Talk:General Medical Council/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A clearly disgruntled anon has been inserting links to a blog that calls for the abolishment of the GMC. Clearly, there is more notable criticism that should be covered. For this article to be balanced, a recent newspaper article, hopefully also interviewing Sir Graeme Catto, could serve as a more reliable source than an angry blog. The blog can only be inserted if there is reliable proof that this is frequented by a large section on those disaffected by the GMC, e.g. it has been cited as a major influence on anti-GMC opinion in a newspaper or magazine article. Otherwise there are no grounds for its inclusion. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A further problem is a large number of edits reflecting the same POV[1] claiming racism, making ad hominems against Graeme Catto etcetera, citing biased sources and blogs. I have outlined above how an NPOV "criticism" section should be constructed. Witchhunting is not acceptable. JFW | T@lk 11:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This mess has now received some media attention. *Waves to the readers* --Kizor 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not media attention. That is a press release by the culprits. No guarantee of notability. I can file a press release that one the fish in our aquarium has died today. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanksyou, Kizor. I have deleted the libelous history items and protected the page.

John Seigenthaler Sr. is still fresh in everyone's memory. JFW | T@lk

22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also written to the owner of the blog in question ("abolish the GMC") that his actions have backfired. This person as a massive peeve with the GMC and is doing all sorts of interesting things, but not in any form worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

re 'Good Medical Practice', the link is http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/index.asp can this be inserted as an inline reference once the page is unblocked ?David Ruben ^Talk 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that pivotal document merits its own page. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that JfdWolf is very biased indeed and should not be allowed to continue bringing Wikipedia into disrepute - by consistently misleading the public.

I also have exceedingly serious concerns about his baseline state of mind, as he does not seem to have balanced thought processes.

Although I do not know about the full background of the [ "Abolish the GMC"] Campaign , I have been privy to various photocopies which actually showed that the [ "Abolish the GMC"] Campaign did NOT vandalize the General Medical Council's entry in Wikipedia in any way.

Rather the [ "Abolish the GMC"] Campaign actually enriched the content of Wikipedia.(If JfdWolf is really honest, he should publicly display the whole history of the Article for all to see - including his manic avalanche of wreckless deletions which are still legally stored on Wikipedia's log !)

It was JfdWolf who actually kept on DELETING MATERIAL from the contentious entry, while the [ "Abolish the GMC"] Campaign actually ADDED MATERIAL to it.

If you go to the [ "Abolish the GMC"] blog site you will also actually see links to all of the supporting references from many top sites like the BBC and the BMJ , so I do not think that JfdWolf has any excuse to behave in such a wreckless manner.

JfdWolf may be a self-confessed Wikipedia Deletionist, but he certainly seems much more like a 'sycophant-on-a mission' to me - and I dare him to delete these comments if he has the guts to do so.

It was JfdWolf who inadvertently started this monumentally significant line of Wikipedia debate - and so it is JfdWolf who must now comprehensively substantiate and finish it.

Thankfully, the very many readers who fervently donate copious funds to Wikipedia have gracefully seen through JfdWolf and his total lack of judgement , and will therefore not be taking any of his future comments seriously.

I have therefore added [ "Abolish the GMC"] to the list of important links which the public has a right to view ; and will formally ask Wikipedia to fire JfdWolf if he fails to apologize for his utterly disgraceful and totally unbecoming conduct. EthicalEditor (talk · contribs)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before displaying further signs of shocking ignorance about Wikipedia. Start with

WP:V. There is no indication your blog is notable (e.g. outside coverage). I will remove your link until such indication is provided. JFW | T@lk

08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the messenger is a sure way to fail your campaign. Please review

WP:CIVIL as well as the policies quoted above. Being a registered user or donor is no guarantee that your campaign to smear the GMC is given coverage on Wikipedia. Now please provide proof that your blog has been covered in newsprint, TV, etc. JFW | T@lk

09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, EthicalEditor. The case proves that Wikipedia content cannot be bought. The financial appeals are actually because Wikipedia is so immensely popular that it constantly needs to purchase more hardware.

You could have saved your breath if you had given any form of

verification

that anyone has ever taken this angry blog seriously. All we have is people affected by GMC fitness to practise decisions lashing out at their regulator for denying them the "right" to practice medicine. But thankfully one can always pursue a career in alternative medicine.

You are free to provide proof here (e.g. BBC radio broadcast, Guardian article) that the "Abolish the GMC" campaign has been taken seriously. Failing that, I hope you will find another forum more suitable for the promulgation of your views. Please note that your comment "I also have exceedingly serious concerns about his baseline state of mind, as he does not seem to have balanced thought processes" is a

personal attack for which users have been banned in the past. JFW | T@lk

11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your views, but Wikipedia can only mention campaigns such as Abolish the GMC if there is any outside confirmation that it is notable. Everybody has a blog these days. I have outlined to EthicalEditor above what kind of confirmatory evidence is necessary. Please

avoid personal attacks. I am not daunted by your comment about donations - content is not for sale. JFW | T@lk

11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

British Doctors pass historic 'Vote of No Confidence' in the General Medical Council (GMC).[2]

I am sure that jdfwolff is a

Thankfully, I have just convinced 13 other doctors to stop their PayPal donations to wikipedia over this issue and warmly look forward to see wikipedias 2007 Q3 financial report

The global wikipedia donation boycott has now started ! ***

• DoctorTammy, while your concerns are noteworthy, it is best to set an example of civility by avoiding ad hominem comments about JDFWolff, et al. Please see the welcome on your user page. Ombudsman 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ombudsman. I have expanded the article, taking on board DrTammy's more useful link to the newspaper article. JFW | T@lk 13:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Victory for the [ Abolish the GMC] Campaign ??? : It certainly looks like it !!!

