NOTE: Suggestions/Discussion about improving this WP:RFC/U belong on User talk:Funcrunch/RFCdraft

This page is a user's work in progress Request for Comment on User Conduct, and may be incomplete. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance.

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: 11:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

• 24.0.133.234 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
• Wikipedia:NPOV
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

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

Questions to certifiers

Response

Response to concerns

Applicable policies and guidelines

Users endorsing this response

Questions to named user

Additional views

Outside view by

Proposed solutions

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.