User talk:WLU/RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Io io editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Anyone who wants to comment can do so here, please separate by sections. WLU (talk)

Note this and this comment. Based on how it is received, I may start a post at AN/I. I thought you may be interested. WLU (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get in on these things for the most part but I have to say I would have to respond if you do go to ANI. I think this has gone on too long and even though I tried to discuss the reasons for the side effects to be boldly listed, and it should be on the other medicine articles, one editor is not allowing this to finally come to a close after many established editors have tried desperately to explain, no I do not consider myself established but many on the article are including you. Please keep me adviced on my talk page. I hope it doesn't come to this because Io io has a lot of knowledge but I don't see any collaboration with the other editors, only combativeness which really saddens me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure Crohnie, I'll let you know when it goes somewhere. If even you, very mild-mannered and accommodating with no history of conflict with Io, that suggest to me that this has gone on far too long. WLU (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you go to ANI, some people will advise you to do an WP:RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I agree with EdJohnston, AN/I is not dispute resolution. It should be a venue for bringing up issues that require immediate administrator attention; I don't think content disputes and tendentious editing belong there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, I will pursue over the next couple days. Feel free to add to the sandbox if you'd like, if anyone wants to start on RFC/U then go ahead. This'll be pretty quick to assemble methinks. WLU (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An RFC/U may be premature and not even needed at this point. I've sent you some reasons in an email. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will check. WLU (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I can appreciate that you are annoyed. However, it isn't a case for ANI and I don't think it merits an RFC/U either. It is a content dispute but io has refrained for weeks now from editing the article in question. Let io try to move ahead on the talk page; perhaps even help by trying to find relevant sources. Or, try informal or formal mediation. This business of verification vs truth is difficult to grasp, and verification of medical topics is difficult for people not connected with universities that have medical schools. --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really, really don't think it's a content dispute, since the problem is that no-one agrees with Io on the required changes he suggests, not a single person despite a huge amount of collective experience, yet he keeps bringing it up, with the same argument and no change. The endless repetition is disruptive, and in my opinion should stop. Io may be a PhD researcher in clinical medicine, but he is not grasping how wikipedia is different from a conference, a journal article and other venues for research. Io hasn't moved ahead, not one iota, despite weeks of trying the same thing. If I spent less time dealing with the same pointless complaints, I might have time to look for sources. But thanks for your advice, if you see anything fruitful in this or a good way to move forward, I appreciate any outside opinions. WLU (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got an idea; I really don't want lo on any of the conflict boards, so here is my suggestion. I haven't read the archives and to be honest, other than the most recent items discussed I don't know if this suggestion I have has been done or not or if it was discarded as an idea. So, as a means to try to help this situation here goes; how about a consensus vote on the talk page (s) so that any and all editors can vote to keep the article as is (obviously I mean the information that is under dispute to keep/remove at this time). I know this has worked on a couple of articles I have seen and some I participated in, example [1] and other Barrett articles. Maybe this would work with doing a consensus vote for this situation, which should then make the conversations of WP:Weight & WP:TE moot after the count. As I think, or at least hope by now it is realized that I prefer the less controversial way of handling things. lo has a lot of good knowledge which everyone has acknowledged, so a consensus vote might help him understand this policy if he is not aware of it, which I do not know if he is. I have talked with most of the regular editors on the N talk page, including lo, and I would really like to see some kind of consensus shown prior to any administrator boards or other actions. Thoughts?--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC) PS: My apologies if lo is not of this gender, it was just easier to write this under a specific gender.

