User talk:Dickmojo

October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Acupuncture. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. N o f o rmation Talk  06:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Sorry your sad. Please don't criticize others, focus on the articles and sources. See WP:DISPUTE for guidance on how to proceed.

Ariconte (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

WP:EW on Acupuncture
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This is a formal warning per your comment on Talk:Acupuncture, indicating you plan to edit war your preferred version into the article despite warnings. That behavior is not advisable, and will lead to a block. Please don't do that. Please see my comments on the talk page as well. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Talk:Acupuncture
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Famousdog (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for repeatedly making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dickmojo (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC) deactivated without reviewing, block has expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See here for my view on the matter. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you committing to not only avoid further personal attacks, but also to add, remove, and modify information based only upon reliable sources, as opposed to personal experience and "truth"? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My personal experience does provide the context for my interpretation of reliable sources, but I don't use it as a basis on which to add remove or modify information, and I am able to commit to this.Dickmojo (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not' interpret reliable sources. That counts as original research. We report what is in the reliable sources, we do not interpret it. At all. Is this acceptable in your editing? - The Bushranger One ping only 11:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, surely you aren't suggesting plagiarism? If one is to avoid plagiarism, one must rephrase the information in the source in their own words, and in doing so, must invariably inject their own POV into it. I'm not saying this is what I consider acceptable, I'm saying this is a fact of life. To quote Jacob Bronowski: "One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that that aim is unattainable. The world is not a fixed, solid array of objects, out there, for it cannot be fully separated from our perception of it. There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists open the door to tragedy. All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility. That is the human condition.” J Bronowski – The Ascent of ManDickmojo (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not hardly. Rephrasing is necessary, yes, but rephrasing is different from interpreting. I just wanted to be sure that that wasn't more than a not-quite-appropriate choice of words. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to support The Bushranger's point about interpretation vs rephrasing. If a reliable source says "X", it is fine to rephrase "X" to add to an article, as long as the meaning is not in any way altered. However, if a reliable source says "X", and you personally interpret that as "X means Y", it is not acceptable to add "Y" to an article if "Y" is in any way different in meaning from "X" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dickmojo, rephrasing isn't always necessary. Short quotes of even several sentences is allowable under fair use. We just want to avoid too many of them filling articles, so we choose to paraphrase some of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please respond to my comment on AN/I regarding your WP:COI and why you think it's appropriate to continue editing acupuncture when considering our guidelines? Thanks.  N o f o rmation  Talk  10:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be glad to, Noformation. A conflict of interest is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". The aims of Wikipedia is to produce a "neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia". My position is that editors from the rational-skeptic wikiproject and their ilk are NOT neutral in this subject, and in fact are incapable of being neutral because they do not have any hands on empirical experience with acupuncture, no specialist dedicated learning in it, have not taken the time to grapple with the unique and complex conceptual paradigm that contextualizes it, and thus their knowledge of it is incomplete and immature, and they are ill-equiped to provide a full, rounded, mature and neutral synthesis of the information available on this topic.


 * Now, as for myself, I will tell it straight, I work 12~15 hours per week in acupuncture practice, earning $35 per hour. Acupuncture practice is not my main source of income, in fact my only purpose for practicing acupuncture is to deepen my understanding of the art and sharpen my skills in it. It requires 10,000 hours of purposeful practice to become a master of any discipline, and one day I aim to achieve mastery in this discipline.


 * I refute the suggestion that those people who are most qualified, have the most experience, have done the most study, and are most knowledgeable and passionate about this subject should be excluded from editing on the grounds of COI. In fact these are the ones whose input is most valuable, far more valuable than the input of ivory-tower rational skeptics who only bother to attempt to understand acupuncture through a theoretical, critical and dismissive point of view. In fact, considering the tone of most editors on the acupuncture talk page, which emulates the tone of those "Quackwatch" websites that proliferate on the web these days, and considering their devoted following of Edzard Ernst and their elevation of his work as the number 1 source on the page (literally), and their transparent agenda of "de-bunking" the "pseudo-science" they consider acupuncture to be, it rather seems to an objective observer that is those editors who are "advancing outside interests" rather than being neutral, and thus they in breach of COI, as opposed to I.Dickmojo (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that, in Wikipedia terms, "neutral" does not mean "50/50". It means that no personal judgment should be applied at all, and that an article should reflect the balance of opinion as represented in reliable sources only. So whether one is a supporter or practitioner of acupuncture, or a convinced sceptic, should make no difference. It should be impossible to determine an editor's position on the subject from their edits - and if their personal opinion is apparent from their edits, then they are not editing neutrally -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well indeed, Boing! said Zebedee, that is the ideal, but unfortunately it is not the case on the acupuncture talk page at all. Every single editor is clearly and transparently pushing an agenda, even the ones who claim not to be, like WLU. But their autocratic and automatic objection to the publishing of any source which supports acupuncture, yet their gleeful eagerness to promote sources which disparage acupuncture belies their affected innocence.Dickmojo (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should be no agenda-pushing either way. I've had a quick look at the Talk page, and I do see some rather heated discussion there. It needs to be cooled down on all sides, and content should be discussed calmly and supported by reliable sources - and there's WP:RSN if anyone wants further help on deciding if a source is reliable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee makes some excellent points. "Neutral" doesn't refer to content, but to editorial methodology. They must neutrally (without interference) present the sources, and if the result is mostly positive, then the article will have a positive tone, and if the result is mostly negative, it will appear negative, and believers will consider it to be a hit piece. We follow the sources and let them speak.


