Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irismeister.

Contents

Introduction

(User:Irismeister | talk | contributions)

I'm adding Irismeister to this page because he/she is rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising. Despite numerous opportunities he has failed to enter into a coherent discussion on talk:iridology (which is heading into an edit war, if it's not there already) and he seems to consider himself the author of the articleO instead of viewing it as a collective endeavour. Read the summary comments on Irismeister's edits for a taste of his style. But for the full picture, you'll oneed to look at all three pages of talk:iridology.

I did edit iridology for a while, but gave up when the personal attacks began to bother me. The other regular contributors are theresa knott and DavidWBrooks, both of whom have remained calm and polite throughout. All three of us have asked Irismeister to stop making personal attacks, etc, but all we get is a rant in response. fabiform | talk 11:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually I've stopped discussing things with him, as he keeps referring to my as 'baby' which, as I have told him, I find offensive. All I do now is edit the iridologypage itself. I try to stay away from the talk page. theresa knott 12:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just took a look at the page history and glanced over the rant page .. er .. I mean "talk page". It presents a clear case for page protection until Irismeister is prepared to listen as well as talk about his edits. I'll keep my eye on it. Tannin 12:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. theresa knott 13:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, it's certainly worth a try! fabiform | talk 13:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just had a look through the Iridiology talk: page, and can't make heads or tails of what Irismeister is talking about. Looking at how much work you guys have done trying to work with him over the past while, I think you should be up for some kind of medal. :) Bryan 07:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
LOL. He's now following me around wikipedia commenting rudely on everything I say or do. He calls this baby sitting as he believes I am a danger to the project. I nominate myself for a new "putting up with nutcases difficult editors without losing it" medal. theresa knott 08:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He told me off for deleting the comments he left to me on my own talk page, but at least he's stopped talking to me.  :) Theresa, perhaps you deserve this? :) fabiform | talk 10:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you fabiform. theresa knott 09:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Buddies, please carry on your sweetheart conversation on your own respective talk pages - please do not cut Wiki bandwidth and fill this page with six-grade material and personal messages AFTER you so kindly destroyed the iridology page together :) There also is a special English Wiki section craving for your mutually supportive contributions and seasonal outbursts of creative power :) Sincerely, irismeister 09:27, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Nb. This user has been temporarily banned for 24 hours by Jimbo Wales.
This is a "wake up call" because I expect much better behavior from users than this. It's simply inexcusable to behave this way.
Jimbo Wales 15:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

from Conflicts between users:

I must excuse myself for temporarily retiring from the list for these reasons: Volunteering for real authoring and more than grammar and typos, and having been chased away by some of the editors of this stub, I see no reason why I should write it myself only to be insulted for my efforts. Indeed, judging by the case histories of the medical, iridology, alternative medicine and conventional medicine articles, complete with the respective talk pages, I will no doubt face isolation, systematic sanitary reversals, systematic slander, libel, insults, page protections and the usual periodic pattern of bans again. Edit wars are artificially produced by a clique of fellow Wikipedians (aka the Gang of Four Sysops, which I will not name, since they know who they are, anyway - TFDR) most probably with hidden agendas against complementary and alternative medicine, and interested in withholding and supressing information in Wiki. They have the attitude of thought police, not of editors, and they use co-ordinated tactics of insult, derogative names, name-calling. Sometimes they attempt to proceed to character assasinations and go as low as losing time for fingerprinting and other detective work not worthy of the generous Wiki and Internet ideals and the standards of decency anywhere - in each community deserving this name. The bottomline: In the interest of quality and with respect for the time and energy of anybody editing Wiki, I will only check the accuracy of information and only at the first level - the basic nuts and bolts of English language, and the spelling of the medical articles for the time being. With apologies for all my friends and supporters who would perhaps expect more decent work from the holder of two medical doctorates, continuously insulted by less lucky and more frustrated colleagues venting their anger and anxiety in epithets such as nutcase, full of s***, illiterate, lier, I remain, Sincerely, the same - irismeister 15:23, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Irismiester put the above on talk:reflexology after I made a minor edit to that page. I'm not the only person who has been having a lot of trouble with him please see talk:iridology for details.

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister for the ongoing problems I have had with this user. theresa knott 16:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do not personally regard the above as a conflict, nor shall EVER enter the game of personal editing conflicts. However, I passionately believe that the accuracy of medical information everywhere, including highly esteemed encyclopaedias like Wikipedia, are clear (if, arguably, only possible) life-savers. As such, it is essential to move away from personal conflicts, so actively looked for by some editors (with a known track record) and shift our caring, good-will attention and Wikilove to the essential activity of editing per se. I am not bitter for having been repeatdly banned on what I believe to be fictitious reasons and obscure, unsubstantiated allegations which I addressed in detail and proven false. However, I will not allow a smearing campaign to reduce the information I provide (or only correct) in co-ordination with all good-will fellow editors, to shift attention away from the necessity of harmonious collective editing. Moreoever, I think that malevolent misrepresentations are a blatant case of disinformation. I firmly believe there is no need to repeat in front of the honorable Wiki community that I am an active medical doctor. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, though, that the editor who quote-teach me a lesson-unquote, quote-will not allow me to insert bullshit-unquote, writes in public that I am quote-nutcase-unquote etc. (full file available upon request), does insist that quote-weather (sic) a virus is a microbe or not is not important and as such misinforms readers into the false belief that disinfectants might kill all viruses. Right as I reviewed this, another blatant misrepresentation of disinfectants. is taking place - which might, if let uncorrected, and read by innocent newbies, lead to several emergency room treatments this very night. If we allow this to continue in medical articles, then where do we go from here ? In conclusion, perhaps the honorable Wiki community will not allow my careful avoidance of conflicts to be taken advantage of, in the interest of Wiki ideals and Wiki policies, as well as generous developments of the Internet at large. Thank you and happy editing - irismeister 13:53, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Please read talk:disinfectant it will show just how much a problem irismeister is. theresa knott 18:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree :-) As I repeatedly said for the record, persons are not problems, the issues raised by them really are . Perhaps we should move from persons to issues if we want the benefit fo doubt, happy editing and Wikilove to remain prevalent over posturing. Happy editing :-) Sincerely - irismeister 18:23, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Entering a coherent discussion

We are not there yet, babies ! We'll start talking sense when you'll come into senses. Besides, either you believe coherent means one side contributing and the other side cutting, or you don't understand basic English. Co-herent means something else. Go get an education before you apply for a permit to use scissors and word processing utilities : ) Sincerely, irismeister 09:17, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)

Losing time for Wiki

Holders of two doctorates in medicine need not lose time with baby sitting. But they do it, for the sake of "quality"  : ) For Wiki is recently heading towards the general direction of insignificance, thanks to the tyranny of dyslexic cranks. Look at the level of debate with empowered ignarrogants, perpetrators of cut-and-paste culture, paragons of kakocracy : )
I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) : )
Sincerely, irismeister 09:17, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
Editor of 13,000 pages in three months - and growing with each new baby-sitting assignment :)

Forgery

The rude comment attributed to Lord Kenneth above was inserted by irismeister, as is evident from the page history. Further, a look at Kenneth's contributions page shows no such comment made by him at 12:23, Feb 3, 2004. Irismeister has made this same comment several times on different pages. --Jose Ramos 20:21, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I now see that, apparently, Kenneth made that comment on his talk page. So, it wasn't a forgery, but it was copied here in a very confusing manner. --Jose Ramos 20:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Forgery about Forgery

I did not know that you go as low as denying Wiki material after denying iridology : ) Yours, irismeister 12:23, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

Mylord, rest assured

Nobody wants you out. Everybody wants you polite, articulate and creative. The culture of name-calling, Milord, is bankrupt. Why not losing time constructively in lieu of pestiferating against things you do not understand ? Sincerely, irismeister 12:53, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

Famous "For dummies" series continuing. Watch it here soon !

