Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Jance, who has previously edited as Jgwlaw (talk · contribs · logs) who was blocked 7 times, including several blocks for personal attacks and incivility (block log), has again engaged in numerous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in dealing with fellow wikipedians.

Description[edit]

User:Jance has been incivil and has engaged in personal attacks against User:Droliver and User:Samir (The Scope). Her comments on talk pages are often sarcastic and contain ad hominem attacks against others. This has made it very difficult to edit articles that she is involved with. This is evidenced as below.

Please note that this is not a request for comment on the Breast implant article, but rather on the behaviour of User:Jance.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Regarding User:Droliver:

  1. This is not surprising, however, given his penchant for misrepresenting studies.
  2. Surprise me - show me that a plastic surgeon can be honest
  3. Droliver's comments are totally absurd - talk about inflammatory!
  4. "Oliver, a plastic surgeon, who makes his living doing putting in breast implants, surely has no plastic-surgery advocacy (sic).."
  5. [1]
  6. You seem to have a real problem with honesty, in fact, Rob

Regarding administrator User:Samir (The Scope):

  1. After Samir protected Breast implant for an edit war: I see you have weighed in, though, to prevent anyone but Oliver from having input
  2. Samir Strong-Arming Breast Implant Article... I think someone other than Samir, who has a very clear agenda, should be involved with this.
  3. Regarding the protection of Breast implant: Samir disregarded the edits of the most recent editors (more than one). This is a problem, and hardly seems even-handed, especially when I showed that statements Oliver made were NOT what the study HE cited said. And, as usual, he omits the conditions, recommendations for follow-up, and the like. I urge Dr. Melmed and Dr. Carter (I don't know who this is) to show Wikipedia their "credentials" so the same can be verified. I am curious as to whether the other "doctors" such as Oliver or Samir? have done so.
  4. I have a feeling now that the article to Oliver's taste, we won't hear anymore from Samir.
  5. One of Oliver's buddies locked the article in Oliver's version.
  6. Hah. I doubt it. And I doubt that any of Droliver's buddies have proved their credentials, either.
  7. Frankly, I would worry about any medical doctor who claims to be an expert in his field, who appears so biased and intellectually dishonest
  8. That IS biased, and strong-arming... amazing that alleged doctors don't seem to care.
  9. Regarding the protection of Breast implant by Samir: Not true, Samir. You deliberately chose a version other than the last version, to protect
  10. Sigh, it is unbelievable how some people exercise 'power' and obfuscation.
  11. Good plan, Lynn. It seems to be the only voice allowed here is that of Oliver and his buddies.
  12. As it is, Samir's actions do not show a credible attempt at neutrality.
  13. If anyone here calls him/herself a "medical doctor" then act like one
  14. I sure hope y'all dont treat patients the way you do the BI article. Shudder
  15. An/I? Medical Article Malpractice?... It appears evident that Samir "cut and ran"
  16. Are there any doctors who care at all about accuracy in a medical article?
  17. I know that in *real* life there are doctors who have some shred of intellectual honesty, although I do wonder about here
  18. Rather than defending himself so, perhaps Samir can put his energies to constructive use. I not that the comment by Pascal was simply ignored by Samir and his choir.
  19. Again, it appears that none of you care at all about the accuracy or reasonableness of an article. That should be surprising, coming from administrators.
  20. I hope Samir will get over whatever prompted him to criticize new editors

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. User:Ragib: [2]
  2. User:Sarah Ewart: [3]
  3. User:NCurse: [4]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Samir धर्म 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sarah Ewart 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NCurse work 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. — Lost(talk) 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - crz crztalk 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Droliver 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tyrenius 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Runcorn 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TedFrank 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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.

What is the motive for this?[edit]

At another's suggestion, I deleted some of the comments Samir posted above, to end the conflict. I left the Clin-Med page. Now, Samir has retrieved those to bring this up here.

So how did anyone "fail to stop the dispute?" Where am I still doing anything that upsets Samir? The last thing I posted to Samir is to please show me what it was that he found so "ridiculous", in the statement where he threatened an RFC if I continued. He refused. I stopped posting.

I did what they requested and stopped. There is nothing going on at the BI article that is in any way a problem. Nobody is edit-warring, there are no snide remarks. So why now does Samir decide to file this complaint? What is his point? Jance 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I posted last on the BI page:

I understand your point. It would be interesting to compare rupture rates on 2nd generation with later generations. Why would it be difficult to find older studies on these implants? Especially, since so many women still have them. I understand the techniques may not be the same in identifying silent rupture, but what did the studies find? Or were there any? What about the number of confirmed ruptues? Were these women followed? IT would just be an interesting point, and certainly useful to readers who still have those implants.Jance 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is wrong?

