Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. In addition to consensus for keep, there is also an argument that we are talking here about a RFC/U page, and if the community thinks there are no issues with the user, there will be consensus at the page that RFC/U is not necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/QuackGuru2


This is an ill-considered and poorly executed attempt to drive out a good editor from a content dispute on alternative medicine pages. The two certifying editors are alt med pov-pushers and are using this as an intimidation tactic against User:QuackGuru. A number of problems with the evidence they have presented has been identified and it is shown that they are colluding to drive the editor away for purposes that I can expound upon privately to a neutral administrator relating to conflicts of interest. Evidence: Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2, Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2,, , jps (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The RfC creation and related issues are evidence of disruption and I think it should be closed rather than deleted for reference in any future ANI/AE proceedings, Second Quantization (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except it is a character assassination of a particular user and there is no provision in closing rules for closing when the certifying users are impeached as they were in this case. We can always reference this MfD page for future ANI/AE proceedings and administrators can still look at the deleted content. This attack page should not be viewable to the general internet, IMHO. jps (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you not see that in a case where there is a legitimate cause for removal of an RFCU we don't want someone who is heavily involved to take it upon himself to delete the views of other editors? You need to address this sort of concern the right way by asking an uninvolved administrator to look at the RFCU and delete it if the facts of the case justify deletion. This is a the basic principle that is expressed in rules such as WP:INVOLVED, where administrators are forbidden to use admin tools in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. While you are not an administrator, the basic idea of letting someone who is uninvolved and impartial make this sort of decision is a good idea wherever you apply it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I deleted the views of other editors. Can you point to where that occurred? This MfD discussion will be looked at by an uninvolved administrator (in principle) to determine whether the page in question should be deleted, just as you suggest I do. This is exactly how MfD works. I think you have failed to appreciate that MfD is not, in itself, a deletion. Are you sure you're okay here? This does not seem to me to be a very difficult concept. jps (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not character assassination. This is a regular RfC/U on an editor who runs into problems with other editors all the time. The only thing that is not regular here is the level of hate in the response by QuackGuru's friends. I know you think you are fighting a war against quackery here, and you see QuackGuru as a bulwark against this perceived quackery. But I think that even though you don't want to recognize that QG's editing style is a problem, it should give you food for thought that many editors, and especially the uninvolved ones (who don't see themselves as warriors in the battle against quackery) do recognize that there's a problem with QG's editing style: Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. 1.) The RfC/U probably would never have been necessary if QG wouldn't have enjoyed unconditional, reflexive support from users like jps no matter how how disruptive he's been; and 2.) this MfD here is ridiculous. Overall conclusion: you guys are way to serious about your imaginary war. What's so hard about WP:AGF? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think MfD should be used to try to stop ongoing RfC/U process. I only looked this briefly, but noticed many editors have participated to it, so this is not a "troll creates spurious RfC to harass someone" case. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest one stop a spurious RfC? Sure, there are others who have jumped on the bandwagon of being angry at QG, but you will note that no one has gone so far as to endorse the initial summary. jps (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you stop thinking that it is your job to "stop a spurious RfC". YOU ARE INVOLVED. If an RfC is indeed spurious, it needs to be dealt with by someone unbiased and uninvolved. You could request a review from an uninvolved administrator by posting a request at WP:ANI, but your present course of action (which includes trying to delete the discussion and telling me that posting my view was, in your words, "unethical") is the wrong path. While I and several other editors feel that you deserve a trout for posting the MfD, if you were to make a habit of it you would be asked to stop by an administrator and blocked for being disruptive if you refused to stop doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed to ask for a spurious RfC to be stopped. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I should not be allowed to do that. I think this is the first time I have ever MfD'ed a User RfC. I could be wrong though.... care to show me the pattern? jps (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep .(Changed to "Keep And Snow Close" below.) I am about as far from being an "alt med pov-pusher" as it is possible to be, and I also see the problems with QuackGuru's behavior. This is a blatant attempt to game the system by nominating a valid RFC/U for deletion. Do I hear the sound of a boomerang in flight??? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible to "see problems" and not endorse the summary of this RfC. I notice that you did not endorse the summary. I am not trying to GAME the system. I would stick my neck out for you as well if you were being subject to this kind of treatment, Guy. jps (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One can only hope that in such a case that you would stick your neck out for me by posting a "View from jps" section saying that you thought I was being treated unfairly, and not by attempting to delete the discussion or in any other way attempting to suppress the views of those who disagree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe my sympathy extends from knowing what it's like to actually be on the receiving end of such witch hunts. May you never have the experience. jps (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A trout for jps for putting this useless discussion into play. RFCU should never be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? jps (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is discussed in a number of areas. We need people to be able to follow up in the future. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep MFD should never be used for discussion of RfC/U.  Konveyor   Belt  17:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the rule that says that? jps (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It says that at Miscellany for deletion:


 * "Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:"
 * "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as historical or redirecting it somewhere."
 * "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."


 * Requests for comment is an established page Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 is a sub-page of an established page. It is also a proposal still under discussion. And, of course, as has been explained to you several times, you should have asked an uninvolved administrator to look into this rather than nominating an RFCU where you are heavily involved for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Nope. It's neither of those things. Proposals are marked as proposals. Established pages are indicated as policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has become clear to me that any further communication with you will be fruitless. If seven editors telling you that you are wrong and zero supporters are not enough to convince you, then clearly you are immune to persuasion. From now on I am going to skip any comments you make - on any page -- without reading them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep And Snow Close. At this point the only thing keeping this open will do is attract more keep votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keeping this open may also be attracting more comments. The community is speaking very loudly. See Requests for comment/QuackGuru2.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 08:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to User:QuackGuru's comment. If as many people wanted to topic ban me, as they do you, I would not be crowing.   The RfC was ill-formed; you shouldn't take that as an actual blessing for your behavior.  Your  behavior is problematic.  Wake up man. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.