David, Theresa and fab dear, you made a complete mess out of the iridology article. It now reads like a campaign against it. Nothing to do with decency, let alone information. You fail to grasp the concept of disinformation that kills naive people, believing in what you write. You are worse than iridology deniers. You are paragons of the corporate pseudo-culture which kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year in the name of the principle of increasing profits. You are into "NPOV" while you are haters of truth and go cry on shoulders of editors so that they may freeze pages you messed up. After that, you think you are intelligent and open. Very dangerous people! Not recommended. I still want to think you are only naive. In fact I wish I could, given your manifestation of hate in face truth. Not grown up, incapable of judging, of accepting reality and truth. Babies, I decided to train you in things you do not care to understand. watch for part three of ten here soon : ) Sincerely, still baby sitting you, irismeister 12:53, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

Nutcase : )

Your sincere nutcase salutes would-be "hero" Theresa for her stoical avoidance of English grammar, missed answers and missed points. As I told you repeatedly, the only offense to Wiki is an editor who thinks 1:5 sodium hypochlorite means five parts anything, who thinks Plato makes claims and who goes crying on other ignorant and sympathetic shoulders in lieu of decently writing Wiki articles above the threshold of special English. Ignorance, fellows, is a POV. Has nothing to do with Wiki editing. I will watch you three very carefully in ALL "contributions " that destroy Wiki, like YOU three destroyed the iridology, and she destroyed the mycobacterium, hypochlorite and other articles, trust me : ) Sincerely, irismeister 08:36, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

i apologise for calling you a nutcase. Rudeness in any form is unacceptable and looks bad to newbies and other editors. I should not have allowed you insulting behaviour towards me provoke me into using language that I would not normally use here in wikipedia. I will try my best never to let it happen again. theresa knott 10:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, now if we can just get irismeister to apologize and agree to work with the community henceforth, we'd be in good shape, eh? --Delirium 10:19, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Belief is not the issue, censorship is

I believe that what you are trying to add is not true. Wiki editing is not about your beliefs, Theresa dear, it's about avoiding POVs and false representations, like the one you try to impose as if facts suppressed by you were less than facts : ). Cutting inconvenient things against freedom of speech is a counter-productive measure called censorship. Sincerely, irismeister 12:28, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

This is not an issue of convenience. You continually add information and slant existing text to turn Iridology into an article that implies very strongly that iridology is a legitimate medical science, when in fact studies from around the world have demonstrated its illegitimacy as a diagnostic tool. Your most recent work was to add links to a pro-iridology site you are associated with, listing it as a "balanced" perspective. This kind of POV has nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with a promotion of your personal bias in favor of iridology. Jwrosenzweig 20:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You continuously add counterinformation and slant, dear Jwrosenzweig. Iridology is a legitimate medical science at the very least, and the issue is debatable at worst. Iris-ward is a medical research site as far as I know - but you may know better :-) Illegitimacy is the right name for incompetent assessments of medical reasearch, and you seem to make it a diagnostic tool in itself :-) Correction - my most recent work was to add valuable information which is cut by stubborn friends who insist in depriving readers of means to judge by themselves for fictitious and presumptious conjectures which I can simply and immediately reject - which I am doing right now as an even more recent work :-) My PUBLISHED personal bias, if you read my relevant chapter in the treatise of ophthalmology AND the declaration of bias on my personal page, if anything, is AGAINST iridology. As it happens, every scientist has the intellectual obligation to take the devil's advocate skin and plead as if he were the devil. Try it yourself. It's quite entertaining, you'll see! Yes, it's chilling cold in Paris today, and the air controller strike is over :-( Sincerely, irismeister 21:58, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Ignorance is still less acceptable than bona fide baby sitting : )

There is a policy of saving lives that goes in front of all others (sycophants need not apply :). Medicine is about prevention. Incompetent editing is about disinformation. I can even more strongly suggest that you look into the disinformation and POV track record of editors before you care to suggest me anything. Please review your own policies and remember:
Vote for it ! We can all lose less time as a consequence.
NOTE: Eliminating ignorance in medical information can save lives! Do not censure yourself, Theresa : )

Iridology is not a proven tool for saving lives. In fact, studies have shown it to be so inaccurate as a diagnostic tool that it is potentially damaging -- frequently assuring patients that they are in health when they are in fact diseased. Because of Theresa's (and many of the rest of us's) committment to the health of others, we cannot allow Iridology to act as though this technique is legitimate and opposed by a few minor voices. The vast majority of the medical community feels that iridology is not useful. Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By merely addressing health issues which it can and really does solve, iridology prevents death which happens from conventional medicine side effects. This is for ever more true in a context where compelling medical treatment, congestion and indeed overconsumption of medical services become the norm in the first world. (For proven vs. endorsed, please see my article on Conventional Medicine in the relevant talk page.) Potentially damaging is a fallacy which is also addressed by the Aristotle's actual vs. potential debate (you may wish to read those items there and then come back here for comments which I expect from you given your implication in alternative medicine). Sadly, your passion in rejecting iridology is not a sign of balance and qualification for judging iridology-related POVs. Your commitment to the health of others vs. a medical doctor's (taking as he is the hippocratic oath seriously) does not a balance make, if you care to bring this into discussion. Moreover, it remains to be proven and your user contributions, much like those friends and editors whom you care to mention, seem to be anything but that. Frankly, Jwrosenzweig, it's a blatant, if hidden declaration of bias in being so obstinate to cut valuable information out. Please make it come out and explicitely state it as it is. I can help if you want with psychological expertize and a long experience in sustaining my friends to come out. What you really can't is to allow me to become an adept of censorship. Act as though this technique is legitimate is certainly what I do, because I defend values and have a voice in medical issues. Opposed by a few minor voices iridology isn't, but then again, can you remember bashing, and epithets of quack, nutcase, full of s*** all the time. It strikes me as a pharisee's unbroken garment that nobody reverted these kind epithets to me as if OK, you know, everybody thinks I deserve this as a minor voice myself. The vast majority of the medical community feels that patient's best interest is both useful and mandatory. Sincerely, the same irismeister 21:58, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Articulation goes before mediation : )