 * While talk pages do reveal personal POV (and within certain limits that's acceptable), the edits in articles should not reveal editorial bias. It will be natural for believers to be most familiar with positive sources, and for skeptics to be most familiar with skeptical and negative sources, and to the degree those sources are truly reliable and meet our standards for opinions, news, controversy, research, and/or biomedical claims, they may all be eligible for use as long as proper weight and phrasing is used. Both believers and skeptics should enable the inclusion of both types of material when it's properly done. Discussing "how" to do that is what this talk page is for. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DM, I took the liberty of posting your response directly into the AN/I thread and want to let you know what while you're blocked you can still response to AN messages by posting here. Either myself or someone else will move them for you, just let us know at which point you'd like the response. Thanks. N o f o rmation Talk  11:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noformation~ sounds good.Dickmojo (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Famousdog (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks Famousdog!!? I don't have a clue what you're talking about this time!!! Talk about a witch hunt! Dickmojo (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Possible personal attacks: "The criticism that fanatic skeptics extremists have of it...", "...end the racism and xenophobia..." Whether these are personal attacks against other editors, or references to skeptics generally, this sort of language is unhelpful and expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I would have thought you'd have toned down the use of derogatory terms that you have previously applied to other editors. But, it seems you are determined to smear everybody who disagrees with you as a racist or fanatic.


 * Special pleading: "...its silly to even try to test it against a placebo in the first place, because its not a pill or a drug or a substance that lends itself to such methodology..."


 * And let's not forget that you are still using Talk:Acupuncture like a forum. You haven't suggested any changes or improvements to the article, just ranted about your opinion. Famousdog (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dickmojo. I strongly suggest you listen to what Famousdog is saying here. You absolutely must stop calling your opponents "fanatic skeptic extremists", racists and xenophobes, and you must stop using the article Talk page to argue that acupuncture works - the page is for discussing the article, not for arguing about acupuncture. If you continue the way you are going, you are very likely to find yourself blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst I too find their behaviour very frustrating and hope it will soon be addressed formally, I concur with BsD. You're not helping with such outbursts.  I would suggest looking at Mallexikon as a role model for a) how you should be behaving and b) the only way you'll get taken seriously. --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I can understand why you are ignoring my requests, but why on earth are you ignoring the very good advice offered to you by Mindjuicer and Mallexikon??? You are continuing to accuse, sans evidence, other editors of racism. An accusation that has already got you banned once. Several editors including myself vehemently disagree with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the term "woo" and have provided a comprehensive definition of the term of which you seem to be unaware. Moving the goalposts, accusing editors of discrimination and claiming that you are not accusing people of racism, when you clearly are is not going to extend your tenure on Wikipedia. Grow up. Famousdog (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continuing to imply that other editors are racist, or are deliberately using racist terms. This is particularly problematic as the term in use has no racist connotations whatsoever, but is related to the sound children use to describe a ghost., as you did at Acupuncture. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you claim to be the one with the NPOV when you yourself have spent a large chunk of your life as an acupuncturist? It's absolutely ludicrous. You spend a large portion of your posting time talking about how those established editors who disagree with you are in some anti acupuncture mindset. Let me go on record stating that I am in no way anti acupuncture. If getting stuck by needles for half an hour leads to a decrease in pain then I'll chalk that one up as a win - it doesn't really matter whether it's a placebo or not. The dividing line between what is and isn't medicine is simply whether or not it works. Since pain is such a subjective thing anyway it's really not relevant how one decreases that negative experience so long as one is safe in doing so.

So yeah, there's my big secret anti-acupuncture POV that you feel so fit to rail against. N o f o rmation Talk  00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but woo? I don't see how that could possibly be taken as racist under any circumstances, so I'm really not seeing how your comments could possibly be justified. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For serious KsOstm? In that link you put it, it says the word "woo" has 2 and only 2 Etymologies: 1) to endeavour to gain one's attention, and 2) slang expressing joy or mirth.
 * Now, on the Acupuncture talk page, WLU did NOT use the term to mean either of those two etymologies. It was used it as a pejorative term to describe acupuncture. Clearly, there is no question of that. Rather, the question is, if "woo" really is a slang term to denigrate acupuncture, which is what it was being used as on the Wikipedia talk page, and if the word "woo" itself is commonly used by impersonators to mock Chinese people (which it is in my country of Australia, I've heard it used as such often), then can the word "woo" when used in a derogatory context to denigrate acupuncture (a discipline originating in China) be interpreted as being a casual racist slur? Yes, of course it can, and my pointing out of such is NOT grounds for a 2 week ban.Dickmojo (talk)
 * Nevermind, not woo, woo woo. Either way, I still don't see how your comments were justified...there's nothing racist about calling acupuncture pseudoscientific (and it doesn't matter whether that statement is correct or not; it's still not racist). Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That article states that the origin of the term is unknown. Now, could it be, in light of the term "woo" being routinely used to denigrate both Chinese people and a fundamental heritage of their culture (i.e. acupuncture) that the origin of the term itself is casually racist in nature? Yes, that is a distinct possibility, and just because editors may not consciously be intending to cause the deep offence they are causing, does NOT mean its ok to bandy about such terms on a WP:talk page, and is CERTAINLY not grounds for harassing the whistle-blower and subjecting him to a witch hunt and 2 week ban.Dickmojo (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Urban Dictionary doesn't even have that usage listed. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding. You're reserving the right to completely manufacture word origins to support attacking other editors?  This is not helping to establish your credibility; there is no racist intention or origin with this common term.  Kuru   (talk)  02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides which, wikipedia is not censored, which applies equally to talk pages. We don't stop using useful words just because someone may be offended by them; the usage was clearly not intended to be racist, it was explained after the fact what was intended, which was not racist, so to continue to imply it is racist is uncollaborative at the very least. Even if you are correct that the term is racist in some part of the world, which I haven't seen evidence for, you're still being disruptive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't manufactured anything, I'm just stating that I find the term "woo" offensive, and I pointed out that some people, (and I specifically added that I was not accusing WLU of being racist, a part of the talk page which he has since deleted), might interpret that word as being casually racist, because the word "woo" is commonly used to mock both Chinese people, and acupuncture (which obviously originates in China). Now the word may be in common use among internet skeptics, but that doesn't mean that it may not also be offensive. However, I did not state that it was racist, merely that it could be interpreted as being racist, which it clearly can, seeing as though the origins of the word are "unknown" as your source puts it.


