Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2

Re: Outside view by IRWolfie-

 * You're right that many of the ANI's etc. are older, and combined with QuackGuru's clean block log since 2009, it's obvious that he has improved over time. Perhaps an indef ban (which was suggested in another outside view) is too much.  Note that the desired outcomes are simply course changes and taking feedback to heart.  That would be great; I'm not sure it's possible (cf. his resistance to feedback below).


 * I'll explain the diffs you mention soon; in the meantime, please have a look at the section below .... a pattern of IDHT may become more apparent from the whole thing. regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, here goes. Both of these are in the "Rate of Serious Adverse Events" thread in th section right below this one; please refer to it.  And I know that the specific things I'm telling you he IDHT'd about are essentially "inside baseball" at Talk:Acu.  These will become clearer once I annotate the whole thread with diffs and explanation --  a big job, in progress.
 * This shows QG IDHT-ing on (a) misreading my original edit's diff as having removed text (check on the right side; it's still there, just not bolded); (b) White 2004 being the original source for the 5-in-10^6 number, so we shouldn't cite Adams 2011, who merely cited White; (c) the older White 2004 being OK under MEDRS's exception that older reviews are OK in fields in which there is a paucity of reviews, as well as OK because its topic, rate of SAE's, is unlikely to have changed much since '04.
 * This shows him IDHT-ing again over my my original edit's diff. He kept saying I removing text/sources; per above, I did not remove the text; and you can find both Adams 11 and Ernst 11 in the refs of that page version.
 * Like I say, it will be clearer soon. It's really detailed, frustrating stuff, probably not readily apparent if you weren't there. But I'll do my best to clarify, and give you the info necessary to make an informed decision. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the diff you provided it does show you did delete one of the citations that was used for the 2011 meta-review following text at the beginning of the paragraph: A 2011 meta-review showed that serious adverse events are frequently due to practitioner error, exceedingly rare, and diverse. The 2011 meta-review is a newer source that was not about the 5 in 1 numbers yet you replaced the 2011 meta-review first sentence at the beginning of the paragraph with another source. Why didn't you just restore the numbers? Middle8, do you think the comment by User:IRWolfie- is correct? See Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (belated reply @QG) Already addressed that diff right here. More re your other question soon, below. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI)


 * Since I came across User:Middle 8's self-posting at COIN which I responded to at length, I've been reviewing this. I agree that a)  QG can be difficult and agree with User:Guy Macon that QG's aggressive style is counter-productive (which hopefully QG will one day really hear);  b)  I am very sympathetic to Middle 8's and User:Mallexikon  problem of having a persistent and overly aggressive opponent; c)  I agree that [this dif] on the GERAC trial was indeed tendentious; d) I agree with Doc James that (i) editors who review health claims critically are rare and need to be retained and (ii) the posters of the RfC are out of line too.   I endorsed only Wolfie's response because it rejects the RfC and doesn't go further than that.  My overall take, said cleanly.   The acupuncture article is pretty good sausage as it stands; the process of making it has been uglier than it needed to be.  Some of the ugliness is from QG, but some is from Middle 8 and Mallexikon.  The OPs' lack of insight in the RfC that at times they have  tendentiously edited and Talked, and that they have misframed the RfC too, is troubling - although they do rectify some of that that in their discussion with DocJames below, which is a very good thing.   All in all, while I understand the overboiling of frustration that led to this RfC (and also led to some of the sloppiness for which it has been rightly criticized) and I find Middle 8 to be very clueful, I cannot support the RfC.  But I have watchlisted the article and will do what I can to help. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I originally supported IrWolfie's view. After spending some time in the trenches on the GERAC article, it is clear to me that an unfortunately ugly culture has grown up where some of those upholding Wikipedia's PAG against FRINGE are running afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, Talking and editing in a way I can only describe as arbitrary and WP:POINTY.  I still think the RfC is malformed but I have become sympathetic to the intention.  The disruptive behavior needs to stop and the assumption that anti-FRINGE editing gives license to act this way needs to be brought to the surface and repudiated.   I therefore deleted my support for IRWolfie and have supported User:Guy Macon's view. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A clearer picture of IDHT
Re Evidence for IDHT: It can be hard to show patterns like IDHT with single diffs. For those with the patience and desire to really understand this dynamic -- and the good faith not to shrug it off as "tl;dr" -- please try reading this thread at Talk:Acupuncture. It's tough going, but that's the point -- it didn't have to be: Rate of serious adverse events (from Talk:Acupuncture, stable version as of Feb. 14, 2014; annotated version with diffs to follow.)
 * All it boiled down to was restoring a review article (White 2004) that cited a particular number: a rate of 5 in 10^6 for serious adverse events.   I may add more diffs below, but please do your best to read the thread to get the full impact.
 * QuackGuru complained it was too old; explanations were given; IDHT ensued.
 * Then QG started insisting that a more recent source be used for the 5 in 10^6 number, but it was pointed out that the newer source simply referenced that to White 2004, and it's proper form to cite the original.
 * Massive IDHT followed, including misrepresentation of an editor's statement (MrBill3, who called him on it), and of my edit (I didn't delete the review he claimed I did; he misread the diff and it remained).
 * This culminated with QG's incredible claim that White was not a suitable source for the 5 in 10^6 number because it was the newer source that said "5 in 10^6", while White rendered it as "0.05 in 10^4". "Too confusing" for us to handle, he said -- among science editors!
 * (anticlimax: I would go on to restore the source but botch the edit with a cut-and-paste; to his credit, QG fixed the error, although he did IDHT once more and assert there was no consensus to restore the source.)

