Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.0.133.234

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · logs)

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

Statement of the dispute

This RfC/U concerns the behavior of IP user 24.0.133.234, who has also edited under the usernames TeeVeeed and Housewifehader.

IP user has continually added unsourced, poorly-sourced, fringe, or non-NPOV-worded content to articles. When challenged, IP user has accused other editors of censorship and of violating NPOV guidelines themselves. IP user has also stated that it's not necessary to cite sources for "factual" (by IP's definition) content.

IP user has failed to participate in consensus-building on article talk pages, instead stating and re-starting IP's opinions, often with lengthy paragraphs which would be more appropriate for a discussion forum.

Cause of concern

Recent (January 2014 and later) evidence can mostly be found on the Jahi McMath case and Brain death articles, as detailed below. However, user's disruptive behavior stretches back over a year, as shown in the section on consensus-building.

Fringe theories and original research

IP user holds the fringe opinion that brain death is reversible. User has stated this opinion openly and frequently with regard to the Jahi McMath case article, but has not admitted that it is a minority/fringe viewpoint. This has led to recurring issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:OR as IP repeatedly attempts to distinguish between "irreversible brain death" and what IP considers to be other, reversible kinds of brain death. IP has provided no reliable sources that substantiate this view, and when challenged, frequently accuses other editors of censorship.

19:36, 17 February 2014 Jahi McMath talk page: Accusations of propaganda and censorship.

19:47, 17 February 2014 IP user talk page: Challenging "The very definition of death"

06:06, 19 February 2014 Jahi McMath case article: IP edit to add "irreversible" to brain-death. Subsequently reversed by editor Ca2james, informing IP that brain death is by definition irreversible.

11:24, 24 February 2014 Jahi McMath talk page: More accusations of censorship and "incorrect" use of terms.

08:57, 27 February 2014 Jahi McMath case article: IP edit to "clarify" that subject was "diagnosed with irreversible brain-dead" (sic) rather than "declared brain-dead". The edit was subsequently reversed by editor Funcrunch. IP continued to argue that brain death is not irreversible:

- 19:56, 28 February 2014 Jahi McMath talk page: Re brain death, claims "i have experienced it myself and it was not that bad."

- 15:44, 3 March 2014 Jahi McMath talk page: More attempts to distinguish "irreversible" brain death.

14:16, 2 March 2014 Jahi McMath case edit summary: "majority medical consensus knows that mcMath is "clinically living"". This edit was subsequently reverted by editor NorthBySouthBaranof as unsupported by reliable sources.

IP user holds the opinion that brain-dead organ donors are not "actually" dead until their organs are removed for transplant. When challenged, IP made accusations of "propaganda and censorship".

19:00, 17 February 2014 Jahi McMath talk page: "[...] from the way that I understand it, the legal definition of "brain death", was created by Drs at Harvard in order to facilitate removing organs from a person being kept alive on machines, which in reality is what caused the death of such people."

Failure to build consensus

IP continued to argue the position that brain death is reversible long after it was evident that no other editors on the Jahi McMath case talk page held that position. IP continued to post long statements arguing their position, even after outside editor assistance was requested (see later section).

07:57, 25 February 2014. During debate over subject's death certificate, IP continued to refer to "irreversible" brain death, while claiming IP's suggested wording was more "neutral".

11:31, 26 February 2014. IP posted lengthy opinions and continued to refer to "irreversible" brain death.

23:20, 28 February 2014. IP posted more unsubstantiated, discussion-forum-style comments.

10:34, 6 March 2014. On the Brain death page, editor Funcrunch accused IP of not editing in good faith despite their claims to the contrary, based on IP's edit history, frequent reverts by other editors, and warnings of disruptive editing over the past year. IP then added a note to a portion of their own talk page claiming there was consensus on an article where their edits were previously disputed. Funcrunch disputed IP's contention that consensus was reached in this case.

