Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 MIdgely/Oliver

= Mediation Case: MIdgely/Oliver =

Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: MollyBloom 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Rfd for G. Patrick Maxwell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Patrick_Maxwell Midgley and Oliver, but I will keep this to Midgley only, since he has been already warned by administrators
 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?

Please help stop personal attacks by Midgely on me and Gfwesq. Midgely has initiated an onslaught of personal attack, then moved for a permature closure of the Rfd on G. Patrick Maxwell, citing the brawl that he created. I am weary of this and although admins have warned Midgely to be civil, he continues his constant assault. He is not discussing the merits of the Rfd; instead, he is only making personal attacks and false accusations. He has already been warned by administrators to be civil, and I do not know if Oliver has been warned. Midgley falsely accused me of deleting his vote, and used that as a forum to launch another diatribe. An administrator explained to him that it had been inadvertantly deleted. Midgley continues to malign me (and gfwesq) and nothing has been done to actually stop it. It is evident that warnings did not suffice.

=

I would like to stop the personal attacks. Midgley should be banned from editing for some period of time, since he has been warned about this already by administrators, and i have repeatedly asked him to stop. Oliver should at least be warned. Now, we need to get Droliver to stop badgering, pushing POV, and disrupting Rfd. MollyBloom 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Yes.
 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.



Mediator response
Hello there! I am Cowman109Talk and I have volunteered to take this case. Before we delve into the matter I am just going to ask that everyone involved quickly reviews WP:CIVIL. There is clear hostility going on between all parties involved in this case so I recommend you all take a deep breath and remember that if a conflict occurs on Wikipedia it's not the end of the world. Attacks and accusations are occuring on both sides of this, but that is not moving the process forward at all.

Now then. What we have here is quite a bit of incivility occuring on Articles for deletion/G. Patrick Maxwell (2nd nomination).

Molly: Looking at your edits, it appears you are confronting many of the users who are voting keep on the article. While you are not blatantly attacking the editors, your edits may be seen as confrontational and border-line civil. My recommendation for you would be to let the deletion process have its course. Such debates are based on consensus, and while I understand you want to further emphasize your reasoning for voting to delete the article, it may be best to let your delete vote explain your view enough. I'm sure that the other editors take others' votes into account when adding to the debate, though some people simply have different views about what constitutes notability. The article in question appears to be borderline in terms of notablity due to the reasons you mentioned and due to counter-arguments by others.

This matter has clearly gone much too far. What was supposed to be a debate for deleting an article has turned into this explosion of accusations of personal attacks and outright incivility. As it stands now, there is little reason to go to arbitration as this can easily be settled right now. In my opinion, the best way to solve this is to simply walk away from the conflict. While others may be being incivil, pointing it out this often can be viewed as excessive by some and some are interpreting your edits as confrontational and incivil. If the debate does not end up in your favor, there is always the possibility of editors improving the article to make it more concretely fit the standards for notability.

Midgley: At times your edits could be seen as intended to provoke a hostile response. For example, the note on your talk page of a link to "Molly Coddling" has clearly proved to be a tad offensive. I would recommend as an act of WP:Good faith you rename that to something more neutral, such as "Discussion with Molly".

However, I am also recommending that you step away from the conflict as well, as clearly little progress is being done but a back and forth exchange of incivility. While your input, along with Molly, concerning the notability of the article in question is appreciated, there comes a point when the discussion can go no further and things must simply be done over time. An article for deletion debate should not need to be riddled with such conflict and incivility, a nd as Molly stated earlier, it should focus on the article more so than other editors. While some of your complaints may have been valid, repeatedly informing Molly of this publically does not alleviate the situation in any way. The next time you have a conflict that is clearly getting nowhere, it may be a good idea to leave a message with an administrator, for example, to get a third opinion on the matter to see what can/should be done.

