User talk:Erythema

May 2013
Please avoid word like "libel" and "defamation" when discussing changes to articles. In fact, you should remove them from your existing statement at Talk:Morgellons ASAP. Wikipedia cannot function if users threaten legal actions against other users. As such, any use of such words is not tolerated, and often leads to an indefinite block in short order. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sailsbystars, please read the comment more thoroughly. It was not a treat, nor was it intended to be. It was a comment pointing out WP's own policies of intolerance towards libelous material, please read WP: legal. Tech Bear made a statement harmful to the reputations of both Dove Press and F1000 research, accusing them of poor quality control and of providing reviewers' approval for a price. The fact that Tech Bear's accusations could be viewed in that manner was simply pointed out to Tech Bear, but there was no threat. In fact, you are threatening me with an indefinite block for merely pointing out that another user's statements are in violation of Wikipedia's own policy. I was pointing out that such behavior that is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia and I based my statements on what I've read in WP guidelines and policy statements. In fact according to WP:legal if anyone feels that a libelous statement has been made against them they can report it. Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding of the policy, should either Dove Press or F1000 Research happen to come across Tech Bear's comments, they could report this on the Help talk page and Tech Bear's comment would be deleted. Please note that the Morgellon's talk page guidelines urge WP users to be "polite" and "welcoming" to new users. Erythema (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)erythema


 * I cannot reverse your libelous accusations of libel, because of a network (proxy) problem. However, Tech Bear's statements are pretty much accurate, and "new" users frequently show up on this article saying exactly the same thing as other "new" users.  You may be a new user, but it's not the way to bet on this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a new user, so please forgive my lack of knowledge. Do you mean to tell me that Wikipedia policy actually allows and supports a user to make unsubstantiated harmful statements about a medical press or other businesses and organizations? I read WP:legal and it did not seem to suggest that it is OK to make such accusations. Perhaps if you could point me to the rule or policy that indicates I have done something contrary to WP policy, then I could better understand. I only pointed out that Tech Bear's comments were defamatory and could be perceived as libelous. I did not threaten to take any legal action against him/her. In fact there is no way that I could. He/she did not direct the comment to me. Please read WP: libel . It says, and I quote, " It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. My interpretation of this policy is that it is my duty to identify such material. Perhaps Tech Bear's comments really should be deleted. Furthermore, is it my imagination or are you now accusing me of libel? I really would like to better understand where you are coming from. If you can provide me with some evidence it will help. Please cut and paste some regulations or quote from WP policies. Thanks for your patience as I am very new at this.Erythema (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Erythema
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but the user sierraparis is no sockpuppet of mine. I know you'd have liked that to be the case, so you could block me, but I haven't a clue who that user is. Can you not focus on the task we are supposed to do? Erythema (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Almost everyone who contributes here gets accused of being a sockpuppet at some point.  (I've been accused at least twice myself, I think).  Until evidence is provided at an official investigation, such tags are meaningless and only serve to inflame existing tension.  That said, your editing may eventually come to an end anyway for other reasons, but for now sockpuppetry isn't one of them.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it. I really do not understand why I am being threatened with being blocked when I am honestly trying to follow WP policies to the letter. I have been continuously threatened and treated with hostility. I have tried to respond in a non-heated and objective manner, although I confess that it has been difficult. I have made it very clear that I am not asking for anything other than objective and thorough examination of relevant medical literature, and that an unbiased article be written by examining evidence from all relevant POVs. I am new to WP and to this page. I can see looking through the history that some of you have been involved with this subject going back to 2006. I am being very sincere right now when I say that as a new comer all of your resistance makes little sense to me. I honestly cannot understand your logic. I can't believe all the fuss about adding one small paragraph on a significant minority POV, and the failure to recognize that there are double standards of policy in terms of evidence applied the difference sides of this debate.Erythema (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a regular volunteer at DRN. I'd like to encourage you to either make an opening statement at that discussion as soon as possible or indicate there that you will not be participating. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is to let you know that I have closed the discussion, judging the clear consensus to be that you should be banned indefinitely (not necessarily permanently) from editing within areas covered by WP:MEDICINE. This includes talkpages, project pages and the like as well as articles. Please see this page for more information on what a ban means, how it can be overturned and so on. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom
I'm a brother of InLoveNoi, the original mediator of the DRN you had participated.

InLoveNoi have read the DRN and "Final opinion and closing comments" which is actually a kind of judgment.

In InLoveNoi's opinion, the DRN wasn't handled correctly and Transporterman has no authority of issuing what seems like a judgment. DRN suppose to be informal mediation platform that should help editors to come into agreement.

"Mostly when I bring up a valid point there is no response at all. I am a new user and WP indicates I should be welcomed and treated with patience. Instead I have been bullied and treated with hostility. " - That is exactly what InLoveNoi experienced when he tried to edit Colloidal Silver in his retired account "Ryanspir". And, you and him are not alone. There are dozens of editors on that article alone, and many more who tried to add "alternative" information who have received such a treatment and expressed the very same concerns. For example, you can read the archives of the Medical Uses of Silver going back to 2006 and see many editors that felt the very same way you do.

InLoveNoi is currently blocked and his unblock request is being reviewed, therefore he cannot post on your talkpage, but you can post on his and read his responses there.

His recommendation, is that you are advised to see Arbcom intervention/judgment. Arbcom stands for Arbitration Committee and their decisions are final.

That could be done in two directions:

1) To be rendered a judgment on inclusion of the specific information to the Morgellons article that you think ought to be there.

2) To voice your grievances over how you (and perhaps other minority editors) are being treated naming the specific editors/admins and the whole situation that surrounds such a treatment.

The situation is following:

Currently on many medical and alt. medical articles the majority of the participating editors are those who are holding conservative views. Usually, there are one to a few editors on those articles who would like to include non-conservative information. Normally, such information should be included per WP:WEIGHT.

However, what happens, that the conservative editors are unwilling for such information to be included and because they dominate, they use their number and power alongside different tactics in order not to allow such information to be included. That includes, but not limited to: blocking, warnings, carrot and stick approach, DRN discussions and actual reverts. For any change the minority editor will do, there are several majority editors who will revert, so the minority editor rendered with a choice of either entering WARRING or DRN. Then again, they dominate the DRN, the reviewing volunteers side with them, and they are supported by the admins because they know each other well and are on good terms with each other. The minority editor is then viewed as a nuance and disturbance and sanctions follow to those who doesn't surrender or abide.

They disregard all alt.medicine as quack medicine. Ryanspir for example posted more than 20 PUBMED primary and SECONDARY reliable sources and information from NONE of them was included. He was also previously blocked by an admin for sock-puppetry a few months ago DESPITE CheckUser's suggestion that he is not. He appealed successfully and was unblocked, however he is yet to receive any apology from the Admin who placed that absolutely wrong block. It's absolutely clear that the Admin had abused her power.

Since the above illustrated majority editors are suppressing the information they don't like, they are committing intentional disruptive editing aimed on propagandizing the information that is complaint with their personal views and beliefs. The admins who support them are also committing disruptive editing by facilitating. The Arbcom can be asked to block and ban editors and admins who are committing and facilitating disruptive behavior. BrotherNoi (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)