Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

1139:: I have always, to the best of my ability, operated within MEDRS and RS guidelines and NPOV policy when adding sources to the article. Like A1candidate, I also believe acupuncture doesn't clearly fall into the pseudoscience category, but rather into a bit of a grey area. Afterall, crystal healers are not primary care providers in any state, nor do insurance companies reimburse for that modality. I lived in Asia for several years and acupuncture is well adopted by the mainstream scientific community and governmental health authorities there. The NIH, NHS, WHO and others have also issued positive statements on its outcome. With no clear consensus on research, I believe it is better classified as "questionable science" than "pseudoscience". But even if one disagrees with my stance, I hope we all can agree that no matter the article, when sources meet policy and guideline standards we cannot simply delete or censor them because the outcome happens to be positive. Nor do I believe editors should be banned for posting such sources. 1147:: Perhaps this should have been in my opening statement, but given your inquiry about wheel-warring, I would like to point out that Kww has been heavily involved in content disputes for some time on the Acupuncture article and talk page. I find his "reluctance to wheel war" fairly curious because he has been constantly involved in article content and disputes lately. Given that fact, he should know that wheel warring with John (who has never been involved) would undoubtedly result in trouble for him. His involvement also extends to his refusal (even by his own admission) to punish editors who break rules, and even deviates into rationalizing their bad behavior. I may be off-base here, but it seems to me that Kww might not truly coming here out of reluctance to wheel war, but is likely attempting to control article content and remove editors who stand in his way. 3301:

For instance, incivility in Acupuncture doesn't really establish a pattern if it's compared with POV-pushing in Cold Fusion. Apart from which, we already get overlaps and AE isn't paralysed by them. An obvious example being BLP vio within say the India-Pakistan area of conflict. That could be covered by the community BLP provisions, the DS BLP ones, and the ARBPIA ones. I can also envisage situations where edits on the scientific aspects of Climate change could attract potential sanctions either under both Climate change DS and the Pseudoscience ones. A similar theoretical clash could arise between the GenderGap DS and Sexology DS. The answer is probably to tweak the DS procedure to say that an alert in one area is sufficient to apply sanctions in another separate but closely related topic provided the nature of the edits are similar.

1160:] on Traditional Chinese Medicine and has protected the page due to edit warring and is opening up discussion on talk. Rjanag has now opened an RfC for the topic. I find it puzzling why Kww seeks to have myself and two other editors topic banned for making and supporting an edit which a previously uninvolved admin has also made. Rjanag's reasoning mirrors many of the comments that I, Jayaguru-Shishya and A1candidate have brought up, namely reliable source violations. If our edits are so controversial, I question why a very similar edit was supported by another party, an admin, on multiple policy grounds? Doesn't this give any kind of validation to our original issues with the article? 2202:

and I don't see that there is a dispute that acupuncture is one of these. I have opined in the past (but not as an arbitrator at that point) that if there are reliable sources calling something pesudoscience or pseudoscientific (regardless of whether other sources agree) then these discretionary apply, without that implying anything about whether it is or is not pseudoscientifc for article content purposes. Together with my colleagues comments below, it is now clear that the Committee regard the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions as applying to acupuncture. If a formal motion is necessary we could do that, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

2220:

topic, only debate about whether they already are, there seem to be two useful ways forward - either officially stating that (as I suggested before my term as an arbitrator) any topic where there are reliable sources that describe it as pseudoscience or fringe science are covered by those discretionary sanctions (without passing judgement on whether they are or not) and noting that this explicitly includes accupuncture; or passing a motion ammending the "pseudoscience and fringe science" discretionary sanctions to "pseudoscience, fringe science and complementary and alternative medicine".

1182:

editors to keep strictly to MEDRS whenever dealing with claims on medical efficiency. I am not an acupuncturist, I have never been to an acupuncturist, and I don't believe that my forestry Finnish town even has an acupuncturist. Kww has made this allegation against me many times earlier, and I have corrected him being wrong every time. I am happy to provide diffs if necessary. If there are some individual edits or behavioural patterns that Kww is frustrated with, is this really the right place to discuss it? This is my first experience with ArbCom so I don't know.

1042:: Precisely why I have only discussed, and haven't entered the fray with my tools. John's statement (in the linked diff) that he viewed me as part of the problem and that he did not recognize the distortions being made in the article made it clear to me that we were not going to come to mutual agreement as to the best way to proceed, especially given that I see John as a major part of the problem, in that, despite admirable motives, the effect of his actions is to provide aid and cover to people that intend to damage the encyclopedia. 1025:: because they reward patience and numbers, not accuracy. Remember that the professional acupuncturist views having a favourable view of acupuncture in the media as a source of financial gain. Additionally, here the problem is that out of the thousands of studies, there have been the occasional false negatives that portrayed acupuncture as harmful and false positives that portrayed acupuncture as beneficial. Our sanctions don't work well as a protection against cherry-picking.— 1266:

reviews as well as the consensus statements of medical organizations and the assertions of medical textbooks, I believe there is enough hard scientific evidence to make a strong case against the labelling of acupuncture as a form of pseudoscience. Despite my repeated attempts to engage with Kww and others, a consensus appears to be far from sight. Kww's filing for arbitration clearly demonstrates the polarity of the positions that we have taken in this dispute.

123: 2245:. What NPOV means in terms of the balance of each individual article is something for the editors of that article to determine by consensus. If editors are unable to come to a consensus due to behavioural issues then that is what the discretionary sanctions can help with. If editors are unable to come to a consensus for other reasons then you need to get other input as described at 1131:

topic ban any editor (especially me!) for simply holding opinions contrary to those of other editors. Behavior, policies and guidelines are what matter. At least, I hope. My interest in the Acupuncture article has been to add my linguistic and cultural expertise in places where I felt it was appropriate, and hope that I can continue this endeavor in the future.

2096:. The latter weigh, but not much compared to Vickers: they are not even peer-reviewed journal articles. They are at best on the lowest rungs of MEDRS while Vickers is at the very top. Vickers' IPD meta-analysis should be in the lede, yet it remains barely mentioned owing to POV-pushing from anti-acu editors. (See also an 3300:

I suppose the question here is probably to identify the specific issue we're trying to address. If an area is closely related, any overlap is covered by "broadly construed" anyway and using the edit filter on a user talk page lists all their alerts. If the net is cast too wide we get false positives.

2201:

I'm leaning decline now. I take the point that it is not agreed whether acupuncture is pseudoscience, but the discretionary sanctions actually apply to "Pseudoscience and Fringe science" because (at least in part) there was a similar discussion about whether cold fusion is or is not pseudoscientific,

2114:

What we should do is have one or more RfC/A's. The article needs more eyes, or perhaps some of the more aggressive anti-acu editors ought to be topic-banned. Following Kww's advice would only worsen WP's single worst problem, the shrinking (and demographically narrow) editorial pool. It would also

1185:

One is free to examine my edit history, I am perfectly comfortable with that. I have 270 Knowledge articles on my Watchlist, and only three of those fall under the Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions. I am not a "pro-acupuncturist", and these three articles express only a very tiny area of my areas

1086:

I certainly hate seeing this aiming for a decline, especially after the opinions by AE admins all say pretty much what I'm saying: AE is intended to address behavioural problems without much regard to their impact on article quality. What I'm saying is that we are approaching the condition with this,

3271:

is covered by the standard DS prohibitions. The transition to standard DS has greatly reduced the need to tie DS to specific cases and i fact there is nothing to prevent rolling all these DS into, as you suggest, a broader heading (ie Science controversies or whatever) without the need to rename any