I suggest you allow the deletion debate to continue on its own and have faith in the deletion process. If the debate does not end up in your favor, there are more than one million other articles that I'm sure would welcome you with open arms. :)

If either of you would like to respond, please add your comments right below this (after the colon for proper indenting). Thanks. Cowman109Talk 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Both pro and con factions 'argued' the 'keep' or 'delete' votes, as you can see from the history. But I am not going to defend myself here.  My only desire is to stop the ongoing explosiveness, and disparagement of users.  I agree with almost all you said here, Cowman, and that has been what I have been asking, repeatedly.  I suggest no further comments about editors be made at all on the Rfd.  Let the Rfd take its course.  If the article stays, so be it.  If it is deleted, so be it.  I will agree to this, if Midgely will.  Also, I ask that this extend to Droliver, gfwesq, and any other editors who have been weighing in on discussion. A comment on the page by a mediator or admin could go a long way.  SO far, no mediator or admin has done so, and I think it would help.
 * The discussion should never have turned in this direction. It is always advisable to discuss issues /ideas and not people.  That is not just Wikopedian civility but it is a mark of human decency and maturity.

Thank you so much for this, by the way, Cowman. I can't believe the Rfd ever turned into such a free-for-all forum for personal attack. I would also rather not have to go further in dispute resolution, since I am having a hard time figuring out how to use the other mediation templat. ;-( MollyBloom
 * I can believe it - I'd been there before, and some of the same people were there... did you look at the anti-vaccinationist RfA. I saw it coming... in April.  Midgley 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * no, I haven't. I hope to never see another ridiculous free-for-all like this again.  It is a waste of energy, and it is uncivil.  I am going to have to look up all these TLA s (three letter acronyms) since I am Wikifuddled (to plagiarize someone else's term).  I don't even know all the debate or whatever over vaccines.  I am only glad that there were polio vaccines, for example, so we did not have another generation of crippled people.  I wish there were a vaccine for some other disease like MS, or lupus.  ;-(

My own personal belief is that some of the pharma has gone too far, like advertising on US television for meds for made up disease like "Social Anxiety Disorder" (what the heck is that?) to sell a new drug, but that is a whole nother topic and not germane here.MollyBloom 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Business...
 * I was between worried about Molly and given up on her, and I'm pleased to see that we both have decided (I'd say agreed, if we do) that this should go into reverse and be sorted out. Probably we both feel that it was everyone else the other one who was driving it, and of course we are both rightwronggrown upsensible reasonable wanting to avoid anything much like it again...  While our host COwman was writing alarming sensible things which are mostly mroe or less with which I agree, I was writing a screed at

which should not be duplicated here unless someone wants to. I think the wavelength is similar. I do wonder if there was some winding up, but I'm not going to pursue it - if it causes a thought that is probably sufficient. Midgley 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's cooperation in this matter. Hopefully we can put this matter behind us and, in time, everyone will have cooled off. I will close this case shortly should no further issues arise. Thanks again. :) Cowman109Talk 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Cowman seems so very good at mediating disputes between doctors and lawyers, I urge him please come to my state where there is an all out war and ongoing efforts by both factions to change the state constitution. I think Cowman deserves high kudos. We need him.MollyBloom 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Case closed

I am closing this case because the incivility conflict is over and it will be archived in the near future. I am asking that those involved in the now evident edit war, please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-08 G. Patrick Maxwell. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
An admin posted this on my talkpage: I've removed all of those comments. Please try to leave the AfD alone for now, and ignore Midgley: I've already warned him to be civil, and that will do for now. I'm going to bed, but I'll remind some other people to keep an eye on this. --bainer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC) He seems to have deleted the warnings on his own talk page. There was also one from Ian.

Accusation of being sockpuppet -- Midgley's accusation that Gfwesq and I are the same person (we are not). We are married, but that does not mean we cannot think independently. We are both lawyers, but last time I checked that did not make us the same person, either. After this comment, an administrator (whom Gfwesq gave his bar license to prove we are different people) expalined this to Midgely. Still, Midgely continues to imply that we are sockpuppets.
 * 1. "Is it clear that Gfwesql and Mollybloom are entirely separate?"  Midgley 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (I am presuming I am the admin in question. As it stands, if it is me, I cannot say they are different, nor have any evidence to suggest they are. Ian13/ talk 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))


 * 2. "The question I asked was whether we are sure that two of the editors posting overlapping comments, one of them with a very short and restricted list of edits were independent of each other. I see that we are sure of their degree of independence, and it seems to me entirely reasonable that now we are sure of that degree, we can read their remarks in context."

