Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture

message: It would have been nice to be informed of this by someone.
Backin72 is making edits without consensus to promote his view that alternative "medicine" is not pseudoscience, despite the contrary consensus on various talk pages.  This is part of a long running effort in which he has tried all the wikilawyering tricks (see category talk:pseudoscience, and generally special:contributions/Backin72) to try to redefine WP:NPOV to remove the category he thinks is POV, despite long-established consensus to the contrary. Specifically, I ask him to provide examples of proper double-blind peer-reviewed published controlled trials of such "therapy" which he has failed to do. — Dunc|☺ 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Duncharris

message: Acupuncture has been around far too long to be considered a "protoscience".  By now there should be substantive scientific proof, in the form of double-blind peer-reviewed papers, that prove its efficacy.  There are none.  In addition, acupuncture's hypothesis (such as it is) states matter-of-factly that it works without really stating why, thus failing to meet the scientific criterion that its hypothesis be tentative allowing for empirical testing and falsifiability.  It is, then, a pseudoscience.  That Backin72 disagrees is irrelevant -- what is relevant are the facts themselves.  •Jim62sch• 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing strongly with Jim here. Further, I note that it is easy to find sources in mainstream science/media which describe acupuncture as a pseudoscience such as Skeptic magazine. Furthermore, the word "protoscience" seems like a deliberate euphemism if not strong POV pushing. JoshuaZ 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn pending developments. --Physicq210 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Preliminary Compromise Offer

message: Hello physicq210 - Thank you for volunteering to moderate this case.  I will refactor the page to include my opinions and evidence in the proper section.  (Being new to the process, I included a lot of that in the "Request Information" section.)  Since I've gotten unexpectedly busy, I can't do it right now, but I will within 48 hours. Thanks again and best regards to all involved. -Backin72 (n.b.) 04:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment regarding Evidence section

message: Only evidence belongs in the Evidence section. Please take your discussion about submitted evidence to this page. I don't want to reorganize the page all the time. --Physicq210 22:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I can't tell how to use the template on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence.  Most of the evidence that I have in the form of diffs I already included under the Request Information section, with a little more moved to the talk page.  I'll be happy to reorganize it in the right format if someone can tell me how. Never mind - I think I get it.  Will get to it within a day.  thanks - Backin72 (n.b.) 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't know how to use the template, experiment in the sandbox. This can wait. --physicq210 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems moot now.  Thanks for reviewing the diffs in the manner in which I presented then and not insisting on the template.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Evidence Section 

message: ===Responses to Comments by Slowmover===
Whether you like me or not, (I take it this is in reference to your bizarre vandalism (and there can be no other word for it, you were deliberately removing content and indeed relevant links) of them), that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether alternative "medicine" should go into :category:pseudoscience.  — Dunc|☺ 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your persistent accusations and mischaracterization of my edits only reinforce what I have said. -- Slowmover 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick comment:  Dunc, I made this MedCab request to bring about a change in your Wikiquette, not to definitively settle the pseudoscience issue.  Reaching consensus on pseudoscience will take some time, but depends on decent Wikiquette from us all.  Your behavior (incivility, carelessness, reverting without discussion, improper use of edit summaries, etc.) has crossed the line too many times.  Judging from your talk page, your approch seems to be end-justifies-the-means: once you decide another editor is wrong, consensus is moot, and Wikiquette doesn't matter.  Slowmover's comments are illustrative and I'm glad he took the time to make them.  Thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that in the first case, Dunc reverted without comment to implicitly indicate his support for FeloniousMonk's position. However, I would consider the second revert suspect. --physicq210 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable.  Also, to Dunc's credit, he's left the acu-related stuff alone since this MedCab request. --Backin72 (n.b.)  07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Evidence 

message: Whether you like me or not, (I take it this is in reference to your bizarre vandalism (and there can be no other word for it, you were deliberately removing content and indeed relevant links) of them), that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether alternative "medicine" should go into :category:pseudoscience.  — Dunc|☺ 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your persistent accusations and mischaracterization of my edits only reinforce what I have said. -- Slowmover 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick comment:  Dunc, I made this MedCab request to bring about a change in your Wikiquette, not to definitively settle the pseudoscience issue.  Reaching consensus on pseudoscience will take some time, but depends on decent Wikiquette from us all.  Your behavior (incivility, carelessness, reverting without discussion, improper use of edit summaries, etc.) has crossed the line too many times.  Judging from your talk page, your approch seems to be end-justifies-the-means: once you decide another editor is wrong, consensus is moot, and Wikiquette doesn't matter.  Slowmover's comments are illustrative and I'm glad he took the time to make them.  Thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Comments by [[User:Slowmover|Slowmover]]

message: Dunc has continued to violate WP:DR by reverting without discussion since he became aware of this MedCab request (his comments on this case were made on 9 July).  He reverted on 10 July with :Category:Alternative medicine; this time the reverted edits were from User:Limegreen.  Also on 14 July.  Dunc gave no reason for his edits either in the edit summaries or on the talk page.  Since Dunc has violated Wikiquette with two different editors on the same dispute, he appears to be technically eligible for an RfC.  Following our mediator physicq210's request, I won't file one pending the outcome of this case.  Thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:I believe that in the first case, Dunc reverted without comment to implicitly indicate his support for FeloniousMonk's position. However, I would consider the second revert suspect. --physicq210 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable.  Also, to Dunc's credit, he's left the acu-related stuff alone since this MedCab request. --Backin72 (n.b.)  07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional evidence

message: I have finished compiling the verdict on Dunc's actions. However, since I wrote it late at night (I finished it around 10:45pm [Pacific Daylight Time, as I live in San Francisco]), I will finish my verdict the next day. I apologize if the verdict seems biased against Dunc at the moment. Backin72's actions are also under review. The use of the category will be deliberated last. 
Remember, the verdict can be challenged, and I am willing to address any grievances. --physicq210 05:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. This is only the preliminary verdict, pending permanent verdict. --physicq210 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Verdict 

message: Hi physicq210.  I certainly agree that discussion is better than edit warring.  From my reading of WP:CG, I seriously question whether cats should stay on pages if they present NPOV problems.  Additionally, WP:V says those who want an edit to stay bear the burden of evidence, something editors critical of what they say is pseudoscience haven't produced.  However, I recently came across a good template -- Template:Disputed-category -- that can handle this issue.  (It might be a good idea to make it so that template could indicate the specific category that is disputed.)
Again, I don't think that proper use of cats is something any one editor can or should solve.  It's going to take time and effort to reach consensus, but any input is valuable.  thx, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the first compromise offer 

message: Are there any more remarks or issues from either side that need to be addressed? If not, then this case will close in three days. --physicq210 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your taking the time here.  This is my first experience with WP:DR beyond talk pages.  Maybe a Wikiquette alert would have been a better way to go.  Hope some good comes of it; we'll see.  Backin72 (n.b.)  20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing Remarks 

message: This is a minor issue, and I'm just mentioning it for the record.  physicq210 wrote that I "did not obtain consensus with editors prior to removal of the category".  I think it's evident from the talk pages in question that consensus doesn't yet exist on this issue (in either direction).  Nor am I aware of a Wikipedia policy/guideline to the effect that removal of categories requires consensus.  If anything, it appears that those who want to keep the cat need to justify it, per WP:V and WP:CG.  Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a topic is through a bold, revert, discuss cycle or two, but that requires that both sides be willing to discuss....
Anyway, I'm not suggesting my conduct is spotless.  I'll certainly plead guilty to some edit warring.  I've also learned some things about making my points on talk pages more concisely.  Thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding my conduct