User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:31, 3 July 2014

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Speaking of history...

Belatedly, @Guy Macon: There's also this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic, 12 February 2014. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be useful to provide dates for each of these and put them in chronological order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so we 4 from the last 3 years.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 26 January 2014 to 16 April 2014

Brought forwards by User:Mallexikon and Middle 8. Majority support was for a 6 month topic ban of both User:Mallexikon and Middle 8.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#user:QuackGuru either WP:STALKING me or WP:TAGTEAMing with user:BullRangifer 10 January 2014

User:Arzel raises concerns. Proposal to ban Arzel raised. Sockpuppet in support of sanctioning QG [1] Gah there are a lot of sockpuppets in this topic area.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru 15 December 2013

Concern brought forwards by User:Mallexikon. Comments not supportive of Mallexikon

[2] 26 November 2013

Concern brought by User:Mallexikon about same issue. Response to it is mixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James, Don't forget Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic, 12 February 2014. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was were you family asked us to indefinitely site block you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as I recall the discussion was about QG's conduct, but you tried to change the subject. (Imagine that.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got some nerve to bring this up. It was a good faith RfC/U, with a concern that was (and is) shared by quite a few editors (as you can see at this discussion again). Where you got the crazy idea that it's ok to start an AN/I asking for a six-month topic ban for someone who started an RfC you don't agree with still eludes me. Are you actually aware of what kind of precedent you created by that? If I would have known that you're an admin at that time, I probably would have taken you all the way to ArbCom - because you should know better. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Because no matter how disruptive his editing gets, QG can always rely on some editors like you to protect him. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey, not the topic-less topic ban again. For the record: In retaliation for WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, Doc James proposed a "topic ban"; he never did specify which topic area, and neither his attempt [3] nor QuackGuru's [4] ever got traction. This sums up the episode well. POINT-y distractions aside, here is an accurate summary of the RfC: It sought a voluntary course change for QG, which nobody else endorsed; however, over a dozen editors supported blocking or banning QG, and half again as many condemned the RfC. (There was, imo, also a cynical attempt to make the RfC a referendum on whether or not skepticism is more awesome than alt-med.) Once again, I think it's noteworthy that most or all of the editors supporting sanctions have had experience trying to settle content disputes with QG, but most or all of those condemning the RfC have not. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) edited 18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) & 03:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints that [A] Are in the Wikipedia namespace and [B] contain "QuackGuru" in the title are the tip of the iceberg. If I had time to waste I could search through Article Talk space and make the list much larger. Jmh649, do you have a theory as to why all of these editors, many with no connection with each other and with widely different points of view, all seem to have a problem with QuackGuru's behavior? What is the common factor? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* I also have concerns that User:Jmh649 is displaying favouritism. The COI diffs [5] do suggest an unusual relationship, an admin having his personal page edited by Quackguru to present the insertion of real world controversies of James Heilman. It seems that there is unconditional support for Quackguru and his editing as suggested by these diffs [6]. I'm not trying to frustrate QG, rather it's the other way around: several editors are frustrated with him [7], [8], [9], and my mini-essay on editing with Quackguru [10] highlights my personal experience over the last month. Combined with Doc's unconditional suppor, even in the face of wide-ranging evidence, enables the same editing problems wrt QG. The status quo doesn't suffice anymore. DVMt (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you posted this twice? There is no unconditional support. My expectation is that QG will use high secondary source. This is the same as my expectation of others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If V/RS is the only policy you expect QG to follow, you'll probably be satisfied. As for things like NPOV and CON (and OWN and TPG and CIV), well... not so much. (Did I hear someone mention IDHT?) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask, Jmh649, do you have a theory as to why all of these editors, many with no connection with each other and with widely different points of view, all seem to have a problem with QuackGuru's behavior? What is the common factor? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James is ignoring the behavioural problems with the edits, just commenting on secondary sources. I too do not see an answer to your question, so it's not in your head. Neuraxis (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand Doc James's response to EVERYTHING is "We should rely on secondary sources," even if you ask him his favourite ice cream. It's almost like he's deliberately misunderstanding the questions... --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Perhaps editing in a contentious area where some go to great lengths, including socking and abuse, to get their POV / spam / whitewashing into articles is CG's problem? The amount of incivility QG (and others) endures is phenomenal. While QG probably should less fussy and more carefully choose battles, his overall work is very helpful. Without QG's work, I could easily imagine Wikipedia turning into a cauldron of alt med propaganda. QG needs more support, some hand-holding, but not condemnation. This type of attack against editors demanding RS and MEDRS will only serve to inhibit others from editing these type of articles. Jim1138 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I really need some hard evidence before I am willing to believe that QuackGuru is indispensable. For example, he had a lengthy topic banned once before; can you point to evidence of "Wikipedia turning into a cauldron of alt med propaganda" during that time? There are many other Wikipedia editors looking at the alt med articles that don't have QuackGuru's demonstrable behavior problems. As for incivility QuackGuru encounters, how much of that is a reaction to his bad behavior? Finally, it is abundantly clear that no amount of support and hand-holding is going to address the behavioral issues. He knows what is expected of a Wikipedia editor, and he simply does not care. Go ahead and ask him.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating; looking at the battles QG keeps getting into, QuackGuru is often right but he isn't persuasive. He turns the article talk pages into a battleground and causes his opponents to dig in their heels. And he drives away those on both sides who prefer a more calm, measured approach, leaving only those -- once again on both sides -- who are looking for a fight.

