User talk:A1candidate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

LEDE violation using poor evidence

Your edit violated summary using poor evidence. There is more precise wording in the lede that does summarise the body. See "It is rarely used alone but rather as an adjunct to other forms of treatment.[10]" The lede is usually 4 paragraphs not 5. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the talk page with other editors, not here. -A1candidate 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is best you don't repeat your past mistakes. We have similar more accurate text in the body using a high-quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing to edit war against consensus even after being warned by an uninvolved admin. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And you obviously have clean hands and nothing to hide. -A1candidate 21:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You added this to lede again but it is not a summary and it is poor evidence. We already had this discussion. See Talk:Acupuncture#Cancer-related_pain.

You added this to the ethic section again but it is not about ethics and the same source is summarised in the effectiveness section.

You deleted this from the body again but it not speculation. See Talk:Acupuncture#Iceman_tattoo.

You added information about electroacupuncture again but this article is about acupuncture not a related practice. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the talk page with other editors, not here. -A1candidate 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I saw the edit war on Acupuncture, and while I wasn't able to get a detailed count of your reverts, it was obvious that you were editing pretty aggressively. I think it would be helpful in the future if you slowed down a bit, especially when there's an edit war going on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your RFAR...might I suggest that this is not something to be done on the spur of the moment. At least sleep on it. The current request seems way too combative, is bound to attract conflict, and will ultimately not be accepted. Please consider withdrawing it now and giving things a chance to cool down a little. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley - I will consider withdrawing the request under one condition: i) Kww pledges not to discredit and smear me on talk pages and elsewere. ii) JzG pledges not to discredit and smear me on talk pages and elsewere. I hope this is not too much to ask for? -A1candidate 08:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is too much to ask for. "Smearing" is a loaded term, and obviously bad, but pledging not to "discredit" you? When you mess up and use a sloppy/misleading edit summary then you can expect a little "discrediting" such as this. It's probably not worth discussing further, since it's too late to withdraw the request anyway. It seems to have taken a new direction far beyond the scope of the original request. (I still don't think it will be accepted.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mess up"? If the edit summaries had been a genuine mistake, wouldn't A1candidate have apologized for using them instead of defending their content and taking me to Arbcom over the minor scolding I gave him? The easiest way to not have me comment on the edits and edit summaries is to use honest edit summaries and to not misportray alternative medicine and pseudoscience. I rarely comment on good behaviour, as I simply expect it of all editors.—Kww(talk) 05:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summary, User:Kww. The sequence of events is as follows:

18:57, 3 May 2015‎ - I modified a reference per WP:REFNAME with the edit summary "minor touchup". This is a completely non-controversial edit and the purpose was to format a reference.

18:59, 3 May 2015 - I expanded the lede with the edit summary "expand".

19:00, 3 May 2015 - I deleted an unnecessary ISBN number from a reference, because it was a duplicate. The intent of the edit, again was to format a reference.

19:05, 3 May 2015 - I improved the earlier expansion of the lede

19:06, 3 May 2015 - You reverted the earlier additions of LesVegas, stating in the summary everyone "If you want to make this change, get a consensus to include it that does *not* editors that practice acupuncture for a living" and in the process of doing so, you also reverted my good faith, non-controversial formatting of the "Miller's Anesthesia" reference per WP:REFNAME

19:07, 3 May 2015 - In the heat of the dispute, I reverted you to restore my non-controversial formatting of the "miller" reference. I did not care about your edit-warring with LesVegas, and I did not want to be involved in it (although I sensed that I might be dragged into it soon), so I did not comment about it in the edit summary. All I wanted to see was my non-controversial formattting of the "miller" reference being restored.