Not really. Victory for Wikipedia, because the article has grown and is now certainly more balanced, with regulatory problems and criticism well covered. The blog has not achieved a victory, in my view. JFW | T@lk 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dear JdWolff,

The more you open your mouth - the more I as a nurse continue to formally question your sanity.

Please stop making an irredeemable fool of yourself , as some of your peers may read this tomfoolery in future.

Go get yourself some very serious professional help ! You are so nutty that you have just selectively deleted all URL's on this discussion page which link to the Abolish the GMC Network (leaving only the [ Abolish the GMC ] shell) . Wow - you really must be morbidly berserk !

Bye ! - Go get your head checked JdWolff - before you get sectioned !

From Nurse Harris - (a neigbour to one of the Doctors below).

We both are pulling funding from wikipedia because of your despicably shameless attitude concerning this very important debate.

DNFTT. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The GMC article is a very small part of Wikipedia, and of little importance to most of the world. It is wholly disproportionate to try to damage WP over one article not saying exactly what one or even several people want. Reading "what WP is not" - a set of guidelines established over some years by many hundreds of people - will help people to understand why a particular element might be a generally agreed and accepted addition while another might not.

Libel is best avoided, and incivility doesn't seem to work very well on WP - albeit it remains oddly common despite that. I suspect that is becuase by and large the aruers are out of each others' reach. DOctors egistered with the GMC in the UK are not out of each others reach, and comments are probably best measured.

I'm also surprised to hear that as many as 13 UK doctors are easily accessible and paying donations to WP to be persuaded to stop. I'm a UK GP. Midgley 12:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:ENC for those who need it spelled out. I have no reason to believe the threats about donations are genuine. JFW | T@lk

13:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider deleting that last inappropriate comment. I see absolutely no reason to include an angry blog if there is no outside confirmatory evidence that anyone is taking this seriously. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Dr Tammy's squeeze) This is more complicated than you think. The Wikipesia is probably not under risk from any financial troubles that the Wikimedia FOndation has. The reason, and bear with me becuase it is fundamental, techncial, and complicated to understand is the underlying licence for the material we contribute which is a copyleft licence. In designing the licence for http://ganfyd.org which uses the same software as WP for the purpose that may interest UK doctors of producing a colaborative textbook of medicine, I took note of this and designed a copyleft licence but also of a characteristic of WP that is unsuitable for a medical text, global access, and thus designed a licence restricting modification of material to registered medical practitioners.

What is at risk is not WP, but the global access which each of us has - and it would be better for each of us to have regard to how it is easier to cause unhappiness and damage than happiness and built-things and avoid any tragedy of the commons than to suggest that a single sectional interest should be pressed on WP under threat of destruction of the whole. We have enough of that in the papers already.

Many years ago a certain Roman Emperor asked how he could make sure his name is remembered. The answer was to destroy what was at that time the greatest accumulation of human knowledge in existence. He did, I've forgotten his name, but if he is remembered it is not amiably. That was then, this is now, WP is not at Alexandria, and we are not roman or emperors, but it is a through worth having. Give madam a hug, it is probably more in line with her needs than the irritation of all WP contributors. Oh, and note that the user named "Ombudsman" does not enjoy a post of that nature, or the respect of registered medical practitioners here for his postings Midgley 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here, Midgley. Are you suggesting we should tolerate that angry blog (where you can't even leave comments) just to save Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No - possibly I threaded it wrong. The blog is a very odd collection of words, but they are not our problem. My remarks were direct toward anyone who thinks that the reaction to finding a group do not wish to do exactly what they want decides to apply effort to damage it, rather than reflecting whether a better way of seeking common aims may be found, or going to apply their energies elsewhere. Midgley 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Final Verdict (Evidence-based GOALS) : [ Abolish the GMC] 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GMC/Wikipedia 0

I am rushing off to convince others to pull their funding from Wikipedia too. I'm not paying for wikipedia to recruit any more empty-headed administrators like JdWolff !

The [ Abolish the GMC] Network guys are pure geniuses - and have now made their blog the talk of the Web !

Everyone in the NHS is also talking about the [ Abolish the GMC] Campaign -I even hear that the UK Prime Minister and British Health Secretary have both had a quick look at it too !

Tough Luck , JdWolff - you're a total loser !

Trust me : I'm a REAL Doctor too !

If this is a loss then call me a loser! I reckon Tony enjoyed your blog and I can hear the soft tut-tutting coming from Number 10. And I am a real doctor but I am allowed to practice and you're not. So long buddy. JFW | T@lk 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Silence is always the very best answer to mentally unbalanced fool (like JdWolff) : I'm off to see my patients ! IN MY OWN CLINIC !

