Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Benzodiazepine/archive1

Off-topic banter moved from project page
I can't work under these conditions

I believe that Sceptical is attacking me by distorting refs which then I have to go on the defensive. He has continued to do this with another post above syaing refs said minor and giving out other misinformation. I have been asked to keep my cool. I have to be honest I am finding it very difficult because I have no choice but to defend myself against misrepresenting refs and misrepresenting what I said etc. I don't mind debating refs and their validity and POVs but I simply cannot work under this hostile environment any more and I cannot engage in these childish games anymore. I have also endured a lot of time dealing with similar editors (scuro and Mwalla) so my patience is unusually short for such antics. I have done nothing to deserve this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What do I do, does the FA close now? Do I go to admin noticeboard and request a topic ban? What is the usual proceedure? I have already contacted admin User talk:Fvasconcellos.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I request that admins here lay down some rules, i.e., editors are not allowed to distort the contents of refs, quotes from article text, say refs say things when they don't or any other verifiable Troll (Internet) WP:DISRUPT disruptive behaviour. I will agree to keep my cool (which will be easy if disruption is not allowed here).-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive tactics that also need to be stopped by admins

This disruption is continuing with Sceptical making statements and then saying essentially "you have to prove what I said is incorrect. For example "no serious researcher" or such and such a person is outdated, the onus is on you to prove my original research opinion wrong.

Is sabotage of featured article reviews like this allowed? Is it this easy to ruin a featured article review? Just come in troll and then it is over. I know FA reviewer after another week or 2 of this are going to look at the big forum like largely unproductive discussions and think to heck with it? Why should Sceptical be allowed to mess the review up. Please can someone do something. Thank you for listening.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, so I have to engage in this game where you cite an irrelevant refs which is not even about protracted withdrawal and then I have to show that you are playing a game. I don't think so. At least you think that I am doing a good job at this. The reason skeptical is this. The refs above are primary studies, as this is going to FA I would rather stick with the review paper by Ashton. Thank you. Some of refs above were on therapeutic, some on abusers. I have no intention on adding them to the article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If an admin would like me to submit diffs as evidence of this trolling behaviour I can gather them up in a couple of hours as this also involved article and user talk pages. Thank you. I believe that I can demonstrate that Sceptical has made this a personal agenda against me to ruin this review.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE CANCEL THIS NOMINATION AND REVIEW

Hello, I have been informed that the only option available is dispute resolution. Unfortunately due to past experience this is totally inappropriate for trolling and disruptive behaviour (as there is no dispute to resolve or compromise as it is not content related) and it takes too long and I am already involved in an arbcom with a disruptive editor. I also have a real life to lead and unfortunately I do not have the time nor the patience to engage in these childish games. Therefore I feel that there is no alternative but to let the troll win and cancel the featured article review. Infact I am so sick of dealing with nutters on wikipedia that I think that I will just keep articles on my watch list and stop developing anymore articles.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I will perhaps return to editing this article up to featured article review if wikipedia changes its policy regarding troll and WP:DISRUPT. I have seen so much destruction caused by trolling and disruptibe behaviour and it should be treated with a quick block similar as is done with vandals to stop their disruption.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I know I have lost my cool but I cannot appologise as I feel that I am a victim of inadequate wikipedia policies regarding dealing with intentional disruptive and trolling behaviour. Being targeted maliciously is the worst form of harm to wikipedia. Ironically Sceptical has been a victim of this himself and I helped get a troll and stalker of his banned.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to officially delist or request to delist a FA review but have posted here.Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates Is this correct way of doing it?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am submitting evidence regarding this disruption

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Guideline banter As far as I remember without looking at the full text, the guideline WP:MEDMOS does not say anything about not supporting secondary reviews with primary studies, and may even encourage using primary studies in some contexts to give depth to the articles. Anyway, all the WP policies are in favor of writing good articles based on verifiable information. So do not be afraid to use primary sources if you stick to the authors' interpretation of the results. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS (MEDMOS is just a style guide, not a sourcing guide). The guidelines are quite clear that seconary reviews are far superior to primary research papers for sourcing an encyclopeadia article. For a subject such as this (an important and well documented/researched class of drugs used to treat a number of highly important conditions), there is very little justification, IMO, to cite the primary research at all. We are interested in what the published experts think about the research and its clinical significance, not what individual wikipedians think about it, no matter how hard they may think they are trying to "stick to the author's interpretation of the results" (noting also that the interpretation made by the author of a research paper isn't perhaps the most impartial interpretation we could cite). Colin°Talk 08:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What Colin said. Things might be different in an article on a very rare disease or treatment, where no reviews are available, but this article is extremely well covered in the medical literature and the Wikipedia article should cite reviews. For more on why primary studies are unreliable, please see:
 * Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are digressing here... But I should point out that in case of contradiction between a WP policy WP:V and a guideline WP:MEDRS, the policy takes precedence. Ironically, E. is trying to refute WP policies with ... a primary study :). The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction between WP:V and WP:MEDRS and Eubulides is not refuting policy. Both primary research and secondary reviews appear in the "academic and peer-reviewed publications" that WP:V regards as the best source (as do letters to the editor, editorials, obituaries, news items, etc). WP:V does not attempt to distinguish between the kinds of articles to be found in these works, which is where MEDRS comes in wrt the medical field. Colin°Talk 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not refuting the policy? Please read his post: "For more on why primary studies are unreliable, see...". Anyway, this is not an appropriate venue for such discussions. Your are wellcome to my Talk page for friendly banter on this topic, though. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not refuting the policy? Please read his post: "For more on why primary studies are unreliable, see...". Anyway, this is not an appropriate venue for such discussions. Your are wellcome to my Talk page for friendly banter on this topic, though. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)