Misplaced Pages

• 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

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Misplaced Pages's mark-up codes.
• Misplaced Pages's 5 pillars — an overview of Misplaced Pages's foundations

• Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Misplaced Pages's most important rules.
• Guide to Misplaced Pages — A thorough step-by-step guide to Misplaced Pages.

• Contributing to Misplaced Pages — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Misplaced Pages's hub of activity.

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Misplaced Pages's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

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)

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)

This pseudoscience discussion (section heading) …with the varying directions it appears to be going, seems to be an invitation to waste enormous amounts of time, and so comes with a significant potential opportunity cost. With any of these types of matters, I so little believe in the Misplaced Pages system of adjudication that I seek to fly under or around radar, rather than being detected. But your invitation, @User:Adjwilley, suggests I make an exception, and I am possibly willing. So, can you bullet for me, here, two or three specific questions / points you would like to see addressed (in plain English, no wiki-speak)? If so, I will address them strongly and forcefully, then perhaps append one sentence on all of the remaining nonsense flying about (like Enric Naval's idea that citing two sources "proves" anything, cf. Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper). Note that to refer to a multibillion dollar industry as "fringe" bespeaks bias that is simply amazing (e.g., ), one of those who helped build it to this profitability through weekly visits being my former mentor, a MacArthur Award recipient and National Academy of Sciences member. The discussion to date suggests to me that the real matter lies in the area of definitions, which appear to be few and far between, and when identifiable, as firm as a Fox Tor Mires, Dartmoor after a rain. Defining the precise categories and the elements contained in the categories, rather than operating in line with IKIWISI, this is what ought be demanded. Well, enough said for now. Bullet some specifics for me to reply to? You see here where I wander, without such direction… Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Leprof. If you feel it's going to be too much of a timesink please don't bother. I had simply pinged the people who had discussed the issue with me on my talk page, thinking they might be most interested in the discussion. (What I'm most interested in is what arbitrators have to say on the matter.) If I had more time myself I might try to get people to actually address each others arguments instead of repeating themselves over and over, but my Misplaced Pages time is very limited at the moment. The questions I really want answered, and those that many of the involved participants seem to not be answering, are the ones I asked in the request: how does the pseudoscience case apply to alternative medicine articles in general? (So far I have found John Carter's comments most helpful.) I'm slightly annoyed that my request seems to have become a forum for continuing the chiropractic debate, as has my own talk page. I certainly understand your desire to keep your distance...I'm actually a bit surprised that I filed the request myself...I have long viewed Arbcom as the place where editors go at the end of their careers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, message received, bullets still welcome, will otherwise respond to the Noticeboard as time permits. And please, take control, and close down the discussion at your talk page, redirecting it as you think best... Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is chiropractic practice for musculoskeletal disorders considered fringe or mainstream?
• Should the profession be labelled and categorized as pseudoscientific (entirely) when research shows that a minority (20%) are currently engaged in such practices?
• Should the criticism directed to the profession be in direct proportion to the number of practitioners that are engaged in such criticism?. If the criticisms, in general are reflective of a specific faction, and the faction has been identified in research, should the criticisms be directed specifically to them (over use of tx, negative attitudes towards vaccination, belief in the one cause, one cure model of traditional chiro) Neuraxis (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)