User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:24, 6 October 2015 editජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Topic ban ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:24, 6 October 2015 edit undoජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Topic ban Next edit →
Line 75:		Line 75:
	As a more general note, I also took some time to read some of the stuff in the open E-cigarette case at Arbcom. I think you, and your Misplaced Pages career, would benefit from a close reading of ]'s complaints and a concerted effort to avoid the behaviors he describes. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)		As a more general note, I also took some time to read some of the stuff in the open E-cigarette case at Arbcom. I think you, and your Misplaced Pages career, would benefit from a close reading of ]'s complaints and a concerted effort to avoid the behaviors he describes. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

	::{{ping\|~~ADjwilley~~}}, what do you think should be done about ] that is happening at acupuncture? Do you think acupuncturists should be allowed to revert the page back to a version that doesn't frame the subject as being plagued by pseudoscientific argumentation and wishful thinking? ] (]) 17:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)		::{{ping\|Adjwilley}}, what do you think should be done about ] that is happening at acupuncture? Do you think acupuncturists should be allowed to revert the page back to a version that doesn't frame the subject as being plagued by pseudoscientific argumentation and wishful thinking? ] (]) 17:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:24, 6 October 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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.

Oh dear...

It sure looks funny to me but do you really wanna go as Julius Caesar to the party?--TMCk (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this message is funny? QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TMCk thinks QuackGuru now switched to Brutus.--TMCk (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is funny too? QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you archive everything from Talk:Electronic cigarette?

I am particularly interested in why you chose to archive the section in which I asked for comments on and after less than a week? I consider this to be an extremely questionable breach of talk page protocol. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was over. The Lancet is an editorial. See WP:MEDRS. I added a better source earlier. We can't add an editorial to argue with a 2015 Public Health England report. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think you are the arbiter of when a discussion is over? Talk page archiving exists because talk pages get too big, you archived the full content of most e-cig related talk pages even though some of them were tiny. It was poor form. SPACKlick (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion as to whether the discussion was over. Now you have accused me of edit warring over the size of the archives. I recommend you practice relaxation techniques. EllenCT (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is over for the editorial. No editor is interested in adding it to the article. The talk page is used for discussing improvements to the article. The talk page is not for a general debate about e-cigs. EllenCT, I don't think you have any interest in adding the The Lancet editorial to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My proposal was not to summarize the editorial, but to summarize the letters published by the editor in response to the editorial. WP:LEAD says that major controversies should be discussed in the article's introduction. If the contentions in the letters are true, and presumably they would not be published if the editor didn't think they were, then I think they form a sound basis for the discussion of further improvements to the article. EllenCT (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The response to the editorial (PMID 26342728) is not a review and not MEDRS compliant. If there is a response to this in a review we can discuss that. QuackGuru (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Quack, what is the harm in leaving the discussion open pending further eyes, who may relate that discussion to newer sources? Archiving is designed to reduce the size of unweildy talk pages not hide discussions from new editors. SPACKlick (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

When there is a MEDRS compliant source then we could include the response to this using a new source. I will make a note on the talk page for "new editors". QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether a controversy is prominent, consequential, or significant enough to meet the WP:LEAD criteria for inclusion in an article's introduction is not a medical question, and therefore facts establishing the prominence of such controversies are not required to be supported by MEDRS sources. Therefore, trying to hide the letters to the editor from talk page readers was a breach of talk page rules. EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was over a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Check sources

http://www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/

Making edit wars messier

I noticed that you were making strings of very minor edits like and in fast succession during the edit war today at Acupuncture whenever your preferred revision was reverted to. Please don't do that, it just makes things messier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

When I imposed your 0RR restriction in May ( and ) I warned you that Battleground, Tendentious or Gaming behavior would result in a complete topic ban. Upon reviewing the events leading up to the recent edit war at Acupuncture, I found evidence that you were in fact "Gaming" to get around the revert restriction and enforce your preferred revision of the article. Because of this, I have decided to change the 0RR restriction to a simple topic ban. I have made a list of some of the events leading to my decision.