First rule here is ignorance is only a POV. As a first rule, it needs to be addressed here first. Indeed, and moreover, there is nothing more rude than ignorance posing arrogantly as savvy editing :) A few baby sitting sessions can never harm the right editor, provided she-or-he can learn. Moreover, it's a free country, Wiki is a meritocracy and freedom of speech is not important for democracy, freedom of speech IS DEMOCRACY. Why do you keep cutting informative sentences without explanation, Theresa ? You only make Wiki a poor medium ! Your personal problems are NOT a reason for butchering articles, this page, or the principle of free speech.

but irismeister hasn't even gone quiet yet...

but irismeister hasn't even gone quiet yet...
Nor shall he, my dear friend, as long as we live in a democracy. Unless you upgrade Wiki policies to some character assassination policy or downright bombing me out of my den. There are laser guided democracy enhancers (LGDE), you know, for people failing to make their point otherwise :)

...let alone shown an inclination for contributing sensibly.
Stop giving you good conscience post hoc , pal : ) This is called a petitio principii . Anyway, I know you do not wish to learn anything new here, so just look at the signal-to-noise ratios. Facts are hard to beat : ) I'll be back soon with another cartoon, for your reading pleasure and edutainment  : ) irismeister 11:31, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

The above is an example of the style irismeister often uses on talk pages. I think it an excellent demonstration that it is difficult to reason with irismeister: discussions end because one is given almost nothing to respond to. The above is a list of tangents, red herrings, and Latin soundbites that make little sense to me. I have not found anyone except irismeister who thinks this kind of communication is effective and helpful for resolving disputes. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think for myself :-) and thus I am. Therefore I think that LAtin soundbites can be and indeed are translated on the relevant Wiki pages not for increasing noise and eating bandwidth but because they are relevant to the issues sub judice :-) Conversely, I find that sustained, repetead, indeed malevolent perversion of our debate for ever shifted away from issues and towards characters does not make from the debate a valuable one. I for one have found that serene, not ad-hominem, explicit declarations of bias are both helpful and commendable in dealing with highly heated issues. This is, for the record, known as the Socratic attitude. Let us hope that Jwrosenzweig will not offer me a cup of you know what, in celebration of this attitude :-)

agree to work with the community henceforth

agree to work with the community henceforth,
It's a joke, right ? For laughing, right : )

  • You mean I should continue losing night sleep for documenting quality Wiki articles only to see Theresa insult me after cutting me out seventeen times in a row for vanity  ? Perhaps you think I'm into sado-masochism : ) HINT: I'm into quality control only.
  • You mean my losing time baby sitting buddies should GO ON ????? I can write articles, you know. I wrote and published seven books.
    Perhaps I might consider compulsory community work for distinguished Theresa here above, after you seriously consider these proposals:
It is no joke. It is not for laughing. You are not being challenged on issues of vanity. I would like to know the titles and publisher(s) of your seven books. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome, my dear colleague editor Jwrosenzweig. The references you search for are in the iridology page, in the section that was cut out FOUR times this very evening only (twenty-nine times in all, in the last three months to be precise, and despite my own efforts to keep it there for their informative value, let alone for your reading pleasure :) I also put it in the bibliography section to help you sort out your friend's deletions, in case they did not escape thir vigilente's eyes :-) Sincerely, irismeister 22:07, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

On bona fide editing and objective measures thereof

Since 'anything can be viciously invoked as a virtue and put on display like a Pharisee's clothing, I have three proposals for bona fide editing :

  • citation index/indices (CI) Editors who cannot enter into a decent discussion about the nuts (NOT, repeat "NOT" nutcases  :) and bolts of the subject they "attack" need not apply for it (let alone the "quality" of editors.) A minimum of, say, one hundred Wiki articles initiated and written as full essays, not stubs, may be a precondition for entering discussions. Stubborn, vicious, ignorant contributions may thus be avoided, although the obstinacy sported as a Theresa trade-mark editing-style will perhaps never be avoided 8) .
  • the complaints-and-mediations-per-genuine-authoring (CAGA) ratio Editors making a Wiki living out of cutting things they never care to read, let alone understand, will be asked to produce this CAGA credential. Perhaps objective docimology and mediametry can help Wiki volunteers more than generous, endless reversals to the general direction of background noise.
  • authoring-signal-to-noise-ratio (ASNR) For details on this initiative, please contact me.

Sincerely, irismeister 12:56, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC) (14,198 edits in Wiki in three months, thanks in part to Theresa :)
Vote for it ! We can all lose less time as a consequence.
NOTE: Eliminating ignorance in medical information can save lives!

Allegations not documented.

Hi, Jwrosenzweig and welcome back on this page! Yesterday it seems that you forgot to answer me at my answer to your question about weather. The only obvious thing is the police attitude of colleagues and friends which would rather remove resources than admit they contribute to information after judging them. This editor:

  • 1. is not associated with resource - only has an onsite address because of seminars and exams passed on site - which everybody here can have since the site offers free email services. The site as I check the IP is located in Texas, and I am working in France.
  • 2. is associated with ophthalmological research - in this quality the world's premier ophthalmologic-to-iridologic bridge building site is valued, as it is valued by all iridological and ophthalmological communities.
  • 3. repeteadly explains why resource is essential in talk page.

Therefore, accusations of lying are ludicrous, presumptious, disgusting and indeed not really taken into consideration. They are not serious Wiki editing contributions. BTW, I looked in Google and found nothing interesting about you. Is that because you think you are not an interesting editor ? :-) Sincerely, yours always and the same irismeister 20:42, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

I hadn't realized I had anything else to say on the weather -- I hope that my lack of response did not offend you. The site, as I posted at Talk:Iridology, is associated with Dr. Jipa and the colleagues listed as Jipa's associates. Will you accept that you are somehow associated with the site, or will you admit to lying about your identity (when you claimed to be Dr. Jipa several days ago)? This is not disgusting or ludicrous. It is fairly clear. I suggest you do take it into consideration, though you may of course disregard this serious concern about your veracity. I don't have to be listed on Google...I didn't claim to be the renowned Dr. Jipa, an expert in this field. The fact that Dr. Jipa wasn't is a sign that perhaps he isn't so renowned. This is the only reason Google entered the equation. And no, I don't think I'm very interesting. I'm often right though -- try me. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My dear friend, personal offense is something that I both NEVER discuss and NEVER take personally :-) Remember me ? I talk issues not characters. I am NOT associated with the site and I wonder why admiring a self-contained, unique contribution which has enough merit in itself even without my own (or the community's) admiration is reason for hostility and accusations of my alleged association with iris-ward. Try me :-) Not funny enough for me to try you. Last, I consider at my age that gratuitous hostility and undocumented, stubborn, vicious accusations based on hints and vague veracity corroborations are ground for closing this side of a personal, privileged, friendly channel of communication. I am not a lier. I am sorry to see that intelligent people like yourself go as low as calling names, making themselves blind, for ever more blind tools of character smearing, character assasination, vicious personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations in the process. Sincerely disappointed, and passionately the same irismeister 21:16, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

