Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mihai cartoaje

Comments that were posted in the outside view section moved here

 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * I am utterly incensed that anyone would accuse you me of being involved in this debate when I posted in the "Outside Comment" section. The diff mentioned was placed after I commented in that section - which I was fully entitled to, given that I have no prior editing experience with anyone here.  I cannot believe that anyone here would not only repeatedly ignore Wikipedia guidelines about who can, and cannot, comment as an outside viewer, but then proceed to smear and slander those who actually have the right to use that area properly.  I am so upset by this that I cannot, in good faith, comment on this RfC any further, but for the record you should be ashamed of yourselves.  --Haemo 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. cartoaje's attacks of others really must stop. He is beyond the pale here.  JonesRD talk 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving more comments that were posted in the wrong place
He is vandalizing the Schizophrenia article, most recently by adding the NPOV tag to the page without discussing it. See the article talk page and his talk page for posted warnings he has gotten. DPeterson talk 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop Misusing the RfC format
User:DPeterson - you need to respect the format of the RfC. This is not a forum for discussion. On this RfC, you have repeatedly responded in the Outside Views section to dismiss or rebute the arguments made there - as if this was some kind of talk page. You have made no apologies for your actions, despite the fact that they clearly violate RfC guidelines, and have in fact proceeded to baselessly attack me when I pointed them out to you. Furthermore, you have been doing the same on other RfC which this user is involved in. This is very disruptive, and contrary to policy. Furthermore, you have the gall to then claim that's he's "vandalizing" other RfC's by removing your comments from the "Outside Views" section. That's absurd. Please, cease this disruptive behavior, and preserve the integrity of the RfC process. Haemo 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)