I'm sure the Wikipedia community in general and JFW in particular will be absolutely mortified by your trenchant criticism. For values of mortified that may encompass not giving a rat's ass... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yippee !!! The great debate has now started in earnest !!!

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The comments being made against JFW are badly out of line. We

What JFW is doing is precisely correct. If you want your views prepresented, you will need to work with experienced editors like JFW to state them in

Alternatively, you could always throw your toys out of the pram and storm off, but I don't think that will help your cause any more than flinging accusations or edit warring - all that will do is get the article protected so only admins can edit it. I can do that, just as I can block your network address from editing Wikipedia at all. A stand-up fight with the admins is a fight you cannot win - this is not a threat, it's a simple statement of fact.

You should also know that we have been here before many times on many different issues. There is an established way of dealing with controversy, which is to hash it out on the Talk page until a workable compromise text is developed. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I had my "head checked" by a psychiatry colleague, at the suggestion of 86.134.167.39 (talk · contribs). He found some ethanol and shift work sleep disorder, but not enough to account for the accusations. The good ψ wondered what all the fuss was about. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the

• The above comment is a personal attack and breaches wikipedia WP:Civility policy. I see no mention in the news, on a Google search or on 'Abolishthe GMC' web site that they have taken or effected any direct action against JdWolff. Such attacks risk the actions being taken to protect the page, as described above, which will weaken any reasonable edits about notable opposition points being added to the article.David Ruben ^Talk 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• UKDoctor responds : Shut Up, David Ruben - can't you see JdWolff referring to others as TIGERS IN CAGES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! David Ruben is not any better and should go take a flying leap into the deep end of the Pacific Ocean if he wants to. . . WE WHITE DOCTORS ARE TOTALLY ASHAMED OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL -and we certainly have the right to say our piece in any way fit.
  • I believe that he actually referred to the strong POV in the article being tigers.
    R
• I agree anyone is free to discuss their point of view within talk pages, but not "in any way" within wikipedia, as wikipedia policies (eg
  sign your posts on talk pages
  - it is wikipedia policy.
• Please do not assert that all members of a racial group hold a particular point of view, when only a subset can be claimed to being referred to.
• Before anyone might assert otherwise, I too have concerns about the GMC. Reform/Abolution of the GMC may or may not be the right thing to do, but I have equal concerns for the government's ability to put in effective unbiased measures that would not prove to be just politically expedient and even worse than the currently system; eg the effective U-turns after ending of fund-holding with choose & book/commisioning savings, or the past Regional HA/District HA/FPC structure being mirrored by the current path to Strategic HA/merged PCTs becoming only commissioning bodies (vs direct service providers)/GPs grouping together to win contracts and provide range of services.
• No one (I hope) denies that there are not concerns raised about the GMC. The question is how significant these are, how many & who are raising these concerns, what counter-arguments are raised and by how many/whom. Likewise there are the issues of what solutions are offered, and by how many/whom. Given that these are often not matters of past historical fact, but rather of current ongoing strongly-held concerns, care needs to be taken when writing in wikipedia (which is an encyclpaedia rather than a blog/news platform/venue for campaigning) to follow its agreed policies (whether or not one agrees with them) on getting NPOV by appropriate citing of notable sources. David Ruben ^Talk 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Single process: conversation - direct statement by GMC member. (Alex, if it matters, on DNUK.) Midgley 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a closed forum, and we risk

WP:NOR unless a stable source can be found. Is there anything on the GMC website that could be used to support this? JFW | T@lk

12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

People who think they have something to contribute to that might simply start such a page. Midgley 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The [Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC)]Campaign now has it's very own notable personal space on the Internationally Acclaimed SourceWatch Wiki-Disinfopedia : Please feel free to shift the ethical debate on GMC Abolition directly to that particular discussion zone - under the very watchful eyes of a Highly Qualified (and Duly Salaried) Expert Wiki Editor !

SourceWatch is aware of this page, and I have asked them[3] whether they should really lend their kilobytes to this, this, this and the mention of the "exceedingly bold group of Mistreated Medical Doctors". JFW | T@lk 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• JdWolff (the mentally imbalanced loser) wryfully strikes again . . . Some people always just seem to allow their utter incoherence to get the better of them.

As a practising white Medical doctor , I am totally disgusted by (both) the poor conduct and woeful performance of the General Medical Council (GMC) - and strongly support the 'Fire and Brimestone' approach of the Abolish the GMC Campaign.

The GMC Press Office directly connives with the Tabloids to blast their own screaming headlines all over the place - so the Abolish the GMC guys have every right to choose the very same style if they so wish.

JdWolff should go take a long cold shower - as his bias STINKS like purulent faeces ! : Thankfully , SourceWatch has largely ignored his monstrously shameless request and has now provided the 'Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC)' Campaign with its very own SEPERATE PAGE instead - while the other headings still remain open !!!

Perhaps there are many other 'Wikis' out there (similar to WP and SW) to expediently contact too ?

