Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219

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: 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• 86.10.231.219 (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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Put briefly, this is a complaint about trolling: a user who appears to have joined Wikipedia not to contribute to the encyclopedia, but primarily to incite and fuel disputes in favour of pushing a viewpoint. See Wikipedia:What is a troll.

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 concerns an anonymous user at the IP address 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs) who treats this as a registered account, posting as The Invisible Anon. He has continued to use this despite suggestions to register, though the User:86.10.231.219 page, which contained attacks on other editors, has been blanked on grounds of inappropriate use. [1]

Active in areas relating to health, vaccination and medicine, his (assumed for terseness) pattern of edits has involved little useful contribution to article space. He has mostly been involved in supporting anti-mainstream arguments of a group of editors (particularly Whaleto, Ombudsman, Leifern and Pansophia) in Talk and User pages.

His style is best described as obfuscation while claiming clarity: Wikilawyering bombast that some recipients have perceived as harassment.

Tearlach characterised this user's communications as "filibustering, addressing criticism with pages of verbal fog while professing the utmost reasonability in doing so. Like someone who spits in your soup in a restaurant, then when you complain says: "Thank you for your comment. What do we mean by spit? What do we mean by soup? The 473 differing recipes for soup in Larousse Gastronomique show that there is no agreed definition of soup. Your complaint fails to address specifically how the supposed soup might be improved. I welcome constructive discussion to reach an amicable solution".

He has received a number of warnings over conduct, to which he has responded belligerently, always blaming the other party, and in some cases accusing the warning admins of bias and involvement in conspiracy.

After a break, he has recently returned with a series of postings to User talk pages encouraging the same group of editors as above to take action against Midgley (talk · contribs).

Separate comment by Tearlach

Midgley has expressed the concern - based on posting location, style and topic - that 86.10.231.219 is a user who has followed him to Wikipedia after a dispute in the Rapid Responses section of the British Medical Journal. On the basis of 86.10.231.219's edits to Anecdotal evidence, which rewrote it to reflect views identical to those expressed in a paper, articles and BMJ letters by that user, I think this is possible.

Strong similarity of topic activity, style and agenda suggest a connection with the unregistered 81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs) (same IP physical location as 86.10.231.219).and the registered Anon The Editor (talk · contribs) (the former posted the text of the latter's user page). See Talk:Mumps/Archive 1 - 2004 - January 2006. Tearlach 10:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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.)

General flavour

1. Essentially the whole of Special:Contributions/86.10.231.219 is example of the focus on contribution to arguments rather than article space.

Breaches of WP:AGF

1. [2]. General accusations that medical editors here belong to an "allopathic" lobby, and defending the use of this term that is widely considered divisive and pejorative (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto).
2. [3] Response to Tearlach at Talk:Anecdotal evidence in breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA: "User Tearlach pops up elsewhere with others who appear to be in a clique and engage in edit warrring with others whose views he and his colleagues disagree with ... Hence this misleading rewrite if left as it is will be yet another example of the kind of work with damages the reputation and value of Wikipedia and thereby leaves a big question mark over any pretence there may be of being a reliable source of information"

Here for an argument, not an encyclopaedia

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=prev&oldid=35709077 Third edit from this IP address: accusation of vandalism - note response to JFW there and an edit further on.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=next&oldid=35709077
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=next&oldid=35819593 "crossing a line" "classified as disruptive behaviour"
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=prev&oldid=35858349 (under a heading he had placed "midgley vandalism" accused JDW of misrepresenting him and that only JDW had suggested this was vandalism (the inverse of the truth). JDW reply[4]

Uncivil, tending to imply threats, wikilawyering

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=prev&oldid=36389496 "...threats ... bully ... case to answer..." one of many attacks on admins.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kd4ttc&diff=prev&oldid=37010803 bothering User:Kd4ttc The beginning of a tendency to use phrases like "own up" threatening as in "These are now on record. Case closed. "

To be classified

1. [5] Removal of classic parotid mumps symptoms from Mumps on spurious grounds of no references (mumps is "epidemic parotitis", referenced back to Hippocrates).

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leifern&diff=prev&oldid=48540615 attacking User:Steve block, WP, and Midgley by name, occupation, and address all in one go while interfering in a mediation.

Fomenting

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leifern&diff=prev&oldid=37923930 triggering a row
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Norman&diff=next&oldid=41819586 attempting to cause trouble with User:Andrew Norman -"Badgering me is not going to change my mind. As I've indicated above, there are two ways of dealing with this situation - if you think you'd be happy with the outcome of an investigation by the arbitration committee into what has been going on, go ahead."

Continuing obfuscation / abuse of process

1. Posting response to RFC at User talk:Tearlach "RfC to Mount Personal Attacks, Harrassment & Uncivility" [6]. On being asked to respond here [7], replied that "This is a separate dispute not covered by the RfC. I am following the dispute resolution procedures". [8]. 86 etc continues to attempt to initiate this as a separate dispute [9] and has been asked repeatedly to respond here.

Recent incitement against Midgley

Pansophia posted an enquiry about what to do about Midgley placing merge tags on articles. [10]. The latter explained that this the outcome of an AFD result [11].

