Ellaqmentry

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 that 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ellaqmentry, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ellaqmentry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Sockpuppet_POV_pusher_at_Acupuncture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am here to build an encyclopedia. I have not broken a single one of Wikipedia's guidelines. I have acted in a manner consistent with both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's policies. I am being accused of being a 'sockpuppet' even though I genuinely set up my first account and made my first edit last week. Those who have accused me of being a sock have done so with no evidence that I am one and the Checkuser request has been denied as it has been correctly classified as fishing. The only reason I am being falsely accused is because my opinion, which I have expressed considerately and with full references, differs from their own. They are making false accusations against me to censor people who differ in opinion, which constitutes a clear example of WikiBullying. They claim that I display an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines for a new editor, which would be a valid point if Wikipedia's guidelines weren't documented in full on Wikipedia for anyone who knows how to type a string into the search bar to find. How long is it supposed to take a new user to find a relevant guideline? Especially when the admins through the policies around every other paragraph? Please look through my communication on the talk page. I have made no edits to the page itself, but simply participated in the ongoing discussion. The block against me constitutes a flagrant abuse of privileges and damages the integrity of the project as a whole. I request that the block be removed against me and that those who are falsely accusing me of wrong-doing have appropriate sanctions made against them. I'd like to add that in addition to having been wrongly blocked from editing the acupuncture page, I've just found that the block is so general that I'm not currently able to edit the Admin Notice board where I continue to be bullied by people spreading misinformation about me. Surely, that's a violation of some kind of policy?

Decline reason:

(1) Your editing has been highly disruptive. (2) You do not acknowledge the problems with your editing, and on the contrary you make it clear that you intend to continue in the same way. (3) I have extensively studied the relevant editing histories, and it is clear way beyond reasonable doubt that you are LesVegas evading your block on that account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, you are here to promote acupuncture. That is not the same thing. You have, to a very high degree of certainty, violated WP:SOCK and WP:TBAN. You are a Warrior for Truth™ and this is unquestionably not your first or only account. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am here to improve the encyclopedia. I brought new and relevant WPMEDS to the discussion. The "Warriors for Truth" on the discussion page are easily identified; they're the ones making claims with zero reference to the published literature or, indeed, reality. My comments were respectful, relevant, and referenced.

You have shared your theory that I am a sock, with absolutely no evidence of what you're accusing me of, on the Admin page thingy. The Sock arbitrator deemed it a fishing expedition and said that it was inappropriate to make accusations without specifics or any evidence. Your false accusation against me continues to be entirely baseless. If by 'look like a duck', you mean that it took me less than a few months to find WP:Policies and Guidelines, then that's tantamount to accusing anyone who knows how to do use the internet and disagrees with your opinions for violating WP policy. I am currently blocked for something that an independent admin has cleared me of. It's bullying. Ellaqmentry (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your definition of "improving the encyclopaedia" is functionally equivalent to promoting your ideology. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note that I placed the current indefinite block, after Guy had lifted his as he felt he might be construed as involved, which I'm certainly not. Ellaqmentry, I'll let another uninvolved admin review your unblock request without looking over their shoulder, but I have one question: you mention "The Sock arbitrator", and "an independent admin". Are you referring to two different people, or simply to Ivanvector and his input at this ANI thread? That would be a misunderstanding. Ivanvector is a clerk at WP:SPI, but he'd tell you himself that he's not the arbitrator of socks, nor an admin. Nor does it look to me like his comments were intended to "clear you", but if I'm wrong about that, he can tell you himself, as I have now pinged him. Bishonen | talk 18:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, you may be 'uninvolved' but what I don't see, still, is any evidence provided for the accusations against me. As you have now created the block, I'll be open to hearing you make the case and hearing your evidence for doing so. I fully intend to make sure that those abusing their admin roles to bully editors, such as is flagrantly happening here, will be brought to the attention of the appropriate individuals.

Thanks for clarifying Ivanvector's role (somewhat). What I understand is that he decides whether there's a valid case for investigating a sock and if he feels that there is, he investigates it. Is that accurate? It looks like on the noticeboard he indicated that as the accusation was made with zero evidence and absent specifics (which in itself is a violation of WP policy), it was not appropriate to investigate.

