Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 20 June 2014

This is Neuraxis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Blocked Users from this Talk Page

The following editors are blocked from my user page for antagonizing me, poisoning the well, or simply trying to slowly assassinate my character

• BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Welcome!

Hello DVMt, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Discussions re: block request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unblock request Admin Kww did not provide any evidence whatsoever and the block is a personal issue. We can't just indef block users for no reason. DVMt (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Neuraxis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: No evidence of any reason for any block at any point in time. No diffs provided, nothing that justifies this action Accept reason: Unblocking per discussion below. Two reverts spaced by 3 days is not generally considered edit warring, and user seems to have been exonerated of the socking suspicions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC) User:DVMt, you deleted the evidence from your talk page. Before you deleted one useful template but then you deleted 2 useful templates. Your edits were counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) My god Quack, you are being nothing but a troll. I've asked you not to write on my page before and you continue to do so despite me respectfully asking. I brought the conversation back to the proper venue. Your template is not useful because you made a false allegation and got an admin to bite on it who was warned by 3 different editors regarding his tactics. Regardless, the diffs and my contributions show that I am talking, to a variety of people and not making any radical edits, or destabilizing articles. I welcome an investigation by neutral parties who will judge me by my edits this year, not the rookie mistakes I made in the past, and which I have not repeated after my voluntary one year break. I was not battling at all, I am discussing things. You can see my contributions to talk. Your allegations are just a witch hunt at this point. DVMt (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) I am in support of DVMt's unblock request. The user has been awarded as one of Misplaced Pages's top 300 medical contributors, and as far as I am concerned from editing three articles in common, DVMt has always been discussing things first at the Talk Page and trying to settle the possible differences. DVMt isn't the only one receiving arbitrary treatment from administrator Kww: Administrator Kww gave me a warning for edit warring. After pointing out to Kww that 1) I wasn't even accused of edit warring, 2) I wasn't involved in edit warring, and that 3) I filed a report for a 3RR violation concerning another user (QuackGuru), Kww took his warning back. The new allegation I was faced with, was (direct quote) "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)". However, 1) nobody ever accused me of such thing, 2) administrator Kww never provided any diffs where I'd have been doing that, 3) I wasn't pushing any POV's (just kept calmly to the 3RR report I filed). I think administrator Kww's behaviour has been completely unprofessional. A neutral administrator opinion is required. Administrator Kww also got himself involved into a WP:ANI -case, where he again resulted the case for user QuackGuru without any evidence presented by either administrator Kww nor user QuackGuru. (I was accused for following QuackGuru to other articles, which is completely absurd, and QuackGuru refused to answer when I asked what articles "I have been following him to". Still, administrator Kww decided to give me a warning for that. I think there are just three (3) articles in common that we are editing with QuackGuru.) I think a neutral admin decision is required Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I think it's patently obvious that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt work to ensure that articles about pseudoscientific topics are biased towards treating those topics as credible. DVmt was warned about edit-warring, and seems to have responded to the warning by immediately making another repeated reversion, unilaterally declaring two templates used in policing pseudoscience articles as useless. As for being involved, no, I'm not. I saw the AN/I and 3RR reports and quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC) No, you're biased and I was thanked for removing those inline citations by a NewsandEventsGuy (I believe) because there was no discussion and I reverted based on BRD and initiated a discussion there. You're mispresenting me, my work, my discussions with others. You have displayed very poor judgment here, de-facto bullying and Quackguru saw your 'warning' on my page, posted a bogus allegation the same day and you bit, hook line and sinker. Still no diffs provided, and I'd definitely like a different, admin to review the case, and ultimately your conduct which is heavy on threats and bans, not so much with providing evidence and a rationale that reflects your controversial judgment. DVMt (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Kww, you just said that you saw the WP:ANI report filed by user QuackGuru and "quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed". First, user QuackGuru filed a WP:ANI case against me under the accusation of I following him to other articles. So far, user QuackGuru has not even agreed to provide a list of the supposed articles where I'd have been following him to. User QuackGuru hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims, neither have you Kww. Still you decided to give me a warning without any evidence presented. How can you say that your administrative behaviour would be fair and neutral? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC) DVMt, please see Adminstrator conduct. Maybe you can find hep there if Kww is not going to change his behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I did provide the evidence against User:Jayaguru-Shishya but he choose to ignore it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC) No, not true. You have provided no evidence. Please provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Unbelievable. I have asked Quack no less than 4 times to stay off my page and he keeps on trolling here. Stay off my talk page QuackGuru. I consider this harassment on your part. If you continue to do so, I will seek to address this issue through whatever means necessary to prevent the continued harassment that you are engaged in. This is my final warning. DVMt (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Any reviewing admin should note that I have just blocked User:Klocek as an apparent sock of User:DVMt. I would take any protestations that he has reformed from his previous career as a sockpuppeteer with a grain of salt.—Kww(talk) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC) I am not Klocek, never seen or heard of him/her. Use whatever tools you want, any how about you actually provide evidence rather than just assume things. I've been on the sidelines since your rather specious blocking and now you're making bogus allegations against me while I am blocked. As I said before, I learned from 2013 and I have taken to the talk pages to discuss things prior to any bold or even radical edits. You are really on a smear campaign Kww, and you have made a brutal decision already and now are compounding it with another bogus allegation. How about you provide the diffs, the tools, anything that backs up your claims? DVMt (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The suggestion that this is a sleeper account seems to me to be completely baseless. Enthusiastic editing after a period of uninvolvement with WP is not in itself remarkable or extraordinary and is certainly not proof of anything like sock puppetry. HGilbert (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) You are being called out again, Kww, for your baseless attacks. You either provide proof or you retract your statement that Klocek is a sock puppet of mine. DVMt (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Follow up: . I may have misidentified the sock master, but there's no way that this is anything but a sleeper account.. Another instance of Kww not assuming any good faith and abusing his powers as an admin. Please provide direct evidence that supports your claims or retract them, Kww. You are continuing to making false allegations, assumptions without any evidence the more it looks like you're going rogue. We all make mistakes, including you. Own up to them, and move on. If you're going to write on my talk page, bring evidence, diffs, ip tracking data. Otherwise, I will ask you to please refrain from using my wall to make specious, unfounded allegations. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Now there are two sleeper accounts which have been revived for editing Acupuncture, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Run a checkuser, provide diffs, get evidence. I look forward to the report and clearing my name from these bogus allegations and attempts to smear and libel my character. Character assasination is diff in play. DVMt (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: You are lying why I was blocked this year and it had nothing to do with sockpuppetry . Retract your factual error, Tgeorgescu. I was blocked bc Kww believed I was edit warring and provided no diffs despite me repeatedly asking him to do so and now there's a witch hunt going on trying to link me to 2 other editors. DVMt (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC) What are the odds of two sleeper accounts of acupuncturists suddenly being revived in order to help you pursue your goals? It seems like WP:Duck. Unless, of course, you would be maintaining that User:Onediscdrive's self-identification as acupuncturist is bogus and the two accounts were especially revived to create problems for you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. You're failing to meet the minimum standard, Tudor. You're making a smear against me and trying to connect false dots. Also, stop trying to put words into my mouth. I don't know who or care Klocek or ODD are. You have not assumed ''any good faith and your behaviour here is reckless. I do expect a full apology from you and Kww when this cleared up. You have provided no diffs, and if you look closely at my editing Hx, you will see my edits at acupuncture were minimal. You also lied about me at the SPI and misinformed the investigation as to why I was blocked. You and Kww are going on a witch hunt and have not provided any evidence or diffs that back your claim. The first rule of SPI is provide diffs and evidence which you have not done. The burden is on you to prove your claim. DVMt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC) If there is no evidence, the SPI will be closed with no sanctions. I just stated that I have a suspicion, if I already had evidence, I would not have requested a checkuser. About the block, I just assumed that User:Kww applied WP:Duck and technically there are rational reasons for making such assumption, whatever the truth may be in this matter. Also, you may consider that if these editors are independent of you, the checkuser will be an argument in your favor, not one against you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC) You're ducking my point. You provided no evidence or diffs. That's the first thing with an SPI. Evidence is required and now you're saying you don't have evidence. Whatever your rationale, you incorrectly assumed which goes to show your bias, in this case. If you want to at least come off as neutral then at least meet the minimum standard as described in SPI. What you're doing is shooting first and asking questions later. Or in other words, presuming me guilty until proven innocent. That's not how this works. What you're doing is dragging me through the mud, and not assuming good faith. You're making the claim, now provide evidence which SPI mandates. At the very least, let this be an opportunity to teach you how to file a proper SPI and check your facts before making false statements. DVMt (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Just saw Tgeorgescu blurbs at the SPI investigation and he's making false assumptions again. I am not an acupuncturist. You're conflating things. My page says clearly I have a particular interest in integrative medicine, particularly manipulative therapies and acupuncture and their appropriate use in health care. You're trying to use a shotgun approach hoping something might stick. I'll repeat again: do not misinform, misrepresent or mischaracterize me or my intentions. You're hitting far below the belt with making insinuations about me without me being able to respond to the allegations. You might want to read WP:DICK. DVMt (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Look, I don't have to have evidence for suspicions, I just have to make clear why I presume something to be probable. Evidence is required for facts, not for mere subjective beliefs. WP:Duck is an accepted standard at WP:SPI and you cannot deny that it applies to your case, even if it might be a false positive. So, unless a checkuser actually investigates this, I cannot have evidence, since I am not a checkuser. That's why they are called "investigations" and not "sockpuppet proclamations": by presenting the reasons for suspicion the matter gets investigated. Actually, opening such investigation would be an occasion to clear your name, at least if you agree that a checkuser should investigate the login data. When I say "I believe that tomorrow it will rain" I don't have to have evidence, the same as Christians don't need to have objective evidence in order to accept Jesus as Redeemer. Don't conflate believing with knowing, I was entitled to believe that sockpuppetry was going on even if it later proves to be false. I have stated my reasons for opening the investigation. You may disagree with them and checkusers may disagree with them, but I was sincere in believing that a sockpuppet investigation should be opened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC) I hear what you're saying and don't doubt that you're being genuine. However, SPI is very clear that evidence needs to be presented. Scanning through Klocek, ODD I don't see how you can see why they would be me nor does HGilbert. Bringing Christianity or any other red-herring isn't helping matters. I'm not the one conflating, you're the one telling the SPI that I am an acupuncturist, that my current block was for sockpuppetry and other factual mistakes. Then you cast aspersions on HGilbert insinuating he/she isn't reliable or trustworthy. You can see why I would be annoyed; you rushed into this and made a judgment call on false data. Although I do hope this will clear my name, I'm not so naive as to think it will count towards anything since Kww is blocking indef anyone who seemingly disagrees with GQ (and there are many past and present) style of editing. Your hypothesis is not reliable since the data you presented is inaccurate. Again, SPI is very clear The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. . You should be following the minimum standard. Hope you have learned something. DVMt (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC) It is still a case of duck, not a simple one, but a double one (twice a duck, maybe yesterday wasn't your lucky day). That's my reason for opening the investigation. Of course, solid evidence will be needed to actually prove the case, but if I already had such evidence, I would have went directly to WP:ANI and requested the indeff-ing of all three accounts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC) About Klocek being blocked as a duck, see Special:Contributions/Klocek. There was where I got my information from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Agree that a checkuser should be done, but the originally complaint was spurious and did not follow standard protocol. Here Tgeorges incorrectly states " DVMt cannot deny that he got blocked due to the application of WP:Duck" . I was not blocked because of duck. You are again making factual inaccuracies. I was blocked, by Kww, under the belief I was edit warring, which I am disputing. This is the third time today where you have gotten your facts wrong on me. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Why are you continuing to make false statements? You have never once discussed the key point I made, which is you did not follow SPI protocol. At least you have the ability to do it now and correct yourself while I'm in wiki purgatory. DVMt (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC) About User:Hgilbert believing that you and Klocek aren't the same person, I have no problem with that. I would have a problem with him knowing that you are two different persons, since this means that he knows you both, and that would suggest collusion. Elementary my dear Watson. About opening the SPI, I was suspicious because of the double duck. Namely Klocek got blocked as your sockpuppet and another sleeper account followed the Klocek model and edited Acupuncture. That's not proof, but it is enough reason for suspicion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Go through my edit Hx and tell me when the last time I made an edit to the acupuncture article. You have again failed to provide any diffs as I had asked. All you're going on is a suspicion which you provided no diffs which is exactly what SPI states is required when filling a SPI. Anyways, your logic is absurd, that I created 2 sleeper accounts 8 years ago, faking to be Japanese and an American all the while waiting 8 years to activate a sock or meat puppet over an article I barely edit? Have you not noticed that I am pretty much exclusively using the talk page in 2014 to discuss issues? You didn't your research here and have impugned the credibility of many editors. You need to be more diligent and follow the protocol which you ignored (4th time: it said to provide diffs). DVMt (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Is it too much to ask that Kww not lie at the SPI? I was never blocked for any allegation of using a sockpuppet. It's clear in the block log, I simply don't get why users are permitted to continually make bogus statements that aren't factual. I was never blocked for using a sockpuppet. Get your facts straight. See the diff DVMt (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Well, then you have an easy way out, write below "I agree with performing a checkuser investigation" and sign it. Since if you know that you are different persons, then there is nothing to fear from such investigation. There are too many diffs to be provided and they would not add extra information to what I already stated at WP:SPI: an amazing, extremely improbable case of double duck. The diffs would show nothing else than an extremely improbable case of double duck. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Here is a diff that states he blocked me indef for sockpuppet. Why is he clearly lying when the above diff stated the real reason for the indef block? Here is context where I reverted per BRD and went immediately to the talk page. Tgeorgescu, I already stated clearly here about the checkuser. DVMt (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: Since you're not following proper protocol and providing diffs as you're supposed to when filing a SPI here is the diff when the last time I edited acupuncture. May 9th, 2014. Note that I reverted by BRD and took it to the talk page. If you're too lazy to actually find the diffs to make your case, then don't make spurious allegations. DVMt (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I consent with a checkuser investigation to clear my name of bogus allegations made by Kww and Tgeorgescu. DVMt (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Sounds like that pretty much settles it. DVMt consented to a check user investigation. Time to do it and settle this one way or another-either the check will exonerate DVMt and will be consistent with what he's saying...or it won't. I'm not aiming this statement at anyone in particular, but at this point, it doesn't seem like the conversation is moving forward any more. For both sides, time to put up or shut up. It's simple. That's my unsolicited 2 cents. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Just to point out that I did not block DVMt for using sockpuppets (although, despite his claim that "I was never blocked for using a sockpuppet", he has, in fact, been blocked twice for using sock puppets). I blocked him because shortly after being warned not to edit war on about pseudoscience, he edit warred over a template used on pseudoscience articles. The rash of socks on the article may or may not be him: even if the socks are not him, I see no reason to unblock DVMt: socks aren't the reason for his block.—Kww(talk) 06:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Kww, your block was bogus. I did not edit war and you did not provide any evidence that I did. GQ put up 2 templates that had no CON so per BRD I reverted and put it to the talk page. QG claimed I was slowly edit warring and then you came in heavy handed and blocked me. I was thanked for taking those templates down which, to me, showed that the issue was far from settled. In short, you over-reacted, didn't provide diffs, didn't know the context, and abused your power as an admin. Rather than issue a mea culpa, you continue to compound your mistake. You have already been blocked yourself 3 times for abusing your admin powers, so don't throw stones when you live in glass houses. Get on with the check user and I want an independent admin to review my case. DVMt (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Browsing around I can see that QG is lobbying you once again for more punishment against me. The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here . So, as you can clearly see by the discussion this issue was far from being resolved. Seeing that you warned QG twice and you seem to be using a double standard. Why the leniency towards GQ and a hard line with others?. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC) About the diffs: with or without them, there still is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, that's why I have opened the SPI. So, I don't have to apologize for being reasonably suspicious, since it is not a fault or moral defect. I did not say "DVMt did sockpuppetry" since I had no proof, I only had the reasonable suspicion that sockpuppetry was going on so I asked that the matter be investigated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC) User QuackGuru got just banned for one week for edit-warring. I'd advise Kww to review his groundless warnings and bans, or measures described at Misplaced Pages:Administrators has to take place in. The latest ban for user QuackGuru by administrator John gives a good evaluation point. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who found his editing style troublesome. He sure was canvassing hard to Kww to have me more indef blocked, perhaps banned? It's all speculation but he does seem to rather obsessive about me. At this point I am going to let the check user take its course, be cleared up being a sock/meat master. Kww should climb down his high horse and retract the misuse of his admin tools or, at the very least provide evidence in the form of diffs that shows a pattern of edit warring that backs up his decision. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Tgeorgescu seems to have been caught in the cross fire and made a bad decision to link me, personally, to whatever happened at acupuncture with those other editors. I don't think that he is a bad guy per se, but I also know that he didn't follow the basics and is trying to justify his act after the fact. When I'm cleared, all I'd ask of him is a simple 'sorry I was misinformed or was misled' and it will be water under the bridge. Thanks for informing me, it's rather emotionally draining constantly being on the defensive of malicious attacks. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I would like to thank User:King of Hearts for endorsing the CU and getting the ball going. Progress is progress! DVMt (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: Kww still on the witch hunt makes accusation, provides no diffs. Clearly, Kww doesn't listen well and doesn't provide any evidence while making grandiose statements. Man up, Kww, put the diffs up or shut up! You made the claim I edit warred, and indef'ed me, so back it up. Such a power tripper, making comments sullying my character without giving me the proper chance to respond and poisoning the well for any appeal. You're doing the same thing to those other editors you smeared with your bogus accusations. DVMt (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC) About an apology for reasonable suspicion: I will not apologize for that, since what happened is weird enough to warrant suspicion. But at WP:SPI I made a concession and I have retracted affirmations for which I lacked proof. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I saw, and I thank you for that. If only User:Kww were as constructive and collaborative. I believe in Karma, so what goes around, comes around. Be well. DVMt (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I listen extremely well, DVMT, I just find repeating myself tiresome. I warned you not to edit war, or I would block you. Shortly thereafter, you performed a second reversion of material that had been inserted by two different editors. Shortly after that, I blocked you, including a diff to the problematic edit in the block. Shortly after that, you began falsely claiming that I hadn't provided that diff and that you hadn't been edit-warring. You subsequently made false claims about your history of blocks for socking. I've listened to all of that very closely, but have deemed that it isn't worth much time and effort considering. I generally feel that way about any number of false claims, yours included.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Please, Kww. As I said at the very beginning of this thread I welcome an investigation by neutral parties who will judge me by my edits this year, not the rookie mistakes I made in the past, and which I have not repeated after my voluntary one year break. I did not get blocked this year for socking. You must think I'm an idiot that people can't see the block log. You chose to cherry pick a sentence. You a) warned me about a revert I made that I was thanked for b) was re-inserted, c) took it out again as there was no CON and the issue was being discussed at talk page, which I then brought up at the talk page. QuackGuru made a bogus post on my talk page which I moved to the proper discussion forum (FRINGE TALK) he then canvassed you stating I was edit warring and in you came. Today QG goes bananas and canvasses you again with all this BS and finally a level-headed editor see's that this guy's editing style is a pain in the ass and takes action. You didn't provide any diffs that showed an actual edit war, nor did you take any context. Considering you claim to listen but apparently have a tin ear and would rather double down on a mistake than, try to resolve the issue professionally. So I'll ask you once again: are you willing to re-evaluate your block of me if I provide a timeline of the events with context so your decision is more informed, or will you continue to caustic, and mis-represent what my intents and purpose is (hint: it's not to promote pseudoscience like you falsely claimed). Sincere question. DVMt (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Uninvolved editor here who is only aware of this dispute because I have edit warring & incident page on watchlist. I saw no recent report against DVMt for edit warring. QuackGuru was reported by Jayaguru-Shishya for edit warring. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_DvMT_and_Jayaguru-Shishya_warned.29 DVMt commented on the report Jayaguru-Shishya filed against QuackGuru saying that QuackGuru was a “difficult” editor. Over on the incident report page, Jayaguru-Shishya was reported by QuackGuru for “battle ground behavior”. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour The incident report was about to go into archive when a sock puppet, User:Wales of Jimbo, who was advancing QuackGuru’s position against Jayaguru-Shishya revived it. That sock puppet was then promptly blocked by admin. How DVMt became the only one initially blocked out of this bizarre dispute is a bit confusing, and an indefinite block is even more confusing. However, I see at some later point QuackGuru was also blocked relating to some other incident and another probable sock puppet is protesting that block user:fasf14, who apparently joined Misplaced Pages and to protest that block. Apparently there’s a lot of drama here for reviewing admin to sort out. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I've made no move to unblock QuackGuru, and won't. You might notice that I told him not to post here again. Whether people thanked you for an edit is irrelevant (and I believe I just won a bet ... I warned the implementors that people would use "BUT I WAS THANKED FOR THAT EDIT" as a defense). The issue was that I warned you not to edit war and you immediately did so. Past history doesn't matter much, nor does the behaviour of others.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Who cares if you won a bet? The fact that I was thanked meant that another editor concurred with the edit. That's notable otherwise the feature wouldn't exist. Another editor agreed with my removal by the BRD cycle. That is totally fair game. Basically, Jayguru reported QG for disruptive behaviour and you came out defending him and putting up bogus warnings on myself and Jayguru's talk page. My 2nd to last comment stated I won't be baited into edit warring, then QuackGuru immediatley posts this on my talk page and you unjustly block me. We've had our disagreements and you made this personal. And as we can see above, other uninvolved editors suggest that something weird is going on here... DVMt (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC) You know, it's frustrating, but there are a couple of admins who apparently believe that any edit to any page, after the one that creates the page, is "a revert" and "therefore edit warring". In this case, however, the charge isn't quite so silly, although it is an unusually aggressive interpretation: you removed the same "advertisement" for a new template twice, three days apart. Edit warring doesn't technically require a 3RR violation. I'd suggest in the future that if you invoke BRD, then you follow BRD, especially the parts about BRD not meaning BRRRRRD and about the most BRD-compliant editor being the one who starts the discussion (that is, please start the discussion before the second revert, not three hours later). Anyone can start a discussion under BRD, not just the bold editor. (BTW, there is a discussion about that template on the talk page. I'm dubious of its added value and suspicious that it would not survive a trip to TFD.) I think it would be helpful for User:Kww to explain the terms under which he would agree to unblock you. He can't formally respond to your unblock request (because he's WP:INVOLVED in blocking you), but he could tell you what his suggestions were. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your comment, WAID. I do realize now, that 2 reversals 3 days apart may have been edit warring. I think I was caught up in the moment dealing with QuackGuru on so many other pages where he simply steamrolls his POV in. My intent was to discuss if these edits had support and I am/was unaware of what TFD means/is. Consider it a lesson learned. I too find that interpretation was pretty aggressive and I have tried to discuss this with Kww who hasn't made any suggestions. DVMt (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry, TFD is WP:Templates for discussion ("discussion" because it handles all contested mergers as well as deletions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC) I haven't made any suggestions because I can't envision any reason to unblock DVMt. I suppose that I would have to be persuaded that his presence on the project was beneficial to the project.—Kww(talk) 21:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC) User:Kww, with all due respect, you alone should not be able to benefits to WP of my presence. Hope about some constructive feedback like User:WhatamIdoing suggested? You've sided with QuackGuru on this one, and thought that Jayguru and I were tag-teaming him. We were legitimately voicing our concerns over his ownership and tendentious editing style. With his recent block because of the same BS at Electronic cigarette clearing shows that I am not alone who finds his editing disruptive. I apologize that I engaged in 2 reverts in 3 days. I am not here to promote pseudoscience or whitewash criticism of CAM. I am here to help find a balance between fringe and mainstream practices with respect to specific CAM interventions for for musculoskeletal medicine. I do not condone radicalists, true believers or dogmatic skeptics. I am a centrist. And for that, I am a very valuable asset especially in a hotly contested domain that needs a different approach after 7 failed years of the same old, same old. DVMt (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Vindicated

As I've been saying, I have learned from past mistakes and did not engage in duplicitous behaviour as suggested by User:Kww and User:Tgeorgescu. Seeing how that drama is over, I am hoping in earnest that an uninvolved admin can take a look at my unblock request. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Vindicated of socking, yes, which I have repeatedly stated was not the reason for your block. As for your comments above, can you distinguish yourself from the myriad of previous editors that loudly proclaimed that they were attempting to bring "balance" to pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles, editors that invariably attempted to highlight small sections of the topic that had some legitimacy and downplay the vast majority of the area that was nonsense?—Kww(talk) 15:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I am distinguishing myself because I am focusing on a very specific topics a) manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders b) conservative management of MSK disorders and c) effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical and non-surgical interventions to improve MSK function. I have expertise in rehabilitative sciences and my workplace setting is multi-disciplinary so I am exposed to and work in collaborative care models. My point is, I generally work very well with editors who don't mischaracterize me as an alt-med proponent, because that suggests I'm giving all of alt-med a blank check. It also suggest that I am a conventional med opponent, which I am not given that one of my degrees is in 'conventional' side of the fence. So, I reject the characterizations that I am a true believer or dogmatic skeptic. I am not a SPA, but I prioritize my work, and the biggest problem, IMHO, is the evidence-base for manual and manipulative therapies and MSK disorders. I was part of a good discussion here which is collaboratively working with an experienced and respected medical editor to try and figure out what aspect are legitimate and what aspects or more fringe. Regardless, you can see that I am doing a lot of talking and discussing the issues rather than bulldoze the articles themselves. I've asked for some mentorship , because I want to become more well versed in all aspects of WP, especially when it comes to policies that govern the pages I edit. DVMt (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:GAB, re-do your block request, and I'll consider it. Specifically, I'd appreciate it if you would concisely address the concerns raised at User_talk:Kww#DVMt. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply User:Adjwilley. It is difficult to try to explain the whole QuackGuru scenario without bringing in some context , and it goes a way back. Short of the long is I removed the template, not for the reason QuackGuru suggests, but because it didn't seem to have consensus and was seemingly trying to steamroll his version in. I hadn't noticed that conversation until I was blocked. I did, in retrospect, accidentally took down 2 templates, thinking they were both new. I apologize for this. I did 2 reverts in 3 days as noted here with the comment stating that this was an unusually aggressive 'interpretation' by the banning admin. I hope this explains things a bit, but it is hard to provide proper context to the event without discussing the editor who 'complained' about me in the first place. Lastly, I had no idea that 2 reverts in 3 days could be construed as edit warring, I was trying to invoke BRD. My understanding is that if an editor makes a bold edit, then it is reversed invoking BRD, then re-inserting the disputed edit would be a breach of policy. Regardless, as my comment said I was trying not to get involved into an edit war but I guess I was inadvertently involved in one. If it's confusing to you, I apologize, I'm just trying to explain the situation to the best of my current understanding. DVMt (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Just so you are aware, BRD is not policy, even though some people treat it as such. Reverting on the grounds of BRD is generally pretty weak, and probably does more harm than good. I'm actually at this very moment involved in two disputes where someone made a bold edit, I reverted, they reverted, and I started a discussion with no further reverts (BRRD). I could revert on the basis of WP:STATUSQUO or BRD, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't matter if the "wrong" version is left up for a day or two, and the benefits of being able to calmly discuss something without tempers being raised by a corresponding edit war usually outweigh any negatives. I seem to recall you mentioning somewhere that you were interested in some sort of mentorship to learn the ways of the wiki, and I believe this tip will help quite a bit if you follow it, particularly at this point in your wiki-career. Note, however, that this only works when you are right about something and have a strong enough argument to convince your audience. If you are wrong and/or unwilling to modify your stance based on evidence, edit warring may be your best option. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Learned something new! I don't want to ever engage in any edit war, even if I am "right". I thought BRD was a standard thing to do, it is invoked so often at the pages I frequently edit at it just seemed like this was "normal" thing to do. Last year I got emotionally involved in these type of discussions at the respective talk page, realizing only after my voluntary year off I was often being trolled and putting energy into trying to discuss things with some macrocephalic editors. Basically, the key thing that I learned that in dealing with disruptive editors, I'm going to take thing ANI, and do an RfC for content disputes. I do have a question though: When an editor is being very tendentious, and not listening (IDHT) what is the best way to address this behaviour? I also have concerns about 'vote stacking' when editors who have no experience in the subject matter pile on and add nothing of substance (i.e. new evidence) but it appears, on the surface, like they have a 'majority vote'. I recall this issue when the Colbert Report told his audience and viewers to edit that elephants were pink in colour (which they did) to expose this 'loophole' that strength in numbers doesn't mean the facts have changed. Thanks for discussing these issues with me, I appreciate your guidance. DVMt (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

