Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who can inform editors?[edit]

@Bishonen: Does it have to be an admin who places the notification on user's talk pages? There's at least one editor who's editing relevant pages but hasn't been informed. SPACKlick (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably more than one. Please see the instructions here: "Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case". Log here. Bishonen | talk 07:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Any editor can make a notification, provided he follows the procedure specified at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The difference between ArbCom DS and community DS is that GS have different templates and logging procedures, which are specified on this page. RGloucester — ☎ 13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the 3RR[edit]

Moved to "Wikipedia:ANEW#User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru at Electronic Cigarette (copied here by SPACKlick"

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.

User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: Moved to Administrators' noticeboard)[edit]

Page
Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SPACKlick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655461925&oldid=655457035 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656291797&oldid=656291338 Revert one by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656298163&oldid=656298112 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656303862&oldid=656303264 Revert two by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656305106&oldid=656303862 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656306218&oldid=656305106 Revert three by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311733&oldid=656311581 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311834&oldid=656311733 Revert four by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656362329&oldid=656345708 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=656362329 Revert five by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=656384228 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656384442&oldid=656384228 Revert six. This was the previous warning. User:Mr. Stradivarius, where should this be reported since the page is under DS? QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hold my hands up to this one, although I dispute that 1 is a revert. Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page? SPACKlick (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted three sentences that were not duplication. I was trying to discuss things with you then this happened. You previously claimed you made only two reverts. More text was deleted. Without evidence you are claiming I am disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am claiming you're disruptive Quack, and have done for a long time and I don't provide evidence because everyone involved here knows my reasons for thinking so. I don't claim that it's malice it seems much more like a competence issue. You add content from a wide variety of sources with no editorial consideration making the page unreadable. The page reads like a history of science on e-cigs rather than a list of things know about e-cigs. You refuse or are incapable of discussing content on the talk pages instead claiming no objection is specific enough or that a source is sufficient justification for inclusion. It took hours and dozens of posts last night for you to discuss what to insert and where for one sentence you wanted in the article, during which you conflated two differing discussions of two seperate issues. The insertion itself was either Pointy or tendentious, inserting information about advertisers use of the word circumvent in a section about user motivation where the use of circumvent had been removed and raised for discussion as potential NPOV issue. You are disruptive and yesterday I thought I could muster the energy to power through and deal with you but I've realised I have no strategy for dealing with your kind of disruption, hence the request for advice.
As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming I'm disruptive. I provided evidence you deleted text. You think deleting all that text was appropriate? You were given advise. QuackGuru (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. I'm confident that fewer editors edit those pages and those pages are in the poor state they're in, in large part because of your editing style. I also believe several other editors feel the same way. I also believe almost everything I removed should have been removed from the page. Not to say that reverting it all scattershot like that was correct. Some of the information in the first text removal could possibly have remained reformatted and following discussion on the talk page part of that removal was reverted. As the initial removal was a bold removal rather than a revert that seemed appropriate. The pointy edit has been refactored and re-included following discussion but a revert was the appropriate step given how and where the insertion was.
(edit conflict) I don't care that I was given advice QG, you've driven editors away and make dozens of edits in quick succession. You're trying to WP:OWN the page. I didn't have a strategy for dealing with that kind of disruption and fell into the wrong one. Oh and it's advice not advise.SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained all the text you deleted. After I told you to stop you said I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. Please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and ye shall receive (edit conflict) note ->(relating to the lack of explanation)SPACKlick (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) relating to me not stopping. Yes Quack, I won't obey your orders, you are a disruptive influence at the page. That is my finding from watching the page for months. Are you the only disruptive influence? No. Are you the worst that's been there? No. Are you the persistent one that's done the most damage that remains? In my opinion yes.n SPACKlick (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stop claiming I am a disruptive influence at the page. You made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you should stop editing the page, you've done your damage. We don't always get what we want Quack, but I'mm willing to offer a trade. Also, my claiming you're a disruptive influence isn't WP:POINT which relates to argumentum ad absurdum and making deliberate bad edits to emphasise the mistake in a previous decision. You should really read policies for appropriateness before you link to them. SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cloudjpk also disagreed with some your edits to two different sections and gave reasonable explanations. I agree some of your changes were counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and notice that Cloud discussed the edits in the sections I created for discussing the edits there were objections to (and the one I hadn't created for in another whole section) and sought to reach consensus through discussion to improve the article. Notice also that despite Cloud and I disagreeing quite often on how content should be included I've never suggested that Cloud was disruptive. Cloudjpk does what should be done at a battleground article (as far as I can remember); Makes clear objections to content, Makes clear arguments for content, Seeks consensus. I'm perfectly willing to discuss everything I removed, and everything that was re-instated to find consensus among editors on the talk page. I do get frutstrated having 15 or 16 round discussions in which editors make no points that are not agreed from the outset, do not respond to questions asked of them and ignore any points made. I still think the removal was correct. I await consensus to see if the reverted removals should be reapplied.SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your claiming I'm disruptive but others agree with my position. You want to gain consensus to delete the text again that is clearly not redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Again you misunderstand. It gets very tiring having to explain things to you Quack. That's another part of the problem. You are disruptive in HOW you edit and HOW you discuss things. The position about Circumvention is controversial. It's being discussed by editors with opposing views to find consensus. That's what's SUPPOSED to happen. Not everyone who disagrees with me is disruptive as I've already said.
Let's look at how you contribute to that discussion about the word being used not the claim that is intended and sourced.
  • This is a non-controversial claim. They are even advertised to e-cig users as away to circumvent smoke-free laws.
  • Then you edited an additional claim about advertisers into the caption of an image not related to advertising in a section not related to advertising with an edit summary from which I can only conclude it was done because it ALSO contained the word circumvent.
  • After some discussion between me and cloud The sources can't be POV..
  • So you think editors can override what the sources says?
  • You then claimed I deleted your insertion because of my NPOV concerns about the original text [while continuing to bring it up in two sections on the talk page and on my talk page]
  • You stated Editors disagreed before and now, That my rewords were deletions and doubted my claim that I wasn't aware of the precious discussion before taking action
  • Then when asked for objection to a paraphrase The appeal is to use them to "circumvent" the smoke-free bans.
  • When asked again for objections to the paraphrase Citations are needed. Do you still want more citations?
and so on. At no point do you appear to have read or comprehended the discussion around you. At no point do you write like you are interacting with a human. At no point do you offer any justification other than a source (or a few sources) use the word. It's disruptive, it puts a lot of editors off trying to reason with you. SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)reply. Yes I am seeking consensus as to whether the word should be paraphrased or not due to NPOV concerns, nothing to do with redundancy. I am also seeking consensus on certain repeated or redundant-through-similarity points elsewhere in the article. I'm willing to let those discussions run until consensus happens. I'm willing to contribute to them and I'm willing to concede if consensus is against me. Speaking of conceding when consensus is against you, I notice over time as lots of editors stopped engaging on the pages most uses of vapor have miraculously become aerosol. Remember that consensus? SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
 – Zad68 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 – SPACKlick (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 – QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes&oldid=1149837328"