Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.10.231.219 (talk) at 06:14, 24 April 2006 (→‎Response: Correcting link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC).

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.

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.

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 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.

After a break, he has recently returned with a series of postings to User talk pages encouraging a group of editors 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. Tearlach 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

  1. Essentially the whole of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.10.231.219
  2. 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.
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=next&oldid=35709077
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=next&oldid=35819593 "crossing a line" "classifeid as disruptive behaviour"
  5. 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[1]
  6. 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.
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anecdotal_evidence&diff=prev&oldid=36064182 there was a row at Anecdotal evidence this is a very pointed response to User:Tearlach claiming POV
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumps&diff=prev&oldid=36995095 removal of Parotid symptoms from Mumps on grounds of no references (Mumps is "epidemic Parotitis" the reference is actually Hippocrates
  9. 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. "
  10. 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.
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leifern&diff=prev&oldid=37923930 triggering a row
  12. 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."
  13. etc

Conduct in relation to Anecdotal evidence

A dispute arose between versions edited by Tearlach [2] and by 86.10.231.219 [3], and an RFC was posted by 213.130.141.147 requesting thoughts [4].

Despite the RFC being neutrally phrased, 86.10.231.219 declared it a hoax, requesting a block on its poster, and posted a hoax warning both at the RFC page[5] and at Talk:Anecdotal evidence#Request for Comments. This was challenged by other editors: JustinWick [6]; ("Anonymous (Ironic?) Editor seems to have vested interest in stopping RfC proceeding - this is suspicious IMHO") [7]; Durova [8] ("The hoax warning on the RfC page worries me. There is a genuine controversy here and the anonymous poster presented it fairly"); [9] ("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 [10]. The consensus of the RFC came out in favour of the Tearlach version [11]. 86.10.231.219 disputed this, interpreting the result as supporting cleanup of his own version [12]. Durova expressed doubts about this conduct [13] ("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.

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." [14]
  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. [15]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:AGF
  3. WP:POINT
  4. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.10.231.219#Mediation
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.10.231.219#Please_cease_attacking_and_disparaging_me
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.10.231.219#Conduct 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."
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=48987143&oldid=48749113 talk16 April 2006 - response was to delete this from talk page
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=47533758 JustinWick 7 February 2006 (editing without user name)
  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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=39360750 User:Physchim62 (WP:Soapbox)
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=39330995 User:Physchim62 publishing disputes ... on user page ... unconstructive... and "get an account"
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=next&oldid=38619459 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)
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumps&diff=next&oldid=35819593 "crossing a line" "classified as disruptive behaviour"
  11. etc

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. –Tifego(t) 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

HOLDING RESPONSE - Please see [[16]]

Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{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:

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219&oldid=49878197"