User talk:QuackGuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Something needs to change[edit]

Hi QuackGuru, we've interacted a few times before, and I've been watching some of the articles where you frequently edit. I just came here from reading the Arbcom request on you and the sections at AN/I where you and User:SPACKlink were arguing. I think it is clear that while a lot of people agree with many of your positions, a majority of people have concerns about your behavior. I personally am concerned with what seems to be a lack of collaboration with other editors, aggressive editing, abrasive interactions with others, and generally what one might call battleground behavior. I've spent a good deal of time thinking of potential remedies for the situation, but rather than imposing some administrative restriction, I'd rather see the change come from you. Do you have any suggestions of things you might be able to do to help resolve this problem? Examples of this might include voluntarily limiting yourself to a (non-official) WP:1RR on articles related to electronic cigarettes, promising to follow WP:BRD, trying to get consensus before making bold edits, or refraining from discussing other editors (meaning no more accusing others of things). Please let me know what you think about this, because regardless of whether the arbcom case is accepted or not, something needs to change. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman thought it was necessary for some administrative intervention. Kevin Gorman thinks given the historic state of this page he may have to take more serious action if this continues with me (or any editor). I have agreed with Kevin Gorman that it would be a good idea to WP:FOC otherwise he or you will impose some type of administrative restriction. QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I fully understand what happened with Kevin Gorman below, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'd like to have a conversation with you about your behavior and interactions, and see some sort of real commitment to modify that. I hope you will take a moment to reread my initial post and respond to my questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've yet to see, after a few years of active wikipedia involvement, any editor who wants QG to be sanctioned actually define what is wrong with his editing in terms of PAG. He edits from a mainstream POV, and is dedicated to improving the project. He is also very capable and wonderfully fast. His edits appear like a series of shots from a gun, normally well sourced. What in PAG advises against being a pretty dammed accomplished editor, who upholds the aims of the project in the face of attacks from fringe supporting contributors? I would estimate that looking at the list of his accusers over the years, more than half represent this group. Do not try to change QG's behaviour to suit those who oppose what he stands for. Thank you. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I take it that you have reviewed the ArbCom case request which does in fact set things out clearly in terms of PAG? Regardless of whether you accept it I would agree with Adjwilley that most editors do accept that there is a problem. Certainly a number of arbitrators also seem to accept it and the majority of declines are based on needing to give sanctions more time to work as opposed to a belief that there isn't a problem. I don't want to go into to much detail and inflame the situation because I think it has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere that what you claim QG does is not actually what happens. But suffice to say whilst I'm not overly optimistic given the history, I do hope that a clearly needed solution can be found that is acceptable to all parties including QG.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the sections at AN/I, I know where things took a turn for the worse. It was before it was moved to AN/I. After I told him to reconsider making personal comments directed at me he stated he will continue to state his opinion. My mistake was I should of walked away from the situation. Rather than make comments on the behaviour of others I will collaborate with other editors better by using the talk page to resolve disputes. I agree to focus on content and not comment on the motives of others at the talk page. I understand that if an editor accused me of something it is best not to response or that will get me into trouble. It was also a mistake for me to comment on editors at the talk page rather than solely on content. To help resolve this situation I am committed to stop accusing editors of doing things and will interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Pinging Adjwilley. I'm glad that you've taken the time to look for ways in which you can help QG steer clear of trouble. I've watched him over a considerable period of time and I can attest to his sincerity in wanting what's best for the encyclopedia. What is clear is that he edits in areas where considerable controversy exists - fringe and pseudo-science - because he is passionate about keeping Wikipedia articles from being turned into adverts for quack scientific claims by SPAs whose sole purpose is to push their fringe POV. Unfortunately, QG has been guilty in the past of making wide-scale changes to articles in an attempt to restore what he feels is scientific neutrality. I've cautioned him to slow down and only make incremental changes, so that he takes other, reasonable editors along with him, rather than alienating them. Give QG his due, he has tried hard to accommodate my advice, but I fear that he has made too many enemies in the past. When someone like Guy - who is no friend of the fringe POV-pushers - loses patience with QG, it is clearly time for QG to step away from the "cause" for a while. Adjwilley, why not take a considered look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 and see whether some of the contributors there who make constructive criticisms could be persuaded to help you? I have seen QG worry that everyone who comments on him is seeking to have him sanctioned; perhaps you can go some way to dissuading him from that view and help him to find ways in which he can contribute more effectively to the encyclopedia? --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Adj, thanks for stepping in here, and please don't worry about stepping on my toes - you won't :)) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your commitment to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation. I think that alone (especially the spirit of cooperation part) will go a long way toward resolving some of the problems. (Obviously I don't expect the content dispute to go away, but it should be less likely to wind up at AN/I.) On the other hand, that alone doesn't fully address the issues of aggressive editing and ownership that are frequently mentioned. Might I suggest that you also make a commitment to try and follow WP:BRD when somebody reverts you? Although it's not policy, it is good practice that you probably should be doing anyway. Another way to go about it would be to follow a self-imposed WP:1RR. I know that sounds hard, but it's actually not that bad. (I've been doing it for a couple years myself, and it's kept me out of a lot of trouble.) Anyway, let me know your thoughts on this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I support mentoring for QG. As noted above, there are not many admins on Wikipedia who are less patient with the lunatic charlatans than me and yet if I were not obviously involved I'd have blocked QG myself several times by now for tendentious and disruptive editing. I understand his anger at the POV-pushing of quacks and his thoroughness in digging up sources is appreciated but by FSM he is maddening to work with. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Levelledout's main concern to the e-cig page was for the significant changes I made at the end of March. Since then I did not make any changes anywhere near that change and other editors have made changes and tweaked the text I originally added. I did follow caution according to User:Bishonen for that significant change.[1] I did link to my sandbox at least twice and was following WP:CAUTIOUS according to you.[2] There are editors that did support the WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY sources I added to the page. However, Levelledout thought at the time that "Sourcing is irrelevant."[3] Editors mentioned aggressive editing and ownership. It is better to examine the specific diffs rather than what people mentioned. User:Euryalus's declined, and he said Levelledout's request "lacks vigour".[4][5] I would like to examine the specific diffs to better understand what are the concerns regarding aggressive editing and ownership. I hope if editors accuse me of aggressive editing and ownership they will provide solid evidence. The good news is that my previous WP:BOLD changes resulted in part in creating a new section. See Electronic cigarette#Motivation for use. I have continued to gradually add more information to the section.[6] As a token of good faith, I will provide a reasonable explanation in the edit summary when editing. I will first look at the article's edit history and its talk page before editing. I will make an effort to examine how WP:1RR might work in practice because I want to avoid inflaming others. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying not get too involved here but when QG is name-checking me, making remarks about my conduct and using others to back up his opinions in a less than accurate way I think it's only fair and somewhat necessary to comment.
  • QG says he has not made any more substantial changes since March but has made about 165 edits to the main e-cig since April the 1st.
  • QG relies on a comment by Adjwilley that he linked to his Sanbox yet ignores my subsequent reply clarifying and reaffirming that he didn't. I suspect that QG's knows full well that he didn't and would provide the relevant diff of him doing so if he did.
  • QG claims that "There are editors that did support the WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY sources I added to the page. However, Levelledout thought at the time that "Sourcing is irrelevant." - i.e. implying that I think that sourcing is irrelevant to Wikipedia which is not what I said or meant. Rather I meant that when an editor dumps 17k of error-ridden information into the article with no prior discussion, in direct violation of WP:CAUTIOUS and instructions given to them by an admin, then the fact that the information was sourced neither guarantees inclusion nor trumps consensus nor validates the error-ridden edit.
QG cherry-picks one arbitrator's remark. Lets see what some of the other less flattening ones have to say:
  • "I would strongly advise him to take on board the opinions expressed here and moderate his behaviour." User:Thryduulf
  • "We can have further disruption and then step in, or we can step in now and do what can be done to short-circuit the further disruption." User:DGG
  • "In my judgment we need to examine this editor's conduct." User:AGK
Providing a reasonable edit-history is not a "token of good faith", it is something every editor should be doing. QG if you are serious about changing battleground conduct then please think before dragging another editor's conduct into conversations for no reason and consider how you represent other's opinions.Levelledout (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm striking this because it's a distraction and I shouldn't be commenting like this. But the bottom line is, QG, please lets have some honesty because that last post was less than honest. I'm not trying to be impolite about it, just that I say things as they are and that is how they are. Please lets also make some genuine effort to overcome the WP:BATTLEGROUND by not bringing up the conduct of other editors needlessly where it isn't relevant. Note that the sole issue being discussed here is ways to improve your own conduct, not what has happened in the past with myself or other editors.Levelledout (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a very difficult area to edit in. QG uses very high quality sources and makes sure the article reflects the best available literature. QG continued presence is thus useful at the article in question. It is those who wish to remove high quality source or to de emphasize them that I have concerns with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who Doc James is referring to here, which is not clear, I think that there is an important point that needs to be made. There is a great deal of difference between removing sources which conflict which an editor's POV and reverting sourced edits for genuine WP:PAG reasons such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and WP:CAUTIOUS. This is particularly relevant to this discussion since it has been shown that the editor whose conduct we are discussing has violated these policies. There appears to be a current of opinion, popular amongst some editors, that sourcing is supreme and that to revert a sourced edit for any reason is unforgivable. If this is not stated, then it is certainly often implied. However, that is certainly not how WP:5P works. WP:V itself includes the verifiability does not guarantee inclusion clause which states that inclusion is dependent upon showing that the information improves the article and achieving WP:CONSENSUS. Furthermore WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines". Even WP:CAUTIOUS is part of a concrete policy and cannot be disregarded simply because an edit is sourced. Finally I would add that whilst we have some high quality sources at the e-cig article, the article is in a very poor state in terms of readability. Once again, sourcing is not the be-all-and-end-all, it's no good having good sources if most potential readers are going to be put off actually reading it.Levelledout (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple comments to the commentators:
@Doc James: I know QG uses good sources. That's why I want them to be able to continue to contribute. It would be very easy to topic ban them, but I'm looking for ways to minimize disruption while still allowing them to contribute.
@Levelledout: Thanks for striking your comment above. I am aware that WP:RS isn't the only criteria for inclusion, though you are the only person I've heard advocating so hard for WP:CAUTIOUS. Really though, I'd prefer to just have a discussion with QG without the extra commentary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is wikipedia, wot everybody can edit, including talk pages where a good ed is under extreme pressure. What did you expect would happen? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Adjwilley: How about setting up a sub page in your user space for a 1 on 1 conversation with QG? That should solve the problem/interruption and has been done before in such cases.--TMCk (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@QG, Sorry for the long pause. I've reread what you said above, and I'll satisfy myself with the commitments you made. Please do think about the 1RR as well. Thanks, and good luck. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

