Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 17 November 2015

Welcome...

Hello, Realskeptic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I've already modified your contribution at Andrew Wakefield, hopefully for the better.

Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

Hi. I have undone your edit at the above article. As you can imagine, this wording has been discussed at length, and has not been arrived at frivolously. Please feel free to initiate another discussion on the article's "talk" (discussion) page. The earlier discussions are archived here. (You can also access the archive via a link at the top of the current "talk" page.)

Debate at Misplaced Pages can be robust; patience, politeness and persistence are often required. Our editing is also tightly constrained by policies and guidelines. If you want to pursue this, I'll be arguing against removing "fraudulent" from the article, but I have been persuaded to change my mind in the past.

Your point that we shouldn't be basing assertions of fact on opinion is plausible and may be worth expanding on. Another possible avenue is our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Once you have familiarised yourself with that policy, if you think the article breaches it, you may consider asking the opinion of other editors at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you can elicit enough support there, the present wording may be overturned.

Modesty and politeness, even in the face of rudeness (don't be a wimp, but don't be snarky or hysterical either) is the shortest route to wherever you want to go here. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion relies on weasel words and is outdated. I added a new section with reliable sources that dispute at least some of the allegations of fraud made against Wakefield, but you removed those citing what appears to be your own opinion. That is a violation of WP: NPOV. While I appreciate the suggestions, those developments still need to be added.

Realskeptic (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors watching the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. MastCell  19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not my instigating, user's reverts violated WP:NPOV, WP:Harrassment and WP:AGF. Thanks. Realskeptic (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're edit-warring. It matters little who "instigated" it, although insofar as the listed policies are concerned, many of your edits violate them. Please stop. MastCell  19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Putting other users' words in scare quotes, saying edits are "non-reality-based" and making unfounded accusations is WP:Harassment. You should also not involve yourself in edit warring you say should not take place, especially if it doesn't matter who the instigator is as you just said. Realskeptic (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP warning

You're continuing to edit-war to insert material which violates this site's policy on biographical material on living people. Please read the linked policy in detail, because it is taken very seriously here. Note that it applies to any material dealing with living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether that material appears in a biographical article, an article about The Lancet, a talk page, or anywhere else. Note that it forbids using blogs or personal websites, with very limited exceptions. If you continue to violate this policy, then I will request that another admin block your account from editing or do it myself. MastCell  00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The material was updated to not include personal websites. Realskeptic (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're still doing it, and you've also refused to consider the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times as reliable sources because, apparently, they're part of a CDC-led conspiracy. I'm done with this; I've posted to the BLP noticeboard to ask an outside admin to review your edits and your approach, both of which I think are unhelpful. You are welcome to comment there if you like. MastCell  00:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at this, LA Times is trained to report on this by CDC - ergo they're not journalists. They are simply fronting a federal agency's agenda. http://healthjournalism.org/about-news-detail.php?id=64#.VjlVIrerTIU And of course the Salon editor who pulled Kennedy's piece showing evidence of CDC and IOM collusion is now a senior editor at WashPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2014/06/04/kerry-lauerman-joins-the-post-in-senior-editor-role/ I'm sorry, but having a newspaper logo above your name does not make you a journalist - your independence from government agencies make you that. Realskeptic (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep up your WP:ADVOCACY and you're liable to be blocked. jps (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Look who's talking. Realskeptic (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to be blocked over this. You will be if you keep it up. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because other editors have the same agenda as you doesn't make you safe from scrutiny. Realskeptic (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You are super close to being blocked. There are already discussions about it on the noticeboards. You need to stop acting in article space at least. jps (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You think your Misplaced Pages anonymity makes you safe? You will be revealed for what you are by Congress in its investigation of CDC activities if you keep this up. Show me the message boards. Realskeptic (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about my Misplaced Pages anonymity making me safe. The noticeboard is linked in MastCell's comment above. I link it here: BLP noticeboard. It's towards the bottom of the page. jps (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Realskeptic (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR

You're aware, right, that you can be blocked for reverting an article back to your preferred version four times in 24 hours? It looks like you've done this on a number of articles already. jps (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got me on the Simpsonwood piece where I made four reverts. I guess you can block me if you want, but I don't understand the point of all this. Why is Salon.com's editor-in-chief not a source worth mentioning when WP:NPOV clearly says it is, as is Kennedy's book? My edits are just being reverted, and I'm being targeted with harassment, accusations and "edit-warring." What gives? Realskeptic (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In part, your edits are not sticking because you're not convincing the community that your edits are worthy of inclusion. People see your edits as promoting the POV of RFK Jr. and those who agree with him. The problem is that almost every other sources that deals with these subjects strongly disagree with almost all of his claims regarding vaccines. So your edits which appear from that slant are not going to stick. I think you are too emotionally involved in this subject to be able to edit the content without being reverted. That you chose to make a lot of edits to the biographies of living persons also is going to bring a lot of scrutiny.

Basically, you failed to take the advice of people telling you to stop editing in article space. If you want to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages, I suggest spending some time discussing your concerns on various talkpages and noticeboards. You'll soon learn what the acceptable parameters are and what are not. I think you'll find that there just isn't a high degree of tolerance for promoting opinions that fall outside the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding in the outside world.

This isn't to say that there is no place for explaining the opinions of RFK Jr. on vaccines in the encyclopedia. Only that it is going to be treated as a WP:FRINGE view and the sooner you come to terms with that, the better.

jps (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no emotion here, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a prominent adherent of thiomersal dangers. David Talbot, despite not taking a position, is sharply critical of the way his own website handled the retraction of Kennedy's piece. Those are matters of fact and belong on Misplaced Pages according to WP:NPOV; they are not WP:FRINGE. To not include them is a violation of WP:NPOV. It really doesn't matter what other editors think or for that matter secondary sources. The Misplaced Pages guidelines are not being followed and instead of being engaged in discussion I am suggested to WP:Harassment and a lack of WP:AGF on my part. I don't understand the motivation behind pushing such a one-sided view among Wikpedia editors. Realskeptic (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's good there's no emotion, because maybe you'll be able to take on-board what I'm trying to explain. Misplaced Pages policies are descriptive: they produce no obligation on the part of the broad community of editors. Basically, you've found yourself in a collaborative project where people try to do what they think is best. When there are conflicts over this, they get resolved through various dispute resolution mechanisms which most people agree do not work very well. But that's life here. You seem to think you have some special insight into exactly how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work according to its policies. I can assure you, if that were truly the case your edits would have stuck. It seems like Misplaced Pages is supposed to accommodate your particular viewpoint at WP:NPOV, but there are important caveats to this including WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:WEIGHT that you need to take on board. These are clarifications or exceptions or alterations to the pure neutrality state of Misplaced Pages that were adopted because the community couldn't see its way to accommodate every single POV with equality. Instead, opinions that are in extreme minority are marginalized. That's just how Misplaced Pages works. There are other website which do not take this approach, but as long as you insist that Misplaced Pages shouldn't take this approach I think you're going to find yourself in a problematic situation here. Sorry. jps (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if the views represented in my editing were in the extreme minority as you say, they would not be supported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the pulling of his article would not have been criticized by David Talbot. Clearly, these are views that belong on Misplaced Pages per WP:NPOV, even if they are minority views. Realskeptic (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, there is probably a place for them in Misplaced Pages, but now that you've acknowledged that the views are minority views, you have to look at how Misplaced Pages treats minority views. At Misplaced Pages every minority view, no matter what it is or how famous its proponents are, is considered to be WP:FRINGE. That guideline gives the general ways in which ideas such as those RFK Jr. promotes are handled. In particular, there is an idea called WP:ONEWAY which indicates that fringe ideas should not be prominently included on mainstream articles. So, for example, the article on Salon.com or Joan Walsh should not have an entire section on an article that was retracted at least in part because of fringe views. If you want to make the case strongly that such content should exist at such high-trafficked articles, you need to find a lot of independent, reliable sources that are written by people who are independent of RFK's belief system. A single in-house commentary by David Talbot is really not going to cut it (he has written too much about too many things related to Salon.com to single out this particular point). You are coming up against a sourcing problem. Basically, you need to find people who do not align themselves with RFK Jr. yet have written extensively on him to establish his ideas as notable enough for inclusion. I hope this helps. jps (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that the edit warring noticeboard discussion has started, if you want to stay unblocked, your best hope is to apologize over there and promise not to edit war any more. An administrator may still block you (some of them just simply like blocking accounts for breaking the rules), but this is your best shot. Alternatively, as this is your first offense, you may get off with a short block but since there are currently three discussions about you including one at the dreaded ANI, you may end up banned. I tried to warn you, but that's how this website works. jps (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2015 (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. APK whisper in my ear 04:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Joan Walsh

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Realskeptic reported by User:DD2K (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theories about vaccination are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

Please carefully read this information:

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

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way

If you keep making WP:POINTy edits such as and , you'll likely find yourself banned. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Tag-bombing not recommended

It is not appropriate to 'tag-bomb' multiple articles with the {POV} tag (, , ) just because you don't like the consensus against you on the article talk pages. You have already been notified above that these articles are covered by discretionary sanctions. Any additional disruptive, POINTy, or unconstructive editing at these pages will likely lead to a topic ban for you from further editing in this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One or two people opposing my edits, avoiding my points and then ending discussion with me on a talk page does not constitute consensus, especially since you're one of them. It certainly does not justify a ban threat. Realskeptic (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I count at least five distinct, experienced Misplaced Pages editors who have reverted your edits to Trace Amounts and tried to explain the problems with your edits through edit summaries and/or talk page comments. While consensus and Misplaced Pages policy aren't necessarily determined by counting noses, when you find you're the sole holder of a minority position in a content dispute you need to reexamine the battles you're fighting.

I've pretty much outlined for you exactly what the topic ban request at WP:AE would look like. Here's what you've been doing for the last couple of weeks: edit warring leading to a block, followed by ongoing slow edit warring, disregarding and dismissing a consensus of other editors (despite your attempt to minimize them as "one or two people"), and POINTy edits because you didn't get your way. If you don't think that a topic ban request based on that behavior will stick – especially with you continuing in that vein with an I-didn't-hear-you attitude – then carry on. I've no particular interest in trying to save you from yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware the 3RR applied to edits beyond the revert option, was only blocked for 24 hours and well after I stopped editing articles and started engaging other editors in discussion. Since then I had not made any edits that anyone took issue with, so you are wrong to accuse me of edit-warring. I have not been dismissive of anyone or have been trying to disrupt anything to make a point. You clearly don't follow WP:AGF and your sarcastic and condescending tone is unnecessary. Realskeptic (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Andrew Wakefield shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. NeilN 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for one week for edit warring on multiple fronts and wish to contest the block. The block refers to reverts I've made on the Andrew Wakefield and Trace Amounts pages back to edits I had previously made. My edits used sources that met WP:Reliable criteria, and I sought to enforce Misplaced Pages policies, specifically WP:NOR for Trace Amounts, WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME for Andrew Wakefield and WP:NPOV for both. For the latter page, the edits concern allegations never formally charged and findings-of-fact later overturned on appeal. Both are currently represented on the page as if they are true in breach of both WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. Referring to the subject as "discredited" and blaming him on infectious disease deaths raise other WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues as well. On Trace Amounts, the edits concerned WP:NOR which involved a conjectural interpretation of one source and the misrepresentation of another source that made it look like it was critical of the subject when it concerned the subject of the Andrew Wakefield page. WP:UNDUE was claimed to originally justify the Trace Amounts edits, though their stated purpose was not supported by their wording or by their sources. So I made changes to both pages. My reverts do not constitute edit warring since they fall under exemption criteria from edit warring to enforce overriding policies. Had I been aware of this sooner, I would have also used these to contest my earlier, 24-hour block.

I always provided justification for my edits and reverts in edit summaries. I followed WP:AVOIDEDITWAR by repeatedly requesting discussion on talk pages in my edit summaries and started new discussion sections in talk pages hoping to be engaged in civil discourse by editors who reverted my changes. I did my best to follow the WP:BRD cycle. Notably, an editor who has directly addressed my Andrew Wakefield edits and the reasoning behind them had defended my edits on the talk page even after I was blocked. I'm sorry if this is long, but just want to get all my points in. Realskeptic (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Multiple people tried explaining to you what was wrong with your claims of BLP violations. I think that this removal of mentions of court rulings against Wakefield makes it perfectly clear that you're here not to uphold NPOV/BLP/whatever. Max Semenik (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2015 (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.

I believe this edit summary accurately shows this editor's approach to sourcing and fringe material and why experienced editors are reverting Realskeptic's edits. --NeilN 04:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor resorts to Realskeptic (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)