All that over a simple citation of a number. For those of you who read this thread, do you think it indicates a problem? If so, what do you think is a good remedy? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is a fringe journal being used as a citation for any numbers? jps (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good source; the author is reliable, and (cf. thread) it's been cited in good reviews. White is a research fellow at Exeter in the same department as Ernst, and they coauthored one of the better books, in its time, on acu research . --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's published in a fringe journal, still. jps (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So? It's reliable. If you have an issue with the source go to talk:acupuncture. Stay on topic, please. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 08:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fringe journals are not reliable according to WP:FRINGE. That you're arguing over this at all shows that the conversation is not headed in a good direction because you simply shouldn't be using fringe journals. jps (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Are we referring to Acupuncture in Medicine ? It does not look like a fringe journal to me -A1candidate (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an independent source (for acupuncture), as WP:FRINGE guides us to use. Alexbrn talk 21:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, it may or may not be an "independent source", but its not a fringe journal. Just pointing this out. -A1candidate (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my understanding the terms are synonymous here: a non-independent source for a WP:FRINGE topic is called a "fringe journal". Regardless of the term, such publications shouldn't be used for sourcing anything other than the mundane & uncontroversial. Alexbrn talk 21:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What I infer from the term "fringe journal" is a publication that expouses fringe theories. As far as I know, this does not apply to AIM, otherwise the journal would not have been indexed in major scientific databases. -A1candidate (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Many (most?) fringe journals are. Look at Homeopathy a foremost example. Alexbrn talk 21:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The journal you cited seems to have an impact factor of less than 1. -A1candidate (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ernst has also published in the same journal as White 2004 (Acupunct. Med, BMG) . Good authors sometimes publish in marginal journals, and we accept such sources.  White, BTW, worked with the Cochrane Collaboration to search the same journal search the same journal for RCT's for possible inclusion in Cochrane reviews. (Cochrane, too, evaluates sources on a case-by-case basis.) At any rate, the consensus of editors in the thread above was that White 2004 is a MEDRS.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose Ernst would be making controversial claims, though. The WP:FRINGE guidance says use independent sources and that "points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles"; that can't be easily overridden by a local consensus. Trying to pick article quality by assessing the credentials of the authors ourselves is fraught with difficulty, and turns us into amateur peer-reviewers. We shouldn't be doing that. If a point made in a fringe journal is really significant, it will also be made in mainstream RS too - the simple solution is to source to that. If the point isn't made in mainstream RS, then that's a WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn talk 07:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Who says it's a controversial claim?  The NHS agrees that the rate of adverse events is extremely low.  Remember the thread at Talk:Acupuncture, Talk:Acupuncture, discussing:
 * *White 2004: "The risk of serious events occurring in association with acupuncture is very low, below that of many common medical treatments."
 * *NHS: "When it is carried out by a qualified practitioner, acupuncture is safe. Serious side effects or complications arising from treatment are extremely rare."
 * Also see the other reviews re safety in the article.
 * Additionally, consider that White 2004 is cited in in Adams 2011 (Pediatrics; scroll to White, ref. 11). The authors, presumably experts in their field(s) and publishing in a perfectly good journal, didn't seem to think White was controversial.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 11:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, cite the RS then (even perhaps with a note saying what the RS is citing). Alexbrn talk 11:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really want to get into detail about this, but another problem with the White source is that it is TEN YEARS OLD (failing WP:MEDRS when we have more recent studies). Wanting to include it would seem odd whichever way one looks at it. Alexbrn talk 11:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the thread? It's right at the top of Talk:Acupuncture, here. This was discussed at length there, cf. diff. I'll post something soon that might make all this clearer. Hang in. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Acupuncture is not FRINGE but Questionable science. WP:FRINGE says: "Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." --Mallexikon (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not acupuncture is "unambiguously pseudoscientific" is a separate issue. In Wikipedia terms, it is - even if it is "questionable science" - a fringe topic falling under the WP:FRINGE guidelines. Alexbrn talk 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is: was the conduct of QG acceptable? Whatever the group of editors on this page thinks of White 2004, all editors in the thread except QG thought it is fine. Read the thread and observe QuackGuru IDHT-ing about, e.g.: The first two are matters of fact and not opinion, and a solid case can be made for the third under MEDRS.
 * Let's remember the reason for this thread.
 * White is the original source for the number, so we should cite White, not Adams 2011 who simply cited White
 * The proposed edit did not replace other sources with White; it only added White.
 * White 2004 is not too old given the paucity of reviews in the field and the unlikeliness that the rate of SAE's for acupuncture is going to change much over time

BTW, I am working on annotating the above thread with diffs and commentary. It's a time sink and huge pain in the ass, even worse than suffering through the thread was. It's not easy to depict with diffs alone, and it's likely easy to get lost in the thread's minutiae if you weren't seeing it first-hand. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 11:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was involved in the thread at the time, but if QG was arguing in line with guidelines/policy against editors trying to forge a rebellious local consensus, then on this occasion QG would have been in the right. Of course, being right is not an excuse for disruptive behaviour - the correct course on such occasions is to use the various dispute resolution mechanisms. Quite why nobody was looking for more & better sources (starting here maybe) beats me. Alexbrn talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He wasn't. Did you read the list just above starting with "*White is the original..."?  He was IDHT-ing over two simple facts and one reasonable interpretation of MEDRS, all of which had been accepted by all the other editors there. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 12:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to repeat here what I wrote in "Outside view by Guy Macon", because some participant in this thread aren't seeming to "get it":


 * 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.


 * Given the above, I don't see how comments about QG being right or about QG being wrong are relevant. Whether or not he is right about acupuncture, he certainly is right on some other alternative medicine and/or pseudoscience pages. the point here is that the behavior is not acceptable even if he is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "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." With 23K edits in those topic areas I don't think that has ever been the case. Every edit showing anything negative is resisted and generally sanctions are required. Second Quantization (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, I can think of two competing theories. It could be that gentle persuasion was tried and did not work, or it could be that gentle persuasion was not tried. It has been my experience that, if the reasoning behind our policies are explained properly and they are treated with respect and asked to work with us, roughly 90% of POV contributors are willing to follow our rules. The other (roughly) 10% end up needing some sort of administrator "attitude adjustment". Alas, that 10% makes well over 90% of the noise on talk pages... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Section break
Note -- this discussion has been edit: was earlier archived because QG's comments below about "the new thread about the duplication problems" are off-topic. They're about a thread subsequent to the the thread presented as evidence, and have no bearing on QG's conduct in that thread. (I shouldn't have replied in the first place; it's not always necessary to do so, and especially when the issue is off-topic.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)''

This comment above in this very thread Middle8 claimed an IDHT ensued once more but there was no IDHT once more. I did not say there was no consensus to restore the source for the 5 in 1 numbers in the new thread about the duplication problems.

