal beliefs on the pedia'. Sædontalk 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


The ban is over. I am afraid if i say anything i will be re-banned with no recourse.

Right you are; time flies. Well, here's my advice: go read over all the things you said on the aspartame talk pages and don't repeat what you used to say. If you start POV pushing again then yea, you'll probably be rebanned in short order. Even though your ban expired you should probably just avoid the subject as you've shown in the past that you're unable to work there constructively. Seriously, we have millions of articles, have fun. Sædontalk 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It is appreciated. The problem is that I really believe that this stuff is no good. Furthermore I believe Wikipedia is being used by the aspartame industry. That is the only conclusion I can come to after noticing the quick response to all of my postings regardless of time of day or night and the same people over long periods of time.

Congress is known to use Wikipedia to update themselves. That is why what Wikipedia is doing is really wrong. They are (probably unwittingly) campaigning to push a product that truly damages the public health. Wikipedia’s conclusion, that it is healthy, is based on very poor and dated sources.

The situation is not unlike the tobacco industry of a few years ago but tobacco is only sold to adults. Diet soda is used by kids. It is all just too outrageous for me.

Of course perhaps I am wrong but given the public record of criminal charges that the government tried to bring against the people that got aspartame approved and their methods of avoiding prosecution it appears unlikely. Arydberg (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to your beliefs but WP does not exist to serve as a platform for those beliefs. You're well aware of this. Sædontalk 14:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


You really do not understand. You have a responsibility to public health. You try to maintain this by demanding secondary sources etc but in this case you have chosen to error on the side of risk rather than the side of safety. It is impossible to prove anything safe. Yet you imply that aspartame is safe. All you know is some studies show no harm from certain dosages and other have been discredited for alleged errors. Your habit of using industry sponsored research is extremely suspect. Anyone who is familiar with aspartame knows it's addictive quality but you totally ignore it. What you are doing ( presumedly in good faith) is wrong on a very basic level.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

policy[edit]

Hello,

{{admin help }} I have been banned from aspartame controversy twice. First for 3 months and then for 1 year. The second time i had no chance to defend myself. Can this happen again at the whim of someone? I would really like to know. I'm not complaining about being banned. I am complaining about having no chance to defend myself. Arydberg (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not banned at someone's whim, but because after your first ban you returned to the same behaviour. You can appeal at WP:ANI, and the ban can be lifted or shortened if there is a consensus there; but first, read Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, because you will need to explain what sort of edits relating to Aspartame you want to do, and the ban is unlikely to be lifted in order to allow you to return to pushing the same ideas. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Both bans have expired. I believe i should have had some chance to defend myself for the 2nd ban. I am learning but your policy of allowing me to be re-banned with no discussion seems draconian. Am I wrong. I am not contesting being banned i am contesting being banned with out the chance to defend myself. Can it happen again.Arydberg (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may happen again, but there is always an avenue of appeal:
JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this in the event of an attempted reinstated ban is it true that I will have absolutely no chance to defend myself? Arydberg (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it'll be after you're blocked. You have been told many many times that you are topic banned from the Aspertame (sp) controversy. If you edit anything, anything at all relating to that, any administrator can and will block you. Then you can use the unblock template, UTRS and ArbCom to appeal. If you don't want to be blocked, don't edit anything in that area. gwickwiretalkedits 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But both bans have expired. Will I still be automatically be blocked with no recourse? Arydberg (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, the topic ban resets every time you are blocked. Leaving during the topic ban doesn't allow you to just come back at the end of it and edit at your will. You'll still be being watched, as you are now. If you return to that topic, expect a longer ban, and a probable block. It seems clear to me now that your only intent is to edit about the Aspartame issue, and you've been told that you are editing against consensus many many times. If you continue, you may be blocked indefinitally. Seriously, stop. You're free to edit as many other articles you want, just nothing relating to the Aspartame issue. gwickwiretalkedits 22:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I dispute the ban now?

Nobody's stopping you. You need to go to WP:AN and follow the instructions there. However, I can almost guarantee you that after your blatant actions leading to the ban, and your actions now after you've come back to editing, you are highly unlikely to get it revoked. Just stop editing in that area. It's not the end of the world. Also, please know that your edits in the past were in violation of many many policies, including but not limited to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE among others. gwickwiretalkedits 02:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW I am with the CONSENSUS view. The problem is people that agree with me come and go one or two at a time. They are sent away by the outrightly mean tactics of a few who dominate that site. Also as soon at two people agree they are accused of plotting together as recently happened. Also thanks for your help. Arydberg (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Use talk page appropriately[edit]

  1. Thread your posts properly: Help:Using talk pages#Indentation.
  2. Fanciful interpretations (WP:OR) of primary studies (WP:PSTS) are worthless.
  3. Repeating yourself does not improve a worthless argument.

If you cannot use talk pages appropriately, then stay off of them.Novangelis (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Since I have mentioned your name in the discussion, it is appropriate that you be notified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Per consensus at AN/I, you have been topic banned from editing all material on aspartame and artificial sweeteners. This ban is of indefinite duration, however indefinite is not infinte; if you, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, are able to demonstrate to the Wikipedia community that you can edit constructively in this topic area, you may request that the ban be lifted. If you wish to appeal this topic ban you can do so at AN/I. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And since you decided to immediately flaunt the topic ban [3], you have been blocked a couple days. Fut.Perf. 12:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Can i post to AN/I now? Arydberg (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to say. If you wish to raise something on some unrelated matter, sure, no problem. If you wish to complain about how Wikipedia administration tries to silence the anti-aspartame movement, no, you can't. (To clarify: Bushranger said you may raise an appeal against your restriction at ANI. True. An appeal is something like: "I request a lifting of the ban because I promise I will be editing constructively and no longer be editing in pursuit of my POV agenda." That will be fine. What is not fine is: "I request a lifting of the ban because I want to continue arguing the anti-aspartame case; I have great wrongs to right and I think it's bad that Wikipedia tries to stop me from doing so." If you want to say something like that, don't even try.)

