Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 31 March 2019

• If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place. Thank you very much for your understanding!

• Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy and WP:OUTING, which is taken as seriously as WP:BLP, as it should be.

• Please see my conflict of interest statement for acupuncture and related Chinese medical topics

Editing tips (personal list)
Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Middle 8. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

COI

I know you assert you have no COI, but that is troublesome view. Your livelihood depends at least in part on the acceptance of acupuncture, so adding content to the article which gives the appearance of validity is absolutely a conflict of interest. You have a vested interest in the content of the article, in a way a medical doctor would not. A doctor generally has no especial interest in whether treatment A or treatment B works, as long as she can choose either, so has no direct dependence on the validity of treatment A when writing about it. A provider of any specific alt-med treatment, by contrast, absolutely does have a vested financial interest in the content of the article. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: You're welcome to your view and it has merit, but of course there are big arguments against it too that we've been over (and over and over). You might recall that the pertinent RfC found no consensus that a COI exists for CAM practitioners (and FWIW opinion ran close to 2:1 against). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, you have a vested interest in the legitimacy of acupuncture whic goes against the trajectory of evidence, so, regardless of any consensus re editing the article at all, you should not edit content relating to legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: (a) (the subtext above you didn't catch) Since there's no consensus, why should I follow your preference? (b) (the forest people keep missing for the trees) If only there were a way for editors to modify/undo edits that they don't like.... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:COI is pretty explicit: you should not edit where you have a direct vested interest in the content. Your livelihood literally depends on downplaying the fact that acupuncture is superstitious nonsense. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Read the RfC. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have a COI, by your own admission . --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I also have a pet Siberian Husky, which people keep mistaking for a wolf. If and when I no longer have it, that should moot the question of whether I have a pet wolf. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

You have a definite COI.

Please work from edit summaries for anything remotely related to acupuncture.

If you make any further controversial edits to any acupuncture-related articles, I think a ban is in order. A wider ban may be warranted. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If I "have a definite COI", why is that obvious only to a minority of respondents at the first RfC and, so far, the current one? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You aren't all alt med practitioners. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're even, because I'm not catching any logic in that reply either. In any case, the fact remains: your position is not "obvious" to a majority, most of whom are not (or cannot reasonably be claimed to be, based on evidence) CAM practitioners or pro-CAM partisans. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC); add to cmt 00:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC), 00:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

But that's part of the problem. You fail to see far too much to be able to edit the topic in a way that doesn't violate COI and related policy. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent diffs? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much everything here. It's all IDHT while avoiding personal responsibility. Please just use edit requests, and listen to others rather than arguing. If you honestly don't understand something, ask questions and demonstrate interest in perspectives other than your own. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views and concerns. I will continue to edit mainspace judiciously, per PAG. If and when we collaborate, I look forward to doing so at the highest possible levels of Graham's hierarchy. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?)

update: latest RfC --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hatting

Hatting your own content and then adding comments before the hat is disingenuous. It makes it look like I commented after your final comment. Do not do that again.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@ User:AlmostFrancis: You're referring to this two successive edits. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you commented after my final comment. Nor, FWIW, did I believe I was collapsing the text over anyone's objections, since I was changing my mind and conceding your point. No disingenuousness intended whatsoever -- I do not play such games -- just trying to thread it readably (and I thought the dates and my comment being right at the top of the collapsed section made it obvious). Anyway, more than fine to put the comment in chron order. You're also of course free to de-collapse it as well, although I don't think it adds anything useful to the page at all. I regret my role in this mini-drama, and again, my edit wasn't meant to cast your edits in a bad light at all, and I hope nobody took them that way.

While on the subject of article talk: Several of your comments go too far in commenting on the contributor (e.g., , ), which, like our little side discussion, isn't generally helpful, especially on article talk. Making too big a deal of one's objections to another editor's edits, and trying to spin that into a general narrative that they're a bad editor, is an old game (WP:SANCTIONGAME, #1), and while sometimes effective is likely to be seen through and can boomerang on the accuser. Plus it's just low class. My point is that some of your comments, whether you mean them that way or not (I take no position on that, at this time), could be taken that way, so, word to the wise.

Also, read WP:IAD if you haven't, good stuff.

BTW, don't forget to sign this comment. (Note that I avoided any personal criticism when pointing out this mistake)

Happy editing, --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC); ce, 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC); fmt & fix diff, 20:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you ... for being persistent and continuing to edit in the face of hostility. I don't endorse your views or your edits, but Misplaced Pages needs more expert editors, not fewer. You at least deserve basic respect.

feminist (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! Fortuitous choice too since I've been a happy ownee of numerous cats. :-) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion from Talk:Acupuncture

I have no idea why the two comments below were posted under Talk:Acupuncture § Popularity in Europe, but am reposting & replying here.

Here's a great way to reduce the drama: suggest edits on Talk and let someone else review them and make them. That is how we handle conflicts of interest on Misplaced Pages. You have a vested interest in the content of this article, so make yourself look better by not editing it directly.
— User:JzG 18:46, 29 January 2019

I fully agree with "the other Guy" on this. Even if you can edit in the area where you have a COI (which is disputed) that doesn't mean that you should.
— User:Guy Macon 19:14, 29 January 2019

First, I think a good way to avoid drama would be to avoid starting it, and I think both of you could take a lesson in that regard. Second, it's not my responsibility to quell drama that you start. Third, I'm not going to act as if I have a COI just because you want me to, much less because one of you has been making improper reverts of my mainspace edits based on supposed COI. You've asked (repeatedly), and I've respectfully declined; instead, absent an official finding, I will continue to edit judiciously, and expect to have my edits judged on their content, not the contributor.

Finally, I refer you both to my final comment in the improper reverts thread at JzG's user talk, archived minutes after I pointed out the uncomfortable fact that he -- actually, both of you -- made comments critical of one of my edits when it was pretty clear you hadn't even read it (see my replies to comments by GM, JzG, JzG, JzG). That should be a wake-up call regarding "commenting on content, not the contributor" (which I'm amazed isn't a more dominant stance among some editors who say they embrace fact and reason). Happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC); clarify 23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC); 23:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC); 06:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Belated update: Per this RfC, practitioners of alternative medicine do not have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)