The site sells an academic paper which purports to be written by Dr. Jipa and two others....therefore it must be associated with business ties to Dr. Jipa or one of his two associates. I respectfully disagree with your assertions about yourself -- you talk character often, but you seem to take great pains to make sure that your cuts at another person's character are just veiled enough to allow you to claim innocence. My so-called hostility is not gratuitous--I am raising legitimate questions based on statements made by you in a public forum. If you really find them so tiresome and ridiculous, I wonder why you do not cease responding to them. Perhaps it is because you fear others will agree with me that there is merit in my charges? My accusations are relentless, I admit, but not vicious or undocumented. I admit I do not feel privileged in my attempts to communicate with you, though I for some time entertained hope that communication was possible. I am not engaged in character assassination. I am interested in the truth. You have thus far been very successful in avoiding responsibility for the claims you have made. Do not think that I will allow this to continue unchallenged. I remain a man in search of a few simple answers, Jwrosenzweig 21:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Documentation of Malevolence

Maintaining Qualified Disinformation

As far as I know (but you may know better - so please let me know what you really know :-) the site sells in excess of 48 academic papers, all medical, all peer reviewed, of which I am a proud contributor, peer-reviewer and at times author, along my archenemies and competitors Dr Dan Waniek, MD, Dr Matt Karwowski, MD, PhD, Dr Jo Miles, MD, and a few dozen world-class, five stars irismeisters (who are MDs, sometimes PhDs and always ophthalmology-to-iridology bridge builders). Your declaration of hostility and admission of hostility is laudable, even commendable but the question arises about why should an editor be hostile to start with :-) As I repeteadly said to you personally and stated in various pages, including this one, my main concern is quality control.

Persistently Obsolete Naming Conventions for Alleged Quacks According to the Name Calling Game

Alas, tiresome and ridiculous, and time losing as they are (big sigh :-), you know, one should never explain, never complain :-) Your admission of relentless accusations is both refreshing and new (big sigh again). I might even feel as Dreyfuss redeemed :-) It rejoices me like a pale of wind from the northern advancing spring that you are not involved in character assasinations. And I have a special page for those who love truth - here in Wiki - where you are kindly invited. As for your search of simple answers - give me a break will you :-) If life were simple, than we'd compare it with what ? Besides you do not give me the slightest chance to breathe, let alone stop giving you answers. Brings me unpleasant memories of my youth where I had to answer to Stalinist secret police without a good cigarette, let alone sleep or a good deep breath. Still sincerely, irismeister 22:27, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)


P.S. -- if you feel, as indicated in your edit summary, that I ought to be banned, do take me before the Arbitration Committee. I would be happy to allow them decide our fates, and would abide by their decision. Jwrosenzweig 21:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Detailed answers, with high tolerance and high granularity indices, to the unsubstantiated allegations of User:Jwrosenzweig are given above in the relevant passages

Oh no, my dear friend. I have something better to do than playing those games with a respected friend and colleague. This was only a collegial reminder that you should perhaps take advantage of the chilly Washington environment to drop heat off before you engage in name-calling and unsubstantiated allegations for your writing pleasure :-) Sincerely, irismeister 21:58, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Irismeister, I suspect very much that you do not consider me dear, respected, friendly, or collegial. I wish you would avoid using the trappings of effusive praise to disguise your ripostes unless you mean them. And if you do mean that I am a dear friend of yours whom you respect, why won't you answer simple questions? It doesn't seem very difficult to me. My replies to you are not heated at all: can't you tell how calm I am? Perhaps you have troubles understanding my replies as I often have trouble understanding yours? The site does sell a number of papers. You are surely not suggesting, however, that they are profiting from your academic paper without your permission? If so, my dear, respected, collegial friend, allow me to contact them and have them cease doing so at once! If, however, they are distributing your research with your permission, you have a financial stake (or at least an academic stake) in that site, which you ought to have revealed at once. If I had a site which I thought gave fine information regarding Socrates, if someone removed it from the Socrates article as biased, I wouldn't fight. At most, I would ask respected editors to evaluate my site, and ask them to add it back if it warranted mention. This is collaboration.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I have neither declared nor admitted hostility -- I referred to it as "so-called" hostility. You are familiar with the adjective? It implies that you consider certain actions of mine to be hostile, whereas I disagree. I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming to be interested in quality control. I believe you are interested in pushing a pro-iridology POV. Many other editors seem to agree.
I think complaint and explanation, far from being acts one should "never" do, are the entire point of this page. And if you feel "one should never explain, never complain", I hope you will stop doing so here! I wouldn't want to think your continued posts were a violation of your own personal moral code.
My accusations are relentless, not because I am stubborn, but because you refuse to address the smallest concerns I raise before you. It is not at all troubling to ask a question for a fifth time when the respondent has tried to change the subject on the previous four occasions. Did I ask for simple answers? Pardon me. I want answers. Not circumlocutions. Not tangential references to the Stalinist police (how dare you, by the way, insinuate that the reasoned questions you are asked to answer here have anything to do with the horrible persecutions occurring in Warsaw Pact nations 50 years ago?!). I give you plenty of chance to breathe and respond....let my questions sit here as long as you like before you answer. But answer them. Your repeated attempts to pretend you have already answered all questions, and that my inquiries are an example of unjustified persecution, really are not helpful at all. Jwrosenzweig 22:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If your accusations are relentless for legitimate reasons, why not addressing iridology-related issues before anything else ? They were the reason we started this conversation, were they not ? Persecutions are not an exclusive trade-mark of Stalinist policies, and I think we all know that - my personal experience notwithstanding. Incidentally, did you have to answer Stalinist police less than 50 years ago and as early as 15 years ago ? If so, please share with me your experience and then we'll talk who dares what. You give me plenty of nothing, but as Lenard Bernstein had it so congenially, "nothing is plenty for me :-)" I am not here to answer your questions but to work as a Wiki editor, which you are so effectively prevent me to do right now. Total time alloted to you this day versus total time alloted for authoring Wiki articles is way beyond my poorest record. Kindly note, I repeat, this will not be repeated tomorrow. Your own insistence on shifting discussions from MEDICAL ISSUES - you know, the subject of the iridology page - to CHARACTER ISSUES and insinuations of lies are very counter-productive. But this is lawyer material by now, and I am not interested in their work on libel and slander, only in my own scientific work and quality control for Wiki. Please address the issue of insults I have to bear for writing articles in Wiki (third such request) before asking me anything else. Isn't this a legitimate, noble prerogative of an editor and sysop like you, with such a spirit of chivalry and so many well distilled priorities ? Please answer my requests in advance of issuing more injunctions for more answers from me. Please restrict your questions to the matters of fact, censorship, diversion and character assasination issues, not on my helpful or unhelpful character. Thank you. I also thank you for your kind instructions and care about the rythm of my answers after you bombard me with them. In the mean time please answer my own questions on your talk page, since I really am scared to death by so many inconsistencies you show there and on Plautus' page, to the very least ask Raul to unlock the iridology page, document your decisions in the talk page, and please, please, let me sleep. Also you keep deferring my questions about the chilling environment in Washington. The weather is getting better here in Paris. Please take the time to answer properly and after all academic and other inquiries (for 25 USD you will get my whole file from the appropriate Net services - why bother me and take my time who is worth much much more) to all relevant institutions, bodies, corporations, committees, select or less select, boards and communities. And please rest assured of my genuine admiration for your bold style, kind talk, considerate, trustful manner and even more personal qualities, including a proven ability to learn about iridology. Much unlike our fellow editors here on this very page. What's more - it's always a pleasure and an honor, as well as a refined and subtle entertainment to take your challenges. You may count on my sympathy :-) Finally, please do not avoid the issues I raised on this very page in my previous answers to you. They really help advance the request for comment here, for everybody to see and appreciate. Hope this helps - irismeister 01:06, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC).

