Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive 2

message: A separate intro on the etymology of the term (including its rather singular and unique pronunciation), as in the Mafia article, might again provide readers with a shortcut to enlightenment., as well as being needed. Continueddonations 08:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and pronunciation  

message: Schizophrenia is unquestionably a most stigmatising diagnosis: "Of course this labelling process is both insidious, in that it affects the quality of life of those labelled, and doubly disempowering when the victim owns the label. 'I am a schizophrenic' is unfortunately one of the ultimate forms of self invalidation." Raymond Williams . Part of the particular problem with the schizophrenia stigma is that the diagnosis is not only misunderstood, but the word has a distinct, perhaps even more disabling colloquial definition , a matter seemingly unaddressed by the psychiatric profession. The problem is exacerbated by elements of a free press which regularly abuse this freedom by repeatedly characterising schizophrenics as violent , continually flaunting the diagnosis in a sensationalist manner, over and above more relevant ones/causes, when horrendous crimes are reported, in what appears to be part of a cynical effort to boost sales (caveat emptor!).
I'm sure someone will help this new editor rework this contribution. --WikiCats 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Returnoftheman is the new Sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Etaonsh aka londheart, whose first sockpuppet was User:Continueddonations. "Helping" here would be the opposite of constructive work on Wikipedia, both by policy and by common sense. Ebbinghaus 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any incontrovertible evidence for this accusation, please share it below with the rest of us. If you have any similar incontrovertible evidence that the self-same accusation doesn't apply to yourself, please share that also. Would also like to reiterate the dehumanising quality of Ebbinghaus's use of the term 'sockpuppet,' regardless of its validity as an offence. Ebbinghaus is a political editor with a history of deleting factual information which fails to conform to a right-wing agenda. Returnoftheman 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary via Wiki policy. That a sockpuppet doesn't like to be called that is as natural as it is irrelevant. See below. Ebbinghaus 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stigma

message: As this is now the official playsite of Eatonsh= londheart=
Continueddonations=Returnoftheman, and I will not accept his shenanigans here any longer, I think some general remarks are in order. This user has been found guilty of extremely offensive and aggressive behaviour unacceptable here, including physical threats, homophobia, and especially racism, let alone violation of every single pillar of Wikipedia � assuming good faith, no strong opinions, NPOV � and has been banned from Wikipedia indefinitely (check the personal and discussion pages linked to above).  Examples by other users and administrators who have checked the case are here.
That Londheart=Etaonsh=Continueddonations has been officially certified; that Returnoftheman is the same person is so obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that it does not need any further proof to anyone who will bother to read the links here. It is Wikipedia policy that "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." That is the case here. I will therefore treat him as a banned user � not a vandal, not a troll, but someone whose aggressive personality and POV views are detrimental to Wikipedia, and to this page. That he is "a highly troubled individual" doesn't take anything away from him being a highly destructive force that must be dealt with appropriately. Other users should know that normal courtesy and normal rules do not apply to the sockpuppet of a banned user. 
I will therefore delete, as anyone can and should, without further comments or questions, his contributions to this page (I will leave most of the discussion page intact so that it is clear to see that this is Eatonsh), labelling it "rev changes by indefinitely blocked user Etaonsh (sockpuppet)". If there are other users who disagree with this, even after checking the evidence mentioned, they are invited to bring this up with a moderator or, better, with the ArbCom, especially with those administrators or ArbCom members who have dealt with this case already and know the person and his style: User:Fred Bauder, User:MacGyverMagic, User:Mackensen, User:JzG, User:Newyorkbrad, to name but a few. They can also, though better subsequently, file a request for checkuser to prove that it's the same guy; it was just done at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etaonsh and can be repeated for the new sockpuppet as well.Ebbinghaus 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler observed that telling the biggest lie was the best way to be believed - here we see his biggest fan, Witz Ebbingaus, putting his mentor's precept into effect. Returnoftheman 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Res ipsa loquitur, as has been so often said about this user. I rest my case. Ebbinghaus 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this user is under ArbCom sanctions, you need to take this to an Arbitrator. This page is for discussing the article, not other editors. I strongly encourage to take this to ArbCom or the Administrators noticeboard. Also, Newyorkbrad is a great guy, but he isn't an arbitrator (or an administrator).  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was permanently blocked during ArbCom proceedings and his request thus denied. Newyorkbrad is "just" a user; I stand corrected on that. I think this matter is germane to the content of the page and how it is moving; hence I would think this is appropriate matter here. In any case, I've notifed all the guys in question and asked them to look at that, so I'm quite hopeful this will be solved soon. Ebbinghaus 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point taking anything to arbitration with Ebbinghaus. He lies in wait with what appear to be either a) a collection of sockpuppet arbitrators who are all him/his buddies or b) very dumb arbitrators. His recent vandalism has extended to wholesale deletion of the Schizophrenia: Disambiguation page (because it went against his totalitarian politics). Wikipedia is now (morally) dead. Returnoftheman 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like you are admitting that he is correct. The idea that ArbCom members are sock or meat puppets is absurd. I am not familiar with the other accounts he mentioned, so I don't know if he's right or not, but I do know that you've been trolling ever since you turned up here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not correct, just all-powerful in a medium where the idlest hand has most time to cause havoc. The idea that Wikipedia ArbCom members are sockpuppets is not absurd but eminiently reasonable, having demonstrated to my own satisfaction how straightforward it would be for someone totally idle to create multiple IDs and elect themselves onto any level of Wikipedian administration. I find you, your use of the word 'trolling,' and your various professions nothing short of vulgar, and I wouldn't continue conversation with you indefinitely for all Rupert Murdoch's billions. Returnoftheman 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, all-powerful? And perhaps identical with the members (all of them?) of the ArbCom? And what was that I just read about "having demonstrated to my own satisafaction how straightforward it would be for someone totally idle to create multiple IDs"? This is actually a very sad case (only that doesn't mean it can be permitted to go on), otherwise I would really, really be amused now. Ebbinghaus 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Permanently blocked [[User:Etaonsh]]~[[User:Etaonsh|londheart]]~[[User:Continueddonations|Continueddonations]]~[[User:Returnoftheman|Returnoftheman]]

message: I have now added a notice to the Discussion page of User:Mihai cartoaje to warn that blanking the violence section is vandalism. This issue has now been through mediation twice and the blanking has just reoccurred.
- Vaughan 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of text on schizophrenia page 

message: ::Hi there,
::I would assume good faith had Mihai's removal of the section not been a repeated action which has been discussed several times before   .
::In fact, it's been taken to mediation twice (once by his request , once by mine ) and on both occasions he has pulled out of the process at the final stages. Previous commentators on this page have agreed the section should stay (including yourself).
::It is not acceptable that someone should be able to delete large suitably-referenced and agreed-upon sections of an article time after time. This is simply a tactic to remove the information off the page as on each occasion this results in a dispute process which takes several months to resolve - during which, the information is missing.
::I do not see how this is anything else except vandalism after the issue has been debated and agreed upon many times.
::If you know of a more suitable way of preventing these time-wasting and deletion tactics I would much appreciate it.
::I would also like to add that Mihai has made some valuable contributions to the article in the past and do not wish to imply that he is a 'vandal' by nature, but simply that he is using inappropriate tactics to make his point which amount to vandalism in this specific case.
:: - Vaughan 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment