| Revision as of 16:16, 3 November 2008 editWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →ME/CFS: yup, think it's a talk page issue← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 9 November 2008 edit undoRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| <!--end of page header--> | <!--end of page header--> | ||
| {{wikibreak|back=around 11/11}} | |||
| Line 23: | Line 21: | ||
| == Sorry for the delay == | |||
| Sorry for the delay in coming back to this page to see what progress had been made. I saw your comment that you felt I should have gone ahead and unblocked once you agreed to the conditions, and you may well be right. It is partly because of the history here that I held off from doing that. Nevertheless, I have posted message to slackr (who declined your unblock request). Hopefully this may set thing moving again. I know this must be frustrating for you, but if you could just be patient, I think something can be worked out. I will let David know about this as well. I am aware that some people will look unkindly on the way you responded to the decline of the unblock request, but I'm not one of them. I'm quite prepared to go back to the point before you posted the unblock request and start again from there. Would you be prepared to do that? ] (]) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In view of the response we received: not unless certain conditions are met. ] (], ]) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # No more block decisions regarding ME/CFS editors by admins with a strong pov on the topic. | |||
| # A note in my block log that I restart with a clean slate. | |||
| # A level playing field. This probably asks for a neutral admin to monitor the pages. ] (], ]) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, there are other things I need to sort out tonight. What I will say is that once things have reached this sort of stage, the only way forward is usually to swallow some pride and admit that you crossed the line with some of your actions (I know you were angry, but blanking your talk page with a "morons" edit summary wasn't really the best move) and to state clearly what you think you did wrong (I know you've already acknowledged some things, but you need to get it all in one comprehensive statement), and make a commitment to avoid repeating that behaviour. At that point, you should be able to be unblocked to participate on talk pages (and probably articles as well). Stating that you want to start with a clean slate is fine, but that is difficult to implement in practice. As for identifying editors or admins with a strong POV on the topic - that is difficult and doesn't really work in practice (some people have undeclared COIs and POVs). As an example, I've been discussing some of this on my talk page, and trying to avoid being drawn into the content dispute, but RetroSimonefinally prompted me to look up some sources such as . The real answer is to be polite and calm and concentrate on improving the content and listening to and working with others, using sources in the right way to support the article, especially any contentious parts. That, at root, is what Misplaced Pages is about. If you feel you can do that, and write something showing you can do that and can state how your previous behaviour needs to change, then you should find people willing to unblock you. I'm going to leave things here now for a few days, but if I do get involved at the CFS talk page, try and see how taking a calm, source-based approach, without being incivil to other editors, can help. I'm going to drop that source on the CFS talk page and see what the consensus is. ] (]) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::See my comments and . For what it is worth, I have read through parts of ] and I see a few dedicated editors (you included) discussing the issues, and disagreeing over several points. What I would be interested to know is at what point there was the largest number of people discussing the issue. There might be something in the talk page archives, but I haven't got that far yet (there is a lot to read). I'll post this over there as well. ] (]) 04:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| OK, first to summarize what I did wrong: | |||
| I misjudged the prevailing opinion on restoring dispute tags. From ] and its talk page I got the impression that removing dispute tags before the dispute is resolved, is considered vandalism, and that made sense to me; if I had the choice, I would in fact include this quite explicitly in the policy text. | |||
| Apparently, admins disagree with what was said on WP:3RR talk. I would immediately have stopped if someone neutral (rather than the editor who kept removing the tags) had told me so, but nobody did. I believe that I had no way of knowing the admins' position beforehand, and I am still puzzled by their interpretation, which seems entirely at odds with ]. | |||
| However, given the situation, I choose not to bother with dispute tags anymore. IMHO they are potentially excellent tools, but I don't see how they can serve a purpose if anyone can simply remove them if they feel so inclined. Ergo, my presence presents no danger that the situation is repeated. | |||
| As far as incivility is concerned, I believe that we are not robots and all of us are entitled to show some emotion at times. I will always, and hereby do so again, apologize if I hurt anybody's feelings, and forgive anyone who hurt mine - which I have to say has happened a lot lately. ] (], ]) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Good, and thank you. We seem to be getting somewhere now. What is really needed now is for you to archive what has been said here. To restore the original block warning and at least links to the unblock appeals and declines, if not the full text of them (i.e. don't leave them hidden in the page history), and then to file a new unblock appeal, based on what you said above: (1) that you were wrong about the dispute tags and shouldn't have edit-warred; (2) that you won't edit war over dispute tags in future; and (3) repeating what you said about incivility at the end of your post above. It might also help if you explicitly apologise to some people by naming them, or saying that you will post to their talk pages and apologise when unblocked or (if the unblock is declined, when the unblock expires). I'll hold you to that promise (if you make it) if no-one else does. Any apologies that may be due to you can wait. I would also prefer that you voluntarily agree (as you did before) to avoid editing the CFS pages directly until December, and to only edit the CFS talk pages until then. Oh, one other thing, you might want to note that the blocking admin (Davidruben) has explicitly stated that the block can be reverted if an admin thinks there is good enough reason to do so (i.e. Davidruben won't stand in the way of an unblock). You might also want to note that you have now been blocked for over a week (original block was on the 23 October). If you were to let the dust settle for a further week (i.e. let half the block go by). But that's entirely my opinion. If you want to try another unblock appeal, that is entirely your choice. The one thing I would say is that the more time you appeal and someone declines, the more people will be wary of overturning all the previous unblock declines (i.e. they will ask what has changed since the last unblock request). I think things ''have'' changed since the last unblock request (i.e. your attitude is improving - please don't take offence at that), but others may not see that. If you do file an unblock request, and it is declined and you feel the unblock template process is not getting you anywhere, I would be prepared to make a case at ANI for you to be unblocked under the conditions set out previously, and based on your changing attitude (as expressed above). ] (]) 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've put a permalink to the block discussion at the top of this page (because I am blocked, I cannot create archives). I am not going to use the unblock template again, ever. The procedure does not work properly. So if I am to be unblocked, you will have to do it. ] (], ]) 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding ] and #wikipedia-en-unblock: I suggest that you ask for the log. While I was very polite, he, and ], behaved like highschool bullies. I quit the channel when they repeatedly called me a liar. Hence my edit summary when I blanked the page. ] (], ]) 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just checked. It appears that I am now banned from that channel, which is ridiculous. ] (], ]) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will ask for a log of the discussion. ] (]) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks. I just saw the channel discussion at AN/I, btw. I've personally had several run-ins with this DanielB where out of the blue he started insulting and accusing me and then kicked and banned me before I could say something back, in the middle of a normal conversation I had with another user, and I've seen him do the same to others. In general, the channels have deteriorated much over the last half year or so, to the point that a normal conversation is no longer possible. ] (], ]) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===ME/CFS=== | |||
| Regarding the content disputes: the part about ME or CFS is not about naming preferences. ME and CFS are two different entities, like a bicycle is not the same as its wheels. Just as an article about wheels cannot adequately describe bicycles, an article about CFS cannot adequately describe ME. | |||
| The largest number of users discussing this can be found on the talk page of ], but see also ]. ] (], ]) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think you will ever get consensus for a separate article on ME (even if it is "true", you have to wait for the mainstream viewpoints to catch up - Misplaced Pages cannot be ahead of the curve there). I personally, from what I've read since coming across this dispute, don't think there should be a separate article. What I do think is that the CFS article and the subsidiary articles, should adequately cover the CFS/ME and ME issues, and not treat it as a fringe viewpoint. I think a lot of the misunderstandings come from the different attitudes seen in the USA, UK and Europe towards these issues. Do you know of any sources that explicitly say that the authorities and medical professions in the USA, UK and Europe have different attitudes towards this? ] (]) 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Carcharoth, they '''can't''' cover it. We have an article ] separate from ] for the exact same reason. You are on the wrong track here, it's not about (regional) '''naming''' differences but about different '''diagnoses'''. | |||
| * ME = inflammation of the central nervous system | |||
| * CFS = fatigue and related symptoms | |||
| Can you not see the difference? ] (], ]) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Is that not covered at ]? I quote from the lead section there: <blockquote>"The clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) vary by agency, researcher, community and country. Different agencies and scientific bodies have produced different guidelines to define the condition, with some overlap of symptoms between descriptions. The condition is quite controversial, with bitter disagreements over etiology, pathophisiology, treatment and naming between medical practitioners, researchers, patients and advocacy groups. Some believe CFS is not caused by a single infection, reaction or event, but rather a variety of unrelated conditions that produce the same symptoms, which makes defining, naming and researching CFS more difficult."</blockquote> Ignore the actual title for the moment (imagine it says "CFS/ME" or something). Does that adequately cover what you are saying? If so, then the answer is to get a summary of that in the main ] article. Note that if what you are saying is that some groups say that the medical profession is getting it wrong, that is something that Misplaced Pages can only treat tangentially. You would have to write an article on ] or something, for that to be covered, and using independent secondary sources ''as well as'' the sources from ME activist groups describing their struggle (apologies if activism is the wrong word, by the way - if something like "patient support groups" is better, please say so). The crucial point is that even if the people (like you) who are saying this are ''right'', Misplaced Pages can't say this until the mainstream medical sources have come to the same conclusion. ] (]) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, that does not cover one iota of it. It is also plainly wrong. I am also not saying that the medical profession is getting it wrong (they get many things wrong regarding ME/CFS, but that's not the point). It has absolutely nothing to do with activism either. What I am saying is that the mainstream sources are not properly identified, recognized, presented and cited by the opposing editors in this Misplaced Pages dispute. | |||
| ::What I am saying is that we should not base ourselves on original research, but instead on the appropriate sources. ] (], ]) 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The biggest frustration of just about everybody on the page (or perhaps just me) is the issues of sources - most of us are limited in time, search engines and knowledge. The best sources to represent the current scholarly consensus are required, which means the most recent sources, in the highest impact journals, that are review and summary articles, that discuss the state of the art for CFS in the mainstream scholarly opinion (something I found out recently from MEDRS - the best sources are the review and summary articles and the use of first-order references to trump reviews is illegitemate). The best thing would be a list and discussion of the list, with some sort of agreement on what is mainstream and what is the prominent minority viewpoint(s). Minority viewpoints shouldn't get as much text as the majority, but a substantial discussion is certainly valid and should highlight what disagreements exist, how the viewpoints differ, and why they differ. If substantial enough, they should certainly be reflected in the lead as well. | |||
| :::Regards a CFS/ME (anything) page, I don't know how keeping with ] such a title would be, but I do think the slashing affects the creation of sub-pages (I recall trying to struggle through the effects of the slash on talk pages, archives or something similar when ME/CVS Vereniging existed). If there's a code wonk out there who can negotiate the effects of a slash in a page name, it might be worth getting their opinion. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think the slash would present a technical issue. Check out (], a redirect) which does not show up as a subpage of ]. I think subpages are disabled in the main namespace. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That meshes with my experience as well, I think the problems I had were with talk pages (still a concern though, as any mainspace article needs a working talk page). I more raise it as a concern if something like this solution/page name were used. Perhaps a dash? ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--page footer, do not edit--> | <!--page footer, do not edit--> | ||
Revision as of 19:18, 9 November 2008
| User | Talk | Edits | Pinboard | Drafts | Articles | Projects |
 Archives |
| Prof. Anton Komaroff (2007): "None of the participants in creating the 1988 CFS case definition and name ever expressed any concern that it might TRIVIALISE the illness. We were insensitive to that possibility and WE WERE WRONG." |
| Prof. Malcolm Hooper (2007): "The simplest test for M.E. is just to say to the patient ‘stand over there for ten minutes’." |
| Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." |