Why do you keep asking about the weather? The only possible reason I can think of for irisbullymeister to insist on Jwrosenzweig answering a question about the weather in Washington is to confirm whether or not Jwrosenzweig lives in Washington or not. Of course this is just guessing.theresa knott 02:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thought police agents, please leave room on this page for iridology and medical issues, good editing, good will, good informative habits - some normal stuff Wiki is designed for and the same stuff which is so effectively blocked on the more relevant pages! Need not say it three times in a row - STOP DIVERTING ISSUES, STOP LIBEL AND SLANDER - second warning ! Thank you very much in advance ! - irismeister 14:17, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Note: this page was created when I complained about your conduct on wikipedia. The subject under discussion here is your behaviour. The correct place to discuss specific issues relating to wikipedia articles is their talk pages, for example Talk:Iridology. fabiform | talk 10:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - since you are right, I never complained about the five outstanding issues in smearing, slandering, libelling, malevolently misrepresenting and ignoring my arguments systematically, I must really thank you for reminding me that perhaps I should :-) Here they follow:


The Problem

Bringing forward in front of the honorable Wiki community the facts:

Smearing

Nobody seriously addressed the issue that I was greeted here with:

  • being semiliterate (perhaps I am, but then some of my colleagues must invite me into the bandwagon :-)
  • being a quack (perhaps I am, but then mine is a case for quackbusting quacks :-)
  • being full of s*** all the time (perhaps I am, but this is blatantly off-topic - my colonic biorythm is not a matter of public interest :-)
  • being a lier (please document this allegation as thoroughly as you can, or face immediate legal consequences - see below - this is quite serious). One of the editors which I will not name here, when faced with facts and their consequences, wiped out all relevant passages from his own talk page, despite my collegial invitation not to do so). I have copied the relevant passages and keep them safe for retrieval.
  • being invited, intimidated, then begged to plead guilty For what ? For providing bona fide information ? For not answering a cabal and a gang of four symmultaneously editing out my information the very moment I contributed it (as if there were a safety bell ringing somewhere - please check the date stamps on the iridology page) ? For answering all questions which, if anything, were based in something else then presumption of good will ? While all those who did me wrong never suffered the slightest reprimand, let alone ban, I for one am not bitter for being banned, and I will NEVER play the personal conflict game having more serious issues to address than persons.
  • being annoying (perhaps I am, but then why isn't proven disinformation more annoying ? :-)
  • being sexist (please address this allegation seriously or face immediate metrosexual consequences :-)
  • (I will provide the honorable jury the full list of insults) - since it is available in Wiki online despite a panicked attempt by two editors to wipe them out on an emergency basis :-)

Slander

As it pleases the honorable Wiki community, if I have the permission to quote from this reputedly reliable source:
Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation.
Such a case is built on-Wiki and off-Wiki, against the perpetrators, with all legal consequences, right as you read this.

Libel

May I again quote from this reputedly reliable source:
When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel".
Such a case is built on-Wiki and off-Wiki, against the perpetrators, with all legal consequences, right as you read this. One of my colleagues, a reputable editor, maintained ad nauseam a discourse of intimidation and indeed a police-inspired tactic of libel, while the very page these allegations were brought in writing contained the proof of their fallacy. Later attempts to cover the evidence under the carpet of even more libel are addressed below, with a cut-and-paste of the relevant passages. For instance I was forced to admit an affiliation or an interest which are neither proved nor extant - indeed false to the point of ridicule as everybody can see. The obsessive insistance in libel filled the archives of iridology talk pages, my pages, and this page ad nauseam. To cut them short I decided to talk to always-willing-and-able polite, lawyers among my friends and patients and to help them secure the relevant information in safe repositories for juries, including the honorable Wiki community.

Malevolent Misinterpretation

The sum total of allegations that have been brought against me (complete file available upon request) relates to the relevant contributions of the perpetrators in editing medical articles as any for-ever-increasing-in-an-exponential-manner integer value relates to the discrete and decreasing least common denominator. Clearly, this is more than a case study for obvious limits :-)

Ignoring my arguments systematically

A dialogue of deaf people developed following an obsessive insistance of some editors (full list available upon request) to shift discussion from the medical issues I raised towards my character, my track record etc. Although these were provided immediately, as per never-kind-requests, it is perhaps ironic to note that the very next moment they were censored from the iridology page, they were requested again in this page and in the iridology talk page :-) Conversely, the only serious and receivable allegation in support of my repeated ban was using baby in addressing some of my fellow Wikipedians - the editor-more-than-author increasing variety. Although I maintain that this form of addressing colleagues is both polite and accurate, in an effort to comply with as many injunctions as reasonably possible (of course never applied by parpetrators of greetings adressed to me above) I gave it up. Although I explained in the user conflict page that I am not following the person or character of my friends, but the issues and quality thereof, more complacent ears have perhaps had a chance to react without listening to me as well. Is there a hint of Wiki interest in networks of buddies who converge into condamning victims ? I took the liberty to write systematically and perhaps also redundantly in my defense as a consequence. Talk about training... :-) I must apologize for prolixity - It certainly does not drown the kitten on Raul's page :-)

The Solution

Proposal One

The Wiki Thought Police Observatory (proposed acronym WTPO) (a Wiki page where documented abuse of dominant power from sysops could be duly and systematically reported). The case will build by itself, objectively and in an automated, streamlined process. The noise-to-signal ratio of all contributing editors could thus be counted with help from evidence gathered there. Relevant links to Thoughtcrime stubs might contribute those articles with real-time, for ever fresh material.

Proposal Two

Objective Measures - (the complaints-and-mediations-per-genuine-authoring (CAGA) ratio see here above, or contact me.) The future would-be cliques of Thought Police Officers, troikas and sometimes Gangs of Four (the select members of which will have no pleasure in having their name revealed, complete with their relevant contributions as a direct consequence) may think twice before they embark upon costly smear campaigns in terms of decency, to say nothing about Wiki bandwidth and server farm disk space :-)

References

The following have been cut-and-paste for the record, because they disappeared from the respective talk pages: (please look here - in an effort to keep the length of this page under reasonable thresholds.