3234:

and pretty much everyone else. Okay, point taken. I'll float an idea, and am willing to be told I'm crazy. What if we renamed the Pseudoscience case to something like "Scientific editing" or "Scientific debates" and also made the DS there for all edits "relating to pseudoscience, fringe science,

2299:

I don't think we need to decide that question at all, actually. DS are authorised for "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." I'd contend that anything there is a reasonable debate as to its status as pseudoscience or fringe science would be covered, without

2010:

It looks as though this request is going to fall by the wayside, which is a shame, as there is a need to deal with the genuine issues highlighted by kww. The issue isn't confined to those articles named here, but endemic in most pseudoscience and fringe related topics across the project. Mainstream

959:

appears to have been the victim of flooding, wherein multiple studies with ambiguous results are listed in separate subsections in great prominence, all to give the false impression that the effectiveness of acupuncture is under wide and serious study. It's not: acupuncture is generally viewed as a

3285:

The simplest solution for alerts for closely related areas is to simply combine the alert - letting people know that DS is enabled for the areas of "Pseudoscience, fringe Science and complementary and alternative medicine" with links to the two decisions. With a central log it doesn't matter which

2282:

Awaiting statements, I'd especially like to hear from John. I do not, looking at he request, get why Kww's statement "any effort for me to resolve it would likely provoke wheel-warring between me and User:John" is true. Surely two experienced admins don't enter a situation expecting it to end in

1130:

Since this is my first time to be involved in an Arbcom request, I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to do so I'll follow along and try my best. If I make any mistakes, please understand that I am new to this process and do not hesitate to correct me in any way. Overall, I object to attempts to

2219:

Decline a full case. I see though that there is a legitimate uncertainty about whether this is covered by the pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions or not and that is something that we the committee can clarify. Given that there appears to be no objections to applying DS to the

1200:

notifications and sanctions on these users? Does he think John's actions have were ungrounded? Does he think that these notifications and sanctions should be nullified? If so, is this the right place to discuss it? I am a first timer here, so sorry if I've have wrong conceptions about some things.

1199:

First of all, I think it'd clarify this ArbCom case a lot if it just focuses on the discussion of whether acupuncture falls under the label of pseudoscience or not. I am not sure what Kww is trying to accomplish by his apologizes for users Roxy the Dog and QuackGuru. Is he unsatisfied with John's

972:

There's no doubt that the pro-science editors have not behaved admirably, but they are faced with entrenched editors that are padding the article with any study that presents acupuncture in a favourable light, misrepresenting those studies, lying about discussions that have taken place elsewhere.

3201:

Labelling acupuncture as a pseudoscience unacceptably enters the Committee into the content dispute. But I agree with T Canens and a few others above, that two separate logs is one too many. Prefer Timotheus' suggestion of expanding the pseudoscience name to include complementary and alternative

1203:

When it comes to the pseudoscience labeling, my argumentation has been as follows: 1) Acupuncture pre-dates what we know as modern science, so it cannot be "pseudoscience" in that sense, 2) whenever making claims on medical efficiency, we should uncompromisingly adhere to MEDRS, and 3) when just

981:

My view is diametrically to John's: that it is our role as administrators to actively detect the users that are attempting to block a reflection of scientific consensus in the article, block them as appropriate, and help provide an environment that will allow our scientifically-minded editors to

3054:

There's a strong argument for having a single centralised log for all DS sanctions, arranged chronologically. It will make sanctions easier to find and make it much easier to pick up people hopping across state borders (as it were). But I don't think the tail should be wagging the dog on this,

2456:

That's true enough though some of these alternative medicines articles end up as neverending feuds between sceptics and enthusiasts, and I'd hate AE to have to make a long list of which bits are covered and which bits aren't. If it's messy, these things always come back to us, which much wasted

1265:

Enforcing the existing pseudoscience discretionary sanctions at AE may not be the best solution because much of the dispute rests on whether acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in particular should be classified as pseudoscientific in the first place. Based on numerous scientific

1181:

I see Kww bases his argumentation strongly on this division between "pro-acupuncturists" and "pro-science editors". I am pretty surprised that I find myself among these "pro-acupuncturists" that Kww is asking to be banned, since if one looks at the Talk Page, I've been strongly advising all the

1106:

I don't have much to add here. I will add a slightly comment here in the next few days. I don't think there is any problem in a motion to explicitly include subjects slightly pertaining to pseudoscience to the enforcement area should be problematic; it's been taken as a given in the areas I am

993:

I bring this here primarily because it is a systemic problem, and a legacy of the inadequacy of the earlier Arbcom decision, which tells the project that we should strive to be in line with scientific consensus, but does not specifically tell adminstrators to deal with editors asymmetrically:

2501:) 11:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) It's been suggested that I point out that the availability of homeopathy in the NHS has been steadily decreasing and the NHS web page discussing it says it is considered to be based on "scientifically implausible principles" and no batter than placebo treatment. 1404:

regarding the labelling of TCM as "largely pseudoscience" (again). The result of this RFC is unclear, but regardless of what sort of "consensus" it yields, things will not change unless Kww and others first change their behavior. Their refusal to faithfully represent scientific consensus is

2028:

The debacle at Ayurveda that has driven away so many good editors (including myself - but I don't include myself in the 'good editors' category) will happen again and again unless admins give support to those supporting policy. Badly concieved and enforced unilateral sanctions don't work.

2300:

expecting admins (or us) to sort through the actual label applicable; that there is a debate is enough to hit the broadly interpreted clause. If there is agreement on this, and if a motion is seen as desirable, I:m happy to pass one, but I'm not seeing the need for a full case here.

969:. A quick read through that last link will demonstrate how unlikely it is for forward progress to be made. Accordingly, our section on the effectiveness of acupuncture should say just that: not shown to be consistently effective for anything and lacking in any theoretical foundation. 2731:

I too do not see this as an insoluble dispute, rather as one where arb com is asked to determine where the NPOV actually lies--in fact, where it might even seem we are asked to determine that the NPOVis in a particular requested direction. We should be very reluctant to do this.

2435:

I suppose the million-dollar is whether acupuncture is fringe science or not. I really don't know the answer to that but I do note that it is widely available as a state-provided therapy in the UK and France. If it is fringe science, it's covered by DS but if it isn't, it isn't.

2204:

All that said, I'd like to see the opinion of one or more uninvolved experienced AE admins for their opinion of whether they think AE would be able to handle this. Absent their strong opinion that it would be ineffective at resolving the dispute though I anticipate declining.

1761:

said that while this is simply because TCM is largely pseudoscience without a rational mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments, advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between

1388:

However, this was closed by a disinterested volunteer claiming that "Consensus seems to have been reached" without stating clearly what the consensus was. A careful look at the discussion shows that there was in fact no consensus - both sides continued to repeat their

2373:

That sounds like you are coming here instead of AE because you think that we are going to come up with the outcome you want. Further, if you think that AE will think that you are involved than you most likely are and should not be in the equation for wheel warring.

2075:

including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane. All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study".

2082:-- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option. This meta-analysis uses individualized patient data (IPD), which is the most rigorous approach, the "gold standard", a way to find information other good reviews have missed 1848: 1337:

says that "the emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management" Chapter e2, Page 5,

1251:

I regret that this dispute had not been resolved through substantial talk page discussions and I acknowledge my status as an involved party. If this case request is accepted, I'll be willing to offer any information that may aid the community in resolving the

72: 964:

summarizes it well: several thousand studies have failed to show any consistent application in which acupuncture is beneficial. Traditional Chinese medicine, the foundation of acupuncture, is also recognized as pseudoscience, a classification which has been

2018:, is genuine evidence for medical efficiency that some editors claim. Also interesting in a recent RfC close debacle at Ayurveda is that if it is ancient, it cannot be pseudoscience. "Flat Earth Theory" is ancient, and believe it or not, pseudoscientific. 977:

has been to try to deal with this as an NPOV issue, requiring discussion between the editors: clearly fruitless at this point. He has focused his attention on QuackGuru and Roxy the dog, parties that have, at times, acted poorly out of sheer frustration.

