Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red

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: 07:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

Rhode Island Red (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. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) should stop editing the Juice Plus article (he can still participate on the talkpage)
Rhode Island Red must cease personal attacks and incivility towards other editors

Description

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

This is a pretty clear example of a WP:OWN issue at the Juice Plus article. Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) has exhibited longterm tendentious editing, pushing a particular POV to make the article as negative as possible. A simple glance at his contribs easily shows that his editing history has focused exclusively on this one subject. He resists input from other editors, and routinely reverts others who make changes to the article. He accuses those who change his work as "vandalizing" or being "disruptive". He wikilawyers, threatens blocks, and has tried to tell other editors that they're not allowed to even participate on the talkpage.

To his credit, all of his article edits are cited, but just because an edit is cited does not mean that it is appropriate. The main problem is one of undue weight, as Rhode Island Red inserts more negative information than is necessary. He also frequently attempts to use primary sources such as consent forms, product labels, advertisements by competitors, and distributor manuals,[1] instead of the Wikipedia-recommended reliable secondary sources. And he has edit-warred to put long detailed lists of ingredients and nutrient percentages into the article, in violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[2] Most recently he has been edit-warring to put an "Adverse Effects" section into the article. The section is cited, but does not have substance -- it talks about how there are no studies, or it cites from primary sources such as the distributors' manual, or it cites unreliable studies, such as one where a few elderly subjects developed a rash. Or another study which said that symptoms were "deemed unrelated to treatment." Red's Adverse Effects section was discussed on the talkpage, and the consensus was to remove it, but Red continued to re-insert the information, insisting that he had consensus when he did not. A good faith attempt was made to seek mediation, but Rhode Island Red refused,[3] and then after mediation was rejected, his first edit was to re-insert the disputed section back into the article.[4]

It is unfortunate that a User Conduct RfC is necessary at this point. Rhode Island Red is obviously an articulate, hard-working individual who is a good researcher and provides detailed citations. The issue, however, is not about whether or not information can be cited, but whether Rhode Island Red is willing to work with other editors to create a balanced article rather than one that pushes a specific POV. After several months of trying every other method of dealing with Red's behavior, it appears that the only remaining option is to insist that Rhode Island Red stop editing the article.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Refers to other people's good faith edits as vandalism[5][6][7][8]
Accuses other editors of misstating facts [9][10][11][12][13] [14]
Accuses other editors of disruptive editing[15][16][17][18][19]
Accuses other editors of policy violations, and threatens blocks or sanctions[20][21][22][23][24]
Reverts other editors[25][26][27][28]
Tells other editors that they weren't even allowed to participate on the talkpage[29][30][31][32]
Incivility [33]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Exhaustive discussions at Talk:Juice Plus
Personal requests at User talk:Rhode Island Red [34][35][36][37][38]
Page protection[39][40]
Requesting Rhode Island Red to work on something else for awhile[41][42][43]
Attempt at mediation, which Rhode Island Red refused[44]
Administrator intervention by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), with cautions about civility[45]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

General Response

1. Background

Please forgive the length of my reply but the issues here run deep and warrant a careful review, since my character and conduct are being unjustifiably called into question.

The subject of this article is an area with which I am well-acquainted as a result of both my professional training and from reviewing reams of information on Juice Plus itself. I have been a primary contributor since first visiting the page last year. I have no financial interest in this product or any other competing products or any connection with individuals who do. My interest in the subject is purely academic and I have nothing material to gain by contributing.

The real issue here is not one of article ownership or any of the other accusations about my conduct that have been presented in this RfC, but instead stems primarily from a specific dispute that has arisen over a particular section of referenced content which Elonka has been edit-warring over (i.e. the Adverse Effect section of the Juice Plus article – see discussions at [46] [47] The section of the article in question was discussed by several editors[48] and modified many months ago, and it had been in place for more than 3 months without changes or comment. Elonka inappropriately deleted this referenced content and claimed (a) that a consensus was needed to keep it in the article and (b) that a consensus supported her deletion.[49][50] I responded by pointing out that (a) a consensus was not needed to maintain referenced content in an article, (b) that no consensus had been reached to support the removal; i.e. no poll was taken, comments were vague and non-specific, and it appeared that just as many editors opposed the deletion as favored it, and (c) that the content rightly belonged in the article until and unless a true consensus was reached, through adequate discussion, supporting its removal. I painstakingly outlined the details and relevant WP policies [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] yet these comments were essentially ignored and a revert war ensued. Rather than participating in a reasonable discussion, Elonka and Matthew continued to delete the content, claiming consensus support. Elonka later escalated the issue by requesting formal mediation,[61] bypassing the usual intermediate steps in the dispute resolution process, such as an article RfC, informal mediation, or posting a question on a project-specific topic/policy page, which are measures recommended according to WP:DR and which I repeatedly pointed out to her.