MPOV, TEND, and IDHT editors are a tough problem on Misplaced Pages and I'm afraid I don't have the answers you're looking for. RfCs, RfC/Us, and noticeboards can help sometimes, but often have the side effect of creating way more drama than they're worth. There are also other dispute resolution options such as WP:3O, but that only works when it's two editors in a disagreement. The best strategy I've found is to try to understand and address their concerns, and if that fails, make sure that you're on the side of reliable sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll look into WP:3O, I've never seen that before. If there is a dispute, do you mind if I tag you so you can give your 2c? It's hard to find admins who have your communication style without resorting to personal beliefs instead of being objective with respect to the facts (i.e. reliable sources). DVMt (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: I asked you to distinguish yourself from previous editors that had attempted to highlight small sections of pseudoscience topics that had some legitimacy and downplay the vast majority of the area that was nonsense. You replied not by distinguishing yourself, but by delineating the small section of a topic that you were going to highlight because it has some legitimacy.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I did not satisfy your concerns. But the distinguishing is rather, broad. Distinguish myself from which editors? I showed you diffs of collaboration, willing to engage other editors, not bulldozing through articles, sought mentorship so I can learn more about how to navigate some of the trickier articles. I don't know exactly what it is specifically you're asking me to do. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I also don't want you to paint me into a corner by taking what I said out context. You seem to focusing a lot on me somehow advancing a pseudoscience agenda, which is not my position at all. I reject the mischaracterizations and the labels. If you were to provide perhaps an example of what it is exactly you're asking for, perhaps the next exchange can be more productive. DVMt (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DVMt, at least now you may no longer claim that I have attacked you through the SPI request, since you already knew you were a different editor than Klocek and Onediscdrive and the checkuser diligently reported this. Except for the retracted claims, I did not claim that you were sockpuppeting, I merely asked that the matter be investigated, since such revival of two sleeper accounts in order to edit the same article does not happen every day or every week at Misplaced Pages. I requested a check and the check has shown that you were not engaged in sockpuppetry. So, my SPI demand turned to be in your favor and you had reasons to know this in advance. Even if you are still blocked, this cleared you of using Klocek's account as a sockpuppet, but, unfortunately for him, he was himself engaged in sockpuppetry, as the checkuser has shown. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be trying to be speaking on a technicality but reporting suspicion that I was a sock is no different than claiming I am a sock; you're using semantics. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, User:Tgeorgescu and I don't find your investigation did me any favours, except cast additional aspersions on my character. I don't really care of what happened to the Klocek or the others personally, the truth eventually finds its way out. Anyways, I think that our engagement here is done. No hard feelings, be well and enjoy your editing. DVMt (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a difference between voicing suspicions and claiming, but it's probably not worth discussing here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My experience in editing with Quack Guru

While I've been in wiki-purgatory, I've noticed a constant theme regarding QuackGuru: WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:IDHT.