1588:. It is an interesting topic of scientific study and a recognized field of medicine. Sicne the late 2000s, medical researchers studying purinergic signalling have discovered how it was related to traditional medicine and I covered that area of study per 3314:

That does make sense, and it has been pointed out to me separately that templates would need (probably minor) redesign to link to two decisions. To avoid any wikilawyering it might be worth putting a sentence into the alerts reflecting your comment.

67: 3266:

The only purpose of an alert is to let someone know that DS apply, broadly construed, to the area they're editing in. If they continue editing within, broadly, the same area of conflict, it doesn't much matter which alert they get providing their

61: 50: 2159: 1087:

and many other alternative medicine articles, where people have learned that persistent and indefatigable politeness allows them to manipulate content, and that discretionary sanctions based on behaviour alone are not the solution.—

2537:. Any reasonable broad interpretation of "relating to pseudoscience and fringe science" would include TCM and acupuncture, since both have been extensively discussed in this light; it doesn't actually matter whether they genuinely 2179:

I'm awaiting more statements before opining one way or the other on this, but I would like to see comments from those wanting a case addressing why enforcing the existing pseudoscience discretionary sanctions at AE would not work.

56: 45: 1177:

Greetings! I'd like to stress out that this is my very first encounter with ArbCom, so I am not sure how much in detail one should go with the comments presented here. Anyway, I'd be happy to provide more details if necessary

2886:

One of the reasons for a new log is to explicitly indicate there is not a content ruling being done here. I'd prefer to stay as far away from anything that could be interpreted as such, which using the same log would do.

982:

prevail. I would resolve this problem by blocking or topic-banning LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, A1candidate, and, indeed, any and all editors that attempted to portray acupuncture as having medical legitimacy. This is the

3509: 3485: 489: 2945:

The existence of discretionary sanctions does not give anyone the right to ban anyone else from a topic area because they do not like them or anything else a specious as that. Uninvolved administrators will quickly

1826: 1003:

doesn't misunderstand me: being polite about being wrong to the point that you drive other editors to distraction is to win a war by attrition. That subverts consensus, which is, in this class of articles, the

2491: 2489:

is considered fringe but is still available through the UK's National Health Service. The list of such treatments includes acupuncture, aromatherapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, massage, osteopathy and clinical

2103:

If acupuncture were as fringe as skeptics say, we wouldn't be seeing positive conclusions in top-quality MEDRS's and indignant objections in blogs. It would be the other way around (as e.g. for homeopathy).

1309:

says that acupuncture is used in the majority of pain clinics and hospices in the UK and it is "based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue".

2541:

fringe sciences. This therefore falls within the purview of the existing discretionary sanctions. It is therefore unncessary for the Committee to provide an additional ruling specifically for this article.

1215:

it was only pseudo-science to the extent that scientific claims were made, and that its roots were in religion rather than science, and were not pseudo-science because they preceded the concept of modern

1152:@ ArbCom: Since nobody has brought this up, I figured I would so that the Arbcom could have as much information as possible to make whatever decision with. Just the other day, an administrator, Rjanag, 3244:

A centralised log does away with most of these intricacies because the log itself isn't tied to a case (and the baggage that comes with it). The topic listing then becomes just that, cross-headings.

2097: 2189: 2014:

The problem is partly caused by a lack of understanding of the science involved. As an example in the case of Acu, this causes editors to confuse the fact that pricking somebody with a needle

1725: 2630:' It's clearly a subject "relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". I understand the concern but don't think that at this time it's an issue for the Committee. 1830: 2094: 1770: 3235:

and Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)" That would seem to avoid labeling CAM as pseudoscience, which I still think it would do if we do not rename the underlying case.

1622:

3. Contrary to JzG's misleading claims, the source used to support the statement that "The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor" is a

1987:

for the current discussion. Using poor evidence from a NCCAM article is clearly a weight violation when the effectiveness sections are bloated with a number of better sources.

1822: 2534: 344: 1650:

I am neither a practitioner, consumer, nor advocate of acupuncture. I only support the scientific study of the subject. JzG should stop making these baseless accusations.

3063: 3149: 2797: 2481: 2465: 1571:

1. Please refrain from making such accusations. I am neither a practitioner, consumer, nor advocate of acupuncture. I only support the scientific study of the subject.

502: 381: 213: 2919: 2760: 3358: 3280: 3261: 3252: 3049: 2513: 2427: 3324: 3309: 3295: 2906: 2444: 2891: 2409: 2392: 2338: 2322: 1231: 574: 3095: 3036: 2874: 2655: 2639: 2368: 2304: 2287: 3211: 3160: 2993: 2977: 2959: 2933: 2779: 2275: 2258: 2229: 2214: 1970:

TimidGuy restored without consensus a non-reputable organization and then deleted text from a MEDRS compliant review from the safety section without explanation.

1926: 146: 3272:

cases. We were only tied to specific case when the DS varied considerably from case to case and we used the case name to identify the set of DS which applied.

3111: 2675: 2598: 1721: 3475: 3081: 3043:

I fail to see the purpose of splitting the logs rather than just logging any such under the pseudoscience case, but I'm not worried about it enough to oppose.

2717: 2617: 2553: 1402: 1204:

simply reporting mere "believes" without a dimension of medical claims, we could ease the requirement to RS. The third one I've actually discussed with user

2803: 966: 375: 3377:

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1318: 3127: 2743: 2038: 1849:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#There_was_a_previous_proposal_for_a_six_month_topic_ban_for_both_User:Mallexikon_and_User:Middle_8

39: 2694: 3257:

I'm wondering more about the issuance of alerts than the actual logging of sanctions, though, now that warnings/alerts don't have to actually be logged.

2011:

editors are being out-polited by true believers. Some old polite hands are named and taking part here, plus a newbie who has the technique down to a T.

1056:, which, while reducing the edit thrash, has permitted the steady drift of the article away from clearly representing it as having no scientific basis. 2171: 2068: 953:, obviously an undesirable situation. This is also a holdover of our existing pseudoscience arbitrations, in terms of its application to acupuncture. 2000: 1942: 1786: 1034: 339: 1164: 2130: 1729: 501:

as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at

371: 167: 159: 3501:. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics. 1377:

is unlikely to resolve the dispute because of the dirty tactics used by Kww and others to prevent consensus for the use of medical literature per

2924:

I would urge that discretionary sanctions and other forms of dispute resolution are given a genuine chance to succeed before any filing at ARCA.

3407:

for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at

2820:

for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at

1717: 1713: 1841: 2982:

I have no objection to it being listed under the previous case for simplified logging as HJ Mitchell pinged and Seraphimblade noted below. --

2196: 1845: 1819: 1689: 3415:

such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at

2828:

such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at

698: 313: 2193: 2005: 1116: 3347: 2052:

demonstrates this, cf. its long list of recent research. In fact, that source is one of a pair of invited pro/con editorials (here's the

1953: 163: 3000:

This deals with the immediate problem of behavior, without going into whether our role is to decide what specifically constitutes PS/FS.

