If it ever turns out that I was right, and people want to make amends, here are two things that could be done. First, end topic bans, which are unnecessary now that partial blocks are possible. If after a partial block a problem continues elsewhere, a sitewide block might be the next step. In the meantime, no one is punished for a substantively good edit in an area vaguely connected to a previous problem.
Secondly, institute a somewhat narrower standard for summarily labeling something as discredited, debunked, disproven, ineffective, or pseudoscientific. A method or treatment should only be labeled as such if there is no possible way that any part of it could ever get meaningful results. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
A method or treatment should only be labeled as such if there is no possible way that any part of it could ever get meaningful results.
Certainly not. Why would we ever have that be the standard? A treatment is ineffective or pseudoscientific (or any of those words) if there is no widely accepted scientific evidence that it is effective.no possible way that any part of it could ever
is FAR too broad, and serves as an effective ban on ever saying those words, as original research and personal speculation can always find a way to imagine some way that some part of it could somehow be effective in some way. (feel free to revert me if you would prefer this page to just have your words). Leijurv (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)if there is no widely accepted scientific evidence that it is effective
, then it is unproven or unsubstantiated. Or baseless if you really want to use a loaded word. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)- I agree that those words (unproved/unsubstantiated/baseless) would be accurate in many such cases. However, if something has been tested and found to be ineffective, we should say ineffective. That doesn't change that your suggested standard for "ineffective" or "pseudoscientific" is implausibly high. "unproven" implies that there has not been much testing of the method. It is misleading to call something simply "unproven" when actually many people have endeavored to prove its effectiveness and all have failed, in documented scientific studies. Leijurv (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Some things are difficult to test, especially if there are multiple ways to measure success. Belteshazzar (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- If a hypothesis on a medical treatment has never been successfully proven, we should not say it is effective or scientific. If such time has passed with such people attempting to prove it, that reliable sources are telling us that the treatment is ineffective, we should say ineffective. It doesn't matter if it was difficult to test. I understand that you don't like this, but WP:MEDRS exists for a reason: medical information is higher stakes. Leijurv (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- See the first part of the first sentence of my original comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I meant "higher stakes" in the sense of that MEDRS causes us to use sources that test difficult to test things. In other words, even with the exceedingly high bar of MEDRS, we still have well written medical articles.
- I believe your issue isn't so much with Wikipedia policy, but more with the scientific method itself as applied to medicine. As I said above, I don't think your suggested standard for "ineffective" would allow any nontrivial idea to be labeled as such. (or if I'm wrong, could you link to such an article that you would be okay with being labeled as ineffective). There are many large and sprawling ideas such as chiropractic, acupuncture that are correctly labeled as pseudoscience. To do otherwise would discount all science that has been done on these methods that found no effectiveness. It would be very UNDUE and OR to suggest that we can't call them pseudoscience if it happens that an editor can conceive of some way that some part of it could be effective. Leijurv (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- See the first part of the first sentence of my original comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- If a hypothesis on a medical treatment has never been successfully proven, we should not say it is effective or scientific. If such time has passed with such people attempting to prove it, that reliable sources are telling us that the treatment is ineffective, we should say ineffective. It doesn't matter if it was difficult to test. I understand that you don't like this, but WP:MEDRS exists for a reason: medical information is higher stakes. Leijurv (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Some things are difficult to test, especially if there are multiple ways to measure success. Belteshazzar (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that those words (unproved/unsubstantiated/baseless) would be accurate in many such cases. However, if something has been tested and found to be ineffective, we should say ineffective. That doesn't change that your suggested standard for "ineffective" or "pseudoscientific" is implausibly high. "unproven" implies that there has not been much testing of the method. It is misleading to call something simply "unproven" when actually many people have endeavored to prove its effectiveness and all have failed, in documented scientific studies. Leijurv (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a gentle reminder: You weren't blocked for being wrong or for disagreeing about how science should be reported on. You were blocked for poor behavior. An understanding of that fact, and who should "make amends" to who for it will be what the admins will look for if you ever make another request that your block be reviewed. ApLundell (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully, there will be no need for any further action on my part. Although even if things proceed flawlessly from here, I can't be sure how Wikipedia will handle this. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Calling me a "sockmaster" is speculation, and untrue. [1] I doubt I have even made individual edits or comments as long as some of Alison's. Since you unequivocally said "sockmaster", you will owe us both an apology when this is disproven. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
And when a connection with the second account is disproven, perhaps it will be time to reconsider my indefinite block. Given the point about palming and pressure on the eyes, it appears very likely that that account was also the ip which Guy Macon insinuated might be me. Given the particulars, I couldn't resist responding, for which I was indefinitely blocked. Note also that I couldn't have commented had I simply been blocked from that particular page, rather than "topic banned". Belteshazzar (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
![Stop hand](https://web.archive.org/web/20220702221746im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/45px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
GeneralNotability (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the correct link is here :
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/_Belteshazzar
- ApLundell (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)