This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Gillcv
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Gillcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBCAM WP:ARBPS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
-  29 August 2022, 15:34 UTC—edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
-  29 August 2022, 16:11 UTC—obstinate edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
-  31 August 2022, 02:21 UTC—they still think they were right
-  31 August 2022, 03:11 UTC—refuses to apologize, they think they were right
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful: sorry, that's not knowledge (Greek episteme), that's opinion (Greek doxa). It's just a testimonial. Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Gillcv
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Gillcv
I the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph;
However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy.
This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies.
Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Mi statement is what: is an opinion?! So, according to your knowledge of logic and language, is a testimony an opinion?
- If it is not an opinion, then it is the testimony of many own experiences (with positive results).
- quote @Tgeorgescu : Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. Well:
- 1) logic, again! This is not a statement is an affirmation.
- 2) This affirmation was not inserted in the body of the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, but in the motivation for reintroducing that paragraph.
- 3) The scientific truth is supported by the citation of an article from scientific journal (not crap!) Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies.
- Finally, did you read something about this journal? There!
- 1) Quote: The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal. (my emphasys).
- 2) Quote: It includes new a paradigm of integrative research, covering East and West, and traditional and modern medicine. (my emphasys).
- 3) Quote: The journal is indexed in MedLine/PubMed/Index Medicus, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, DOI/Crossref, Korea Citation Index(KCI), SHERPA/RoMEO, EZB, and Research Bible. Gillcv (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing Nevertheless please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Black Kite please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have time to continue this argument endlessly. Maybe only if you recommend me to the Dutch Commune Zwolle so that I can also receive some money. Gillcv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRing
As far as I can tell in the mishmash of timezones the site presents me with, the DS notification (at 16:22) comes after the diffs (15:34 and 16:11), so this request is not actionable no matter what the merits of it might be. On a very quick glance it looks like it would have merit, but pseudoscience is not my bag. @Gillcv: I'd take this as your warning to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
PS I'd close this myself but I forget what the propriety is of doing this kind of admin action where I don't actually hold the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Gillcv
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I have just seen this. I had already partial blocked Gillcv from Cupping therapy for disruptive editing - not as an AE action. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for discretionary sanctions, the article talk page isn't tagged with DS notice, although I don't think that is required. Not sure which area would be best, as tagging them isn't what I normally do. In all events, I think BK's block was the right move, under the right authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)