I always refer to Io as a he, so if you're guilty so am I. The problem I see with your suggestion is a) it implies that the page is finished (it's never finished, there's an essay somewhere) and should not change and b) consensus has already been demonstrated repeatedly, yet Io keeps trying to change people's mind with the same damn arguments. Since Io doesn't edit the main page, there's no reverts or WP:3rr issues, but my feeling is that the continuous, monotonous talk page posts are pointless, disruptive and waste a tremendous amount of time - just reading the posts and reviewing the sources, which are useless on the natalizumab page because they don't mention natalizumab, takes time. And because the other editors are conscientious, the concerns are not dismissed out of hand but reviewed and the errors or problems pointed out. Weight and TE have been moot for a while, Io doesn't realize it or doesn't care. You really have to read the whole talk page and archive to get this I think :) WLU (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really, really do think it is a content dispute. And the other editor is behaving very professionally, under the circumstances. --Una Smith (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't have a good solution when somebody comes to an article with an idée fixe, and appears to resist all data and argument. The administrative noticeboards are oriented toward misbehavior such as incivility, vandalism, and edit warring and they don't always address unbalanced POV very effectively. For one proposal on this, see User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that similar problems exist on the Treatment of multiple sclerosis page. The issues are at one level similarly 'content', based an apparent interest in making Natalizumab look like a good treatment for MS. But similar behaviours are also apparent: lack of understanding about consensus, wish to include his/her original research and synthesis, desire to disregard reliable source guidelines, for example because s/he doesn't agree that a particular review study is valid, and of course very circular conversations in which the same information about policies etc gets repeated multiple times, by multiple editors to no apparent effect. The end result is becoming quite disruptive and it is to be hoped that io io's WP learning curve takes a swift upward climb! S/he is editing the above page, BTW. I can't judge the appropriateness of the edits myself. Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Una, Ed and Slp, please keep all (talking to you Una! I always appreciate a dissenting opinion) of this in mind or add to the sandbox. One thing that makes it difficult is Io's expertise in many areas, but that's not the problem. Wikipedia requires its own level and area of expertise. Which is what makes it frustrating for experts, because there's no 'it just is because I am an expert' response. WLU (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WLU, just for the record I do understand what the editors are all thinking about this and how the same things are being repeated over and over like if you say it enough times then it has to be true. I just thought that if a physical consensus showed up on the articles that maybe seeing all the editors who oppose the changes Io is presenting may finally show that he is on his own and that all the other editors, at least the ones I have seen all agree that the material belongs in the article. To clarify I was suggesting something like this; Are you in favor of keeping or deleting the article (s) information about PML, liver damage and the chart in the article? Something like this, though better worded since I have never actually set one up before so I'm sure it would need to be reworded. First it would show which editors are for keeping the information and those that are not. If it turns out that it is to keep, which I am pretty confident it will from what is being said by editors, and then there is actual proof showing he is in the minority.

Una, this isn't a content dispute unfortunately though I think if it were it would be easier to tend to it. If you read a little on the two articles mentioned you will see that Io is the only one out of quite a few editors that keeps stating and restating the same things that the article talk page is going in circles so much that it make everyone dizzy already. WLU seems to know you and trust your judgment so may I suggest that you take a look too and make a comment at the two talk page? I have never had contact with you before so I would like to say hello too. I am a pretty mellow editor and when things get to like they are now, I usually just lurk until things settle down. Slp1 thanks for mentioning the other article. I have been following the conversation you have been having there up till your post of going in circles.