So yes, I stand by my edit summary because my intention was to restore my good faith, non-controversial formatting of the "miller" reference. Expecting me to explain all of this on the article's talk page, and calling my formatting of the reference "active deceit", is ludicrous. Unlike you, I actually have a clear conscience and I will not apologize for something I did not do. Your attempts to intimidate me is not going to work, User:Kww. I rarely comment on good administrative behaviour, as I simply expect it of all administrators -A1candidate 07:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Purposefully misleading [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So your defense is that you because you "did not want to be involved", you neglected to mention that you were edit-warring and inserting misleading material? But neglecting to mention the bulk of your edit wasn't intentional, and that it served to disguise your edit-warring was a happy accident?—Kww(talk) 13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor has said and explained in detail that it was not his intention to deceive. Per AGF that should be the end of it. To that point, does anyone here really think that edit summaries deceive when they are clearly highlighted, and for that matter if they can do we really want to start looking at and criticizing edit summaries including those created by editors who have a history of making major edits with either no edit summary or those that are cryptic with little or no explanatory words. This is quickly becoming harassment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil A1 has been in a hot dispute for a long time, and made a huge blunder. Instead of doing the simple thing and acknowledging it, he is denying the problem and offering some weird rationale - you cannot just "ignore" anything when you edit, much less in a hot dispute. If all he wanted was to restore the citation, that was easily done by a copy/paste fresh edit - reversion that re-deleted sourced content, was a bad, bad judgement. He did that, regardless of the reason given. Instead of acknowledging that (saying something simple like "yeah, that was a bad way to do what i wanted to do - I should not have done it that way" he is denying the problem altogether. Which is just unwise, and which actually invites more pressure. It is not harassment in a situation where there is such a clear disconnect between what he did and what he is saying.

A1, fwiw, you should just acknowledge the bad judgement made in the heat of the moment, apologize, and everybody can move on. Continuing to defend it just makes it worse and will come back to haunt you. the stance you are taking is bad for you and for everybody else. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog. You and others are attempting to force another editor to apologize for something he doesn't think he did, are criticizing him for not acting in a way you and others think he should. Its edit summary for heaven's sake. Move on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, yes, I'm criticising him for not behaving the way he should. He shouldn't provide edit summaries that disguise the contents of his edits. That's not a particularly onerous expectation.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kww That's backwards. You are criticizing him for not behaving the way you think he should. He clearly did not see the edit summary as a "disguise". That's your opinion, your word, and your reading of the situation, and its an assumption of bad faith given the explanation A1 gave. Way too much time and attention on this. One editor suggesting he made a mistake is enough. Multiple editors who cannot let this go is another story altogether. I've said what i have to say so will move on (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil that was my first contribution to this discussion. and you are really missing the point. the surface behavior - an edit note stating a minor change when the actual edit was dramatic - was bad, and in a hot dispute, really bad. Nobody can know why he did it - but he sure did it. The best thing to do is just acknowledge that he did it, apologize, and move on. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I disagree with you. And no I'm not missing the point. A1 does not agree with your opinion of what happened, so AGF and move on, is right. Jytdog, its an edit summary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC))

hell is other people. one way to make it less hellish is to acknowledge and apologize when you upset other people. and yes, to let things go when it has been acknowledged. things are stuck now because A1 really upset people and is not acknowledging that he did something wrong. this is peace-making 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you can do like Jytdog does - strike it and move on - no apologies necessary. I just don't know how to strike an edit summary. Atsme☯^Consult 17:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

being snide is so unattractive. if i fuck up i acknowledge it. and yes, edit notes are dangerous in that you cannot amend them. you can ask an admin to revdel but i don't reckon they would do that for this. the most you can do is acknowledge/apologize on talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very unattractive as your comment demonstrates. The "f-word" is even more unattractive. At least try to have some consideration for the youngsters who read TPs. Yes, you do acknowledge your screw-ups but you only apologize for the ones you interpret to be screw-ups, and therein lies the problem - yours, not mine. Common sense tells us it takes more than a minority of WP editors to convince the nations that WP provides trustworthy encyclopedic information; the latter being what will help WP grow as a trusted source while still being able to maintain some semblance of a lead in Google searches. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually is a trusted source. Review their acupuncture (medicine) article to see an excellent example of NPOV in action. No guerrilla skeptics involved there. It's a true source of encyclopedic information about the topic from a NPOV. [2] If you get a chance, take a look at their Alternative Medicine article - a year in review (1997). Of course, that's where WP clearly has an advantage; i.e., being up-to-date but a lot of good it does if the information being disseminated is limited, noncompliant with NPOV, and cannot be trusted. [3]. Not once in the EB articles is there any mention of quackery, cranks, or any other name-calling - pejorative terminology we find most often in the Urban Dictionary. There's no whitewashing, and no coatracks in the Britannica. Imagine that.... Atsme☯^Consult 20:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

