User:RobinHood70/Sandbox

In order 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC).

---

• RetroS1mone (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

RetroS1mone has shown an ongoing pattern of disruptive edits on Wikipedia, including numerous unsubstantiated accusations against multiple editors, biting a newcomer, OR, frequent reversions/edit-warring and tendentious editing. The dispute is with her editing style at-large. If an RfC is not the appropriate place to address these concerns, guidance would be appreciated.

Note: Due to multiple concerns about the same edit, a few links are presented under more than one category. In the accusations section, those on article pages are typically in the edit summary, where those on talk pages are more often in the body of the edit. Related items are grouped on the same line.

Unfounded accusations by RetroS1mone against multiple editors

Please note that these are only some of the accusations made by this user. Searching her User Contributions will show that there are many more. Examples follow - most from recent edits/edit summaries, but some are older to show a long-term pattern.

Accusations of a conspiracy/a cabal/group ownership/tag team editing

• [1] - "you edited with your group of ME friends Guido Tekaphor Jagra MESpringal and MEagenda"
• [2] - "Guido said you and Tekaphor and others were part of a group that edited in co-ordinate."
• [3] - "group of advocates like Guido Ward20 and other people."
• [4] - "Tag team harassing, recruiting ... COI"
• [5][6] - IP edits were made more than two weeks before any concerns at CFS pages arose, not "days"
• [7]
• [8][9]
• [10] - "you and your CFS "pro organic" friends"...and COI

Accusations of being uncivil

• [11][12][13] - After being uncivil herself, accusing editors of being SPA accounts and having vendettas, goes on to categorize one response as "incivil" and the other of being condescending. While perhaps incredulous at her accusations, the responses were not terribly out of line, given her initial accusations.

Accusations of COI

• [14] - uncivil, COI and SPA accusations.
• [15] - also bites a newcomer
• [16] - "is it just a promotion by COI editor User:Lassesen?"
• [17][18][19][20][21]
• [22] - asks editors if they have ever met the person in the article they are editing
• [23][24]
• [25][26] - edit summaries make accusation of personal knowledge and being close to subject, but all information is verifiably from sources
• [27] - "i am admiring your activism doing PR for these people"

Accusations of inappropriate behaviour (harassment, hounding, stalking, etc.)

• [28] - RetroS1mone files a sockpuppet investigation against RetroS1mone because two editors discussed possible problems on their own talk pages not mentioning RetroS1mone by name.[29][30] Overview here
• [31]
• de-humanizing; hounding; digs, lies and evasion
• threat and digs; harrassment; hounding - this last claims that RobinHood70 is using her contribution list to hound her (which was not the case, as explained), even though she has previously demonstrated that she reviews his contributions as well [32] (the Sandbox page was not linked to from anywhere, so could only have been found in the Contribution list).

Accusations of OR towards other editors

• [33] "Bacchus that is great Ward20 recruited you and Tekaphor... when Ward20 did the original research from primary source"
• [34]
• [35] - though she did apologize after discussion
• [36]

Accusations of editor POV (as opposed to edits)

• [37] - "consensus are not from a vote of POV group of activisits"
• [38] - removed WP:V material (and some Med journal review refs) with edit summary (wow Ward20 is trying on making it a lit review again w Ward20 POV sorry medrs)
• [39] - insults edit and accuses Ward20 of POV again
• [40] - broadly accuses other editors, and specifically RobinHood70 of having "patient POV or activist POV" (RobinHood70 states openly on his user page and in that discussion that he has CFS); links them with a banned user ("they worked with Guido and i think were friendly some times bc they agreed w/ each others POV"); acknowledges that she also has a POV, though she equates it with Wiki MEDRS POV (edit summary)

Accusations of SPA

• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44] - and COI

Accusations of Tendentiousness

• [45] - admittedly in response to RobinHood70's accusations of same
• [46]