He initially said in the thread: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=592677026#Adams_2011_text_was_deleted_without_consensus_and_replaced_with_a_dated_2004_source_that_was_not_about_child_acupuncture @QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was an unbelievable IDHT and this is just more.] In the new thread this was not about deleting or restoring the 5 in 10 numbers using White 2004. It was about the duplication problems.

I was commenting about the duplication and about there was no consensus to delete the Adams 2011 source. Why was I being accused of "this is just more" in this thread? Was the behaviour by Middle8 acceptable or not acceptable? QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The full story is in the rest of the thread -- go to "We're cool" = "I am OK with content outcome". I initially expressed shock that QG would deny that there was consensus to add the source (White 2004) when in fact every other editor (five altogether, IIRC) had supported it.  (That was, again, the thread submitted as evidence for IDHT; just have a look.)  (Correction: See below. In the follow-up thread, QG in fact didn't assert a lack of consensus to restore White.  He did IDHT over something else, but that's tangential, because it doesn't bear on the submitted evidence. --00:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)) I quickly realized (within an hour) that I'd made a mistake with the edit QG is referring to, and had both deleted and duplicated information unintentionally.  QG very kindly fixed this, and then very unkindly accused me of "a repeated pattern of deleting sourced text from newer sources", based on exactly two edits two months apart: one being aforesaid botched edit (27 January '14), and the other being the original edit (21 November '13) where I put White 2004 back in.  And in fact, I didn't delete anything with the latter edit, I only added a source and used it to support existing statements to which it was originally sourced.


 * I explained all this carefully ; I don't know why QG keeps repeating the story as if I hadn't explained it. It's almost as if he... didn't hear my previous responses, ironically.


 * QG, you're doing yourself no favors by repeatedly insisting your view is the only correct one despite evidence to the contrary. This is tedious and painful stuff to go through, and I sympathize with your position, and am sorry you're going through it.  I don't enjoy this at all, and it wouldn't be happening if other editors didn't at times find it excruciatingly hard to work with you.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You claimed: "he did IDHT once more". That is not true. You also claimed above in this thread I asserted there was no consensus to restore the source.)" This is not true. You made an unsupported statement and you are not correcting your mistake.
 * You did not provide evidence there was an "IDHT once more". I did not say there was no consensus to restore the source. I previously explained in the new thread I started the problem was about the duplication.
 * See Talk:Acupuncture.
 * You claimed: "I initially expressed shock that QG would deny that there was consensus to add the source" but there was no denial on my part. You claimed "QG would deny that there was consensus to add the source" when no such thing happened. The discussion was about duplication but not about the using White 2004 source for the numbers. Do you understand you were initially mistake because I never said there was no consensus to restore the source.
 * You claimed: "And in fact, I didn't delete anything with the latter edit, I only added a source and used it to support existing statements to which it was originally sourced." Actually, in another thread you accused me of missing reading the diff but I did not misread the diff. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2
 * I objected to you deleting sourced text using the newer 2011 source that was not about the numbers. Look at this edit.
 * You replaced the first part of first sentence that was using a newer 2011 review citation: A 2011 meta-review showed that serious adverse events are frequently due to practitioner error, exceedingly rare, and diverse.
 * The newer source was using the 2011 meta-review. The part "2011 meta-review" you did delete but you claimed to have moved it. You replaced it with "A 2004 cumulative review". You previously claimed you didn't delete 2011, just moved it to where it fit better. But you didn't move it. Again, when you look at your edit you didn't move it. You deleted the citation using the newer source. I think your not getting it. The evidence is against you on this. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that in the second thread you didn't IDHT about consensus; sorry, and I noted that above. You did IDHT over another issue, but it didn't have to do with consensus.  I accept your correction over what I said in the second thread.  But with respect to the submitted evidence, this is tangential, because it doesn't bear on your conduct in the first thread. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 00:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You claimed: "You did IDHT over another issue, but it didn't have to do with consensus."
 * You claimed I said that your first edit removed Adams '11. Do you have a diff for that? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do have a diff indicating further IDHT in this later thread, but stop -- why are we discussing this? You're objecting to a comment I made (about a comment you made, about a comment I made whose diff no longer exists) about a different thread entirely than the thread that I've submitted as evidence. Please stay on topic and discuss matters relating to this RfC.  Because this is off-topic, archiving. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion shows you have accused me of IDHT without evidence. This shows you have a pattern of making baseless accusations. This is on topic. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259. Please provide your evidence or withdraw your accusation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, for the record, the diff I'm talking about is this, and whether you mean Adams '11, Ernst '11, article text, or whatever (it's not clear), I didn't delete anything "repeatedly" as you claim above. That's the IDHT I meant -- that my 21 November '13 edit deleted something.  Have I misunderstood you?  Perhaps I'm overly-sensitized to IDHT and have done so, in which case, please clarify.
 * And as annoyed as you are, it would be nice if you stopped repeating the accusation that this edit (27 Jan. '14) was made in bad faith, especially in venues where it's not appropriate. It would also be nice if the piling on stopped, because it's unfair and disingenuous, and it really is possible to give constructive feedback.
 * And once again, everything above starting with "This comment above in this very thread Middle8 claimed..." is about a thread different from, and subsequent to, the thread that I've submitted as evidence. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 02:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You had a pattern of deleting sourced text from newer sources. But now you have stopped.
 * You claimed: "That's the IDHT I meant -- that my 21 November '13 edit deleted something." There was no IDHT. Please stop accusing me of IDHT and please withdraw your baseless accusations. I previously explained above in this section break your edit did delete something.
 * For example, you claimed you just moved the newer Ernst 2011 source but you did delete the text from the newer 2011 meta-review. The part "2011 meta-review" you did delete but you denied you deleted that part because you claimed you only moved it when you did replace the first part of the sentence with the 2004 source. When you closer at the section you can't find the the words 2011 meta-review.
 * As for the 2011 Adams source, you did delete it. You admitted you made a mistake to delete the Adams source. There was only agreement to use the 2004 source for the numbers, not to delete newer sourced text. You botched both edits. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @QG: Every single point you just raised I addressed in my comment above from 10:30, 20 February 2014 (diff missing as part of oversight of another editor's WP:OUTING vio's), and your reply still ignores the evidence. For the record, please quote the exact text you think I deleted [here.  Thanks. ---[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @QG: Every single point you just raised I addressed in my comment above from 10:30, 20 February 2014 (diff missing as part of oversight of another editor's WP:OUTING vio's), and your reply still ignores the evidence. For the record, please quote the exact text you think I deleted [here.  Thanks. ---[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