100% off topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

^{Oooops, sorry. Won't strike because it's useful info. Atsme☯Consult 21:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}

atsme, i will say however that your calling Britannica WP:NPOV shows a lack of understanding of both Wikipedia and Britannia. Britannica does not have the WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia does. Britannica and WP are different on several issues, and our actual WP:NPOV policy, of which you continually betray a lack of understanding - is one of the reasons why. you really don't understand it - you seem to think it means "balanced" but it does not. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you have just said this is 100% off topic - so why are you barking about it? Sit! Behave!DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

you really have no idea how ridiculous that makes you look, do you. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not anywhere near as ridiculous as you look making a scene on A1's TP making silly comments that demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding neutrality. WP:CIR Atsme☯^Consult 23:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

and this has gone completely off the rails now. enough ugliness for one day, i think. And A1's behavior in making a blunder remains unresolved. Which you, A1, could easily lay to rest. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme is correct - The Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source. -A1candidate 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• And Jtydog's last comment said it all. A1 may be guilty of a "blunder". What is trying to be achieved by all this fuss over a potential "blunder".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed this was restored

A1, I noticed you restored this material to the article and water to thank you for that. It used to be on there, but someone removed it. Do you happen to know who or how it got removed? LesVegas (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The person who removed it happens to be the one hounding me above. See [4] -A1candidate 08:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch

Olive branch [5]

I just wanted to drop a note and say I have noticed your argumentation has in my opinion considerably improved. While we clearly hold differing philosophical views I consider varied input valuable to WP. It seems to me that the structure of your input now points more clearly to PAG and contains concise reference to RS support. I realize that the atmosphere on WP is very challenging for advocates of alternative medicine and philosophy and think someone with a good grounding in PAG and handle on RS serves a valuable purpose here. I appreciate your contributions and look forward to more. I apologize if I have characterized your position inaccurately based on my own assumptions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I do not consider myself an advocate of any treatments or ideology, except the sole advancement of science and evidence-based medicine. I believe that evidence is required for every disputable claim - even the mere assertion that a treatment is useless or ineffective needs to be backed up by evidence. I am, in that respect, a skeptic - because I do not believe most of the claims made by alternate medicine practitioners (unless the science says so), nor do I believe the claims of those who denounce every untested treatment as demonstrably ineffective and pseudoscientific (unless the science says so). As far as Ayurveda is concerned, its historical practitioners did not treat it as science and therefore it cannot, and should not, be labelled as pseudoscientific. If, however, modern practitioners confuse these theories with science, then I would concur that their unfounded claims of scientific validity are largely pseudoscientific. That is different from saying "Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". -A1candidate 15:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I apologize for making a characterization of your position. It is not appropriate for me to do so. I have interacted with you a number of times and just wanted to comment that your argumentation had sharpened. I certainly don't want to have a discussion that belongs on the talk page of an article and was referring to more than one article or discussion in saying you seem to be presenting more policy based arguements, providing concise reference to sources and being concise and to the point in general. I feel your input can bring more balance and nuance and is more likely to withstand "the claims of those who denounce every untested treatment as demonstrably ineffective and pseudoscientific" or put another way the sometimes over vigorous, occasionally single minded and often pointy members of the community who many would refer to as "skeptics". In fact the position you describe is rather close to what a dictionary would consider skeptical. Regardless, my intent is primarily to say, good to see an active editor sharpening their skills and I look forward to the improvements I am sure you will continue to make to the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Alright, I accept your apology. Thank you for your generosity and kind words, MrBill3. -A1candidate 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow...

