User talk:JzG

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a
Rouge admin.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 2 months, and 17 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 9 months, and 20 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

---

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, who I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think a discussion which is predicated on comments about another editor "not grokking some basic stuff", "just digging in", being "a bit embarrassing" (etc.) is not merely about "a simple matter of fact" but is canvassing - especially in view of the opinionated, personalized context, and will probably be seen as such when the acupuncture bunch (in all its various forms) has their likely date with arbcom. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn -- You'll note that I've rephrased my comments at 2/0's talk page in a much more neutral way, so please strike/redact yours. But remember -- there's only one right way to read this source. And lighten up dude; truth is an absolute defense against such gratuitous, dark threats. Read it yourself and see. If I'm to be booted for such a thing, I'll be proud of it. It'd probbaly make a graet blog post about how personalities have trumped facts and logic at WP. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) revised a couple times, last at 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) also. I look forward to that arbcom day - I'm fed up with acupuncturists and other quacks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above.... I actually somewhat relish the prospect of editors getting this wrong just because of the messenger. Either outcome I'll be satisfied by the outcome (albeit in a much more perverse way should incompetence & wikiality prevail). And I'll be happy to check in with Ernst. Go ahead -- support the wrong reading if you want. Getting it wrong will reflect on your integrity and/or literacy, though. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Middle 8: Having left the acupuncture page behind, I'm not sure what this particular content dispute or its "dark threats" are about, but when I see a message that is disparaging about a well-respected contributor here being spammed across various pages as "a simple matter of fact" I have to raise an eyebrow. Since my message was correct at the time it was written it does not need redaction. In general I also find that The Truth™ is not - on Wikipedia - a very helpful concept! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a different view about comments an editor removes: I don't repeat what they've obviously decided they'd rather not have said. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, regarding "The Truth" not being a helpful concept -- see Guy's comment above, "Things are not helped by the large number of otherwise neutral editors who see reality/rationality as "just" another point of view." --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean "dark threats" of ArbCom over a simple matter of correctly reading a paper. Disparaging? Have you read what RexxS has written? "Rubbish" is one of the nicer things. He posted to a noticeboard about this awhile back, virtually shouting about POV-pushing and going outright WP:KETTLE over civility. It IS embarrassing to bluster like that when one is just wrong. And truth does matter per WP:ENC, for Chrissakes! This isn't a matter of opinion or weight, it's simply scientific literacy, and we've desperately lost our way if we act otherwise. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn Speaking of disparaging, you might want to do a little self-examination of the very high ratio of your (a) calling me and others POV-pushers to (b) your commenting on specific edits that you feel are problematic. In my case it's roughly on the order of 10:1. But I know I'm a pretty good editor, and editors who "can be arsed" to pay attention to my work know that too. I'm used to the double standard, and I know why it exists: to discourage and drive away perceived POV-pushers (whether that is the intended or simply tolerated effect). The problems with that are (a) unfair stereotyping of decent editors, and (b) perpetuation of POV-pushing and downright tendentiousness from the skeptic side. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 19:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are a POV-pusher, and you have a COI which you assert you do not have. You depend for your livelihood on the validity of a specific therapy based on beliefs and tradition, not empirical fact. This is not the case for doctors, as they can and do drop therapies when the science says they are invalid. No practitioner of any alternative to medicine can accept any test of the fundamental doctrines on which they base their practice. This is especially true for chiropractors and acupuncturists, where there may be some irreducible minimum of validity when the chaff has been blown away, but the chaff dominates the actuality of everyday practice. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gautama H. Buddha -- I correctly represent the acu literature (i.e., inconsistent findings of efficacy for a couple conditions that may well turn out to be due to artifact), I routinely correct misconceptions from generally pro-acu editors about sources, and other editors known for skeptic stances say I'm a good editor -- and you call me a POV-pusher anyway? What exactly do I have to do not to be one? Damn, Guy, how about you show me some diffs supporting your contention. Should be easy if you're right. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the COI guideline says, a conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge". BTW, I didn't raise COI or pov-pushing here, Middle 8 did. In fact they are - intriguingly - baked into M8's signature. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um. The primary topic of your posts to me from the moment we encountered each other has been my supposed POV-pushing and COI -- and that to the exclusion of discussing my edits on the merits. So yes, those things come to mind when you drop by, funny that. COI in my signature: because I take it seriously and have engaged it; guess it's a case of damned if I do mention it ("oooh, he admits it"), damned if I don't ("see how he disregards it"). POV-pushing -- ever hear of irony? One editor here has their talk page linked under "disruption" and their contributions under "vandalism". Same idea. That, and "owning" a pejorative that's routinely hurled in lieu of discussing substance. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "roughly on the order of 10:1" you already said. Thing is, anybody can look back at our interactions and see that is simply untrue. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What would you put it at? (Am talking about article talk.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