Conclusion

Your honors, we all know that my days here in Wiki are counted. I can almost feel the breeze of the next ban, building up momentum like the powerful, renewed spring in the air. But I am not bitter. The cause of truth is too important to this editor, to relate with whatever the honorable Wiki community cares to decide concerning my contributions, style, or character. I ask for kind and privileged time to spend with my family, and friend, instead of more answers, for ever more and more requests of comments so unpleasantly reminding me of remote procedures in the country of my origin during secret police interrogations in the middle of the night. Indeed, I will concentrate from now on, with your kind permission, to real, down-to-earth contributions to quality and accurate medical information. In case of my ban, which I will not challenge again, given all the above considerations, to the very least I would kindly suggest that the issues I have been able to raise be not censored as well, so that they might contribute to the cause I described above.

Documentation of Deletion of Evidence

I would like to make a point: In the process of altering evidence of my case, as much as 90% of it is lost and the rest of the 10% was misinserted on purpose. This is a process of destroying evidence reminiscent of how DNA and some RNA viruses work: They insert their own genome into the host genome, using reverse transcriptase so they become obligatory parasytes. Viajero allegedly "moved" [[1]] the section of Theresa and Iris "conflict" to /Irismeister as stated here - [2] (where is that ?). The landing page was really "found" to be this one -[3] "only 90% thinner". I had to manually retrieve the history section, verify it, and reinsert it from the Conflict page history, as it should have been done by Viajero in the first place. With such evident disinformation and deletion of evidence, one could not oversate that clearly, a trusted third party repository, complete with time stamps MUST assist legal solutions. Such legal solutions concerning very weird Wiki "editing" habits include the outstanding case: It appears that all those who persistently libel me or only help the perpetrators of libel now alter evidence in panick and a spurious hope that truth will be not known - irismeister 20:20, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Theresa and her fabulous list of buddies campaigning against Iris

The following long section was mistreated in its original location, recovered painfully from history, and now cleaned up minimally (with no content modifications, not even the obvious typos):

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister ( a highly congested page :-) Besides, I do not regard this as a conflict, since issues come before persons and I will never enter personal conflicts for matters of principle. Happy editing - irismeister 18:58, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister and /Irismeister

I second this: "I will never enter personal conflicts for matters of principle." - Plautus satire 00:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I OTOH do regard it as conflict. This issue is still very much active. theresa knott 19:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is a non-issue forl me and I can only congratulate my fellow editor for her de facto admission of tort in the disinfectant talk page. Wikilove, and remember issues are more important than persons as per Wiki generous principles. Happy editing - irismeister 19:51, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing I have to put up with. Irismeister cut info I put on disinfectant was proved wrong in the talk page and then says that I admitted that I was wrong becuase I didn't cut extra info he put into the article. theresa knott 20:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Nope - thinking that H2O2 is used first for disinfection of food stuff and packages is wrong, and potentially disastrous, as explained. Also bully is both inaccurate and ad hominem. However, I will not answer to allegations here any more, in order to save space and cool persons all the way down to issues. Happy editing and Wikilove! Sincerely, irismeister 20:53, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) ;-)
Your argument would be a lot better If I said it was used for disinfecting foodstuffs. Unfortunately for you I only said it was used for disinfecting food containers theresa knott 23:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do, however have a case study to bring forward, for the honorable Wiki community - which I hope will not be moved to oblivion on my RFC page like the previous issue. The following is serious though:

However, in absolutely no way should he (or anybody) be allowed to completely remove contents of any talk page, be it their own or not
I could not agree more, even under the strike above :-)... Especially since one of my most intense critics did just that. My respected colleague Jwrosenzweig did that, despite my collegial request not to do it, as per our community rules. It is, I admit, always embarassing to delete information from one's own talk page, even if this was done for alleged inconvenient threats he only quote-perceived-unquote. Just one more fact - this was done after subjecting me to a campaign of relentless and unsubstantiated allegations which, incidentally, I answered in detail here. All I ask for, in front of the honorable Wiki community, is for my colleague Jwrosenzweig to attempt a bona fide  :
  • reversion of his own talk page, to the version where my material is addressed to him directly. In those passages, I took my time to painfully and thoroughly address every single piece of what I consider slander and libel, as well as malevolent misrepresentations of my name, fame, profession, academic track record and more. Last, but certainly not the least, I would welcome his admission of attempts to intimidate, obtain convoluted admissions and using tactics more fit for police than for the quality of a respected Wiki editor as I think he is;
  • opening - kindly not refuse to talk to me. Indeed, after he contributed nothing to the iridology page, he asked Raul for protection of that page in the absence of edit wars, for obscure reasons. Moreover, in doing so, my colleague bypassed the four canonical steps as per Wiki policies, and effectively prevented me from communicating with him by inserting a warning in my talk page. Also I would like no arbitration, only a sentence from him in which my honorable colleague Jwrosenzweig would explain to the community what are the reasons for his actions, and after that, kindly to comment if he thinks this is a good example he offers as a sysop and/or administrator;
  • confessio delicti - let him suggest if he should be subject to a symbolic 24-hour ban, especially considering that he did nothing to prevent, let alone revert insults I was greeted with, once I started to provide information in the Iridology talk page. Isn't something as wrong as a sustained smearing campaign, observed repeteadly (and not reported, but increased, not corrected, and indeed intensified, a case for tort from an editor, comparable to perpetrating that wrong her/himself ?

I can only hope this helps for the current case on this page. Thank you all, please pardon my intrusion, and happy editing - irismeister 16:26, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Irismeister kept trying to add a link to a web page that sells his stuff to iridology I pointed out that he couldn't put adverts to pages with which he is asscioted with into wikipedia articles. He said he wasn't associated with the website. Jwrosenzweig pointed out that either- he was as they sold his papers there, or he was lying about his real name. Irismeister responded with threats that he would bring in his laywers. Jwrosenzweig said in that case he would no longer discuss anything with irismeister. That's why he cut the comments from his talk page. theresa knott 20:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Negative! I keep the link because:
  • this is the world's most respected place for iridology-to-ophthalmology bridge builders;
  • this is one in less than five world-class iridial studies sites employing MDs only (with which BTW I am not associated, although I am A MD myself);
  • this is the site which Google lists FIRST under the relevant category;
  • this site offered me five stars in a peer-review exam and with my declaration of bias I feel morally obliged to the FREE 3,000 pages online there - the place where I learned about iridology on top of my ophthalmologic competence;
  • this site contains information in the Romanian language, which is also my first language;
  • this site is relevant to the point made in Iridology that this part of Alternative Medicine is also scientific and accepted - in fact this is the single most important argument in favor of this point.
  • the 39 reversions in three months, attempting to supress it were spuriously explained in the talk page (like here above) or not explained at all;
  • that site contains the list of my published material in treatises of ophthalmology, which are continuously deleted (and then - perhaps ironically -immediately requested in the talk page to help prove I am a quack because I can produce no such credentials)
  • I never cut anything from talk pages, but If you are going to threated and theresa knott did, exactly because all of the above was explained there.