Verifiability

When challenged, IP editor has repeatedly asked why citations must be used, said they were too busy to add them at the time of editing, and/or has simply insisted that their view is correct.

15:21, 17 January 2014. IP added the following sentence concerning brain death and organ donation to the brain death page (with an unhelpful edit summary of "clarify"):

"Removing vital organs is the cause of death but since legal brain death has been established, cause of death is noted as whatever caused the state known as brain death"

This unsourced claim was subsequently reverted by editor Funcrunch per WP:VERIFY in February, then re-added by IP and reverted again per WP:OR by editor Ca2james in March. IP editor's response on the talk page:

08:41, 6 March 2014 Brain death talk page: "Is it always mandatory to included cite? A tag would save content better imo."

15:15, 6 March 2014 Brain death talk page: "I fail to see where there is even a problem with this information."

IP then referred to an editorial by a psychotherapist which IP had recently added as an external link. Editor Ca2james reverted per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. IP again questioned when told reliable, relevant sources were needed:

07:11, 7 March 2014 Brain death talk page: "A New Yorker dot com science and medicine blog [...] it was VERY appropriate, WHY NOT LET THE READERS DECIDE?"

18:21, 7 March 2014 Brain death talk page: ""Death" and brain death is not just a medical condition, so I'm not so sure that "only" medical sources need to be used here?"

17:25, 17 February 2014. IP added an external link to the Jahi McMath case article under a list of cases of subjects mistakenly "declared brain-dead". Link was reverted by editor Funcrunch as unsupported by the cited source. IP then re-added the link with the following accusatory edit summary:

18:20, 17 February 2014: "re-add good citation and yes it does say she was legally dead-dead enough to take her organs-also pls stop stalking my edits with your political bias"

21:49, 5 March 2014. IP added the following statement concerning organ donation preferences, without reference to brain death, to the Brain death page (with an unhelpful summary of "yep"):

"Organ recovery advocates have used psychological confusion to promote donation by the choice of words used when asked about donation options."

The citation included an excessively long pullquote from a TED Talk by a behavioral economist. The edit was reverted by Funcrunch per WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS and WP:VERIFY. IP responded with accusations of censorship:

07:12, 6 March 2014 Brain death talk page: "....why would you want to CENSOR that as NPOV? I don't understand. Censoring and only presenting YOUR ideas is where NPOV slant occurs."

22:06, 5 March 2014. IP editor again attempted to justify adding information without a citation by stating in the edit summary "this is true. Please stop deleting everything that is not cited-just tag it if you must."

17:10, 7 March 2014. IP editor made an edit regarding organ donation which contained language that was inconsistent with the cited source. Edit was subsequently reverted by editor Funcrunch . IP was again told that reliable sources were needed. IP insisted that they knew the facts, and threatened retaliation:

18:51, 7 March 2014 Beating heart cadaver talk page: "I maintain that it was just wrong [...] BUT-----there is no mandate NOT to add factual information unless there is a reference. If I get a chance, I might repay the favor of challenging all of your edits on every article that you have worked on so that you can add a ref."

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

IP editor stops adding unsourced contentious material.

IP makes edits consistent with the sources cited.

IP stops unjustly accusing other editors of "censorship" and "propaganda".

IP stops posting long explanations of their personal views on article talk pages.

IP stops giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier Funcrunch

17 February 2014. Attempted to explain twice (here and here) that the death date stated in the Jahi McMath case article was based on available evidence from reliable sources, not "propaganda and censorship" as IP alleged.

03:31, 18 February 2014. Posted a request for editor assistance on the Jahi McMath case article, which was subsequently moved and addressed at the BLP noticeboard. Despite considering IP's views to be fringe theories, editors agreed to compromise and make the following changes:

Revise the lede so that subject (McMath) was not referred to in either the past or present tense
Remove the infobox containing McMath's birth and death dates

Even after these concessions, IP editor continued disruptive editing and talk page behavior regarding the definition of brain death, as shown in above sections.

