Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 22 July 2008 (→Statement of the dispute: Add detail (see http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/SkepticsPostureTheory63.htm for a mainstream review of his theory)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC).

• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

The dispute concerns Da Costa's syndrome and Posturewriter (talk · contribs), who has self-identified as MA Banfield, an author with a self-published book and website promoting his Posture Theory about the syndrome's cause. Initial problems about conflict of interest led to long-running tendentious and disruptive editing patterns, and lately a focus on personal attacks on editors opposing these.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

A topic ban on Da Costa's syndrome and any medical topics where Posturewriter is seen inserting information into article space that supports his Posture Theory, and for Posturewriter to cease the disruptive patterns of editing and discourse on Talk pages - with a community ban per WP:DE if the latter doesn't happen or starts up in other topics.

Description

Posturewriter (talk · contribs) began contributing in 2007, creating an article on his own theory, The posture theory, which was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The posture theory in December 2007. He immediately began a pattern of single purpose account edits at Da Costa's syndrome. Self-promotional edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Da Costa's syndrome led to warnings from JFW , Gordonofcartoon and Whatamidoing .

He nevertheless continued to add to the DCS article verbose unenyclopedic material from his own website, leading to further warnings on content and style and failure to clarify the copyright situation . The issue was raised at WP:COIN (here and here) where discussion led to a further warning from EdJohnston for disruptive editing and a recommendation "that you stop editing the article, and confine your remarks to the Talk page".

Posturewriter did this, but the tendentious and disruptive pattern continued on the Talk page. He persists in his argument - despite a clear SPA edit history - that it's other editors (ones with a wide variety of topic interests) who have an agenda. This has worsened recently with an open statement of bad faith - The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics asserting that multiple policies have been invoked against him as various "tactics" rather than for the simple reason of his breach of multiple policies.

It's a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing, and I think the current editing pattern particularly fits WP:DE's description of conduct based on long-running low-grade WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches that operates "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles".

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Bad faith statement of user motives "In my assessment the main objective of my critics is to prevent, erase, or delete any of the significant scientific evidence of the physical or physiological basis for the symptoms of Da Costa’s Syndrome, to support their own views of the condition."
2. Ditto. "Gordonofcartoon has had a significant role to play in getting User:Guido Den Broeder banned from wikipedia. Is it because he was an editor who supported my interpretations when you were trying to get me suspended before here"
3. False accusations of sockpuppetry ]
4. Original research - personal analysis of a novel's content
5. Unspecified threat - "By way of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry"
6. Personal attacks and bad faith "Why did you follow ... with deliberate, carefully contrived ridicule that includes double talk, snide remarks, derision and contempt ... which appears to have been chosen from much practice and experience for the precise purpose of intimidating me or provoking a hostile response in the hope that I would stop contributing, or react with hostility so that you could accuse me of violating civility policy"
7. Incivility in edit summary "Response to pathetic SPA argument"
8. Personal attack framed as opinion - "Have you also considered how he (Gordonofcartoon) is trying to make your group look. He comes asking for help, and when you start to mediate he sidles next to you and acts as if he thinks that you are his toadies, who should routinely move to the back seat while he takes control of the referee process as a recalcitrant dictator."
9. Breach of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:UP#NOT with creation of attack essay The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics - particularly including false accusations of anonymous vandalism, and bad-faith assumptions about other editors' reasons for invoking policy.
10. Obstructing COI discussions by denying the existence of identifying information that he had self-revealed during an AFD ; then, this being pointed out, arguing that the information should be put back in the box because it had arisen in a different context.
11. Further procedural obfuscation over copyright/COI issues: obstructing Jfdewolff by withholding this already-revealed identity "As I explained, my motive for not revealing my true identity is to avoid other editors from adding it to their list of examples of self-identification for their conflict of interest arguments"