1333: 1096: 1017: 333: 178: 156: 3239: 3192: 1811:

with Middle 8 editing the page. Editors added numerous reviews and Cochrane reviews and updated the page. Middle 8 is laser focused on

510: 414: 366: 304: 223: 151: 1695: 2859: 842: 329: 2043: 1732:. Jayaguru-Shishya has a pattern of reverting as soon as he recognizes there is a dispute with the wording at the Acupuncture page. 746: 440: 309: 1964: 1317:

says that "medical research has shown that acupuncture works by stimulating nerves to release the body’s own natural chemicals."

319: 299: 182: 1157: 1918: 794: 692: 324: 237: 218: 994:

blocking and banning those that would undermine that scientific consensus while encouraging those that attempt to support it.

287: 3524: 1769:

There was a previous successful DR where the consensus was to keep the wording "pseudoscience" in the lede and the body. See

1767: 1765: 1750: 890: 650: 358: 249: 3176:

for our AE admins and that by solving this one problem, we are creating 25 more. Is there stomach for extending our current

3161: 1749:

The reverting by Jayaguru-Shishya has bubbled over to the Traditional Chinese medicine page again. Jayaguru-Shishya deleted

1101: 3541: 1712:

in early April of 2014. Jayaguru-Shishya is making a lot of counterproductive edits and most of his edits are just reverts

1540:

There's one way the Committee could help to resolve this dispute: Ensure that Kww and others provide a reliable source per

506: 282: 2804: 1956: 1386: 944: 2108: 2063:

A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see

1323: 208: 137: 25: 3426: 2870:

As proposer. On reflection, I think this gets completely around the question of whether or not CAM is or is not PS/FS.

3523:

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at

836: 1709: 1960: 1836: 1834: 1673: 1346: 740: 602: 3165: 1812: 2160: 1897: 1893: 1517: 1505: 1480: 1471: 1447: 1439: 1431: 1423: 1066::Precisely the trouble. Without a clear direction from Arbcom that an article about a medical topic should reflect 1048:: Because few would view me as an uninvolved administrator, I'm not capable of logging sanctions in this area. The 2808: 1827:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon

949:

I am bringing this here because any effort for me to resolve it would likely provoke wheel-warring between me and

2851: 1237: 788: 274: 114: 2048:

Kww is wrong -- spectacularly so -- that acupuncture isn't under wide and serious study. Ironically the first

1746:

Is Jayaguru-Shishya restoring the OR intentionally or unintentionally? At this point I think it is irrelevant.

722: 2787:. The more I think about it, the more I think we need a full case rather than a simple motion, authorising DS. 2121: 939: 884: 716: 644: 260: 203: 21: 1874:

Middle 8 was edit warring over the specific numbers in the lede. The text he added was also original research.

710: 3381: 3076: 2548: 1979:, assuming needles are used at the correct location and depth. Studies are required to verify these findings. 1665: 1466:

The claim that TCM is pseudoscientific is not supported by scientific literature. If you disagree, show me a

1052:

of AE has been that it is counterproductive for alternative medicine articles: note John's administration of

990:

problem all over again, and dealing with these people as legitimate editors leads to unsatisfactory results.

195: 1904: 1886: 1797: 1736: 1153: 974: 928: 866: 2164: 2138: 1399: 1382: 1121: 922: 770: 704: 433: 245: 143: 1800:

and should not be allowed to continue to edit the acupuncture page and related pages so aggressively. See

854: 818: 758: 255: 173: 1903:

He deleted sourced text from the lede and body but he claimed the source does not support the statement.

914: 674: 1981: 1971: 1881: 1879: 1877: 1875: 1869: 1866: 1859: 1744: 1740: 1726:

User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_making_counterproductive_edits_at_the_acupuncture_page

1606: 1362: 1285: 1227: 860: 806: 686: 596: 294: 902: 662: 3147: 3016: 2795: 2057: 1156:

to one that I made earlier, and that Kww contested both on the article and on talk. Rjanag also made

764: 538: 2083: 1984: 626: 2915: 2756: 2246: 2092: 1952:

In one of the diffs provided by TimidGuy, he accused me as one of the editors who was edit warring.

1310: 1074:

consensus, acupuncture and other alternative medical articles won't do so. Alternative medicine is

848: 2502: 2241:

It is not the job of either arbcom or AE to rule on article content issues, beyond stressing that

614: 2080: 1544:

before claiming that TCM or acupuncture is pseudoscientific. If Kww and others repeatedly ignore

1357:

compliant sources that specifically describes acupuncture as "fringe science" or "pseudoscience".

1306: 812: 752: 550: 426: 2034: 1381:. As a matter of fact, there had been a DRN case regarding the inappropriate classification of 908: 830: 668: 568: 556: 2049: 961: 3229: 2855: 1581: 1223: 1008:

consensus. The only way to prevent this is, in such cases, to define "wrong" and enforce it.—

987: 800: 734: 681: 544: 133: 17: 3488:

to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

3024:

This is already under the previous psudoscience DS but meh. This should cut down on drama --

2525:

The issue is not whether acupuncture (and indeed, homeopathy, aromatherapy, iridology etc.)

1602:, "these antinociceptive effects of acupuncture were entirely dependent on A1R activation". 3187: 3142: 3091: 3031: 3004: 2790: 2651: 2635: 2509: 2498: 2404: 2387: 2363: 1900:. Middle 8 has a pattern of making a lot of bad edits according to the evidence presented. 1366: 896: 656: 562: 521: 103: 1862:

The verified text is: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

1421:

The use of NCCAM received broad support amongst uninvolved editors at WikiProject Medicine

1327:

says that "some physiological phenomena associated with acupuncture have been identified"

469: 462: 8: 3341: 3320: 3291: 3222: 2988: 2972: 2955: 2947: 2929: 2911: 2881: 2847: 2774: 2752: 2271: 2254: 2225: 2210: 2185: 2053: 1994: 1936: 1808: 1780: 1724:

are reverts. I previously tried to resolve some of the issues with Jayaguru-Shishya. See

1289: 782: 89: 1643:

4. I base my assessment of Ullman on the quality of his arguments, not on his reputation

3517: 3207: 3105: 3044: 2713: 2671: 2611: 2592: 2422: 2116: 2072: 2064: 1603: 1585: 1314: 878: 638: 620: 454: 2587:

the subject area, and debate as to whether it is or isn't is most certainly under DS.

1907: 1301: 3351: 3302: 3273: 3245: 3074: 3056: 2966:

This is a better alternative than making what I feel would be a content decision. --

2899: 2578: 2546: 2474: 2458: 2437: 2294: 2143: 2125: 2030: 1801: 1670: 1598: 1522: 1512: 1343: 1328: 1271: 825: 1917:

During the discussion, Middle 8 was commenting about RexxS rather than the content:

3481: 1757: 1730:

User_talk:Kww#Editor_has_no_learning_curve_and_is_unintentionally_being_destructive

1681: 1655: 1545: 1205: 933: 729: 608: 3498: 3494: 3449:

2) Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed, is designated as a

3404: 3258: 3236: 3181: 3087: 3025: 2888: 2871: 2817: 2647: 2631: 2505: 2494: 2451: 2398: 2381: 2357: 2335: 2319: 2318:

It's fairly clear there are steps before arbitration that still should be tried.

2301: 2284: 1677: 1631: 1589: 1541: 1530: 1526: 1500: 1378: 1354: 1293: 1144: 1063: 1045: 1039: 98: 1823:

Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29

1771:

Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine

1764:

Now in January 2015 he removed similar text from the body and now also the lede.

1705: 3450: 3416: 3316: 3287: 3173: 2983: 2967: 2951: 2925: 2842: 2829: 2769: 2570: 2267: 2250: 2242: 2221: 2206: 2181: 1988: 1930: 1890: 1774: 1685: 1623: 1593: 1467: 1257: 1213:(I can actually easily concur to Robert McClenon who closed the RfC there: "... 1136: 1112: 1022: 983: 777: 590: 84: 2056:). If acupuncture were really not taken seriously, a mainstream journal like 398: 3535: 3470: 3203: 3123: 3102: 3012: 2739: 2709: 2690: 2667: 2608: 2589: 2493:

So it can be fringe science and still be provided by a state health service.

