Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sgactorny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

  • Sgactorny: Has been harrassing other editors who disagree with him on the article AIDS reappraisal. Any edit that refutes his view sets of a tirade of insults from this editor towards other editors. He has been repeatedly warned: [1],[2],[3]

But he persists with the attacks in the talk pages (most of this has been archived) and in his edit summaries. Please help. Nrets 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Despite the fact that he claims to have stopped personal attacks, he keeps doing so in the edit summaries and even in his response on this page (see below).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Here are some recent ones:

The general pattern is that whenever anybody questions this editors he replies with a tirade about how the editor is an idiot, knows nothing of the subject, etc.

  • [6] This example shows how he simply reverts other editors comment that he does not agree with and then insults the editors by claiming they have an agenda.

Yet another way that this user censors and fails to respect WP:CIVIL :

And I didn't intentionally erase any contribution from the talk page ever. Sgactorny 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I replied to one of his many laborious statements on Talk:AIDS reappraisal, in a way which I believed to respect WP:CIVIL, however, this user reverted my edit on a talk page stating that I was ...censors the TALK page of dissidents! [7] --Bob 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

After being repeatedly warned on the talk page, the editor insists on removing sourced material from an article because it does not conform to his liking, here's an example from the Peter Duesberg page [8]. Nrets 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

No Personal Attacks NPOV

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) He has been repeatedly warned: [9],[10],[11]


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  • Nrets 04:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Rod 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Robert McClenon 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. nixie 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. WAS 4.250 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (He appears to believe he has the right to delete "orthodox" points of view from an article covering a nonorthodox point of view. On his talk page his friends encourage him in this mistaken belief.)
  4. Bob 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. ←Hob 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Durova 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1) The users who are complaining about my edits are individuals who do not want a NPOV article written about AIDS reappraisal. Their edits prove that as they continually insert orthodox AIDS POV, remove dissident references and quotes. Nrets has explicitly stated in the talk archives that AIDS reappraisal is "morally reprehensible" and that he will not learn about the issues before editing the page.

2) These orthodox AIDS promoters admit to having opinions about AIDS that reject ANY criticism of the mainstream view.

3) They admit to being ignorant of dissident positions. Nrets claims this proudly, yet continues edits written from a place of ignorance. Rodasmith refused to read anything written by AIDS reappraisers. Grcampbell ignored requests to read views other than his own.

4) They refuse to educate themselves about AIDS dissident positions prior to editing the dissident/reappraisal page.

5) You can find their refusals, and their acknowledgment they are not informed about AIDS dissident positions in the talk archives.

6) As I've written in the talk archives, I'm willing to read anything the mainstream AIDS promoters would like me to read, if they think I'm ignorant of anything I should know. As you will see in the talk archive, the mainstream users admit they refuse to educate themselves about dissident views.

7) The above is stated not to insult or disrespect anyone. But it is important. The reason is because they are objectively ignorant of dissident views and evidence, many of their edits insert orthodox POV without their awareness they are even doing so. How would they know they are inserting orthodox POV when they do not even know what the dissident's positions are? See the problem?

8) Because of the aforementioned reasons, it seems utterly futile to "negotiate" agreements with individuals who admit they are here to censor dissident views as much as possible. You can see this pattern quite clearly in the edit history. Every single one of their substantive edits are the insertion of orthodox statements, either unreferenced or referenced. They continually erase dissident positions that are referenced and/or quotes!!!! This is outrageous.

9) I regret the personal nature of my past talk correspondence, and the record reflects I ceased that some time ago. And I will not continue that. That was a mistake.

10) However, I cannot see the point of having discussions about what the content of the dissident page should be with these individuals, given all the above reasons. The moment they agree to learn about AIDS reappraisal issues, everything will change. It is simple.

11) I believe that the users who are endorsing this page would prefer there be no AIDS reappraisal page at all, since they write that the existence of those of us who hold AIDS dissident views are "morally reprehensible." This was among the personal attacks Nrets wrote in the talk pages. Nret also wrote several other personal attacks. I, however, am not asking for him to be censored. I believe the hypocricy of Nrets is quite clear.

12) He wants the dissidents censored and will not read dissident information, yet edits the page over and over that is about dissident issues. Dissidents do not ask for ANYONE to be censored, and we're willing to read and learn anything you give us.