Chronology of some of the events leading to my decision
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
7-10 September: User:Johnuniq proposes creating a sandbox version of Acupuncture where editors could try to rework the article, discuss the changes, and perhaps implement them in the article if they're good. Editors seem open to the idea, except for User:JzG who worries the that it will be abused by "needlers" to subtly insert bias "under the radar" because changes wouldn't be able to be compared line by line. (Relevant talk page section) 12-15 September: You make a series of edits to the sandbox version that includes the blanking of two sections, reorganization of paragraphs, reordering of material, and a whole bunch of smaller changes, many of which are difficult to be compared line by line (see for instance this "edit"). 14-15 September: Johnuniq notices the edits, likes them, and implements them in the article (with a couple minor changes of their own). JzG likes the changes, User:Herbxue expresses concern. 15-16 September: Herbxue performs a partial revert ("Please discuss on talk page first"), but is reverted by User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ("Let's actually discuss the removed content on talk"). (I note that Herbxue did discuss on talk, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc did not.) 16-17 September: Herbxue reverts again and so does I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc after which you make a series of minor and mostly inconsequential edits like reordering the fields inside reference templates. 18 September: User:LesVegas reverts and is reverted by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and you make more minor edits (linking laser light, removing spaces from reference fields). Meanwhile there's a discussion on the talk page with consensus to at least shorten/summarize the removed section that was the subject of the edit war. If I'm not incorrect the content of that summary is still a topic of discussion. Also, I have a discussion with Johnuniq on their talk page about the problems of them making edits for someone who is all-but topic banned for WP:Gaming the system among other things. (relevant talk page section) I made sure to ping you so you'd be aware of the discussion. 19 September: There are two more reverts LesVegas McSly before the edit war ends. LesVegas complains to me about the massive edit on my talk page and I advise them that if they want to revert it to only do a partial revert of the parts they see as problematic and that didn't have consensus. (relevant talk page section) 3 October: LesVegas, after some absence, makes a huge (and clumsy) revert, and then tries to self-revert back the pieces that did have consensus on the talk page (including re-removal of the Medical org guidelines section). You make a post to the Fringe theories noticeboard saying there was "broad consensus" for your changes and "the edits should be reverted". 4 October: User:CFCF, an editor who you had substantial interaction with at the E-cigarette articles, but who had never edited the Acupuncture article, reverts LV's changes. You remove the request for intervention at FT/N. 4 October cont.: LesVegas reverts saying "These were proxy edits of an edit restricted editor under DS which he made from a sandbox" CFCF reverts saying "Take up those edits on the talk page LesVegas". User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverts CFCF reverts you make some more very minor edits . 4 October cont.: Jayaguru reverts again You repost your request at FT/N JzG reverts in your favor and you make more inconsequential edits and again remove your canvassing post from FT/N 4 October cont.: LesVegas and CFCF make one more revert each , you make 6 more inconsequential changes (switching the order of fields in ref templates) and the edit war dies with LesVegas and CFCF getting warnings from myself and User:NeilN. I warn you (above) about making edit wars messier with strings of minor edits. 5 October: LesVegas complains to me (again) on my talk page, alerting me to your posts to FT/N that I hadn't seen before, bringing us to this point.