2089: 2020: 1976: 1911: 1753:

of the Traditional Chinese medicine page back in June 2014. He deleted this:

1561: 1553: 1549: 1395: 1374: 1092: 1030: 1013: 873: 633: 532: 1831:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#User:Middle_8_again

402: 3412: 3071: 2825: 2566: 2543: 2107:

Additionally, there is serious objection to the "pseudoscience" label; see

1914:

to edit. Another editor finally restored the text after a long discussion.

1855: 1688:

and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community

1405:

exemplified by the following behaviorial patterns in talk page discussions:

3459: 3435: 1887:

but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists

1300:

stimulation induced by "connective tissues being wound around the needle".

516: 3411:. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of 3371: 3350:. It needs a bit of fine-tuning but I'm glad you support the principle. 2824:. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of 2163:

Acupuncture: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/4/0/1: -->

1815:. So it was no surprise that Middle 8 was not thrilled with the changes. 1610: 1339: 956: 3086:

Support, although I agree with Roger's point about one centralised log.

1967:. How is it editing warring when I reverted my own edit for discussion? 2940: 2531:

pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted

2486: 1922: 1556:

would inevitably be futile, as past attempts have clearly demonstrated.

1297: 1000: 3366: 2768:(if that's the right method to go for a motion instead of a case). -- 1868:

but did not fix the original research he originally added to the lead.

2150:

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

1108: 950: 585: 122: 3172:

Per NuclearWarfare, I am starting to worry that we are setting up a

1666:

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy

1222:

If any more information is needed, I'd be happy to provide. Cheers!

3118: 3008: 2734: 2685: 2351: 2236: 2086: 1209: 1088: 1053: 1026: 1009: 527: 400: 2529:

a pseudoscience or not, but whether it falls under the heading of

2115:

reflect a painfully embarrassing misreading of the literature. --

2079:

In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012)

1919:

RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness

509:, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to 2583:

I don't think it matters whether it is fringe science; its still

1925:. Middle 8 continued to argue against including to the text. See 1927:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51#Acupuncture_again

1691:. Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. 1885:

Middle 8 added poor evidence and misleading text to the lede: "

1627: 403: 1279:

Acupuncture should not be classified as fringe science because

404: 3403:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises

2816:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises

2085:. It was accepted by other sources, e.g. the well-respected 1529:

claims. As an administrator, Kww failed take action against

2334:

as I think a carefully crafted motion can be useful here.

503:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

2091:. It was criticized by the usual alt-med critics, e.g. 1737:

reverted the OR from the acupuncture page added by an IP

1070:

consensus and authorising actions intended to guarantee

1437:

I don't see any uninvolved editor opposing NCCAM per se

3476:

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

2950:

any attempts to misuse the sanctions in this manner.

2165:-Preliminary_decision-2015-01-05T00:40:00.000Z": --> 2161:-Preliminary_decision-2015-01-05T00:40:00.000Z": --> 1445:

That A1candidate defends it makes him an accomplice

3484:, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following 1860:...and therefore preventable with proper training. 1503:compliant source that says TCM is pseudoscientific 3482:2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure 3398:Former title: "Standard discretionary sanctions". 1871:The word often was OR. The word many is sourced. 1716:at the Acupuncture page. His first edits to both 960:placebo treatment with no scientific foundation. 497:Once the case is closed, editors should edit the 3533: 3139:I am persuaded that we should have a full case. 1844:even after he signed a malformed RfC against me. 1533:for his misrepresention of Knowledge's policies) 3409:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture 2822:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture 1975:Acupuncture seems to be safe in people getting 1840:Middle 8 continued to make unfounded claims at 1833:. User:Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions. 1288:'s consensus statement says that acupuncture's 1842:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 1807:In late October 2013 the acupuncture page was 1613:article fails to state this important finding. 2060:wouldn't have given the pro view equal time. 1548:, all efforts to resolve the dispute through 434: 3417:the requests for clarification and amendment 2830:the requests for clarification and amendment 1921:. Middle 8 was not assuming good faith with 1743:by Jayaguru-Shishya. The word "many" was OR. 1459:Ignoring an editor's request for explanation 967:mightily resisted by pro-Acupuncture editors 1818:Middle 8 signed a malformed RfC against me. 1865:Middle 8 deleted a failed verification tag 1334:Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 511:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 441: 427: 3429:, 9 to 1 at 10:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 3202:medicines and logging them together. -- 3497:shall be treated as a reference to the 2174:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) 2100:, which was not favorably received.) 1906:The comment he posted on the talk page 1414:Making personal attacks and accusations 1208:when there was a similar discussion at 14: 3534: 1394:In addition, there is also an ongoing 3525:Knowledge:Arbitration enforcement log 1676:) is an unreliable source that fails 3508:Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by 3180:DS to this topic area explicitly? -- 2356:why haven't you taken this to AE? -- 2098:effort to dismiss Vickers as a MEDRS 1680:. It is neither a widely recognised 507:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee 498: 214:Clarification and Amendment requests 1605:. More information can be found on 1324:The New England Journal of Medicine 1078:, despite generally being nonsense. 31: 3346:. I raised a centralised log here 1385:(TCM) as "largely pseudoscience". 480:Motion passed in lieu of full case 32: 3553: 3495:discretionary sanctions procedure 2073:used at numerous academic centers 1985:Talk:Acupuncture#Weight violation 1963:and discussed my proposal on the 1429:I have caught you blatantly lying 3512:at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3493:21) Each reference to the prior 3462:at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3438:at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3405:standard discretionary sanctions 2818:standard discretionary sanctions 493:on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 121: 3166:-2015-01-09T17:38:00.000Z": --> 3162:-2015-01-09T17:38:00.000Z": --> 2809:-2015-01-08T22:22:00.000Z": --> 2805:-2015-01-08T22:22:00.000Z": --> 2473:to pave the way for a motion, 1492:Misrepresentation of guidelines 482:on 10:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 2397:I will let the motion go by -- 2266:so that we can pass a motion. 2071:), as does the fact that it's 1292:appears to be through sensory 13: 1: 3382:Contentious topic designation 2666:Reconsidering one aspect. -- 1630:) and therefore an excellent 1525:asserts the opposite of what 1165:Statement by Jayaguru-Shishya 3499:contentious topics procedure 3325:15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 3310:13:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 3296:11:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 3286:edit their area falls into. 3150:12:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) 3128:23:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 3112:19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 2860:10:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 2798:12:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) 2695:23:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 2618:19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 2001:05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC) 1943:04:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC) 1908:shows he did read the source 1599:Trends in Molecular Medicine 1400:Traditional Chinese Medicine 1383:Traditional Chinese Medicine 1117:22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 345:Conflict of interest reports 7: 3542:Knowledge arbitration cases 3359:22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3281:22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3262:22:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3253:21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3240:21:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3212:21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3193:17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3096:10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3082:07:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3064:08:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3050:05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 3037:01:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 2994:07:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 2978:22:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2960:00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 2934:22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2920:22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2907:22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2892:23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2875:22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2780:22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2761:18:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2744:06:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2718:06:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2708:per Courcelles and DGG. -- 2676:14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 2656:10:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2640:16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2599:15:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2554:14:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2535:the Pseudoscience DS ruling 2514:11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 2482:09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2466:17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2445:14:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2428:04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2410:01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 2393:01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2369:01:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2339:10:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2323:17:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2305:17:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2288:01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2276:12:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2259:16:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2230:13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 2215:10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2191:00:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 2131:10:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 2039:10:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 1796:Middle 8 appears to have a 1787:03:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 1232:15:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 1097:15:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 1035:00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 1018:00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 505:, any general questions at 174:Search archived proceedings 10: 3558: 3479: 3397: 2421:, agreed with Guerillero. 2058:Anesthesia & Analgesia 1959:I immediately reverted my 1894:commented on the talk page 1607:Talk:Purinergic_signalling 1286:American Heart Association 452: 219:Arbitrator motion requests 2457:effort in the meantime, 2006:Statement by Roxy the dog 1186:of interest in Knowledge. 2683:to deal with by motion. 2606:to deal with by motion. 1515:no such source is needed 1238:Statement by A1candidate 923:Prior dispute resolution 2751:to allow for a motion. 2377:Decline and refer to AE 1710:discretionary sanctions 1307:National Health Service 2243:NPOV is non-negotiable 1696:Statement by QuackGuru 1353:I am not aware of any 1154:made an identical edit 940:Preliminary statements 2044:Statement by Middle 8 1714:from beginning to end 1582:Purinergic signalling 1363:A Quest For Knowledge 1193:Pseudoscience or not? 1122:Statement by LesVegas 415:Track related changes 275:Arbitration Committee 115:Knowledge Arbitration 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 2139:Preliminary decision 1896:Middle 8 claimed he 1708:was informed of the 1478:The burden is on you 224:Enforcement requests 152:Guide to arbitration 3070:Per Seraphimblade. 