👣 🐩 🐾 💈 💩 I was out walking my dog, and noticed this very clean TP. I would have cleaned up the mess but it started to rain. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

....................yeah......we need more mess here.............  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi A1 - why did you revert that edit of mine on Acupuncture?

I'm sorry but I was afraid your opponents might use that as evidence to get you blocked. I understand that you're technically under a topic ban, so I sincerely hope that you might consider staying away from this area for the moment. I'm trying my best to help you, and I believe your best option would be to stay away from the topic area or bring this to Arbcom if Beeblebrox does not revoke his decision. What do you think? -A1candidate 22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack

Please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's more dispute resolution than personal attack. I think both of you would benefit from reading this short essay on why it's a good idea to ignore personal attacks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate, I think it is best you redact your comment. The acupuncture page does state "Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive.[77]" QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you've already asked once, I think it's best you drop it and focus on content. Accusing each other of personal attacks and pursuing redaction isn't going to be productive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• So if next time someone makes accusations against me (e.g. A1candidate, your edit summaries are beginning to approach active deceit), can I count on both of you to defend me so that I don't have to defend myself? -A1candidate 03:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about what others do, it's about what you do. You don't have a whole lot of credibility when you are defending yourself. If you don't believe that, go read the DrChrissy AN/I thread again. DrChrissy's responding to every "Support" vote did them more harm than good. If they had just made a single slightly apologetic post explaining some of the circumstances (bad environment, stress, etc.) the thread probably would have been closed in their favor. Pounding the table and demanding apologies or redaction only makes you look bad and annoys the admins. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, DrChrissy was topic banned because they dared to defend themselves against a lynch mob. The solution, therefore, would be to remain silent and let others defend you. I agree with this approach. In fact, I suggest that User:DrChrissy consider the following strategy when handling future conflicts with lynch mobs: 1. Do nothing 2. Reply to the first and/or second accusations (or the most serious accusations of all) 3. Back off from the discussion and put it on your watchlist, knowing that it will always close in your favor if you respond correctly. -A1candidate 18:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) whew. "lynch mob." not good. with this and the accusations of racism at ANI, you are driving right over a cliff A1. I suggest you back off this kind of language. In addition, the longer drchrissy remains unable to acknowledge that his behavior was problematic and the longer he doesn't change his behavior, the more likely he is to conduct himself in ways that bring yet broader sanctions down on his own head. you are not helping him by blaming somebody else... and you are hurting yourself. The way to handle it when you act badly and get called on it, is to authentically acknowledge the behavior, authentically apologize, and to really not do it anymore. That is as true in real life as it is in Wikipedia, including at ANI. (sometimes people get offended/angry over nothing, and wisdom in Wikipedia as in RL is having the insight to know when you really did screw up) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, DrChrissy was topic-banned because he interpreted fairly accurate descriptions of his behaviour as "personal attacks" rather than address the root problem, and because he did not show any sign that he was capable of understanding what he had done wrong. WP:NPA is not a license to describe all criticisms of your behaviour as a "personal attack", nor is it intended to prevent legitimate criticism from occurring. Your own similar attempt to take JzG and I to Arbcom failed for much the same reason. No one was leaping up to champion either JzG or I: both of us are brusque and neither of us is widely loved. Still, it would appear that most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism rather than being "personal attacks", as I can promise you that if either of us did attack editors, we would lose our bits.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Kww. Go back and read the ANI more carefully. I acknowledged that some of my editing could have been perceived as disruptive. I think you are both mis-representing the ANI.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what blame you took, you blamed on being perceived as incompetent, which pretty much proves my point.