In conclusion, for purposes of consensus with the colleagues named above, I might consider dropping the iris-ward link or including it in the pro or advocacy parts. Although I feel this as being incorrect, inaccurate and misrepresenting reality, I think this consensus-seeking workaround is not misleading or malevolent, because I hereby explain my intention. Perhaps we should wait for a less-then-negative response from Jwrosenzweig and theresa knott in front of the Wiki community before escalating this further. - Hope this helps. Happy editing and Wikilove! Sincerely, irismeister 20:53, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) ;-)

Adressing you points in order:

  • A google search for "iris ward" -site:iris-ward.com site:edu yields 2 relavent hits.
NEGATIVE: site:iris-ward.com search on Google yields 261 hits, all iris-ward (no wonder to this editor - given 3,000 pages of hard research data i found there for FREE! Happy editing; - irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
  • If it's one in less than five then what are the other 4? Perhaps we can link to one of those instead. (As long as they dont sell "research" papers by you to the public I'm unlikely to object)
Iridology, CNRI.edu, iridologyworld and one who gives error 404. Happy editing; - irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
  • A search for "iridology" on google yeilds the quackwatch artice first. The wikipedia article is on page 5. I couldn't find iris ward anywhere in the first 10 pages.
Perhaps this happens because the site is really on top in my search :-) http://directory.google.com/Top/Health/Alternative/Iridology/
  • If the site demonstrates that iridology is scientific then just cut and paste the relavent bit or bits from iris ward to the iridology talk page. It's ok to do this under fair use.
OK. Then please choose between those dreaded 3,000 pages something more relevant than iris-ward.com - so we can all guarantee it's an objective choice. For me it's competition. And although I once WAS contributing there, even as an information officer, Dr Waniek felt that I will steal his business, compete with him or something. For me, it's fair enough to quote iris-ward because they are really good. Colton went offline last month. Jon Miles does not answer mail anymore. In this world of ours I must still side with my archenemy and competitor Dr Waniek who gave me the stars. In order to make AM acceptable for the US Senate committes that is. You thought me stupid, didn't you? A clever editor such as yourself had never gone that far as to see that if drug company big sharks no longer compete between the big fives but make cartels, so must AM sites if they want to live. As our own peace treaty shows right here, cooperation is perhaps much more productive for archenemies and competitors. See the pint, at last ? Anyway, I will offer peace as long as you want it :-) Happy editing; - irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
  • Iris ward sells your papers. That is why various people keep cutting the link.
Did you look at the number of site visitors? I would be rich then :-) Please find a single paper signed by me on that site (I just searched myself) and I will buy it for you plus fedex overnight with my dedication. HINT: If you don't find, then perhaps it's becasue they are not, so please try a search in the Romanian language, using Romanian characters (UTF-8) or read the Treatise of Ophthalmology (seven volumes) edited by Professor Olteanu in 1987 -the first edition. I wrote the iridology evaluation section there, with Professor Popescu. Only Axenfeld, Vida and Deck did the same revolutionary thing before us. It's kind of obvious though - if iridology really works, then why couldn't ophthalmologists, who look at the iris with biomicroscopes every day - why couldn't they see why ? See ? You thought I was an undercover agent doing stupid ad banners for a site ? How very smart of you! You outsmart us all! You give me an idea to become rich !!!! Look - I'll beg the owner of that site to sell my papers again! And as a thank you gift I'll offer you 0.1% of my earnings (please include VAT number for businesses in the UK :-) Happy editing; - irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
  • If you are going to threaten Jwrosenzweig with legal action, then you mustn't be surprised if he refuses to talk to you and cut your comments from his talk page. As far as I know, the only stuff cut from the iridology talk page was outrightly rude stuff written by you. No one has cut any attempt of yours to clear you name so to speak as you imply above. At least as far as i am aware anyway. Perhaps you would like to put in a link as proof?
Jwrosenzweig is an adult and perhaps he can speak for himself. But if he refuses to speak to me (perhaps he is just afraid and/or embarassed for the miserable things he did to me and the iridology page) - then why doesn't he address the Wiki community instead, for what he did last week? Does he fear legal action there too ? I know it's hard for him to be a policeman (keeping him from editing - which he really does better than policing) but I am willing to forgive his provocative and insulting behavior if he excuses in front of the Wiki community instead. In this case, a minimum of items he would have to address might include:
  • 1. why breaking Wiki rules, why assuming anything but good will;
  • 2. why attacking decency per se in forcing me one way or another to admit only what he thinks I would have to admit so that the iridology page would be castrated;
  • 3. why protecting pages without edit wars only because he has buddies willing and able to do that no questions asked;
  • 4. why not going through canonical Wiki peace keeping steps ? Why instead keeping editors like me on line for his base insinuations, invitations to forced spurious admissions, police investigations and stuff - all longer than I was ever forced when kept in the Stalinist police basements;
  • 5. why so many off-topic insinuations;
  • 6. why calling me a lier and never caring to excuse himself ? ;
  • 7. why not addressing real iridology issues on the iridology talk page;
  • 8. why asking me to produce what he just cut and protected so that I can't add it
  • 9. why not addressing the real issues of the list of insults I had to bear - including from you. I had to live with them over the injury of ban, see ? Etc., etc.

This part, if properly done by your client (if you are his lawyer) AFAIAC immediately stops escalations, symmultaneously clears the insult, the injury and the case - and thus could not be, and is not negotiable. - Happy editing irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

  • As for dropping the link. I would welcome that from you. As I said above, perhaps one of the other 4 leading sites would be more acceptable. I hope you consider this a non negative response. theresa knott 23:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But then you promise you won't systematically revert without thoroughly discussing and asking votes for the things you want to cut first ? And Jwrosenzweig excuses only on this page and on my talk page ? Then drop I will, OK (gasp) But come now, admit it - if you didn't find the site on Google, it's not because you don't know how to search. It's because iris-ward is not an iridology site, but an ophthalmologic research site. - irismeister
Ok then. I put in "ophthalmologic research". Iris ward is not even on the first page. You said it was number one on google. Would you care to back that statement up with evidence. What search terms do you have to put in to get it first? theresa knott 21:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Did you read above ? Perhaps this happens because the site is really on top in my search :-) http://directory.google.com/Top/Health/Alternative/Iridology/. Google, unlike you, has several criteria in the search algorithm. Happy editing - irismeister 21:08, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

Which proves the point you are not willing to make on the iridology page or its own talk page.That's it, and all methinks. Otherwise I'm glad that you are active in medical articles and that we did a better job yesterday together in the three articles. The photo on reflexology is really cute. You know, there is a similar one for Egyptians and iridology - but it's only on the site you censor and off it will go with the link ;-) Keep up the good work! - Happy editing - irismeister 19:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

oh you think the photo is good? It's a shame you weren't more polite to the newbies who wrote the article. You downright rude comments on their work is disgraceful. As for medical articles - we are not working together in the way you imply above. The truth is that you are following me around looking for fights all over wikipedia. theresa knott 21:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am following medical articles as a MD not as a quack and a lier and you still did not excuse - grrrr. Happy editing quand même - irismeister 21:08, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