 * So once again, the question remains, how is this grounds for a 2 week ban? It is not disruptive to insist that a serious topic be treated with the due gravitas it deserves.Dickmojo (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When you made the charge of racism because others used the common slur "woo", you were told VERY clearly what it meant, and that it was NOT meant in any racial manner. As a Wikipedian, your ABSOLUTE DUTY was to immediately AGF! You had no other legitimate alternative here. You had to accept the explanation and drop the stick. Instead you didn't do it and you continue here. You're defending inexcusable behavior, and your defense itself is plenty of grounds for your current block, and even for extending that block and locking your talk page. Here is what I wrote to you:


 * "Woo (often "woo woo") has nothing to do with racism. It's a pejorative term, just like quackery is pejorative. It's a mainstream skeptical term for pseudoscientific nonsense and such like. Dickmojo, your failure (once again) to assume good faith will easily get you blocked again."


 * You were warned very clearly. At this point I think you should be banned for at least a year because of the nature of your offenses: (1) You were blocked once, (2) then returned without showing any indication that you learned anything from it, (3) have been blocked again, and are (4) still continuing on with your disruptiveness. You really (5) haven't a clue what Wikipedia is about, and are clearly (6) not suited for editing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I'm sorry BullRangifer, but just because skeptics commonly use a term does NOT preclude the possibility that that term can have have racial connotations, and I mean especially when I have seen with my own eyes impersonators using the term "woo" to denigrate Chinese culture, language and people, etc. It is not disruptive to ask for the debate on the acupuncture talk page to be conducted without resorting to crude, derogatory and possibly racist terms. It is a serious topic and deserves a serious treatment.Dickmojo (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Read it. Drop your delusions and accept what we've been telling you. That's the choice you have. If not, you will lose access to your talk page, IOW to all of Wikipedia, and NO ONE will weep. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you had come back after your last block with discussion about how to improve the article and without resorting to getting personal you would not be here right now. It's apparent that you have a hard time working in a collaborative environment with people who don't share your POV.  Your choices now are to engage in some self reflection and hopefully come back with a clean slate or you can use this as rope with which to hang yourself.  You're currently doing the latter by pointing the fingure at others as you did in your unblock request and by continuing to argue about woo.  Accept that the community doesn't accept your stance on the word woo and move on.  When you come back stop talking about editors and talk about content.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well indeed, Noformation, I did come back from my block and contribute very accurate and informative edits to the main article, which were universally accepted and unchallenged. Now, I do not wish to talk about other editors or anything, I am simply stating that I don't think a request to refrain from using the derogatory word "woo" in a serious discussion about the serious subject of acupuncture is grounds for a 2 week ban. If it is, then explain how. If its not, revoke this ban immediately.Dickmojo (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're really not in any position to be making demands. You can take my advice or leave it, it's up to you, but I've been around long enough that you should believe that I know how this place works.  Seriously, no skin off my ass either way so do as you see fit.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, I'm in no position to be making demands. So you can prove that you can bully minority editors around, harass them, and successfully conduct witch hunt campaigns against them... Is that really an accomplishment? If there is a reasonable justification for banning me for 2 weeks because I asked WLU not to use the term "woo", then I would like to hear it. But if there isn't, and yet I remain blocked anyway... What have you proved? That you're big and tough and can bully me around for having a different position? Congratulations, I guess.Dickmojo (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

QED I suppose. N o f o rmation Talk  03:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of you refusing to get the point and pointing the blame at others; you've got me in half a mind to revoke your talk page access. I suggest you do as Noformation suggests and take the opportunity to step back for a while or get your act together before you don't have a choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I always have free choice, Ks0stm, and I do have my act together, and it is highly insulting of you to state otherwise. See the lengths you people go to to persecute me? So revoke my talk page access, once again, for what? I'm not allowed to defend myself from an unreasonable ban? If the ban is reasonable, explain why asking another editor to refrain from using an offensive term deserves a 2 week ban.


 * OR ban me from even using my talk page and confirm that you are only interested in silencing dissent and persecuting witches.... you have free choice too.Dickmojo (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * However, you're not dissenting nor are people calling you a witch; you're manufacturing racial epithets and screaming because people won't jump at your say-so. If anything revoking talk page is justified, and I won't be surprised if that happens if you continue tilting at windmills. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 05:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm accused of "manufacturing" a racial epithet, when in fact I did nothing of the sort. I simply observed that the term "woo" is used (in different contexts, obviously) as a term of insult and derision to mock both Chinese people (in one context) and acupuncture (in another context). Now, since the too terms are used as a form of insult, one against Chinese people's language and one against Chinese people's medicine, it is compellingly clear that the term could be interpreted as a widespread form of casual racism. It clearly can be, there's no argument about it. I didn't manufacture anything, I simply put "2 + 2" together, pointed out that some people might find "4" offensive, and got slapped with a 2 week ban for my troubles.... Can you see why I might be considering myself the victim of a witch hunt under such circumstances?Dickmojo (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your extreme persecution complex is a very severe case of WP:IDHT, and reveals that you are mentally incapable of editing here in a useful manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