Whether or not Elonka has reason to question some of the references used in the AE section, she certainly has not yet presented a compelling case for deleting the entire section, did not allow for adequate discussion, did not attempt to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors through a simple article RfC, and did not gain consensus. Elonka has avoided responding to the specific issues and pertinent WP policies that I have pointed out, and her repeated deletion of the content clearly constitutes tendentious editing, according to Wikipedia’s definitions [62] which note one of the characteristics of a problem editor as follows: “You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. If a rule like that would exist, it would clearly violate WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. [63] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.”

I make no claims of any kind to ownership of this article and have worked in harmony with other reasonable editors when issues have arisen in the past, including admin Shell_Kinney mentioned in the RfC above. Elonka has provided misleading arguments to negatively characterize my conduct and to support her outrageous request that I be banned from editing the article.

Recent comments posted on the talk page yesterday offer some opinions that differ greatly from Elonka’s and are very revealing as to the truth behind this conflict.[64][65]

2. Conflicts of Interest and Possible Collusion

The product that is the focus of the article (Juice Plus vitamin supplement) is a multilevel marketed product sold by independent distributors, some of whom seem to have set up camp at the Juice Plus page in an attempt to neutralize referenced content that they apparently feel reflects badly on their product. Despite their constant attacks on the page, not one has yet been able to product a single secondary reference that comments favorably on the product, whereas a unanimous group of secondary sources, some of which are cited in the article, have commented negatively on it. Some of the users that have been involved in discussions and edits on the page have clear conflicts of interest, and there is reason to suspect that some of the other editors might have undisclosed conflicts. The Juice Plus page had been chronically vandalized (mostly blanking of critical content and insertion of unreferenced promotional verbiage) since its inception[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] and the vandalism has continued on a regular basis in recent months.[78][79][80][81] Several editors have noted that a small group of product advocates have unreasonably attempted to undo the content developed by the community of editors working in good faith on the Juice Plus article.[82][83][84]

WP policy states that those who have a COI should not edit the article. I had to frequently remind a disruptive editor (e.g. acts of vandalism such as section blanking [85]), Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson JuliaHavey, of this fact until, finally, she stopped editing the article. She did however continue to harass me on the talk page, ignoring WP:CIV and WP:NPA (e.g. [86]). WP:COI clearly states that editors who have a COI should not edit articles related to their COI, and that if they contribute to the talk page, they should do so cautiously and should not participate in deletion discussions. JuliaHavey did not show such caution and continued to to be uncivil and weigh in on deletion discussions. My attempts to remind this user of policy seem to me to have been wholly appropriate, especially since I was the target of their chronic harassment and incivility. Oddly, Elonka has cited these instances as examples of what she considers to be disruptive behavior on my part. Disturbingly, Elonka made her first contribution on the Juice Plus page immediately after writing a WP biography page for JuliaHavey [87], while JuliaHavey had provided input on Elonka's biography page.[88]

Simalarly, Matthew, a previous contributor to Elonka’s WP biography page.[89][90][91][92] who is now a co-complainant in this RfC, is a new “drive-by” editor on the Juice Plus article whose first contributions consisted of deleting the Adverse Effects section several times [93][94] without providing a comment on the talk page. This occurred in the midst of an emerging dispute between me and Elonka and it only exacerbated the situation. He had not contributed in past discussions nor did he contribute to the recent discussion about the Adverse Effects section other than a me-too response to deletion.[95] I don’t know how relevant these issues are and what WP policies apply, but it disturbs me when apparent “friends” of editors suddenly appear to support them in the midst of an editing dispute in which they had not previously been involved.