86.10.231.219 then proceeded to post detailed suggestions [12] repeating the claim of a cabal of medical editors and lobbying for a block on Midgley (([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

TenOfAllTrades posted a warning at User talk:86.10.231.219#Interaction with Midgley: "Frankly, neither one of you has been a paragon of good faith and civility in your dealings with others. Nevertheless, I would strongly discourage you from engaging in a campaign that encourages other editors to harrass or hound Midgley". 86.10.231.219 responded with an attack on the validity of the warning, claiming bias and collusion. [18]

Filibustering, in this connection

Midgley used WP:CB in an edit summary to refer to a specific accusation by Ombudsman [19]. 86etc misinterpreted this as referring to 86etc's previous comments [20], in order to argue bad faith in Midgley asking for mediation. Susbequent discussion obfuscated, asserting lying, editing comments resulting in the meaning of the exchange being more difficult to understand, persistently affecting not to understand and asking further clarification. [21] See also Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll#Creative_trolling and above on soup, definition.

Conduct in relation to Anecdotal evidence

A dispute arose between versions edited by Tearlach [22] and by 86.10.231.219 [23], and an RFC was posted by 213.130.141.147 requesting thoughts [24].

Despite the RFC being neutrally phrased, 86.10.231.219 declared it a hoax (on grounds of hostile comments from a similar IP address), requesting a block on its poster, and posted a hoax warning both at the RFC page[25] and at Talk:Anecdotal evidence#Request for Comments. This was challenged by other editors: JustinWick [26]; ("Anonymous (Ironic?) Editor seems to have vested interest in stopping RfC proceeding - this is suspicious IMHO") [27]; Durova [28] ("The hoax warning on the RfC page worries me. There is a genuine controversy here and the anonymous poster presented it fairly"); [29] ("The "hoax RFC warning" has the appearance of an attempt at poisoning the well").

During this discussion, 86.10.231.219 rewrote Anecdotal evidence into unencyclopedic form [30]. The consensus of the RFC came out in favour of the Tearlach version [31]. 86.10.231.219 disputed this, interpreting the result as supporting cleanup of his own version [32]. Durova expressed doubts about this conduct [33] ("It becomes impossible to compromise when one editor insists that the only demonstration of good faith is wholehearted agreement and interpolates improper conduct into any dissent. I strongly advise "The Invisible Anon" to browse some ongoing dialogues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration"). Durova raised the issue at User talk:86.10.231.219#Conduct. 86.10.231.219 denied any problem, rejecting Durova's suggestion of mentorship and attacking various other editors.

The article stayed in 86.10.231.219 form until Jokestress extensively rewrote it to consensus ("a crack at de-obfuscation") concluding 1st April [34]. On 11th April, 86.10.231.219 referred to "the hilarious mess made of Anecdotal evidence" [35]. After the posting of this RFC, however, 86.10.231.219 praised it as a "nice job" [36].

WP:DICK

1. "At least do me the good grace of finding something that approaches a good criticism and worthy of the attention of my highly attuned and intelligent mind than this attempt at allegations of filibustering. Is that clear enough and specific enough (like all the rest I write)? This is an online encyclopedia. It contains words. If you do not want to read words, there are plenty of other pastimes to choose from." [37]
2. Growth of Powerful Subcultures in Wikipedia: attempt to involve Wikimedia Board of Trustees member Angela in the dispute by presenting the issue as a sociological analysis. [38]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:CIV
4. WP:POINT
5. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
6. WP:DICK regrettably, it's hard to characterise some postings as anything but

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [39] Midgley asks if 86etc will accept mediation: offer rejected.
2. [40] Midgley asks that attacks cease.
3. [41] User:Durova 10 Feb 2006 and later "In the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith I'd like to repeat my suggestion that you join the mentorship program". Rejected with obfuscation and attacks on other editors.
4. [42] Deleted advice by Steve block to abide by WP:CIV - "Removing obviously erroneously added comment - no doubt belongs elsewhere".
5. [43] Advice from JustinWick that registering would make life easier. No action.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=40844023 User:Essjay (a block) note response.
7. [44] Warning by User:Physchim62 re WP:ISNOT (soapboxing).
8. [45] User:Physchim62 publishing disputes ... on user page ... unconstructive... and "get an account"
9. [46] User:TenOfAllTrades stop using user page as aplatform for attack on Midgley ... or take it to RFC
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=38976374 User:TenOfAllTrades testing the bounds of ... WP:CIV, personal attack (note response)
11. [47] "crossing a line" "classified as disruptive behaviour"
12. [48] Tearlach asks that 86etc reconsider his use of "allopaths" and "allopathy" as "used by (and taken by) some as a derogatory term, so it could be taken as antagonistic". 86etc responds with a 530-word soapboxing essay [49] that fails to address or accept the complaint.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Midgley 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Tearlach 01:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. –Tifego^(t) 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Kd4ttc 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.}

HOLDING RESPONSE - Please see [[50]] and here [[51]]

RfC Started 18:14 22nd April and after 4 days so far still being edited with a tally of 30 changes (by 4 editors from the same clique who push a particular POV).

Let me know when you have finished so I can have my turn.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

& amended 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

& amended 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Have all of you finished yet?

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems not - User:Tearlach still hard at it here [[52]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And here:- [[53]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to this point is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219#RFC procedure. This unsigned piece of vandalism was by User:Tearlach one of the clique of editors responsible for this absurd RfC. See diff [[54]]. What he linked to is also incorrect. I am still waiting for confirmation this "pre existing dispute" has been fully documented so I can delete this holding reply and start replying to these very unpleasant nasty allegations in this oppressive and inappropriate use of an RfC.

See [[55]]:-

1. "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."
2. "Note that the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. It may also be the first step in dispute resolution leading to arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.