QG brought up the issue of Middle8 replacing a 2011 review with a 2004 review. Some how this shows IDHT? I am confused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this is so dead horse. the simplest thing is to read it yourself - it is the topmost discussion on the Talk page of the acupuncture article, here. briefly: There was a statement about the % of adverse events for acupuncture.  QG wanted to use a 2011 review and state the percentage in a complicated way; Middle8 and others wanted to use a 2004 review that stated the % very simply (and which, btw, the 2011 review cited).  Consensus in that discussion led to citing the 2004 review (bizarre) and QG wouldn't let it go.  hence IDHT.  it was such a big contorted fight over nothing - i could not see what was at stake. but participants are still bitter about it. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the synopsis. Sounds like all need to drop the sticks and move on. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there are two separate issues here: article content (over which I think everyone has moved on, and rightly so) and RfC evidence. Whether the latter matters or not is up to the reader; I'm not feeling butthurt about it either way.  @Jytdog:  You've summarized it quite well; thank you.  Just a note -- neither source stated the number in a complicated way.  White '04 said 0.05 in 10^4; Adams '11 said 5 in 10^6.  (You do realize that it's standard practice in the sci literature to cite the original source for a finding?  Older reviews can be OK under WP:MEDDATE; cf. this.)
 * Yes, much ado about nothing, and that's why it's evidence. This could have been resolved by either (a) QG not being tendentious & IDHT-ing, or (b) someone making the edit, which QG would likely have reverted, starting an edit war that would have been "resolved" when QG's reverts were outnumbered by other editors'.  Hoping to avoid (b), I tried in vain for (a).  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * hey middle8 - in my eyes, it seems you still can't see your intensity on this point. if it were really "nothing" to you, you would not have engaged in the earlier dispute, nor would you still be talking about it at all -- nor would you even now be trying to prove you were right.  please do explain, why was this so important to you?  you are generally very reasonable as far as i can see. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi jtydog, yes, I planned on addressing the intensity thing in a fuller reply to your very helpful comment at COI/N, which I've been mulling over, but here is a really good place to do so. I have a tendency -- one I suspect I share with QG -- to have a hard time "seeing the forest for the trees".  It must look pretty bonkers to go to all this fuss over a ten-year-old review to cite a single number, let alone one that tends to depict acu in a positive light.  And then to use it as evidence in an RfC in WP's polarized "fringe-skeptic" environment, yeah, that probably seems over the top.


 * Explaining this gets tldr, sorry; it's a case of a pebble accreting snow and turning into a snowball. Each accretion-step makes sense at the time, even though on the merits it remains a pebble.
 * Why did I argue to include it in the article at the time? Because the article has a lot of numerators (# of cases of SAE's) but hardly any denominators (# of total pateints or treatments), let alone ratios.  It had included White before, and per many RS acu really is quite safe when done properly.
 * Why keep pushing once QG objected? Because no one else objected, some clearly agreed, and it's bad for both process and outcomes if QG gets to override local consensus just by being tendentious.  So I stood on principle, but there are better ways to do so:  I could have just made the edit or ask someone else to rather than drawing out the discussion.  A smallish edit war, with only one editor objecting, will die down fast and is less disruptive than teh dramaz at talk.
 * Why bring it up here as evidence? Because it was most intense example of QG's poor conduct that I'd seen in awhile, and also fresh in my memory. This was the worst judgement call, and was totally not based on others' perceptions.  Really bad choice given who I am (or am perceived to be).
 * Each step here gave the situation way more import than it was due, but I'm frequently not that good at stepping back and noticing that the trees I plant are growing into unintended, unattractive forests. So to me it partly stopped being about proving I was right once QG started acting out, and just about totally did once I introduced the thread as evidence.  (It's frustrated me that others have perceived my complaint as being about content rather than conduct; Guy Macon, e.g., groks the distinction.)  But to others, as I've gradually come to see, it looks terrible.


 * Note: Ever since reading your advice at COI/N to pull back, I've been meaning to do so, and post a summary "sorry, I was the wrong guy to bring this RfC" comment. I was going to do that only after commenting on a couple minor things, but the latter sprout endlessly, so here I am five days after the "moment of clarity" triggered by your feedback.  There is other evidence, but because I'm now "radioactive" it will do more harm than good to continue, so... I'm, er, very nearly done re QG, even if it means letting some unfair indictments of my conduct go unanswered (cf. again this exchange, and IAD, etc.).  Does all this make sense?  Sorry so long.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering! I figured it was something like that.  I'll reply more on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here QG adds 5 per one million Seems fine to me. Yet there is all this discussion of how his working was no good. Sounds like mountains out of mole hills. The issue around unsupported claims in this RfC still has not been fixed. Most / all the rest of the data is from more than 2 years ago. What a waste of time this was. And it continues to be. Am off to more useful stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it's minor (QG insisted we not cite the original source, but no biggie). Bottom line, I guess editors need to just chill and let QG have his way over little details.  Because bringing up his picky behavior is even more picky, and mean too.  Whatever.  Go ahead and enable this behavior if you want.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal and political status
Both Mallexikon and Middle8 have accusing me of skewing the facts. Please show not assert what I did wrong. See Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. I tried discussing the matter on the talk page again. See Talk:Acupuncture. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A started a new thread a while ago for feedback when I initially started added content to the Legal and political status section.