How about this idea? Give QuackGuru a lengthy topic ban on all articles relating to pseudoscience and/or alternative medicine, broadly construed. If I am right, there will be plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles. If you are right and Wikipedia goes to hell in a handbasket without him, then we can remove the topic ban and put him on paid staff, as we would with anyone else who shows themselves to be indispensable.

(Note: I may not be able to reply to comments for an unknown length of time because of personal issues) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not supporting my assertions in the first place. I withdraw my statements. Thank you for your reply. Again my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I cannot comment on any editor's work in entirety, but in the places in which I have met you, I have only seen your commitment to removing content which is against the guidelines for health content developed by the community at WikiProject Medicine and actually adding content which is compliant with these guidelines.

I only see you in the places in which people are advancing minority science perspectives without using sources which Wikipedia can accept. Because you continually operate in controversial places where editors feel victimized that their views are not favorably represented, you are continually around many different and unrelated advocates who criticize you.

When I have seen you, you have shown abundant patience for the kind of passive aggressive behavior which quickly gets others to leave Wikipedia. The goal of passive aggressive behavior is to get the other frustrated and make them voluntarily leave. I worry about your mental state and do not want you to burn out on Wikipedia, but on the other hand, I would never ask another person to voluntarily reside in circumstances which attract as much negativity as you tolerate.

In thinking about Wikipedians like you who are my colleagues at WikiProject Medicine and who somehow are attracted to necessary roles on Wikipedia which scare me, I drafted a proposal that volunteers who endure tremendous stress in the course of their volunteering have access to mental health services in order to debrief with a counselor. That proposal is at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Community support services. I did not write this for you personally, but your situation definitely warrants it, because I would like to see you continue to maintain article integrity and if you endured this kind of stress in any other volunteer capacity I feel that any organization overseeing you would see your routine contributions as an occupational hazard deserving of having stress counseling at hand regardless of whether you chose to use it.

Thank you for doing what you do. If you need a break then take it as soon as Wikipedia ever becomes less fun for you. I would rather miss you if you took a vacation than lose you permanently for this not being a place where you could tolerate the stress.

My wish for you is that your ability to de-escalate tense situations continually improves, such that everyone you encounter never becomes angry and that you are able to bring peace and contentment to places where that has never before existed. I really appreciate the balance you bring to pseudoscience articles and appreciate your participation in WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVMt/Neuraxis

Hiya, he said, transparently trying to install a false feeling of security and friendliness before diving in for the throat. ;) You indicated at MfD that you believe Neuraxis had also used at some other time another rather similar name. I'm not sure what evidence you might have for that but if there is any reason to suspect sockpuppetry there I think it would be reasonable to present it if and when Neuraxis appeals the existing siteban. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I should apologize if the above smartass comment actually came across as hostile. Dealing with, um, certain people for too long and seeing their sometimes ridiculous accusations can get more than a little irritating, as I think you probably already know quite well. Unfortunately I do at times vent my own spleen in what might be considered inappropriate ways and I apologize if this seems to have been one of those instances. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because accusations of Sock Puppetry are so poisonous (and because I want to hide the fact that I am really Beaker), I reject them all unless there is compelling evidence attached. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quacks

It's funny to see a promoter of chiropracty calling someone else a quack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again

Please slow down and TRY to actually gain some consensus for your edits at Acupuncture. Yet again you are flying in the face of several editor's objections and exhibiting ownership behavior. You may have some legitimate reason to question some of million gold coin's recent edits, but that does not give you the right to undo all the work of Middle8 and others over the last few days. I believe you are sneaking around discussion by using MGC edits to justify undoing Middle8's. Don't do that. You have been clearly edit warring and I suggest you stop since you have a history of getting banned for that. Herbxue (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making the controversial edits or adding original research to the lede. On the contrary, you continue to edit war [11] and you ignored the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history is so mild and congenial compared to yours, thanks for pointing that out :).Herbxue (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping to fix the problems.[12] See Talk:Acupuncture#Duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun approach is going to lead to trouble again

You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause. I can also tell you that you are being your own worst enemy again. Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly.

Can I ask you to talk with me before you bring things like this to noticeboards? I can help you see where you are being unconvincing and where you are making leaps of faith. The woowoo articles have always attracted problematic editors, so no single report is going to fix the world. You can bring reports so badly that no one listens and nothing gets fixed, though, and that seems to be the path you are going down.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :: My edit history is so mild and congenial compared to yours, thanks for pointing that out :).[[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 :::You are not helping to fix the problems.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=614654456] See [[Talk:Acupuncture#Duplication]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
+== Shotgun approach is going to lead to trouble again ==
+You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause. I can also tell you that you are being your own worst enemy again. Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some ''very'' good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly.
+Can I ask you to talk with me before you bring things like this to noticeboards? I can help you see where you are being unconvincing and where you are making leaps of faith. The woowoo articles have always attracted problematic editors, so no single report is going to fix the world. You can bring reports so badly that no one listens and nothing gets fixed, though, and that seems to be the path you are going down.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)