User talk:CristieJ

CristieJ, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CristieJ! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, CristieJ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Crystal healing does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Crystal healing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. don't try to intimidate me, I will report your article contributions to show it was clearly biased in language and tone and the comments left by others who (like me) questioned the validity of your intentions, no one said that Crystal healing was a science you are not informing people, you need to instead have your (opinions) blog if you are not going to educate people on crystal healing but instead do an opinion editorial on what is considered 1) pseudo science and science vs crystal healing 2) this wikepedia article you wrote has NOTHING to do with educating people on what exactly is crystal healing, instead it is thinly disguised as a critical review of the subject matter at hand and your biases against the practice of it. It's a form of censorship and you think people don't catch on to what you did. CristieJ (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where you have been reported for edit warring. thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter please see this author Roxy, the dog. continues to violate the terms and guidelines by revisions. I reported NPOV and POV Check and he chose to revert this. This is NOT OKAY please check the history of this article: [[1]]

I am reporting this situation on the basis the edit wars reported initially violated Neutral View NPOV and POV Check clause because the person in question did not want me to actually edit his extremely biased content. NPOV dispute CristieJ (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:09, 29 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

In dispute for editorial bias, gender cohort bias, request for arbitration, Admins not properly viewing the history and editorial contribution of my content and allowing the other user to revert my content without due process then reporting me for edit wars, lack of full review of content which was flagged for violating guidelines for pseudo-science and comparisons CristieJ (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because of your own actions and not what others did. Only you can control your behavior. You clearly edit warred; to be unblocked early you will need to explain that you understand WP:3RR and tell what steps you will take to properly address an editing dispute. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2018 (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.

(edit conflict) I'd made some comments, so I'll add them anyway... I see clear edit-warring, and that is not allowed even if you are right about the content (on which I have no opinion). And there is no "due process" needed for someone to revert your edits - the onus is on you, the person making the changes, to justify them by consensus, not on the person or persons reverting you. When changes you make are reverted, you should seek consensus via discussion and not repeat them until you get that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of a chat

Hi CristieJ, I'm User:Girth Summit. I followed what happened earlier today over your edits at Crystal healing. I can see that you're passionate about the subject, and while I'm not a very experienced editor myself, I can also see why you got blocked. If you'd like to chew over what happened, discuss how things work around here (especially around subjects that touch on medical areas), and talk about how to avoid any repeat event, I'd be happy to engage in a friendly chat. You can reply here, or on my talk page.Girth Summit (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE REQUESTED ARBITRATION ON THIS MATTER ADMIN ABUSE

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).

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

Request reason:

1. I edited the article that was claiming pseudoscience in the first place this is not correct and is based on these grounds: CONTENTIOUS LABELING: [[2]] there was clear bias written in the article previously that I was seeking to make editorial changes (which were reverted) and I am requesting that the content of the article is reviewed by the Arbitration board which I submitted formally and still request as my right. I softened the language of Crystal Healing in the first line of the article from claiming it was pseudoscience on the basis it lacked EQUAL WEIGHT, it did not do a good job of assuring various broad applications or understanding of what is Crystal Healing before it targeted the subject as pseudoscience or on the basis of a Fringe theory excerpt: [[3]] In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence (THIS IS MY DISPUTE, IT WAS NOT DONE IN MY OPINION IN PROPORTION WITH PROMINENCE), a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. 2) I understand the edit war guidelines and I will seek consensus for my changes HOWEVER I do think there is clear editorial bias previously made by those I wish to gain consensus which is WHY I a asking for the article to be reviewed by and preceding actions against me to be reviewed by the arbitration board on it's own grounds that it is biased in itself, regardless of my editorial actions, which I acknowledge and will try to work in the guidelines in the future. Yes. 3) I also would like review on potential Admin bias and seek UNBIASED THIRD OPINION on the grounds of third NEUTRAL PARTY is applied: Wikipedia:Third_opinion CristieJ (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've just had a look over your edits to Crystal healing. And, without taking sides on the truth of the matter, the big problem is that you rewrote large parts of it to present one particular take on the subject without providing any sources at all - not one single source, just your own unsupported words. And you were adding editorializing, in the form of presenting opinions/arguments in Wikipedia's voice - for example, "It's noted that such criticism could be biased, or skewed, due to...", "...spending scientific-backed funds, time and resources to vehemently debunk Crystal healing", "Some critics, could say that...", "Some skeptics want to challenge this notion of using Crystals as a healing medium by saying it's 'pseudo-science' but...". Essentially, you changed it to be an editorial piece supporting Crystal Healing. None of that is acceptable, as a Wikipedia article absolutely should not present its own analysis or judgment in that way. And no, there is no admin abuse here, and the Arbitration Committee is not relevant here as it does not judge article content. Your unblock requests will be reviewed by uninvolved admins, and any article content dispute will be decided by editors at the article talk page. You're welcome to email the Arbitration Committee to ask if you want, but you'll get the same answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2018 (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.

