User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:QuackGuru. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

An award for you!

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Quack!

For your useful spot here, which led to a successful SPI, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.

Also, good hunting. Alexbrn talk

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For putting up with baseless attacks against you. Briefly looked at the "evidence" of poor editing by you and didn't find any [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And another

		The Steady Rate Barnstar
		Tick tock, Tick Tock! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Removal of 1910 Daniel D. Palmer quote

QuackGuru, why did you falsely remove a tertiary source[2] at Chiropractic, and why do you make false statements that it was a primary source? It seems that you have not learnt anything from your recent ban for distorting sources at Electronic cigarette where you got banned for your editing. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you are both wrong, but in different ways. The cite that QG removed (The Chiropractor's Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners by Daniel D. Palmer) is a primary source supporting the claim "According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race.", but it should not have been removed, because this is an acceptable use of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY explains this:

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. "

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is especially true for two other reasons:

It is a primary sourced backing up a claim made in a secondary source, in this case it's the Ernst source. We are always allowed to use primary sources in this manner.
It is a primary source being used in an article about the subject themselves, and since Palmer=Chiropractic, it's allowable, as long as it isn't unduly self-promotional or puffery. Biographies are filled with primary sources for this reason. We are allowed to quote the subject of the biography, using their own books and websites. Palmer is the founder of chiropractic, and what he says is vital to the subject. Some might doubt what skeptics like Ernst, Barrett, and others may write about Palmer, so it's good to include the primary source, and in this case we have him actually saying these incredibly stupid things.

This happens to be an example of QG doing what his opposers would normally be doing. When he gets upset, he has been known to "change sides" and edit just like true believers would do, such as deleting properly sourced content added by other scientific skeptics, promoting a fringe agenda by misusing sources, etc.. I had mentioned this tactic of his above, but removed it to smooth discussion.[3] -- Brangifer (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, you've made several errors in your assessment. First, this has nothing to do with true believers. This has to do with science and research.' You're conflating things. Next, Palmer does not equal chiropractic. It's what Palmer said not what he is saying. He's been dead for over 100 years and you know very well that from the beginning there were 2 very different approaches to chiropractic. In fact, the research shows that currently less than 20% of practice according to Palmer doctrine. "Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. " [4]. Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature. Please bring peer-reviewed sources to support your claims in the future. Regards, DVMt (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page for the text. I could not verify the entire sentence using the 1910 source but if editors want to keep the source for historical context that is fine with me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DVMt is correct in saying that one could argue that the quote should be removed because it gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a minority view (I am not saying that it should or should not be removed, just that this is a valid argument). The problem is that QuackGuru, an experienced editor who should be completely familiar with WP:PRIMARY by now, removed the quote with the edit comment "rmv primary source",[5] QG expand upon his reasoning here[6] (note that QG removed part of that comment an hour later[7]) and at Talk:Chiropractic#The text is sourced. Later, QG gave an entirely different reason for the removal[8][9] I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this was an example of the sort of things discussed at his request for comments/user conduct and other venues (see below). I could argue it either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is from 1910 and should probably be removed based on that alone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If I stated "subluxation is the sole cause of disease" using my statement from more than 100 years ago is not as good as using modern textbook. If Palmer is simply writing about his new technique yes that would be a primary source just as how the bible is a primary source.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Query

Hi again. Could you go through your rationale for this edit for me please? --John (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored the text that was in the article for a long time and I added in-text attribution as a compromise. Another editor thinks consensus has not been reached for its removal in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CON:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.

This happened over several editors before QuackGuru's revert[11]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you need to be careful about fanning the flames. You seem to think there is no science to any CAM, which is serious cognitive dissonance. Editors are having a problem with your radicalism, especially with owning the articles you edit. I don't see consensus in either direction, so bring it to DR or RfC. You weren't exactly compromising with this edit either. You're not assuming good faith by suggesting another editing is inserting weasel words. [12]. Less battleground behaviour, more discussion and finding compromise. DVMt (talk)

Thank you for the quick response. I have been busy in real life and I admit I forgot about you there QuackGuru. I had intended to have a chat with you just before your block expired. I now need to do some reading and some thinking. In the meantime I would like to politely remind both you and Jayaguru-Shishya that reverting (for any reason other than unambiguous vandalism) on an article in an area where you have previously been sanctioned and/or warned, and which has previously been a focus of problematic editing, is likely to be seen by neutral observers as problematic. If you see an edit you do not like, it is better to discuss it at article talk than revert. I am not at this stage formally asking either of you to observe WP:0RR but merely pointing out that (from a selfish perspective) it gives me work as I then have to go look at what is going on. Could I also ask you both to avoid personalising disputes? If you disagree, it is enough to say so at the article talk page without mentioning any names. This looks like I am a little unhappy at some of the material that was added to the article [diff here], because according to Source X and Source Y this is not the case. Instead I suggest we say "(example text)". What do others think? It does not look like Editor:X is an ass-hat because he was probably beaten by his step-mother when he was a child. That'll be why he is adding moronic bullshit like [diff here] to this article. Could an admin please ban him to Hell? The former is so much easier to work with than the latter, and in a way they both mean the same thing. Do you both see what I mean? I may come back with more but that is all for now. --John (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Could I also ask you both to avoid personalising disputes?

