Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Set aside for now. There's valid points made by both sides, but personal attacks are sometimes hard to quantify and pages like this are sometimes useful in building cases for arbitration. I would argue that the two users involved seek some form of dispute resolution, after which I would hope this page could be deleted. I would note that links to this page, where deemed personal attacks, may be removed per personal attack policy. I would suggest that if there is no dispute resolution attempted in the next month, this page be relisted. Steve block talk 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leifern/Accusations_by_Midgley

Personal attack page, defended against reply, and links placed to it elsewhere. Also substantially misleading and part of a campaign of harrassment which has already drawn admin notice[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Fletcher]. DELETE speedy, perhaps. "This is _my_ page IE no replies permitted there [1]". Leifern is persistently altering my user:talk page to demand I do for him something so simple that he cannot popssibly not know how to do it - there has been a ramping up of his aggression toward me over the last few days, from a chilling level of nastiness mainly confined to a particular page including a word he will not accept may be used (anti-vaccinationist - an edit of his 10 days after he started forcefully rejected its use in an autism article) to scattering of attacks on me through other areas of WP. If you look at Leifern's contributions, you'll see after a few days off he returned and immediately set about a spree of gratuitous insult and reversing perfectly reasonable edits in various pages, some in clear absence of concensus. I think he needs to be given a long rest, but first, as I understand WP, maintaining attack pages even in user space is improper. Midgley 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Knowing nothing about the dispute here, I'll mention that keeping these pages (as evidence collection for an RFC/RFAr) is not unknown. There don't appear to personal attacks here, so much as disagreement with documented diffs. It is, of course, bad practice for Leifern to refuse discussion. I'd suggest that (while MfD technically does have jurisdiction over this page), mediation might be a better avenue forward. If mediation is refused, follow other dispute resolution procedures. Xoloz 11:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Response by Leifern: The page is

1. 1. not in the article space;
   2. makes absolutely no accusations or "attacks" against Midgley, except to list a relatively small but representative sample of the accusations he has made against me; and further:
   3. I have not refused discussion - the page says explicitly that comments are welcome on the discussion page;
   4. there is absolutely no evidence that I am "harrassing" Midgley or anyone else.

The purpose of the page was to respond to Midgley's complaints against me in one space rather than chase around the various and sundry places where he's lodging complaints, without notifying me that he has done so to allow me to defend myself. This should in fact be a speedy keep. --Leifern 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment It is certainly getting a defence in well ahead of any attack. And as remarked, there is a highly selected collection of comments there, and wherever they are stored, the links to them are being placed in comments, whcih effectively make the assertions part of many other discusssions where their only relevance is as an adjunt to ad personam and ad hominem attacks. Midgley 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The attacks are already underway, as the links clearly show. The links are not made in comments, they are included as reference to the quotes. And they are not "highly selected" - with hours and hours to spare, I could probably find many others. --Leifern 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, without commenting on who is wrong or right, I think that personal commentary targetting a specific user's actions, even in the user namespace, should not occur. As a corollary, it sure sounds like mediation should be entertained -- Samir (the scope) 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But there is no personal commentary. --Leifern 12:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, you are right, there is not. But, with respect, I don't think the best way to handle this dispute is to post some of Midgley's comments on your user page. -- Samir (the scope) 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems to me there is no basis for deleting this page - you may disagree with this course of action, but that isn't grounds for deleting the page. I expect you to change your vote now. --Leifern 01:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I still think there is a basis for deleting your page, based on my disagreement with your course of action. From WP:NOT, listed on Deletion policy:

The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Really don't think your page provides a foundation for effective collaboration. Also, I'm pretty sure that this does not meet with WP:SP. Leifern, also, please note that in no way am I condoning comments made against you. I've raised such views about editors commenting on editors behaviour on WP:MfD and WP:AfD before [2] [3]-- Samir (the scope) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Samir - how would you propose that I respond to the types of attacks Midgley has made? He has written that he'd like to initiate an RFC against me, he refuses to extend the courtesy of at least notifying me when he complains about me to the point of deleting such questions from his talk page, etc. I could ignore him, but that would only work if I simply let him have his way with the content disputes. Under no circumstances is this page an effort at social networking; I have not publicized it (it's not linked on my main user page, for example - this MFD was not my idea); and I'm not inclined to file a formal complaint against Midgley for several reasons. The page you want to delete is factual, non-abusive, non-threatening, and I can think of no better alternative. As for other ways of resolving our content disputes, I have already issued an RFC on the Anti-vaccinationist article, but there was no response. --Leifern 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know the details beyond what I read on the page in question here, but WP:RFC on user-conduct (as opposed to RFC for an article) is usually a better venue to deal with systemic disputes -- Samir (the scope) 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See to me, that's an escalation, as the content would be similar but it would explicitly ask others to weigh in. The page in question was intended as a way to summarize Midgley's complaints and respond to them. If Midgley has the right to complain about me, I must surely have the right to defend myself. --Leifern 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a personal attack on someone who makes personal attacks is still a personal attack AdamJacobMuller 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't a personal attack. To quote from WP:NPA, personal attacks consist of:

1. Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
2. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
3. Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
4. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
5. Profanity directed against another contributor.
6. Threats of legal action
7. Death threats.
8. Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery.