I'll just add that Girth Summit's offer of help above is very kind. At the moment you are only blocked for 24 hours, and you should seriously consider taking up that offer when the block expires (or even before then, here on this talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another point. You say you want to seek a WP:Third opinion, but on that page it clearly says "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." (emphasis in original). The talk page discussion had only been going for less than an hour, and there are not only two editors involved, there are three - you and two others who disagree with you. This is not remotely at the stage for escalation beyond talk page discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me Appeal Requested

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).

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

Request reason:

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) I have requested an appeal on this matter. YES, if I am unblocked, YES, I will abide and adhere to properly citation guidelines and seek to discuss my viewpoints on the article with the other editors as needed but I cannot do so if unfairly blocked for edit warring when I was just trying to edit first the article which was on the grounds of contentious labeling which is legitimate. This is why I have asked the arbitration committee to intervene on ADMINS who did not allow me the opportunity to respond before choosing to block me and made unfair assumptions that I am trying to negate the processes. YES, I am a new editor but I also disagree as a new editor on the grounds too of contentious labeling bias by the editors in question. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You promise to abide by our policies if unblocked, however further in your appeal you claim you've been unfairly blocked and that an ArbCom intervention is warranted. That is a clear demonstration that you don't actually understand our policies and therefore can't comply with them. Max Semenik (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2018 (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.

