Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Mallexikon: a repeated pattern of deleting text and adding unnecessary in-text attribution |
Mallexikon (talk | contribs) →Proposal: r |
||
Line 411:
*Interesting that there's already some talk on a penalty... But could you maybe tell me ''for what'' exactly? I originally was accused of "race baiting" here (which is groundless) and for including the statement that TCM is considered a protoscience (which is not even disputed). Now suddenly [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] is accusing me of edit warring ''and'' tendentious ''and'' disruptive editing... ''Without any evidence at all''! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=608017247 This] edit that [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] just complained about was a revert of his desperate attempt to include the term "pseudoscience" into the acupuncture article without an adequate source. The source he uses [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7150/full/448106a.html], is ''not'' about acupuncture - it's about TCM herbal treatment. Our own rules as in [[WP:FRINGE]] state that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." And just because I reverted this attempt to ''distort a source'' (BTW, this is not the first time QG's done something like this), I'm a "True Believer"?? Which actually is an insult, and not a small one. It is also a failure to [[WP:AGF]]. I think you've been in the trenches too long. If you see a True Believer in me, you're obviously too eager to see this in other editors. --[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]] ([[User talk:Mallexikon|talk]]) 01:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I am afraid your inability to understand the problem doesn't bode well. Our job as admins is to try to minimise disruption of the project. I happen to think that restricting your reversion of content will help to remind you to debate rather than edit-war, this is probably a better outcome for you than the alternatives, which are more topic ban shaped. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:::No, obviously ''you'' don't understand the problem, since you're biased. Me not agreeing with QG's controversial edits doesn't make a "True Believer". It also doesn't mean that I'm guilty of tendentious editing. I ''definetely'' have never engaged in disruptive editing. But every editor with an overzealous skeptic heart happily sees a quack proponent in me, just because I object to QG's disgusting editing style... And concerning edit warring: it was me who started [[WP:DR]] for the latest big dispute at [[Traditional Chinese medicine]] (a dispute in which you are an involved), and I'm ''always'' more than happy to productively engage in any kind of consensus-building. Concerning the latest dispute, just cf. [[Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience]]. If you want to minimize disruption of the project, topic-ban QG. --[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]] ([[User talk:Mallexikon|talk]]) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
== Undue retaliation, provocation and/or vandalism on [[Mitsubishi Magna]] article by [[User:OSX]] ==
| |||