Middle 8 first comment in that thread was: ''Avoid WP:TE and WP:IDHT and you'll find less disagreement arising. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)''

Middle 8 second comment in that thread was: ''@QG: I replied some at FTN, where you cross-posted about the issue. [30] My comment is about pushback in general, not this specific proposal, re which I haven't developed an opinion. What can I say that I haven't said before re: my hope that you'd take a new approach to editing? --Middle 8 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)'' See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11.

At the time Middle 8 did not say there was anything specifically wrong with the text. But now I am be accusing of skewing the facts. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8. Please withdraw your unsupported claim both of you made against me at Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. The evidence is against both of you. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * GERAC is notable for its result of acupuncture becoming reimbursable by all German statutory health insurances. You knew that very well. But you chose to skew this fact into: "As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimburse acupuncture treatments.[195] The trials also had a negative impact on acupuncture in the international community." You are obviously not interested in giving a neutral picture of TCM-related issues, and I have nothing to withdraw here. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion
See also discussion at WP:AN involving the subject of this RfC: WP:AN. (Neither that nor this intentionally forked the other.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Jmh649 (Doc James)
Doc James correctly points out that one of the diffs given as evidence doesn't match the claim given. This was accidental; we failed to catch it before certifying. Mallexikon is more familiar with this than I am, but IIRC, the dispute had to do with QG wanting this, to the exclusion of the additional sources in e.g. this (although the larger context was that in these trials, acupuncture was no better than a placebo). The proper diff(s) will be provided ASAP at which point the Doc may wish to reconsider his comments here and at his rather dramatic thread at WP:AN. I do apologize, and accept the trout 'o shame, for this mistake and the misunderstanding it caused. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More: ironically, at GERAC, QG's anti-acu bias was making it harder to include detail that explained how the trials in fact showed real acu to be no better than sham (placebo) acu, and that initial reports in the media that "acupuncture works for low back pain!!" were wrong. Apparently, QG fixated on those inaccurate reports and thus assumed the article was a pro-acu WP:COATRACK. QG thus was against including much experimental detail,, while Mallexikon  and I  wanted it in there so that even slightly science-literate readers could follow..  Have a look at Talk:GERAC if you like.  Anyway, diffs like the above do belong in the RfC, and we'll get them in ASAP. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "initial reports in the media that "acupuncture works for low back pain!!" were wrong" Well no surprise there. Much that is reported in the popular press is overblown. Thus why WP:MEDRS recommends we do not use it.