3. Hostile Environment

The editing environment on the Juice Plus page has been hostile to say the least. Rather than focusing on issues and policies, many of the editors who are trying to neutralize critical content in the article have resorted to personal attacks and harassment, despite repeated warnings that they should comment on specific content issues rather than the editors contributing to the page (e.g. [96]) These pleas have been ignored and at times it has been appropriate to point out that continued failure to observe WP policy could result in remedial action.

4. Excessive Negativity

Elonka and some of the product advocates participating on the talk page have characterized the tone of the article and my contributions as unduly negative, however they have conveniently ignored the fact that other editors simply do not agree and have commented favorably on the article overall,[97] and on my contributions.[98][99][100][101] It seems to be Elonka and a small group of product advocates who deem otherwise, but their opinion stands in stark contrast with that of other NPOV editors.

5. Unwillingness to Cooperate

Elonka suggests that I am unwilling to work with other editors; however this accusation is blatantly untrue. I have in the past been very open to discussion with anyone who raises issues, reasonable or not, and I have worked in a collegial manner with several editors (including, at times, Elonka) to improve the page. It is, however, exceedingly difficult to reach a reasonable middle ground with editors who have COIs, POV push, and engage in chronic harassment and incivility, behaviors which have emanated from a small contingent of product advocates who seem determined to strip this article of any and all critical information.

6. Incivility

Elonka has suggested that my behavior has been uncivil but anyone who reviews the talk page history will see that my behavior, which I do not consider to be uncivil, has been a drop in the bucket compared to the raving harassment and incivility committed by some of the other editors in the pro-Juice Plus camp. IMO, this type of behavior has constituted by far the greatest disruption and has created a hostile environment characterized by continual harassment, inane circular arguments, and policy violations.

7. Original Research

As for the claims about original research, no one, including Elonka, has ever raised this point in the past on the talk page; it is an entirely new accusation that has never been discussed. The issue should have first been raised on the talk page rather than misleadingly presenting it as an RfC issue. It is clearly a content issue and not a user conduct issue unless a user has persisted in such behavior after being warned not to.

Response to Alleged Evidence of Disputed Behavior

1. "Refers to other people's good faith edits as vandalism"[102][103][104][105]

Elonka cites three examples. Two examples, which were not even recent ones (Feb. 2007 and October 2006), emanated from a dispute with user JuliaHavey, who is an admitted Juice Plus distributor and product spokesperson with an acknowledged COI. The distributor in question has been a continual source of harassment, incivility and disruptive editing. One of my comments [106] rightly pointed out to this user that their blanking of the entire Criticism section of the article constituted vandalism as per WP:VAN and that their actions were disruptive and in violation of WP:COI. There is absolutely nothing wrong with warning a user in such cases, and an administrator was also quick to point out that this user’s actions were inappropriate.[107]. The third example given stems from the current dispute over the inappropriate deletion of the Adverse Events section. In this case, I did not make an accusation that they were vandalizing the page; I merely stated that continually blanking referenced content could be construed as vandalism, and my tone was not uncivil. My statement was as follows: “Please do not bypass the discussion process and do not arbitrarily delete this section again, as such actions could be considered vandalism (i.e. blanking – cf. WP:VAN). Please work within the system to address any issues that you may have with the content of the article.” This seems perfectly reasonable.

2. "Accuses other editors of misstating facts"[108][109][110][111][112] [113]

These were not accusations; they were statements that provided evidence that the facts were misstated. Some of the editors on this page don’t seem overly concerned as to whether the POV they are pushing is accurate, and in cases where incorrect statements were made, I pointed out the errors and cited the sources and specific content that contradicted their statements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. I may not have always been as gentle about it as some might like, but patience can sometimes wear thin when dealing with chronic POV-pushers, COI-violators, and anyone else who insists on arguing for inclusion of incorrect/inaccurate information. Pointing out mistakes does not constitute an infraction of any kind. I reviewed the 6 examples that Elonka cited in support of her accusation, and I cannot see a single case where my pointing out inaccuracies was not warranted or where I was excessively uncivil in my approach. Elonka’s suggestion to the contrary seems completely out of line.

