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: 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
{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] from 2 May 2006 he has posted from the IP address 86.11.84.3.
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 [2].
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)
After a gap of two months (in which this page has stayed static) he has returned to anecdotal evidence to behave in an unchanged fashion on the talk page. The promised response has not been delivered. Midgley 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
(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
Breaches of WP:AGF
Here for an argument, not an encyclopaedia
Uncivil, tending to imply threats, wikilawyering
To be classified
Fomenting
Continuing obfuscation / abuse of process
Recent incitement against Midgley
Pansophia posted an enquiry about what to do about Midgley placing merge tags on articles. [20]. The latter explained that this the outcome of an AFD result [21].
86.10.231.219 then proceeded to post detailed suggestions [22] repeating the claim of a cabal of medical editors and lobbying for a block on Midgley (([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]).
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 harass or hound Midgley". 86.10.231.219 responded with an attack on the validity of the warning, claiming bias and collusion. [28]
Conduct in relation to Anecdotal evidence
A dispute arose between versions edited by Tearlach [32] and by 86.10.231.219 [33], and an RFC was posted by 213.130.141.147 requesting thoughts [34].
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[35] and at Talk:Anecdotal evidence#Request for Comments. This was challenged by other editors: JustinWick [36]; ("Anonymous (Ironic?) Editor seems to have vested interest in stopping RfC proceeding - this is suspicious IMHO") [37]; Durova [38] ("The hoax warning on the RfC page worries me. There is a genuine controversy here and the anonymous poster presented it fairly"); [39] ("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 [40]. The consensus of the RFC came out in favour of the Tearlach version [41]. 86.10.231.219 disputed this, interpreting the result as supporting cleanup of his own version [42]. Durova expressed doubts about this conduct [43] ("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 [44]. On 11th April, 86.10.231.219 referred to "the hilarious mess made of Anecdotal evidence" [45]. After the posting of this RFC, however, 86.10.231.219 praised it as a "nice job" [46].
WP:DICK
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
RfC Started 18:14 22nd April by User:Midgley seemingly in a fit of pique - 4 editors from the same clique who push a particular POV joined in. This comprehensive allegation of "trolling" never raised prior to this time. Nor (unsurprisingly in such circumstances) has there been any prior dialogue in order to resolve whatever dispute User:Midgley thinks he has (and they are many - just ask User:Leifern - an excellent Wikipedian - who has had to endure similar attention). This is the first time this comprehensive allegation of "trolling" has been made - which is a wholly inappropriate use of the RfC procedure. There has certainly been a good deal of "trolling" but not by me.
Current status of this "dispute":-
For evidence to support the above comments in this temporary response - follow my edit history here [[62]]
Sorry about the format of this response. In itself it is clear evidence there has been absolutely no prior dialogue on this allegation of trolling - if there had been all "parties" would have been able to come to the RfC with clear and concise statements of what the matters were in dispute and the evidence to support them - instead of this unholy mess of an RfC.
I have to go and earn a living for a while and force these jokers to behave properly after that. I will be back.
Thanks:- Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
__________________________________________
SITREP on the allegations & evidence
After 5 days so far still being edited with a tally of over 30 changes.
Let me know when you have finished so I can have my turn.
Have all of you finished yet?
Seems not - User:Tearlach still hard at it here [[63]]
And here:- [[64]]
And here:- [[65]]
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 [[66]].
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 [[67]]:-
Talk - The Invisible Anon 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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.