John, I totally agree. I have even asked QuackGuru to collaborate but so far he hasn't agreed unfortunately[13]. When I proposed the same here at his Talk Page[14], he just removed my post[15]. My proposal is still open though, and I hope that QuackGuru would finally accept that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We see a fairly large number of person attacks coming from DVMt such as just above here "Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature" [16] Appears that they are attempting to push QG and others to lose their cool. Also appears to be trying to creating a battleground with comments such as "same tendentious editing that is done by your protege" [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right, this is a problem. I intend to set up a discussion somewhere to properly look into the conduct of all users in this area. I admit I lack the time to properly work on this tonight but should get to it over the weekend. In the meantime please post at my talk rather than here, unless of course it directly concerns QuackGuru. --John (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am letting QG know that others also see concerns with some of DVMt's comments and that retaliation or expressing frustrated due to these comments is not advised. Thus why I have commented here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your mischaracterization of my intentions. I did address this with User:Adjwilley where I apologized. I'm not trying to get QG to lose his cool, but I am voicing a genuine concern over his editing habits. It really is the same old, same old. I also have concerns regarding your relationship with Quackguru. The COI diffs [18] do suggest an unusual relationship, an admin having his personal page edited by Quackguru to prevent 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 [19]. I'm not trying to frustrate QG, rather it's the other way around: several editors are frustrated with him [20], [21], [22], and my mini-essay on editing with Quackguru [23] highlights my personal experience over the last month. While I do apologize for the curt tone, I do see a lot of problematic editing with QuackGuru's style and agree with the other editors that it's time for a change in the status quo. Regards, DVMt (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked one week

Hi there Quackguru. I have blocked your account for one week for disruptive editing. Your edits to electronic cigarette are either riddled with error or too one-sided. When you come back I want you to take a lot more care, consider avoiding areas where you have very strong views, and (especially) remember that editing here is a collaborative process (meaning we have to work together) and a privilege (which can be withdrawn). If you wish to appeal against this block you may do so by posting {{unblock|your reason here}}, but you should review WP:GAB first. Best wishes and good luck. --John (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Diffs please. You have also set it so he cannot edit his talk page. How is he to appeal this again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James, in my experience it's fairly common to remove talk page access when a blocked user removes the block notice as in [24] ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem here. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)x

Can anybody point me to any evidence of disruptive editing? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

John, please provide evidence for "disruptive editing", because I want to see it. QuackGuru is among the most competent editors of medical articles on Wikipedia. Also, I've checked his recent edita, and they seem to strictly abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. I think your block is completely uncalled for. -Fasf14 (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

People who are truly the most competent do not normally rack up a block log with more than a dozen entries and a couple of RFC/U discussions (1, 2). Disruption involves how you interact with other editors (social skills), not just about whether or not you promote a scientific POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the RfC U has no difs supporting it. And when asked none were ever provided. It was an interesting case.

Anyway will give the admin in question a little more time and than bring to ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. Quackguru was asked about this edit, where he apparently changed a claim from a source about 15% into "a third". Rather than discuss this "mistake" productively the user chose to repeatedly remove the conversation from his user talk page. As I said when I went into this area, I have little time for tendentious editing, and as the user has a block log the length of my arm, and would not engage, I have blocked them one week. If anything I think this was a lenient block, and I only made it such a light one because their last block was in 2009. Removing active block notices is not allowed so the user then lost talk page access. Consensus at the article talk page seems to be against the edits as well. I stand utterly by my actions in this area. --John (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, QuackGuru was blocked as recently as 2011, per this AE thread. He was notified at his talk page here. For some reason this 2011 block does not seem to be registered on QuackGurus block log. Stimpy3 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. You can find a pretty comprehensive summary for QuackGuru's editing history from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DVMt#My_experience_in_editing_with_Quack_Guru

User QuackGuru has already refused to collaborate even before his ban was set:
1) My request over his willingness to collaborate (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=610677286#Refusing_to_collaborate_at_Article:_Chiropractic.3F), and 2) his rude deletion of my request on his Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=610682648)
This also sets admin Kww's activities under question. He provides indefinite bans (and ban threats) without providing any diffs. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