You had several warnings, here on this talk page, before you were blocked. As you failed to heed those warnings, there's only one person to blame for your block. I'm going to give you what I think is an important piece of advice here - drop the confrontational attitude, stop attacking everyone else, and listen to those with far more experience than you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) I have already stated I will agree to follow guidelines set by wikipedia, as stated is required by the original block request on wikipedia grounds, NOT your arbitrary opinions of my attitude or your biases and opinion that I am not listening which is authoritarian in nature. I have the right to question ADMIN on these grounds of opinions of attitude and shows you are trying to punish me for not agreeing with your opinion by blocking me. Sorry but that is what you are doing. I have already said I would agree to WIKIPEDIA guidelines when editing the article in question, I just don't agree with your contentious viewpoint of me in general. I said it already 4 times I will abide by WIKIPEDIA guidelines! And on these grounds I should be unblocked. I also call the rule of Third Opinion because clearly your opinion of me is BIASED at this point. CristieJ (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you seem to be saying that the opinions of other users are arbitrary but yours isn't? You've also already been told that Third Opinion is not appropriate for what you want for the simple fact that more than two people are involved in your dispute. I've already reviewed above so I won't again, but I would not support your being unblocked early. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) 1) Let's put all this aside "opinions" discussion aside, the original block is to say I must agree with abiding by edit warring 3 revert rule and I do agree, yes. On these grounds I should be UNBLOCKED. 2) at this point I have requested arbitration of Administrative actions, yes I have. 3) I am an editor on the page and I will seek consensus or until the conversation is exhausted but I have called in question the article itself stands on contentious labeling. 4) Unblock me as I have agreed to the terms from the original block. That is the guidelines of the edit warring parameter rule, I already stated I will agree and abide that is the initial grounds and on that grounds I should be unblocked. CristieJ (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your combative attitude is not going to be ignored. Any administrator who reviews your request must be assured that you will not be disruptive. Your attitude does not inspire confidence in that area. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC) this is why I have asked for Arbitration, I am trying to be unblocked you said I had several warnings on the page, how many warnings is several on the page exactly quantifies for me to be blocked? So yes, I have asked for Arbitration review on these grounds. I just want to edit the article. I will use citations and review with the other editors on the page, but the baseline of the article that is published is based on contentious labeling regardless. CristieJ (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not entitled to any certain number of warnings. You may be blocked after any number of warnings or even no warnings if it is judged to be necessary. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) This is exactly why I am asking for arbitration, your opinion that I am being disruptive when I simply do not agree with your opinions is questionable. The standards of Third Opinion were not fully applied either by these guidelines, noted here: Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute. [[4]]I feel the blocks were punitive in nature on these grounds, I am being labeled and construed as argumentative: [[5]] I have already said I would abide by editorial wikipedia guidelines.... which is more than fair request. Thank you for your time. CristieJ (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't seem to be too keen on hearing advice from me, but here's one other thing that I suggest you need to do when this block expires (or if it ls lifted early). You clearly are in a minority of one against two in that discussion at Talk:Crystal healing regarding what you call "contentious labeling". Now, content disputes are not decided merely on a simple head count, but it does mean you do not currently have consensus for changing the "labeling". So do not change the "labeling" again, with or without sources, before getting a consensus on the talk page first. Present your argument and your sources on the talk page, discuss it in a civil manner (without, for example, calling another good-faith editor a troll) and wait for a consensus to develop - and only then, if you get a consensus supporting your proposed change, can you make the change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your complaints about not following the WP:3O guidelines are spurious, because a WP:3O appeal is not in progress - and you have been told by two different people why it is not applicable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) and 331dot (talk) to you both; I have already said I agree to the guidelines if unblocked. At this point it's considered excessive and punitive. And that is why I seek review and arbitration of Admins actions. I have agreed 6 times+ already noted in multiple threads and still I am blocked. That is punitive and questionable abuse of Admin privileges. Your tone is not helpful but condescending telling me over again what I did wrong; without addressing that I already said I would abide by the guidelines shows clear bias in this matter and you both are not the right person(s) to talk with to listen to me fairly... I also cannot exercise third option guidelines because I remain BLOCKED. Which again appears punitive despite my agreement to the terms. Thanks. CristieJ (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two administrators(who have already reviewed this) have decided not to exercise their admin powers in this situation in good faith is not abuse and not an indication of bias against you. If another chooses to unblock you, fair enough, but I do not support that. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one last point and then I'll leave it. When reviewing an unblock request, an admin is not obliged to consider only the specific reason for the block (in this case edit warring) but is also expected to consider the wider picture of a blocked editor's general conduct, approach to interaction, etc. Merely saying that you will follow guidelines does not mean an automatic unblock. And it really doesn't help that you are claiming that you will follow guidelines, while refusing to listen to guidelines regarding WP:3O and the role of the Arbitration Committee. An admin needs to be convinced that an unblock is in the interests of Wikipedia. Perhaps the admin who reviews your current unblock request will be convinced and will unblock you, but if not then your block will expire soon anyway and you can get on with your consensus-seeking discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Based on blocked rules: I admitted my error for the first violation of edit warring. I agreed to the terms I would work within those guidelines, but I cannot prove this subsequently if I were to be unblocked because I remain blocked to demonstrate that I do agree and will act accordingly. I just do not agree (opinion) with what appears to be unfair and biased (opinions) of both the Admins who show prejudice - despite my agreeing to the terms and guidelines. So on this basis I say it's excessive and punitive and have asked for arbitration by the committee to review our discussions on this thread, thank you for both your time. CristieJ (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cristie, it's User:Girth Summit again. You didn't respond to my earlier offer, but it's still open if you'd like to take it up - I'm cooking dinner at the moment though so I won't be able to respond instantly. If you'll take some honest, friendly advice however: if I were you I would stop trying to appeal against this block. It's just 24 hours, so you can go and do something else, sleep on it, and come back to it tomorrow with a fresh head. Accusing editors and admins of bias and trying to escalate things is just going to get people's backs up, and make them less eager to work constructively with you. I do understand that you feel you've been wronged, but sometimes it's best just to write it down to experience and move on. Girth Summit (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit (talk) we can discuss later, yes, with a fresh head for ALL OF US, but at this time I have put in my request for arbitration committee to review the Admin actions on this thread and that I feel as a new editor I was not warned "several" times for the infraction in question and I should have been given an opportunity and TIME to thoughtfully respond BEFORE being blocked (which appears more punitive in nature looking at the Admins responses). I was trying to offer a balance view point at the clear bias of the article and contentious labeling based on Fringe theory guidelines to show weighed view points. Of course I want to make meaningful contributions, I will edit better with citations (not trying to shirk any responsibility here), but was not afforded the opportunity to follow protocol before I was blocked from doing so as my goodwill attempt and gesture to adhere to the feedback. I think the arbitration committee should be privy to Admins who are VOLUNTEERS and who show some biases on their platform from time to time, yes. Thank you again for your offer and I will reach out later. CristieJ (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #22212 was submitted on Jul 29, 2018 19:18:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your UTRS appeal will be declined as you still have access to your talk page, have an open unblock request, and the block will expire on its own soon. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was before someone unblocked my talk page, prior it was completely shut down and I was not afforded the opportunity then to discuss my issues with the other editors or the Admins of my block status. Based on these guidelines noted here NEUTRAL third party [[6]] between two editors when they disagree. I strongly believe that the more experienced editor and I did not have a chance to fully discuss our disagreement because I was then blocked shortly after. It appears that the more experienced editor got caught up in edit war despite the guidelines that show contrary advice on this matter based on Scientific Method and inferences to science on these grounds, which is actually considered a controversial topic in itself, [topic] link to source cited. CristieJ (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Here is your block log, and your access to this talk page has never been blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) I am asking for again to do the following per the guidelines: requesting a NEUTRAL THIRD OPINION to view the dispute. The word here is NEUTRAL. You are clearly not NEUTRAL. So can we please exercise my right to call on a NEUTRAL third-party based on this option for Dispute Resolution?? NEUTRAL party meaning someone who will take time to view the history, the editor in question and come up with a resolution that we can both adhere to. This is not happening right now... see link, [[7]]? CristieJ (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attempted to review the content dispute at all and have offered no opinion as to what the article should say. And you are welcome to request WP:3O when your block expires if you want - but I've already explained twice why it will be rejected, and whoever reviews your WP:3O request will tell you exactly the same. Wait until your block expires and seek consensus by discussion on the article talk page - that is your only valid option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly states that a NEUTRAL OPINION is required for the following to happen: "Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful." I was not given the opportunity to apply this as I was blocked and then you show bias by stating an opinion that I will already be rejected which is showing some underlying bias before I have had the chance to present my argument in the discussion that has not formally happened yet. Thank you for your time, again, but I state here for the Arbitration committee records those who will be auditing this communication thread there is clearly unfair treatment and bias being shown. CristieJ (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I will explain it one more time before I go to bed. WP:3O is only applicable if the dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page and has come to a standstill, which it has not, and if it is between only two editors, which it is not. So nothing that it says at the WP:3O page is relevant here. I'll give you one more guideline that you might find useful - WP:IDHT. Good night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, I was not given the opportunity to exercise the right to talk because my point was, is and shall be I was blocked by Admin. Someone previously said I was given several warnings prior from an Admin (not true, one Admin that blocked me didn't do any warnings), did not take the time to explain or discuss, and I was not given an opportunity to discuss with him directly. You can see that from the log the editor who I had the dispute with himself (the party in question who is NOT neutral) warned me but not an Admin... which then subsequently to that I got immediately blocked then labeled because of course I vehemently disagreed. How is this fair? I am new, no secret there, I am not a repeat offender of edit wars, my first offense and I am not given the decency of an explanation till AFTER I was blocked. Therefore this is my chief complaint to this process overall which looks like it needs some disruption because it blocks a user before they have the opportunity to explain, in my case that was not my intent to have an edit war. CristieJ (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...the Arbitration committee records those who will be auditing this communication thread..." No, the ArbCom doesn't get involved in this type of thing. You need to read about forum shopping. Your first place to deal with this was ONLY the talk page of the article. Instead you edit warred and got blocked. Then you appealed to ArbCom. That's an "appeal to the other parent", and that's not a good thing to do. Don't try to go over the heads of the admins you're dealing with, and NEVER claim they are being unfair. That is a failure to assume good faith, and I'm surprised your block hasn't been lengthened. Those admins have been very patient with you. Wait out the block and then discuss civilly with the other editors on the article talk page and don't try to edit the article, at least not any potentially controversial edits. Work it out there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings don't have to come from admins - any editor has the right to issue warnings, and they have the same status as warnings from anyone else. And you clearly did get warnings before being blocked - everyone can see them at the top of this page. Anyway, I really am going to bed now - good night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It states in arbitration that I need to show an exhaustive attempt prior to try to work this out with each of you when my block ban is lifted. This way, you will see that I am trying to demonstrate good will to adhere to the guidelines by stating an exhaustive case. Albeit, I'm not going to be bullied into Administrative compliance and be labeled as difficult 'challenging authority' which I have not, I respond and rebutted a contrary set of documentation and facts why the article itself is written in a controversial manner; just because I have respectfully disagreed. I have not been rude to anyone, I just have vehemently disagreed, which Wikipedia does foster discussions around improving policy. And quite frankly, yes there has been some bias because I have cited other issues with the actual article that have NOT been addressed in any of my discussions. Yes, when unblocked I will use the Talk page but I will also go through the processes and guidelines that are available to me on the subject of Crystal healing. Clearly the "experienced" editor that got me blocked on that page, could have discussed with me like the guidelines said, it's evident he knows nothing of the actual subject matter and using science as a basis to debunk a topic and philosophy that is not scientific in it's application, is absurd in itself. None of which showed objectivity nor neutrality. CristieJ (talk) 21:22, July 29, 2018‎ (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee gave you some excellent analysis and advice here. You were doing exactly what you accused Roxy of doing here, by treating the article like your own personal blog. You also are treating it like you own it, something you accused Roxy of doing here, where you are the one doing those things.

