Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mihai cartoaje

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: 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Mihai cartoaje (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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. The user is vandalizing the Schizophrenia article. Most recently he adds the NPOV tag and refuses to discuss his issue. He has received repeated warning (see his talk page and the article talk page for details).DPeterson^talk 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recently he has make false statements regarding my status and relationship to other users calling them/me sockpuppets. DPeterson^talk 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to make false statements that are personally damanging, see diff 4 below. DPeterson^talk 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

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.

Either ban him from editing the Schizophrenia article or
Secure a promise from him to stop his actions or be banned from the article (and Wikipedia?)

DPeterson^talk 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description

{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.} The user is vandalizing the Schizophrenia article. Most recently he adds the NPOV tag and refuses to discuss his issue. He has received repeated warning (see his talk page and the article talk page for details).DPeterson^talk 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&oldid=109788765
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASchizophrenia&diff=122828278&oldid=122780232
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct&diff=121844612&oldid=121719195
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDorisH&diff=123231937&oldid=115846069 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
He now is vandalizind other RfC pages: [[1]] DPeterson^talk 12:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria. DPeterson^talk 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Note: The user consistently deletes the warnings from their talk page. Link to the unblanked page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=109934191

He now is vandalizind other RfC pages: [[2]] DPeterson^talk 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

I have been following this raging dispute, but not participating. I agree with the summary and agree that he should be banned. RalphLender^talk 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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

I placed a neutrality disagreement template on the article because I disagreed with having violence statistics in the article. Schizophrenia is the only wikipedia article I know of that has violence statistics. I added an explanation on the talk page [3]. There is also the smaller issue of whether we can have statements that can only be verified by reading professional journals which are not supposed to be available to the general public (the discussion for this is in the first talk page archive of the schizophrenia article). I didn't argue with DPeterson after a while because of the personal attacks.

Users who endorse this summary:

Mihai cartoaje 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

I have been watching this situation for a while, and I think it is unfair to imply that Mihai is a vandal. As I see it, it is Mihai who has tried to discuss, but DPeterson and his sock puppets have not engaged in discussion, but instead went right for 'dispute resultion' without there ever having been a discussion in the first place as in 'let's find out what the facts are'. It is not Mihai who needs to be reviewed for his conduct, but DPeterson (he has six sockpuppets, four of them have been operated during the past few weeks, all of them have passed the 100-rule, so they are legitimate and immune to checkuser). This situation must be extremely stressful for Mihai. I am not sure to what extent the other users who are on this and other mental illness-pages are aware of the sockpuppets. I have made remarks and hints several times to other users about the sockpuppet situation and they seem to ignore this like the infamous elefant in the room, in the sense that they do not even deny its existence. The multiplying effect of the sockpuppets has successfully created a hostile atmosphere towards Mihai among other users who are on this article. To call him a vandal, ask for him to be blocked or even this request for comment on user conduct seem totally over the top to me. He is only placing a pov-template on an obviously controversial subject.--Grace E. Dougle 11:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Grace E. Dougle has been quite invovled in editing the Schizophrenia article...I don't beleive she meets the Wikipedia standard as being an outside editor not directly involved in the dispute. For example, she has left a request on Mihai's talk page that he should comment here so that the "true" story is stated. In addition, her conduct is rather un-wiki like. Her unsupported accusatios of sock-puppetry are not consistent with Wikipedia practice of Assume Good Faith and are personal attacks against me and any others she is calling sockpuppets. I think her statements reveal her bias and very involved status. DPeterson^talk 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this carefully if you are reviewing this, and it will give you a taste of what we are dealing with here:

A view lines above DPeterson says

User:Grace E. Dougle has been quite invovled in editing the Schizophrenia article.

Here are diffs for all my edits on this article: addingan unsigned template and a period.

-->With this comment he shows that he (sometimes, maybe even oftentimes) has no connection to reality whatsoever:

I have no doubt in my mind that DPeterson really believes that this qualifies as heavy involvement - but it is a totally twisted view of reality. Dealing with this sort of behaviour is extremely difficult. Remember we are working on an article on a mental illness that anyone can edit (be it expert, relative or mentally ill person). Adding a period and attributing an unsigned comment is not heavy involvement.

The rest of the above comment speaks for itself: there should be a note on the talkpage of this user about an RfC and he should of course say the truth.--Grace E. Dougle 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry-issue:

Your sockpuppetry should be discussed elsewhere, maybe an RfC. Any suggestions are welcome. Request for Checkuser is inappropriate because of the 100-rule.--Grace E. Dougle 13:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this dispute here and I see that Grace has other disputes in other articles with DPeterson and, perhaps, that is the motivation for her attacks here. Her comments are uncivil ("no connection to reality") and not conducive to building consensus. Suggesting indirectly that DPeterson is "an expert, relative, or mentally ill person is another example. If I read the talk page of the Schizophrenia article, there is a note about this Rfc. Her continued accusations of "sockpuppetry" are also not conducive to collaboration and consensus building. While her editing of the article is minor, her comments on Mihai's talk page do suggest direct invovlement. Note, I have edited the article in question. RalphLender^talk 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Note "Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." --Haemo 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but ths section has been used by those directly involved in the dispute, and so some respose seemed necessary. It also helps the Administrators understand the issue; just like you were invoted by the subject of this dispute to comment [[4]] DPeterson^talk 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop replying. I'm taking this to the talk page - you should do the same. --Haemo 03:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

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