15:19, 1 March 2014. Requested additional assistance at the BLP noticeboard. In response, IP disputed that their behavior was disruptive, and again accused other editors of censorship.

Attempts by certifier Ca2james

15:27, February 25, 2014. Jahi McMath case: Attempted to explain to IP that IP was giving undue weight to IP's minority views on brain death.

03:35, March 1, 2014. Jahi McMath case: Asked to find a way to work with IP user in a non-combative way, in order to improve the article.

19:02 March 7, 2014. Brain death: Explained that reliable sources were needed, and explained for a second time that WP:EXT was violated by linking to a blog page.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

Questions to certifiers

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Response to concerns

{this is stupid}-OH and I don't recall saying that i don't believe in brain-death so, no I don't know where that is coming from. I have read the goals

   IP editor stops adding unsourced contentious material.

?-If I did that it was not intentional or in bad faith. i may have done that, but 1)-I'm not sure exactly what is meant here, and 2)-If something was deemed contentious after the fact, maybe I didn't know that it needed to be sourced? Does everything on WP need to be sourced? I thought that it had to be "verifiable"--possibly I'm misunderstanding something here?

   IP makes edits consistent with the sources cited.

Agree-If I did that it was a mistake. If there is a long paragraph or section,(which has a ref or cite) and I make a change to that section, (spelling, punctuation, content...), I honestly didn't think that I would be changing something that is attributed to a source, I won't do that, but I am a little confused about this. Another editor had dropped me a helpful link about avoiding original research, and being careful not to formulate information synergistically on my talk page, and i appreciated that. I honestly saw where I need to avoid doing that especially in an article where i am already confused about the different venues, (International, federal, state- law, Jargon used in the transplant industry that was being used in the article which had zero to do with the topic, and so on)---but when it comes to article text and content, and references or cited sources,-I agree with this. I would never purposely try to put misleading text/source in an article!

   IP stops unjustly accusing other editors of "censorship" and "propaganda".

Agree,to NOT use these terms to describe problems with other editors behavior or editingDisagree with the way this goal was stated,-Unjustly? i disagree. Funcrunch, you probably didn't like it when I dropped you a note asking you to please allow other editors to work on the Jahi McMath case article,(since you had been reverting other editors and pushing your POV, and deleting... and I said that I thought that you had "ownership" issues with that page in particular, if so I am sorry, but I still think so as this witch-hunt proves. I also mentioned that you had 3rrd, and I felt like you were trying to push myself, other editors, and past editors into 3rring or just letting you have your way with your pushiness in the article.

CHANGED/EDITED TO ADD--I fully intend to abide by WP:BRD as recommended by User:Robert McClenon below-(thank-you). These terms "censorship" and "propaganda" were used to express frustration but I can see where they are not helpful, and not appropriate for solving the problem.

   IP stops posting long explanations of their personal views on article talk pages.

Agree(to try not to do that)-SORRY about that! Most of my postings were in reply to questions about why I made an edit or edit-change. And trying to explain something that is very confusing. I read that article in the 1st place because I was confused about this whole dead/brain-dead, bla bla bla, why was this child (who is only legally dead at this point as far as we know), being referred to as a "rotting corpse", "grotesque" "macabre" and "dead" when she is not clinically dead.....I have learned a lot of answers to those questions and a lot of it is just rhetoric and jargon that really imo did not belong in the article. I stepped away from that article for a bit, and it looks a lot better to me now.
Also-I thought that it was important to mention that I have a cultural bias because the state that I live in has completely different laws and practices when it comes to patient and family rights for people with permanent brain-death. The whole episode may seem ordinary for someone in California, but personally-it was jarring to me because of my cultural bias. Noting that this was particular to California and the hospital there just seems preferential to me as far as WP is concerned, since 1)-It is just incorrect to post it as-if this were nationally or globally accepted practices, and 2)-Once you do that of course the article is going to go off-track and start talking about Japan and New York, and New Jersey and the UK.....
It is not my "personal view"--that terms specific to organ transplantation, and organ donors,(which by it's nature does share many of the same federal laws and definition/jargon) were being used in this article in a way that confused the topic.
And yeah-I said that i had recovered from the state known as "brain death"--to try and illustrate my point that the way that brain-death was being used in the article was not correct since many people test positive for some of the clinical and medical tests for brain-death while under anesthesia for instance.Sorry if that was soooo confusing. So I was a little pushy about saying, "diagnosed-with "irreversible" and/or "permanent" brain-death", (which is actually what happened to McMath)-instead-of being so caviler about "brain-death", which covers too many other conditions of being alive, maybe I was too pushy there? If so sorry about that too.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)edited[reply]