2264:procedurally accept 1973:He blindly deleted 1290:mechanism of effect 95:Drafting arbitrator 3413:dispute resolution 3391:Superseded version 2826:dispute resolution 1751:text from the body 1315:Cancer Research UK 246:Contentious topics 144:Arbitration policy 3451:contentious topic 3447: 3446: 3048: 3021: 3007:comment added by 2918: 2898:Per Courcelles, 2766:Procedural accept 2759: 2749:Procedural accept 2681:Procedural accept 2645:Procedural accept 2604:Procedural accept 2471:Procedural accept 2426: 2332:Procedural accept 2247:WP:CONTENTDISPUTE 2175: 2129: 1802:User:Middle 8/COI 1684:nor a scientific 1509:Kww and others: 1244:Opening statement 1219: 1195: 1171:Opening statement 1128:Opening statement 1107:familiar with. -- 1102:Statement by John 451: 450: 418: 386: 256:General sanctions 204:All open requests 134:About arbitration 107: 93: 76: 68:Proposed decision 65: 54: 43: 3549: 3387: 3386: 3356: 3348:twelve hours ago 3345: 3307: 3278: 3250: 3233: 3230:Timotheus Canens 3226: 3190: 3184: 3167: 3163: 3146: 3108: 3061: 3047: 3034: 3028: 3020: 3001: 2991: 2986: 2975: 2970: 2944: 2914: 2904: 2885: 2810: 2806: 2794: 2777: 2772: 2755: 2614: 2595: 2582: 2574: 2532: 2479: 2463: 2455: 2442: 2425: 2407: 2401: 2390: 2384: 2366: 2360: 2355: 2298: 2240: 2198: 2195: 2173: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2119: 1997: 1991: 1939: 1933: 1898:misread the text 1783: 1777: 1755:an editorial in 1706:Jayaguru-Shishya 1701:Jayaguru-Shishya 1682:medical textbook 1476:Kww and others: 1443:Kww and others: 1427:Kww and others: 1224:Jayaguru-Shishya 1212: 1206:User:Bladesmulti 1190: 988:ScienceApologist 945:Statement by Kww 934:Talk:Acupuncture 929:John's talk page 918: 891:deleted contribs 870: 843:deleted contribs 822: 795:deleted contribs 774: 747:deleted contribs 726: 699:deleted contribs 682:Jayaguru-Shishya 678: 651:deleted contribs 630: 603:deleted contribs 578: 522:Involved parties 517:Case information 499:#Enforcement log 488:Case amended by 472: 465: 443: 436: 429: 417: 412: 405: 384: 340:Clerk procedures 332: 290: 261:Editor sanctions 238:Active sanctions 196:Open proceedings 166: 125: 111: 110: 101: 87: 70: 59: 48: 37: 3557: 3556: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3520: 3518:Enforcement log 3504: 3503: 3489: 3480:As part of the 3478: 3473: 3399: 3392: 3384: 3374: 3369: 3352: 3339: 3303: 3274: 3246: 3227: 3220: 3188: 3182: 3169: 3140: 3106: 3079: 3057: 3032: 3026: 3002: 2989: 2984: 2973: 2968: 2938: 2900: 2879: 2835: 2834: 2812: 2788: 2775: 2770: 2664:per Courcelles. 2612: 2593: 2576: 2564: 2551: 2530: 2475: 2459: 2449: 2438: 2405: 2399: 2388: 2382: 2364: 2358: 2349: 2292: 2283:wheel warring? 2234: 2168: 2146: 2141: 2050:source he cites 2046: 2008: 1995: 1989: 1937: 1931: 1854:Middle 8 added 1781: 1775: 1698: 1596:. According to 1531:User:Tgeorgescu 1527:User:Tgeorgescu 1367:Robert McClenon 1294:mechanoreceptor 1240: 1167: 1124: 1104: 975:John's reaction 947: 942: 925: 876: 828: 780: 732: 684: 636: 588: 530: 524: 519: 494: 483: 476: 475: 468: 461: 457: 447: 413: 407: 406: 401: 391: 390: 389: 378: 361: 351: 350: 349: 336: 328: 316: 291: 286: 277: 267: 266: 265: 240: 230: 229: 228: 198: 188: 185: 170: 162: 140: 109: 30: 29: 28: 12: 11: 5: 3555: 3545: 3544: 3519: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3491: 3490: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3469: 3467: 3465: 3464: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3434:Superseded by 3394: 3393: 3390: 3385: 3383: 3380: 3373: 3370: 3368: 3367:Final decision 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3342:NuclearWarfare 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3223:NuclearWarfare 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3196: 3195: 3174:Kobayashi Maru 3168: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3114: 3098: 3084: 3077: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3041: 3040: 3039: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2922: 2912:GorillaWarfare 2909: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2882:NuclearWarfare 2867: 2866: 2814: 2813: 2811: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2782: 2763: 2753:GorillaWarfare 2746: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2658: 2642: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2575:, and others. 2556: 2549: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2484: 2430: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2326: 2325: 2308: 2307: 2290: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2261: 2232: 2217: 2203: 2167: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2152: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2045: 2042: 2007: 2004: 1977:anticoagulants 1950: 1949: 1891:User:Doc James 1889:." Only after 1794: 1793: 1703: 1702: 1697: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1686:review article 1660: 1659: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1626:(according to 1624:review article 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1566: 1565: 1558: 1557: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1519: 1507: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1474: 1470:that says so. 1468:review article 1462: 1461: 1460: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1441: 1433: 1425: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1407: 1406: 1391: 1390: 1371: 1370: 1359: 1358: 1350: 1349: 1330: 1320: 1312: 1303: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1268: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1254: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1220: 1201: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158:a similar edit 1149: 1148: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1132: 1123: 1120: 1103: 1100: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1058: 1057: 1043: 1037: 1020: 946: 943: 941: 938: 937: 936: 931: 924: 921: 920: 919: 871: 823: 775: 727: 679: 631: 583: 523: 520: 518: 515: 486: 478: 474: 473: 466: 458: 453: 449: 448: 446: 445: 438: 431: 423: 420: 419: 409: 408: 399: 397: 396: 393: 392: 388: 387: 379: 374: 369: 363: 362: 357: 356: 353: 352: 348: 347: 342: 337: 327: 322: 317: 312: 307: 302: 297: 292: 285: 279: 278: 273: 272: 269: 268: 264: 263: 258: 253: 242: 241: 236: 235: 232: 231: 227: 226: 221: 216: 211: 206: 200: 199: 194: 193: 190: 189: 187: 186: 181: 176: 171: 161: 154: 149: 141: 136: 130: 127: 126: 118: 117: 35:Main case page 33: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3554: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3537: 3529: 3528: 3526: 3513: 3511: 3506: 3505: 3502: 3500: 3496: 3487: 3483: 3468: 3463: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3452: 3439: 3437: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3396: 3395: 3389: 3388: 3379: 3378: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3349: 3343: 3338: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3308: 3306: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3277: 3270: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3231: 3224: 3219: 3218: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3185: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3155: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3115: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3104: 3099: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3075: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3046: 3045:Seraphimblade 3042: 3038: 3035: 3029: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2987: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2971: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2942: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2908: 2905: 2903: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2883: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2833: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2792: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2778: 2773: 2767: 2764: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2682: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2663: 2659: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2616: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2591: 2586: 2580: 2572: 2568: 2563:. Agree with 2562: 2561: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2547: 2545: 2540: 2536: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2490:hypnotherapy. 