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@A1Candidate, yeah, it's a good idea to avoid loaded language like "lynch mob". There are a lot of factors that led to the topic ban, and the overzealous defense was one of them. I feel you are being sarcastic with the 3 step strategy you propose, but I think you sum it up fairly well. If you actually haven't done anything wrong, you can sometimes just stop after step 1. I've done it before. [6] If you have done something wrong, then add the advice given by Jytdog above (acknowledge, apologize, change) to step 2, and you're usually good to go. I personally don't like adding AN/I to my watchlist, but it is definitely a good idea to follow the discussion. Of course this only works if you've been well within policy all along. If you haven't, well, you might have to respond to every comment and try to wikilawyer yourself out of it. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the admins closing the discussion know how it feels to be falsely accused on flimsy evidence, and they'll check the diffs. They also know the best way to behave when people make wild accusations against them. For one small example, see Oppose #7 in my RfA. If I had freaked out, given a point by point response, and demanded that the user strike their personal attacks, I would not be an admin right now. Instead I let it sit for a couple hours, wrote a short response after a few others had commented, and let it be. Others read the oppose, evaluated its merits on their own, and a couple of people used it as rationale for supporting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm involved. In fact, I was well aware of the wisdom of the DefendEachOther essay since I've noticed it on John's userpage some months ago, so the strategy I've proposed should be taken literally. You seem to have handled the unfair allegations against you very clamly and politely, which is obviously a decisive factor in an RfA and elsewhere. I am glad that it succeeded (congratulations!) and I appreciate the effort you put in to resolve this current dispute, even though I have to disagree with some of your actions. Perhaps QuackGuru might also benefit from some lessons in dispute resolution? -A1candidate 07:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, just a quick note to say thanks for your help in the boomerang AN/I. I have said elsewhere (including the second closing admin's page) that the end-decision is probably a very good result for me and hopefully also for the project. I appreciate that you spent a considerable amount of time and effort helping and advising me and for that I am extremely grateful. I very much look forward to working with you in the future.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's great, because there's finally some sort of closure for both of us after several months of wikidrama. It seems that we had inadvertently entered a dangerous minefield without even noticing it, but now we've escaped from it (relatively) unscathed with no nerve blocks (pun fully intended!). I feel that I might have some unfinished business though, and that is why I struggle to withdraw from this topic area completely. Regardless, it was a great pleasure to help you out and I'm delighted to know that the AN/I closed with a satisfactory result for you. -A1candidate 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep - I did not notice what I had walked into for a second until it was too late. I really think that bommerang mentality/opportunity is so unfair. I think if someone who raises an AN/I has made unfair accusations/been uncivil, etc, then this should be raised, but to start talking about incompetence, especially when raised about only one example, is just bloody unfair. It feels like I have taken someone to court, I have been found in contempt, punished, and the person I originally took to court allowed to go free without the case ever being heard! I'm sure that would not be allowed in a legal court. Yes, it really needled me - pun intended there too!DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You must understand that your opponents have been playing the same game for many, many years. Some of them have been doing this almost immediately after Wikipedia was created, and they have never stopped ever since. They also know the rules inside out, and that is why they always win. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#JzG, you'll see an example of what I mean. Does this remind you of your recent AN/I? The only difference is that I took it to a higher court, which has slightly higher standards, so the boomerang option was not so readily available. I still think ArbCom is the best place for a fair hearing. -A1candidate 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi AI, would you consider closing the second thread you opened re: the DrChrissy AN/I? There's a risk of causing confusion and ill-feeling. The proposal is only that the ban not cover animals. There's no chance of getting the whole thing overturned (not for awhile anyway) because there was clear consensus for a ban of some kind. It's just the scope that wasn't clear. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah is by nature a mild-mannered type so I'll take the "bad cop" role. Your conduct is dissipating the remaining reserves of goodwill toward DrChrissy. Many of us believe that he is capable of useful contributions outside his hot-button area. Don't screw that up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Before closing, some comments in that repeal ban section seem to be votes that rightly belong in the thread above. I noticed Bull Rangifer's comment as one. Perhaps someone should check before a close. I have no idea how A1's zealous post can reflect on DrChrissy as described in that thread, but I agree the thread is confusing the issues, is certainly creating bad feeling and suggest A1 that you will serve DrChrissy best with a close. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