? You're mistaken. The reason "this 2011 block" isn't in his block log is that he wasn't blocked, the AE you link to didn't issue in a block. It ends with this inconclusive result. I really don't like Quack Guru not having Talkpage access here, to correct such egregious errors himself. @John, I've restored tpa, hope you don't mind. There is disagreement about the "remove active block notices" thing, discussion between admins about it has erupted several times recently, and even for those who take a hard line, I actually haven't seen tpa being removed over it. For removing it once? — No. User:Quack Guru, consider yourself warned not to remove the notice again. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

P.S. I have with some effort excavated the whole 2011 AE thread that User:Stimpy linked to above — it wasn't above halfway done in his link. It was closed with a one-year topic ban from pseudoscience and chiropractic. (A block wasn't even discussed as far as I can see — can't face reading every word of it.) Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

QG is indeed an active medical editor, but also one of the most controversial, to the point where I often stay away from articles he edits, which are often my favorite topics, the ones in which I'm a recognized expert in the real world. It's simply impossible to communicate effectively with him. He has a de facto IDHT, very tendentious, form of communication, and merely repeats claims and his own ideas, without addressing the concerns brought up by other editors. That he is usually defending and promoting a scientific skepticism POV (which is usually the same as the mainstream scientific and medical POV) is fine, but collaboration is essential, and his communication needs to be vastly improved. He only gets truly communicative when he's being threatened with a block, and then he suddenly will bend and bow and cooperate to the nth degree, but that stops when he's back into safe territory. When such an editor keeps me from editing my favorite topics, then you know something's really wrong. He gives skeptics a bad name. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC) edited 14:27, May 30, 2014‎. See here.

QG is indeed an active medical editor, but also one of the most controversial, to the point where I often stay away from articles he edits, which are often my favorite topics, the ones in which I'm a recognized expert in the real world. It's simply impossible to communicate effectively with him. He has a de facto IDHT, very tendentious, form of communication, and merely repeats claims and his own ideas, without addressing the concerns brought up by other editors.

.

I agree. As you can see from DVMt's recent summary of QuackGuru's editing[25], he has been involved into numerous conflicts already. However, I have just recently found out how blatantly he has some administrators covering his back, such as Kww (please correct me if I'm wrong), who bans people who are in conflict with QuackGuru without any diffs (evidence). When asked about it, he ignores it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well explained, Brangifer. QG has had me stop editing the acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and GERAC articles altogether, and has been making me look like a TCM-proponent just because I have been opposing his edits. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah an unsupported bit of speculation about someone personally is called "very well explained"? User:BullRangifer you really need to support this "supporting fringe POV and destroying mainstream content" with diffs and remove this "making one wonder what type of mind we're dealing with" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you totally ignored the bulk of his comment, which was a detailed explanation of QG's obnoxious editing style. He's even worse than me!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, I removed that part, just so we don't get distracted from the current issue at hand. (Below I mention this issue again.) -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC) edited 14:43, June 6, 2014‎.

Hum User:Mallexikon the same one who filled out a RfCU without supporting claims and then refused to provide any when called on it. [26] I do agree that QG needs to stop removing stuff from his talk page and set up an auto archiving system instead. Will technically one is allowed to remove from ones talk page, the talk page does not really "belong" to the user in question and is here to improve the encyclopedia. But this is not really a blockable offence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That RfCU had ample supporting claims; you simply refused to acknowledge them... Instead, you've used your star power to hold a protective hand over your protégé QG. To repeat a something I've said to you before, Doc James: this discussion here here should give you some food for thought. --Mallexikon (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocking QuackGuru for this offense is a bit like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion. Punishable? Yes. But he's done far worse to warrant this and many other blocks. Those defending his actions likely do so because he provides a service to you which you cannot do yourself. Like Capone supplying the booze, QG tirelessly push the cynic's point of view... Often times confused with the skeptic's point of view. Unfortunately, when it comes to science, QG remains petulantly ignorant of the difference. He thinks that by pushing only the negative aspects of a fringe-leaning topic, he is doing Wikipedia a service. He is woefully mistaken. And what's worse is that his misguided effort almost always in results tendentious editing, battleground / owner ship and stalking complaints, and AE / 3RR antics. I hope that this block is just the start of the necessary effort to get QG blocked for another year or more or indefinitely. He is not capable nor interested in reform. 166.137.210.28 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree on this. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well put. QG very rarely works towards consensus or compromise, and goes well beyond attempting to portray his idea of mainstream POV, he tries to bury articles in twisted versions of cherry picked sources with no respect to weight to make them look ridiculous. The fact that you think the subjects themselves are ridiculous is not justification for over-the-top tendentious editing. I truly am convinced by his editing habits that he and PPdd are one in the same person. An editor that active, with such an ownership complex might have multiple usernames. Those of you asking for diff's to justify the block, seriously just look at any talk page discussion he partakes in. Herbxue (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Here[27] I have asked QuackGuru to collaborate, a request which he has still refused though. I even asked on his very talk page to answer it: all he did was to remove my request[28]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the troll magnet section and semiprotected this page. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

