User talk:Herbxue

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin

Arbitration Enforcement 2

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from all fringe science and pseudo-science topics (including Acupuncture & Traditional Chinese Medicine), broadly construed, for a period of six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be editing articles and discussions related to fringe science and alternative medicine. Please stop. If you have questions about how broadly this topic ban should be construed, please request guidance at WP:AE before proceeding. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. All topics related to alternative medicine fall under "fringe" and "pseudoscience". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll ask Lord Roem to weigh in, and possibly ask at AE. The articles I edited are not labeled as alternative medicine or fringe, and should not be (they are literally ancient history). But I will take your advice and check before editing more. I just want to do something productive and uncontroversial.Herbxue (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

I noticed this this discussion and couldn't help but notice you are topic banned from alt med discussions (and acupuncture in particular) on Wikipedia. Discussing acupuncture anywhere on Wikipedia would seem to be violation of that topic ban, so I would suggest you not do this again in the future. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, I assumed individual editor talk pages were not off-limits. I will read the details on topics bans again. Herbxue (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COIs must be documented on the talk page

See diff. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy to go along with rules and norms, but, 2 things:

1. I have read the guidelines regarding COI. I am a subject matter expert, and I believe that is not the same as having a COI.

2. Is there a committee decision regarding posting COI of individual editors on article talk pages? If not, I would prefer to not be singled out as someone to be judged on an article's talk page. People should judge the reliability of my edits by the edits themselves.

Herbxue (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't see the COI tag that problematic per se, i.e. it doesn't prevent one from editing the topic area. IMHO, as long as one sticks to MEDRS, there should be no problems. After all, the MEDRS literature we are able to quote - according to our best capability - reflects scientific consensus the best. I personally believe that no "woo" studies with their "woo" results will - or at least are likely to - pass the peer review process of notable journals.

If one believes otherwise and criticizes the peer review process of a given journal itself, well... that sort of speculation is no longer in our interest here at Wikipedia. We are here to summarize the sources, not to speculate on them. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input JS, but the thing is I do not have a COI any more than Ernst has a COI in "research". Unless professionals working in other areas of medicine (Doc James for example) are required to declare COI in medical articles, I will insist that this labeling of me on an article talk page is a misuse of the COI guideline, and may in fact be violating aspects of it. Herbxue (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know your position in real life, Herb, but if you're an acupuncturist or TCM practitioner please be aware that during a recent arbitration case Middle 8 tried to argue that as an acupuncturist they had no COI as far as Wikipedia was concerned, and this view got no acceptance. Also arbcom recently passed a motion placing all altmed articles explicitly within the ambit of discretionary sanctions. Please take note of these things. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex, do you have a link to the arbcom case? I've been aware of the discretionary sanctions for some time, but I don't believe my training and experience render me limited under those or other guidelines. Herbxue (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually AE, here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, but that discussion is not really relevant here - in the case you linked to Middle 8 was at risk (warned, not sanctioned or disciplined) because admins felt he was using the wrong process (arb enforcement) to resolve a content dispute. The fact that some other SME was met with a cold reception by some admins is a useful warning about the general atmosphere on WP (thank you for that), but it is not directly relevant to the question of what constitutes COI and is there a policy that requires people with identified COI to be tagged in a template on article talk pages. Herbxue (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the disucssions M8 was told "Note that your interpretation of COI is likely not to be perceived by other editors or AE admins as accurate to COI", and indeed one arb referred flat-out to a COI. I just want you to be aware that the general consensus on WP seems to be that altmed practitioners have a COI as regards their speciality, if this applies to you. Simply asserting that it doesn't is problematic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a WP:COI according to your own words. Herbxue, you wrote "Yes, I am a TCM practitioner and I regularly butt heads with those that seek to discredit it (by over generalizing or otherwise misrepresenting sources, or using inappropriate sources). I do not believe that I have a COI any more than Doc James has a COI in various medicine related articles."[1] See diff. Please disclose your COI on the talk page. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]