It might help if you go through this RfC and remove everything more than a year old and remove the claims unsupported by the diffs provided. I am than willing to have another look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (GERAC is best discussed at Talk:GERAC, since this is an RfC/U.) Thanks for the AGF, and we certainly will double-check to make sure the evidence matches the claims, since this whopper obviously slid by. I strongly believe that older evidence, being indicative of long-term conduct issues, weighs -- but, I agree that is weighs mainly to the degree that it has continued.  Time allowing, we may be able to put in dates so as to help you and anyone else interested in more recent evidence.  These things are huge time-sinks for all involved.  Sorry we wasted some of yours.  You may want to strike some of your comments/suggestions about the conduct of the RfC co-certifiers, if you haven't already.  regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe separate it into old evidence and new evidence. Thus those of use who are primarily concerned with current problems can review those. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea! --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Doc, speaking of making things clearer, how about changing the wording of your outside view in light of the above? It's tending to mislead editors into thinking the diff was used intentionally. Thanks, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted from WP:AN) Correction re my assertion that Mallexikon used the diff by accident: Mallexikon just explained what actually happened. . I'm very surprised.  So now, in addition to my earlier apology for not adequately proofreading the RfC, I apologize for assuming that Mallexikon's used of evidence was obviously accidental, when it was in fact just improperly handled, i.e. incomplete.  Oy vey... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We still have "Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias" without any supporting diffs. What he added was supported by the ref he used. Expecting him to add content not support by the ref seems strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a supporting diff. QG took the effort to mention GERAC at the acupuncture article - but selectively only copy-edited material about it that suited his agenda. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not "Skewing the facts". Skewing the facts is when you mis quote a source and use a ref to say something it does not say. He did not do that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I don't know where you got your "skewing the facts" definition from. But if you know that there's a large acupuncture trial in Germany which led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services by all statutory health insurances, and then only write about that trial "that some German health insurers stopped reimbursing acupuncture" (and nothing else) - how do you call that? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was: can't find this in the source and in no other source either... can you provide a quote? Mallexikon was deleting the facts at GERAC. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hum. And the review article directly supported it. It is right in the intro and says "some insurance companies in Germany stopped reimbursement for acupuncture treatment" Pg 404 And yet you removed it Mallexikon. Did you not check the source? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, and didn't find that sentence. That's why I asked QG for a quote (which I got). I guess I overlooked the sentence because I was sure that it couldn't be there. And I was so sure because this seems to be a wrong information by the source's authors - their claim about some health insurances not reimbursing acupuncture anymore has not been echoed by any other of the many sources about the GERAC, the authors didn't back this claim up with a source, and they didn't specify on it either (in regards to which health insurance it should be). I posted my misgivings about this review article a long time ago here: Talk:Acupuncture. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully read all of the above, along with Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 and User talk:JzG, and am more convinced than ever that my comments at Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 were essentially correct. Doc James (who I respect and trust) makes some excellent points about other participants in these battles, and I agree that that behavior should also be evaluated closely. That being said, much of the above is essentially saying that QG is right, which of course is the first thing I wrote in my outside opinion. I have seen nothing to change the rest of my opinion, which concerns how QG acts when he is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to tell who is right or wrong in this one. While QG approach may not be the best, I am unsure what the proper approach is. Also I disagree that "there are plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles" and thus do not support restricting / banning QG. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Translation: it doesn't matter if QG displays IDHT, disruptive tagging etc. - we see him as a bulwark against quackery, so the end justifies the means. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't exactly neutrally worded, but in essence you have correctly identified a fundamental difference in how one approaches Wikipedia. Some folks think that if you contribute a lot, the standards of behavior should be relaxed for you, and if you are an administrator, they should be relaxed even further. Others (including me) feel that experienced users and especially administrators should be held to a higher standard of behavior and that it is the newbies who should be cut some slack, The key is that neither position is stupid or obviously wrong to all. Both arguments have some good points and some bad points. -Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, the former viewpoint essentially says that Wikipedia is, or should be, a meritocracy. I work in a business – the theatre – which is, for the most part, a meritocracy, and I can tell you from personal experience that I am willing to put up with a lot more from a performer or director or designer whose work is brilliant than I am from a journeyman.  Since the purpose of a theatrical project is to create something artistic or entertaining, how could it be otherwise?  The production needs that brilliance just to be able to succeed - without it, everyone may as well go home, because the public doesn't care if the actor is a nice guy or that the director volunteers at the local soup kitchen, they want to be moved, or to laugh, or to be totally wowed by what they see. The Wikipedia project is that way as well.  We're here to create an encyclopedia, and to succeed we need the brilliance of the best writers and researchers and copyeditors.  Certainly we also need the journeymen, just as the theatre needs its spear carriers, but without the best of the best, and the very good editors, and the consistently productive editors, there would be no product, no encyclopedia, or, at least, a distinctly inferior product - no matter what the dogma of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" might imply.  It's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Now, I don't think that means that the valued contributors get off scott-free (nor that newbies should be shot when they make innocent mistakes - just when they make deliberately mean or destructive ones or refuse to learn), because there comes a point where the value of their "performance" no longer is worth the downside of their behavior.  I think the majority of the community actually recognizes this, since it's the assumption that lies behind the widely-used expression "net negative", meaning that the editor's misbehavior outweighs the editor's value.  In using that as a basis for their commentary, people are, in fact, agreeing that Wikipedia is a meritocracy (even if they've never thought about it that way), and making their decision based on that reality. BMK (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are good arguments on either side. I also do a lot of engineering work with entertainers. In my case it is more in the areas of television, live concerts and recording studio work. (I won't mention regional theater; the one touring group I worked with would have to get a lot better to be considered off-Bakersfield.) The theater is different from Wikipedia in important ways. First, there is name recognition. Even if an unknown is as good as Idina Menzel or Patti LuPone they may never get that big break, and certainly won't bring in the audience like the big stars will. Wikipedia doesn't have that. Second, there are a lot off people lined up for those spear carrier gigs, and the theater can easily put up with a star who alienates the little people -- there are plenty more where they came from. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has a serious problem retaining editors. Like any alanlogy, it works in some ways and doesn't work in others. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon recently claimed: "There are plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles". But back in January he wrote in parenthesis "along with a few other editors who are involved in this". This suggests he thought at the time there are only a few other editors involved in the content dispute. In fact, there are only a few other editors willing to get involved in the content dispute and there is no evidence there are plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above claim twists my words to make it seem that i said something that I did not say. The full quote is:
 * "If I may be so bold as to offer advice (let me know if my input is not welcome and I will go away), and without taking sides on this particular content dispute, it is clear that the two of you are having conflicts on multiple pages. That's fine, but you both (along with a few other editors who are involved in this) need to stop carrying on the battle by editing pages. Do we really want an admin to step in and start handing out blocks and topic bans? I am asking you both once again to attempt to find consensus on the talk pages and, if you cannot agree, to go through the dispute resolution process. You are hurting the encyclopedia. If you don't voluntarily stop hurting the encyclopedia, you will be forced to stop hurting the encyclopedia. Sorry if that seems harsh, but there is no gentle way to say it." (Emphasis in original.)
 * First of all, even without looking at the context above, "editors involved in the content dispute" has a distinctly different meaning than "editors keeping an eye on these articles". The fact that QuackGuru seems to think that anyone keeping an eye on a page must necessarily become embroiled in a content dispute is another good argument in favor of a lengthy topic ban. But that is a minor problem compared to the fact that QuackGuru read a statement that clearly specified that it was talking about being involved in an edit war and somehow concluded that it was about keeping an eye on the page. You couldn't ask for a clearer example if WP:IDHT. If QuackGuru makes such a fundamental error in understanding an extremely clear statement in the middle of his RFCU, that tells me that he isn't purposely not hearing and understanding what others are saying to him, but that he is actually incapable of hearing and understanding what others are saying to him. While his intentions are good and he is usually correct, his methods are not. QuackGuru's efforts to combat bias in the areas of pseudoscience and alternative medicine are a lot like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. He is hurting the encyclopedia. A topic ban will stop that from happening while still allowing him to edit in areas where he isn't so much of a loose cannon. As for the question of whether there are or are not plenty of other editors keeping an eye on these articles, it simply is not true that QuackGuru alone is combating bias in the areas of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. All you have to do is to read the fringe theories noticeboard to see the efforts of other editors. QuackGuru is not indispensable. Nobody is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason why you cannot see the problematic characteristics of the two certifying users of this User RfC and instead are so fixated on how double-plus-ungood QG is? I think there is another person who is guilty of WP:IDHT. It's you. jps (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you bring this up. Judging from your behavior towards me, I must be a terrible editor with an abysmal editing style. What the hell have I done to piss you off so much? --Mallexikon (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jps asks a fair question. I have been purposely ignoring any claims that someone other than QG has misbehaved, but that does not imply that I think they have or have not misbehaved, and it certainly does not imply that any misbehavior on their part shouldn't be addressed. The main reason I am leaving that to others to deal with is because I am prejudiced against acupuncture and I fear that this will bias any comments I make about acupuncturists. I am a cancer survivor. I have just reached the 20-year mark, but when I was diagnosed I had a 5% change of surviving 5 years. During that time was bombarded with advice to try all sorts of quackery and alternative therapy (homeopathy, acupuncture, laetrile, all manner of odd diets, and of course the faith healers came out of the woodwork, all promising a cure). Instead, I placed my fate in the hands of an Oncologist with a scalpel. To be fair, no actual acupuncturist told me that it would cure my cancer, but people who get treatment from them sure did.