 * Unfortunately, as any priest will tell you, saying a form of words is not a guarantee of absolution. You can say "I abhor violence" but if you continue to beat the crap out of someone, the words tend to lose their meaning. Your mantra has continuously been "why are you continuing to use this word which has racist overtones" even when it is repeatedly explained that the word has no racist overtones.  Saying you are not accusing people of being racist, at that point, becomes meaningless. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Thank you for explaining it to me. The word itself doesn't really matter. Its not racist, but it is woo-ist. That's right, woo is a way of life, an identity, and how cruel and thoughtless of any of you to attack it so viciously and violently. What if I were to say that internet skeptics are the greatest force for evil in the world today? Would some people feel attacked if I had said that about their identity, their way of life? You might be thinking "pfft, no way~ corrupt fat cat kleptocrat banksters are the greatest force for evil in the world today". But potentially, internet skeptics are even more evil than them, because of their arrogant, blind delusion that human "being" does not spread over three planes of existence: physical, mental, and spiritual; and their pushy corridor-mindedness that prevents mystic truth-seekers from expressly articulating their zen. Now, I don't say this about other people, all I'm saying is that this sort of vicious assault against skeptics is similar to the level of verbal violence I feel has been directed against me.Dickmojo (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that "woo woo" or "woo" is a derogatory term, and I do not think it should be used in discussions of "alternative" or "traditional" health/medicine/etc topics here at Wikipedia - we should always assume good faith and not be insulting to those we disagree with. If we think that a practice does not have scientific backing, we should say "It does not have scientific backing", not "It is woo". But that was not your argument and was not the problem - you were explicitly arguing that it is a racist term, which it is not, and you were continuing that line of argument in the face of a lot of clearly explained opposition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy crapola. You're actually contesting this block not once but three times? Okay. If you simply go to the archives of Talk:Homeopathy and type in "woo", you get a f*ckload of posts all the way back to 2008 using the term "woo" to describe homeopathy. WHICH IS GERMAN. GERMAN. Look, I'll even do it for you and provide a helpful link. Your excuses for your behaviour are as pathetic as the initial behaviour itself. Now stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole that you, single-handedly, dug for youself. Maybe with a bit of help from Mindjuicer... Famousdog (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some links
First, this is probably the best link you'll get that addresses the term "woo-woo" or "woo" in the context of skepticism. I looked on google books, but to my surprise there wasn't a clear example. However, Robert Todd Carroll is a pretty good source for this sort of thing.

Second, a substantial reason you're still blocked is the appearance, or reality, of wikilawyering - endless hairsplitting over what was actually meant, without any evidence of understanding why the community dislikes it. This relates to...

Third, the appearance of tendentious editing, specifically the righting of great wrongs. You give every appearance of taking personal affront to acupuncture's effectiveness being doubted. You can feel that all you want - but if you edit talk pages that way, you'll end up...blocked. As I've said many times, wikipeidia is based on the use of reliable sources to verify a neutral summary of the topic in accordance with the relevant expert community. For history and culture, that means historians and sociologists. For medical claims, that means doctors and health researchers publishing in peer reviewed journals. No personal opinion will ever be adequate to edit the main page, and attempting to argue the claim on talk pages is a problem per WP:FORUM. If you provided sources to back your claims, less of a problem. Just providing opinion, beligerently, gets you...blocked.

Fourth, and finally, wikipedia isn't a battleground. Disagreements are resolved through reference to policy, guideline, and above all sources. Arguing over minutea irritates the community at large, which can get you...blocked. Chances are if you'd said (before you used up your three unblock requests) "I'm sorry, I see now it's not a term meant to be racist, my mistake and I'll let it drop" rather than "I was totally misunderstood and I wasn't accusing anyone of being racist and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and people should take the venerable Chinese culture seriously and never criticize it" you'd be able to edit now. Editors are expected to behave like grownups. And not US-senator grownups, real ones.