3. "Accuses other editors of disruptive editing"[114][115][116][117][118]

Where I have seen actions that constitute disruptive editing as outlined by WP:DE, I have stated so. Where is the harm in that? Vandalism and deleting properly referenced content does constitute disruptive editing and pointing out the relevant WP policy is one of the recommended courses of action. Most of the examples provided by Elonka stem from our current dispute over her arbitrary blanking of referenced information (i.e. the Adverse Event section). In attempt to compel her to stop doing so, I have cited the pertinent WP policies and stated that continuing to make such edits does constitute disruptive editing according to WP:DE. Elonka has in turn unjustifiably accused me of edit-warring, personal attacks, using a sock puppet, [119] POV pushing and various other offenses, including the conduct accusations in this current RfC.

4. "Accuses other editors of policy violations, and threatens blocks or sanctions"[120][121][122][123][124]

I reviewed the examples above and found that in each case, I was urging other editors to stop making personal attacks on me and to focus their comments on specific content issues rather than commenting on individual editors. This is exactly what WP policy advises when one is the target of personal attacks and harassment. Those who harass and personally attack other editors are supposed to be urged to stop such behavior, which is exactly what I did, and to be made aware that such behavior is a violation of policy and can result in remedial action by WP admin. I am well within my rights to have made such comments to those who attack and harass well-intentioned editors.
Some of the individuals in the Juice Plus advocacy camp are SPAs (i.e. Citizen Don and Dr. Sears). The latter user has made highly questionable edits on the page and has drawn criticism from other editors for their conduct.[125][126] In addition to being an SPA, Dr. sears appears to be presenting himself as a product spokesperson (i.e. Dr. William Sears), which raises serious questions as to whether this user is committing a user name violation[127] (see WP:U) by masquerading as Dr. William Sears, or whether the user has a COI, given his direct claims to be this official product spokesperson.[128][129][130] The COI and SPA issues might be tolerable if the users in question were able to contribute to the article and discussion without resorting to personal attacks, harassment, and even direct threats,[131] but unfortunately this has not been the case in the past. Both of these users have presented themselves quite clearly as product advocates,[132][133][134] which undermines their credibility when it comes to editing with an NPOV. In his defense, however, Dr. Sears is showing signs of improvement and may now be willing to abide by policy.[135]

5. "Reverts other editors"[136][137][138][139]

Since when did reverting edits constitute an infraction? Three of the examples given above were related to our current dispute over the Adverse Event section, and I have outlined my justification for restoring this content on countless occasions.[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] In each case when I reverted these changes, another editor reverted mine as well, making them just as guilty of reversion. Is reverting edits only a problem when I do it but not when other editors do it? That would be blatantly unfair. This accusation also seems way off base. The fourth example, involving TraceyR, was a reversion based on the user’s insertion of personal opinion in an attempt to refute a published source, which violates WP:VER and warrants immediate reversion.

6. "Tells other editors that they weren't even allowed to participate on the talkpage"[150][151][152]

First of all, this should have referred to “editor” not “editors”. The comments in question were directed solely at a one particular Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson (JuliaHavey) who had an inarguable COI and yet continued to edit (and vandalize, e.g. [153]) the article and to be abusive, frequently launching personal attacks and harassing me. Editors with a COI are not specifically prohibited from commenting on the talk page but they are advised to do so with caution and to not engage in discussion about content deletion, as outlined in WP:COI. This user did not show such caution and continued to harass me on the talk page. As I see it, my comments were warranted. Elonka failed to cite any examples of this user’s uncivil behavior towards me (e.g.[154]). In at least one case, my warnings to tis user were deemed to be appropriate by WP admin [155].

7. "Incivility"[156]

This example just seems plainly ridiculous. Commenting on anther editor’s incivility does not constitute incivility on my part. Again, the user in question, Juice Plus distributor JuliaHavey, had a COI and persistently harassed and personally attacked me on the talk page. Pointing this out and asking for the disruptive behavior to stop is a logical course of action and not an example of incivility.

