Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC).

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

QuackGuru has become very disruptive on a few Wikipedia-related articles, such as Essjay controversy and Wikipedia community and extends POV-pushing to other articles such as Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, and History of Wikipedia. Repeated attempts by other users to help the situation have done little to improve Quack's behavior. Quack tends to push trivial issues, displays article ownership (1, 2), and demanding his own POV be represented on said articles.

Desired outcome

QuackGuru hopefully will learn when to move on from trivial issues, stop pushing for his own POV, and be more open to the comments that other editors give him. Failing that, QuackGuru should avoid editing Wikipedia-related articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru, which Quack tried to recreate: [1]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizendium versus Wikipedia
Talk:Essjay controversy#The Essjay Letter Confirmation
Talk:Wikipedia community#Newbies, Quack also tried to force close this discussion after editors started to disagree with him: [2], [3], [4]
Removing merge tag despite active merge discussion (see Talk:Wikipedia): [5], [6], [7], [8]
Which he followed up by attempting to get a {{totally disputed}} tag placed on the article [9] (which was denied)
"Identity revealed" - month-long campaign to insert a bash on Essjay and by extension Wikipedia;
restating Ad nauseam the same claims: [10], [11], [12], [13]
Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 5#QuackGuru's reverts
Co-founder dispute:

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed article ban for User:QuackGuru - withdrawn for an RfC
The talk pages and archives mentioned in #Evidence of disputed behavior.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Ned Scott 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leflyman^Talk 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tjstrf talk 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Extended statement and evidence by Leflyman

While this particular RfC stems out of the ongoing disputes at Talk:Essjay controversy, it is part of a pattern of tendentious behaviour from QuackGuru, who for the past month has been causing various disruptions to articles which discuss issues related to Wikipedia, including Essjay controversy, Larry Sanger, Wikipedia community, Criticism of Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia. Apart from a handful of edits to List of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts (where he was referred to as the "resident disruptive element" [14]) articles which criticise Wikipedia are the principal ones in which QuackGuru appears interested in editing.

Misplaced criticism of Wikipedia

Earliest edit (March 3) related to Wikipedia was an unsourced opinion to the lede of Criticisms of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia has ben criticized by many people, the media, and even by Wikipedians." which he tagged as a minor edit [15]
He followed up with the weasel-worded, "Some Wikipedians believe Wikipedia is a caricature of a true encyclopedia." [16]
Both additions were subsequently removed [17]-- which he immediately reverted with the summary "Revert Censorship of Criticism. This is an article about criticism." [18]; after they were removed again, he re-adding the "caricature" claim [19]

Spamming and creation of "Wikipedia community" article

Before even checking whether it was appropriate, started adding links to non-existent article "Criticism of Wikipedians": [20], [21], [22], [23]
After all those links were removed, spammed the following to the same articles:

"I have a great idea for a new article which parts of this article may be applied. Please start a new article titled Criticism of Wikipedians and I will meet you at the stub." (Talk:Daniel Brandt, Talk:Essjay_controversy, Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia)

When the suggestion was received unfavourably, followed up with:

"This new article proposal is a wonderful idea. It will keep us honest, improve policy, and avoid scandals in the future." (18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [24]

Although the "Criticism" article failed to get traction, he immediately created one instead named, Wikipedia community [25]
After it somehow survived two AfDs, when the article went a different direction than he intended, he tagged it for deletion [26], and wrote:

"This article reads like an advertizement for Wikipedia. We are not here to have article to promote ourselves. This is a self-promotional advertizement. A big no-no. :)" (18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) [27]

Subsequently, he asked an admin to renominate it for deletion. [28]

Pattern of disruptions at Essjay controversy

Repeatedly re-inserting image of Essjay, plus reverting content, contrary to consensus [29], [30], causing a re-protection of article. [31]
Leading to editors commenting that QuackGuru was "wholly disruptive, heedless and uncivil" [32]
Later, QuackGuru fanned disruptive disputes which centered on insertion of a supposed letter Essjay claimed to have sent; whether Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger were "co-founders", likewise leading to protections. (discussed below)

Repeated insertion of quote from "Essjay letter" into article

On March 7, under heading of "The Cover Up" wrote, "A letter that Essjay wrote is being hidden from us...Damaging information may be in the letter." [33]
The following day, hit on the particular selective (and asteitic) quotation he wanted to insert: "It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia." [34]
Although multiple editors have opined the letter not necessary for the article [35], continued to reinsert it whenever possible: [36] [37], and still ongoing.