DNFTT. I have reported this behaviour on

WP:ANI[4]. JFW | T@lk

12:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange and largely incoherent debate here. My only comment is that I'm definitely not a fan of the tabloid-on-acid style of the 'Abolish the GMC' blog but I do support the sentiment. My experience with the GMC can be read here http://www.bddstory.co.uk

bddstory

The incoherent debate is entirely the work of the poor soul who was so wronged by the GMC that he had to plaster this blog all over Wikipedia. Not every blog is notable, and I there is no proof that this blog is a particularly important voice in the governance issues pertaining to the GMC.

While your site sounds slightly more reasonable, I am still very concerned that you are publically releasing information of particular practicioners and their errors. I would not be supporting the placement of your site as a link on the GMC article. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jfdwolff is a total loser !!! The AbolishtheGMC Campaign is here to stay !!! - Get used to it,Airhead !!!

DNFTT. Your lack of civility is no compliment to your campaign. JFW | T@lk 12:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• JfdWolff,Your profound lack of wisdom is no credit to your woefully failed vendetta . Go get your head checked !!! You are morbidly insane . . .

Above comment added 13:25, 14 February 2006 by

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tilde characters (~~~~). David Ruben ^Talk

16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• • The above fails adhere to
    WP:RFC
    - please take care. Whilst I too may have concerns about the GMC (speed of processing, failing reject inappropriate complaints quickly, unrealistic pronouncements on good practice, risks of politicians imposing political expediency vs. genuine assessment of individual cases etc etc), having just come to this article the above personal attack hardly engages my sympathy for any reasonable points you may raise.
  • There have always been complaints against the GMC, and there would likewise for any replacement body
    • From doctors who feel unjustly or justly accused, from those who admit adverse events occurred or errors made but feel excessively punished
    • Patients who feel complaints take too long, that a rejected complaint (after screening process) is unjust and those who feel that their adverse event is not reflected by the final decision of the GMC.
  • But I do not see the 'AbolishtheGMC Campaign' as either anything particularly new or
    WP:Cite
    national media that specifically discusses this group). To focus on this group as if it were some new phenomena is misleading.
  • I certainly think the article should mention the inherent problems of regulatory bodies in general, and some of the specific concerns about the GMC in particular that have been raised over time (delay in processing, balance of protecting patients vs doctors, questions of racial bias, Shipman enquiry, debate over revalidation etc). Such points raised must adhere to NPOV policy and a few choice notable references may be appropriate. But please recognise that wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a forum for campaigning or
    original opinion. David Ruben ^Talk
    16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

- Above comments added 15 February 2006 by User:217.207.116.154.

It has not been underestimated: it is an unsubtle attempt of an individual to generate as much noise as possible. There is no indication that the Public View has been entered, through the back door or through the ventillation shafts.

You have been explained that your attempts to mobilise the citizenry through Wikipedia are in breech of its policies, and you have been asked to contribute positively. You have been blocked for attacking myself on the talkpage[5] and for vandalism and spamming. Now please consider: will you be contributing a genuine

neutral "criticism" section to this article, or shall we presume that all your further edits will be attempts to mobilise the citizenry to visit your blog? JFW | T@lk

23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposition Forums (Anti-GMC Groups):

[Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC)]

Let democracy prevail !!!

- Above comments added 15 February 2006 by User:217.207.116.154.

- To this anon user, please follow Wikipedia guideline:

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages

- I have sorted out indentation to improve clarity for those reading these exchanges. David Ruben ^Talk 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• The 'Abolish the GMC' guys are winning. Let's close this chapter and support their cause. . The GMC cannot even regulate a filthy tampon - talkless of regulating doctors. Prof Roy Meadow has just been cleared by the high courts because of GMC errors ! .Thanks - UKDoctor

Last post by User:81.158.54.126

Whatever the specifics of the case about Prof Roy Meadow, did the 'Abolish the GMC' have anything to do with either the original handling by the GMC or the subsequent court case - if not, then one can not logically imply association that they 'are winning' by reference to this case. The issues, as far as Wikipedia is concern is only of:

• Are there genuine widely-held (i.e. notable) concerns about the GMC ?
  no original research
  policy). Instead national media reports, Shipman enquiry etc form suitable references to concerns raised about the GMC.
• Is 'Abolish the GMC' in themselves (vs any specific issue) notable and worthy of mention. Coments above of "discreetly through the back door" and "totally avoid media publicity" would suggest not (for this would require the ability to
  WP:Cite notable sources about the group - not just themselves of course). Of course only if and when they do mount a campagn that is significantly reported upon by either the governmant/Department of Health/GMC/national media, then they will have acheived notability as far as wikipedia is concerned...David Ruben ^Talk
  14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't bite (potential) friends - believe me or not, but I am probably quite sympathetic to the cause, just (until now) very uninformed about this group (and certainly know little about the suggested alternatives).
• Ignoring any uncivility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I think perhaps you misunderstand my points above - I was trying to raise questions, not make any conclusive pronouncement on notability.
• A simple "I think they are notable" or "Many think they are notable" would have sufficed, and been a suitable starting point for further discussion. I am not, indeed can not, state that 'Abolish the GMC' group is definitely not notable, for that would only be a statement of a personal opinion rather than of citable fact. What I was trying to do was only raise the question whether the group is or is not notable, as I truly do not know. I personally had not heard of the group until hearing of it in these talk pages - that may of course just indicate my previous lack of awareness or failing to read the relevant news articles. I am of course aware that there have been past & recent calls by doctors, patients and others for abolishing the GMC (eg newspaper articles, Shipman enquiry report and some past Ministerial pronouncements), but I had not remembered registering this specific group/campaign by name - so the discussion has therefore been successful, in as much as I am now aware of the group.
• To be
  WP:Civil
  a suitable reply might have been along the lines of 'thank you for comments, may I point out that the term comes first in a Google search'.
  • Indeed you are quite correct that it comes as 1st entry in both Google.co.uk & Google.com searches.
  • This in itself is notable. One can discuss, in general, how search engines obtain their results, how prominent Google in itself has become and how this all reflects back upon a specific group’s notability :
    • Wikipedia referencing a web page, will of its own accord increase the prominence given by Google to that site (given how Google weights web cross-references).
    • But of course this not a complete explanation as it does not explain, again as you correctly point out, why it has a higher prominence in the search than the corresponding wikipedia article.
    • There must therefore be of course additional hits to the 'Abolish the GMC' website than just via wikipedia, but where from? Was there some mention in the wider media (radio/newspapers/TV) that informed people of the group such that they sought out the web pages (if so I am guilty of having 'deaf ears' and failing to spot this - a suitable reference will educate me), or as someone else (above) proposed that the group's plan of spread without media publicity been a highly successful mechanism ? Did some other website notify the public or other doctors of the site (I know OnMedica is popular site for doctors, but I have yet to make much use of it myself and again may have missed relevant mentions & discussions)?
    • I note the group does not appear at the top of a search for say "GMC concern" or "GMC reform", although obviously such searches hit other media articles reporting GMC's concerns for particular doctors, or parliamentary questions, the Consumers Association concerns, etc.
      • Aside of any discussion of the points the group is putting forward, can we have a civil discussion on perhaps how the awareness of the group might be further advanced (e.g. appearing higher with some of the other possible search phrases one might choose in Google). Any campaign needs to engage with others of course to further its aims, so is there any MPs, other media, BMA etc involvement or links currently being forged (this might of itself be notable and gain additional appropriate mention in wikipedia) ? David Ruben ^Talk 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Dear David Ruben : Try SourceWatch ( Center for Media & Democracy for a start . . .in addition to MSN.com ( Core Search Term: General Medical Council - for both Sourcewatch & MSN.com )...Then go back to the Wikipedia Article on the General Medical Council and appropriately list [http://abolishthegmc.blogspot.com/ Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC)] as one of the GMC's Opposition FORUMS.

Sourcewatch is a wiki, using the same software as this, into which anyone may insert a page. Describing that as (well above) SOurcewatch giving the campaign a page is disingenuous. WP is full of people who understand the software, interesting them is possible, trying to confuse them is probably futile. Nothing thus far indicates that the blog and "campaign" consists of anything more than one person who may or may not be a doctor (most write better, grasp situations swiftly and can at least fake good manners when they want something) and might or might not be permitted or fit to practice, sitting at an EasyNet PC in Macdonalds, 129 High St Kilburn, London, User:217.207.116.154under the security cameras, ranting. Midgley 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• DEVIL's ADVOCATE RESPONDS: Thank goodness for that ! At least there now seems to be evidence that the GMC has since swallowed the Decoy Bait in full panic !!! Perhaps the GMC and Midgley will now relax a bit more . . . PS : Thank You , Midgeley for indirectly informing the abolish the GMC Campaign that their strategy is working !!! You have definitely made their day. SIGNED : DEVIL's ADVOCATE.

• I have done it for you !!! So please publicly thank me for it - instead of reciting 'WikiStatute' like an Editorial Parrot !!!

• These 'Abolish the GMC' guys need our ethical support - so please (at least) be fair to them.

• Show the world that you are not as racist and antagonistic as JdWolff !!!

Thank you - UKDoctor

My dear UKDoctor, have you even read David Ruben's comments?

R

18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• UKDoctor hereby publicly apologizes to David Ruben !!! Thank You for being ethical.

• OK Dave Ruben - bury the hatchet and kiss the guy on both cheeks MWAAH MWAAH. I have re-inserted the link !!!

• • 8Question to UKDoctor - leaving aside issues re suitable references that might be used to cite as public notability (The Sourcewatch was just a single page description linking to the 'Abolish the GMC' blog), the proposals made to split the current functions of the GMC into 2 separate bodies is worthy of some consideration (indeed I think that was the part of the suggestion from the Shipman enquiry). I have some questions about fairness of any alternative body (a panel of doctors might be accussed by patients of protecting other doctor's interests, that of lawyers might be accused by doctors of not understanding genuine medical uncertainty, representatives from PCTs may be accused by both sides of protecting their own interests rather than patients or doctors). However troubled the current system may be, no change is ever going to happen unless a better alternative has been thought through and can be put forward as an alternative. The 'Abolish the GMC' blog site offers at the bottom of the page for comments, but I am unable to post any questions as blogspot is currently only allowing postings from members of the blog group (of which I am not of course yet recognised). No email address is given, so I fail to see how one can pose queries. Any way around this ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, further to Davidruben's remarks above, the major criticism of the GMC that seems sound and is being addressed with proposals for change is that it combines the roles of prosecutor, investigator and judge. Splitting some of those seems very sensible. I wonder if anyone can remark on the arrangements in other countries? I think there is a page to be written... Midgley 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Response from UKDoctor : Dear David Ruben and Friends.

