User talk:Minphie

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Minphie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! œ ^™ 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hi Minphie,

We're obviously in disagreement about the content of the Harm reduction article, which is fine and healthy for Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you're a new editor here, so I apologise if I'm going over the basics. We all write these articles in collaboration, and we need to be able to create articles that are a synthesis of differing arguments. There's a few basics for interacting with other editors, I've linked them below.

When you repeatedly accuse me of vandalising a page, it's not assuming good faith or being overly civil. I haven't vandalised the article, the content was moved to the talk page for discussion. We need to work out a version of your edits that meet the wikipedia guidelines. I've asked a few other editors to come and help edit the page for a bit, so that it's not just you and I reverting back and forth. --rakkar (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to AIV

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Please try to reach a WP:Consensus with the other user on the relevant talk page; if you cannot reach agreement, use the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minphie, I really would like to move past the revert war we seem to be stuck in. As I've been saying and as JohnCD noted above, it's up to us to reach consensus. I'd like to give you the chance to put your point of view across in the Harm Reduction article. If we could just examine the structure of the article for now, and leave the exact content to later, I'd like to suggest the following plan:

The opening paragraph: We keep it as the current three line structure, and if you could write the third line outlining objections to the approach. Can you find a source that talks about general objections to the philosophy, rather than just SIFs? For example, United Nations International Narcotics Control Board only objects to a few harm min programs relating to drugs, not the philosophy in general. If you look at the other two references in the opening paragraph, you'll see that they are broad in scope.

Syringe exchange and related programs: Currently there are two paragraphs describing NSPs and four criticising them. The article is too long, when editing the whole article, this warning is up the top- "Warning: This page is 45 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." Can you condense the four paragraphs into one? If readers want more, they can go to the main article.

Safe injection sites: Again, let's discuss the content later, but I feel this section needs to be condensed. I have replicated your content on the main SIFs article and we can carry on the discussion there. Could you shorten your content down into one paragraph again? And I feel that in it's current form, it's too focused on the Sydney MISC, could it be more about SIFs in general?

How does this proposal sound to you? It allows you to ensure that a balanced view of Harm Min is conveyed to wikipedia readers, and it keeps the article trim. I offer this plan in the spirit of consensus, and if you have a counter-proposal, I'd like to hear it. As a show of good faith, I haven't reverted your most recent revert, I'm hoping that we can try to carry on in cooperation. --rakkar (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minphie, it's been a couple of days since my last message, I'm keen to agree on the changes I proposed above, are you likely to be around to discuss them soon?--rakkar (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minphie, it's been a week since JohnCD made the above comment. I'm not sure if you're still interested in editing wikipedia, so unless I hear from you in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and make the edits i outlined above. I'd welcome you to rework them later if you feel they don't represent the view you want the articles to include but let's try to keep the article short. Let's talk exact content later.--rakkar (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Safe Injecting Sites

Minphie, can I get your feedback here? Talk:Safe injection site#Naming

If you & others are happy, I'd like to change the name of safe injection sites to Safer injecting facilities. The idea of these facilities isn't to promote the idea that injecting is safe, but that the facilities are to make a risky behaviour safer.--rakkar (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

taking it further

Hello, Minphie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Strange as it might seem being correct is not the criteria for content on Wikipedia. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Wikipedia content. If you have one position and two or three editors have the other, than you are in the wrong to keep adding/reverting content. You can utilize article WP:RFC (or WP:THIRD if it's just two of you) to get more eyes on the issue.
Note that calling editorial positions you disagree with vandalism is inappropriate and not collegial and I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the matter were deleted because you reposted the debate after it got archived, so I started a new process. Your response is contained within, alongside a few notes from me explaining the reposting. I want to reach a proper working relationship around this issue, I hope the fact I have gone out of my way to let you be heard demonstrates to you that I am serious about this.

