Archives

ME/CFS

Useful essays

• WLU's essay for beginners
• Wikipedia:Shunning

User:Orangemarlin on Christmas Eve, 2007: "I think giving good faith is not getting us far. I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it."

Regarding your query on the admin talk noticeboard, could I be of assistance? Addhoc (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes. Can I mail you? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sorry for not replying earlier. Addhoc (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vereniging Basisinkomen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied in part from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Orangemarlin (2)

Guido: I read over the RFC discussion in Talk:Fibromyalgia and the subsequent edits in the article itself, and I see evidence to support other editors' claims against you. I believe that OrangeMarlin was in his right to revert your edit as in the first diff above ("response to votestacking"), as he cited the RFC in his revert summary. That does not appear to be aggression or personal-attack behavior to me.

In the RFC, you were asked multiple times to explain your reasoning that the sources everyone else agreed upon didn't support the text in the article, and as they put it, you stonewalled. As a result, they were in their right to move forward as per WP:CONSENSUS, and your actions after that point appear to have been disruptive. You did bring up some good points, but when asked to back up your points with citations, I did not see you do so.

Keep in mind that continuing to make edits against consensus after consensus has been reached, without properly explaining your reasoning, is considered disruptive and causes most editors to stop assuming good faith. If you make an edit in the article and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take it to the Talk page, even if it has already been discussed before. But keep in mind that the onus is on YOU to sway consensus through logical discussion and good, reliable sources.

More if necessary later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about a consensus being reached on Fibromyalgia, and also to claim that I failed to provide sources. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, where I have explained things multiple times.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looked to me like a consensus had been reached. The people you mentioned as dissenting from consensus were quoted back to you with what they said, and none of those statements appeared to be disagreements to the overall consensus - just suggestions on how to change the text improve the presentation in the article. You appeared to be the only one asserting that the sources didn't back up the article text at all. And you kept referring to ICD-10, but I fail to see how that supports your assertions - that is just a list of codes, and without referring to something specific about that article, I doubt other people - even people who are well-versed on the subject - could be expected to know what part of it you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonetheless therefore untrue to claim that I didn't provide a source, and I have explained in full why this source is important and what the difference is. You may have missed the earlier discussion.

Yes, they were quoted back, but these quotes related to the text put forward in the RFC, not to the text inserted by Djma12, and even then do not constitute consensus since two other votes were left out. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, consensus does not equal a vote. Please go back and read the policy again to ensure you're completely familiar with it. What I saw was a repeated sequence of you stating that the sources were invalid, people asking you WHY they were invalid, and you pointing at a very vague answer with no further explanation. Other editors did not accept that response and continued on without you. Looking back at the earlier discussions, you were asked to support your viewpoint and you claimed that you didn't need to, despite the fact that the general consensus was that the content was well-established and cited. So your using the ICD as a source was deemed "not good enough" by the other editors, even when the RFC went through. (Continuing to point at that source and say "See? I did provide a source!" isn't going to help when the source, such as it is, has not been shown to support your claim.)

Honestly, I think Djma was right. There are far more editors supporting the text that you kept removing than there are supporting your side of the argument. Turning around and accusing those editors of being on the attack against you isn't helping your case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Nothing in your description of events is even remotely accurate; you are building a house of cards with no foundation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only calling it as I see it. If you can point to specific instances of things you said and did that contradict what I'm saying, please do so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start here, where I refer to and explain the ICD10: [2][3] [4][5] Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, I think you are confusing the principle of consensus with "if I am right and the others are wrong then I have a veto right". You haven't. Obviously this is a problem, but it cannot be avoided because so often the other side is also convinced of being right. Incidentally I don't even think think your arguments are valid. I know nothing about the disease(s) you were discussing, but a classification designed by a committee of WHO bureaucrats doesn't strike me as a good argument against scientific studies. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of the ICD and of WHO sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics." [6] So it's not to make diagnoses more exact, it's not even to make the mortality statistics more exact, it's only to make them more comparable. You are trying to use it for something it was not designed to do. The others should have spent more time to explain this to you, but a lot of expert editors suffer from burnout, so the failure seems to be excusable.--Hans Adler (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonetheless a source that represents international consensus, for that is what the classification is based on. Further, there is also a WHO treaty, which implies that the WHO classification must be followed. Listing a somatic disease as a psychiatric disorder is a violation of that treaty.

