Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 21 February 2014

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.<ref name="pmid21440191"/> 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Outside view by IRWolfie-. QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 17 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 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 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 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 07:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn - 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#Adverse_events.2C_redux, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages terms, it is - even if it is "questionable science" - a fringe topic falling under the WP:FRINGE guidelines. Alexbrn 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's remember the reason for this thread.

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.:

• 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

The first two are matters of fact and not opinion, and a solid case can be made for the third under MEDRS.

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 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)

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: @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#Adams_2011_text_was_deleted_without_consensus_and_replaced_with_a_dated_2004_source_that_was_not_about_child_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#Re:_Outside_view_by_IRWolfie-

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.<ref name="pmid21440191"/>

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)

Legal and political status

Both Mallexikon and Middle8 have accusing me of skewing the facts. Please show not assert what I did wrong. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias. I tried discussing the matter on the talk page again. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. 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. 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#Legal and political status recent edits.

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)

Additional discussion

See also discussion at WP:AN involving the subject of this RfC: WP:AN#Chiropractic. (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#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. II. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully read all of the above, along with Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Chiropractic and User talk:JzG#Truce, and am more convinced than ever that my comments at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)