Also, please respond to comments on the SIF article about keeping the article short for now and working out a timeframe for a longer, more extensive article. IMO your edits the make the page look unreadable and are laid out in a chaotic manner. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that there have been input from other editors at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Harm reduction and they also think your "deductions" amount to original research. Steinberger (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are policies of Wikipedia and not guidelines. Everything written must comply with them. The "evidence based opposition"-essay you wrote at SIS clearly does not comply and you just can't roll my reversion back without also making it compliant to the policies of Wikipedia. Steinberger (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your stubbornness is disruptive. By now you should know that there is consensus that your interpretation of WP:NOR is wrong. Conform to that and start contributing according to the norms of this place or you will eventually be blocked. As you obviously have a hard time understanding tings, I'll take it one more time: This is a warning for you to stop your WP:Disruptive editing. One more time and I will definitely make your behavior known to the wider community that will almost certain sanction you. Steinberger (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minphie, please come and discuss your behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Minphie. We have outlined what we see is your constant ignoring of wikipedia policies and the community will want to hear your response. PLEASE NOTE: This is about policy, not evidence for harm reduction. While you may reference certain incidents around evidence, we are not discussing content but your uncooperative behaviour.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minphie, I note you've been online lately and haven't acknowledged the above comment. You don't have to reply right away, but we'd like to know that you've seen the invitation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Minphie. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figs Might Ply, I'll be working on something tomorrow or the next day.Minphie (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent!

When you write at discussion pages, please use indentation. There is further information at WP:Talkpage with tips on how highlight quotes. And still further information at the guidelines page and there I think this section is particularity relevant for you to read. Steinberger (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have become somewhat less verbose and thus less confusing. But I still have a hard time getting your point. Read WP:TL;DR. Steinberger (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

You are very welcome to invite third parties to the disputes and even to build a case against me at RFC. I have nothing to hide and I stand by my interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Steinberger (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harm reduction. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

I see that Figs might ply is now a banned sockpuppeteer. Do you think they may have any remaining accounts on harm reduction articles which were not detected? I would really like to sort out the abuse that is going on on these articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is Steinbergers connection with Figs might ply? Their interactions and certain comments, suggested to me that they knew each other off-wiki, which combined with tag team edit warring (which you engaged in yourself) concerned me and then the sock investigation has concerned me further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

I have reported you here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Minphie_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek. Doing yet another revert not much more than 24 hours after receiving a warning regarding prolonged edit warring is not impressive.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with sourcing

Some of the sources you are adding are not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Please use peer reviewed review articles preferably indexed by pubmed. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that some sources have been misrepresented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

BTW you are up to 3 reverts on a couple of pages. Best to spend some time looking at the feedback you have been given at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per here the sources you are using are not reliable Journal_of_Global_Drug_Policy_and_Practice if you continue to edit war you will be blocked. You have brought this too the RS notice board and others agreed that the sources you have been using are not reliable [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reference as a book and provide page numbers.

For you edit on needle exchange program Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Minphie,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Sock puppets

[10] It appears that both you and I are sockpuppets of mark nutley, you may wish to comment over there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitration Committee felt that the case was not ready for arbitration and suggests that you pursue other forms of intermediary dispute resolution. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

Minphie, I believe you're aware of WP:COI? Please don't provide any personally-identifying information in your reply, but I have specific reason to ask: Are you affiliated in any capacity with any of the organisations you've been promoting or drawing from in your edits to Wikipedia? – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically have no conflict of interest. Minphie (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. Just so we're both both understanding each other - both using the same words to mean the same things - you're saying you are in no way affiliated with Drug Free Australia, or with any similar organisations? As I made clear above, I have a specific reason for asking for a direct, explicit, and unequivocal answer to that question. Thank you. – OhioStandard (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one interpretation of conflict of interest operative on Wikipedia and that is the one outlined in its policy document. I again repeat that I categorically have no conflict of interest. Minphie (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on an "anti" section that maybe we both can accept

As I've explained to you elsewhere, my main objection to your contributions has been selective quote mining distorting the scientific literature, such as leads me to be extremely prejudiced against groups such as DFA.

However, the article as a whole is definitely unbalanced because of pro-needle exchange people like me, so I have been working in my sandbox to put together a decent Anti-Needle Exchange section that maybe we both can approve. It's obviously something that we both need to work on together.