Personal Attacks & False Accusations that have nothing to do with Rfd 1. "A review of Mollybloom's contributions shows a clear agenda - a single-minded approach to anything to do with breast implants and now apparently surgeons who do breast implants. It doesn't appear to me that this suggested deletion has anything to do with producing an encyclopaedia, it does seem to me that it is furthering a personal agenda of presenting a particular view to the world and minimising any other aspects' exposure"

2. False accusation using it as a forum for personal attack "Deletion of comments One of the pathognomic features of advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than an effort to write an encyclopaedia of general use seems to be deletion of other people's comments from for instance AFDs. Mollybloom dleted this comment of mine, and therefore affected what subsequent participants might know of the background. [2]" SOME OF THIS DIATRIBE WAS DELETED BY AN ADMIN. And so he posted this comment a second time: "Comment A review of Mollybloom's contributions shows a clear agenda - a single-minded approach to anything to do with breast implants and now apparently surgeons who do breast implants. It doesn't appear to me that this suggested deletion has anything to do with producing an encyclopaedia, it does seem to me that it is furthering a personal agenda of presenting a particular view to the world and minimising any other aspects' exposure. "

Proof that this was a false accusation: From the admin: Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [3] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3. MORE False accusations
 * "Spreading interest and edits over a range of topics (where breast implants and surgeons who do breast implants are not two different topics) seems to me to improve the quality and balance of the edits tot eh main topic of interest and to improve WP in the other areas as well. I commend that approach. I'm inclined to think that people only showing one interest should be suspected.>Midgley 11:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgely did not sign this, but it is abundantly clear that he wrote it, given the context and similarity with his other insults.
 * Editing only breast implants and now this does not help to tune into the WP way and norms, and I suspect several people enjoy their experience less as a result. Which is not good.

Again, I will note that I have contributed to a number of articles, and am a member of the WikiLaw project. I have edited on articles about law, politics, medicine (I have expanded a section on connective tissue disease, since it is an interest of mine) and soon FLorida since I found out there is a FLorida Wiki project. His accusation here is patently untrue. It is designed to attack and inflame. It is also a clear pattern since he repeats it in every other comment he makes, as a means to discredit me.

4. More attacks and bringing into an Rfd my contribution to a different article, that he didn't like. "partly becuase this is a clear attempt to subvert WP procedures and norms, partly because to delete one article in furtherance of an agenda would encourage further depredations, and partly because assertions that someone is not notable becuase they are not in the newspapers but in peer-reviewed journals should not be supported. That is not why I recommended deletion. I am well aware of what peer-reviewed journals are, and the import of them.  I never said that this person is not notable because he is not in newspapers.  Once again, this is a false and inflammatory accusation.

A personal attack even on his own talk page "MollyCoddling (save time - ---> User_talk:Midgley/molly01"

Innuendos and Threats 1. "Some people may hate this, but ...". Midgley

2. "I feel a claim to an interest given I first proposed this article for deletion and have observed and assisted its improvement since is reasonable, and that the reaction from User:Mollybloom is, yet again, entirely unreasonable, and that hte blocking policy relating to alterations to biographies of persons yet living also may apply." If he feels this way, he should lodge a complaint, and stop the personal attacks. The fact is that a number of people (including admins) have 'voted' for deletion of the article in this Rfd. IN fact, more people have 'voted' for deletion than for keep.

3. " I suggest that an RFC on MollyBoom's activities related to breast implants and now this afd should be called and that a ban on editing any article related to plastic surgery would be appropriate and improve the quality of the WP" THIS IS ABSURD. He does not like what I wrote or did, so he wants to ban me? And why is he discussing this on a talk page in the RFd, rather than filing a complaint?

Addendum: Now Midgely is swearing and insisting I close the Rfd. I had informally said I withdrew it, because i was tired of the fight and continued harassment. I then pleaded for civility again, but said I did not want to withdraw the Rfd. I believe that this is also a violation of Wikopedia civility and maybe other rules as well. MollyBloom 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Midgely claimed that I should 'gracefully accept defeat' (what defeat?) and said  Now close the damn thing and stop refactoring the past. Midgley 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OLIVER -- Assumes that nobody but a doctor (specifically himself and Midgley) may edit or Rfd on WIkopedia It's also rather humerous that someone else (who's name need not be mentioned,lest she be summoned) with no context in a super-subspecialty field of medicine, has appointed themselves an arbiter of someone's prominence or relavence in that field. At this point nothing surprises with this person thoughDroliver 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many more, but these are a few.