Biting a newcomer

• [47] - strongly implies COI, SPA and vanity editing

Editing against consensus

After some discussion and consensus about whether Chronic Fatigue Syndrome should be described as "poorly understood" or "inadequately understood" (here and mentioned in passing here), "inadequately" was decided upon. Over the course of June/July, five different editors changed it to "inadequately", with a sixth one involved in the consensus discussion:

• Afterwriting
• Sam Weller - revert included 'poorly' but mainly concerned R1's wholesale removal of verified reputable medical sources (with R1's summary "i revert POV edits by editors that are trying to censor medical information on possible psychiatric causes").
• 87.114.157.112 - later reverted due to mention at talk page

→ Consensus between RobinHood70 and Ward20 to use "inadequately"; no objections following short discussion; changed to "inadequately" 3 days later by Afterwriting.

• RobinHood70
• StevieNic

RetroS1mone continually reverted "inadequately" back to "poorly", initially with little discussion and her only reasoning mentioned on the talk page being "it was on the lead for two years", though an edit summary also explained that "inadequately means i think there needs more research on CFS" (which is readily supported by a multitude of sources if it's really needed for a single-word change):

• [48][49][50] [51]^§ [52][53][54][55][56]

§ - reverted, claiming it was consensus, as her first edit to the CFS page after a one-week article block due to edit-warring

Only after a large number of reversions did she supply sources. Not one of these sources was easily verifiable, since they weren't online sources (or at least weren't hot-linked), though another editor agreed that PubMed articles seemed to use similar wording more frequently.

Inappropriate removal of text

• removes long standing text with edit summary accusing another editor [57], which after being restored was removed again [58] ... both edit summaries are poor reasons
• over two edits, removes MEDRS text rather than reword the alleged issue with the text [59]; then when restored, it is removed again [60] (second half)
• when reverting a specific editors' edits during a dispute, also removes a later edit by a separate editor [61] (probably out of reasonable convenience); but while claiming the extra edit was "good", makes no attempt whatsoever to restore it (seems petty at first, but text is sometimes lost this way due to mass reversion, creating more work overall)
• removes against consensus a personal account by a researcher sourced by the NY Times because RetroS1mone disagreed with it.[62][63]
• continued removal of relevant, reliably sourced material at Daniel Peterson (physician)[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]

OR by RetroS1mone

• [73] - edits non verifiable information and is asked on the talk page about 7 times for a source[74] but never answers
• [75] - edits WP:V content to WP:OR content with edit summary (Undid revision 294335388 by Ward20 (talk) remove OR by spa editor). Episode transcript here.
• [76][77] - over source (PMID 17053343); there are more due to related edit warring, see talkpage sections [78] and [79].
• Malcolm Hooper - OR disputes in talkpage sections for: "Activism" vs "Advocacy" [80], "Vendetta" [81], similar issues spilling out onto the BLP noticeboard [82]

Pattern of reversion (either strict 3RR or extended)

• User_talk:RetroS1mone#3RR_warning - 3RR/extended warning by admin
• [83][84][85] - this last one accuses others of mass reverts, even as she does so herself
• [86] - extended sequence of reversions and accusations, though none can exactly claim ideal behaviour
• [87][88][89]
• editors who've been reverted are asked to "go back to the source" when ironically the source supports them word for word, see [90], and edit [91] with talk [92], just two such examples
• unrelated legitimate edits also reverted in one mass reversion as "POV"; for example, notice the first two edited paragraphs [93] the 2nd one which reintroduces possible OR, adds a false "failed verification" tag while removing reliably sourced text from the authors' own conclusion
• reintroduced a redundancy that was previously removed [94], with the editing summary "why they take it out??" ("they" obviously being the "group of editors"); then when restored, it is removed again [95] (first half)
• automatic reversion is even alluded to here [96] (keep in mind that this post also contains false accusations levelled towards another editor, who defends himself in the talkpage section:[97])

See also: Editing against consensus section.