You really don't have a leg to stand on. You are at fault for all that's happened to you, and you don't realize that you are guilty of the very things you have accused others of doing. Let the block run out and start all over with the assumption that you are the newbie and that other editors know more than you do. Assume they are right. Learn from them. Ask, rather than accuse. Be patient. If you keep arguing, then you're just being disruptive and not getting the point. If that happens, then your block should be lengthened without any further process. Right now you're declaring that you intend to fight this out on the article's talk page, but treating it like a battle field because you think you are right is the wrong attitude for editing here. You have a warriors attitude, and a lengthened block might be a good idea. If that doesn't work, then an immediate topic ban may be necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually already noted that I understood in several threads up why I was blocked already, maybe you didn't read through my prior discussions, if you read my prior admissions; you would see that I actually stated that I understood I violated the edit war rule. I just don't agree with how this has blown out of proportion or handled being a new editor to the platform and I do think the assumption that I did intend any malice and as a result was not treated fairly on that basis to be immediately banned without discussions prior. I was trying to contribute content of value against controversial claims the subject matter was unscientific (with all due respect Crystal Healing does not make claims to be scientific) that point I underscore, seems to be ignored. I will await till my ban is lifted but this discussion of the article presented to millions of people the way it is now is not okay with me and I will work to improve it within the guidelines, yes, agreed, like I said many times before, I agreed...

