Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jance

Jance responds to User:Daveydweeb's outside comment (moved by Sarah)

 * If deleting sections that had before been agreed on to be deleted "dips below civility", then every editor on that article should be banned. Oliver has repeatedly deleted and reverted as well, deleting large sections of text without discussion.   As far as the disagreement which Samir quotes - I left that page after his threat, and discontinued any comments.  That evidently   didn't satisfy... so ...   and moreover, there were veiled comments by other to me that were close to explicit attacks as well,  On the Clin-Med page, and I do not know how to introduce the link here to a particular point.   Jance 14:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the last thing I wrote on Clin-Med, 3 days ago:
 * I have repeatedly asked who 'reviewed' this article, to no avail. I am not going to belabor Samir's actions or inactions. It isn't worth it. I hope that he will help mediate, and was disappointed when he wrote a section called "futility" criticizing new editors whom I do not know. I would have hoped that someone who takes a position that an article has been 'reviewed' would at least respond when asked who reviewed it. I was banging my head against a wall trying to get any information. So to continue this discussion is a waste of time -- assuming good faith goes only so far. Thank you all for your input. Jance 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is utterly ridiculous. Should these attacks continue, please be advised that an RfC/RfAr is forthcoming against User:Jance -- Samir धर्म 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is ridiculous, Samir? What in the paragraph above is insulting? What is wrong with it? I would like to know. Is it impermissible to ask who reviewed it, when there was nothing anywhere that I could see? And I said I was not going to belabor your actions or inactions. How is that an attack? (It isn't). What is ridiculous is your threat. Jance 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You ask for examples of insults Here is an example of Oliver's insult of Dr. Zuckerman : " In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. "

And Samir's insult: I have an agenda? Really now, this is getting childish. (If a non-admin retorted like this, would it be accepted?)

I also asked
 * "I would also like Samir to help in mediation, without throwing his hands up and writing "Futility" because of new editors who posted" = that is exactly what he did, when he posted "Futility " in the talk page, because of two new users (not I and not Dr. Zuckerman) agreed with us.

And JFW: I've got a deep antipathy to the uneducated saying that "uh, I feel unwell, it must be my immune system" without a shred of objective proof documenting immune dysfunction.
 * I did not suggest that the article say anything about this, or state that there was a proven link. I did suggest there were not long term studies on rupture or its effects, which is true (nothing on older implants, and 10 years on newer ones).  I had also said I was diagnosed with SLE and MS and my labs and symptoms have improved since removal of ruptured implants.  JFW knows this, and therefore this is a veiled personal insult. I also didn't say it was necessarily caused by implants.  It may or may not be.  Regretfully, I have much more than a "shred" of evidence of immune dysfunction, and was diagnosed by several board-certified neurologists (MS) and rheumatologists (lupus).  This comment was intended to be insulting.

Samir's insult of two new editors as WP:SPA, entitled "Futility":
 * Futility
 * I see that mediating this issue is turning futile with the WP:SPA's coming out of left field now. You guys can duke it out and contact any administrator on WP:RFPP when there is a stable version that you agree upon -- Samir धर्म 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can go on and on but will it make a difference? I am sure Dr. Zuckerman could find many other examples of where Dr. Olliver insulted her, accusing her of misrepresenting, calling her political in an insulting context, etc.. When I said that misquoted (which he actually did, and it is hard to say otherwise when he picked a number that was not in the study he cited), I was chastised about WP:AGF. Jance 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get it. Let me summarize: you are rude and incivil and your conduct on talk pages makes it extremely difficult to edit articles.  This is not about breast implants and rupture, not about the pages you choose to edit or when you edited them, and not about what other users are saying.  It is about your conduct on-wiki, which does not meet the measure of civility required for an editor here -- look how many times you've been blocked for personal attacks, and yet you continue with personal attacks!  If you continue with the same conduct, I'm not too certain that you will be welcome to edit here anymore -- Samir धर्म  23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the Jance is a problem here. He's been blocked before, why not do it again?  --Curtis Bledsoe 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Curtis, if you continue stalking, baiting and harassing Jance, I will block you. Sarah 13:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)