I don't see A1's comments as reflecting on DrChrissy, but on themselves. (It still doesn't help DrChrissy). By identifying with DrChrissy's IDHT attitude, it shows that A1 doesn't understand what DrChrissy did wrong and that A1 thinks DrChrissy was treated unjustly and has no fault in their fate. That will only make it harder for DrChrissy to be rehabilitated. DrChrissy can do good work in other ares, and so can A1. It's not good for A1 to get their hands dirty in this one. For their own good they should back off. I don't want A1 to get into trouble over this, so my comment should be taken as a caution in that spirit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, just yesterday I had directed A1 to a meatball essay called "DefendEachOther", and I think their intentions were good, even if the ANI thread was disruptive/distracting. Anyway, it's over now, and definitely time to move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm linking that for convenience. Hope you don't mind. I agree with the principle involved. It's just risky for the defender if they thereby show that they don't understand the problem and are defending what the community sees as bad behavior. That's where boomerang comes in. We've seen it happen many times. The whole thing ends up with a lot of sympathizers getting banned as well. OTOH, if they can prove that the "problem" does not exist, and can show that there has been real injustice, that's another matter. If they succeed in their defense, they are heroes, and we all admire heroes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen?

I thought you might be interested in this.[[7]]DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be watching the discussion closely and will comment when I think it's necessary. -A1candidate 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will be treading cautiously too, but something needs to be done.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

E-mail me please

Hi A1. Please would you email me. This can be found on my user page User:DrChrissy. Cheers.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is a topic that concerns you opened on ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A1candidate -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

CAM discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Bishonen | talk 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Bishonen, A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, QuackGuru, but that's odd. Neither of those previous alerts seem to have "taken", in the technical sense; they didn't appear in the log (I checked before I posted), and they didn't get the characteristic automatic "tag" in the edit summary — compare my edit summary here, where the tag was added automatically. I don't think Callanec's note could be expected to work technically — it's not an alert in that sense — but your own pseudoscience alert should have worked (=should have had the tag added and been logged). I don't see anything wrong with it; I've no idea what happened. Sorry, A1candidate, this isn't really your problem, please don't worry about it; now, at any rate, you have now been formally notified of the CAM discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

It was not that odd because I cut and pasted the sanctions without including the alert trigger. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Arghh. Well, now you know. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

Just a side note: as a party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture A1candidate was already "officially" aware of the sanctions. (I'm going off of number 2 here.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)alert

Oh yes, sure; QG's second diff was in regard to that. See how dumb I am, admittedly, but also see how dumb the automatons are? I was simply told to check the alert log for the user, and encouraged to save once there was nothing there. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

Changing the status quo - revert restriction

You are restricted to 0RR on the Acupuncture article. This means zero reverts. Because of the definition of a revert is broad enough to include any edit that removes content or adds content that has previously been removed, this means that your article contributions will be severely limited. Minor spelling corrections, etc., are allowed, as long as they are not reverts. Otherwise you should treat the article as if it were fully protected, gaining consensus for proposed edits using the talk page. Any evidence of gaming these rules (for instance, by aggressively adding new non-consensus material to the article) will result in a complete topic ban. Engaging in Battleground behavior, focusing on contributors over content, or WP:IDHT behavior will also result in a complete topic ban, as will abuse of Wikipedia processes (including administrative noticeboards) to eliminate ideological opponents. Violations of the 0RR may be reported and dealt with at WP:AN/EW, resulting in blocks; violations of the other restrictions (eg. WP:Battleground) may be reported at WP:AE or dealt with by any uninvolved administrator. You are also restricted to 1RR at other pages related to Alternative medicine.

These sanctions are applied under the Standard Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture. They will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from your most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last. Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed at WP:AN or WP:AE within a reasonable amount of time with good behavior. My hope is that you will use this as a turning point in your Wikipedia career to get out of some of the bad habits you've gotten into. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not view this place as a battleground, and I don't think anyone should, but the indisputable nature of this conflict is well-documented by this administrator's comments:

"Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"