   IP stops giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints.

FALSE-I just resent this. And I deny it as well. I feel that Funcrunch is the one giving undue weight to their opinions, and using fringe as an excuse. I disagree that I did that, so no. Also, the other reason why it got so "wordy" on the article talk page, is because I was AFRAID to add things to the article itself. I thought that was what the talk page was for, to hash-out things before and after affecting the article? I think that a lot of that was done on that article, and it looked pretty good the last time that I checked it.

So if those are the goals of this little exercise, my goals are to improve Wikipedia, and i can see where i made some mistakes in the McMath article and/or the talk page, as did other editors. When you point the finger at someone, there are three fingers pointed back at yourself Funcrunch.
I really think that you have some kind of personal problem with myself or my edits or the fact that I had some problems with your edits, or what I think is your heavy-handed way of editing. You insisted that the McMath article take the side of the hospital in the case, and i don't understand why you can't understand why that should be avoided.
Again-I think that there has been improvement to the article, but you didn't get your way on everything, so maybe that is the problem? I've also been editing other articles within the death portal,(since I have learned so much and have so many excellent sources lately) and have run-up against you there, and on my ip's user-page questioning a matter from months ago. I suggest that we both avoid each other, which was what i was trying to negotiate with my initial contact with you regarding asking you to back-off from Jahi McMath and give other editors a chance, because I don't understand your POV either.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED TO ADD-In RESPONSE to semi-involved User:Mendaliv comments below; I would endorse Medaliv's entire statement except at this point, I don't know if taking the article out/userfy is a good idea, and that is only based-on the page-view numbers and my general stance as a preservationist. I am honestly considering that suggestion though, because Mendaliv, in their relatively limited participation with the article, has been able to help turn the article around, specifically by citing WP:COATRACK which I think really helped everyone see where the article was getting off-track. TY for commenting here Mendaliv, and even-if I don't agree with everything that you say, I appreciate that you took the time to comment here, and I respect your opinions

Also-please note that i have CHANGED one other statement above to Agree after considering what User:Robert McClenon had to say. And I thank the editor for their helpful comments.

Also-as far as "fringe" I still disagree with that while i agree that I have produced way too much text trying to explain why I think that what I am trying to say is "not"-fringe. I have actively avoided adding "fringe" to the article, so that is my resentment of that statement, AND-I also AGREE COMPLETELY that my opinion about the matter of brain-death does NOT belong in the article and that my opinion does not belong in any articles on WP. I think that my proposed solution to that is to work-on finding indisputably significant sources per WP:RS that represent whatever it is that I'm trying to indicate.