~ Thank you for your highly ethical questions. I have emailed your concerns to the Blogmeister concerned and have only just received the following reply:

~ To post a comment on the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blogsite is very simple indeed :

- First go to Blogger.com and register for a FREE MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT.

- Then use your Blogger.com details to apply directly for Membership of the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blogsite.

- The whole process takes roughly 7 minutes on the average . . . Hopefully . . .and the Blogmeister has ALWAYS been accessible (for appropriate assistance) via the massive e-mail link on his Profile Page.

~Once registered as a member of the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blogsite ,then you will be free to post absolutely any ethical comment which you so wish.

~The most candid reason for this online formality is that Blogger.com keeps a Permanent Legal Record of all activites of it's members - to protect itself from abuse.

~As the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Website is currently one of the hottest Medical Regulatory Blogs on the planet (at the moment) ; it was warmly decided that 'Due Diligence' could be displayed (amongst other ways) by insisting that the above DUAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT warmly obtains for all those wishing to post comments on the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blog .

• Concerning your query relating to viable alternatives to the General Medical Council (GMC) , please kindly note the following juicy little 'parting titbit' from Professor Richard Smith CBE read it here : GMC- Expediency before Principle : BMJ Editorial dated 1st Jan 2005, Former Editor of the British Medical Journal . . . before of course going back to read the Top 20 posts of the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blogsite.

(PS : From the utterly ruthless way in which the General Medical Council highly manipulated the responses to Professor Smith's Article , you cannot really blame the Current BMJ Editor for daintily picking up her ethical petticoats and quietly fleeing to the furthest mountains for relatively peaceful succour . . .as the Acting Editor before her whohad the guts to publish Prof Smith's article was mercilessly flushed out of the BMJ altogether ! Hence the current UNDERSTANDABLE silence on this landmark issue from BMJ HQ . . . NB: Anything up to 100 BMJ responses publicly supporting the views of Professor Richard Smith CBE , Former Editor of the British Medical Journal never ever saw the light of day . . . and that was at the last informal count in 2005 !!!)

~I sincerely hope that these highly welcome intuitional appetizers sumptuously boost your ethical appetite for futher Regulatory Debate on your noble online encyclopaedia.

~Thank you and God Bless You. Signed : UKDoctor ( Self-Appointed Envoy of the Abolish the General Medical Council(GMC) Blogsite to Wikipedia.

Anyone want me to semi-protect this? Guy 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The reason I had not done this myself, is because I have been too involved in this question to perform a {{

R

08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

I am glad that you have included a section for opposition forums to the GMC to appear on your website. I had earlier thought of stopping my donations to Wikipedia over your failure to acknowledge the Abolish the GMC group - but will now continue to support your cause because I am now satisfied that your inclusion of them now shows you to be fair.

My neigbour lost her only child because of the incompetence of one of the current bosses of the General Medical Council , but the GMC covered up the case - so we couldnt get justice.

So please permanently protect the GMC opposition page from further attack by unscrupulous GMC agents - as I have just had to re-paste it in honour of the poor wee child who was murdered by the wicked GMC boss.

Please do this in memory of him.

Thank you-

My name is Molly from Arbroath, Scotland.

Molly, You seem pretty mixed-up. Anon

• RESPONSE FROM DR T ::::::::::::::::: Dear GMC Sponsored 'Anon' - our abolish the GMC Campaign is very strong indeed - and we are doing quite well thank you. our website is defeating both the GMC and Wikipedia all at once and we do not have any time to waste with you. So - Eat your heart out. The GMC is on it's way out. We are winning !!! ( Dr T , NHS Consultant - London ).

I am truly sorry to hear that. Though, Wikipedia is still not the place for POV...no matter how many deaths are involved. I can't do anything about it, sorry.

R

13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dear SoothingR,

Is it true that you are a disillusioned 17 year old kid who has been hired by the GMC to sabotage this entry? STEER CLEAR AT ONCE !!!!!!!!!!!!! Your mother must be very ashamed of you . The Abolish the GMC Campaign is notable - and should be listed without delay. Please do not delete the listing again, as you have seriously compromised yourself ! Thank you : Molly from Arbroath

Personal attacks are not going to help.

R

13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dear SoothingR : We completely understand your point about not caring about human life : Kindly do your GMC paymaster's bidding - as Wikipedia is a highly insignificant part of the abolish the GMC Campaign ! (Bye :::::::: DR T , NHS Consultant)
• I am Dr T's Wife - also a Medical Doctor. I fully support the way in which the abolish the GMC Campaign is going. The guys behind it are fantastic. They keep everyone guessing just what they are going to do next. I was at Whitehall last week and almost everyone in the Department of health was chattering on about the abolish the GMC campaign. It is absolutely eclectic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At least there is some kind of method in their mystery. Signed: Dr (mrs) T ; another NHS Doc.