On a similar note as the above, I don't see much of a need to continue the discussions below. This isn't an RfC/U, and while some outside commentary can be helpful for an admin considering an unblock request, QuackGuru hasn't even appealed this block. In two days QG will probably come back online, blank this page, and continue editing. I suggest that users still conversing here do similarly (the continue editing part)...your time will probably be spent more productively elsewhere. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Question & comment by Middle 8

Of those who express support for QG, I wonder how many have been on the other end of a content dispute with him? Some skeptics perceive QG as an anti-woo warrior, but why then does QG piss off skeptics who have actually tried to resolve disagreements with him? See Brangifer above, and Guy (JzG), who has criticized QG's conduct at chiropractic [29][30][31] and replying to me on a talk page said:

"[QG] has a tendency towards owning articles, he really doesn't collaborate well at all. I am a skeptic... I still have a big problem with what QG writes and he appears to think that any edit not skeptical in exactly the terms he would like, is supportive of quackery."[32]

FWIW, other critics of QG's behavior who are not generally perceived as alt-med proponents, some of whom may self-identify as skeptics:

Endorsers of a lifetime topic ban on science and medicine: Jojalozzo, LT910001, GregJackP, Davey2010.
Endorsers of a lengthy topic ban from pseudoscience and alt-med topics: Guy Macon, Liz, Jytdog, Collect. Additionally, Mallexikon, who has been wrongly tarred with a pro-alt-med stance due to his disputes with QG (cf. Guy's comment above).
As well as Brangifer above, other (non-alt-med) editors have been discouraged from editing by QG: Jytdog [33], LT910001 here (diff oversighted)

Many of QG's critics are not alt-med-ers, and many of the alt-med-ers editors who criticize QG do not have the same issues with other skeptics. These are facts, facts that I hope cause some of QG's supporters to reconsider. All editors with strong views about QG should be watching talk pages and gathering diffs. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not an alt-med proponent even if I am interested in the topic area. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and if I didn't list you above, I didn't mean to imply that you are. I only listed people whom I'm pretty sure aren't commonly perceived by skeptics as alt-med advocates, and I'm honestly not sure how "skeptic"-type editors tend to view you. I wish the whole topic area were less polarized. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 04:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perceptions of QG will vary depending on the information one has. QG has been around for a long time, and so have a number of us who have interacted with him -- across the spectrum from alt-med advocates to scientific skeptics (per above). We've AGF'd a lot over time, and have been releatedly frustrated that QG improves for a while but then relapses, as Brangifer (who has also been around for years) mentions above [34]. QG's edits have always been a mixed bag, and there's been a net positive trend, as his block log shows. His tendentiousness has remained just beneath the blocking threshold from 2011 until May 29th. He does some really good work with MEDRS's, but can also be maddeningly rigid (and not always correct) in discussing how to interpret them. His editing has been a mixed bag, so it's natural that perceptions will vary depending on what information one has. It's easy to find diffs of his good mainspace edits; it's harder to demonstrate a long-term pattern of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. So I'd again ask that editors who have not been on the other end of a content disagreement with QG pause to consider that part of the picture. Going forward, let's remember that these concerns have existed for many years, and the community's patience isn't limitless. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) edited 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Guy Macon

My personal view is that most or all of alternative medicine is pseudoscience mixed with the occasional fraud, but on Wikipedia I follow the sources whether I agree with them or not. On the QG RFCU I expressed the following opinion,[35] which was endorsed by 12 experienced users.

"QuackGuru is an interesting case. If you look at the battles he keeps getting into, much of the time he has a legitimate point. Areas such as Chiropractic and Acupuncture do attract a fair number of editors who would very much like to make the articles on those topics overwhelmingly positive, and there is an ongoing struggle to achieve a neutral point of view in the areas of alternative medicine and pseudoscience.

That being said, QuackGuru comes close to being the worst possible choice to fight these battles. The proponents of alternative medicine and/or pseudoscience are, for the most part, well-meaning and willing, after some gentle persuasion, to work with us to create balanced articles. This takes a calm, friendly, evidence-based approach with lots of polite explanations about the reasoning behind our policies. QuackGuru interferes with this by turning the article talk pages into a battleground and causing the proponents to dig in their heels. In many cases, QuackGuru is right but he isn't persuasive, and he gets in the way of those who prefer a more calm, measured approach to dealing with these sort of issues.

Because of this, I must reluctantly recommend that QuackGuru be given a lengthy topic ban on all articles relating to pseudoscience and/or alternative medicine, broadly construed. There are plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles, and QuackGuru's efforts are hurting more than they are helping."