Tendentious Editing

• [98] - edits WP:POV and WP:OR [99] summary of House (TV series) episode (hypochondriac/chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia/delusions), reinstates it with other material with edit summary (revert POV edits sPA COI editors) [100], reinstates it with other material with edit summary (i revert POV edits by editors that are trying to censor medical information on possible psychiatric causes) [101], reinstates it again with edit summary (It is in right place it does not need MDRS it is showing a well knowing popular culture and many medical peoples' belief about CFS) [102] (Note: Same topic but different article than in #75)
• [103] - presenting the positive results of "two recent reviews", then relegating a dedicated systematic review on the specific subject as "others argue"
• [104] - article had been locked for a week; her first edit after protection was lifted was to re-instate a controversial change
• argues one way on talk for material inclusion, "The reviews on CFS and FM say, the cause is not known, but i use the phrase "medically unexplained symptoms" and other editors do not like. I think some editors think MUS is the same as "functional somatic syndrome" so they do not like that, but i do not think it is, it means medically unexplained."[105], edits inversely, "the symptoms defining the condition are referred to by some doctors as medically unexplained symptoms, PMID 17822818 a term some psychiatrists consider synonymous with somatoform disorder."[106]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. No personal attacks
2. Disruptive editing
3. No original research
4. Neutral point of view
5. Please do not bite the newcomers
6. Edit war

Desired outcome

For RetroS1mone to:

1. actively assume good faith and stop making personal attacks; and
2. work collaboratively with other editors rather than combatively.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. This talk page post (hereafter, the "NPA post").
2. A Wikiquette Alert was previously filed here.
3. She was asked to stop making unfounded accusations here, here, here, here, here
4. She was warned by yet another person about her general editing style here.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. Warned to assume good faith back in January, and promised she would, but accusations have continued since then.
2. In the NPA post, the very topic which asked her to cease her personal attacks, she made further attacks and even acknowledged that she thought "'two users tried and failed' before an RfC".
3. Many of the citations in the Unfounded accusations against multiple editors section are more recent than the NPA post.
4. When biting the newcomer, rather than acknowledging the complaint on her talk page, she reverted it with the edit summary i remove harassing by stalker.
5. Continues to change text despite concerns indicated with her interpretation of the sources, as seen here.
6. ANI by RetroS1mone "I do not know but i do not doubt a certain banned user, is helping with the RfC and sending "data"..."and fight about edits on their articles"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. RobinHood70 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Tekaphor (TALK) 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Ward20 (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

1. Sam Weller (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Questions

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by

{Enter summary here.}

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.  

Mutual 0RR Agreement

1) As the submitter of this RfC, and since there seems to be a perception by RetroS1mone that I (RobinHood70) am hounding her, I would like to propose several restrictions on both of us, primarily including a mutual 0RR. Since the desire to edit content, and therefore the effect of 0RR, is different between the two of us, I propose the following parallel (rather than equal) restrictions:

Both RetroS1mone and RobinHood70

• 0RR on all medical pages or anything related (doctors' pages, patient organization pages, etc.), excluding vandalism and self-reverts.
• No accusations or incivility anywhere on Wikipedia or related projects.
• No posting on the other's talk page unless absolutely necessary (to be arbitrated by an admin if there's any question). This would include warning posts, such as the WP:HOUND post on my page and the Don't bite post on hers - other users can post the warnings if they believe/agree that there's a legitimate concern. This should mildly alleviate the appearance of hounding for both parties.

RobinHood70 only

• Copyediting only on the same pages as affected by the 0RR agreement - no addition or changing of material from sources in article space on medical pages. Proposed changes would be brought up on talk pages only (citing this agreement if there's a need to explain why), and if others agree, they can make the changes.

A "3 strikes" policy would be used to enforce this agreement, with the first two "strikes" being user talk page warnings by an admin who agrees that a violation of this agreement has taken place. A third or successive strike would result in increasingly long blocks/bans (eventually permanent if there are sufficient violations) of the appropriate user, at the admin's discretion. To prevent any appearance of impropriety, I would also propose that it be a different admin for each infraction (or a single neutral Admin if one can be agreed upon). This agreement would continue until either a mutual agreement to dissolve it, or in the event of a permanent block of either party.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

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.