Personally I have to agree with the editors above and on the talk pages that the postings now are WP:TE and WP:COI just to name the main policies that I think are being abused. Maybe a suggestion of a mentor would be a good idea. Policies here are very difficult to figure out esp. if the editor has an agenda, and I am now convinced that this maybe the case here. N is great for an option of treatment for both MS and CD, but it's not a magic bullet which I sadly think Io is trying to show. I hope I am not offending anyone, if I have my apologies as I never try to be disrespectful to anyone. But right now with all of this going on the articles are very difficult to edit because of the unfortunate need to explain in detail why whatever is put in is WP:RS and so on. Again thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, always happy to see you on my talk page and I'm sorry for any representation that was in error. I know its a lot to read through and congrats for making it through it all. Doubtless as inspiration for a nap : ) I think you may have seen a straw poll; I'd have to see the source pages to say for sure (hint!) I'd have to see the actual suggestion to really give an opinion, and I don't know if Io would listen to it any more than he listened to the other opinions that have repeatedly been given. I suspect that some editors are shunning him, or see the exercise as fruitless because he's not editing the main page, so why waste the time? But I'm guessing. Incidentally, I haven't seen COI (as in evidence), but there's a lot of reason to wonder if there's COI - the constant pushing is unrewarded by any real changes and completely unsupported. Curious. Final note - I don't recall a lot of contact with Una (though I recognize the name I think), I'm just glad to have any dissenting opinion. A counterbalancing editor makes it less likely for this to turn into a hatefest. I think most of us would agree that what is desired is moderation, not departure. WLU (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are all confusing consensus with majority rule. Also, I think there may be is a communication breakdown. Why don't you all calm down and try mediation? It is in no way punitive, and it is not about ganging up on anyone. It is about achieving communication and helping all parties be heard and understood. --Una Smith (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a confusion between the two - Io wishes to include his own comparison between drugs and documents when the documents themselves do not mention natalizumab. He wishes to eliminate mention of side effects from sections where the side effects are extremely relevant (PML was instrumental in the drug being pulled from the market, then re-released; a hugely significant and unusual occurrence for a drug. This requires a mention beyond just the side effects section) In addition, the editors involved are not unreasonable, and are extremely experienced. We're not a group to shout someone down if they have sources. Io does not, just an endless font of opinion. WLU (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, ha, I can tell you never popped into the Barrett articles, if you had you would have understood my lack of desire to find a diff for you! :) But I got your hint and dug it out of the archives, one of many; [2]. The reason I think there is a WP:COI possibility is from here, [3]. I take this link to say that he is running a website about MS and thus has the COI issues, just my take on this. There has too be a better way to search archives to pull diffs when needed. It's so time consuming to read everything till I get the info I am looking for! :) As for mediation, I wouldn't be against this at all if others are interested too. I know it takes just one to say no before it doesn't go forward. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, COI would only raise it's ugly head if Io were adding that website to pages. A COI might be motivation for his ongoing attempts to convince others that natalizumab is a miracle drug with no real flaws, but on that page the problem is one of sourcing (or lack thereof) and OR (to fill gaps in sourcing). I understand why people suspect a COI, because the level of persistance without reward, but I've seen no statement or direct actions by Io that indicate a COI. As such, COI isn't a worry for me unless there arises a post or external piece of evidence that indicates Io is a Biogen or Elan shareholder, or one of the researchers working on natalizumab and I won't be mentioning it during any RFC/AN posting. WLU (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested WP:ADOPT, which I think would be a useful first step, since I really do think part of the problem is 'not getting' WP, how works and doesn't work. Let's see if s/he takes up that suggestion.Slp1 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If Io accepts adoption, then I am quite willing to wait and see what the result is. I've tried offering suggestions and advice (though right from the get-go we had a fairly antagonistic relationship) as have others, but perhaps someone who Io thinks is neutral and fair will be acceptable. It's very possible we're talking at cross purposes because Io does not know what is acceptable and what is not and we're reacting as wiki-editors who think this is all very obvious. Please keep me posted Slp1, I'd love for that to work as a solution and I think most other people would as well. WLU (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the suggestion hasn't seemed to work at all. [4] --Slp1 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. Do I detect shades of WP:PARENT? "If you don't like it, I'm going to wait until X, Y or Z says its OK". WLU (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed too and so surprised at the reaction you got for suggesting the idea. I don't understand what goes with the attack? I didn't see anything flammable to cause such a reaction to your post. I just know that the page doesn't have the editors there like before. I guess the editors are tired of it and are ignoring for now. Sometimes that is the best solution, to break away from the discussions if they are not going anywhere and as long as the article isn't being compromised, maybe this would be best until things cool down there. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'your' you are referring to is Slp1's 'your'? Otherwise I'm confused. One option I haven't tried is shunning or WP:DNFTT, but sometimes the lack of reply is an implied support. WLU (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry that is who I was referring to. Ignoring the postings helps calm things down. If a post is made that suggests that no responses are a sign of support then a comment stating the lack of response is do to already been talked about and tired of circling or so on. Basically what I am suggesting is very limited responses only when necessary. Well bed for me now. Good night.--CrohnieGal^Talk 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Io io editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

to add:

postings not on talk:natalizumab

AN/I posting
WP:WPCHEM? WP:WPDRUGS?

WPMED page:

Request for help at Natalizumab

WPMED talk:

[edit] Start of posting

My personal sandbox, please add comments if desired in a different section

This is not a content dispute. Io is a lone voice who has not edited the main page since March. The issue is ongoing posts on the talk page containing original research comparison of natalizumab to other drugs, both their wikipedia pages and off-wiki sources. This has been going on for weeks, with various rephrasings of the same arguments and no new relevant sources (though plenty of irrelevant ones). Not one single editor has agreed that there is undue weight placed on a minority position in the article. Undue weight is cited very frequently, without any evidence that the issues of PML and liver damage are considered minor or irrelevant. They are heartily mainstream.

User_talk:Io_io_editor#Userfied_content_from_talk:natalizumab and Talk:Natalizumab#The_900_other_drugs_that_cause_Liver_Injury. A consistent push against repeated WP:CONSENSUS to reduce mention of death, PML and liver damage. Every source on the page is reliable, there is extensive discussion of the PML deaths and liver damage in peer-reviewed journals, by the FDA and EMEA and the manufacturer of the drug. The mentions are completely appropriate, neutral and represent due weight to the attention given in reliable sources.

Undue weight has been cited repeatedly. My comment on this can be found at Talk:Natalizumab#Undue_weight - the page demonstrates attention commensurate to the attention found in sources. There is no violation of undue weight.

Nearly every section created by Io io editor on Talk:Natalizumab has been a POV-push that has passed through tendentious editing to become disruptive. Examples include:

Io io editor has repeatedly attempted to convince other editors that there is undue weight and the mention of PML, death and other adverse effects should be reduced through comparison with other drugs, other wikipedia pages and original research comparing documents on unrelated drugs that do not mention natalizumab at all.

Io io editor is a very knowledgeable editor, but he does not work well with others. He seems to think his expertise means he is a reliable source to edit the page, but has consistently failed to convince any other editor, despite their own expertise on wikipedia and off, that there is merit to his position. WLU (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:WLU/RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Io io editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Io io editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Start of posting

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search