Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC).

---

• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

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.

QG displays tendentious editing at acupuncture-related articles, especially at Acupuncture and German acupuncture trials (GERAC).

• 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.

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 ([1], [2], [3]). This only emboldens him[4] and is why we need broader community input.
Two AN/Is have been filed against QG's edits at the GERAC article (I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#QuackGuru, filed by User:A1candidate; II. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ([5]). He's also been deleting any edits I've done since then ([6], [7], [8], [9]).

[10] (2007)

[11] (2 week block, 2009); [12] (topic banned from pseudoscience for 1 year; 2011)

[13][14][15]

[16][17]

[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

[29] [30] ]

Talk:Acupuncture#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I - Nota bene: it's not what QG wrote. It's what he didn't write, even though he knew better. (The diff of QG's controversial edit is here)

Consider this entire thread (less than 90 days old) as evidence: Rate of serious adverse events (from Talk:Acupuncture, stable version as of Feb. 14, 2014.)
IDHT by its very nature develops over the course of a conversation, so the whole thread paints a much clearer picture than a series of diffs. Remember that this evidence is about QuackGuru's talk page conduct; article content issues should be discussed at the article talk page.
(Note: This thread will be put on its own subpage and annotated as completely as possible with diffs for each comment, in order to meet usual evidentiary standards; in the meantime, read it at the link above. You may also read it at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events, but rely on the stable version.)

Some diffs

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

Explanation of diffs: 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 [34].)

others:

1. [35] -- The article is about GERAC, a historic event (a set of trials published in 2006). Most commentary on GERAC is from around the time it happened. Argues they are too old per MEDDATE, when MEDDATE doesn't apply to the history of science.

1. Blanks anything on his user talk page: User talk:QuackGuru (history).
   

• To clarify, QG almost always blanks comments as soon as they are written. This is evident in the history: as soon as someone adds X characters, he removes X characters.

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

1. [40]
2. [41]

WP:Disruptive editing

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

1. [49]
2. [50]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{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.}

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.}

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

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.

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" ([51]). 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jojalozzo 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. A1candidate (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. LT910001 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. GregJackP Boomer! 04:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. A1candidate (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. LT910001 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Brangifer (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mallexikon (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. (after reading way too many of the diffs) Collect (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. jps (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. a13ean (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
5. BMK (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Have suggested a 6 month topic ban for both of them here [52] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. — Cirt (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cardamon (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. MrBill3 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the supposed evidence is either old or does not show what it purports to show [53][54]. I see a lot of aspersions being cast, but little firm evidence of anything (even things like blanking his own page are cited as "evidence"). I am reminded of the woozle effect.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
4. jps (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. BMK (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Woozle effect is a most interesting comparison, thank you, IRWolfie-, — Cirt (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cardamon (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. I endorse this view. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. MrBill3 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have had first-hand experience with a WP:OWN problem where users are told that 'all changes must be discussed' only to have them rebuffed on the basis of past consensus, which typically involves only QG and one or two other users, if it can be found at all, whilst QG actively makes any changes s/he so desires. Have concluded it is not worth my time to contribute or participate on said pages, and feel that said 'consensus' probably reflects a number of users who have been driven away in said fashion and no longer contribute. Would invite any other users in a similar position to support this statement.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LT910001 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [55] 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

" [56]. QG adds this 2013 review article [57] The impact factor is low [58] 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.

Support

1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doubleplus support. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
3. jps (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. BMK (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second Quantization (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)[reply]
6. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. RexxS (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Especially with regards to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Cardamon (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. MrBill3 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
19. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this RfC is an overreach. I think difficulties in editing should be handled on a case by case basis using the appropriate forum for each issue/article. As an editor who has participated in editing the articles and talk pages where the editing behavior referred to occured I have some experience with the editors involved. I certainly understand the frustrations of the editors who brought this RfC. Collaborating with QG2 can be challenging. I agree in part with the contention that there has been some IDHT and on occasion edit summaries and comments on talk pages have failed to provide explained rationale. Collaboration between editors with different POVs is difficult. I acknowledge that QG2 has strained the boundaries between contention and tendition. Singling out an editor for an RfC (the talk page of which has become a intereditor personal battleground) does not seem the appropriate way edit WP. I do not see any issue raised that has not or could not be handled in collaborative work on articles, talk pages or noticeboards. I encourage the involved editors to continue collaborating with a focus on content and courteous explanations with clear supportive rationale. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Second Quantization (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some agreement among some editors that QuackGuru's way of handling disputes is disruptive, even warranting a topic ban, there is a much larger group of participants who do not see any evidence, or recent evidence, of disruptive behavior. In short, taking also into account the statements made about this very RfC, this RfC can draw no other conclusion than that there is serious disagreement over the editing generally in this area, and that less heat and more light would be helpful, but that QuackGuru's behavior is not yet to be impugned.

Stronger words could be used, but this is not an ANI thread (so no boomerangs either). This admin has little advice to offer except to urge editors in this area to attempt to separate content discussions from behavioral issues. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.