User talk:Lifechariot

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lifechariot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I made my first edit on Wikipedia less than a week ago on the ASPD page. I study perceptual philosophy, am fresh out of seven years of independent evidence-based research into emotions and have spend thousands of hours sitting in the British Library and surrounding coffee shops trolling through research article and books on multiple disciplines which have a common thread of emotion. All of my research is evidence-based. I have read much research which empirically proves the association between 'attachment' and 'social' and 'anti-social' behavior, and these finding are proven to involve the hormones oxytocin a vasopressin.

Last week while I was moderating a comment from a user on a YouTube channel I went to make reference to a section of the Wikipedia ASPD page. I realized that there is no reference to Attachment Theory in the entire article. Even though Harry Harlow's 1958 experiments proved that a baby is born with innate (genetic) behaviours which seek attachment to a primary caregiver, that when this attachment is neglected it leads to affectionless and anti-social behavior, and specifically that 'contact comfort' plays a most significant role in creating and maintaining the attachment process. Since then there have been studies, as stated above, that empirically prove a direct connection between oxytocin and vasopressin and attachment formation, maintenance and disinclination. I have not found a source which disputes these finding. They are rock solid facts.

Amazed there was no reference, I updated the ASPD to include a reference to Attachment Theory, yet shortly afterwards my edit was reverted. I eventually found the notification by Doc James that listed the WP:MEDHOW guidelines for commenting of biomedical topics which I had not come across until that moment, so I then wrote a new edit to which included primary sources that were supported by secondary sources from my personal research notes. Shortly after my new edit was deleted, yet this time I received no notification as to why, so I emailed Doc James, yet got no reply. I then edited the page again with a the new edit, and this time include a very brief inclusion of how the hormones of oxytocin and vasopressin are proven to be involved in the formation of social and anti-social behaviours making reference to the research. Shortly afterwards, and still with no explanation from Doc James, that edit was reverted too.

Knowing from my research the ideological objections to Attachment Theory from bio-deterministic professionals, and the obvious neglect of any reference to Attachment Theory on the ASPD Wikipedia page, and my unexplained reverts, I then opened a case against Doc James for censoring content on the ASPD that does not agree to his ideological agenda. Once this case was opened, two of the reasons that Doc James gave for reverting and deleting my edits were that I did not include page numbers for the books and that other sources did not mention the topic in question. First and foremostly, I most certainly did include page numbers, for the sources are in my personal research notes which I have written over the years and specifically remember writing the page numbers in the editable section of the citation box. Secondly, all of the sources I listed were specifically about research in attachment - which is implicitly associated to anti-social behavior - yet it seems Doc James does not know or ignores this rudimentary principle.

On the administrators page, I was told by another individual that my sources where primary sources and that he could not check references in the books for he did not have access to them. From this point I resigned myself to sourcing reviews of the research I cited, so I could update the page with a reference to Attachment Theory that is in accordance with the WP:MEDHOW guidelines. The next day, however, I find that my account has been 'indefinitely blocked' by JzG on the grounds that I am 'clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia'. I have emailed JzG as to the exact reasons behind my ban, yet he has not replied in the past 24 hours.

Yes I did not understand the WP:MEDHOW guidelines on this my first edit of a page, and with the lack of explanations the learning curve took a few days to set straight, yet even though I was fully resolved to find 'reviews' in line with the guidelines I have been 'indefinitely blocked' from editing.

Perhaps you can see it from my perspective for a moment. I complain about an editor for neglecting content on a page, and within a day I'm 'indefinitely blocked', so even if I source 'reviews' of the research I cited, I will not be able to update the page.

The only reason I have so far for my account being blocked is the accusation that I am 'clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia'. I find this reason to be ridiculous. An abuse of such a rule. I have years of evidence-based research I can contribute and am willing to do so within the parameters of Wikipedia's rules.

I apologies for any inconvenience I have caused due to not understanding the WP:MEDHOW guidelines.

Please will you unblock my account? Lifechariot (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here in Wikipedia, we have talk pages for discussion, so we do not use e-mails unless there is some private info involved. Thus, it is no surprise that editors didn't answer to your e-mails.
Your next unblock request should be shorter and more concise. The block is connected to your behavior, so you should be talking about behavior, not about sources, page numbers, etc.
You have to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative community. We are here to write great article together. Professionals with academic knowledge of the subject are always welcome, but they are not superior to other editors. The way you behaved is was not appropriate for collaborative environment. After making few edits and being reverted, you immediately started accusing long-time editor and reported him to the administrators. That is not the way we settle disputed here. Instead, you should have tried to discuss the issue with the editor, and to reach WP:consensus. You could contact corresponding WP:WikiProject or seek other forms of WP:dispute resolution. Instead, you immediately resorted to accusations. I hope you can see how such behavior can be easily interpreted as "WP:NOTHERE". You will be unblocked only if you convince us in your next unblock request: (a) that you understand what was wrong in your behavior, and (b) that you will be willing to use appropriate venues to settle disputed peacefully in the future. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lifechariot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Vanjagenije and thank you for your time and response. Your summation of my beginner's naivety regarding the practices of collaboration here on Wikipedia are a fair point, yet I feel I must add that you are the first person to have point to it, and once I was banned, I could only communicate via email. I have now read the Talk page guidelines, Etiquette, Staying cool , Dispute resolution and WikiProject pages. My edits from this point on will be within the confines of these collaborative practices that seek consensus, and I have definite intent to investigate using the RfC approach to collaborative editing. On my way to becoming a long-time editor I will also be sure to point out the talk pages and collaborative process to new editors and hold a high standard regarding the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette rule which states "When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an edit war." Lifechariot (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your responses in the conversation below are more than enough to convince me that Wikipedia does not stand to gain from allowing you to edit. Since you still seem to be unable to grasp the fundamental problems with your editing, and since you do not appear to be inclined to accept Dlohcierekim's offer, I am revoking your talkpage access. Future appeals may be made via UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Moving forward-- proposed unblock unconditions