Rhode Island Red 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

This better explains what I meant by misleading statements used to open this RfC. The claims made are highly dramatized and the hysterics by Mike Halterman below just add to the atmosphere. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{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.}

Outside view by Salaskan

This user seems to be an extreme example of a single-purpose account. Of his 301 contributions, 292 are on the Juice Plus article~~, and the other 9 edits are additions of negative comments about Juice Plus in another article~~.[157] Also, it is of my concern that the user keeps on edit warring and denied a mediation request to resolve the issue, whilst all the other involved editors accepted. While his contributions may be good in terms of plain content (sourced, reasonably well-written), he is a clear example of a POV pusher, and seems to be doing nothing else on Wikipedia but discrediting Juice Plus. I would endorse a ban from Juice Plus and related articles. Sala Skan 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I really believe Rhode Island Red is pushing a viewpoint on one article, consensus be damned. If he isn't as concerned about it as others lead me to believe, he should voluntarily stop editing for a while (he can come back to it whenever) and start editing OTHER articles.[reply]
Matthew 09:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citizen Don 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Shell Kinney

I believe this RfC was premature and many of its claims very misleading. I would like to clarify that I was never involved in any of the many disputes over this article in an administrative capacity - my above referenced comment was during editorial discussions while assisting in dispute resolution.

It was my feeling after the long discussions that led to a recent major overhaul of the article that the incivil behavior by Rhode Island and other single-purpose editors had ceased. As a whole, the editors seemed to have a better understanding of Wikipedia and were using the talk page extensively to resolve further issues. After these behavioral changes, this RfC seems a bit like an attempt to punish a dissenting opinion - the claims of refusing mediation are especially concerning. There is no requirement that editors accept mediation; Rhode Island gave a well reasoned explanation for why he felt mediation was premature. Instead of discussing those concerns, this RfC was opened.

In the past couple of months since the dispute I was involved in resolving was closed, I see a definitive change in the tone of the talk page discussions and the way the article is being handled. Edit warring has again become common instead of discussion, major changes are made with little to no real explanation and consensus has been claimed by including three known accounts with a serious COI, including one account who's name actually appears in the article. There also seems to be a push to revisit issues discussed very throughly in the previous months; since there are now more proponents of JuicePlus on the talk page, a great deal of the text is being systematically white-washed and even removed all together.

In all, while Rhode Island's behavior several months ago was inappropriate, when informed of the rules and dealt with fairly, he modified his actions. His current behavior, especially in light of the many new accounts disturbing the neutral balance of the article, does not seem to be an issue. Shell ^babelfish 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Tbbooher 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mike Halterman

Threatening other users is simply not acceptable; it violates WP:CIVIL and is one of the reasons this RFC was filed in the first place. Telling Elonka to withdraw the RFC before "things get ugly" and suggesting filing a revenge RFC is not only tacky, it's deplorable behavior as far as Wikipedia guidelines go. You have to wonder if the person really thought he could get away with saying this to another person. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Matthew 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TraceyR 10:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sala Skan 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC) - I did not notice this before, but implicitly threatening with taking revenge unless she withdraws the RFC is very incivil.[reply]
Citizen Don 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC) - I've received similar threats from RIR in the past. Can't say I'm surprised.[reply]

View by Citizen Don

I would like to comment on my attempts to improve the Juice Plus article with RIR. I've made consistent efforts to suggest improvements to the article over the past four months. I've spent hours and hours researching the references and I've made 0 edits because of RIR dilligent efforts to control the supposed neutrality of the article. I respect the consensus and I think all of the regular editors on the Juice Plus page are extremely frustrated with RIR. Most editor say they just want a good article while RIR has made this impossible. RIR has become a gatekeeper of sorts, ignoring all opposition with a barrage of verbose responses and threatening language. In my short time as an editor on the Juice Plus page, I've received multiple warnings on more than one occasion on my talkpage and the Juice Plus talkpage from RIR. I consider this to be quite rude considering my repeated attempts to treat RIR with civility. I've seen RIR repeatedly call other's POV into question while rebuffing others attempted to understand why RIR spends what must be hours a day on this one article. Despite all this effort on RIR's part, RIR was the sole person to decline Mediation in a recent attempt. I don't sell Juice Plus but I know enough about it to know it's not being accurately represented. With RIR's continued and dominant presence on the Juice Plus page, I question the long term quality of the article. I suspect the problems with the article will only get worse.Citizen Don 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

TraceyR 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.