Thus, I'm genuinely confused as to why there is a block on my account for the very thing that the person responsible for investigating has deemed lacks evidence. Of course, this still continues to be a steep learning process for me.Ellaqmentry (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll jump in here for a moment. I'm an administrator and a CheckUser. That means that I have the ability to check your account in response to the request at ANI. As Bishonen says, Ivanvector is an SPI clerk. The fact that he's not an administrator is immaterial to this discussion. An SPI clerk is responsible for endorsing or declining a CU request, which happens frequently at SPI. Ivanvector followed our usual guidelines for whether a CU was warranted. It's unusual, although certainly not unheard of, to check a user when there's no known master. Actually, it happens more frequently outside of SPI than at SPI. It's also unusual to run a check when the account is already indefinitely blocked. However, the decline of the CU request doesn't mean that you are not a sock. It simply means that Ivanvector concluded that a check was unwarranted. Finally, you keep bringing up the socking issue, but Bishonen's block was that you were WP:NOTHERE and that you were "almost certainly" a sock. Even if you aren't a sock, I believe there were many editors at ANI who felt that the NOTHERE block, by itself, was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for providing more clarification. I focused on the accusation of being a Sock because that's what I was under the impression I was being accused of. Bishonen's comment states: "(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, almost certainly abuse of multiple accounts per WP:DUCK. (I don't know if they're avoiding a topic ban or a block, could be either.)" I thought that the accusations about multiple accounts and ducking was being provided as the reason that he's put I"m not here to contribute. If there's another reason that I'm being accused, I'd appreciate it if someone would share that with me and please be specific. As far as I can see, the not a single item on the 'not here to contribute' list applies to me or my participation. The fact that I was blocked for being a sock but if I'm not a sock those who have different opinions than me say I should be blocked anyways greatly lends support to my contention that I'm being bullied.Ellaqmentry (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) (responding to ping) What Bishonen predicted I would say is entirely correct, I hold no special authority and my assessment shouldn't be taken as a determination of anything, but I will elaborate now. I think that a block referencing the WP:SOCK policy is weak here, as it appears to me to be based entirely on this user having an opinion in common with a topic-banned user. Often we identify connections based on very fringe POVs in isolated topics, but the belief in acupuncture as a productive medical therapy is incredibly common. The fact that one new account turned up to set the record straight attracted another user who had tried to do so previously should come as no surprise at all. But the larger issue with this block is that if this user is the topic-banned user that I believe Guy thinks it is, then we owe that user an indefinite block, and so blocking this account without making any case for who the master is really fails to enforce the policy.

However, blocking Ellaqmentary under WP:NOTHERE is obviously correct. That incredibly commonly held opinion yet still is an opinion countered by reams and reams of sources of the utmost quality, and being here to relitigate the contested argument over and over and over again is contrary to being here to build an encyclopedia. Ellaqmentry may yet prove to be a valuable editor in other topic areas as indeed they do seem to be a fast learner with respect to policy, but they should stay away from this topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I came here after seeing on my talk page that everyone thinks Ellaquenentary is a sock of me, so, what they're just blocking based on the suspicion of that? Ridiculous. It is so clear to me that the editors who control that article want to keep controlling it. Any new editors who don't fit their agenda, banned. Doesn't matter if they behaved ok or broke no rules. Banned. Old editors like me who point out the policies they continually break, banned as well. I've never believed the paid Susan Gerbic conspiracy theories everyone talks about, but now I do. I'm not the first person to post at Jimmy Wales' talk page and then be topic banned immediately thereafter. Gotta keep all the other editors from seeing what's happening to the alt-med topics under wraps. And Guy should be de-sysopped for this. Clearly, Guy rushed to ban an editor on a topic he's involved in, and Bishonen shouldn't ever have covered for him. Clearly, this editor did nothing wrong. Freaking ridiculous! I might just take this case to ArbCom. LesVegas (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to take into account that Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream science. Those who manifestly work against this bias are subjected to discretionary sanctions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream science" (or mainstream anything) is exactly how I'd expect an encyclopedia to work. On science subjects, Wikipedia should present articles with a balance that is supported by reliable peer-reviewed sources that exercise proper editorial control and are based on accepted scientific method - mainstream science by definition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The thing about the sockpuppetry question is, it doesn't matter that much. The accounts you've been accused of socking for have something in common - they've been subject to sanctions for disruptive editing. The fact that your behavior reminds people of them is a problem in and of itself. Where it does matter is the fact that you are clearly not a new account. Despite your claims of having learned about Wikipedia on youtube, most experienced editors will assume you are also one yourself. Maybe you are banned from Wikipedia, maybe not, but your considerable familiarity with the project tends to dampen assumptions of good faith. At the end of the day, if your only purpose on Wikipedia is to correct the record on acupuncture, I doubt any admin is going to unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to add your thoughts. What I'm hearing you say is that I've been blocked because I'm a sock, but even if I'm not a sock I'm still blocked because I'm clearly not new? And if that's not true either, I'm being blocked for, what did you call it, 'disruptive editing'? All I can see is that my contributions to the talk page differ from the opinions of the admins in control. There was nothing disruptive or inappropriate about my edits. If someone feels they were, then please be specific.