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2472: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2434: 2431: 2429: 2424: 2423:Seraphimblade 2420: 2417: 2411: 2408: 2402: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2379: 2378: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2367: 2361: 2353: 2348: 2347: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2296: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2238: 2233: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2218: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2200: 2199: 2192: 2187: 2183: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2112: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2099: 2095: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2084: 2081: 2077: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2031:Roxy the dog™ 2026: 2024: 2022: 2017: 2012: 2003: 2002: 1998: 1992: 1986: 1982: 1980: 1978: 1972: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1955:After I made 1954: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1882: 1880: 1878: 1876: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1861: 1858:to the lead: 1857: 1852: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1700: 1699: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674:0-8160-3351-X 1672: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1518: 1516: 1514: 1508: 1506: 1504: 1502: 1497:A1candidate: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1481: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1464:A1candidate: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1448: 1446: 1442: 1440: 1438: 1435:A1candidate: 1434: 1432: 1430: 1426: 1424: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1347:9780071748902 1345: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1321: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1194: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1099: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1002: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 991: 989: 985: 979: 976: 970: 968: 963: 958: 954: 952: 935: 932: 930: 927: 926: 916: 913: 910: 907: 904: 901: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 880: 875: 872: 868: 865: 862: 859: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 841: 838: 835: 832: 827: 824: 820: 817: 814: 811: 808: 805: 802: 799: 796: 793: 790: 787: 784: 779: 776: 772: 769: 766: 763: 760: 757: 754: 751: 748: 745: 742: 739: 736: 731: 728: 724: 721: 718: 715: 712: 709: 706: 703: 700: 697: 694: 691: 688: 683: 680: 676: 673: 670: 667: 664: 661: 658: 655: 652: 649: 646: 643: 640: 635: 632: 628: 625: 622: 619: 616: 613: 610: 607: 604: 601: 598: 595: 592: 587: 584: 582: 576: 573: 570: 567: 564: 561: 558: 555: 552: 549: 546: 543: 540: 537: 534: 529: 526: 525: 514: 512: 508: 504: 500: 495: 492: 491: 484: 481: 471: 467: 464: 460: 459: 456: 444: 439: 437: 432: 430: 425: 424: 422: 421: 416: 411: 410: 395: 394: 383: 380: 377: 373: 370: 368: 365: 364: 360: 355: 354: 346: 343: 341: 338: 335: 331: 326: 323: 321: 318: 315: 311: 308: 306: 303: 301: 298: 296: 293: 289: 284: 281: 280: 276: 271: 270: 262: 259: 257: 254: 251: 247: 244: 243: 239: 234: 233: 225: 222: 220: 217: 215: 212: 210: 209:Case requests 207: 205: 202: 201: 197: 192: 191: 184: 180: 177: 175: 172: 169: 165: 160: 158: 155: 153: 150: 148: 145: 142: 139: 135: 132: 131: 129: 128: 124: 120: 119: 116: 113: 112: 108: 105: 100: 96: 91: 86: 82: 78: 74: 69: 63: 58: 52: 47: 41: 36: 27: 23: 19: 3522: 3521: 3507: 3492: 3466: 3457: 3448: 3433: 3424: 3408: 3402: 3400: 3376: 3375: 3354:Roger Davies 3353: 3305:Roger Davies 3304: 3276:Roger Davies 3275: 3268: 3248:Roger Davies 3247: 3178:Psudoscience 3177: 3141: 3117: 3101: 3059:Roger Davies 3058: 3003:— Preceding 2948:WP:BOOMERANG 2902:Roger Davies 2901: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2821: 2815: 2789: 2784: 2765: 2748: 2733: 2727: 2726: 2705: 2684: 2680: 2661: 2660: 2644: 2626: 2624: 2607: 2603: 2588: 2584: 2579:Roger Davies 2559: 2558: 2538: 2526: 2522: 2477:Roger Davies 2476: 2470: 2461:Roger Davies 2460: 2440:Roger Davies 2439: 2432: 2418: 2376: 2375: 2331: 2314: 2313: 2295:Roger Davies 2263: 2169: 2149: 2134: 2113: 2106: 2102: 2078: 2062: 2047: 2027: 2019: 2015: 2013: 2009: 1974: 1969: 1951: 1916: 1902: 1884: 1873: 1864: 1853: 1839: 1817: 1806: 1795: 1762:ingredients. 1760: 1754: 1748: 1734: 1704: 1664: 1597: 1510: 1498: 1477: 1465: 1444: 1436: 1428: 1420: 1332: 1322: 1272:Roger Davies 1243: 1214: 1192: 1189: 1170: 1127: 1105: 1085: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1049: 1005: 992: 980: 971: 955: 948: 911: 905: 899: 893: 887: 881: 863: 857: 851: 845: 839: 833: 826:Roxy the dog 815: 809: 803: 797: 791: 785: 767: 761: 755: 749: 743: 737: 719: 713: 707: 701: 695: 689: 671: 665: 659: 653: 647: 641: 623: 617: 611: 605: 599: 593: 581:filing party 580: 571: 565: 559: 553: 547: 541: 535: 496: 487: 485: 479: 477: 94: 80: 79: 77: 34: 3527:, not here. 3458:Amended by 2144:Clerk notes 1957:my proposal 1813:acupuncture 1739:the OR was 1656:John Carter 1611:acupuncture 1586:WP:COATRACK 1499:Show me an 1340:McGraw-Hill 957:Acupuncture 730:A1candidate 551:protections 179:Ban appeals 157:Noticeboard 3471:Amendments 3425:Passed by 3259:Courcelles 3237:Courcelles 3183:Guerillero 3088:Dougweller 3027:Guerillero 2889:Courcelles 2872:Courcelles 2648:Dougweller 2632:Dougweller 2585:related to 2506:Dougweller 2495:Dougweller 2487:Homeopathy 2452:Courcelles 2400:Guerillero 2383:Guerillero 2359:Guerillero 2336:Courcelles 2320:Courcelles 2302:Courcelles 2285:Courcelles 1923:User:RexxS 1523:WP:REDFLAG 1513:WP:REDFLAG 1419:LesVegas: 1389:arguments. 1305:Britain's 1298:nociceptor 1145:Courcelles 1072:scientific 1068:scientific 1064:Guerillero 1046:Guerillero 1040:Courcelles 1006:scientific 909:block user 903:filter log 861:block user 855:filter log 813:block user 807:filter log 765:block user 759:filter log 717:block user 711:filter log 669:block user 663:filter log 621:block user 615:filter log 563:page moves 385:(pre-2016) 372:Statistics 305:Procedures 99:Courcelles 81:Case clerk 3317:Thryduulf 3288:Thryduulf 3116:Support. 3100:Support. 2952:Thryduulf 2926:Thryduulf 2843:Callanecc 2571:Thryduulf 2533:, as per 2268:Thryduulf 2251:Thryduulf 2222:Thryduulf 2207:Thryduulf 2182:Thryduulf 1990:QuackGuru 1965:talk page 1932:QuackGuru 1776:QuackGuru 1584:is not a 1546:WP:VERIFY 1258:Thryduulf 1137:Thryduulf 1023:Thryduulf 984:Martinphi 951:User:John 915:block log 867:block log 819:block log 778:QuackGuru 771:block log 723:block log 675:block log 627:block log 557:deletions 470:WP:ARBCAM 463:WP:ARBACU 455:Shortcuts 310:Elections 85:Callanecc 3536:Category 3372:Remedies 3204:Euryalus 3164:Comments 3017:contribs 3005:unsigned 2852:contribs 2710:Euryalus 2668:Euryalus 2122:contribs 2117:Middle 8 2087:Medscape 2035:resonate 1961:own edit 1948:TimidGuy 1792:Middle 8 1741:restored 1735:After I 1678:WP:MEDRS 1632:WP:MEDRS 1590:WP:MEDRS 1542:WP:MEDRS 1501:WP:MEDRS 1379:WP:MEDRS 1355:WP:MEDRS 1342:, 2011, 1252:dispute. 1210:Ayurveda 1054:Ayurveda 885:contribs 874:Middle 8 837:contribs 789:contribs 741:contribs 693:contribs 645:contribs 634:LesVegas 597:contribs 539:contribs 57:Workshop 46:Evidence 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 3269:conduct 3189:My Talk 3156:Abstain 3107:Faraone 3072:Yunshui 3033:My Talk 2865:Support 2838:Enacted 2728:Decline 2706:Decline 2662:Decline 2627:Decline 2613:Faraone 2594:Faraone 2567:Yunshui 2560:Decline 2544:Yunshui 2523:Decline 2433:Comment 2419:Decline 2406:My Talk 2389:My Talk 2365:My Talk 2315:Decline 1634:source. 1594:WP:NPOV 1521:(Note: 1216:science 1178:though. 1076:popular 1050:history 382:Reports 320:History 300:Members 295:Contact 283:Discuss 147:(CU/OS) 3510:motion 3486:motion 3460:motion 3436:motion 3427:motion 3143:Salvio 3134:Oppose 2990:(ʞlɐʇ) 2974:(ʞlɐʇ) 2916:(talk) 2832:page. 2807:Motion 2791:Salvio 2785:Accept 2776:(ʞlɐʇ) 2757:(talk) 2197:": --> 2194:": --> 2190:": --> 2172:": --> 2023:people 2021:WP:CIR 1912:WP:CIR 1829:. See 1825:. See 1758:Nature 1728:. See 1628:PubMed 1609:. Our 1554:WP:RFC 1550:WP:DRN 1396:WP:RFC 1375:WP:DRN 569:rights 545:blocks 490:motion 325:Clerks 183:Report 3419:page. 3124:talk 2941:Cla68 2740:talk 2691:talk 2016:hurts 1856:WP:OR 1001:Cla68 359:Audit 16:< 3321:talk 3292:talk 3208:talk 3092:talk 3013:talk 2956:talk 2930:talk 2856:logs 2848:talk 2714:talk 2672:talk 2652:talk 2636:talk 2569:and 2510:talk 2499:talk 2272:talk 2255:talk 2226:talk 2211:talk 2186:talk 2109:here 2069:here 2067:and 2065:here 1996:talk 1983:See 1938:talk 1847:See 1821:See 1809:junk 1782:talk 1720:and 1671:ISBN 1663:The 1592:and 1552:and 1511:Per 1398:for 1365:and 1344:ISBN 1296:and 1284:The 1228:talk 1113:talk 1109:John 1093:talk 1031:talk 1014:talk 986:vs. 962:This 897:logs 879:talk 849:logs 831:talk 801:logs 783:talk 753:logs 735:talk 705:logs 687:talk 657:logs 639:talk 609:logs 591:talk 586:John 533:talk 376:Talk 367:Talk 334:Talk 314:Talk 168:Talk 138:Talk 104:Talk 90:Talk 73:Talk 62:Talk 51:Talk 40:Talk 26:Case 3401:1) 3119:DGG 3009:DGG 2735:DGG 2686:DGG 2539:are 2352:Kww 2237:KWW 2126:COI 2054:pro 1798:COI 1722:TCM 1718:acu 1580:2. 1562:JzG 1089:Kww 1027:Kww 1010:Kww 575:RfA 528:Kww 250:Log 3538:: 3453:. 3323:) 3294:) 3210:) 3186:| 3126:) 3094:) 3030:| 3019:) 3015:• 2985:DQ 2969:DQ 2958:) 2932:) 2858:) 2854:• 2850:• 2840:- 2771:DQ 2742:) 2716:) 2693:) 2674:) 2654:) 2638:) 2527:is 2512:) 2504:. 2403:| 2386:| 2380:-- 2362:| 2274:) 2257:) 2249:. 2228:) 2213:) 2188:) 2124:• 2111:. 2037:) 2025:. 1999:) 1941:) 1929:. 1910:. 1851:. 1804:. 1785:) 1773:. 1230:) 1218:") 1191:* 1115:) 1095:) 1033:) 1016:) 579:, 513:. 97:: 83:: 66:— 55:— 44:— 3344:: 3340:@ 3319:( 3290:( 3232:: 3228:@ 3225:: 3221:@ 3206:( 3122:( 3103:L 3090:( 3078:水 3011:( 2954:( 2943:: 2939:@ 2928:( 2884:: 2880:@ 2846:( 2738:( 2712:( 2689:( 2670:( 2650:( 2634:( 2625:' 2609:L 2590:L 2581:: 2577:@ 2573:: 2565:@ 2550:水 2508:( 2497:( 2454:: 2450:@ 2354:: 2350:@ 2297:: 2293:@ 2270:( 2253:( 2239:: 2235:@ 2224:( 2209:( 2184:( 2128:) 2120:( 2033:( 2029:- 1993:( 1935:( 1779:( 1669:( 1658:: 1564:: 1369:: 1274:: 1260:: 1246:: 1226:( 1111:( 1091:( 1029:( 1012:( 917:) 912:· 906:· 900:· 894:· 888:· 882:· 877:( 869:) 864:· 858:· 852:· 846:· 840:· 834:· 829:( 821:) 816:· 810:· 804:· 798:· 792:· 786:· 781:( 773:) 768:· 762:· 756:· 750:· 744:· 738:· 733:( 725:) 720:· 714:· 708:· 702:· 696:· 690:· 685:( 677:) 672:· 666:· 660:· 654:· 648:· 642:· 637:( 629:) 624:· 618:· 612:· 606:· 600:· 594:· 589:( 577:) 572:· 566:· 560:· 554:· 548:· 542:· 536:· 531:( 442:e 435:t 428:v 330:+ 288:+ 252:) 248:( 164:+ 106:) 102:( 92:) 88:( 75:) 71:( 64:) 60:( 53:) 49:( 42:) 38:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture - Knowledge

Index