| Revision as of 02:05, 29 January 2015 editMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,254 edits →Please don't misrepresent consensus and edit against it: +note, link← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:06, 29 January 2015 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,254 edits →Please don't misrepresent consensus and edit against it: edited noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| Additionally, you twice reverted edits I made incorporating Shii's conclusions: . Your latter ES said "restore previous consensus", ignoring the RfC closure. Shii was quite specific that their intention was to "close the RfC and determine the consensus wording, but not stop any ongoing discussion" . So please discuss, but please respect the RfC's result in the meantime: if the result didn't matter, there'd be no point in having an RfC at all. Thanks, and happy editing. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC) <small>edited 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)</small> | Additionally, you twice reverted edits I made incorporating Shii's conclusions: . Your latter ES said "restore previous consensus", ignoring the RfC closure. Shii was quite specific that their intention was to "close the RfC and determine the consensus wording, but not stop any ongoing discussion" . So please discuss, but please respect the RfC's result in the meantime: if the result didn't matter, there'd be no point in having an RfC at all. Thanks, and happy editing. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC) <small>edited 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :Is QG's alleged IDHT the same as your COI? -] (]) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | :Is QG's alleged IDHT the same as your COI? -] (]) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC) <small>edited 02:05, 29 January 2015</small> | ||
| ==Reply to your complaint at Talk:Acupuncture== | ==Reply to your complaint at Talk:Acupuncture== | ||
Revision as of 02:06, 29 January 2015
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru. |
User:John is an WP:INVOLVED admin
| Interesting diffs. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead." I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page. In June, I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page. In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. I previously explained that any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic". In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice. User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN." John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them. John appears to be WP:INVOLVED in edit warring on this talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions. User:Doc James wrote on December 4, 2014 "Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved". |
Arbcom
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent consensus and edit against it
Your ES for this diff says: "The part "with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." was deleted against consensus. User:Middle 8, please stop. See Talk:Acupuncture#Rewording_Nature_citation." But there was indeed consensus to remove that wording, per the closing admin Shii at the relevant RfC: Accordingly, the following wording should not be employed: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies.". It was not Nature's intent to make a blanket characterization of TCM in this way.
You were aware of this, because you posted immediately afterward to comment about it . Please don't IDHT, and don't use ES's to make misleading statements about other editors.
(Re "no logical mechanism": we certainly should cover criticism of the mechanism of action of acupuncture, and we do, with much better sources than the one mentioned above, which is about herbs, not acupuncture. )
You also IDHT'd by repeatedly asking why I removed the passage above, despite my linking to the RfC closure (my post: 08:46, 26 January 2015; I even explained again: 00:35, 27 January 2015):
- "...was deleted for no good reason" 26 January 2015)
- "you have failed to explain why you deleted..." 00:46, 27 January 2015 (see below re misleading list of my past edits)
- "You are continuing to avoid explaining why you deleted..." 03:34, 27 January 2015
and more IDHT at the TCM article, section here:
- "You failed to explain why he deleted the part..." 01:18, 27 January 2015
- "You are continuing to avoid explaining why you deleted..." 03:40, 27 January 2015
I've never seen such IDHT... except from you, multiple times. Brangifer, who has been around longer than I have (and has interacted with you repeatedly at chiropractic, etc.) commented that you have "a de facto IDHT".
Additionally, you twice reverted edits I made incorporating Shii's conclusions: . Your latter ES said "restore previous consensus", ignoring the RfC closure. Shii was quite specific that their intention was to "close the RfC and determine the consensus wording, but not stop any ongoing discussion" . So please discuss, but please respect the RfC's result in the meantime: if the result didn't matter, there'd be no point in having an RfC at all. Thanks, and happy editing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC) edited 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is QG's alleged IDHT the same as your COI? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC) edited 02:05, 29 January 2015
Reply to your complaint at Talk:Acupuncture
QuackGuru, your comments in this section above of my four similar edits of a Nature citation are WP:GAME-y. You are violating WP:GAME § Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior, items 1 and 5. Item 1: You mischaracterized my edits to make them look bad by taking them out of context -- none were against prevailing consensus since there was no consensus, and most were legitimate initial BRD edits -- and complained about them to Kww (see here; diff). Item 5: You implied that multiple edits were improper -- SPI editing -- when you too were making multiple edits to the exact same citation:
- 20:00, 24 May 2014
- 19:59, 5 June 2014
- 3:01, 29 June 2014
- and most recently 22:25, 26 January 2015, which -- unlike any of my edits you listed -- was flagrantly in violation of consensus. Specifically, you reverted against Shii's finding of consensus in an RfC: section here (and diff here).
You've repeatedly made similar complaints, e.g. here and here. This amounts to harassment, and I'm pleased that Kww has ignored these spurious complaints. You said I edited against consensus when in reality I simply went against with your ownership of this page. (You edit mainspace more than the next 20 editors combined , and unlike other editors, edit mainspace much more than talkspace .)
In sum, your conduct smacks of WP:KETTLE and WP:BATTLEGROUND as well as WP:GAME, and amounts to harassment. This needs to end; it is highly inappropriate. You need to put down the stick. I think admin attention is warranted. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC) edited01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)