If you wish to be unblocked, I have no problem unblocking you as soon as you promise you will respect your restriction. Fut.Perf. 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that i have made real contribuations to the aspartame controversy article as shown here.

Also from the beginning i have tried to learn your system which is considerable. Can i post it to AN/I Arydberg (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop asking us. We've told you so many times that you can post it to AN/I if you wish. Honestly however, if you try, you'll probably just be cursed at, belittled, and told to go away. If you only want to push your POV here, then you'll probably be blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia. Either edit other articles, or leave. You've been topic banned for a reason. gwickwiretalkedits 18:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


In case you didn't know, you're going to have to respond at the AN/I thread if you want any chance of not looking bad. gwickwiretalkedits 03:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you didn't read the result, your appeal has been denied as way too soon to pass at all. gwickwiretalkedits 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


I don't know what "following a topic ban through" means? I did not know i was supposed to wait 6 months or so. How was I supposed to be aware of this? Arydberg (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please please please listen to us again. You need to edit constructively in areas other than aspartame before you ask for your topic ban has ANY chance of being revoked. If you continue trying to get it removed without showing us you can be constructive (for at least 6 months or so before reapplying), you run a strong risk of being not only banned, but blocked from editing anything at all. gwickwiretalkedits 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


OK Thanks. Sorry for my denseness. 68.9.187.198 03:24, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I came off harsh or rash :) Also, you may wish to make sure you're logged in, as I believe you made that previous edit logged out :) gwickwiretalkedits 03:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


My Fault again sorry for my denseness. Arydberg (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


I am 71 and many of my friends are old. of those who drank diet coke one has gone blind. and another is in chemo for leukemia . Two others have brain tumors and another has had 2 seizures. All diet coke users. Meanwhile I see people who are addicted to drinking large quantities of diet coke. This is all very unscientific but damn sobering. Arydberg (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your friends' conditions. However, that's not going to get your topic ban revoked. Honestly if you post like that again please don't be surprised if you're given a 'don't come back at all' response from some admins. gwickwiretalkedits 18:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Sædontalk 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(shrugs) I've been drinking Diet Coke for years, and have neither gone blind nor have contracted leukemia. In like fashion, my anecdotal experiences does not - and should not - affect Wikipedia policies one single jot, never mind form conclusive proof of the beverage's safety.

That being said, if you want a public forum for your advocacy, write letters to the local newspaper. Create a website. Start a blog. Post to your Facebook page. There are many avenues out there where you can do so to your heart's content, in many cases free of any censorship, control or need to be even-handed. Wikipedia is not one of those places. Ravenswing 08:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Ravenswing, Good luck I wish you well. Perhaps it is all for the best. I have a difficult time being neutral. My farther died when I was 16, a victim of cigarettes, chemical exposure at work and spraying apple trees. The idea of a poison sets off red flags in me. Arydberg (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cardrona halfpipe[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Cardrona halfpipe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not asserted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me if i can get my old topic ban from the aspartame controversy lifted. I find it uncomfortable to have this thing hanging over my head.

Arydberg (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban - second request[edit]

Please tell me if i can get my old topic ban from the aspartame controversy lifted. I find it uncomfortable to have this thing hanging over my head.

Arydberg (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You can apply at WP:ANI to have the topic ban lifted, but you will need to explain why you want that, and what sort of edits you wish to make that it is preventing. Unless you give a credible assurance that you understand that Wikipedia is not a place for campaigning, the topic ban is unlikely to be lifted, and if you do return to the charge, it will certainly be reimposed. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


It is true that much (if not all) of the fault is mine. I am not well versed in negotiating the pitfalls of wikipedia and I am somewhat biased and foolish believing if I can present facts known to be true then they will be accepted as true. Sometimes it does not work that way. I was also told if i did not insult anyone i would not be banned. This was not true.

This debate pits the accepted policy of the government against the antidotal information of various citizens. Many of these people have been seriously hurt or had others killed by aspartame. This does not make their claims true but to exclude them from an article with the word “controversy” in the title is reprehensible.

What you do with me is inconsequential but sooner or later all things come to light. Wikipedia may indeed be within the rights of a encyclopedia in refusing to print contested information in a main article but to delete that information in a article devoted to the controversy surrounding a food additive goes against your 5 pillars. You have an obligation to present a balanced view. Please work toward this.

ps. Someday perhaps wikipedia will look hard at those articles that excel in getting editors banned. there is much to be learned there.

Arydberg (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans serve several purposess, one of which is to give the editor time to learn how things are done here. That happens by editing lots of other articles and getting experience. You have not done that. You have only made a few edits. Please edit more articles and gain experience.
What concerns me is that you are still carrying the same torch and have the same misguided beliefs about aspartame. Please read the articles and learn from them. Don't just read them and tell yourself that what reliable sources say isn't true. You need to show an ability to learn and get free from your delusions. Until then, I don't see much point in allowing you access to articles where you will cause more disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)