I am delteting and will continue to delete blatant personal attacks. Admins need to start doing something about this. These personal attacks have nothing to do with the Rfd. None of this relates to the Rfd. If you want to discuss this, Midgely, do so in the proper forum.MollyBloom 01:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
Molly, please feel free to alter the subject heading on my talk page which points to the sub-page/archive I use for your comments to something that you don't object to. Please don't make it "MollyBloom", because other people will interpret that as me making a pointed reference to you, and I don't want that to happen by accident. I'll rephrase an earlier offer to "Please also feel free to make use of the sub/page to add further comments to directly. I shall appreciate it since it will save me time."


 * That not my major complaint, and I believe you know that. My complaint regards the ongoing personal attack and incivility. I want the attacks, misrepresentations, false accusations, insinuations, and insults, and focus on me instead of the merits of the RFd to STOP. NOW. If that can't happen, I will continue escallating the matter, as needed. The ongoing attack on the person to distract from the merits of the Rfd is represhensible. It is blatant, uncivil and beneath any standard of reasonableness.


 * I also do NOT want this complaint process to become yet another war. I want the war to STOP. MollyBloom 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Advice, or platitudes: When faced with a difficult problem, solve the easiest part of it. Be careful what you ask for, you may be offered it. Always read the instructions.
 * This is part of what I mean. The 'easiest part' of this is only a minor example compared with the problem.    However, I deleted the reference to "MollyCoddling" entirely, since the whole entry was uncivil and only served to continue to inflame.  I do not do this on my talkpage, and frankly nobody should.MollyBloom 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps surprisingly to Molly, I regard her conduct from the first contact we have had as alarming, and frequently, and escalatingly, unpleasant, unreasonable and erratic. I regard all her anger and discomfort here as the result of her own actions. I would prefer to see far fewer and better considered edits in general, and none at all directed at me. I would like Molly to place in context the advice of "The Invisible Anon", which I think only a few people would regard as good. Midgley 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps surprisingly to Midge, no one cares what Midge thinks about Molly's conduct. This isn't about her conduct, it is about Midgely's conduct. Trying to change the subject won't help, Midge. No one cares whether you would like to see more or less edits. Again, this isn't about Molly, its about Midgely. As for "blaming the victim" - its an old tactic, but it won't work. Your reputation for bullying and trying to intimdate and chase people off wikipedia precedes you. Your abuse is the cause of Molly's discomfort. I am not even sure why you even bother to pretend to contribute to wikipedia, your arguments, as I pointed out before, are a re-run of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. You automatically gainsay whatever the other party says, usually without evidence or citation. Mere contradiction isn't arguement, but I gather it beats thinking.  Gfwesq 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean by insults and attack. I invite the mediators to take a look at the constant onslaught and free-for-all Midgely has made the Rfd on Maxwell.  His anger is astutely obvious to all.  Indeed, he has resorted to turning the Rfd into a forum for disparaging people, instead of discussing ideas. I would like Midgely to make no edits directed at me in the future.  I would like Midgley to try to discuss the merits of the issue, instead of people.
 * He doesn't seem able to do this. Anyone would be angered by a continued and relentless onslaught of personal attacks. Please go look at these.  Finally, I see that this is not the first time Midgely has been embroiled in controversy about abusiveness.  LIke Gfwesq, I don't frankly care about what Midgley thinks of me.  This complaint is not about what Midgely thinks of me, or about his opinions on anyone.  This is about Midgley's abuse of Wikopedia, his disregard for basic human civility, and his unrelenting contentiousness.  I cannot say it more strongly.  He needs to discuss issues and not people. That applies to me, and anyone else on Wikopedia.  I have seen him ridicule other users all over Wikopedia.  This should not be tolerated.  I will not allow him to turn this into a personal attack or a forum on "Molly" as he has done in the Rfd, and as he has done to other Wiki users. MollyBloom 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, this is an example of Midgley's condescension and insults. If this is the way Wikopedia works, then there is something wrong with it.  Administrators should put a stop to it.  If they do not, then the Wikopedia rules of civility are empty platitudes. MollyBloom 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I had a quick scan through this (after deleting Midgely's comments on the main page wghich were a little innappropriate). I think to be honest this needs a proper arbitration, as far as I can see there are accusations of WP:Legal, sockpuppetry and more flying around and there isn't much a mediator can do to stop that - really we can only advise on actions - and then only on articles. Specific discussions between users like this are hard as we have no admin powers! However some advice: it seems a couple of admins have already stepped in here so I would take their comments as gospel advice. also Midgley I think you had better revise or delete your sub-page as it might bein violation of WP, possibly WP:Legal and WP:Civil - Im not saying it is for sure but better safe than sorry. Comments or evidence you use there are better placed on talk pages and this page. Cheers -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see I may have to. Thank you for helping me sort through the proper procedure.MollyBloom 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my last post on teh Rfd discussion. If this is not enough to beg for cviility, I don't know what is. Let's try AGAIN to be civil My suggestion is that all stop the personal criticisms, harassment, and turning an Rfd into a forum for personal argument, swearing and the like. I don't know how many times I need to request civility, but I will try again. From this point forward, let us discuss issues, and not people. I also ask that any administrator that sees any violation of this promptly respond and delete the personal insult or attack. That includes mine, if I make any. Since I am trying to be fair here, it includes everybody, including administrators.MollyBloom 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Also, let us not use this thread to launch another fight, as to who did or who did not act uncivilly. Let's just start over, and act like adults -- ALL of us.MollyBloom 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/G._Patrick_Maxwell_%282nd_nomination%29