However, all of this is just another layer to the house of cards, which was built on the assertion that I did not provide a source, period. When that assertion could not be maintained, it was asserted that I didn't explain the source. Now that I provided the edits of where I did explain it, it is asserted that my explanation should have been countered. I wonder what will be next. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are building a house of cards as you say, it must be a pretty good one, because I don't see it collapsing just yet. I read the entire discussion from which you took your most recent diffs, and that was what I was referring to above when I said that you did not adequately explain how the ICD contradicts the text in the article. The assertion from Djma and other editors was that the ICD did not directly contradict what was being said, nor did the other sources being provided, and that the scope of the ICD and WHO treaty did not apply to the contested text in the article. IMO, while you did argue against that point, you didn't explain what made the ICD stand out above the other sources.

Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should always contain a balanced point of view. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition, and research is still being done on it. As such, it's not something that anyone can firmly classify as one type of disease or another, since the leading scientists on the subject don't fully understand and cannot agree on its causes. It is fully appropriate for the article to mention the different points of view, with their own sources, in a way that gives equal weight to all the relevant points. You need to ensure that by deleting text and discrediting some sources, you're not putting undue weight on just one point of view. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I must have missed all these arguments.

You are still missing the entire issue, however, which is (1) that Djma12 singled out this one theory of many to put in the lead, without any argument whatsoever, while it is already mentioned elsewhere in the text, and (2) that he misquoted the source. It is Djma12 who should provide evidence of weight, not I who should provide evidence against it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what exactly am I missing? The lead paragraph in question clearly stated multiple points of view. It did not single out any one in specific, and I checked out the web-linked sources and didn't see anything contradictory in them. If anything, the biggest problem with the lead paragraph is that it's difficult to follow due to the way it's worded, but the substance of the paragraph seems to be quite intact, to the point, and balanced. I still fail to see what your problem is with it - the fact that fibromyalgia is poorly understood and presents inconsistently in research is quite significant and is a point worthy of the lead. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just in case this comes up: I am not a doctor and do not have a medical background, but I have several family members who have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, know several more people with the condition, and have done a fair amount of my own research to try to understand it. As such, I am aware of the state of current research into the topic and I understand what most of the terms being used mean, in context. I do have a strong background in psychology, and I have also done quite a bit of research into my own medical conditions (fibromyalgia not being one of them). Not meaning to try to intimidate you or anything - just want to let you know that I'm not just talking out of my rear here. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not easily intimidated, as you may have noticed. :-) I've done my share of scientific research before I went ill (with ME, that is).

The current lead paragraph is not by Djma12. Dr. Anymouse edited it last and did a much better job, IMHO. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to address the version that you had been deleting. As it turns out, I can see how that earlier version could be problematic, but I disagree that the sources were in direct contradiction - the more scientific terms used in the current version basically mean the same thing, just more elaborately stated, but I do also agree that the current version provides more context and balances the paragraph better. I'd suggest that making the lead easier to read while keeping the same substance of content would strike the best of both worlds. I'd also suggest that a key takeaway from this is that the content can usually be improved, rather than simply deleted.

In any event, we got pretty far off-topic from the WQA. Do you understand what was going on in the Wikiquette side of things? It's very easy to mix content issues with civility issues. As Cheeser1 stated, Orangemarlin is re-examining his own behavior, and he's been informed of the fallacy of some of his statements about you. Most likely, I think he was just getting frustrated over the situation and chose to lash out at you in an unproductive way - such things happen, and it's not necessarily because anyone has a vendetta against you or anything. I don't think Cheeser1 himself did anything wrong toward you, and I do think that your WQA against him was premature and inappropriate. This is, of course, just my opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content issues and civility issues are often related. The root of this problem is, that Orangemarlin sees me as a fringe advocate while he considers himself and his friends to be the appointed guardians against fringe, and he believes that in that capacity there are no rules of conduct. This is, however, solely based on his content belief as a cardiologist that my illness is not genuine. That made him to see my edits on Chronic fatigue syndrome in this light, and from then on there were no breaks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic fatigue syndrome. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of reverts over the past 25 hours:

• 06:20, 15 January 2008
• 12:49, 15 January 2008
• 14:56, 15 January 2008
• 16:24, 15 January 2008
• 17:27, 15 January 2008
• 06:41, 16 January 2008
• 06:48, 16 January 2008

Please cease edit warring immediately and revert to the last version. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The threatening editwar is why I have initiated two RfC's. The diffs you mention pertain to several unrelated issues, so I have no clue what you mean by 'the last version'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the last version before you had reverted, per WP:3RR. I have already completed the revert. Edit warring is disruptive, even if you believe you have an upper hand; initiating two RfC's is immaterial if you are continuing to revert every user's edits. As such, WP:AN3#User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: ). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply I conclude that you have not looked at the content. I do not 'revert every user's edits'. I suggest that you withdraw your report and revert your own edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not done anything that warrants a block. A 3RR report was filed against me, but from the diffs it is quite obvious that I have not even violated 2RR. I am not editwarring; indeed I have started RfC procedures which are running excellently. This block now completely disrupts the RfC procedures which are conducted in good faith by everyone involved, and therefore serves no purpose. Blocking admin seems to think that a block is some kind of penalty. It is not.

