User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Archive 3
BoP[edit]
Hi Sandy. As someone who has been looking on, I saw BoP's apology at your talk, and your response to it. My (uninvited) advice is to drop this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- We'll see how our (eventual) conversation goes, but I'm glad he's finally willing to talk-- for now, I'm pooped, after being up all night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and previous block log
- Initiates a disruptive FAR, not following FAR instructions, only days after a dispute in which he seeks to introduce primary sources: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3. Displays multiple aspects of WP:TEND and WP:ACTIVIST, espousing inclusion of pet theories in broad overview articles.
- Maligns fellow editors: [1]
- Edit warring and documentation of attempts on talk to resolve dispute: [2]
- Separate conduct matter related to his edit warring
- Off-Wiki activity: [3]
- Repeatedly introduces primary research: (sample)
Done Fails to respond on article talk, yet repeatedly removes user talk posts with edit summaries of LOL: [4] [5] [6] [7]- Epresses an external motivation for his edits "I likely will return here only to show friends at school just how poor this article is and then explain how it's rated as a 'Featured Article'." and alleges ownership after his undue weight edits were removed to a daughter article
- Misunderstands or misinterprets WP:V policy, and fails to engage direct questions on article talk (or user talk, as documented above):[8]
- Done Three times, fails to answer direct question about improper sourcing in an article:[9]
- Removes maintenance tags: [10] [11] [12]
- Note: [13]
- Alters citation style on article although he has been referred to WP:CITE several times: [14] [15] [16]
- Done Forum shops: takes primary source issue to two different noticeboards even after multiple editors have explained MEDRS to him: [17] [18]
- Even after all of that, continues to misrepresent or fail to understand how to use sources or to engage on talk to answer direct questions about sources: [19] [20]
- Done And then, for the second time, removes a {{dubious}} maintenance tag, alleging edit warring, for an issue still under discussion and on which at least half a dozen editors have disagreed with him to date: [21]
- DoneAnd again removes talk page post with an "LOL" summary: [22]
- DoneContinues to a third DR forum, even after multiple editors have disagreed with him and while failing to engage adequately on article or user talk: [23]
History of not understanding medical sourcing[edit]
- Replaces text sourced to journal reviews with unreliably sourced text from a personal website at Migraine-associated vertigo; [24] states on user page that he "helped to make article neutral", when in fact, he had made it UNDUE
- Then, removes tags (wrong tag was placed by an IP which correctly indicated in edit summary that the source was not reliable)
- Then edit warred with the IP over the IP's correct tagging of the article: [25] [26] and argued to retain the source after he had replaced peer reviewed sources with this source
- Pattern very similar to that occurring at Schizophrenia, IP had correctly identified a secondary review, engaged correctly on article talk, but was mistreated and accused of vandalism: [27]
- Created a series of incorrectly referenced stubs, then rated them as C-class, agreed to clean them up, but I had to complete the work: [28]
RFC/U Template[edit]
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 16:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC).
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.
- Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Statement of the dispute[edit]
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.
Description[edit]
{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[edit]
(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.)
Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research (PSTS) and WP:No original research (SYN)
- Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles and consistency (CITECONSENSUS)
- Wikipedia:Edit warring (3RR)
- Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Featured articles (OWN)
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (DR)
- Wikipedia:Consensus (CONS)
- Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (TEND)
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (DISRUPT)
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point" (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (POINT)
- Wikipedia:Vandalism and {{uw-tdel3}} (Removing maintenance templates)
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]
Basket of Puppies has removed all attempts at discussion from his talk page with edit summaries of "LOL"
and ignored or failed to answer most direct questions posed to him at Talk:Mechanisms of schizophrenia:
including a request to discuss behavioral issues on user talk:
Previous attempts at Talk:Schizophrenia
and:
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]
After multiple posts by many editors on Talk:Schizophrenia, Talk:Mechanisms of schizophrenia, and to his user talk and the noticeboards cited above, Basket of Puppies:
- continued similar disputed edits,
- continued altering citation style,
- removed maintenance tags
- for the second time, removes a {{dubious}} maintenance tag, alleging edit warring, for an issue still under discussion
- removes another talk page post with an "LOL" summary,
- and takes the issue to a third dispute resolution forum without having engaged other editors' questions or concerns directly on article or user talk.
Desired outcome[edit]
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
- Basket of Puppies agrees to follow WP:DR and engage editors with whom he is in dispute on article and user talk and avoid forum shopping if he hasn't done so first
- Basket of Puppies acknowledges proper sourcing of medical articles, per WP:MEDRS, to avoid UNDUE, SYN and POV
- Basket of Puppies agrees to refrain from maligning colleagues and alleging ownership; in particular, the importance of discussing and gaining consensus when editing featured articles, per WP:OWN#Featured articles
- Basket of Puppies agrees to refrain from edit warring and to 1RR per day on Schizophrenia and related articles
- Basket of Puppies agrees to refrain from removing maintenance tags until disputes are resolved
- Basket of Puppies agrees not to alter established citation style on articles without gaining consensus
Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary[edit]
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.
{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[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.
Outside view by ExampleUsername[edit]
{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 by ExampleUsername[edit]
{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:
Reminder to use the talk page for 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.