Everything I have seen since has only convinced me that I was right. I do not believe that a one week block will be effective. Right now we are moving towards either ignoring the disruption (bad) or a lengthy block (worse). I think my proposal for a a lengthy topic ban is the best solution here. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

QG is better than many working in this topic area. Yes he should not delete stuff from his talk page but doing so is hardly a reason for this ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

~~A life-long topic ban would be appropriate in QuackGuru's case in my opinion. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)~~

Two separate issues; general block (not ban) and talk page access block. As for the talk page access block, the consensus among admins looking at this appears to be that a single improper notice removal deserves a warning, not a talk page access block, and indeed the talk page access block was removed. As far as I can tell, no admin has expressed disagreement with the one week general block for disruptive editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Guy Macon's analysis and suggestion. It's the only way to minimize the constant bad atmosphere and disruption created by QG. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I earlier supported an indefinite topic ban for QuackGuru[36]. However, having good faith on him, I think the proposals made by Guy Macon and BullRangifer might better serve the purpose. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My outside view as added below was support by 19 others

This RfC User starts of badly. It begins with "QG is a notoriously difficult editor who now seems to be on an anti-acupuncture crusade, to the point that he is willing to skew the facts." One would expect difs to follow but they don't. The first difs given are words of support by other editors. Good to hear that QC has others support. The first dif of QC himself is this one [37] where he changes a list into prose (good job, this is what we should do per WP:MEDMOS, he removed the number of patients randomized in the LBP trial, excellent idea, was overly detailed for a general encyclopedia and if I saw this would likely do the same, we do not do this elsewere, looks like a positive edit unclear what the issue was and why this dif was brought up so prominently?) Then there are 4 difs highlight controversy over an article which is sort of a WP:COATHOOK and of questionable notability. Obviously no admin really want to get involved.

Next comes evidence from 2007 and 2009. Than some from 2008 and 2010. Any evidence from the last year or do I need to click through all the difs one by one?

Okay here is a recent edit under the title "Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias

" [38]. QG adds this 2013 review article [39] The impact factor is low [40] but it is sort of a fringe area of study. So most importantly was the content added supported by the ref in question? (I have pulled up the complete text and read the intro) Added "In 2006, German researchers published the results of one of the first, largest controlled randomized clinical trials" ref says "In 2006, German researchers reported a conrtolled RCT of sham acupuncture" Next added "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture" ref says "some insurance companies in Germany stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment". Okay what is wrong with this edit? How are the facts skewed? QG has closely paraphrased the source in question which is a recent review article?

Anyway I am going to trout the users who have put together this RfC User as sorry it sucks. Both User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8 should be topic banned for six month for this. Additionally will give GC a barnstar. While I have not reviewed the issue in full the bit I have shows not concerns to warrant the above and it has been put for so poorly even if there was evidence it is nearly impossible to find.

This is simply wrong "There are plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles". There are not a lot of editors, in fact there are exceedingly few in the able to count on one hand range. I come across article promoting fringe positions based on a bunch of primary sources all the time. Additionally nominated the two who created this RfC for a topic ban at AN here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It by the way got the greatest support and was on par with the comments by User:jps "I'm getting a little tired of editors who say, "Well, he does good work, but because he doesn't suffer fools gladly, he shouldn't be allowed to edit" which is essentially the position of Guy above. This is a terrible approach to WP:ENC. In fact, it is inimical to it. The encyclopedia would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics. Would anyone claim that if QG was not given free reign to write these articles they would be better than if the two editors trying to force him out were given free reign? Anyone?" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. At least when you look at the articles acupuncture, chiropractic and traditional Chinese medicine, the current article quality is low, and I hope that no high schooler will found their studies on Wikipedia. The current articles on these topics are of rather a low-quality with a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. Encyclopedic material? Not really. A lot of improvement is needed, indeed. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally reject Doc James' mischaracterization of my position. QG treats *everyone* who opposes him like shit, not just the subset that Doc James thinks of as "fools" and thus deserving of abuse. I also suggest that Doc James re-read WP:NOTTHEM, which applies to those supporting/opposing a block or ban as well as to the blocked/banned individual. We need to focus on QG's behavior, not on two of his many opponents.

So am I a fool too? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments between the quotes are not my comments but those of User:jps. Those are the other comments at the RfCU that got the greatest support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I also reject the implicit False dilemma fallacy of demanding that we choose one or the other to have "free reign" and offer an unexamined third alternative: why not hold everyone to the same high behavioral standards no matter what their position is on an issue? Why not treat everyone with the same respect and dignity even while explaining to them that they are wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Many are making false / unsubstantiated accusations against QG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If they are, that behavior should be dealt with in the usual way. Again, misbehavior by others is not an excuse for misbehaving, and is an argument specifically not allowed in block/unblock discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for evidence of misbehavior to be provided. Removing comments from ones talk page is NOT significant misbehavior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"There are not a lot of editors, in fact there are exceedingly few in the able to count on one hand range."

