Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance

A voice against the proposed Ban and in Support of Jance 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: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

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

eeb (^chat/_review!) 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. eeb (^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

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

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
  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: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

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

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

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

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:

• Threatening lawsuits

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

• Edit-warring [10]
• Removal of POV tags [11][12]
• Jance writes: Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't on my talk page.
• Wikistalking retaliatory reversions without explanation or basis.[13], [14], [15]
• Unreasonable complaints contrary to
  WP:NPOV about citing "political" sources, though the same editor has no problem citing political sources she agrees with. Compare [16] and [17] (objecting to "political" sources) with [18] and [19] and [20]
  (adding political sources)
• Deleting or editing others' comments on talk pages to make it difficult for third parties to see what's going on.[21], [22], [23], [24], [25].
  • For example, in response to a POV tag, Jgwlaw and Gfwesq [[26], added 26 comments to the tort reform talk page] in 12 hours while deleting part of the POV objection I made.
  • Here, Jance deletes my objection to the unexplained reversion of a lengthy edit I made at her request, even though that edit complied with the unreasonable sourcing demands she made to exclude legitimate sources she considered illegitimate, and even though she rejected my earlier offers for her to write the first draft of the section I requested to avoid precisely this problem.
• Similar action on the RFC page.[27]

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

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

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

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

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

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.