Hello, I'd like to propose some conditions moving forward so that you may edit constructively.

You have already taken on board acknowledgement of how to handle disputes.
You will make no edits concerning Antisocial personality disorder
You will not make edits concerning Attachment Theory.
You will make no edits involving medicine with a source that is non compliant with WP:MEDRS. If reverted, you will seek clarification as to why the edit is unacceptable. (MEDRS can be tricky, when in doubt, ask)

This is contingent upon and modifiable by other admins/editors who have dealt with this issue, and any other admin passing through. @JzG, Nyttend, Doc James, Jytdog, and Roxy the dog: -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dlohcierekim, As you refer to me directly, I presume that you seek a reply from myself. Thank you for your time and input.

I must question your reasons for asking that I make no edits to either the ASPD or Attachment Theory page? You do realize that I brought a case to the administrators notice board about content being censored on the ASPD? I was then subsequently 'blocked indefinitely', and now you suggest I edit neither. Your 2nd & 3rd provisos support this argument.

You also seem be including a content dispute into a block that was issued upon the grounds of conduct. Lifechariot (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah-- your editing was disruptive. Your "content dispute" was disruptive. You also seem to have not taken on board the issue about WP:MEDRS. I was proposing the WP:TOPIC BAN to prevent further disruption. Are there no other areas you would like to edit? I'm proposing to bring you bring you back if no one has objection. You are coming across as bombastic/combative, so I am having second thoughts. Sorry I made the offer. Still awaiting input from participants in the AN/I discussion and the blocking admin. I will not move forward w/o at least some comment from them. Good day. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is in fact the entire point. You insist that your content was "censored", and you accused a long-standing and highly trusted Wikipedian who is also a qualified medical professional. See WP:RGW and WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy - I did not insist that my content was "censored". I stated that Dlohcierekim's provisos that I not be allowed to comment is consistent with the dispute I made over censorship. My cited researches were high quality, yet my beginner's mistake was that they were mostly primary sources, and it was most definitely not recentist. I intend to learn fully the WP:MEDHOW guidelines and use the RfC feature and talk pages to make sure that my high quality sources are within the technicalities of those rules via collaborative input. I'm not sure if you understand Guy, but Dlohcierekim is suggesting that I be blocked on editing pages in which I have clocked thousands of hours of relevant research.Lifechariot (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:NOTTHEM to your reading list. Dlohcierekim's conditions seem reasonable to me. If you insist that you will not accept an unblock unless you are allowed to push attachment therapy, then as far as I'm concerned you can stay blocked. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy - I find you to have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic you are accusing me of promoting. Attachment Theory has been empirically proved, is not disputed by any reputable organisation and has over 60 years of research. What you have just stated is Attachment Therapy which has not been empirically proved, has no evidence-based research and whose name itself was made in order to gain credibility from Attachment Theory. You are clearly not a scholar or academic.--Lifechariot (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no warning of blocking me, and you gave no reasons for your blocking me when I emailed you. Both of these are stated things for a person in your position to do. You have also not shown any assumption of good will. Now you are trying to associate my work with a disreputable practice.--Lifechariot (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been explained, there is no rule stating where and how that must be done. And again, see WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>Guy I have shown my competency, wiliness to comply with WP:MEDHOW and engage in collaborative editing, and have read all the links of this page, yet you do not address any of you faults in addressing my case. Most of all trying to discredit my reasons for being here. I find you to be unprofessional.Lifechariot (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lifechariot.... you charged into WP and added a bunch of stuff about which you are passionate, and had a tantrum when your content wasn't accepted, and are pretty much continuing that here.

You have not taken the time to understand what Wikipedia is and how we operate. You are not the first person who has done this, and you won't be the last. The offer that was made to you was very generous - you were offered the opportunity to work in areas where you are not so passionate... the idea being that you might be able to slow down and actually learn how Wikipedia works, and what we are up to here, on content that is less charged for you.

Who you are (who you say you are, and what you say you know) really doesn't matter in WP. What matters is what you do here - the quality of content and sources you bring, and how you behave, here in Wikipedia.

I have written some things to try to help new users get oriented to Wikipedia. If you like please see User:Jytdog/How, and perhaps also this about epistemology/authority here in WP, and after those, maybe WP:EXPERT.