 * My talk page needed archiving, and I am not the only person with correspondence with Molly who needs to archive it to a sub-page. It is actually a suitable use of one, and the name on the link and section matters little.  Note that the WP:LEGAL is by Molly, and yes, it clearly was a contravention.
 * No I did not violate WP:LEGAL. EVER.MollyBloom 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I presume you referred to your suggestion on the discussion, about libel (which is written defamation), insinuating that there may be libel against Maxwell. There are two lawyers who have told you otherwise (including me).  Before you make such an accusation, I suggest you look up the definition of defamation, libel and slander.  MollyBloom 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the archive or subpage, you'll see the first ever contact which was a sharp response alleging controversion of WP to a piece of advice on how to get a view heard effectively ended with my telling Molly that if she thought that she could take it to RFC. It seems to have escalated from there, and it has also clearly been pumped by the troll describing himself as The Invisible Anon, and probably others. I offered advice because I thought Molly had soemthing to offer WP, on breast implants, and was going to have a hard time and whatever the reason for it being interpted as an attack it has been no excuse for any of what followed. This was an odd request for mediation... Midgley 17:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking for mediation to stop abuse is hardly 'odd'. However, Tmorton may be right and the only way to stop this abuse is to open arbitration.  That is my next step.MollyBloom 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even know who "Invisible Anon" is.  The WP:Legal is not by me, as I think is evident by the mediator's comments.  If you archived your page, Midgely, that's fine -- did you or did you delete it?  Regardless, that is not the issue here.    You have not offered advice, by the way, you have launched pages and pages and pages of disparaging remarks, and now you are swearing on the Rfd.

Please note that the link Midgely has here links to an inflammatory discussion and an accusation that was proved to be false. This needs to be on the front page. Midgley's votes were never deleted, but were moved by administrators inadvertantly. MollyBloom Ian, an administrator, pointed out that HE inadvertantly moved Midgley's vote to the discussion page, along wtih a section of discussion. For the sake of peace, Midgley, please remove the link to your previous inflammatory disparagement of me, and just include your vote. Thanks!
 * As a note (without wanting to become involved. I did NOT make such a claim. I did however note that User:Thebainer (also) did move it. Ian13/ talk 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you did. It was the initial move, although you may not remember. The Rfd page became so littered with insults, and attempts to remove them to the discussion page, that I don't doubt that you forgot one thing. And yes, you are not the only admin who inadvertantly moved something. It is surely understandable. Please see your quote below. Ian wrote: ''Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. ''[19] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. It was moved twice then, both by me and bainer, and both unintentionally. I did see on a talk page somwhere that Midgely did say that to a certain extent that he was sorry. Ian13/ talk 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ian, you don't need to defend Midgely. HE gave a half-hearted apology when pressed and repeatedly told he was wrong.  This was before linking to the 'vote' and inflammatory (and wrong) accusation a second time.  I suspect here, you are not helping the mediation.  It is essentially closed.  Your need to defend midgely doens't exist anymore.  I suggest you consider the wisdom of this.MollyBloom 21:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)