User talk:Midgley/l1

According to which I have read recently, if a request is made, I should make a reply if it is appropriate to do so. The reply to Liefern's recent repeated demand is "no".

The reasons are:- Midgley 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) that his request is based on an untrue assumption - or assertion - IE that which he demands do not exist as an organised collection
 * 2) that he has been around for adequately long on WP to know perfectly well how to track any contributions I've made
 * 3) that the demands are more harassment than a genuine request for assistance
 * 4) that there are no likely conditions when I should do work because Leifern tells me to (or even asks, politely), and these certainly are not they

WP:LEGAL

Possible libel
Midgley, I think it is time you seriously reconsider your approach to dissent within Wikipedia. In this edit you characterize me as an "anti-vaccinationist." Since you have tried to define an anti-vaccinationist as someone who seeks to do harm in spite of medical evidence, I would be in my rights - specially in the United Kingdom - to sue for libel.

I am not inclined to do so, but I do want to point out that:
 * Such accusations are not conducive to developing good articles on Wikipedia
 * They fall in with a growing number of personal attacks you've been perpetrating against other editors who disagree with your point of view
 * These accusation along with your attempts at diagnosing my motivations, emotional state, etc., actually do your profession great dishonor. If you want to behave this way on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) I would encourage you to disassociate yourself from the collegium of medical doctors, most of whom avoid such behavior.

I'm not one for reporting editors to admins, complaint boards, etc., so I'm putting this to you directly. Others may decide differently. --Leifern 17:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC) WP:NLT Needless to say, this is inaccurate.
 * I threatened you with nothing, but I think it is both my right and obligation to make you aware that you are doing something that some people may consider libelous. --Leifern 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A threat is a threat, even if it is prefaced by "this is not a threat, but". The way to avoid making a threat of legal action is to not make a threat of legal action.  This conversation is unwelcome to me, as I have stated explicitly before. Midgley 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So if I see someone doing something illegal, I am threatening them by telling them that they are? Please do not change the heading of this piece to make the appearance that I am doing something I'm not - doing so amounts to falsifying the record, which is not only offensive but also a waste of time. As for unwelcome conversations, too bad. You are the one who is making personal and offensive attacks, not me. I have asked you to refrain from such attacks, but you insist on continuing. --Leifern 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

.. rather a lot of this

One admin opinion

Several others


 * I agree. The various vaccination pages are in need of serious work to ensure they conform with umpteen Wikipedia policies on verifiability, neutrality, having reputable sources, and so on.  I'm going to take a look at them over the next few days to see what needs to be done.  In the meantime, everybody needs to calm down - getting personal isn't going to help the situation.  --ajn (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Cool it!
Both you and Leifern need to calm down, take some deep breaths, and perhaps both of you should be very circumspect and restrained in your edits to and discussions around vaccination articles.

Leifern seems to be a fairly reasonable person who takes a skeptical view towards some aspects of vaccination. I disagree with much of what he says, but I wouldn't consider him an unreasonable zealot like some other participants in this dispute.

He shouldn't be making legal threats–and I've now told him that they are unacceptable regardless of any disclaimers he wraps them in–but you need to make an effort to be less...abrasive in your interactions with him. Attacking editors you disagree with doesn't resolve disputes; it inflames them.

I won't hesitate to block one or both of you if you guys can't figure out how to work within the bounds of WP:NLT, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I don't want to see any pleading on my talk page or any explanations of how the other party is at fault. I just want you two to stop going at each other's throats. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the plan I have been applying for some time now. Midgley 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments from your talk page is bad form
Irregardless of any greivances you may have with User:Leifern, you should be aware that, per WP:3RR, the removal of comments from your talk page is considered bad form. Regarding your dispute with Leifern, I would suggest you consider Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and consider avoiding direct contact where possible. Steve block talk 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See 2d back and 2 sections up here. Noted.

Mediation
Will you seek mediation regarding your dispute with User:Leifern? Steve block talk 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Ridiculous not to.  Can you provide it? Midgley 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delay in responding to this. User:Leifern is still debating whether to seek mediation or not, and until both parties agree no mediation can take place. Steve block  talk 07:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The optimistic eye might discern the tiniest of moderation in his behaviour at Kåre Willoch, although there are still actions of the subject which are to have never happened. We shall see. Midgley 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So much for optimism. Rankism not the article, the talk.  Derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Article_Kaiser_Permanente.3B_userUser:Pansophia
 * Just to be clear, I have asked Steve Block to clarify precisely what needs to be mediated, since our disagreement stems entirely from your series of personal attacks on me. A mediation is an attempt at a mutually satisfactory solution; what would be satisfactory to me is your refraining from attacking, threatening, and seeking to intimidate me. That's not something that's negotiable. As for this statement: "there are still actions of the subject which are to have never happened," I don't even know what that means. --Leifern 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The true situation is the reverse of that account. Midgley 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Of what? --Leifern 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The reverse. Of that account.