You can argue with me on these points, but honestly a better approach as far as the community goes would be to simply leave it, or remove it from your talk page (without an edit summary). It's less your specific points that have you blocked now - it's your willingness to hairsplit in ALL CAPS. Take my advice or leave it, I think any experienced editor will agree that it'll get you pretty far in the community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just chime in that the hairsplitting/wikilawyering and your approaching the block like WLU said (in an "I'm misunderstood, don't deserve this block, and y'all are flat wrong" way instead of "I'm sorry, my mistake, I'll move on" way) are a good 90% of the reason I'm not inclined to unblock you. The other 10% is mostly the fact that you've been blocked for the exact same thing before (and recently), which makes me think that you might need a bit longer to get the message since the first block didn't get it across. And no, I won't unblock you if you make another request in "the correct way"; you've pretty much used up your chances for now with your first three unblock requests...try again in a week or so. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * New research concludes that acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine are “more effective than placebo or lifestyle modification in reducing body weight.” http://www.healthcmi.com/index.php/acupuncturist-news-online/496-acpunctureceusweightlossobesity Dickmojo (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So now you're going to use your talk page for promotion of junk research? (Diet and exercise still beat drugs and acupuncture for weight loss, and THAT'S what modern medicine recommends.) That's not what Wikipedia is for, not even talk pages. You are now engaged in advocacy, which is forbidden here. Seriously, you don't seem to have a clue that you're in the editing room of an encyclopedia, not some chat room or discussion forum. You've entered a shark tank, and you're getting similar treatment as this guy because you don't seem able to learn. So far there is no evidence that even beating you senseless with a cluebat will help. I've recommended a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to assemble a list of sources for you to integrate into articles after your ban is over, I suggest you do so in a different section so it doesn't give the appearance BullRangifer discusses. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea, and make sure they are good sources we can use, not just promotional ones. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * $100 says the guy in the video has been banned from WP! That was absolutely terrible; thank god no one fell for it, I'd hate to see that guy get an actual investor. N o f o rmation  Talk  00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I sense a lot of anger in you, BullRangifer... That is good.^^^
 * And thankyou for linking that video, it was excellent viewing. I agree this is the dynamic at play in this situation. But instead of swimming in the shark tank claiming that water cures cancer, all I'm saying is that acupuncture/dry needling is a valid form of therapy. Primarily for tight knots in muscles in peoples backs and necks, and also for nerve pain in the lower back and glute. Especially in combo with tui-na massage, electro-TENS needle stimulation, and On~dan needle-head moxibustion.Dickmojo (talk)
 * So sort of, its like I'm that guy in the vid, but I'd just be that saying that colloidal silver treats stomach ulcer and leaving it there. That proposition may or may not be supported by sound scientific evidence at this stage, but is it not feasible? Since Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren discovered the H.pylori bacteria in 1982, we've known that stomach ulcers are caused by bacterium. And we're also coming to rely on silver more and more in hospitals these days, because we know its an anti-bacterial and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are on the spread. So its quite conceivable, even plausible, that ingesting colloidal silver could inhibit the H.pylori bacteria and aid in the treatment of stomach ulcer.
 * SO the fact that its scientifically plausible for colloidal silver to have such a mechanism, coupled with the fact that people have provided attestation for its efficacy, means that there would have to be some really rock solid proof that it DIDN'T work to over-rule the validity of the first two indicators. If it was proved conclusively that colloidal silver is ineffective within the RTC methodology, well that would over-rule the other evidence. But if there was any ambiguity in the RCT's at all, then you'd have to be persuaded by both the plausibility factor and the narrative evidence combined. 2 out of 3's pretty good.
 * I think you skeptic guys have been thinking about acupuncture the wrong way. No one claims its magic, no one claims it doesn't seek to be placebo. But mind and body are interconnected, body affects mind and mind can affect body. You've got to give to give it a chance... Go for a 6 week session of acupuncture - massage, tell me you don't feel good afterwards, I dare you. You wouldn't, you couldn't; you would know. Don't you ever get sore tight muscles in the neck and back? What causes it? Is it stress which causes that or is it that which causes stress? I don't know, but I know that smoothly rubbing it out, then slide-cup suctioning it over, and then sticking in some slim, sharp needles, with either heat or electrical induction; feels really, really good. You should know what you're about before you say its all placebo. Is hypno-therapy all placebo? Fuck yeah~ and its awesome!Dickmojo (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinions on acupuncture (and I respect the opinions of sekptics), I think you are still misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for people to argue for and against their personal opinions. If every editor here were to go and have some acupuncture and come back feeling great, that would not be enough to change the article one jot! Your personal opinion and experience counts for nothing here, my personal opinion and experience counts for nothing here, the personal opinions and experiences of the editors you are railing against count for nothing here. All that counts is the balance of reliable sources in the real published world. So if you want to add material to the article, find some reliable sources to support it first, then present those sources on the article Talk page (and if there's a dispute as to their reliability, you might be able to get some help at WP:RSN) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well indeed, this is the thing. The skeptics attack my sources, say its "junk research", just because it comes from China, and my assertion is that its the Chinese research that's the BEST quality, and its their Western stuff that's bunk junk science. Why? Because their methodology doesn't account for the variable of skill in an RCT. Every practitioner's skill is different, and the efficacy of the intervention relies exclusively on this variable, yet it is not mentioned or referred to in their research. But in China, the research is being conducted in top level hospitals by top level professors, so we know their skill is high. And also, due to skeptics campaigns against "quackupuncture", significant swathes of the populace also exhibit signs of the nocebo-effect in Western practice, whereas in China no such pernicious influence exists to cloud the minds of the subjects.Dickmojo (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's just continuing the kind of battleground approach that will get you precisely nowhere - your personal assertion is worthless here (as is the personal assertions of others). In this encyclopedia project, there is only one option - you must go by sources that are considered by consensus to be reliable (whether you personally agree with the consensus or not). If you disagree with a consensus on an article Talk page, you can seek help at WP:RSN, and if it doesn't go your way there - tough, life isn't fair, move on, stop wasting your time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well whose consensus counts? Pretty sure if you've asked any body who's ever had acupuncture the consensus is that its efficacious. If you ask the majority of Chinese the consensus is that acupuncture is effective. If you ask an acupuncturist if acupuncture is effective he will concur with the consensus. If you ask the World Health Organisation they will concur with the consensus. If you ask the Federal Government Chinese Medicine Registration Board about acupuncture they will concur with the consensus. In fact, if the ONLY one who wants to dispute the consensus is a sad internet skeptic, or a single German professor on vendetta, why should their voice be heard the loudest? Dickmojo (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whose consensus counts? The Wikipedia consensus on the article Talk page, and if there is a disagreement taken to WP:RSN, the consensus there. Nobody else's consensus makes Wikipedia's decisions. Also it is NOT a consensus of whether acupuncture works that is relevant - it is NOT Wikipedia's job to decide that, and that argument will not be settled here (and should not, in fact, even be discussed). Wikipedia records what the balance of reliable sources say, and a consensus regarding what they say and whether they are reliable is all that we are interested in. You should have a read of WP:Consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a very strong consensus derived from the very large body of Chinese Medicine research conducted in China that is being completely overlooked and overruled by the numerically dominant skeptics on the acupuncture talk page, who autocratically deny every Chinese source out of hand. I read WP:RSN and I specifically noticed that there were no published guidelines to insist that all research done in China is "junk" and that only the research of Edzard Ernst can be trusted.
 * On the strength of the mountain of acupuncture evidence emanating from China, there is no justification for publishing skeptic criticism of acupuncture, because they are only able to maintain their position by ignoring the all the results from all the hard work and research that is being done in China.Dickmojo (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, we're not arguing *about acupuncture* here, about skeptics, about the article itself, or about your actual sources - my discussion with you here is solely to try to get you to understand how Wikipedia consensus regarding reliable sources works and how you need to go about things if you wish to change the article. If you believe you have reliable sources to support your viewpoint, present them on the Talk page and try to gain a consensus - and you can use WP:RSN to seek further help with identifying reliable sources (and WP:RSN is only the noticeboard - WP:RS explains reliable source policy. And no, it doesn't say sources are excluded if they are Chinese - but nobody is arguing that any sources are unreliable *because* they are Chinese). If the Wikipedia consensus supports you, you can add your proposed material. If it doesn't, you can not. It really is as simple as that. If you follow the appropriate procedures, you might or might not get the support you want - but at least you won't get more blocks. But if you carry on with your battlefield approach, and repeatedly make derogatory comments and false accusations against your opponents, this will almost certainly not be your last block. And that really is the end of the friendly advice I'm going to offer you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article can quite reasonably say that the modern Chinese medical community say this about it and Western evidential medicine practice says that. Acupuncture is for instance recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for lower back pain NICE report - Acupuncture starts on p148. And the UK NHS Choices websites notes other studies that suggest some benefits, although as yet not sufficient to warrant recommendation by NICE, for example. There's no reason to use pejorative language about the Chinese philosophical basis for acupuncture, but the article should rightly point out that Western clinical use is not dependent on (and indeed has not found any support for) acceptance of the explanations given in Chinese medicine. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I understand that Boing! said Zebedee, but in fact there is plenty of outright evidence that users are discriminating against some valid research evidence on the acupuncture talk page on the sole basis that that evidence has come from China. For example, on the 16 January, WLU ruled out a very positive recent review of acupuncture research by the National Cancer Institute on the basis that they were "seven articles, all published in China". In fact if we didn't discriminate against the positive evidence that's come from China regarding acupuncture, there would be no grounds for acupuncture skepticism at all, acupuncture skepticism can only exist if it rationalises away all the positive evidence produced in China. Yet here we have an army of internet skeptics, campaigning to have me banned and silenced for even trying to suggest that acupuncture is a valid therapy. Well, if I've been banned from editing on Acupuncture, who will work to stop the discrimination against Chinese sources on the acupuncture talk page?Dickmojo (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that (points to Elen and Boing). There are actually sources pointing out the quality of research on acupuncture coming out of China tends to be lower, and the publishing pattens are different suggesting publication bias - put simply, while trials in the US and UK tend to be quite mixed shading towards the idea that acupuncture is ineffective, not a single trial from China has ever said that acupuncture was ineffective.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Following the discussion at WP:ANI you have been topic banned by unanimous community consensus from editing articles and talk pages within the broad scope of alternative medicine, and specifically (but not limited to) the article on Acupuncture. This ban will last until the 1st of June 2012. Articles and talk pages in other topic areas, as well as WP pages such as AfD, ANI etc may be edited, but I strongly encourage you to edit in a restrained and measured way even here, as there will undoubtedly be many eyes on your edits.Please take this time to edit some other, perhaps less controversial areas of Wikipedia, and build up the community's trust that you can work collboratively with others. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  20:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no grounds for a topic ban on alternative medicine, seeing as though I have never edited an alternative medicine page on wikipedia in my life. Acupuncture is Chinese Medicine, Chinese Medicine is not alternative medicine, it is real legitimate medicine that originated in China and is still used as real, legitimate medicine in all the hospitals in China. Alternative medicine is a different topic, and since I've never even edited an alternative medicine page, it seems a bit rich that I'm now banned from it. To say that acupuncture is alternative medicine is to take an overly Western-centric view on this matter. China is the largest most populous country on earth, and acupuncture is used in China as a mainstream first line intervention in every Hospital in the whole vast country. Now, I've gotten into trouble on here already for asking questions about racism, so I won't do that again, but how can the most mainstream medical intervention in the most populous country in the world be considered "alternative" medicine, unless undue weight is being given to a Western paradigm and an Anglo-centric view of the world is being adopted?


