User talk:Klocek

Welcome everyone! Feel free to post here and ask me any questions that you might have. I hope I can be of some assistance.

Discretionary sanctions notice: Pseudoscience

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but it doesn't appear that their decision impacts any edits I will be making. Thanks! Klocek (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are controversial and definitely do cross the line of what's covered by the "discretionary sanctions" mentioned above. I suggest you be VERY careful or you'll get blocked, regardless of whether you're right or not. We edit collaboratively here, and that means we don't always get our personal edits accepted. It's no fun, but that's the way it works here. For your information, I'm going to add a template below with some links and instructions. I suggest you read it very carefully. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation: the cabal of sceptics has noticed that you pose a threat to their monopoly on Wikipedia viewpoints and, being the thugs we are, we will do everything we can to force you into submission, including coordinated tag team reverts of your edits and trying to scare you into not making posts at all by unjustifiably threatening you with blocks or bans if you do. Klocek (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What other accounts have you used before this one? Your paranoia sounds very familiar and doesn't address the problems with your editing and lack of collaboration. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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.

I suggest you follow BRD and discuss your controversial edits on the talk page. Only after you get consensus will they be accepted. Trying to force your changes into the article, even if you're right, will not work. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've never made an edit on the acupuncture page, but all of a sudden, out of nowhere, you come along and do so, along with several others who've never cared to edit there before. All within seconds. What a coincidence, I mustn't go outside today for I'm likely to be stuck by lightening. Klocek (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That article has been on my watchlist for many years. At the top of my watchlist is this notice: "You have 9,565 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have edited far more pages than that. Lots of other editors have it on their watchlists as well, so it's no coincidence when others appear, seemingly from nowhere. When there is activity on the article, especially if it's controversial, many editors make their appearance. Lately it's mostly been professional acupuncturists trying to whitewash the article of anything negative, regardless of how well sourced. (We know who they are because when they first appeared they admitted they were recruited professional acupuncturists. Some of them are also teachers of acupuncture.) -- Brangifer (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Please only use review articles that are pubmed indexed. Also this page WP:MEDHOW will help you with formatting. Additionally the journal "medical hypothesis" has been deemed to not be a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That particularly applies to strong medical claims and other scientific facts, per WP:MEDRS. Read that too. Other types of material, including notable opinions, don't need to be from review articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Steiner bio

I appreciate your intent, but conciseness and clarity are paramount. An "epistemological struggle for truth" is what everyone is engaged in. It seemed to me that the wording, "an inner struggle" is clearer. I hope you don't mind that I reverted to the original wording.

By the way, I'd be happy to help you find your feet here. You can email me by wiki-email, see my user page for the link to do so...I think under the User tab at the top. Perhaps I can help you weather the storms! HGilbert (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Acupuncture. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked because someone feels like I'm another user named DVMt. I don't know what else to say, but no evidence was presented that I could see regarding this. If there's something else I need to do, please whoever reads this, let me know, I'm excited to start editing again. Klocek (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

I'm the one that upgraded the block. I may have misidentified the sock master, but there's no way that this is anything but a sleeper account. 10 edits in a burst the day of account creation, an eight-year gap, and then leaping in to restore the edits of another account that I blocked doesn't lead to any other conclusions.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"then leaping in to restore the edits of another account that I blocked doesn't lead to any other conclusions." Whose edits, specifically, are you claiming I restored? I don't recall restoring anyone's edits. Klocek (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend dropping the extended ban, which seems unreasonable on several grounds.

1. Many of his edits seem completely innocuous.
2. After the 48-hour block, the first this user has ever had, he made no further edits, much less any which would justify an upgrade of the block. It seems reasonable to give the user a fair chance to forge a more collegial working style (i.e. discuss on talk page rather than edit war).
3. The suggestion that this is a sleeper account seems to me to be completely baseless. Enthusiastic editing after a period of uninvolvement with WP is not in itself remarkable or extraordinary and is certainly not proof of anything like sock puppetry. HGilbert (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but eight years? Can you explain why you came back now? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was I guess what you call a lurker since the early 2000's. I think it took me a full six years before I even made a post! That's just how I am. Besides, I'm really busy and don't have much time for Wikipedia editing. But recently I had surgery and, during my recovery, have had nothing else to do but sit at home and try and make edits to some pages I think really need it. If I had known it was a wikipedia crime to take so much time off from editing, I probably would've just created a new account!Klocek (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Now there are two sleeper accounts which have been revived for editing Acupuncture, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh so that's how wikipedia handles these claims? Very interesting! I made a joke earlier about "wikipedia crime" but there is actually something like a Wikipedia court! Anyway, thanks Tgeorgescu for submitting my name on my behalf!Klocek (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted your name because strange stuff was going on, so I had a reasonable suspicion that sockpuppetry was happening. It might turn out as an occasion to clear your name. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)