PS: May all those poor souls who were incompetently slaughtered by the infallible GMC Boss continue to rest in perfect peace...amen.

• PARTING SHOT FROM DR & DR MRS T : Just to let you know that the abolish the GMC campaign will soon be appearing on Global TV - Goodbye WIKILOSERS !!!

• GMC President (Graeme Catto the Murderer) :Global TV? Never seen it.

Arbroath?

whois 213.52.175.218
inetnum:      213.52.175.0 - 213.52.175.255
descr:        Red Spectrum Limited
country:      GB
address:      Red Spectrum Limited
address:      Middlesex House
address:      34-42 Cleveland Street
address:      LONDON

*GMC President (Graeme Catto the Murderer) :That'd be "Arbroath" in London then?  

RESPONSE FROM A DEVIL's ADVOCATE :

• Of course it hasn't intelligently dawned on 'Wikipedia/GMC' that Molly could actually be FROM ARBROATH.(AS IN A CITIZEN OF ARBROATH)- Arbroath Citizens are still legally allowed to travel around Europe without any restrictions, you know!
• In any case Global TV could also mean Worldwide Television, as in National TV ! But since the GMC Agents are so desperate to clutch at fragile straws these days - then let them eat the full fruits of their own seedy cake s!!!!!
• Thankfully the IP Addresses also indicate that one of the 'anon' responses actually came directly from one of the GMC's agents ! While another one actually came directly from the lavatory of one of the Wikipedia 'highly respectable' Administrators !

What a very interesting campaign this is really going to be ! No wonder the Abolish the GMC Campaign is really taking off with such unstoppable public momentum . . . They are pure geniuses. SIGNED 'DEVIL's ADVOCATE' - A BARRISTER & friend of one of the earlier contributors.

Hey, nothing yet, but I'm sure it's going to take off Real Soon Now. All quiet on the Western front as yet, mind... Just zis Guy you know? 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Message from HackneyNHSConsultant: The FANFARE actually started 4 days ago,JzG ( not that you would have been intelligent enough to visit the GMC Press Office Website on March the 1st 2006 ) - The GMC in utter panic UNPRECEDENTALLY FIRED ( SCAPE-GOATED )it's overall Chairman of the Fitness To Practise (FTP) Committee...as public calls for GMC Abolition featured prominently on both the BMJ Website and the Hospital Doctor Magazine.
• Prof Sir Graeme Catto will soon be next in the firing line from what we hear from a highly placed source in Downing Street. SO PLEASE KINDLY WATCH THIS SPACE.
• These Abolish the GMC Guys are really making an impact, and I personally believe that they will mortally stun the GMC when it least expects it. THANK YOU from :HackneyNHSConsultant

Heh. Prove the existence of the link between the firing of the chairman and the Abolish the GMC.—♦♦

^(Я)

13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey, surely absolutely everything that happens at the GMC from now on will be the direct result of this blog, right? Surely that's the only "intelligent" interpretation? Anything else would be expecting them to prove their case rather than assert it is true until disporoven, which as anybody knows is not how science works. Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The press item referred to does not mention "unprecedentally fired", let alone "scapegoated". It mentions the appointment of a new chairman of the FTP board[6]. I'm impressed by the impersonations done by our dear Abolish Blogger. He's able to impersonate a barrister, HackneyNHSConsultant, and goodness-what-else, all in the same style and using the same vocabulary ("these guys"). I'm starting to wonder whether this the The Matrix and our disputant wears a suit and sunglasses. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it rather unfair of the GMC to ignore the pivotal role of the bloggers in their press release. Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am closely related to the General Medical Council (GMC) and can testify that the Abolish the GMC Blogger is going in the right direction. Most of all the above guys are GMC Sycophants who have been hired by the GMC. Sincerely : GMC Confidant.

• GMCConfidant continues: Abolish the GMC Campaign is seriously winning and Graeme Catto will soon be in JAIL !!!!!!!!!

• Message from an innocent bystander : Graeme Catto STINKS and is a total disgrace to the medical profession. !!!

Thanks for helping the admins with the list of open proxies, your efforts are much appreciated. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Message from an innocent bystander : You're welcome !!! Don't forget to pass by for tea !!! I hope that these abolish the GMC guys really bring Paedo Catto to justice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Innocent bystander: I hope you realise that your silly ad hominems will not be of any benefit to this article. Referring to "Abolish the GMC" as "those guys" confirms that you are the same person that has been trolling this page for weeks. Please go away. You're starting to get predictable. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• My Wikipedia Member name is ExpertWitness. This is the very first time I am publicly contributing to this debate.

- I seriously Disagree with JFdWolff's utterly incompetent assertion that only one particular person can refer to the AbolishtheGMC group as 'THOSE GUYS' !

- What usually happens when such a relatively long name comes into play is that CATCHY PHRASES tend to catch on , at least in ENGLISH LANGUAGE ( Speak for yourself when it comes to DUTCH , JDFWolff !).