"most experienced editors will assume you are also one yourself." I will admit, part of me is a little flattered but also can't help scratching my head that none of you recognise that surely the ability to monkey what you guys are doing and search Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia are clearly transferable skills from, most notably, being a long time Wikipedia user? I have two MSc's, know HTML and CSS, I am fluent in multiple languages and have studied about five. That I was able to edit a conversation following what you guys are doing in no way demonstrates what you're claiming and violates the policy of assuming good faith; I received absolutely none. At any rate, I should not have been blocked before anyone provided any evidence. Still not one of you has provided any evidence. And I certainly should not be blocked for one thing, and upon failure to verify the validity accusation, maintained a block for something else. That's obviously witch-hunting and also against Wikipedia's policies.

If some of you are switching gears and saying the block is about something else, not here to edit an Encyclopedia, then please explain exactly what I'm accused of, which specific item are you saying I've violated. And rather than describe my actions, quote me. I made a total of 20 entirely appropriate comments before being wrongly blocked, none of them came close to violating a single one of Wikipedia's policies, all of them on the talk page for you to reference.

IvanVector: "but the belief in acupuncture as a productive medical therapy is incredibly common." Quite, especially among doctors, scientists and producers of medical guidelines. I know this is not the place to discuss the content of the article but my contribution (supported by high-quality MEDRS) was pointing out just that, which strongly contradicts the whole 'fringe/pseudoscience' stance of the admins. Acupuncture is clearly "questionable science" not pseudoscience. So, you're saying that expressing that in a respectable, referenced manner is a blockable offense?

The admins write unreferenced and easily falsifiable things like this: "At this point everyone other than the pathological believers is basically ready to move on... Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)" Last week, a study jointly produced by Harvard and IBM (amongst others) showed that "Acupuncture research has grown markedly in the past two decades, with a 2-fold higher growth rate than for biomedical research overall. Both the increases in the proportion of RCTs and the impact factor of journals support that the quality of published research has improved." Most of what the admins say about acupuncture is factually incorrect, and pointing that out is not disruptive - or if it is, it's the type that's necessary to contribute to a remotely reality-based encyclopedia.

I am here to contribute to an encyclopedia.

It is crystal clear that I've been blocked because I hold a different view from the admins, which is an inappropriate use of admin privileges. The reason given for the block is that I was mistakenly accused of being a sock and if not a sock, not a new editor. These accusations come with zero evidence, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I also see that Arthur Rubin vandalised my page on 19 December by removing my new editor banner. I'm guessing that's also a violation?