 * Furthermore, this ban seems to exist only for the purpose of silencing dissent and ostracising the outsider. Since I came back from my first ban, all of my actual edits of the main page have been unquestionably valuable contributions that no other editor disputes, and that no other editor was in a position to provide. I improved the quality and verifiability of the main article by updating the professional standards section regarding acupuncture regulation in Australia, and this is the sort of positive edit that there needs to be more of. But no one is in the position to provide these accurate, sourced, verifiable and valuable edits like I am. So in fact, I am actually a good contributor to the main article itself, my only problem is that I don't get along with all the internet skeptics on the talk page, who explicitly see me as being akin to the guy who got toasted in that video Bullrangifer linked above. They think I'm a "snake oil salesman", they think I'm "evil". Well, if they are going to think that about me, and imply that about me, it is very very insulting, you must surely agree. Yet instead of banning them, which would objectively be the more correct course of action, you've seen it fit to ban me! Just for trying to defend myself!


 * Well I reject this decision, although I'm willing to let you attempt to explain how you feel its fair. But at this stage, on the evidence, it seems like you've decided to ban a good editor for deigning to defend himself from the personal attacks of angry internet skeptics like Bullrangifer, famousdog, et al. And I'm not the only person they've done it to. You say that it was a unanimous decision, but I mean the only reason it was unanimous is because the skeptics attacked all my would-be supporters like Mindjuicer and attempted to get them banned too. Now why is this community abiding by these blatant attempts by the skeptics to silence all dissent?


 * There is no justification for this ban as far as I can tell, but I am willing to be instructed if someone could explain it to me. But if its for "disruptive" editing on the talk page, well the principle of Double Jeopardy would seem to be applicable, in that I'm already serving a 2 week ban as punishment, therefore it is not reasonable to impose an extra punishment for the same offence on top of the one I'm already serving. You can't punish me twice for the one crime.


 * So as you can see, there is no justification for this ban whatsoever. I have no interest in alternative medicine, I do not edit alternative medicine articles, but I am interested in Chinese Medicine. In this capacity I am a good contributor, and if I have over stepped the bounds on the talk page, it is only because of the blatant attitude of skeptics like Bullrangifer and famousdog, of which you can see numerous examples of their vehemence against me on this very page itself, just scroll up. If ANYBODY is subjected to this level of vehemence, they must be allowed to defend themselves, but it is the height of injustice to impose excessive penalty on top of excessive penalty, so as just, seemingly, to help the internet skeptics silence all dissent against the overtly derogatory narrative they are trying to weave on that acupuncture page.Dickmojo (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Angry? I'm not angry. Bullrangifer? You angry? Anybody? Famousdog (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not currently banned, you are blocked, which is a different thing. Once unblocked, you must not edit the articles specified in the ban, or you may be blocked again. Whether or not you consider acupuncture "alternative" doesn't really matter, as the ban say "and specifically (but not limited to) the article on Acupuncture." So it's clear that you are banned from that article. You can see the details of the discussion at ANI. (It will be archived from there fairly soon, but I'll be happy to provide you with a link to the archived version when that happens) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you are, famousdog... you have repeatedly told me in aggressive tones to "SHUT UP", "GO HOME", "GROW UP", etc. You continually try to shut down any debate at all on the topic, and how is such an attitude helping to bring out the truth? Debate is essential to any truth-searching endeavour, but when your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who presents a debate to the cherished bien pensant skeptic viewpoint is to vehemently attack them and mercilessly campaign for them to be topic-banned, well then you're evidently not interested in pursuing the truth at all, are you? You're just trying to push your barrow.Dickmojo (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there's nothing I can add to explain the ban that hasn't already been said at AN/I. The decision to ban you was not mine; individual admins do not have the power to ban people. Bans are enacted by the community and my role was limited to making a judgement about consensus. As you'll see from the AN/I discussion, I was not at first convinced that a consensus existed but the eventual weight (indeed, unanimity) of opinion was overwhelming. If you want to know the reasons why the community has banned you, you'll need to re-read the thread at AN/I.