Campaign to diminish role of Jimmy Wales, promote Larry Sanger in founding

An ongoing effort has been re-defining Wales as a "co-founder" or "a founder", while simultaneously raising Sanger to equal or greater status-- oftentimes to disruptive ends. QuackGuru's repeated antagonism over the single letter "a" led to the "Essjay controversy" article being protected. See, ongoing at: Talk:Essjay_controversy#.22a.22_Wikipedia_founder
Beginning on March 11, on the heels of Threeafterthree (talk · contribs), who changed Jimmy wales to "co-founder" at "Essjay controversy" [38], QuackGuru added a "Sanger's response" criticism [39], and began a distracting argument which drew in a number of editors [40], [41]
Subsequently, began to challenge Wales as "founder" and change references to Jimmy Wales as "co-founder" across multiple articles: [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47];

[48]

Brought up at AN/I for disruptive behaviour multiple times, to no avail

QuackGuru's own complaints to AN/I when his disruptions are pointed out

Multiple editors over an extended period have requested QuackGuru to desist

March 10 Gwen Gale: "Please stop edit warring."
March 29 Risker: "Quack, please stop trying to insert personal information about Essjay into this article."
April 1 Tjstrf: "Quackguru, you are on the wrong page to be arguing about this. Period. So drop the subject."
April 1 WikiLeon: "Please take our advice as these posts are trying the community's patience."

Users who endorse this summary

Leflyman^Talk 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dookama 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I don't agree with everything in here -- the founder issue in particular -- but I'll admit that QuackGuru was arguing his point there at the wrong place. I agree with some of the things that he was saying and even I got tired of his belligerent proselytizing.[reply]
Risker 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I can verify the interactions on pages and XfDs related to the Essjay controversy article, as well as the "newbie" issue on the talk page of Wikipedia community.[reply]
extended, tendentious, implacable revert warrioring. unwilling or unable to work in good spirit towards any consensus. Derex 04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C 11:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very familiar patterns--I'clast 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Statement by Threeafterthree

I'm not sure about all of QuackGuru tactics, but I am quite sure that the point about Wales being the co-founder of Wikipedia and the revisionism going on by editors is THE most important issue to face this project. If Wikipedia can change HISTORICAL FACTS about its creation, what article is safe from this same type of bastardization? Also, to say that this is trivial is wrong, imo.--Tom 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by tjstrf

Given that the subjects of the edit wars brought up in this RfC are highly charged, that a major part of the disputed behaviours have to do with derailing articles by the inclusion of debates unrelated to the actual subject matter of the articles, and that this is a user conduct RfC rather than an article content RfC, all statements, arguments, and proposed resolutions in this RfC should remain focused on the behaviour of editors, not the subjects of the disputes in which they were engaged.
If it is felt necessary, a separate RfC or RfArb could be filed regarding the wider issue of the Wikipedia foundership dispute, but this is not the venue for resolving that issue. --tjstrf talk 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Risker 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but should go to arbcom. MER-C 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WatchingYouLikeAHawk

If the article dispute is germane to the user-conduct dispute, then the article dispute must be discussed to give context to determine whether rules violations were committed. Furthermore, as a general rule and with the caveat this may be inapplicable to this RfC, accuracy and notability overrule the concept of consensus.WatchingYouLikeAHawk 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by SirFozzie

Please note, that User:QuackQuru has attempted to short-circuit this RfC by filing a request to have NedScott topic-banned from articles such as Wikipedia Community. To have done this action in the middle of an active RfC does not reflect well on QuackGuru's actions, as it looks like he is attempting to WikiLawyer his way into winning an edit war.

Users who endorse this summary:

SirFozzie 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This RfC is hardly active. The last flurry of edits was over two weeks ago. I don't see a problem. David D. (Talk) 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually in response to a comment I left Quack just today. In my comment I was responding to Quack making the accusation that my behavior was disruptive [49], where I said "Quack, I can't even count how many times we've warned you about pushing pointless issues like this. It's disruptive and you need to stop. You might think that I'm the "bad guy" here, but when people start talking about a community ban for Wikipedia topics, they're talking about you and not me."

So basically, to counter that statement he decided to propose his own community ban on me. Nice tactic, eh? -- Ned Scott 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have nothing to fear from such a discussion. But one can't say Quack may not ask for input from the community while he has an RfC in progress (assuming it is after two weeks with no further comments). David D. (Talk) 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no problem with it happening at the same time as the RfC, I just thought it was bit ridiculous that he proposed it out of spite for the comment I left. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kesh

QuackGuru has a history of disruptive edits. I cannot speak for the above dispute, but enter for evidence the following: [50] [51] [52] [53]

I believe this shows a pattern of behavior for this user, to the effect that he does not consider consensus nor Wikipedia policies to be relevant. Also, these links emphasize QuackGuru's pattern of claiming ownership of articles, as well as POV-pushing.

Users who endorse this summary:

Kesh 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. MER-C 08:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'clast 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by USERNAME

statement

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.