Decline reason:

The diffs and the edit history show a clear violation of WP:3RR, which clearly states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Unless overridden by another admin, block will remain in effect for the full 48 hours. Please take this time to review the policies and ensure that you are familiar with them. — — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Addendum: please note that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a controversial topic which has been tagged as a very long article, and recently editors jointly decided on a major overhaul. Many recent reverts are mostly done to help each other separate the good from the bad and are in fact helpful to keep the overhaul going. If I didn't think so, I would have reported several other users for 3RR which is almost daily violated when taken literally, i.e. if reverts in different sections are stacked. None of us sees it that way though, as with the article being so long that simply doesn't seem right. We are making extensive use of the talk page to sort out any issues. There is no editwar here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm consulting with the blocking admin. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note on the respective talk page regarding the block and how I became involved. To abbreviate, it was through WP:WQA where I volunteer my time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that WP:WQA may not be a good starting point to get involved, since it gives you a skewed view, as seems apparent from you invitations to others previously involved in WP:WQA to 'join the club'.[7][8]

The starting point should IMHO always be the article, i.e. leave it to the editors to file a report or not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@KieferSkunk: I don't understand why you interfere while another admin is already consulting. You also seem to miss what the purpose of a block is, and are in fact not replying to my arguments at all. There are 2 RfC's and many users suffering from this block. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. KieferSkunk is correct, though, that even unrelated reverts are covered by 3RR, so you did technically violate it. Nonetheless, the obvious spirit of 3RR is to prevent edit warring, and since the lines of discussion are open and no other editors of the article were complaining, it doesn't seem right to have a block here. However, Guido: please do slow down your editing a bit. There's a dispute in place on a few issues, maybe it would be better to do a bit more discussing, try to settle some points, before making so many edits. Also, I'd avoid using the undo tool so much, because you seem to be using it a lot and it can make your actions harder to follow. Mangojuice^talk 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Any admin, other than the original blocking admin, can review an unblock request. I see that you have been unblocked, so my decision was overruled. Good luck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mangojuice. More discussion was exactly what I was thinking when I opened the RfC's. What would you advise instead of using the undo tool? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The undo tool is suboptimal for two reasons. First, it doesn't give a useful edit summary, so when there are multiple things going on at once, people have to actually look at your edit to determine what you undid. It doesn't even specify what section your changes are in. If you must use it, I'd advise replacing the edit summary with your own, when you have reasons that need explaining. Second, every edit done with the undo tool is a revert, and reverts tend to not make progress in a dispute. For instance, you have used reverts to try to not remove the term "outbreak" from the article. In doing that you not only put "outbreak" back in, you also removed a paragraph stating that the CDC says there are no confirmed outbreaks, replacing it with the previous paragraph saying that there are outbreaks. Without saying what is best, I will note that there are compromises between the two extremes, and suggesting a compromise is vastly better than reverting. Mangojuice^talk 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the aitoblock is still in place:

"You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Tariqabjotu for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Guido den Broeder". The reason given for Guido den Broeder's block is: "Edit warring: on Chronic fatigue syndrome".

This block has been set to expire: 18:51, 17 January 2008.

If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address."

I am not on a shared IP address. Can someone lift the autoblock? Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions here. - Revolving Bugbear 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mangojuice^talk 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, for the record, you technically broke the 3RR because multiple reverts on the same page, even of separate issues, are covered by the 3RR. The 3RR is meant to prevent edit wars. No one from the CFS article complained about your actions, but I will note that if they had, I would never have unblocked you. And it seems to me that the situation is tense enough over there that one of them might well complain just out of irritation. When you look at it that way, your actions could have led to a totally justified block, depending entirely on how other people responded. So, don't continue to behave that way or you will be blocked for longer and longer periods. Mangojuice^talk 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely academic, since if the situation was such that involved editors were inclined to complain, they would first have issued a warning, and I would not make more than 3 reverts. Of course, they themselves would then also have needed to slow down, as they would have reached this limit first. The real and only problem here is uninvolved editors who suddenly make massive reverts, including undisputed material. I'd like to see that addressed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "I can do whatever I want so long as the people I'm irritating don't say anything about it." Guido, when are you going to realize that an editor does not have to be actively involved in the content discussion to find your behavior offensive? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]