| Revision as of 13:37, 13 February 2014 editMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,217 edits →Outside view by Jojalozzo: endorse← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:12, 13 February 2014 edit undoGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,287 edits →Outside view by Guy Macon: Tweak wording a bitNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| Users who endorse this summary: | Users who endorse this summary: | ||
| #] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe just alt-med, but indef topic ban for sure | #] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe just alt-med, but indef topic ban for sure | ||
| ===Outside view by Guy Macon=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | |||
| # ] (]) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Outside view by ExampleUsername=== | ===Outside view by ExampleUsername=== | ||
Revision as of 17:12, 13 February 2014
To remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Statement of the dispute
QG displays tendentious editing at acupuncture-related articles, especially at Acupuncture and German acupuncture trials (GERAC).
Desired outcome
- Make QG realize that his current behavior is making the GERAC article worse, and have him voluntarily limit his contributions to this article 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.
Description
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.
In talk page discussions, he very often refuses to get to the point and to explain his criticism (usually: allegations of WP:OR, POV language, WP:WEIGHT violations, "discredited" sources, etc.); on the other hand, he seems to be unable or unwilling to understand other editors' explanations. This results in other editors recurrently complaining of his WP:IDHT.
He routinely disputes apparently good sources (on grounds that successively change if needed) if they seem too pro-acupuncture or too useful for the GERAC article.
The situation at the GERAC article is complicated by the fact that this article attracts a lot of controversy; it is (ironically and wrongfully) seen as a pro-acupuncture article and/or WP:COATHOOK by several editors of the "skeptic" faction, and survived AfD just two months ago.
As a direct result, QG's tendentious editing routinely is defended by skeptic editors like User:Roxy the dog and jps (, , ). This only emboldens him and is why we need broader community input.
Two AN/Is have been filed against QG's edits at the GERAC article (I. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#QuackGuru, filed by User:A1candidate; II. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru, filed by myself) but both were largely ignored by admins.
As there was ongoing dispute about how much information about the trials should be included in the article, with QG and me regularly reverting each others' edits, QG filed a report at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 39#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials, which resulted in admin User:Guy Macon recommending an RfC and securing a page protection for one week.
I have refrained from reverting QG's edits since then, which resulted in him deleting the disputed material as soon the page protection ran out (). He's also been deleting any edits I've done since then (, , , ).
Evidence of disputed behavior
Persistent history of AN/Is, RfC, Arbitration etc.
RfC
Arbitration enforcements
(2 week block, 2009); (topic banned from pseudoscience for 1 year; 2011)
AN (general)
AN/Community sanctions
AN/Is
Wikiquette assistance
Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias
Talk:Acupuncture#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I (The diff of QG's controversial edit is here)
WP:IDHT
Note: context for the above three diffs is here: Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events. Much ado over nothing more than restoring a review article. QG's initial objection about the publication date was quickly addressed, and the IDHT that followed was surreal. (He even tried to argue -- among science editors -- that rendering "0.05/10,000" as "five in one million" was "confusing"; see third diff above, and ).
others:
Other avoidance of WP:DR
- Blanks anything on his user talk page: User talk:QuackGuru (history).
- Blanks anything on his user talk page: User talk:QuackGuru (history).
Disruptive tagging
Disputing reliability of apparently good sources
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Attempts by certifier User:Mallexikon
Attempts by certifier User:Middle 8
Other attempts
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}
Response
This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section
Views
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
Outside view by Jojalozzo
Quackguru was topic banned from pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed, for 6 months in 2009 and for one year in 2011, the latter with the explanation: "Since there is no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing pseudoscience topics since the previous ban, a doubling of the duration is logical" (). I was involved in the 2011 dispute and resolution process and have noticed a similar lack of progress in QG's approach since that topic ban. The scenario described here is very familiar to me and I consider QG's tenditious style to be intransigent, irremediable and toxic to the project. I foresee no lasting remedy short of a lifetime topic ban for science and health, broadly construed. Jojalozzo 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe just alt-med, but indef topic ban for sure
Outside view by Guy Macon
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.
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.