Neutrality

Hello Cristie. I noticed that you are asking for neutral editors. However, any editor must abide by Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia does have academic bias (WP:ABIAS) and promoting pseudoscience on Wikipedia is unacceptable (WP:PROMOTION, WP:PSCI). Wikipedia articles must also avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE such as presenting science and proponents views as equal opinion (WP:YESPOV). To Wikipedia, a neutral editor is also one which does not have a related conflict of interest (WP:COI). As such, I can predict with confidence that other editors may not appear "neutral" by your definition of it, since their editing should be neutral in Wikipedia terms. If you would like to have a discussion on a more public noticeboard about this article, I recommend WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN. I hope this helps, —Paleo Neonate – 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I am well prepared next time -- I am taking the advice and I will review more in-depth by researching the guidelines presented to me in the past 36 hours. Along with what is deemed standards of acceptable (or not) on Wikipedia's platform. Yes, I acknowledge and understand I have been educated on the position as a whole how the Wikipedia organization perceives content; as long as it is within status quo mainstream thinking, and as long as it is not perceived as 'disruptive', or 'challenges' the pervasive thinking of Wikipedia's stance on academic bias or the Administrative cohort that upholds such academic bias when posting, editing, etc.; and as long my editorial contributions are not perceived by anyone (subjectively or not) as 'confrontational' or 'disruptive' or 'argumentative' in content or tone. Because challenging mainstream cultural biases and thinking is not good to do (on Wikipedia). Thank you for the information and the time everyone has put into educating me on this matter. Duly noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CristieJ (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)CristieJ (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is mostly behavioral: for instance failing to form consensus for one's changes when they are reverted before restoring them (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS) or using article talk pages as a forum persistently without acknowledging WP:NOTFORUM, etc. It is not really in relation to the content of the edits themselves unless they are considered obvious vandalism. Another blockable offence is personal attack (WP:PA: we should discuss the content rather than the editors and their motivations for instance). User talk pages (as opposed to article talk pages) and administrator noticeboards like WP:ANI are proper venues to discuss behavior/motivations and cast aspersions (and ANI is not for content disputes). In relation to "Administrative cohort", most editors are not administrators and administrators are normal editors except when using their extra tools; they are also expected to only use them when they are uninvolved (WP:INVOLVED). I am not an administrator myself, by the way, but I understand that Wikipedia is a large project with peculiar policies and guidelines which may not be obvious at first, so I try to help new editors if I can. About cultural biases, Wikipedia recognizes some which it attempts to counter, such as systemic gender bias, etc. But you are right that it is not a proper venue for original research (WP:OR). —Paleo Neonate – 16:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: it seems that your short block expired. Happy editing, —Paleo Neonate – 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) my understanding is that Wikipedia guidelines reflect 'academic bias' not cultural bias... Administrative cohort, as in, the one who initially blocked and then subsequent Admins who chose to maintain the block...hope that helps. Also, my task now I am unblocked -- I would like to suggest a full re-write on the topic and page in question that spawned countless discussions on my Talk page; Crystal healing. Yes, yes, understood my recommendations need to be talked through (via the guidelines). Albeit, it's clear, with all due respect (and in my humble opinion) not all editors are "writers" who write or contribute on subjects they know of or have empirical knowledge of the subject matter at hand. As we all know (hopefully), editors and writers can come from two different perspectives. CristieJ (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you or I have to say about anything. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject, your previous edits to the article did not include any reliable sources and were totally unacceptable in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hi CristyJ, user:Girth Summit again. Now that you're back to editing, I'd be happy to give you some steers on how to go about engaging with the community here. If you're not interested in this just say so and I'll stay off your page, but I'm eager to help make sure that you don't spend a lot of time and effort writing material that simply won't be accepted by the community. If I may, I'll start by offering you two suggestions that I hope will be helpful...