[[11]]

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, whatever you do

Re your comments on my talk page on Needle Exchange Science:

I will not tolerate selective quote mining of a scientific report to completely misrepresent the authors' conclusions.

Nor I will tolerate other forms of misrepresentation, such as taking the inability to firmly establish a cause-effect relationship due to defects in a study design, as demonstrating that the study showed that needle exchange is useless.

As I demonstrated in my recent additions to Needle exchange programme#Arguments for and against, it is possible to introduce arguments against NSPs without resorting to such objectionable tactics.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox content is excellent and represents a credible point of view according to the current science and public opinion/sentiment. I can't see that there is much to add other than the issue of the standard defense for high HCV transmission rates in countries both with and without extensive NEPs which try to defend the ineffectiveness of NEPs by saying that that 'the horse had already bolted' on HCV. However, the 'horse hadn't bolted' argument is used by drug prevention organizations to explain low HIV rates in Australia as compared to the US, which is the most prevalent comparison to defend the effectiveness of NEPs by the harm reduction lobby. The prevention organizations claim that Australian rates of HIV were very low when broad HIV prevention efforts were put in place including NEP, and as previously explained, low rates of HIV in Australia where HCV rates nevertheless run at 65-70% may have had more to to do with excellent public education campaigns including the Grim Reaper ads on television. This argument was in a World Federation Against Drugs document which I will have to look for. But again, the sandbox material is very sound.Minphie (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Needle exchange programme". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 October 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lancet Study on Insite Debate (October 2)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lancet Study on Insite Debate.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Minphie. You have new messages at Numbermaniac's talk page.
Message added 05:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Needle exchange programme, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

We are ready to proceed. Please sign in on the case talk page here. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lancet Study on Insite Debate (October 31)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lancet Study on Insite Debate.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Insite may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI would like a chat

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Leaky Caldron 21:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per the ANI discussion, I have blocked you indefinitely as it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia. If you wish to be unblocked, you can request it with {{unblock}}. --Rs chen 7754 21:54, 8 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

== Working toward a balanced and credible Wikipedia == I have read just the top few comments over on the Administrators' noticeboard and due to lack of time this evening I will make some brief comments. #Anyone who wishes can scan the Talk pages of Insite, Needle Exchange Programme or User Talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca for the word 'balance' and it will be abundantly clear that I seek to give Wikipedia pages that were very one sided a balance of both sides of the drug policy fence. I believe this is nothing other than building a credible encyclopedia and I have worked for that objective as can be seen from any contributions I have made to articles or Talk. #I am absolutely transparent about working ethically within the Wikipedia rules - the document you have before you is very clear evidence that I have never tried to undermine the rules by communicating and colluding outside of Wikipedia. This is something I have condemned in my notes to Drug Free Australia. #I believe it is not gaming the system to revert another person's revert of your text where you have carefully explained your rationale while they respond with not a word on the Talk page or in the editing header. #There is criticism that I do not add to Wikipedia outside of the drug policy area. It should be recognized that there are people who lead other lives in this world who can be very busy. I can see no reason for a block. Minphie (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is 100% clear that you are here to promote a point of view and further a campaign, that you have no interest whatever in doing anything else. You have made concerted efforts to recruit others to help you plug your point of view, you have indulged in massive forum shopping, moving to a new venue as each one fails to support your campaign, you have edit-warred, etc etc etc... JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (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.

As an uninvolved editor, my concern is that you engaged or participated in meatpuppetry by deliberately recruiting people off-wiki to come on wiki to support your position. I am also concerned that you denied a COI as regards Drug Free Australia but are listed in their document as their volunteer on Wikipedia. Finally, support a slow-motion edit war is not a good example of how to address issues on Wikipedia. We come to consensus, we don't revert once a day, repeatedly, to avoid 3RR. GregJackP Boomer! 12:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re reinstatement

I will be seeking reinstatement as a contributor to Wikipedia. However because Christmas is close, and the parties and events around it are many, it may be some days before I apply for an Unblock. Minphie (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Minphie, I have some unsolicited advice, hope it helps. Methinks the key misunderstanding is here... "document you have before you is very clear evidence that I have never tried to undermine the rules by communicating and colluding outside of Wikipedia." You are thinking of people doing WP:TAGTEAM editing, where they use email/chat/phone/telepathy/whatever off-wiki powers of communication to coordinate their editing in realtime, right? Which is bad news, as you know.