Thanks for speaking up LesVegas, since I genuinely am a new editor I don't know what recourse I have for how I'm being treated but if there is something else to look at (ArbCom?) I'd be grateful to learn more about that. You can reach me at ellaqmentry@gmail.com. Ellaqmentry (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you have not been blocked for holding a different view (from anybody, admins or otherwise). You have been blocked because yo are here to Right Great Wrongs, and because you simultaneously display great familiarity with Wikipedia and wilful ignorance of the long history of debate at talk:acupuncture. The reaction of the community was: "oh no, not this shit again". Guy (Help!) 12:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The characterisation of my comments as attempting to 'right great wrongs' is inaccurate. First of all, I didn't make any edits to the acupuncture page, which this policy applies to. Also, I respectfully request that you please reference my actual comments when attempting to show that I've somehow violated a policy, as everything said so far has been a gross mischaracterization, which is slightly more challenging to do when you refer to what I actually wrote. According to Wikipedia's Right Great Wrongs policy: "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion." Everything that I've added has been appropriately referenced by high-quality WPMEDS. I and others have clearly demonstrated that great swathes of 'informed opinion' hold the opposite opinion to that expressed in the opening paragraph. My point has been not about who is right or who is wrong; my point is that it is undeniable that there is a controversy within the scientific and medical community and that controversy needs to be reflected in the wording in order to be compliant with Wikipedia's style.

I'm not sure why it's remarkable that a new editor demonstrates great familiarity with Wikipedia, I've been using Wikipedia for years! Do you get many editors who don't know how to use it? Otherwise, I'll let you in on my secret for how I can appear to be as skilled as a seasoned editor from day 1 (this is useful for all new skills and I provide this tip on the house) - you simply do exactly what the experienced people do. When someone referenced a policy, I went and found a policy to reference. When someone used some Wiki code to reference an editor, I copied and pasted that code and then substituted in the relevant information. This practice is called 'modeling' and is also not a bannable offense. Honestly, I thought everyone did that.

Likewise, I was unfamiliar that others before me had made exact same arguments using very similar support. I only found the arbitration case after I had been blocked. To be honest, I simply can't believe that A1candidate provided all of those WPMEDS (none of which I was familiar with prior), including evidence that The American Heart Association, the NHS, Cancer Research UK, and The New England Journal of Medicine are all supportive of acupuncture's use and provide specific reference to its biological mechanisms of action. She also cited Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine says that "the emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management" and you jokers are still pretending that there's no debate that mainstream medicine considers acupuncture pseudoscience. It's simply not an evidence- or reality-based stance and you will increasingly find people coming to make the acupuncture page a more accurate reflection of reality, probably using the same line of reasoning as it makes rational sense. Talk about denial! That said, if a new editor brings up an old debate, the correct response is to show them the old debate so they can learn (good will, and all), definitely not to block them.

However, not being familiar with the history of the page is also not a bannable offense. As I've pointed out earlier, I did not edit the acupuncture page and I did not start any new topics of discussion on the talk page. I only joined in on that page as I'm familiar with a lot of the evidence base for acupuncture (as I am for other medical interventions) and I could see that the evidence isn't accurately reflected. I had no way of knowing that the talk page was currently discussing an issue that had been discussed previously. It is unreasonable to expect new editors to familiarise themselves with the entirety of the archived talk pages before joining in an ongoing conversation. I'm sorry that you found it tiresome that the same issue came up again (and of course it will while you pretend that the guidelines and large swathes of medical consensus recommending acupuncture don't exist), but banning me is not an appropriate response. If you find it tiresome, don't volunteer to participate, no one's forcing you to be here. I violated none of Wikipedia's policies.