Other editors complaining of chronic editing problems with QuackGuru (as of 2014)

1. User:Guy
2. User:Tiptoety
3. User:Jayaguru-Shishya
4. User:MONGO
5. User:EdJohnston
6. User:Mann_jess
7. User:FergusM1970
8. user:KimDabelsteinPetersen
9. User:Herbxue
10. User:John
11. User:Mallexikon
12. User:Middle 8
13. User:Arzel
14. User:WhatamIdoing

Despite after promising to improve his behaviour and stop editing chiropractic he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic, and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom . He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour ] and continued to be disruptive Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening , ,, , , , His chiropractic article has become unreadable , while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy . He even implies that he may be Edzard Ernst He continues to bait by stating "very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself.. . This seems very bizarre to me. With so many different editors experiencing the same problems with Quack, past and present, it's clear that despite repeated blocks, and a yearlong topic ban hasn't changed anything. Attempts to drive things again , accusations , , but I refused to take the bait.

Relevance: One of them enabling admins of QG blocked me with a dispute involving QG and I see that other editors have continued to have the same issues as I did even after I was tossed in the penalty box. DVMt (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

His special relationship with a high-rank med admin seems to be a conflict. In return, QG is seemingly given a pass for his disruptive behaviour at his favourite pages as seen by this recent February 2014 conversation here where User:Guy Macon and other discussed the problem. The same problems over the past 7 years problem again resurfaced less than 3 months after yet another RfC. The admin seems to be going out of his way defending and endorsing him. Under normal circumstances, giving a barnstar is no biggie, but when you consider the fact that QuackGuru has repeatedly editing the admin's biographical entry, then it deserves a bit more attention. Further, when you look at the context and nature of the edits, the overwhelming number of edits is to suppress the real-world controversies surrounding the admin. , , , , , , , , , , , . I am not suggesting that the admin is not a competent or even respected medical editor, however, when it comes defending , and endorsing QuackGuru's character, this background story should be part of the record. There does seem to be some special pleading on behalf of the admin and I didn't really understand why such a passionate defense of QG until I did this research. DVMt (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not good at all. The pre-existing connection between QuackGuru is pretty surprising, and casts Doc James's extreme and absurd defenses of QuackGuru in a very unflattering light. Examples:

• "Hum User:Mallexikon the same one who filled out a RfCU without supporting claims and then refused to provide any when called on it" . Also "One of the RfC U has no difs supporting it" . Simply untrue. Fact: While the presentation of some of the evidence in that RfC was admittedly flawed (and I say this as its co-certifier), it certainly did include evidence; Doc James just didn't like it.
• "Still waiting for evidence of misbehavior to be provided. Removing comments from ones talk page is NOT significant misbehavior." Again untrue; see explanation of block posted a day before.
• and see User_talk:QuackGuru#Blocked_one_week passim.

I'm not accusing Doc James of lying. The untrue statements above may reflect carelessness (albeit sometimes to an extreme degree -- how does one totally overlook the presence of diffs in an RfC/U?). But he is repeatedly distorting the record to an extreme degree in favor of QuackGuru, who has repeatedly edited Doc James bio to remove unflattering but RS and BLP-compliant material. There is an apparent conflict here, and a pretty strong appearance of impropriety; all Wikipedians obviously ought to avoid such things, especially prominent WP ambassadors. Doc James of course does wonderful stuff for WP, but his judgement with respect to QG has been poor. He should seriously consider recusing himself from further discussion of QG. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Having just gone through a questionable sock investigation, lobbying accusations against another editor that discredits them or smears them really poisons the well. That's why I'm not accusing the admin of anything but he did displays extremely poor and very biased judgment in dealing with QuackGuru. Feigning concern that without QG the alt-med articles will take a shit is rather extreme outlook on the situation, it infers he doesn't trust any other editors to build the encyclopedia. I just think going all in in defense of QuackGuru was not only a huge mistake, but now with the obvious COI, it looks premeditated. The whole situation seems to be getting worse by the day. User:John might be interested as to why the admin was trying to sway him in reversing the block. DVMt (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks bad; whether it really is that bad I don't know, but we should certainly AGF. The overt problem is each editor's going too far toward dismissing valid criticism of the other. Is there reason to believe that Doc James even knew of QG's puffing up his BLP? (Note: a little more here, fwiw, and another editor's view.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. That somehow I would want edits like this and thus QC is doing me a service and I have a COI? This is a continuation of the issue that I have with the evidence that has been provided. It is not very good. Evidence is not just about providing a bunch of diffs the diffs actually need to show concern. Some of the edits complained about in the RfC were actually improvements to Misplaced Pages. This was provided as evidence but was a positive edit. So yes after read through this stuff I am a little more concerned regarding some of those involved here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait -- how is the diff you just cited unflattering? Being an object of controversy is presumably something none of us want; QG OR-tagged such a sentence. That was certainly not unflattering to you. And virtually all of the other diffs cited by DVMt are are unduly positive, most being suppression of sources that are critical but pass RS and BLP. I said above that I wasn't sure whether or not you regularly follow your own BLP, but I know that if I were a highly active editor with a BLP, I would; it's human nature. So my guess would be that you do regularly follow your BLP. Am I wrong? I don't know how many other QG edits there are to your BLP. But if excessively positive is the trend, and it took some digging for you to find one that you thought wasn't positive, then you must be aware that QG's edits are overwhelmingly and excessively positive, and the ingredients for a conflict are there. I do find it concerning that you and QG are making edits about each other (in WP and article space respectively) that are unduly positive. The preceding sentence is objectively true: QG ignores RS and BLP (cf. DVMt's diffs); you ignore the very existence of diffs indicating QG's misbehavior, e.g first two bullet points cited just above . You're puffing each other up in Wikispaces where you respectively stand to benefit from the puffery. It looks poor. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 02:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But again, just because it looks poor doesn't mean it is poor, and please don't think I'm doubting your integrity. I AGF fully, and I think you've seen QG's good side but not his bad side and this largely accounts for our differences in perspective. (I too edit from a scientific stance and appreciate the good stuff he does) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Manipulative editing: A notebook

• Doc James reverted a change made regarding the ordering of the sections here stating 'Not sure why the change in ordering of sections'. This is tendentious. I clearly stated 'Re-organize per MEDMOS in the diff . I had discussed this earlier today at the talk page .
• Reverting the Doctor of Chiropractic page to QuackGuru's version without consensus and despite ignoring previous concerns about redirections without a formal proposal to do so.
• MelanieN reverted Doc James stating "Stop redirecting this article unless/until there is consensus at the talk page.".
• Incorrectly asserting chiropractic is a treatment and not a profession
• Faulty logic regarding skepticism
• Narrow interpretation of the rules
• Adding archiver to protege's page which is then changed from 5 to 30 days. Are they hiding something?
• QuackGuru continuing to harass me and making more baseless allegations, trying to censor my work which is rejected for his bogus allegation of COPYVIO.
• Still not listening and being tendentious regarding MEDMOS

Yes would be good to have someone look at these diffs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Concerns of unconditional praise for QG

DVMt

We have of course previously interacted like here when they were having issues with using sockpuppets and copy and pasting Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this what this has to do with this year. If you read my posts above, you will see that I was exonerated this year for a suspected sock case. If you want to focus on the past, that's your prerogative, I am focused on the present. Perhaps you should return to tutoring QuackGuru whose issues persist after 8 years. Like the old saying goes, "you dance with the one that brung you". Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