 * I don't for a moment expect this will lead to you agreeing that the ban was reasonable of course - who wants to be banned or to be told they are not wanted! I'm very sorry that things got to this stage, and I can only suggest that if you want to carry on editing here you take this rebuff as a strong stimulus to rethink your tactics. You may believe you're in the right (of course you do, who doesn't!) but thus far the strategy isn't working. To get your point across you're going to have to try a different way of communicating it.


 * I’m not going to post further on the topic here. But I would ask other editors not to indulge in any victory celebrations here. Rubbing salt into this editor’s wounds is not going to improve matters; if you can’t be constructive, please just say nothing. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I read it, the ANI verdict, and I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to defend myself from those untrue allegations and smears that were said against me, but I was silenced already so as to be unable to express my view directly... not a very transparent processDickmojo (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ""Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth" (Proverbs). Losing an editor is never a good thing on WP, though sometimes it's necessary.  DM, I sincerely hope that over the course of your ban you edit other articles and really get a feel for a collaborative editing environment.  As I told MJ, if you do so then you will be welcome back at the acupuncture article.  If you can demonstrate this then I'll join you in appealing your ban early.  Let it be said that starting a WP career on topics like acupuncture never ends well.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, Noformation, when you put it that way, I can accept it. I'll do my best on other articles and in a couple of months time things will probably be different.Dickmojo (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That response is a really good start. :)  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do your best there and you may indeed be welcomed back. We need professionals editing articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring
Would you be interested in taking me on as a quasi mentor? I say quasi because my school schedule leads me to some erratic response times and sometimes I may not be able to answer your questions immediately. Still, I appreciate your enthusiasm here and would like you help you acclimate - I think you can end up being a great editor. If you're not interested I will not be offended in the least and if you'd still like a mentor but perhaps someone you might consider more neutral (or even if you just want a clean start) you can check out WP:ADOPT.

As your mentor I would answer policy questions for you and perhaps point you towards areas of the project where you'd be likely to learn the ropes. WP:MENTOR is an essay about mentoring but it's not that great so let me know if you have any questions. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  20:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks Noformation: I'll take you up on your offer. When I have some questions I'll come to you.Dickmojo (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've enabled email on my account so if you'd like to discuss anything in private you can use the Email Me link on my talk page.  Also, the below post is correct regarding discussing acupuncture, so if there's anything you want to talk about in regards to that we can do so over email and that way you won't get in any trouble with your topic ban.  Since you've accepted me as a mentor and have seemingly agreed to drop the acupuncture conversation I'm going to ask Elen to unblock you.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  21:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dickmojo, I will unblock you. Understand that you may not edit articles on alternative medicine or acupuncture, edit talk pages on these subjects, discuss these subjects at any noticeboard, or on your talkpage or the talkpages of others. Should you have any query as to whether something does or does not breach the topic ban, you can ask me, but the chances are that if you are asking the question it probably does. There are many other areas to edit in this project though, so enjoy editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck editing in other areas, DM. I've found that editing in a less contentious topic can be fun sometimes (places I've been, schools, hiking trails, math/science, etc), so I hope you find it enjoyable too. If you have any questions, and your mentor is not available, you're welcome on my talk page. I'll also second Noformation's offer; if you edit collaboratively in other areas for a while and learn the ropes there, I'll support lifting the topic ban. Good luck, and have fun! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Elen, Jess and Noformation. Much appreciate your advice and support. CheersDickmojo (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck! With good mentoring there is plenty here to do. This place is amazing and one can learn an awful lot about literally anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban
The following needs to be made clear to Dickmojo, as I'm sure he doesn't realize this.

I think it's pretty important to clarify the nature of a TOPIC ban. They are usually used to stop disruption and to give the offender time to gain experience by editing other types of articles and discussing other subjects. Besides being forbidden from editing certain articles, the very "topic" is to be avoided, and that includes all of Wikipedia, including this talk page. The offender must not use Wikipedia to deal with the topic in any manner, and they must not waste the time of other editors in such discussions.

If this normal interpretation isn't followed here, the whole purpose of the topic ban is immediately undermined by allowing continued disruption right here. It also doesn't give Dickmojo time to clear his mind of his erroneous ways of thinking, but instead keeps an unhealthy trajectory maintained and speeding up. There is no hope for healing if Dickmojo is not isolated from the topic for a period of time.

This problem needs to be addressed, or the topic ban immediately lifted as a somewhat futile effort, and a simple ban on editing certain articles, thus allowing disruption to continue anywhere else but those articles. Is this really what is intended? I think not.

Also, the discussions that are continuing on this page reveal no hope of healing and no evidence of an intent to understand the reasons for the topic ban and blocks. Therefore the sanctions need to be stepped up, or simply cut to the chase and hand out a year-long ban/block, including access to personal userspace. Too much time is getting wasted here with an editor who lacks competence to understand how things work here, and who constantly misuses Wikipedia for advocacy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Penfold, shush! No-one is going to hand out a year long block at this point in time. If it turn out that Dickmojo has a real interest in ... gastropods or rock climbing ... and contributes some good stuff, everyone has gained.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Things have definitely taken a turn for the better. The important part of what I wrote (about not discussing these subjects, even on this talk page) are taken care of, so let's go forward and hope that more experience will give us one more good editor. As I've said before to Dickmojo, we need professionals on these articles, and if he can later return to these subjects, it may well be for the betterment of the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
Hi Dickmojo. Please be aware that edits like this will be construed as a violation of your topic ban. You can not discuss or make edits relating to acupuncture anywhere on the encyclopedia, and that includes pages that aren't about acupuncture but mention it. S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 03:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry. I actually realised that after I had done it. I'll steer clear in futureDickmojo (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, just try to be careful. Welcome back.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  05:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Resources
http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/article.php/101/acupuncture_good_for_osteoarthritis_of_the_knee http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22588814