There is no edit warring. There are no snipes. So what is Samir's problem now? Did my leaving the Clin-Med page upset him? I stopped posting when he said "If you don't stop..." and he made his threat, other than to ask him what was "ridiculous". Is it acceptable for him to continue harassing me - and yes, that is exactly what this is now, when there is no ongoing issue.

This is the last thing I am saying here. There is no reason for this, and I am not going to participate. IF you want to ban me, ban me. Good night.Jance 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Jance 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]

A voice against the proposed Ban and in Support of Jance[edit]

I'm not sure how or where to put these comments, but I am surprised by the suggested ban. Jance has made excellent contributions to wiki. She had already deleted her own angry comments (listed above)so those words (already "taken back" should not be held against her.

The editing problems on the implant page were not Jance's fault or responsibility. I was personally and repeatedly insulted by someone who was giving Jance a hard time (not Samir), so I know how frustrating it was for Jance. This banning suggestion is unfortunate now that we are working together on the edits. Let's cool off and get back to work. Drzuckerman 06:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]

  1. Agreed. Cool off. If it happens again, then we talk. Goodlief 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It appears Jance has been the recipient of a great deal of mistreatment, and the complaints against her don't seem to hold water when both give and take are considered. Unfortunately, this RfC --much less the proposed ban-- only seems to encourage intolerant behavior directed at the broader range of perspectives (most of which lie outside the narrow interests of the medical establishment) that are essential for assuring WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. Ombudsman 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reviewing BImplants and previous id contributions, I do not think this RfC reflects a fair assessment of Jance's situation at all. I think some "high status" editors have been heavyhanded to the point of hubris & provocation as well as suffer serious conflicts of interest that exclude adequate coverage of consumer protection related interests that also reflect poorly on Wikipedia. Other editors needed to clean up their act and be helpful.--I'clast 13:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. I've found the user in question's comments, to aid rather than hinder. Shot info 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

Frankly, this issue to - to me, at least - confusing as hell. The dispute involves enough editors and is on such an esoteric topic (as far as I can tell, the problem revoles around implant rupture and related detail...) that I can't hope to provide a generalised opinion on it. It is clear to me that, in edits such as this, Jance has dipped below the minimum standard of patience and civility Wikipedia expects of all its editors; moreover, s/he has acted in a way that fails to assume good faith and at times borders on explicit personal attacks.

The administrators and other editors involved appear to have acted within process and with an acceptable level of restraint. I would, however, like to see some diffs demonstrating User:Drzuckerman's claim that "I was personally and repeatedly insulted", since - as I said before - this dispute makes it very difficult for me to determine exactly what has happened since it began. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Samir धर्म 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sarah Ewart 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Droliver 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tyrenius 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Runcorn 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aye. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MONGO[edit]

Persistant repeated commentary which demonstrates even minor violations of civility over time have a "nagging effect", which when added up, violate our editing policies. If done in rare circumstances, one could write it off to frustration. However, persistant incivil comments over time are disruptive to a collaborative editing effort. It's not always easy, but one must do all they can to argue the merits of the information and not the person who is providing said information. Repeat violations and blocks if not corrected can lead to a community banning based on disruption.--MONGO 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Samir धर्म 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sarah Ewart 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Droliver 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tyrenius 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Nephron[edit]

General observations:

  • I find the discussion at Talk:Breast_implant#Misstating_studies difficult to follow. However, I have the impression this started with Jance alleging that Dr. Oliver misrepresented some data. On close examination, the allegations were not backed-up with a list of reversions (by Dr. Oliver) and quotations from the supporting studies (with links). I looked through Holmich et al.[5], which appears to have been at the centre of the initial dispute, and could not directly verify the claims Jance made.
  • I have the impression that Jance became fixated on the results of a selected subset of studies. In some ways, I think her attacks on BIs may parallel Bjørn Lomborg's attacks on global warming, who carefully selected studies to support his POV.
  • Jance engaged in a number of personal attacks and uncivil behaviour (see above) after a number of her edits were reverted.

Mitigating circumstances:

  • I suspect Jance has suffered personally from complications of a breast implant failure[6] and is still very angry about what has happened to her. If this suspicion is true, I think this should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
  • I believe that Jance's objections did have foundation on several occasions and note that User talk:Drzuckerman found Dr. Oliver's editing objectionable. To some degree, I believe Dr. Oliver's editing and behaviour incited Jance's behaviour. I do not think her behaviour should be excused because of Dr. Oliver's behaviour. However, I do think it should be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Comments directed to Jance:

  • Reference what you say carefully and let the evidence do the arguing for you. Pound on the facts; otherwise, it may appear you're just pounding on the table.
  • I ask you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, if you haven't already.
  • While I find your approach has been disruptive (and should be changed), I think your perspective on BIs has helped improve the article.
  • I hope you see this exercise as being constructive and hope that you continue to edit WP.