But look at the sentence again. You *were* communicating off-wiki. The document is the *proof* that you were doing so. Just because the communication was intermittent, and not simultaneous with your editing of articles, is not a loophole. You were recruiting people for your side, as the WP:MEAT policy puts it. Does this make sense? The problem here is the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The problem is not the outreach itself, I'm in favor of that 110% because we need new blood.[12] Badly! So thank you very much, for trying to reverse the steady and frightening decline. But you have to do it fairly. You have to bring *contributors* here, that will stick to the five pillars, not warriors ready to win for their side at any cost.

So that I don't leave you a novel, I'll make one last point and stop, ask someone to send me a talkback if you want the full spiel. :-) Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, right? Articles are supposed to be balanced, right? Pillar two, WP:NPOV. But look at what Steinberger says as 08:05, 10 Dec, over in the AN/I thread. "Wikipedia is not about 'truth', but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say..." I agree with them, except for the "most" part they put in there, wikipedia should describe conflicting Reliable Sources, never decide the winner.

That said, there *is* one place where the word "most" in that sentence belongs, and that is articles that make medical claims, which are held to a stricter standard than articles which merely make engineering claims, or philosophical/political claims, or especially fiction/entertainment claims, namely, WP:MEDRS. This is a 'new' guideline, firmed up circa 2011, but we have 500M unique readers every month now, not all of them native speakers by a long shot, and we don't want them to die by taking bad medical advice from wikipedia.

We don't want them to get sued by taking bad legal advice, or build a bridge badly from taking bad engineering advice, or believe the wrong birthyear for Mariah Carey, either, of course... but the argument about whether Mariah was born in 1969 or 1970, is different than the argument about whether a common household chemical might cure cancer, or might cause cancer, right? Right. We need to be extremely conservative, to the point of rejecting anything not *super* reliable and *very* Reliable, as a source, when it comes to medical claims. That's distinct from political claims, about healthcare, of course; don't let anybody tell you different. :-) Anyhoo, I'll get out of your hair now, and wish you a great $special_day(s)_of_your_choice. Thanks for reading, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand there are at least 4 grounds for me remaining blocked – meatpuppetry, COI, 3RR and forum shopping. In my defence I want to clarify that while I had encountered sockpuppetry early in my 4 years of WP contribution, I have never before encountered the concept of meatpuppetry. I need to make it clear that my respect for policy is such that had I known the meatpuppet policy I would not have breached it, and can assure you I will not in the future. Some administrators have read disruption into my actions but I want my motives understood as they were – ensuring Wikipedia’s integrity.

When I came to Wikipedia in 2009 I found an encyclopedia heavily weighted to one side of the international drug policy debate, such that it appeared as a mouthpiece for the Harm Reduction position in what is a wide-ranging societal debate. Given that harm reduction still has not been written into the Political Declaration of the United Nations’ international Drug Conventions due to reservations of too many member countries,[ http://www.cndblog.org/2009_03_12_archive.html] this created considerable bias in Wikipedia, making it less than credible on drug policy. Opposing the ‘safe use of illegal drugs’ harm reduction message is drug prevention, where the World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) is the official peak body representing hundreds of prevention organisations around the world and which has some very weighty criticism of certain harm reduction interventions. I have worked to ensure Wikipedia articles have drug prevention content and critique to balance the existing bias. Such was this bias I had to even delete pro-harm reduction arguments out of lists of ostensibly anti-harm reduction arguments in some WP articles (see for example first paragraph of this. An article on Needle Exchange Programmes had not one word about the results of the 2007 US Academies of Science Institute of Medicine review where the science on needle exchange was found to be inconclusive etc etc). However almost every line of text I have contributed to Wikipedia has been hotly contested by an army of pro-harm reduction contributors, no matter how authoritative or compliant my primary and secondary sources are (for example, [13], who want WP to carry their view to the exclusion of other views, making it clear to me why WP was so unbalanced in the first place. And clearly consensus in such a conflicted policy area will be difficult to achieve on the more inflammatory issues, so why doesn’t Wikipedia just give the best views of both sides and allow the reader to make up their own mind?