Doc James, there are currently 121 active editors watching Acupuncture. Just how many fingers do you have on your hands?

Not all forms of "misbehavior" involve misrepresenting sources or other problems that are easy to show in single diffs. Sometimes "misbehavior" involves being unable to maintain positive relationships with other good-faith editors. The mere fact that multiple established editors are unhappy with this editor is proof that there is some sort of problem here. Or, if you'll let me put it another way: You and I both spend a lot of time telling other editors that they've screwed up somehow, that they've used the wrong kinds of sources, or that they're otherwise not following MEDRS and NPOV. Much of my wiki-life involves resolving disputes. Fully 50% of your recent mainspace edits are reverting someone, and most of those were good-faith edits. But you don't see large groups of editors angry at either of us, do you? People who disagree with us are collegial, respectful, and even kind. I think it's because our manner of disagreeing with people is functional, whereas QuackGuru's manner of interacting with other people is not well-suited to a collaborative effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Removing comments from ones talk page is NOT significant misbehavior.";

Two separate issues; general block and talk page access block. As for the talk page access block, the consensus among admins appears to be that a single improper notice removal deserves a warning, not a talk page access block, and indeed the talk page access block was removed. As far as I can tell, no admin has expressed disagreement with the one week general block for disruptive editing. I am still waiting for some sort of response to what I actually wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: Of course you're still waiting for such evidence; you keep ignoring it whenever it's provided.

Do you realize that the desired outcome in the most recent RfC wasn't to impose blocks or bans at all, but simply to get QG to acknowledge feedback and voluntarily self-regulate? Verbatim:

"Make QG realize that his current behavior is making the GERAC article worse, and have him voluntarily limit his contributions to this article [acupuncture] to making suggestions on the talk page, for one month"
"Make QG realize that his attitude of the end (i.e., fighting against alleged quackery) justifying the means (WP:IDHT, deletion of reliably sourced material, disruptive tagging) is not constructive, and voluntarily improve his editing style."

QG was just blocked above for good reason [41]. But you're "still waiting for evidence of misbehavior". There was in fact good evidence given in the most recent RfC (disruptive tagging, tendentiousness, and most importantly poor collaboration), plus evidence by Guy concurrently at AN [42][43][44]. Yet you say "no diffs provided". Plus the topic ban in 2011 [45], and a persistent history of AN/Is, RfC, Arbitration etc. prior to that, and this for a block log. And you talk about false / unsubstantiated accusations.

Despite your persistent IDHT on the matter, it's obvious that many editors have serious objections to QG's conduct. These are editors (of all kinds) who have actually endured trying to work through content disagreements with him, which AFAIK neither you nor a single other editor praising him as anti-woo warrior extraordinaire ever has.

Keep piling on the praise and barnstars for QG; all you're doing is encouraging him, which makes him less likely to change, which means he'll keep getting blocked until even your hyperbole can't save him from long-term sanctions. Meanwhile the project suffers. Please stop doubling down on your position, and denying obvious misconduct and complaints. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 17:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Why is this all being ignored? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

He works in an area were we have people who are trying to promote the topic matter in question. He is picking up attempts to change what we have to what the sources do not say such as this [46] among many other.
The statement that we have 121 active editors watching this page. We obviously have a different understanding of what active means. I am watching the page in question but hardly keep an eye on every change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Middle's comments. They state "plus evidence by Guy concurrently at AN". So I looked at AN. Nothing. I looked at the first dif. It is not at AN but on the talk page of the chiro article. The other two difs are from Feb 2014 and are not by Guy.

I must be missing something? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These diffs: [47][48][49]. I spoke imprecisely: those are not evidence in the form of QG's diffs, but rather a respected & skeptical admin posting edit counts and talking about recent misbehavior by QG.

And then just above QG gets blocked and the blocking admin explains why [50], and 34 hours later you're saying "Still waiting for evidence of misbehavior to be provided". HUH?

Anyway, I'm not the only one who finds it astonishing that you keep denying or ignoring evidence of QG's misbehavior -- and that you also seem to discount the fact that it's not just alt-meders who are complaining. Look, I know QG does good stuff here, but his conduct is also problematic. He needs to make a course change, and has been told this for some time, cf. his history. Your uniformly positive feedback is not helping him do so at all. I wish you would also provide constructive criticism, since he may listen to you. Are you still denying he has conduct problems? Are you still saying it's only alt-meders who have a problem with his conduct? Please clarify. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 03:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC), Edited 05:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please AGF toward those who have actually worked with QG over time and attempted WP:DR. Among the 19 editors you mention, I believe very few have; I've watched a lot of the same articles QG has for years and know many of the players. Likewise, I agree that QG does good stuff, I just think that editors praising him have only seen that side of his edits. [51] --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all my feedback is praise. And agree that QG should not remove talk page comments from his talk page. Is that a blockable / bannable offence? Nope. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've yet to see any critical feedback. And I think most of us understand that removing comments from his talk page was not the reason for QG's recent week-long block. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Jmh649 keeps implying that it was is is, in my opinion, WP:IDHT behavior. The last time I saw him make the claim, I wrote:

