User talk:Leifern/Midgley's objections to Medical controversies Wikiproject

I am making a record of this discussion to my page, since a) I don't think Midgley's personal attacks on me are appropriate for a discussion on a Wikiproject, and b) Midgley has a practice of deleting content he doesn't like from his own talk page.

In a discussion now archived as: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health controversies/Midgley's objection, Midgley wrote:

An interesting idea, what is not clear is that Leifern is the best person to start it. Midgley 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, an ad hominem attack from Midgley - what else is new? --Leifern 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly nothing in Leifern's responses. In other parts of WP I have noticed people asked questions about why they should be, for instance, admins, giving responses rather than dismissing the question on the basis of the person asking it.  To amplify, although Leifern has considerable experience of controversy over a range, a narrow range,  of medical topics, it is not clear to me that his experience is of tending to resolve those controversies.  Looking more widely at Leifern's pattern of edits it seems that he has three topics on which everyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but POV and bad.  It doesn't change with time, and that I suppose is one of the key things about the medical controversies that cause trouble on WP and elsewhere - nobody gets very angry about external vs internal lithotripsy, in due course the opinions of both camps converge and treatment settles down, but the anti-vaccinationist arguments don't change, and Leifern who started his WP editing by denying their existence continues to do so.  Resolving differences is more about people than processes, but Liefern, on a topic that hits his button, wants the  process to continue whether it is useful or not.  This isn't a good foundation to settle on a set of ways to avoid such problems, and when someone is starting to write this it is reasonable to look at their credentials, not an ad hominem attack. Midgley 12:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Midgley, I went through the entire process recommended by Wikipedia for setting up projects. I put it in as a suggestion, on Wikiproject/List of proposed projects, set up an overview in my own space, at User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies, then outlines the objectives of this project here. I sent out invitations to a number of editors, most of whom I have had disagreements with. To criticize this project solely on the basis who initiated it because you have content disputes with me - pretty much defines an ad hominem attack. Please keep your discussions on the Anti-vaccinationist article to that space. --Leifern 13:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Midgley has problems making a single argument without including a personal attack on or put-down of the person he disagrees with. So, let's be clear about a couple of things here:
 * If Midgley had read the objectives of the project, he would have noticed that:
 * It doesn't aspire to resolving those controversies, but quite the opposite - to quote verbatim:
 * There are a couple of things that are not the objectives of this project, namely:
 * Resolving the controversies - however, we want to characterize the controversies accurately, so that those who are involved in them can agree that the presentation of their arguments is unbiased.


 * Nowhere in the proposal for the project am I proposing that the responsibility be left to me, but rather I invited a wide range of editors, many of whom are known to have disagreements with me. I will cop to not inviting Midgley, because lately he was found to have engaged in sockpuppetry, impersonating another editor, confusing the discussion, and pre-empting an MFD vote.
 * Resolving differences is more about people than processes - pick up any book on conflict resolution, read Wikipedia guidelines, pick up a basic textbook on psychotherapy, and you will find that process is indeed what depersonalizes conflicts and allows for their resolution.
 * As for my record of editing, I would advise anyone who cares to, to check my contributions and make up their own minds about the nature of my work - whether it is unimaginative, rigid, and very narrow. --Leifern 13:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)