My first suggestion is simple - start out small. Don't even attempt a full re-write, you will not get consensus for that. You could start by thinking about what is missing from the page, and whether you know of any good sources that you could use to add it. I wouldn't try removing or replacing anything at first - the stuff that's on there is well-sourced, and you will probably just get reverted.

The second suggestion will, I expect, be a bit harder to swallow. I totally understand that you don't think that the scientific method applies to crystal healing, but you aren't going to convince anyone here to agree with that. Crystal healing makes various claims - primarily, that it is possible to use crystals to heal people who have ailments. Claims like that are testable, and anything that is testable is subject to the scientific method. Policy here requires that we treat it like any other branch of medicine, and so what science has to say about it will always be front and centre on this page. You're just going to have to accept that and work with it, or you'll waste a lot of your time (and a little of other people's!).

With those two suggestions in mind, I encourage you to look again at the article and see whether there's anything that you think it would be good to add. Then, before you start writing anything, look for sources. Sources are vital - make sure you have read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. If you want to make an assertion about general stuff (eg how many people consult crystal healing practitioners, what sorts of crystals are used, etc), you need sources that comply with WP:RS. As soon as you get into anything that could be classified as biomedical - so anything discussing efficacy in healing, even saying 'it might work a bit for some people' - then the quality threshold raises to WP:MEDRS. I'll be honest with you and say now that I don't think you'll find any suitable sources for that, and that I wouldn't even waste my time looking for it; but that's down to you.

Finally, if editors on the page dispute the changes, engage with them constructively and ask what they think is wrong with the assertion or sources - then either modify your assertions, look for better sources, or walk away. There are a lot of very experienced, well-respected editors watching the page; even if their advice is expressed forcefully, it's usually still worth listening to.

I hope that this is helpful; I realise that you care passionately about this subject, but you have to be realistic about what you are going to be able to achieve with your ambition to rewrite the page. I genuinely don't want you to spend hours working on material that you have no prospect of getting accepted, and to go through all the frustration you've just experienced again. Please feel free to reach out to me to discuss anything you like.Girth Summit (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, especially "Claims like that are testable, and anything that is testable is subject to the scientific method." Anything that's falsifiable is within the testable/scientific realm, and thus also vulnerable to being labeled "pseudoscientific". Since RS consider crystal healing to be pseudoscientific, so does Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Girth Summit Thank you for taking the time to do this, I very much appreciate the coaching! I will review and be cautious before jumping in again. To be candid, I would like to ensure there's fair perspective and presentation on this page in terms of information to readers - I think that people who go to this page can be educated in this arena and also respect Wikipedia's academic bias and guidelines, it's not a mutually exclusive objective, it can be done -- with that said, your advice is very helpful. Thanks again for your help! CristieJ (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And if I don't get consensus (which I hope that won't be the case) with this endeavor, it won't be the end of the world, I'm actually partnered with other teams to launch our own publishing platform (currently in development), where there will be a bit more creative freedom, to have a variety of topics that can educate people on broader level, and it won't be constrained by Wikipedia's guidelines as much, so regardless, I'll accomplish what I set out to do - There's always room to grow. CristieJ (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, the internet is bigger than Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, yes. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only reflects the balance of academic opinion as published in reliable sources, and is not a suitable place to challenge that balance or argue for changes to it. People sometimes point out that that means Wikipedia will often be wrong, because science often gets things wrong and the balance of academic opinion is therefore often wrong. And of course science is often wrong - if it was right about everything, it would have stopped by now. But, and this can sound strange, when the balance of academic opinion is wrong... it is correct that Wikipedia is also wrong. That's because Wikipedia has no reliable way of telling if what it's echoing is right or wrong, and should not attempt to do so. So yes, the way to challenge the current academic balance is to do so elsewhere, via channels dedicated to original thought, argument and experiment. And if that should change the academic status quo, then Wikipedia should be updated to reflect the change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Successful challenges don't come from outside the scientific community, or at least not by bypassing the scientific method. Free thought and expression of alternative opinions are welcome outside of Wikipedia. If they become notable enough to be mentioned in RS, they may well end up being mentioned here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 09:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]