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:DE
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:COI
4. WP:NOR
5. WP:NPA
6. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
7. WP:UP#NOT
8. WP:CIVIL
9. WP:GAME
10. WP:SOAP
11. WP:TALK - particularly over failure to "Be concise".
12. ...
13. WP:SOUP
14. Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering These two are obviously not policies or guidelines, but characterise a major problem of the situation; Posturewriter's continuing and disruptive use of obfuscation and long, unstructured comments.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Advice on general editing etiquette and standards.
2. Request via Wikiquette alerts to abide by WP:UP#NOT
3. Requests to remove - after demonstration of IP locations - claims about sockpuppetry
4. Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop treating Misplaced Pages as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. Refusal to remove unproven accusations of sockpuppetry despite requests (and demonstration of unlikeliness) from accused editors. Also general sophistry in claiming they were not accusations because of being framed with "perhaps".
2. Obfuscation and delay after request to either remove attack section or use it legitimately: "I will give your question some thought and respond within the next day or so" , "Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter ... In the meantime I will add some more later to day" , "If you wish, could you please take out any of the comments in that section which may have been interpreted as personal attacks on specific identified other editors, and take it to another page, and inform me of it’s location. I will then consider my response in due course (in the next 2 to 4 weeks preferably)"
3. Continued expansion of attack section after warning of its possible breach of Talk page guidelines

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
2. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

{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.}

Wow, what a headache. As a completely outside party I have just read through all the relevant pages I can find, (Users' talk pages, article talk page, COI discussions, etc) which has taken several hours! Here are my humble thoughts:
Posturewriter is generally polite in his responses and has mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair. However, comments (by Posturewriter and others, most notably Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing), rarely seem to diffuse the situation and unfortunately can often aggravate it, for example in the User_talk:Posturewriter#Persistent copyright issues section, User_talk:Posturewriter#False accusations section and in the wp:Wikiquette_alerts/archive48#User:Posturewriter section. I'll quote a few here as those sections are rather long and restrict myself to Posturewriter's comments as this is his RFC/U, although some of the others' comments are their equal:

"I also don’t want my User Talk page turned into scrambled discussions just because some editors want to do that with their many schools of red herring arguments, so I prefer to respond to one issue at a time."

"I was also definitely not being evasive, or sending you on a “treasure hunt” (your words), but was assuming that an experienced editor would have the responsibility and ability to check on accusations against me, rather than assuming that my critics had a valid argument, just because it was their opinion."

"Jaysweet; Have you noticed how Gordonofcartoon creates the image that I am causing trouble for a lot of editors, when 99% of criticism is coming from, or incited by him and WhatamIdoing, as here ], and here ]."

However, although not really constructive, it is generally a case of meeting a claim against him with a counter-claim against the editor and the comments really only brush WP:CIVIL. As far as incivility goes there are only a couple of blatant breaches of WP:CIVIL, most notably with the sockpuppet issue and with the "teach you a lesson" line quoted above. I feel more that it is the response of an editor who feels embattled on all sides and does not merit sanctions such as a block (unless things go downhill fast), which I am certain would not remedy the situation. It was perhaps summed up most succinctly here: "I think he's objecting that his opinion is being shut out and that other editors are being too factual, people are objecting with opinions that contain too much information. There may be a valid concern here, but it just isn't very persuasive since it rambles so much. "Also, I am not an editor, I am a contributor, and the editors are being disruptive to my contributions." seems to be the argument.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"
Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but instead of starting another long, protracted debate here as has happened at COIN and talk pages could I humbly suggest that the involved editors take a break from each other for a while. If all could agree to stay away from and remove any controversial material from the relevant article and talk pages, etc, then perhaps we could draw a line under it all. I do not say this as a condemnation on any editor I have mentioned nor do I assign blame to anyone editor. Neither am I suggesting that any editor is in anyway childish and just needs to be told to "play nicely" but rather I say this out of respect for you all as Wikipedians. Let's not dismiss this as "been there tired that", either. As an outside and completely neutral editor (who holds you all in high esteem) I plead with you all for peace! (Also it might also be good to let someone who knows very little about the article in question to have a go at cleaning it up if it still needs it as from reading the discussions it seems as if personal knowledge is a big problem here.) Here's hoping for a unilateral acceptance of disarmament! :)

Users who endorse this summary:
Avnjay 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Misplaced Pages help templates