June 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Robert Downey, Jr.. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You just got off your topic ban and you add unsourced stuff like this? Please consider what you're doing here.  Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me '' 15:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Talk:Julia Gillard. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This block has been made per WP:BLPREMOVE. I was involved in the discussion in question, but the edits in question (accusations that a prominent person has engaged in criminal activity) were clearly a serious violation of WP:BLP, and I've responded per the discretion admins have to respond to such material, even when involved. I've revision deleted the comments in question, but any reviewing admin will be able to see them. The duration is set at indefinite in light of the seriousness of what you posted. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I haven't made any "accusations", I have simply outlined the known facts of the matter, as supported by the sources I have listed. They are all Mainstream Media sources. I protest this block. Dickmojo (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not at all true: the claims you were posting go well beyond what the story in The Australian states, and included an unambigious claim of criminality. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, its completely true. I have not used The Australian as my sole source. I have listed 6 or 7 other sources. They are all Mainstream Media sources, and they all concur with the facts of the case, which are undisputed, that <BLP violations redacted>. There are a lot of other details to the matter as well, but these facts are undisputed. If you have a source that disputes it, then fine, lets have it. But if not, then this ban is not warranted, and is unjust, and you have used it as an intimidation tactic to silence me. Dickmojo (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Finally, tossing about allegations of intimidation is completely unacceptable. If you really feel you are being intimidated, reported it. But as far as I can see not one thing that has been said could be interpreted as intimidating. If you think disagreeing with you is an intimidation tactic, then you should reconsider whether your personality is sufficiently suited for participating at Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)"
 * @ Rrius: you don't call abrubtly BANNING me from WP completely for merely trying to gain a consensus on the talk page has to how to include these significant biographical details in our article intimidation? What do you call it then?Dickmojo (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Come on now, for goodness sakes, the story is now the lead story on www.news.com.au.... http://www.news.com.au/national/pm-julia-gillard-refuses-to-answer-allegations-she-resigned-from-a-law-firm-after-of-a-union-scandal/story-fndo4eg9-1226453434111
 * Even the SMH has picked it up now: http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-pm-an-old-flame-and-a-lot-of-smoke-20120818-24f3m.html
 * That Wikipedia has not covered this story so far is a disgrace, and that I was BANNED for trying to gain consensus on how we could cover this story is even MORE of a disgrace!! Dickmojo (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not been banned for "trying to gain consensus on how we could cover this story", you have been blocked (which is not the same as banned) for making unambiguous claims of criminality when so far they have only been alleged and not proven - you must not state criminal allegations as facts, as that is both a violation of BLP policy and potentially libelous. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I received your email, which simply continued your same line of argument - and contained no commitment of the type I requested. Therefore my offer to restore talk page access is rescinded. If you wish to make a further unblock request, you can use the form at the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sending me repeated emails is not going to change my mind, and I am not going to enter into a bout of the kind of battlefield behaviour that is plainly evident on the history of this this talk page. Make a request at Unblock Ticket Request System. Or you could perhaps email the blocking admin - if any other admin wants to reinstate your talk page access they are welcome to do so without consulting me. Any further emails from you will be deleted without being read. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and accusing me of "some petty agenda against me dating back to disagreements regarding my acupuncture edits" is not going to help your case - at the time I declined your unblock request, I had no recollection of the acupuncture issue, above, and had not realised you were the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And one final thing - I did take part in the acupuncture issue earlier, though as I say, I did not remember that at the time I declined the latest unblock request and revoked talk page access. But if any other admin feels I have acted improperly, they are welcome to revert my actions and restore talk page access - no need to consult me first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a review of my actions at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Email
For transparency, I sent this email to DM yesterday. I haven't heard back from him. Hi DM,


 * I'm not an admin, so I can't see the content you contributed which led to your block (as it is now hidden). However, going based on what others have said on this issue, I wanted to take a moment to explain the situation.


 * WP:BLP is a huge policy on wikipedia. It trumps almost all our other policies when it comes to content. If we violate BLP, we open ourselves up to lawsuits, and we can potentially cause major problems for real, actual people in their personal and professional lives. So, we take BLP violations very seriously, and when the policy is violated repeatedly, we have to take immediate and drastic measures to stop it from repeating.


 * As far as I can tell, you were blocked for saying that a person committed a certain crime, when in fact the reliable sources all claim that she allegedly committed a certain crime. That's a very minor difference semantically, but it's one that matters a great deal to us here.


 * The content has now been hidden, so there's no harm being done. The only reason your block is still in effect is because the admins handling your case don't know if you'll keep repeating the same things if they let you back in. That's the same reason your talk page access was revoked... because they think you'll keep repeating the same things on your talk page if you had access to it. Since BLP is such a huge policy, we can't risk that, so they had to temporarily remove any risk of it happening while the situation was explained.


 * I know you're probably really frustrated right now, and the situation seems glim and unfair. That's sort of how blocks always work, and it's unfortunate. But, don't worry; there's a very easy way for you to get unblocked. All you have to do is write a message saying that you understand that BLP is an important policy, and you understand that we cannot represent that a person committed a crime when our sources only cover the allegations of a crime, and that you'll work very carefully to comply with BLP in the future. That's it.


 * As long as the admins handling your case know that you are aware of why they blocked you, and are sure that you won't keep doing the same things that led to the block, they will be delighted to unblock you and let you come back to editing.


 * If you'd like to do that, you can send the message to the blocking admin, or to arbcom, or you can send the message to me and I will post it to the AN thread as your proxy. If you decide you'd rather take a breather instead, that's totally fine too. The offer is always on the table.


 * Good luck!
 * -Jess

&mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)