"The reaction of the community was . . ." - well, I am now aware of at least 3 editors who, as far as I'm aware, have followed Wikipedia's policies and have been banned for providing strong evidence that the page is a poor reflection of the evidence. When you say 'community', we're talking about a thoroughly and illegitimately sanitised community. This community is not representative of the public, scientific or medical opinion or of the peer-reviewed literature. Ellaqmentry (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Teach the controversy!" That's all what fringe pushers want. Reality check: http://www.businessinsider.com/aacupuncture-is-useless-steven-novella-2016-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, first of all, this is not the place to discuss the contents of the acupuncture page. Second, I am familiar with the opinions of Steven Novella, Edzard Ernst, and other out-spoken pseudo-skeptical individuals. But, finding examples of individuals who share your opinion that acupuncture is pseudoscience does not provide evidence that the scientific community feels this way or that there isn't a controversy. Can you see the difference between finding one neurologist who agrees with you versus representing both sides of the argument? Steven Novella is a neurologist who thinks that acupuncture is pseudoscience. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at The National Institutes of Health is a committee of neurologists who feel that acupuncture is valuable and recommends it. I think the latter is stronger evidence than the former. But that's not even the point. That you think the evidence of a single individual (or even many single individuals) who agrees with you demonstrates that there is no controversy, is troubling. In fact, I could probably do a better job of outlining the level of support for your perspective than you can. Are you able to describe, in a reasonably unbiased way, which parts of the scientific and medical community are opposed to your perspective? Hint: A1candidate and I have both given you a head start. Can you comment on these sources? Or does acknowledging them render your point moot.Ellaqmentry (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Therapeutic touch gets taught in accredited nursing courses. So what? This only proves the inexhaustible gullibility of humans. The jury is still out upon whether placebo treatments should be performed by the medical profession. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, none of what you're saying is evidence against what I'm saying - some of the medical establishment agrees with you and some of it doesn't. Just because you disagree with those who disagree with you doesn't mean that they don't exist. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the opinions that exist within the scientific community, not what you agree with. Ellaqmentry (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The comparison is to the point: although propagated by quackademics, both therapeutic touch and acupuncture lack mainstream scientific support. That's the reality of mainstream science. So, if you claim that they have lots of mainstream scientific support, that's a mystification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you make that point ("although propagated by quackademics, . . . acupuncture lack(s) mainstream scientific support") while simultaneously addressing the guidelines from the WHO, NICE, The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at The National Institutes of Health, The Institute for Health Economics Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain Alberta in Canada, the SIGN Guidelines for Pain management in Scotland, The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and Faculty of Pain Medicine, Harvard, Stanford, The American Heart Association, Cancer Research UK, and The New England Journal of Medicine? Are you saying that you don't acknowledge that these institutions recommend acupuncture eventhough they've said so by publishing official guidelines agreed to by a panel of experts that they do? or that these institutions are 'quackademic' institutions? Can you reconcile the existence of these official recommendations with the point you're trying to make? Or does your point firmly rest on pretending these don't exist?Ellaqmentry (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a big difference between tolerating a placebo treatment and having mainstream scientific support. Let me put it simply: if you continue to claim that acupuncture has mainstream scientific validation, you have no future as an Wikipedia editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"There is a big difference between tolerating a placebo treatment and having mainstream scientific support." Wow, that was some super duper fast searching, downloading and reading!! My goodness! You must be tired. I know it can be time-consuming and a ball-ache to actually read these sources, but you don't get any points for pretending that they magically support your point. In fact, you continue to demonstrate my point by doing so. Most of these sources (which, as horrible as it sounds, have actually bothered to systematically look at the publish research, gone through faff of summarising it and then have taken the time to form a medical consensus on the findings) have found that acupuncture has strong evidence for its use, is vastly superior to usual care and has benefit beyond placebo. If you feel that they say otherwise, then please by all means make specific reference to the documents we are discussing.

"if you continue to claim that acupuncture has mainstream scientific validation, you have no future as an Wikipedia editor." Can I assume that statement is true regardless of whether or not it actually does?Ellaqmentry (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There are editors holding WP:FRINGE opinions, who understand perfectly well that their opinions are fringe from the mainstream perspective and are able to cooperate with the rest of editors who abide by WP:PSCI. For those unable to understand the fringe character of their own opinions, see Wikipedia:Competence is required#Bias-based. 22:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You argumentation style is something like "Let it be known, deceived cavemen that I found the light, and I impart unto you the light that acupuncture has mainstream scientific validation." Wikipedia does not need more of that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate and clarify: if you continue to claim that acupuncture has mainstream scientific validation, you have no future as an Wikipedia editor. That is true not "regardless of whether or not it actually has", it is true because it hasn't. In order for this to change, something would need to change in the real off-wiki world. Something profound. Like the discovery of qi, or anatomical evidence for meridians. The acupuncture community would have to discard all the variants of acupoints in different traditions and agree on a single set, through replicable experiments that can be validated even by non-believers. In fact the trajectory is the other way. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Tgeorgesc, my argumentation style is like:

You: "It's woo, and witchraft, and no one thinks it works except stupid-heads." (REFs needed)

Me: "Well, actually, the scientific published literature supports the opposite stance. Medical guidelines of mainstream institutions (none of which recommend homeopathy or crystal healing or therapeutic touch) recommend acupuncture (copious high-quality references provided). Furthermore, an increasing number of Cochrane systematic reviews find it to be efficacious and far better than usual care; three more in 2016 alone! (numerous high-quality references provided) And, helpful enough, there's a wealth of primary evidence, which has been summarised into MEDRS compliant reviews, that elucidates how it works biologically (copious high-quality peer-reviewed references provided)."