 * Setting aside my personal story and biases, let's assume for the sake of argument that those who reported QG are as pure as snow. Even if they are, there are editors working on other alternative medicine and pseudoscience pages that are not. Now let's assume for the sake of argument that they are far worse than claimed. Even if they are, there are editors working on other alternative medicine and pseudoscience pages that are not. QG is active on a wide number of pages and pretty much acts the same way wherever he is editing and whoever he is dealing with. Go ahead and file a report of the two certifying users if you think hey have misbehaved, but please don't ask me to give QG a free pass. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but why are you, then, not taking seriously the fact that this complaint itself is malformed? Your objections to QG's approaches could be outlined in a separate venue that would not be tainted by these documented problems.
 * Incidentally, congratulations on surviving 20 years. That is impressive with the bleak diagnosis you were given. I'm sorry that you contracted that terrible illness. Cancer sucks.
 * jps (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether the complaint is malformed. I did not certify it. QuackGuru's behavior is QuackGuru's behavior no matter what the complaint says it is. "Outside View by Guy Macon" is a fair representation of my views based upon my personal observation of QuackGuru's behavior. I didn't even check the links they gave; I looked at QG's edit history myself. I can only speak for myself; I don't speak for anyone else, including those who filed and certified this RfC. I also do not accept the theory that what someone else does somehow "taints" what I do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pile-ons are pile-ons, is my take. I think if you had issues with QG you should have taken them up with him personally rather than here, especially if they do not involve the specifics of this RFC/U. jps (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ANI is for dealing with specific incidents. RFC/U is a request for comments about a user, not necessarily about a specific incident. And that is the third time that you have implied that there is somehow something improper about my posting my views on this particular RFC/U. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to post whatever you want wherever you want, surely. That I disagree with you using this malformed page to air your grievances is my cross to bear, I suppose. But RfC/U was designed explicitly with the idea that it needs proper certification by two users. If the two users provide shoddy evidence and are themselves compromised in conflicts with the user in question, there ought to be a procedure to flag the page as being in violation of WP:ATTACK. Things would have been better if you had initiated this RfC, but you didn't. I'm just sad that you think it okay to cast the net so widely is all. But, there is nothing in the rules that says you cannot do this. It's just unethical. To me. Ciao. jps (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the fourth time that you have implied that there is somehow something improper about my posting my views on this particular RFC/U. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * This is a very remarkable case of kettling as I see it. "Please stop posting your opinion that I should stop posting my opinion," is kinda what you're doing here. Should I ask you to stop posting your opinion that I should stop posting my opinion? Then you can tell me to stop posting my opinion that you should stop posting your opinion that I should stop posting my opinion. And so on.... jps (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has become clear to me that any further communication with you will be fruitless; you appear to be 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)

Moved from project page...
...where threaded discussion is not appropriate. BMK (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Special Notice: Error in evidence corrected
The diff used as evidence under Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias was in fact posted accidentally, and has been struck. Sincere apologies for the ensuing misunderstanding; please see talk page discussion. This pertains, in part, to the Outside view by Jmh649 (Doc James) above, being the specific diff in question. As co-certifier of this RfC, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So it is what he didn't add than? Why did you not add the rest of it for balance? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well how I should or should not respond to QG's tendentious editing is not the topic here, is it? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, insofar as one has to present evidence properly. You have to show how QG opposed balancing evidence -- that requires additional diffs. [] --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just clicked through the first 21 diffs you have added to support disruptive behavior. Not one of them was from the last two year. So it doesn't really show persistent problems. I agree that his tagging is a pain. But he tags sources as questionable whether or not they support alt med. Even though I disagree with his blanking of his talk page this is allowed by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Doc et. al. - See above at IDHT. This entire thread is submitted as evidence and is less than 90 days old.  Rate of serious adverse events (from Talk:Acupuncture, stable version as of Feb. 14, 2014.) (Re diffs, see IDHT above.)  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 15:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Middle8, when I added a note with my support previous you were very quick to insist I follow protocol. Yet here are with an entire section in the outside views section, clearly against protocol. Second Quantization (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To everything there is a season... a time to IAR... etc. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS does suggest that we use sources from the last 3-5 years. IMO that is often to strict for less research areas though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's addressed in the thread (thoroughly, e.g. ], and all other editors accepted the source. Remember, this is about QG's conduct, not article content. (I think we should continue at talk.)  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 23:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(end of moved discussion; further discussion below)

Discussion (re: moved from project page)

 * The actual "protocol" permits individual all "involved" editors to post their own views if what the have to say (or how they want to say it) is not agreed upon by every single person who certifies the dispute. It's a ==Views== section, not an ==Outside views== one.  That's why each person's view here says "Outside" separately (common alternatives being "Involved" or "Semi-involved").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute ... All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page". Seems pretty unambiguous that you are incorrect. Second Quantization (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