Chronology of some of the events leading to my decision

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

7-10 September: User:Johnuniq proposes creating a sandbox version of Acupuncture where editors could try to rework the article, discuss the changes, and perhaps implement them in the article if they're good. Editors seem open to the idea, except for User:JzG who worries the that it will be abused by "needlers" to subtly insert bias "under the radar" because changes wouldn't be able to be compared line by line. (Relevant talk page section)
12-15 September: You make a series of edits to the sandbox version that includes the blanking of two sections, reorganization of paragraphs, reordering of material, and a whole bunch of smaller changes, many of which are difficult to be compared line by line (see for instance this "edit").
14-15 September: Johnuniq notices the edits, likes them, and implements them in the article (with a couple minor changes of their own). JzG likes the changes, User:Herbxue expresses concern.
15-16 September: Herbxue performs a partial revert ("Please discuss on talk page first"), but is reverted by User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ("Let's actually discuss the removed content on talk"). (I note that Herbxue did discuss on talk, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc did not.)
16-17 September: Herbxue reverts again and so does I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc after which you make a series of minor and mostly inconsequential edits like reordering the fields inside reference templates.
18 September: User:LesVegas reverts and is reverted by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and you make more minor edits (linking laser light, removing spaces from reference fields).
Meanwhile there's a discussion on the talk page with consensus to at least shorten/summarize the removed section that was the subject of the edit war. If I'm not incorrect the content of that summary is still a topic of discussion. Also, I have a discussion with Johnuniq on their talk page about the problems of them making edits for someone who is all-but topic banned for WP:Gaming the system among other things. (relevant talk page section) I made sure to ping you so you'd be aware of the discussion.
19 September: There are two more reverts LesVegas McSly before the edit war ends. LesVegas complains to me about the massive edit on my talk page and I advise them that if they want to revert it to only do a partial revert of the parts they see as problematic and that didn't have consensus. (relevant talk page section)
3 October: LesVegas, after some absence, makes a huge (and clumsy) revert, and then tries to self-revert back the pieces that did have consensus on the talk page (including re-removal of the Medical org guidelines section). You make a post to the Fringe theories noticeboard saying there was "broad consensus" for your changes and "the edits should be reverted".
4 October: User:CFCF, an editor who you had substantial interaction with at the E-cigarette articles, but who had never edited the Acupuncture article, reverts LV's changes. You remove the request for intervention at FT/N.
4 October cont.: LesVegas reverts saying "These were proxy edits of an edit restricted editor under DS which he made from a sandbox" CFCF reverts saying "Take up those edits on the talk page LesVegas". User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverts CFCF reverts you make some more very minor edits .
4 October cont.: Jayaguru reverts again You repost your request at FT/N JzG reverts in your favor and you make more inconsequential edits and again remove your canvassing post from FT/N
4 October cont.: LesVegas and CFCF make one more revert each , you make 6 more inconsequential changes (switching the order of fields in ref templates) and the edit war dies with LesVegas and CFCF getting warnings from myself and User:NeilN. I warn you (above) about making edit wars messier with strings of minor edits.
5 October: LesVegas complains to me (again) on my talk page, alerting me to your posts to FT/N that I hadn't seen before, bringing us to this point.

In my research for the list above I also came across the following bizarre talk page warning and follow up conversation you had during the 1st edit war on 16 September, that had some influence on my decision. I can't think what would have motivated you to do that, other than perhaps you really just didn't like CorporateM adding a paragraph on History to the lede and in your edits to the sandbox you had changed the focus of that "History" paragraph. (???)

Your initial edits in the sandbox, I believe, were in good faith and not "gaming". However, I did find evidence of bad faith gaming in your disruptive editing during the edit wars, canvassing for other users to engage in proxy edit warring, and in some edits and talk page posts not included in the above section. Specifically (using language from WP:GAME) I found evidence of "abuse of process", finding "new creative ways to achieve the same disruption", wikilawering, mischaracterizing other editors' actions, and "borderlining".

As a more general note, I also took some time to read some of the stuff in the open E-cigarette case at Arbcom. I think you, and your Misplaced Pages career, would benefit from a close reading of User:S Marshall's complaints here and a concerted effort to avoid the behaviors he describes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Adjwilley:, what do you think should be done about POV-pushing that is happening at acupuncture? Do you think acupuncturists should be allowed to revert the page back to a version that doesn't frame the subject as being plagued by pseudoscientific argumentation and wishful thinking? jps (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)