"Two separate issues; general block and talk page access block. As for the talk page access block, the consensus among admins appears to be that a single improper notice removal deserves a warning, not a talk page access block, and indeed the talk page access block was removed. As far as I can tell, no admin has expressed disagreement with the one week general block for disruptive editing."[52]

Jmh649, could you please stop implying that QuackGuru was blocked because he removed comments from his talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well. The diffs suggest there is misdirection away from the reason he was blocked (disruptive editing) and try to make it about something less consequential. Neuraxis (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the ancient past...

Ignoring the past, the block seems to me to be righteous. QG has not, to my mind, ever really come up with a mechanism for tempering his zeal. His editing style implies ownership and he comes across as an activist, not as a collaborative editor who happens to be a skeptic. Wikipedia rightly follows scientific consensus, and the default in the scientific method is skepticism of any claim, especially an extraordinary and unlikely claim, but Wikipedia also cannot follow the militant skeptic view and dismiss all alt med as worthless quackery. Alt med exists, is used, and its proponents spend a lot of time trying to provide sciencey-looking evidence that it works - it is not our job to fix this. We absolutely do not allow the views of "lunatic charlatans" to dominate any subject, but we are here to document quackery, not to debunk it. QG seems to think differently, and certainly edits as if he does. That is a problem and has been for a long time. I just wish he could find a way of doing what he does with less friction and head-butting. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well said, JzG. I agree with you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that QG has to temper his style quite a bit before he will be effective, but no, it is part of our role to reject sciencey explanations in favour of scientific ones and to ensure that scientific rejection of crap receives more prominent display than the crap itself.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How opinonated, indeed. Maybe this explains your administrative behaviour, like serving blocks and threats without any diffs (evidence) ever proclaimed? Keep your own opinions to yourself, here we discuss through reliable sources. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right of course, but that's a distinction without a difference, with respect to how I read Guy's comment. When we do our job, we demonstrate that science, via weightier and better sources, rejects pseudoscience. To cite the classic NPOV example, we don't say "Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug"; we let sources do that. Among other problems, QG doesn't get that distinction. He insists on his preferred wording to the degree of m:mPOV. QG's holding a a hard line against pseudoscience-apologists -- which is what his supporters like about him -- is in fact a by-product of his holding a hard line against any edit contrary to his interpretation. Which he often does even if it's grammatically and scientifically better, and more faithful to the source. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 18:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there's a difference. Some would have us go into great detail about the exact nature of each pseudoscientific article, documenting the belief system in great detail. Articles about perfectly innocent plants and animals become polluted with references to how each plant or animal was used in each particular form of pseudoscience. That's completely undue weight. All of that detail drowns the fact that the topic has no basis in reality. We have a problem with shrillness and hysteria in some of of articles, but that doesn't mean that the presentation of the topic as unambiguously false is the problem.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the above statement runs counter to what Wikipedia is and is not. Articles about plants and animals are not "perfectly innocent". The are just articles about plants and animals. References to how each plant or animal is used in a form of pseudoscience are not "pollution". They are simply facts, and should be included/excluded and weighted according to how notable they are, not according to our judgement about whether they are good or bad or whether the topic has any basis in reality. For example, look at our article on Rhinoceros. Nearly half of the lead and two entire sections are devoted to covering a pseudoscientific belief about rhino horns. This is a Good Thing, because it is one of the most notable things about the rhinoceros. Likewise, many Wikipedia articles about plants and animals mention pseudoscientific uses in passing or not at all, because in those cases the pseudoscientific uses are not notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I get to agree with both of the "Guys" here: DUE weight is determined by what the reliable sources say—all of the reliable sources, not just the True™ sources or the Scientific™ sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That is my interpretation as well. I also question how loosely the term 'pseudoscientific' is thrown around, just because the evidence is weak for a specific use for a specific Dx/purpose doesn't automatically make something pseudoscientific. My 2c. DVMt (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the page. Some things are WP:FRINGE without being pseudoscience, but others are unambiguously pseudoscience, like my example above. The theory that rhinoceros horn enhances sexual prowess is not just a theory with weak evidence. It is pseudoscience. That being said, there are a lot of things that are called pseudoscience but are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree context matters. Could you give me an example of what is considered fringe, but is not pseudoscientific? I ask bc it seems there seems to be a lot of confusion that the 2 are synonymous. DVMt (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's true that reliable sources are all that matter, WhatamIdoing. It's a shame that so many consider sources founded in pseudoscience and quackery to be reliable. They aren't reliable foundations for anything but statements about their beliefs. What they most certainly do not do is provide a license to get mentioned thousands of times on the basis of holding unsubstantiated beliefs about thousands of topics.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best not to make an argument based on a hasty generalization fallacy. Beliefs require faith and are not testable. Science requires understanding and can be tested. We must be careful about conflating things. DVMt (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs don't require faith at all: one can believe that one has evidence of something and be mistaken. It's also quite possible to claim to believe something simply in order to extract money from the gullible and defenseless. By the way, I was replying to WhatamIdoing, not to you, which is the reason my indentation level is what it was. Please don't change it again.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse, we define "reliable" as basically meaning that the source was non-self-published and has a reputation for ordinary fact-checking, not according to whether it understands science. "Reliable" does not guarantee that the source is correct. The upshot of that rule is that when writing articles we have to consider (for example) idiotic sources that say drug testing on animals can be discontinued because we can just write computer programs that predict the results. (I can write one of those, and I bet you can, too! The answer my computer program gives me is always, "Guaranteed safe. Go make lots of money". What a great sense of humor my program has!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources that don't comprehend basic science can't reasonably be said to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with @Guy Macon: in that, for example, articles on plants, elements, wavelengths and so on should not, as a rule contain the absurd claims that homeopathists make for those things. The delusional beliefs of homeopathists are an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction in reality-based articles on real-world concepts. There is virtually nothing on the planet that some homeopath somewhere has not claimed to be a "remedy" for something, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Should not contain the claim or should not discuss the claim? Should our rhinoceros article not discuss the pseudoscientific claims of medical uses for rhinoceros horn? Our NPOV policy requires that we apply WP:WEIGHT without NPOV-violating judgements about "absurd claims" or "delusional beliefs".