I dont understand what this argument is about. Is irismeister trying to include a link to her/his homepage, and theresa wants it to be deleted from the article? Perl 22:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The main argument that I, and a number of other users (he calls us "the gang of four") with irismeister is that he feels that he should be able to insert whatever he likes into iridology include a link to an external website www.iris-ward.com with which he is associated. Now he maintains that he is not in fact associated with the site. However the site has a logo on the home page saying "certified by irismeister". Clicking on this logo brings up his user page here on wikipedia! I removed the link because of the corncerns i have over this particluar website. This enraged irismeister and he has been gunning for me ever since. He has twiced been blocked for 24 hours for his appauling behavioir, a fact that he boasts of on his user page. Iridology is protected at the moment so it's all quiet there for the time being, so he is following me around trying to pick arguments wherever I edit. theresa knott 22:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Yes, Perl this is the issue. Plus a few insults reverted plus apologies from the gang of four and living happily thereafter. I am a medical doctor who used to work for iris-ward, and use my world class credit to certify a few other irismeisters. My alleged appauling behavioir (sic) is not insulting anybody and not accepting Theresa's greetings aka quack, lier, bully, full of *--- - never reverted. Note for Theresa: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. Thank you for your question and happy editing :-) - irismeister 22:57, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

You "used to work for iris ward" so you admit that you lied when you said you were not associated with the site ? theresa knott 23:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, your obsessive police attitude does not do you a service. Do you not understand the difference between was (past tense) and is (present)? You keep calling me a lier, which is persistent libel. I asked you to apologize or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours starting now, thank you. Happy editing - irismeister 23:17, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

It was intended as a question not an accusation. Let me rephrase it to make it clearer. Did you lie when you said that you were not associated with the site ? Is that better ? I'd like to ask another question. Do you think that threatening everyone who challanges you with a law suit is the act of a bully ?Are you a bully ? What about this one - Do you think I care if you try to sue me ? theresa knott 23:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At this point there is only place for your apologies, not for questions and explanations any more. This will save us all time. Let me put it clear: You excuse yourself right now right here and I forgive you on the spot. You do not excuse, bully too, and we have the court to ask questions, then Wiki (takes more time for Wiki). If you do not care, you will, and this is a statement of fact, not a threat. Threat to decency is to use libel - making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". Period. End of communication. Thank you all and happy editing - Sincerely - irismeister 23:51, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

So, Irismeister is lying about being associated with this site... Is the site useful? I can't tell from looking at the homepage. Perl 23:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not lying about being associated with this site. The site is useful. I just ended communication with Theresa for persistent libel. File closed here. Another one opened. Thank you, Perl and happy editing - Sincerely - irismeister 23:51, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

Perl his photograph of the iris is on the website owners books, His "irismeister" certificate for that web site liks to wikipedia. The "best website award" logo also links to wikipedia. The site sells papers on iridology. Oh and "he used to work for " them. The fact's speak for themselves. As for the question of the usefullness of the site, IMO it's amatureishly put together. Many of the pages take ages to download on dialup. The "reasearch" has to be paid for. There are plently of other websites that are better.

His photograph is, as I read on the site, Dr Waniek's. Or are you referring to their irismeisterships Matt Karwowski, Bryan Marcia, Jon Miles and the forty-something others - PhDs and MDs, most of them ophthalmologists as I can read in that site myself ? As I keep repeating in front of malevolent police officers, who try to force me into false identities, admissions of financial interst under physical stress, torture, and Stalinist procedures, my name is Dr Armand Jipa, MD, which my lawyers will make quite clear in less than 24 hours now, to all the persons involved in libel in Wiki. Putting my name under the picture as you do, is a blatant lie, and your statement issued as if this lie were a fact is the fallacy named petitio principi. It is perhaps ironical that SOOO MUCH NOISE has been admitted here in order to divert censorship and personal issues to alleged financial interests while proven, USA Today-published real admissions of tort - from more than 50% of arbiters paid by the FDA to neutrally assess drugs, procedures and treatment protocols indeed having a direct financial interest in those drugs, procedures and treatment protocols - raised no Wiki eyebrows whatsoever. Incidentally, Perl, I do not understand why on Earth do you keep addressing to one contendent and not to the other. Wiki has ceased to be a group ? Is Wiki a place where some issues are feigned to be non-issues while secondary, blatant, judicial-prone POVs are made the only issues outstanding? Who decides what is an issue ? By definition, The dictator. If we were all dictators, benevolent or not, would this make Wiki a "democracy" ? Besides, aren't we colleagues from the start or there is a Wiki cabal exchanging mail off-Wiki and regulating democratically? Have you read Wiki before you looked off-Wiki ? HAve you read my declaration of bias ? So you see, the real issue arises now, as if by itself, like truth, and like oil on water ? As I read Dictatorship, precisely hereDictators can come to power in a variety of different ways. They can be elected (see below), be appointed by the resident ruling party or Communist Party hierarchy, etc. The issue here is, for me, as well as per Wiki policies, nothing more nor less than peace. This allows us all to go back to useful and happy editing instead of Stalinist trials. Am I wrong in assuming that your POVs as expresed above are not making peace ? For my view, feeling and even theory in this conflict between users is that you entirely miss the "between" word, point and issue. Therefore, I wonder, if the famous Chomsky injunction does not apply to you: As long as the real issues are not allowed to enter into the debate, what's a debate ?. Last, hope this helps: The reasonable man adapts to dictatorship as it is. The unreasonable man hopes the dictatorship to adapt to democracy. Therefore the only hope for democracy in a dictatorship is the unreasonable man :-) This is all I have to say to you. Happy editing - irismeister 10:56, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

I'm glad iriseister has decided to stop speaking to me. it will come as a blessed relief to tell the truth.I shall await his legal papers with interest theresa knott 00:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This seems stupid. Why don't you just grow up and stop obsessing about this irismeister? Who cares? Its a stupid site, get over it, and continue writing articles. Thats all I have to say. Perl 03:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Epitaph

Thank you ALL for your reading, benevolence and patience (I'd rather do compulsory Wiki community work like spellchecking than having to go through all this again :-) I cannot possibly overemphasise in my epitaph here that even with my impending ban, we should perhaps all concentrate on issues more than persons, styles and characters - a salutary, good will, Wikiloving action without which quite rapidly, insiduously and indeed diabolically we turn from respectful editors into hands-up witch hunters. But on the other hand, I am grateful that I learned Wiki survival techniques. Credit is due to my honorable Wiki colleagues, and I sincerely thank them all, for this surprisingly welcome contribution to my education in the depth and mysteries of human character. Thank you all again, and happy editing ! - irismeister 15:14, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)