Comments such as this

"Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature" are personal attacks and are thus not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're presenting things out of context. Here is the full quote Brangifer, you've made several errors in your assessment. First, this has nothing to do with true believers. This has to do with science and research.' You're conflating things. Next, Palmer does not equal chiropractic. It's what Palmer said not what he is saying. He's been dead for over 100 years and you know very well that from the beginning there were 2 very different approaches to chiropractic. In fact, the research shows that currently less than 20% of practice according to Palmer doctrine. "Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. " . Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature. Please bring peer-reviewed sources to support your claims in the future. That's not an attack but a request that he please abide standard WP policy and to assert facts not opinions. Brangifer made a claim, I rebutted it, because the claim he is making is not supported by evidence. Given that other editors have described you as a cynic you're not in position to be the moral compass as your bias has clouded your judgment in endorsing QuackGuru. I'd please ask that you refrain from quoting things out of context which is reminds me of the same tendentious editing that is done by your protege. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a personal attack against QG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DVMt, Doc James does have a point here in that your comments are unnecessarily personal in nature. Referencing QG in the comment about misrepresenting the literature was unnecessary, as was your comment about QG being DJ's "protege". As for saying that Doc James's moral compass is off because somebody described him as a "cynic"...well, that's probably a step below ad hominem. Your arguments will carry a lot more weight and you'll receive substantially less blowback if you stay in the top three tiers of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley, because I trust in your objectivity, I will strike out my comments in the morning. I do want to note, however, that the point I made was legitimate, there are recent ongoing questions regarding abusing sources. That being said, I do regret if I offended the dissenting parties. There does seem to be 2 fundamental disagreement, namely a profession or technique and 2) the existence of science-based chiropractic (i.e. manual and manipulative therapy for spinal/MSK disorders. I do welcome any dispute resolution or request for comment. User:Adjwilley, thank you introducing me to that diagram! I've never seen it before and is immediately useful. Regards, DVMt (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Your recent editing history at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please read my edit summaries carefully and address those issues before restoring that content in your own section, never in the opening section when someone else has started the process. They virtually own that area. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

LeProf, I found this insightful and helpful. Do you wish to further discuss the comment to move the needle forward? Given that I can't post at your wall, I thought I'd discuss it here if you consent. Regards, Neuraxis (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neur, I am running behind tonight, so apologies for apparent curtness. Another editor has also asked for my comment, and your also asking adds weight that I might have something to say. But I will say the same to you as to him: The discussion is so far-ranging, and frequently either personal between editors, or obtuse, that I will comment only if speciifc questions (in bullet form, and plain speaking, no WP: this and that) are offered, to which I can respond. You must have to have some thought as to the crux of this matter—where is the fulcrum, on which a lever can be placed? I will not bias you with suggestions, just let me know 1-3 hard points you would like commented upon (in question form, and waste no time leading the witness). Please, also, provide a link to where exactly the comments should go. Ta. Cheers, off. Le Prof

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Misplaced Pages medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Misplaced Pages Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Misplaced Pages:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle Arbcom needed

Please note the citation error introduced with this edit at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit removed {{reflist}} which blew away the references and created a new problem at the bottom of the page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to try to fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do so User:Sphilbrick. I'm not quite sure how to do it and I appreciate your help in this matter! Neuraxis (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did have to remove a ref used at the end of your last bullet point <ref name="Henderson 2012 632–642"/>.; I was unable to identify what it referred to. Otherwise fixed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that ref is a bit important, but I can redo it so that it links directly to the pubmed article. Thanks again! Neuraxis (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Helpful source

http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=37431#Evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.22 (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:198.228.216.22, thank you for the reference. I'll review it in depth later on, and see how/if it is applicable. Neuraxis (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Message received. Will try to respond before the weekend. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Neuraxis (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Their playbook: Step-by-step on how they will eventually ban/block you. I've only seen it successfully turned on the cynics once ... It got ScienceApologist banned ... Of course the cynical powers-that-be let him return and change his name. His block log is even more impressive that QuackGuru's. Any how, tread warily. 198.228.216.16 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I figure that you can relate to this... http://i.imgur.com/goKtie5.gif 198.228.216.36 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So true! This place is relatively dysfunctional, at least the English language WP. I discovered yesterday that one of the arbiters at ArbCom pseudoscience has no health care or scientific background! The process isn't valid at all. That would be like there being a controversial aspect of astrophysics and an English lit major deciding the fate of the subject. Interestingly, I came across this today, and I agree 100% with the author. The harassment and bullying on my end should be reported to someone/where because it goes far beyond collegial editorial disagreements. I've heard of WP policies re: lawsuits, but some of this stuff really borders on libel, slander. I'm sure of we had to use our real life identities all this drama BS would cease. Especially with professionals, there are instances here where it's clearly professional misconduct. There is also cabals at work and play, and power-brokered relationships that occur when wikipedians meet in IRL like the "I'm leaving' editor suggests. I was reading somewhere where there was droves of editors leaving WP, some very good ones, because of the political climate here. I hope not to be that statistic, but I can certainly see why it happens. Neuraxis (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And what I discover in the above is an already seen tendency to making irrational unfounded statements and asserting them as fact. If I am the "arbiter" to whom you are referring and I assume I am it might be of interest to you first that there is no such thing as an "arbiter" in wikipedia -- the term is "arbitrator" as most editors who read our policies and guidelines generally learn well before they have been active for 2-1/2 years. Second at no point did I say I was an "arbiter" nor did anyone else say it - you just decided to conclude such on your own apparently. Had you ever paid much attention to our procedures you also would know that no one me included is an "arbiter" on specific fields. The true arbitrators rule on the cases presented to them unless they have specific prior history or other reasons to recuse. Others including those whom you apparently think are "arbiters" includes basically anyone who cares to comment.

Regarding your second wildly unfounded prejudicial assertion about me all it really does is assert your own ignorance. My major was the broad history of religions field as I have said before This was basically because the school I won my National Merit Scholarship to did not have an "archaeoastronomy" program and my goal was to be one of the few people in the broad field of "archaeology" who knew something about the astronomical circumstances of the various historical eras.

My minor was however in astronomy and so was one of the foundation funded scholarships I won. I ultimately did not go into the field which is distressingly small and instead went into health information management a field I have several years of employment in. From all this I think we can conclude that you as an individual have a rather obvious unwarranted tendency to make faulty judgments based on insufficient if not nonexistent evidence and that raises very serious questions regarding your ability to make rational judgements regarding a dubiously scientific field regarding which you have a rather clear conflict of interests because the impediments to your objectivity in that area are even stronger than those in these other areas you make wildly irrational unsupported conclusions and allegations about. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Interspersing your comments in the middle of someone else's is not a universally accepted method. Some people consider it refactoring or just rude as it breaks up the continuity of their comment. Under most circumstances, it should be avoided and you should treat a single comment as a single comment instead of breaking it up, and instead place your reply in a single block below. Otherwise, differentiating who said what is a burden on those reading it. When someone has reverted you from doing it, they have made it clear they consider it refactoring, and reintroducing it might be seen as disruptive, thus should be avoided. Per our guidelines on WP:REFACTOR, it probably shouldn't be done at all on comments that aren't particularly long. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of this Dennis. You're a far better communicator than Brangifer. I'll make the change now. Neuraxis (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was perfectly clear. Per BRD you should not have restored your disruptive edit. BRD is not written BRRD, BBRD, BRBRD, or whatever other possible variation. There is only ONE cycle to it. Anything else is edit warring. Read edit summaries and address them before making your next edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not describe it that it was considered rude or there was a policy regarding this. Due to our current conflict, I am going to ask that you not write on my talk page, and ping me to the appropriate venue to reply. Thanks in advance. Neuraxis (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, you should have followed BRD. Your uncollaborative and uncooperative ways of dealing with comments on your talk page and elsewhere are adding up as evidence against you. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to stop posting on my page and you did so anyway. I'm feeling harassed by you now. Do not post on my page. Do not modify the content at my page. I do not find any engagement with you constructive. Do not reply to this message. Just read it. And honour my request. Please do not post on my talk page now, or in the future. You have your block on your page and now I have mine. Your edit summary is misleading. Good day. Neuraxis (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved here, en route to...