M8, when making a strong statement it's good to get the evidence first and then state a conclusion based on it, rather than asserting your version of reality and start negotiating about the evidence. I think you've maybe been exposed to a bit too much acupuncture "science" ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll readily admit to some hyperbole, but the weaker statement is true (that you've commented on the contributor instead of content multiple times), and I have produced diffs of that for you and another, less genteel editor.... it's a bad habit, but keep at it if you must. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle_8, you may well strive to represent the beliefs of acupuncturists accurately, but you still have a COI. You are open about what you do, which is fine, but don't pretend you don't have one, and don't pretend you're not advocating (i.e POV-pushing) because even with the best will in the world, you're the last person who could judge that dispassionately. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So if an editor is an acu'ist, they're automatically a POV-pusher (a serious offense), before making a single edit? That's waaayy too doctrinaire, not to mention uncomfortably close to the little-noticed second bullet point under WP:WIAPA. Ironically my view, that edits should evaluated on the merits, is an evidence-based view.

Of course I understand that I have a kind of COI, but it doesn't rise to WP's threshold, and neither you nor anybody has shown me a recent example of it manifesting in practice. Actually, within the last year or so, others' reflexive bias against my edits has been a real problem. I won't name names, but I've seen editors take contrary views to mine just because of my affilations -- and this when I've read a source carefully and the other editor has not. That's quite funny because it's so ironic, but from the WP:ENC standpoint, it's just pathetic. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. Off the top of my head I can recall that you have deleted[1] content about adverse events in acupuncture, repeatedly[2][3][4][5] chippped away at the same critical content from the lede, endorsed an improper RFC/U against another editor (which despite - or maybe even because of - its possible underlying merit, turned out to be highly disruptive), engaged in canvassing (see above), and exhibited IDHT about your COI thus thinking yourself absolved on a responsibility to heed our WP:COI guidance (see above). I'm not saying everything you do is bad; far from it. But can you not see that the evidence here suggests a problematic pattern as regards your editing of topics in which you have an interest? Are there not other areas you could enjoy working on? The question might gently be put, are you here to build an eyclopedia in general, or is your purpose more singular? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the COI is inherent, the POV-pushing is a matter of actual editing practice. You have undoubtedly crossed that line more than once. I am glad this is now clear. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I too am certain I have, but recently? I took an extended wikibreak (with occasional interruption) for much of 2013, and I think I've done a pretty good job of being faithful to the literature and staying well within the mainstream since then. (All the moreso given the heterogeneity of the mainstream.) People change, and when they change for the better we should recognize that. It's one thing to have lapses of WP:ADVOCACY and quite another to POV-push, in my mind. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 09:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can hardly fail to have noticed, there are several people who disagree with your self-analysis. It is wise to defer to third parties in such cases, due to the impossibility of objectivity when ones own beliefs are involved. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Simpler answer to your request

Re your request for a one-sentence summary for Ernst, please see Talk:Acupuncture#Arbitrary_break_for_more_input, right above the compressed text. That, for sure, will be the easiest way for you to understand and present it to Ernst. (Which I'm glad you're doing -- I take it you've emailed with him before?) .... Sorry it took this long for me to find a good, concise way to say it! --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 05:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)