- Administrator JzG, 09:39, 27 February 2015

To what extent should I be sanctioned for inadvertently walking into this administrator's battleground? Remember, I only made a single revert before proceeding to start a new RfC to settle the dispute in a collegial and orderly manner. I participated in the relevant discussion hoping that this might prevent further disruption to the article (ideally the page should have been protected), and more importantly, I voluntarily restrained myself from editing and have not made a single edit to the article since filing the RfC. I have also minimized my participation in the topic area and elsewhere, and will continue doing so. As I've previously told the Arbitration Committee, I have no desire to game the system and I certainly do not wish to see anyone being unfairly sanctioned. -A1candidate 15:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: one revert and two emergency requests[8][9] to protect the article, using an accusation that I intended to start an edit war? See, it's always these things you leave out that cause the trouble.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR? I did exactly what the relevant guideline says, namely:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Please pay particular attention to the words I highlighted in bold, because it explains why I had decided to approach another administrator (And of course I had to explain the rationale for doing so). Besides, I was the one who first took the discussion to the talk page, and Adjwilley therefore needs to know that I followed the guidance of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR very closely by first launching an RfC and then staying away from the article while seeking more opinions from other editors. -A1candidate 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you wanted to protect the article before you began to edit war. Why did you feel obligated to hurl accusations in my direction?—Kww(talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Read my explanation in the previous comment. Edit warring after page protection is technically not possible. -A1candidate 21:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Read my question: why did you feel obligated to hurl accusations in my direction? I had been taking care to preserve the edits you were making, and the edits I was making faithfully reflected the sources. What was it about preserving your edits and faithfully reflecting the contents of sources that warranted the accusation that I was starting an edit war?—Kww(talk) 21:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not feel obligated to make accusations against anyone. I was simply providing the rationale for asking temporary page protection as stated in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. -A1candidate 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see that you didn't hurl the accusations out of any sense of obligation.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Responding to A1candidate's comment above: I realize you think you were doing the right things, but when there are many neutral parties who are seeing problems it's a good idea to slow down and examine things again. Also, this is not about the latest skirmish between you and Kww...that wasn't even a culminating event or a last straw. This, as well as QuackGuru's sanction, is meant to disrupt some destructive patterns that have developed around the acupuncture and other alt-med articles, and hopefully bring back a more normal editing environment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, yes you're right. I agree that this is a good idea. In lieu of the formal sanctions logged here, would you be willing to change this into an unlogged and voluntary set of restrictions, similar to what you've previously agreed with AlbinoFerret? I want to take a break from this as soon as possible. What do you suggest? -A1candidate 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I probably would have considered some sort of deal, but that is no longer an option because of the request for amendment you opened at Arbcom. When they confirm the sanctions I won't be able to do anything about it and you will have nobody to blame but yourself. In all sincerity I believe a Wikibreak would be a very good thing for you right now because you are throwing yourself at windmills. Please consider that seriously. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, a brief response to your statement that "more importantly, my perfect record has been stained with a permanent log". You still have a clean block log, but that is not likely to last very long if you continue down the path you seem to have chosen. More importantly, there are much better measures of your reputation than a log somewhere in cyberspace. Rather than asking yourself how many marks you have on "official" records, you should be looking at how much trust other members of the community are able to place in you. Right now that is a much bigger problem than any log. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a much needed break from this place as you have suggested. In retrospect, the ArbCom filings were definitely a mistake, as was participating in the AN/I. To be honest, I have no idea why I made the request in the first place. I actually wanted to discuss this with you first and foremost. I'll come back again when I have a clearer mind. -A1candidate 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi A1candidate, the Arbitration Committee has reached a consensus to decline arbitration clarification request and so that request has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification request: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (May 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi A1candidate, the Acupuncture arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Nomination of Kim Bong-han for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Bong-han is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bong-han until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:A1candidate/Archives

User:A1candidate/Archives, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A1candidate/Archives and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:A1candidate/Archives during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:China statue of liberty cartoon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:China statue of liberty cartoon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, A1candidate!

Happy New Year!

A1candidate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nomination of Chart performance of K-pop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chart performance of K-pop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chart performance of K-pop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Random86 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Soompi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Soompi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago

you were recipient no. 1081 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Golden Disk Awards logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golden Disk Awards logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)