In conclusion,

13) I am happy to discuss and work out what should be on the AIDS reappraisal page with ANYONE who is actually informed about AIDS dissident positions, or who is willing to learn about them. I am, as I have said many times, willing to read and learn ANYTHING anyone wants me to read about AIDS, so that I may proceed with increasing awareness of discussion context. I pride myself in being an expert in the AIDS literature, not just the AIDS dissident literature. And I will continue to be committed to learning the data, from all sides.

I cannot imagine how anyone could ever have a rational discussion with those who admit to being here to try and censor and curtail actual dissident views, and who admit to not even knowing about the issues of the very page they keep editing, or vandalizing, as it were.

The bottom line is, I will work with anyone who is willing to educate themselves about AIDS reappraisal issues so they can be informed when they make edits on the AIDS reappraisal page. It is not possible to work with people on this page whose agenda is to promote the opposite, orthodox POV because AIDS reappraisal is "morally reprehensible" and "everyone knows AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience," etc. It is only possible for an AIDS reappraisal page to be written by those who actually understand AIDS reappraisal data, and Nrets admits he doesn't.

I would welcome any suggestions from uninvested parties.

Sgactorny 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the bad things written by the orthodox AIDS nurse HOB were in the past, they aren't happening now. And I didn't intentionally erase any contribution from the talk page ever. Sgactorny 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Sgactorny in follow-up

Sgactorny wrote: It is not possible to work with people on this page whose agenda is to promote the opposite, orthodox POV because AIDS reappraisal is "morally reprehensible" and "everyone knows AIDS reappraisal is pseudoscience," etc. Can he please provide diffs of those statements? If he will do that, then I will conclude that there have been serious violations of civility on both sides. Violations of civility on one side do not justify violations on another side.

There is a difference between demands that the orthodox viewpoint be presented alongside the dissident view, as it should, and the argument that the signers of this RfC want to censor the debate. Can diffs be provided to demonstrate an actual attempt at suppressing or censoring a minority scientific viewpoint? Robert McClenon 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

It appears, from reviewing the talk page archives, that this is a case where the conduct of an editor is making resolution of content and POV disputes impossible. The AIDS re-appraisal article is inherently a statement of a POV that is held by a minority of the scientific community. This is the sort of article where the Wikipedia NPOV policy is both essential and difficult to achieve. For that reason, it is also essential that all editors treat each other with respect. Personal attacks on other editors are not permitted. The subject of this RfC needs to study WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. ←Hob 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gtabary 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. nixie 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. The Rod 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Bob 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Hob

I wasn't involved in editing the AIDS reappraisal article, but I have followed the discussion there, and entered into one brief and unfortunate argument with Sgactorny (see below). I think he has a lot to contribute: he's very familiar with the subject of the article, deeply personally committed to it, and fairly articulate. Unfortunately, from day one he has chosen to regard his presence here as a personal crusade against ignorant forces of evil, and once he's decided that someone is on the wrong side, he is unable to be civil or assume good faith.

Of course, the AIDS reappraisal article itself inevitably makes these pitfalls 1000 times worse. It's an attempt to give a comprehensive and balanced view of a heated debate in which the opposing claims aren't just about specific facts or interpretations, but about the other side's arguments - that is, in order to even explain what the disagreements are, you pretty much have to include statements like "Jim says that Bob has failed to take X into account. Bob says that that just shows Jim doesn't understand Y." It's very, very hard to define NPOV in a case like this - actually I'm not sure there are any other cases quite like this. I do think it's a necessary article and a necessary challenge [highlighted this because he said everyone endorsing the RFC wants to get rid of the article], and it needs voices like Sgactorny's.