- You may also note that a lot of formatting has been going on in this discussion - where it seems that instead of learning how to script Wikipedia, some are just copying , editing and pasting their responses directly onto the discussion page. (the easy way out - instead of learning how to 'Wiki'). This formatting could indeed explain quite a lot from both sides of the argument.

- In any case, the abolish the GMC campaign is still doing quite well on all search engines , and has recently appeared on the BBC Website in addition to Sourcewatch, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com and many other notable media too.

- All said , It is my expert opinion that the Wikipedia Administrators have been corruptly induced by the GMC to freeze the Abolish the GMC Campaign out of Wikipedia altogether - but I am extremely happy that the Abolish the GMC Folk ( dare I mention the phrase THOSE GUYS ) are really doing quite well indeed and are infact formaidably surpassing Wikipedia on most relevant GMC searches anyway.

-PS: I recently read the morally reprehensible Wikipedia article on Dr Gillian McKeith - together with all it's highly unfounded gossip (obviously endorsed by the same set of Wikipedia Administrators) - and have thus reached the final ethical conclusion that most of you Wikipedia Administrator's are either mentally subnormal or totally corrupt.

• Good Luck and Bye-Bye {My Signature / Wikipedia Member Name is : ExpertWitness}

Your comments as to my nationality are irrelevant. My English is on a similar level as yours, it seems. Accusing anyone of being "mentally subnormal" or "totally corrupt" is in complete violation of key Wikipedia policies

WP:AGF. Short-term bans for these violations are common. JFW | T@lk

23:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, once again it's those evil admins standing in the way of Wikipedia's chance to be at the front line in promoting an emergent movement, working against its neutral and unbiased proponents and endorsing the establishment line. Yet again the Rouge Admins are preventing Wikipedia from opening people's eyes to this new movement on the tenuous grounds of

do not add links to your site or a site which you control" what they actually meant was "add as many links as you like as long as you are really convinced you are right"? When they included news reports in the list of things Wikipedia should not include, they obviously meant to exclude news reports relating to this particular topic? Just zis Guy you know?

11:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly another sockpuppet for our troller - you are obviously not close to the GMC, and style of English suggests the same editor as previous. Stop trolling please, follow guidelines (eg signing your edits). David Ruben ^Talk 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Have a nice weekend, Folks - 'Abolish the GMC' has now trounced the GMC (and wikipedia) on MSN.com !!!

• {My Signature / Wikipedia Member Name is : ExpertWitness}

Let Debate Commence !

Perhaps "away" would be the best course, since you've signally failed to convince anybody thus far? Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hoooooooooooray !!! Abolish the GMC is WINNING !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.93.89 (talk • contribs) 12:59, March 9, 2006
  • My thanks again to the above for helping the admins in their work of finding and blocking open proxies. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Abolish Guys are not winning at all. This talk page simply confirms that those guys from Abolish will do anything to get their silly blog noticed. There is a simple epithet which applies in media and politics: "Exposure is good", irrespective of whether this is positive or negative exposure. Certainly better than no exposure at all.

So far all we've had is straight up-and-down

Heh! Up to a point. The membership of the Association of British Counties is unstated, there is zero coverage in any reliable sources, and we still could not get the article deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I totally like the Abolish the GMC Campaign !!!!!!! It is a breath of fresh air to Medical Regulation in the UK. I HOPE THEY KEEP UP THE WONDERFUL WORK AND STIMULATE DEBATE...
• What wikipedia should be doing is encouraging the debate - not collecting inducement from the GMC to strangulate it.
• If it is really true that the Abolish the GMC Campaign is being spearheaded by one major player , then perhaps he (or she) should be nominated for an Oscar - as he (or she) has undoubtedly made far more progress for the cause within the past 8 weeks than many others have done in almost 150 years !!!
• The past 2 Editions of Hospital Doctor Magazine have shockingly seen the GMC send out it's CEO and top Directors to APOLOGIZE for the stupidness of the GMC in some cases - and we also understand that the GMC has even sent TWO letterS out to the Abolish the GMC Blogmeister profusely begging him to come and 'negotiate' a settlement.
• I hope that the Abolish the GMC Campaign continues to eagerly throttle the GMC into submission - as the General Medical Council deserves no mercy at all; and must be obliterated without delay.
• RECENTLY A POOR PAKISTANI DOCTOR PAINFULLY HANGED HIMSELF BECAUSE OF THE GMC - AND I SOLEMNLY PRAY THAT HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD REMAINS PERMANENTLY STUCK ON THE HEADS (AND HANDS) OF GMC BOSSES FINLAY SCOTT AND GRAEME CATTO . . . EVEN UNTO THEIR 4TH AND FIFTH GENERATIONS OF OFFSPRING.
• Sorry Wikipedia - the Abolish the GMC Campaign IS REALLY WINNING . . . 86.136.130.88 (talk · contribs)

• • Please discuss this with your medical attendant. Midgley 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• • We know you like it, every comment you've made is eloquent testimony to that. Apparently you are alone in this. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Say, Abolish Guy, do you have any evidence from sources other than your blog that the Abolish campaign has mady any impact whatsoever? JFW | T@lk 07:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ahem: doi you mind if we don't abolish Guy just yet? Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)