None of these are in evidence on the page in question. If they are, please show me where. --Leifern 01:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A great addition to the Midgley casefile. I have saved it for posterity if it gets deleted [4]. Midgley is the cancer of Wikipedia through his relentless allopathic propaganda and deletion of non-allopathic thinking. For example he recently deleted my page on an energy medicine discovery [5] using some spurious pretexts that he excels in. He attempts to delete any vaccine critics, eg Dr Mendelsohn [6], Peter Fletcher [7], Boyd hayley [8], and deletion by merger Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, National Anti-Vaccination League. Quite apart from his ad hominem I write as someone who treats a small number of psychotic patients, and therefore might come from someone psychotic or a group simulating psychosis for their own amusement. (John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)).[9] [10]. Typical quack. john 09:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OWN. I can't see the quote above as an ad hominem attack on anyone actually - still less anyone here. It refers (as is not noted above) to a particular website which you may care to look at and form your own opinion of the mental state owned or simulated by the author. If it is a spoof then it is quite funny, but I fer it is deadly serious:-

http://www.reformation.org/cabotia.html (America was not discovered by Columbus, who stole someone else's secrets)

http://www.reformation.org/

http://www.reformation.org/page2.html#The%20Wonders is actually the main menu - it is fiddly to get there, which sort of indicates real rather than spoof to m. You are offered the fake moon landings, the nuclear explosion that collapsed the twin towers of the Trade Centre (which has a few constructions in the writing that again, as a technical matter, suggest psychosis to me but as I remarked, could also be a well-done spoof;

The site is also an anti-catholicism site[11], which dovetails neatly with an earlier conversation around an afd for anti-vaccinationist which established that you can have anti- something without being a formed organisation - in that case there is a whole category, and in this site we have Vaccination—Vatican's Medical Inquisition Revealed At Last!!;

As I mentioned, I think that one suggests the mind behind it is actually diseased, rather than being a deliberate Internet hate site, and that therefore one should regard it with the same tolerance extended to ranting people on street corners who have things on their mind other than personal care, but there is an echo in John's site - anti-vaccination's central library - whcih also offers for our consideration the protocols of the elders of zion, and this gem http://www.whale.to/b/terrorism.html which neatly conflates several recurring tropes : "On May 1, 1776 (a Communist holiday), after having been commissioned to devise a plan to control the wealth, natural resources and manpower of the entire world, Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit who had defected from Christianity, announced on behalf of the Illuminati, the twenty-five goals for achieving this plan. " You realise that the medical mafia have prevented you from knowing about Vitamin C? http://www.whale.to/a/vit_c_cons.html .

So there is, for whatever reason, a connection of some degree between contemporary anti-vaccinationist activity, assorted conspiracy theory, anti-catholicism and at least one anti-semitic hoax, and in (one example given) some cases this shades into an appearance of psychosis. John does not, here, or in the several alt.med and med.sci usenet lists which he has haunted for years, give an appearance of psychosis. His behaviour, manners, and the correspondence between the views he presents on how to cure disease and how it is caused ("all from a lack of Vitamin C which is in turn caused by allopathic treatments" is the most recent statement of it he has offered here) and reality can be judged by those who care to look at his writings in WP talk and article pages - he has repeatedly accused me of hijacking his page on vaccine critics which was deleted some interval before I started writing the page that is currently a redirect to, and of course those articles above, despite being reminded several times that I'm not an admin and neither am I the various people who have looked and voted delete.

Judge what people are doing by what they do and with whom, not necessarily by what they say they are doing:-

John, Ombudsman and Leifern, along with the IP address user who insists on presenting the appearance of a logged in user in his signatures despite firm advice and requests are substantially working together. I have looked at a range of WP articles (and edited a wide range of topics - the topic of the induction of immunity is important and interesting, but nowhere near being my sole interest) and nowhere does one find the sustained nastiness displayed there. There is an underying theme, and it first surfaced in Leifern's edit history in his very first days of identifiable editing, on autism, when he rejected the existence of anti-vaccine activity. He won't be told on that...

As to John "Whale"'s posting above, he doesn't see anything wrong with that, and leifern doesn't see anything wrong with what he does, pointing to the precise letter of some rule and ognoring its spirit, and Ombudsman is as ever his own man... But that is a posting of a nature that should not appear here and which John has been warned repeatedly by admins about. And several aspects of this are connected, not coincidental. Midgley 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to know who thought up the redirect of vaccine critics to anti-vaccinationists. If you are qualified to diagnose mental illness from your computer, then you will be aware of "projection" and "denial". Think about them for a few weeks with this thought----if the vitamin C data is true, and there is a mountain of evidence to prove it, then what would someone who is a pharma man do to stop that information registering in his brain? Also the allopathic treatment of mental illness is quackery (plus up to 1.5 million benzo addicts [12] just in UK) as Robert Whitaker points out nicely [13], which begs the question---why we would trust an allopaths diagnosis of mental illness? Allopathy has only cured bacterial infections, which is far less than vitamin C can do--cure bacterial AND viral infections [14], cure heart disease [15], heroin addiction [16], prevent cot-death [17], all known for 30-50 years, and Midgley thinks I am mad for believing it! Pure projection and denial. john 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment I think I made that redirect, after you complained that the material in anti-vaccinationist should be in vaccine critics (which should presumably be vaccine critic by the WP convention on plurals in names. If you don't like it when it does point there, by all means unpoint it or point it somewhere else, it isn't something to fester over. As for madness, john makes that claim immediately under a quote and a passage by me in whcih I three times say he is not (at any rate) psychotic. Midgley 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment from Leif to all: Please don't let this become another forum for bashing each other. Midgley listed this page for deletion because he thought a documentation of his accusations against me a constitute a personal attack against him. Let's deal with that issue and leave everything else to other places, OK? --Leifern 11:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• the reasons for deletion are at the top. They include that it is "part of a campaign of harrassment". It is possible that people may think this is demonstrated. Midgley 14:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think you have an even graver burden of proof to show that I have started a campaign of harrassment against you. Has it ever occurred to you that your actions might look like personal attacks against me? Just wondering. --Leifern 16:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

keep: Per Leifern. Ombudsman 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.