Responding to WhatamIdoing, I believe that there is some confusion about our "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" rule. Let me illustrate with a coupe of articles chosen at random. Light therapy says

"In psoriasis, UVB phototherapy has been shown to be effective".

That is Wikipedia saying that it is effective in Wikipedia's voice. That sort of claim definitely needs to be backed up with a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Now compare this statement in our Dodo bird verdict article;

"Supporters of the Dodo bird verdict contend that all psychotherapies are equivalent because of 'common factors' that are shared in all treatments (i.e., having a relationship with a therapist who is warm, respectful, and has high expectations for client success)".

Notice that this is not Wikipedia making the claim in Wikipedia's voice, but rather Wikipedia reporting that someone else made the claim. This sort of statement does not require a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense that WhatamIdoing describes above ("Sources that don't comprehend basic science can't reasonably be said to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). The source just needs to be reliable in the sense that we are confident that supporters of the Dodo bird verdict actually made that claim.

Another example: Young Earth creationism states that

"Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year".

The source for that is a book by Whitcomb, pretty much the poster child for a source that doesn't comprehend basic science -- and self-published as well. That's OK, because it isn't Wikipedia saying "the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year" in Wikipedia's voice. When we have these discussions, we need to take care to specify which kind of statement we are talking about, because they have quite different sourcing rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to mention medically-unsound usage of rhinoceros horn since that is ecologically harmful and therefore relevant outside the universe of the traditional medicines that use it. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 [53] 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

[54] 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [55] nor QuackGuru's [56] 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)

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)

* I also have concerns that User:Jmh649 is displaying favouritism. The COI diffs [57] 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 [58]. I'm not trying to frustrate QG, rather it's the other way around: several editors are frustrated with him [59], [60], [61], and my mini-essay on editing with Quackguru [62] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sanctions on e-cigarettes

I assume you are not the "uninvolved Administrator", since you've been working on the article. To what degree do these sanctions apply to the "Discussion Pages" of the Article, as I have no intention of making "bold" edits to the article without discussion?Jonny Quick (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You can ask an uninvolved admin that question such as User:Bishonen or User:Black Kite. I'm not sure why you think "the whole article is one big pile of trash, as is the Lede". According to this comment you want to scratch the current lede and start rewriting it. Numerous editors edited and improved the lede over a long period of time. The lede is four well written paragraphs. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm new(ish) and learning, and occasionally have the tendency to "spout off". I really don't like the Lede, but have no intention of doing anything major to the article until I get a better feel for what I'm doing and also have a better alternative to the current article.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Userpage

Why does your userpage keep disappearing? I wish you'd put up at least a blank one and leave it there, because its absence keeps forcing us all to keep checking that User talk:QuackGuru exists to make sure we're spelling your username correctly – it always shows up as a redlink when we try to ping you, and therefore looks like an error. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a userpage. If Larry Sanger returns things might change on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)