@Neuraxis, Just wanted to let you know I am in essence "moving" this discussion here, (i) so that the combined discussions between all concerned parties begin to be focused in one place, and (ii) so there is no duplication of perspective or specific commentary. If the group to which I made the proposal at Adj's page could decide on one Talk page for all discussion—perhaps esteemed @Brangifer, since he is adamant about the direction and seeking a conclusion to all of this—we would all be served, and Adj might have some peace. Speaking of which... Cheers, and good night. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there

I usually avoid ANI like the plague, but I happened to stop by and saw your case at the top. You may want to check out the essay WP:POV Railroad. Being drawn into an escalating series of tit-for-tat exchanges in front of an audience is one aspect of this. Don't feed the beast. Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Ignocrates. I'm (trying) to defend myself against the majority of slanderous comments that are being made which are really starting to piss me off. I've been wiki-lawyered to death in there. I will read this, this place should really come with a tutorial. I thought the bureaucracy of government was bad, this is a whole other level. At least IRL we can't hide behind IPs and usernames! Take care, Neuraxis (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats

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

Blocked for legal threats; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neuraxis_blocked_for_legal_threats - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When asked if I made legal threat I said no. Re: DJ, I never once said anything about making a legal threat, reporting someone to their college for possible misconduct is not a legal threat, it is the truth. And I did not say I would, although I private emails suggested that it may be an option. I won't challenge the block; my efforts are better suited at a less dysfunctional site. WP:POV Railroad. If I only had learned about this sooner. Good fay, David. No hard feelings. Neuraxis (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Words such as "slander" and "libel" are magic words on Misplaced Pages that tend to lead to this outcome. The appropriate wiki-term for this behavior is casting aspersions, and you can link to this arbitration case which establishes prior use by ArbCom. Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And there's Step 5 from the playbook linked to above. Sorry. Now comes the accusation of sock puppets that **must** be you. You'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.15 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

John asked me if I was going to sue and I said no. That was pretty clear. His language and defamation could easily be construed as slander/libel in the real-world, and I was asking him to de-escalate, hoping that he would realize the seriousness of words and their impact not only here on WP, but for my health as well. Doc James is an interesting case, he first came to light because of his controversial use spoiling the Rorschach ink blots and then went on to criticize the psychologists' who reported him, and their profession, as insecure, etc. This is how a wikipedia event led to a real-world investigation. Similarly, his editing behaviour at WP does have real world effects. Professional misconduct is pretty broad and clear that your activities outside the office can and will reflect on you. Especially if you're acting in a professional capacity. So, bc James' chooses to out himself, his actions are more under scrutiny. He has been reported to his college before and got off, but if there's more complaints about his behaviour, and this time it's coming from a variety of health professionals, well,that's the risk he (we) undertake when acting in a professional capacity. So it's not a legal threat in any context, nor is it intimidation. It's a factual representation of the events, and it was done to a) inform him that my concerns are shared by others and b) to de-escalate the situation. IOW, it was a polite, but specific reminder that WP activities have real world consequences. IP, you're right about the playbook. Called it to a 'T'. It's so funny how despite how obvious tag-teaming here (and on me specifically) is, the community at large will turn a blind eye because I am considered a 2nd class wikipedian. Guy Macon was right when he said DJ treated others who don't share his personal POV like shit and fools. I believe in karma, and what goes around comes around. And WP will have a big issue to deal with with their #1 star ambassador gets himself caught in some form of controversy (again) which might take down the credibility of the WP:MED project. This is just as much about politics as editing, and it's all 'who you know'. Editors are in droves and this case is why this is happening. Neuraxis (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article you linked is worthless. It makes claims without backing them up, without linking to the actual study and draws conclusions that aren't substantiated. Not a single link is external to the site nor points to a reference to back up the claims. Misplaced Pages is losing editors for a variety of reasons (including some natural reasons), something that a lot of us study at WP:WER, but this article is pure junk. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apparently WP loses editors when DocJames sets traps and the eliminates those with whom he has philosophical differences. Let me ask you this, Neuraxis: exactly his long do you think it took for DocJames to hop on IIRC and alert people to your "legal threat" after he asked you if it was a legal threat and you most clearly said "no"? 198.228.216.21 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, you of course are entitled to your opinion, but speculating that an article is 'pure junk' based on your arguments above isn't really legit. The issue has been raised before , , , , , and even precede the 'junk' study cited. This case illustrates how dysfunctionalthe English WP is . So, this issue has been going on for a long time. IP, no clue, I was sleeping and this happened in the middle of the night (EST North America. No doubt there are likely some back channels going. Neuraxis (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing someone of slander/libel, as you did, qualifies as a "legal threat" under Misplaced Pages's definition. If you are to have any hope of remaining at Misplaced Pages, you must retract and disavow your mention of those words and anything else of an intimidating nature. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with BB here. Also I think it is worth noting that one of the reasons some of our better medical editors like Casliber have indicated they think a lot of medical experts are leaving the project is because they have tended to try to (in their eyes reasonably) promote their own research or specific medical field or other professionally related beliefs here. Unfortunately that tends to be a violation of POV or COI or something similar. We have a smallish number of very very good medical editors I know of like Casliber, Anthonyhcole, SandyGeorgia, and others who most of us hold in the highest esteem. One of the reasons we do so is that they also have acquainted themselves fairly thoroughly with our policies and guidelines and are willing to work within them. Unfortunately they are apparently an even smaller percentage of the medical community than they apparently are in the humanities content. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BB, you hit the nail on the head under Misplaced Pages's definition. When JC asked if I was making a legal threat I specifically said no. I said what I felt, which were that his words had crossed a moral boundary, and if you read a thread above, you will see how I was discussing this with IP 198 that it was 'going too far'. Your word was 'accuse' I and specifically said 'could be construed as'. So, if we're going to be specific about semantics, then let's use my actual words and not anyone's interpretation of them. I have no ability to retract my statement, as I am blocked, and I felt I was being very clear when JC asked if I was using a legal threat. Apparently saying 'no' was not clear enough. The perception of intimidation is actually subjective. Are editors who use 3RR templates, and edit warring 'intimidating' an editor? I would argue, yes. It's a form of coercion and passive-aggressive intimidation. So, if we discuss the issue re: Doc J, I was giving him a friendly reminder that given the escalation at the ANI, he would need to be careful of the words, and actions he uses. WP, is a variation of social media, and these having implications for health professionals who have a regulatory college that oversees professional competence and standards of practice. So whereas the perception was that I was issuing a legal threat, any reports to a regulatory college is not a legal matter, but a professional conduct one. As he is basically the ambassador for all related medical content at WP, which does include all of CAM as well, he must be very careful, moreso than the 'average' editor of his actions and words. Just like the example I cited above (I'm leaving) the author opined he too was being bullied, harassed and wiki-lawyered. I felt the same, x 1000 but because through POV Railroading, I was pretty much declared a heretic and treated as such. We can disagree without being disagreeable, but to state that this was not beginning to affect my health would be a lie. I don't think anyone would be acting in the way there are here, if it were face to face engagements or if we used our real identities. WP tries a one size fits all approach to editing, but when it comes to matters that are related to health/medicine there needs to be a higher standard and accountability. Regarding pushing beliefs, I feel that is a over-generalization; we all have our respective academic and health backgrounds but if I bring attention to a source that shows 'the status quo appears to have changed' it's not a push, but bringing awareness to this. But, many editors, are mischaracterized and labelled as an enemy of WP, and that's what's happened time and time again on the more meaningful subjects. I've never heard of SG, AC, Calisber et. al, but I have no reason to doubt they're good at what they do. You learn from experience on the job, and I bet they're long term editors who have grown with this WP project. Anyways, I do appreciate the comments and feedback. I'll be watching from afar, and won't be appealing my block. My health comes first, and my experience here has been unhealthy. Anonymity isn't a great way to foster trust, but there are some troubled editors out there who takes things personally and go to the next level. It's a complicated situation, needless to say. Neuraxis (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you seem to be fence-sitting here. You can retract your threat while blocked - that's how anyone who violated NLT becomes unblocked. In an unblock request, you state "I am sorry that when I said blh blh blh that it violated Misplaced Pages's NLT policy. I said it because blah and I understand that was unacceptable and inexcusable. I can honestly state that there are no such legal or off-wiki actions underway, and as such I full retract that threat. When unblocked, I will immediately use strikethrough to formally show it is retracted. In the future, when faced with similar frustrating situations, I will do x, y, and z instead of resorting to threats of any type". Now, don't use my words exactly, but that's how you submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request for violating NLT. However, above you basically state "I said it because it's the truth" - which leads me to beleive you have zero apologies for what you say. If that's the case, don't bother. Editing a website is never supposed to cause stress - but I have found over the years that it's most stressful to people who don't understand the basic policies. Get yourself unblocked, watch from afar, avoid articles that stress you out, and try editing "safe" topics for a bit. However, start by making a decision as to whether you still agree to the Five Pillarsthat you agreed to when you first joined Misplaced Pages - if not, then Misplaced Pages is not for you the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I full well agree that there needs to be a higher standard for content regarding medicine and the like. That however pretty much has to deal with theories of a pseudoscientific nature from a group whose status as "scientific" is at best open to extremely serious questioning as fringey or pseudoscientific. Regarding professional standards, SFAIR clowns and jugglers in the US have standards of professional certification as well. That however does not mean that we necessarily accept the word of juggler professional organizations as authoritative on matters of physics which might be marginally related to juggling. John Carter (talk)

16:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're comparing the sciences of manual and manipulative therapy to SFAIR clowns? Neuraxis (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize the my comments regarding 'construed as libel and slander' were interpreted as a legal threat. It was not my intention nor have any actions been commenced in any way shape or form. In the spirit of the greater good of the community I retract my comments and I will strike them at the earliest possible opportunity. In the future, under tense/terse situations I will ask for for a RfC or a DN to help de-escalate the situation, or find a mentor/uninvolved editor to assist in resolving a dispute. I would also like to be assigned a mentor to help guide me through WPs culture, editing processes, policies, etc. In good faith faith, I will voluntarily limit myself to 1RR at any article i participate in and will use all the tools at my disposal to ensure that my edits are not construed as disrupting the project. In summary, I regret my actions and this will never occur again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuraxis (talk • contribs) 15:31, June 19, 2014‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the indefinite siteban imposed upon you by the community, I am now feclining this previous request of getting unblocked. If you would to get unblocked you should first have your ban lifted. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

The only way I see this as having a chance of success would be if there were also a clear indication of Neuraxis also accepting mentorship to help deal with their rather obvious lack of understanding of wikipedia's core principles, policies and guidelines, a willingness to refrain from editing controversial areas of dubious science until those deficiencies are dealt with and very likely a stated self-imposed ban on making radically unfounded aspersions and attempts at derogation of others, or, basically, the terms of the indefinite topic ban I proposed earlier John Carter (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

John, please, do not poison the well. I have already stated clearly that I have asked for mentorship. I really do not appreciate your language here, again (radically unfounded....). You have made aspersions on my character, per WP:POV Railroad. How many times must I ask that you please stop with the hyperbole and inflammatory language? You're repeating the same arguments, ad nauseum. What I find disconcerting is that you're free to label and me and question my competence, honesty, character, etc, but when I do the rebut and raise my own concerns, it is 'radically unfounded aspersions.' Anyways, I am trying to move on from you, and this situation, so please refrain from using my talk page. I do not find our engagements productive, and as part of my wiki-rehab I'm going to avoid unproductive dialogues. Please respect my wishes on this one. Neuraxis (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you've just killed any chance of being unblocked, and of not being site-banned. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How so? Neuraxis (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you continue to accuse other editors of libeling you, just not using that exact word. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WTF?? I am not accusing other editors of libelling me. I've made that perfectly clear. With all due respect, BB, I really think you're reading into things here and very much speculating. If you really think I'd ask for an unblock based on NLT and then immediately proceed into 'accusing someone of libel' that's... I really don't even have a word to describe that. So, without putting words in my mouth, here's what I'm stating above, in my commen to JC: I don't find out exchanges productive, you're repeating yourself ad nauseum, I'm trying to avoid contact with you because I don't find it helpful. I don't understand why you can claim x. y, z and if I rebut argument x, y, z of my own you're saying that I'm radically unfounded aspersions, when I see your own arguments x,y,z as radically unfounded. But let me clear once again: I am not, under any circumstance, stating that JC is libelling and slandering me. Neuraxis (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"You have made aspersions on my character." As long as you keep saying stuff like that, there's no hope of your being reinstated here. Look, they are that close to issuing you a site-ban. You should be making nice, not striking out at others. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Bugs, I'd say you're a bit off the mark here. Neuraxis is allowed to say "those other editors are being mean and unfair and saying things that are untrue about me" or words to that effect – whether that assessment is accurate or not – without it necessarily being construed as an implicit legal threat. (Obviously he should be careful with such statements, given that he has used the language of legal threats in the recent past, and it is reasonable that other editors might no longer be willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt in such matters.)

That said, Neuraxis has no standing to bar any editor from participating in discussion of his unblock request. It is a matter that affects other members of the community, and the discussion only takes place on this talk page – where Neuraxis might otherwise enjoy a qualified ability to kick other editors out – because Neuroaxis is unable, while blocked, to edit a community discussion page like WP:AN. Both Neuraxis and anyone else commenting here should strive to be on their best behavior, first because unblock requests can be tense and emotional, and need no further stoking, and second because – unsurprisingly – admins are very likely to be watching closely. John Carter has succinctly offered his opinion on the unblock request, as is his right.

As for Neuraxis' request, I see it as problematic. It offers a pro forma recitation of the unblock request formula spoon fed him by EatsShootsAndLeaves (Dangerous Panda), and opens with a non-apology apology ("I'm sorry you thought I threatened you", not "I'm sorry I threatened you", or even "I'm sorry I used threatening language".) More importantly, the unblock request fails to address his suggestions that a fellow editor – a physician who has publicly linked his on- and off-wiki identities – has engaged in "professional misconduct". Instead, it looks like Neuraxis decided to double down on that intimidation, first insisting that he "...was giving him a friendly reminder...", before deciding a couple of sentences later that it was a threat, but by suitable policy hair-splitting not technically a legal threat: "...any reports to a regulatory college is not a legal matter, but a professional conduct one." Sure.

Finally, the repeated mention of WP:POV Railroad is concerning. (Neuraxis has cited it at least three times so far, including once since posting his unblock request.) The whole sense of "I was only blocked because of the conspiracy against me" attitude is one that has a very poor wiki-prognosis. Taking these factors together, I strongly recommend declining this unblock request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the main reasons why Neuraxis has gotten into trouble with other editors (not exactly the same thing as POV and editorial problems) is his continual violation of AGF. He constantly uses words like "attack" and "baiting" to describe advice, warnings, and opposing POV from other editors. He doesn't tolerate disagreement very well. This attitude has poisoned his own mind and made him interpret good advice and attempts to help him as "baiting".

Once such attitudes are entrenched, the slope becomes very slippery and the descent into extremely uncollegial behavior becomes habitual and ruins the ability of the individual to edit here. At the top of this page you'll see that he banned me and QuackGuru from the page, and now he's just added John Carter: "...so please refrain from using my talk page." (Neuraxis (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2014) While banning extremely aggressive editors from a talk page isn't unknown, there is usually a history of extreme harassment that is unrelated to advice, warnings, differing POV, etc.. In this case none of us have engaged in such behavior, but Neuraxis has, looking through his poison-colored glasses, seen anything coming from us as baiting and bad.

We simply can't have editors with such attitudes here. They aren't capable of editing collaboratively with editors who hold opposing POV, and that's a must on all controversial articles. This means that the site ban needs to be enforced. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your observations, keep in mind that he has had his talk page editing privilege taken away, and thus can't respond to any new comments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Siteban

The discussion at WP:ANI has resulted in a clear consensus for you getting banned from editing any and all pages of the English Misplaced Pages including this talk page. I have therefore revoked your access to your user talk page. You may, however, appeal this ban by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org.. De728631 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis calls me Quack. This appears to be Déjà vu again per WP:DUCK. Both Neuraxis and CorticoSpinal called me Quack and both share the same POV and both are from Ontario, Canada. Neuraxis was not here to build an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Userspace pages nominated for deletion

This is basically a procedural notification that this editor's user space pages are currently being considered for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neuraxis/sandbox John Carter (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)