You: Woo-pusher!! That evidence is stupid. Here's a video of a single real-life neurologist who says you're wrong! And this unreferenced text-book for non-science majors says it's pseudoscience. People like you who refer to these mainstream medical guidelines, Cochrane reviews, and biochemistry reviews and suggest that they are remotely related to mainstream medical opinion shall be banned!! It's woo, gosh-darn it (REFs needed)" Ellaqmentry (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Guy: "Something profound. Like the discovery of qi, or anatomical evidence for meridians." First of all, the very basic flaw in this argument is that it confounds an explanatory model with the efficacy of a treatment, which are two very different things. The mechanism of paracetamol in analgesia is not understood but no one suggests that this has any bearing on its efficacy.

Second, "anatomical evidence for meridians" - can you point me to the anatomical evidence for a QRS complex? How about an alpha wave? No? Do these not exist? Or are these real but simply not histological phenomena? You know, in the Wikipedia acupuncture article itself, you've used a systematic review of the electo-negative properties of channels that found a signicant over-lap between channels and electromagnetic potential (significant and repeated many times) to support the statement that there's no histological evidence for channels but didn't actually honestly reflect what that review said, that they found strong evidence of the electrical nature of the channels. Not very good or honest scholarship, I must say.

"In fact the trajectory is the other way." Do you remotely have an inkling of when a statement needs to be referenced in order to be credible? Seriously. I'll give you a clue, if you make a statement with the word 'fact' in it and you want to demonstrate that this is a 'fact' in the real world and not just inside your head, a reference is helpful. Can you provide peer-reviewed support for the 'fact' that this trend is as you claim? For example, I'll go ahead and claim that support for acupuncture research is increasing and that acupuncture studies are increasingly being published in higher impact, mainstream journals. I will use the recent Harvard/IBM bibliometric study to support that claim. By no means is that the only valid opinion on the matter but by providing a high-quality reference, I can demonstrate evidentiary support for my view and this is after all an accepted and, frankly, useful convention in the scientific arena. Otherwise, it seems a bit uninformed and the idea that you continue to mistake your subjective opinion for something actually supported by peer-reviewed scholarship by saying it confidently seems a smidge fanciful.

References

Ellaqmentry (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But the scientific published literature does not support an opposite stance. There is no evidence that qi exists, there is no evidence that meridians exist, there is no evidence that acupoints exist (and they differ between various traditions, though, oddly, no tradition appears to have an acupoint in the male genitals), it does not matter where you put the needles or whether you even insert them, there is no good evidence it works for most conditions, and all we have left are a handful of conditions where counting the papers shows a majority passing P=0.05 on subjective endpoints (which is entirely consistent with the expected 5% false positive rate inherent in P=0.05). There is not one single paper that convincingly refutes the null hypothesis, i.e. provides a result which is objectively tested, repeatable and inconsistent with the null hypothesis. Oh, and most of the positive studies of acupuncture come out of China, a country where every single medical intervention ever tested, works. It's implausible, there's no remotely plausible mechanism, most of the claims made for it are patent nonsense, it's practiced by people who for the most part have absolutely no valid medical training and do not use any kind of infection control techniques, and it shows absolutely no sign of getting its house in order. The work done by trypanophiles in "studying" their field is devoted entirely to trying to legitimse the practice, and not in any way towards trying to discard those parts of it which are incorrect. It's the equivalent of studying how bloodletting and purging balance the humours. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Guy, all of the above falls into the category of 'this is why I think it doesn't work.' None of the above disproves my entirely valid and easily proveable point that, be that as it may, large swathes of medical and scientific consensus disagree with your opinion. Repeating SBM and other skepitcs doesn't make the evidence that mainstream medicine supports acupuncture go away.