After you read them, you can then look at your own behavior here so far (the diff of each contribution you have made is at Special:Contributions/Lifechariot) ... and you will hopefully be able to see that how badly you have misunderstood Wikipedia, and will be able to formulate a brief, on-point unblock request that expresses that. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog -- I know I charged in to the editing of the ASPD page, and did think that my years of research notes would carry me through in a breeze. I also massively underestimated the protocols for editing, wasn't aware of the WP:MEDHOW guidelines and presumed that no reference to Attachment Theory on the ASPD page was ideological censorship when my edits were reverted and deleted with little of no explanation. It is true. I did not assume good faith and for that I apologise. My intentions were always good though. I most definitely appreciate a neutral perspective, and actively seek such research, so perhaps I am in the right place.

I find your response constructive and helpful. I will read through the links you have provided.

P.S. - It's not about tantrums but misunderstandings. Lifechariot (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to learn, you argued and attacked. You are indefinitely blocked because your behavior has been unacceptable and there has been no sign that you were willing to stop arguing and attacking long enough to hear what you have been doing wrong so you could learn to do better. Thi is not ambiguous. The more you try to throw smoke what happened, the more you give reason to believe that unblocking you would be unwise. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point, yet no reasons for my reverts, or block nor being pointed to the information I need to learn has made this situation. Not to mention being accused of wanting to promote Theories that I myself criticise "by the very admin that blocked me". I'm really not used to such conduct by admins.Lifechariot (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still blaming others for your bad behavior - you need to own what you have done. (this is also something that many, many people have been unable or unwilling to do in the past, which is why WP:NOTTHEM was written, and also so that we could refer to it, as other people inevitably do it.) Human behavior tendencies are what they are; there is nothing new under the sun. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - I have not blamed anyone for my behavior and have accepted what I have done and shown intent to learn all necessary procedures to comply with the spirit and the word of Wikipedia. As admins, however, you have not shown any efforts to do those very same things which are most definitely expected from admins in any reputable company. None of you have addressed any of your own issues that I have raised here, and is so doing you have shown a deep lack of understanding of behavior - which I can clearly see is significantly responsible for why you get so much cases like this present discussion. You ask for accountability yet shown none, and display a lack of integrity that is off putting. For to acquiesce would most certainly lead to a decrease in integrity for those who accept your terms.

No reasons given for reverts and deletes after repeated requests.

A block without warning.

A block without reason when requested, so it was not possible to make an appeal that addressed an exact issue.

No information or links given to learn about rules. Then chastisement for not knowing rules, and then information given.

Admins that instantly accuse a new editor of flaming when the new editor questions an issue of censorship through the wrong procedural channel.

Admins that seem more interested in the fact that another admin was questioned by an new editor rather than addressing the appropriate channel for questioning.

A blocking admin that falsely accuses the new editor which he has blocked of wanting to promote a Theory known for questionable experimental practices in the field of health. The admin in question is known and proudly promotes on his own talk page his blocking of fake new and suspicious sources with a sense of glee. When the appropriate emotion concerned with blocking and censorship should be solemn disapproval, it indicates a somewhat predatory mentality. As he is also attempting to falsely accuse editors of which he disagrees with promoting things they indeed do not, it displays a predatory will to use misinformation to discredit people which he does not like. Slander.

Admins that label requests for their reasoning as combative/argumentative.

Admins that have such a lack of behavioural understanding that they think disputes and arguments originate in people of throwing tantrums and not because of misunderstandings.

Admins that arrogantly think that a new editor asking for reasons for behavior is throwing smoke and state this as a reason serious reasons for declining an unblock request.

These are a list of concerns regarding Wikipedia admin conduct that I can list related to only my account being blocked and a request for it to be unblocked over the period of a week. In such a brief time you have shown none of the qualities you are insisting that I abide by to be unblocked. Is there any surprise in my mind that you repeatedly find yourself in this situation? No there isn't. lol.

But let me guess. You think it's about throwing tantrums. :-)

I am starting to believe that a significant reason for your unprofessional conduct as admins is related to the security you feel in your positions. You clearly communicate with a tone that your behavior is not questionable by anyone. If this was a paid for service, you would undoubtedly be out of a job, out of business or have an improved manner.

I do not think I could bear to work with such a lack of integrity.

You clearly are clever people who can interpret guidelines as they are written, frustrate people and act as bossy school prefects, but you show serious deficits in understanding behaviours.

I do not need to edit these pages. I intended to do so to contribute to the encyclopedia and combat many of the misunderstanding that are commonly created by Wikipedia pages that I then have to address in personal messages and comments to people who are showing out-of-date and biased knowledge - many of which come from seeming crimes of omissions.

I was prepared to learn the Wikipedia rules and contribute in the spirit of neutrality, only I have been seriously turned off by admin conduct. It explains somewhat why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information by the general public and professions who are continuously frustrated by misleading presentation or omissions of information. How many researchers could put up with such conduct by self important admins?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifechariot (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ping didn't work, no idea why.

The solution to this problem is a permaban. I would not object to any other consensus solution suggested by wiser minds, but cmon. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]