While sockpuppetry is clearly unethical because it seeks unfair advantage via deception, trying to create a level playing field within WP, then allowing both sides of the policy discussion to be fairly represented, appeared to me not only ethical but required, particularly in the best interests of WP. I have already stated I will not breach this policy in the future, but the un-level playing field in drug policy is something that I believe WP administrators need to address if it wants to be something other than an ideological mouthpiece. There are issues such as the MEDRS annexation of drug policy areas that are clearly social programs where medical aspects are only contingent and not core (for instance, needle exchange programs hand out needles and like materials, with rarely any medical treatment of any kind on site to make it MEDRS – and any statistical discussion of the success or otherwise of needle exchanges does not have to engage the research on the bio-chemistry of the HIV virus or the intricacies of medical HIV testing because these are only contingent to the program. Further, any well-published scientist who works with statistics can reliably comment or critique the research on these programs without going near MEDRS). There are also issues of what should be done where views contributed by disinterested participants to RS/N likewise do not agree – why wouldn’t we then address both views in the article’s text and allow the reader to determine their own view instead of shepherding them as is happening all the time around my input? These are issues that need discussion and more clarity.

Some administrators have read into my text within the document ‘Wikipedia Editors Needed’ a campaign of off-wiki collusion and campaigning. Yet my text in that document speaks clearly for itself. I clearly say that there can be no communication of new contributors off-wiki, only on its Talk pages where everything is transparent. My words are very clear. If there is no mechanism for off-wiki collusion then there can be no concerted campaigning by new contributors. What they would have offered was nothing more than a non-coordinated contribution to Wikipedia on a large number of pages which needed more balance. I need my words to be understood as they read.

I am also accused of denying any affiliation with Drug Free Australia on two separate occasions. But this is not the case. I denied a conflict of interest as per the Wikipedia policy and did not address any questions about relationship to Drug Free Australia. And I am not the only one who has read the COI policy and not seen a COI as per its text as per “Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They riskWP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)”

I am further accused of revert wars, where I have never been blocked for a revert war, nor have I reverted three days in a row for some years. I have since acted on advice here where I have sort Third Opinions and resorted to RS/N. This has been construed as forum shopping, but I have been seeking to follow the advice given which gives me little other option. Minphie (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am in agreement with JamesBWatson below. I think that this unblock request does not assure us that your behaviors will be changing. It sounds like you will still be attempting to promote the view point; this reads like a justification for some of your actions rather than anything addressing how the behaviors will change. only (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2013 (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.

To the extent you are blocked for edit warring, it is not 3RR. The tree revert rule is just a bright line, if you revert tree times you are engaged in a edit war and can be blocked. But you can edit war even without reverting. Simply editing in against concensus is edit warring. And another thing, that harm reduction implies that there is a "safe use of illegal drugs" is a quite extreme point of view. Rather, one can see it the other way: If the society feel that its needs to give out needles, provide supervised drug consumption facilities, give substitution treatment and ecetera, the society must view illicit drug use as something very dangerous. Otherwise, there would be no real harm to reduce. Personally, I can't see any conflict between societal efforts to prevent drug use and societal efforts to reduce the harm of drug use. The efforts are complementary or rather, prevention of drug use is one way of reducing the harms of drug use on individuals and the society and thus an integral part of harm reduction. One might even ask, why else would one want to prevent drug use? Simple moralism? Steinberger (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your current unblock request still reads to me like an attempt to justify an intention to promote a point of view, rather than an indication that you will not do so. The fact that in your opinion the opinion that you support is under-represented does not in an way diminish the fact that attempting to increase the coverage of that opinion is editing to promote a point of view. in fact, it is probably true to say that everybody who edits to promote a point of view does so because in their opinion that point of view deserves more coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lancet Study on Insite Debate

Hello Minphie. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Lancet Study on Insite Debate".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lancet Study on Insite Debate}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]