I think it should be possible to agree on at least some very broad standards for NPOV, though, and this is a big problem for Sgactorny. For instance, in a recent edit war with Nrets over how to describe a Science article, he didn't see the slightest problem with stating that "The author's goal was to dismiss and discredit AIDS reappraisal claims" [12] or with stating that the article "failed" to do this or that, as if those were verifiable and incontrovertible facts. It would be absolutely appropriate to quote a notable AIDS dissident's rebuttal to Science, but instead he wrote his own rebuttal. And when others dispute this, he makes no attempt to see where they're coming from (I mean in terms of editing practices, not science) and simply reasserts his version, with ad hominem edit summaries like "orthodox commentary inserted by Nrets, here to promote orthodox POV." [13]

Several other particularly bad qualities for an editor:

  1. He seems to feel that disagreement with him is by definition "censorship", a word he uses very freely - and sometimes with unintended irony, as when he deleted an argumentative but civil talk page comment by Grcampbell, while stating in his edit summary that "grcampbell even censors the TALK page of dissidents!" [14]. This kind of rhetoric would be just as inappropriate even if all the other editors really were as unfair as he says they are.
  2. He is very fond of the following tactic: mention several articles that he says support his position; demand that you read those articles and "prove" that you understand them, before you can question any aspect of his reasoning; and then either a) if you don't read the articles, proclaim loudly that that proves you're a willfully ignorant villain not worth talking to, or b) if you do read them, say that you obviously didn't understand them because you haven't been converted to his point of view. And he's not citing these articles to make specific points, but as general litmus tests for the bona fides of any editor who opposes him.
  3. He believes that he has "an encyclopedia knowledge of it all" [15] and is here to inform everyone else. He generously offers to impart his wisdom to others via mail, phone, etc., and even cash prizes if you'll accept his terms. All of this suggests that Wikipedia is just another battleground in his war on error, rather than a collaborative writing project to which he may contribute.
  4. He has no hesitation about claiming to know the motives of others. They're not just misinformed, or missing his point; they have an agenda, and are "possibly even incapable of independent thinking" (see previous link), thus making them not worthy of civility or the sometimes tedious give-and-take that is part of WP. Unfortunately, at least one other editor, User:Revolver, has really egged him on in this regard.

However, he is correct that there's a lot of personal animus towards him here; I think other editors have tried to stay civil and objective, and tried a whole lot harder than Sgactorny has, but haven't always succeeded. I got into a mess on his talk page whose pattern was unfortunately familiar: we were both civil at first; then he dropped the specific question at hand and got on a soapbox about how "the orthodoxy" had "murdered" people; I responded with an unnecessarily heated brief rant about the contrast between his views and what I see in my clinical practice; and he wrote a page-long reply saying that I bragged about my ignorance and refused to read the actual science literature (meaning his favorite articles - see #2 above), that I was just "parrotting the orthodoxy", etc. This was interspersed with some bizarre and combative misreadings of things I said (e.g., when I said he hadn't explained why antiretroviral drugs would cause "targeted destruction of CD4 cells", which seemed to be the cornerstone of his drugs-cause-AIDS model, he claimed I had said that the destruction of CD4 cells was a good thing) which to me indicate that he has serious reading comprehension problems when he gets mad. I see an important choice here: he can either continue to assume that because he is a dedicated partisan, any problem anyone on the other side has with his behavior can only be explained by bias against his beliefs... or he can entertain the wild notion that there might be something the slightest bit wrong with his approach.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. ←Hob 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. WAS 4.250 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (I disagree with the inflamatory way that truth was expressed, but agree with the essense of what was said. I further hope that this person (Sga...) can be convinced to read data from CDC and WHO and DNA researchers.)

[edit] Outside view by Durova

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have had no personal conflict with User:Sgactorny. I came to the AIDS reevaluation article in response to a request for comment. I suggested organizing the article into something more like a debate format: describing each point of criticism in neutral terms, then providing separate pro- and con- sections beneath it. I also made a few suggestions for editorial collaboration based on Wikipedia policies. Several editors commented that these looked like useful NPOV ideas and suggested that User:Sgactorny would be well suited to implementing them. This editor ignored the suggestions and continued a detailed and provocative talk page debate. This buries any suggestions for constructive collaboration within two days.

What I conclude is that this editor is more interested in perpetuating conflict than in producing a useful encyclopedia article. User:Sgactorny may be knowledgeable about AIDS, the article remains poorly organized and hard to read. Wikipedia's mission includes describing scientific debates, not conducting them. Durova 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Bob 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. The Rod 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (everything except, possibly, "this editor is more interested in perpetuating conflict")
  3. KimvdLinde 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ←Hob 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (I don't know if he wants to "perpetuate conflict", but he has stated that he does not want to collaborate or negotiate with opposing editors in any way, which has a similar result.)

[edit] 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.