Nephron  T|C 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Well-spoken. Clean advice. Goodlief 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observation of Signatures[edit]

These parties, MONGO, Samir, and Droliver, seems to have negative relations with the individual in discussion, so thus they are not credible, and appears to reply out of spite. Civil and AFG are policies that have been broken by many on Wikipedia. This case is not unique and of meager importance; it should be laid to rest.

Remember: An RFC brings close scrutiny on all involved editors.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Goodlief 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View by Samir[edit]

Peripheral to these issues. Goodlief (talk · contribs · logs) registered 24 hours ago and appears to be trolling a number of WP:RFC's -- Samir धर्म 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Droliver 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tyrenius 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Samir धर्म 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --MONGO 06:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sarah Ewart 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although the user has been blocked indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this user is unlikely to edit again [7]--Runcorn 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MastCell[edit]

Leaving aside the issues at the breast implant article... it's my understanding that Jance and jgwlaw are the same user. Yet jgwlaw's userpage, contribution history, and talk page have been deleted in response to her assertion of the "right to vanish". My understanding is that you have to actually vanish for that right to apply. Edit histories are public for a reason. The "right to vanish" protects those who leave Wikipedia; it doesn't exist to allow people to disassociate themselves from their prior edits and show up on the same page and argue with the same people with a blank slate. Ideally, Jance/jgwlaw could address this herself, via a note on Jance's userpage to the effect that she used to edit as jgwlaw. My feeling is also that jgwlaw's contribs/talk should be restored, unless she not only asserts her "right to vanish", but actually vanishes. MastCell 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. David D. (Talk) 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TedFrank 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TedFrank[edit]

In August 2006, User:Jgwlaw, about to face severe sanctions for repeated Wikipedia abuse, avoided those sanctions by announcing that she would leave Wikipedia (though not without first threatening litigation).[8][9].

User:Jance, posting also as 67.35.126.14, started posting in November 2006 on Jgwlaw's old stomping grounds, acknowledges formerly posting as Jgwlaw, and is up to the same tricks that got her in trouble before:

(Note that the "invasion of privacy" claim is frivolous: the editor advertises herself as a Wikipedia editor using her real name)

Do not think that this is a complete list by any means; this is just what I could scrounge together in an hour of insomnia.

Please advise how to best handle. I'm doing my best to make reasonable NPOV edits to correct a problem of POV bias added by Jgwlaw/Gfwesq/Jance's thousands of edits to articles about civil justice issues where she systematically deletes any information (regardless of sourcing) critical of the plaintiffs' bar (e.g., [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), but there's no point to doing so if she can just revert me without consequence, and I certainly can't spend the time on this that this exceptionally persistent editor can.

Too, can an editor avoid sanctions by self-barring oneself, deleting much of their history of their problems on Wikipedia, and then coming back as another user? Is anything going to happen with this? This page has been up for two months, and Jance continues to be unreasonable. -- TedFrank 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sarah[edit]

To the editors opposing this so-called "proposed ban", this is not a proposed ban. A request for comment is simply that: a request for comment. Sarah Ewart 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will not tolerate this abuse[edit]

Sarah, Ted has already managed to get one admin to challenge me as to why I do not want my real name disclosed on Wikipedia. This whole drama was a (probably successful) attempt to get me banned, to further Ted's political agenda. I have deleted all his accusations and the debacle on his talk page. Not one admin - NOT ONE - would stand up and stop the abuse. It is reprehensible. I said this on the AN;/I and I will say it here. This is absolutely the worst most pathetic excuse for "fairness" I have yet seen. THE ATTACKS HAVE BEEN RELENTLESS AND TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. Ted is accusing me of being a sockpuppet, too. He challenged me as to why I need privacy (eg my REAL name not used on Wikipedia). This is the Twilight Zone. In fact, it is a political zealot who wanted any impediment to his propaganda out of the way,. ANd I have no use for Wikipedia when not one person will call this for what it is, and stop it.Jance 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

My last comment on BI article[edit]

I understand your point. It would be interesting to compare rupture rates on 2nd generation with later generations. Why would it be difficult to find older studies on these implants? Especially, since so many women still have them. I understand the techniques may not be the same in identifying silent rupture, but what did the studies find? Or were there any? What about the number of confirmed ruptues? Were these women followed? IT would just be an interesting point, and certainly useful to readers who still have those implants.Jance 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So how is this any of the things Samir accused me of? How is this continuing any of what he complains of? Why is he now filing this? Muchness (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments[edit]

Jance was indefblocked on 21 February 2007 by Cbrown1023 (see related WP:AN/I discussion).--Muchness (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jance&oldid=1079096374"