QG's newest edits on GERAC
This recent revert orgy by QuackGuru once more constitutes unexplained removal of reliably sourced material: not just information about the trials' set-up, but also about the criticism voiced against it (especially by acu-proponents). This is making the article worse: it keeps us from giving the reader a truthful picture of the nominal subject (BTW, please cf. the definition of WP:COATHOOK: "the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.") @ Doc James (and all the other honorable skeptics who have been participating in this RfC/U): Why you think that QG is a useful bulwark against quackery is beyond me. The GERAC article has the potential to be an enlightening anti-quackery piece: please cf. this thread. But QG prefers to revert it into a stub - and he does so because he feels emboldened by you. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Mallexikon previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but restored the details about the set-up against consensus. Now Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up again and again against consensus. There was a discussion about the details in a recent RfC. The following text was part of the RfC I started: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here. There is a talk page for the article but Mallexikon has his WP:OWN ideas for the article. Mallexikon, do you think you have consensus to restore the details about the trials? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong on this page. jps (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Telling other people to not make comments on a page where you are heavily invested in the outcome seems rather unethical to me, especially considering that you only seem to attempt to suppress comments that disagree with you. If something doesn't belong here, please step aside and let someone who is has more neutrality to say so. In fact, I advise that you stop making comments about other editors entirely. It is unseemly to say the least, and it does not strengthen your argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a talkpage for the GERAC article where this comment belongs. jps (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are heavily invested in the result of this RfC. Please stop telling people who disagree with your position what they can and can not write. Please Let someone else without such a glaring bias do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you telling jps what he can't write? :) Second Quantization (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a nice self-referential joke, but of course it doesn't hold water if used seriously, as jps attempted to do. Some things, like telling someone not to participate in an RfC, are wrong. Others, such as asking someone to stop telling someone not to participate in an RfC are not wrong. I am asking jps to stop doing something that is wrong, but am not telling him to stop doing things that aren't wrong, such as participating in RfCs. If one takes the joke seriously, that means that jps is immune from criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I love these sorts of questions "Why you think that QG is a useful bulwark against quackery is beyond me." Nice that you start by putting words in my mouth. This is like starting a murder trial with "why did you kill that person". Not interested. Try discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mallexikon, clearly QG does do useful work and clearly he does for the most part fight against quackery. Anyone who doesn't see that simply is not looking. Likewise, QG is confrontational and aggressive. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't looking either. There is a legitimate disagreement as to whether we should give him a pass because he does good work, and nether side of that disagreement is stupid or otherwise obviously wrong. In my opinion, if someone spends a large amount of time talking about other editors who have posted their views and very little time talking about QG's behavior, that is itself disruptive behavior. I happen to disagree with Doc James on this issue, but he has pretty much stuck to the point and has discussed QG's behavior. I advise that you do likewise. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One revert does not an "orgy" make. What I see there was one editor deciding to be WP:BOLD and remove content that he probably felt failed WP:DUE, in turn leading to a WP:NPOV failing. It's not our job to use a wall of detail to present an idea about the extent of success - that should be evident enough from the interpretation of the results. It would only become notable if it was an item of contention, IE if it was a reason why the study had been called into question. Then the defense might be appropriate. But that didn't seem to be the case from the posted diff. Simonm223 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1.) This was not one revert, but 7 in direct succession. Please cf. GERAC's edit history. You'll also note that the biggest revert of those 7 was done by QG already earlier, and clearly opposed by me.
 * 2.) WP:BOLD? WP:BOLD says: "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories... should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive." In a dispute like we see at GERAC right now, bold reverts are considered to be counterproductive. Please read WP:Revert only when necessary.
 * 3.) If this was a one-time thing, why bother? However, it's not. This is a pattern of editing that works like a reliable fire accelererant in any given content dispute. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 7 technical reverts (if this is even true) in succession group up to be one revert for admin purposes. For example, he is not 7RR after doing those reverts. Calling what is really one revert a "revert orgy" is symptomatic of the problems with your RfC/U, Second Quantization (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said. This is a pattern of editing that works like a reliable fire accelerant in any given content dispute. I think you've spent too much time in the trenches. WP does not condone battleground mentality. "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." QG clearly is not. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that we have Mallexikon making unsupported claims and when this is pointed out neither withdrawing nor supporting the claims in question. It appears that the hope is that if enough mud is thrown some of it will stick. This was a huge was of time. The really issue here is the two who started this RfC. There was support for both to be topic banned at AN. All really need to put away there sticks and wonder off to something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Shooting the messenger is always the easiest way... Let's see... Your original RfC/U comment starts like this: "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." Yep. Because they're supposed to be listed a little further down.
 * Then, according to you, the diffs about QG revert warring at GERAC even after he was reprimanded by an uninvolved editor just "highlight controversy over an article which is sort of a WP:COATHOOK and of questionable notability"... The incident where QG skewed the fact that GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed by German health insurers into the exact opposite (using a fringe source which is actually banned from the GERAC article by now) doesn't even remotely look like evidence of bias to you... The diffs about IDHT and disruptive tagging don't seem to concern you at all... QG running into the same accusations by different editors year after year is nothing that makes you stop and think... This comment by uninvolved editor Jytdog, who tried to work with QG at the GERAC article himself since a week or so, likewise doesn't give you any food for thought. The same goes for the comments of a neutral and very respected editor like Guy Macon.
 * So, yes: You obviously choose not to see any problem with QG, and I accept that all my evidence will not persuade you. Which is ok. The RfC/U's purpose is to have a discussion. What I find hard to accept, though, is your reaction. Giving GQ a barnstar for his behavior?? Asking for a 6-month topic ban for me and Middle 8?? That's the same kind of overreaction as jps' trying to nominate the whole RfC/U page for deletion (which was rejected. Just like your request for a 6-month topic ban. Could be more food for thought for you, but I'm not hanging my hopes too high here). --Mallexikon (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * " he was reprimanded by an uninvolved editor". Now there is a sentence I've heard before. It usually means, "I ignored everyone else, but this guy said the thing I wanted to hear". They also tend not to be as uninvolved as first portrayed ... Second Quantization (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment "which was rejected. Just like your request for a 6-month topic ban." Ah. Let look Support ban 4, Oppose ban 3. I would not call that rejected.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, nobody told me I was topic banned, how strange. But then, you never indicated which topics you wanted me and Mallexikon banned from .... minor detail, eh?  But hey, it's a topic ban!  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You weren't topic banned because the discussion automatically archived; the discussion was never closed at all. You weren't exonerated in that discussion and came close to getting topic banned, so one would think some sort of awareness of this would be in order rather than gloating about it, Second Quantization (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm sorry for bringing a malformed RfC and the time it wasted; I've said so before. The topic ban was still POINT-y and pointless.  BTW, it was brought up again at AN/I, with the topic area still a mystery (gotta admit, that is funny), and was given its due consideration.  But getting back to this RfC:  maybe better to just end it, and make a better one?  Is this possible? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)