QG[edit]

I just blocked (and instantly unblocked you) over a bad reason. My brain apparently spasmed or thing, sorry about that, and good luck~ Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm really wondering what happened in my brain for me to type a comment this cryptic, haha. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has declined the QuackGuru arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


You need to check sources before making accusations[edit]

I think that if you check the sources you claim I added you'll find that the PDF from the UK source was already in use in the article, I just chose to reference a section that wasn't pushing your agenda Quack... Lancer2K (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Both sources you added are MEDRS violations. I explained this to you on your talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than having a fight about it. @Lancer2K: can you point to where the sources are already used on the page? Bear in mind that a source suitable for a medical claim will need to be higher quality that for other more mundane claims. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Also bear in mind WP:DONTBITE. Lancer2K is a newcomer and according to behavioural guidelines should be treated with kindness and patience and without hostility. Also the discussion that was started at Lancer2K's talk page should really have been started on the article talk page. Content discussions are best had on article talk pages so that all interested editors can contribute.Levelledout (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The misplaced new sentence was largely duplication of an existing sentence in another section. The similar claim currently in the article is sourced using a recent systematic review. See Safety of electronic cigarettes#Health benefits and concerns. I did explain this briefly. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the tip about WP:QUACKS, and I appreciate the advice to leave the essay alone. When you edited the essay, the changes I'd put in had already been reverted. Some have been put back in but I think my version was better than what's there now - or as better as this essay can get. Given that there's still pressure to make it about finding Wifione-type editors and at least one editor is (mis)using the essay to claim that editors at Organic food are advocates because they're against this editor, I don't see much hope for it. I don't necessarily think it'll be deleted if it goes to mainspace but I also don't think it's that useful since it doesn't fill much of a gap. I've done what I could to improve it and I don't see the point in trying to make it better now so I'm done with it. Anyways, thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The essay has little focus. I think the real question is what is an advocacy duck? The original essay was accusing others who closely follow WP policy of having a COI. I noticed the new essay has been improved recently but I don't see how it can help anyone. The new essay says "COI ducks are ducks of a different color." That does not make sense. The essay seems to claim that a duck is an editor who has a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Ca2james after reading this comment I think the essay should be deleted. The essay is being (mis)used to make accusations against others. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)