Confusion is one of the main problems here-(mine & my perception that the article itself was confusing and misleading and not following WP:NPOV). I have a boatload of references-(good ones!)--addressing how CONFUSING the topic of brain death is in general AND re:McMath case-(that is why I pushed to clarify and classify/add terms which were specific to the McMath case, I just thought that "brain death"-is too broad when we had sources that described and defined her diagnoses in detail like "permanent" loss of consciousness with no hope of recovery.)--I just didn't know if I should, or where to post those references about confusion w/the term brain-death, but I did notice that it is a general comment by many reliable sources about that topic-often in the title of many secondary sources related to the topic ie:"How dead is dead?" (possible paraphrase). I DO get that MY personal confusion about that particular topic, and the article was not expressed in a helpful way. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

1 (the subject of this nonsense)24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to named user

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

Semi-involved view by Mendaliv

I first came to the McMath page via WP:EAR, and found a very interesting question of applying WP:BLP to someone who has been argued to be alive, but who was recently determined by law to be deceased. My involvement was initially limited to trying to address how to handle verb tense when discussing McMath, but that got resolved fairly quickly. I also have been involved in trimming some of the fat in this article to try and avoid it becoming a COATRACK about the legal definition of death, etc. My personal opinion on whether McMath should be considered dead or alive is, in my view, immaterial: I believe Wikipedia should give a balanced viewpoint in a manner that doesn't paint her parents as crackpots, which I think is a real danger with this subject matter.

I really think it's too soon to start a RfC/U, which is an attempt to find a remedy for behavioral issues, before there's even been serious disruption. All I've seen out of 24' is some disputed additions, and extensive and possibly overzealous argumentation. I really think the better solution might be to explore the dispute resolution processes a bit more, perhaps by going to WP:DRN or similar if there's a very specific content/policy issue at the core of the dispute, which I think is the case. I further think that asking for the involvement of editors who handled similar high-profile articles in the past would be helpful.

Finally, and much more to the general content of the article, I strongly suspect that the entire McMath article might be better off userfied or draftified until such time that the story develops fully, per WP:NOTNEWS. There really isn't enough information out there in reliable sources to say anything about this story at this time, and I think per WP:BLP that's a big problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

(as author) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Robert McClenon

After reviewing the diffs by 24.0.133.234 and the response, I have some comments. I mostly agree with the certifiers that the IP has been difficult, and has disregarded some key Wikipedia policies. Saying that one is too busy to add sources, for instance, is inappropriate, especially in a contentious article that is subject to BLP. (Regardless of whether the subject is living or recently dead, BLP applies.) I see that the IP has agreed to some changes in editing behavior, which will be useful. However, I see that the IP has replied in the negative to two of the requests, which is troubling. The IP has disagreed with the request to stop using the terms "censorship" and "propaganda". "Propaganda" is merely an unhelpful label, and in itself is one of the less extreme things that often gets said when editing is contentious. However, the argument of "censorship" is a troubling misreading of a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, that, when cited, is usually misunderstood and indicates a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia editorial process. The policy WP:NOTCENSORED really only is applicable to suggestive or raw imagery or language that is nonetheless appropriate to the subject matter. The policy does not provide a way around the WP:BRD process. It is not a trump card to insist on having one's own POV left as is. The statement by 24.0.133.234 that they disagree with the request to stop using the words "censorship" and "propaganda" is a disagreement with a request to be more collaborative. Also, the IP has also disagreed with a reasoned request to stop giving undue weight to fringe positions (in this case, skepticism of the concept of brain death). The certifiers have been, in my opinion, relatively patient, because they have reasoned with the IP editor. It is good that the IP editor has started reasoning with them. More reasoning needs to be done. The IP editor has agreed to change his or her behavior on three points. All five points were valid requests. Progress is apparently being made. More progress needs to be made.

Users who endorse this summary:

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (as author)[reply]
24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (the accused)[reply]

Outside view by

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

-->

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template 1

1)

Comment by parties:

(the accused)-In this particular article and others in the Death Portal, including article talk pages, should i be doing any further editing on those topics, I would agree to thoroughly sourcing with outstandingly excellent sources to the best of my ability, any of my comments or edits.

I would also propose some kind-of agreement between Funcrunch and myself not to revert each other's edits but to ask other editor's opinions on the article TP. Allowing-for tagging if we must.24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template 2

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 3

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

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.