The paragraph above indicates that you still haven't quite grasped when to reference - it's particularly notable when you make a factual statement that's pretty much the opposite of what the published literature shows so I guess referencing would stop you from making it, perhaps that's why you don't bother?

I have thoroughly refuted all of these points many times before, but I'm happy to go again. First, as per my response just above, evidence of qi is not required for evidence that inserting filiform needles is therapeutically superior to conventional care. As for the no evidenece that meridians exist, I just referenced a study that demonstrates that meridians have repeatable and measurable electrical characteristics (like the heart and the brain) and I would appreciate if you would actually read my responses before replying to them as otherwise it all gets a bit pointless.

"all we have left are a handful of conditions where counting the papers shows a majority passing P=0.05 on subjective endpoints (which is entirely consistent with the expected 5% false positive rate inherent in P=0.05)" This feels like something written by someone who doesn't understand how a meta-analysis works? Is that what's happened here? I don't have time to go into it now (perhaps Wikipedia has an article on it for you) but SRs and MAs don't 'count' papers they pool results. And when numerous MAs pool results and find significant results that pass P=0.05 or even P=0.001 for that matter, that is really not consistent with a treatment that doesn't work for that condition; indeed, pretty much everyone agrees with the opposite conclusion. That argument is what I call the 'burning down your house to spite your face' argument - if arguing that all the Cochrane reviews showing that acupuncture is effective really are likely to be false positives, then you're not left with any scientific support for any medical treatment whatsoever. Your prerog, but saying that positive Cochrane reviews of acupuncture are surely false positives because that makes you feel better sounds an awful lot like denial and really isn't tenable from an EBM perspective.

"it's practiced by people who for the most part have absolutely no valid medical training and do not use any kind of infection control techniques" - fact check: the majority of people who practice acupuncture have medical degrees. Here's a little magic trick: watch how providing factually correct new information to replace the random, easily disprovable stuff that you're spewing out off the top of your head doesn't change your opinion on the matter at all. See that? Magic.

Likewise, I could've have forgiven you for inventing false characterisations of the acupuncture literature as a whole if I hadn't twice provided you with a bibliometric study published last week and free to download that shows how acupuncture is actually being studied and by whom, which is not at all how you characterise it. It must be satisfying just to say stuff that sounds cool, but certainly not consistent with an attempt to take the 'scientific high road.'

In terms of biological plausibility - let me ask you: based on my reading of the literature, it appears that inserting filiform needles triggers mast cell degranulation, ATP/adenosine signaling, stimulates C3/C4 afferent nerves, and initiates a biochemical cascade that according to clinical studies, achieves symptom and disease resolution much better than usual care. So, what's your theory? You stick needles into the body and . . . nothing happens? The body doesn't have any reaction at all? Are you aware of any studies that support that viewpoint? Is that biologically plausible?

Again, all of this is interesting but is completely separate from the easily provable fact that significant portions of mainstream medicine support the use of acupuncture, which means it fails Wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience.

References

Ellaqmentry (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #17190 was submitted on Dec 24, 2016 12:22:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of block

Ellaqmentry was blocked by the process at the admin noticeboard. In March 2017 I asked two users about Ellaqmentry's block.

• JzG comfirmed the block validity
• JamesBWatson confirmed the block validity and described the review process

I took interest in this case because the user requested review through WP:OTRS. In looking at the account, one thing that stood out to me is that this account had not edited any Wikipedia article. Typically blocks happen because of inappropriate editing. Among other things, the wiki review process noted inappropriate editing by this user, which I thought was strange considering that there were no article edits associated with this account. An evaluation presented evidence of inappropriate editing from another account, which this user denies. I talked with this user twice by phone. They say that they are new to Wikipedia, and this is their first account, and that they have not used other accounts. In looking at their edits, they seemed like an experienced user to me, and that appearance weighed heavily in the treatment they got here to this point.

I would like for this user to be able to contribute good things from this account. I am thinking about how wiki process could present that as an option. At this point, I am only thinking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)