User talk:Midgley/molly01

This started with a new user... who edited the breast implant page. (... insert diff for initial edits there ...). Somewhere around here[1] I noticed that she was not going to produce a smooth effect.

The second piece of advice she received, after Ombudsman's particular welcome was from me - diff[2]

It got back a sharp response. The Invisible Anon was a troll. (insert link to RFC ... ) who offered advice, and perhaps still is via a back-channel off wiki.

Criticizng Others

What you wrote in my user discussion page violated WP. I trust that you will not do so again in the future. And I expect no "Invisible Anon" vandalism. Thank you.

Incorrect. User:jgwlaw, but take it to RFC if you won't take advice. Midgley 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Are you a self-proclaimed guardian of Wikopedia? Your "advice" was insulting and incorrect.

Further, you may not like what I and others have written on Breast Implants, but what we have stated is correct. Both I and the other author have either epidemiology or scientific background. What we have stated is not what it appears you like to call "pseudo science", unless you call anything you disagree with Pseudo-science.

See user page. Signing comments is not regarded as optional. Midgley 07:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I intended to sign. I will sign this. Jgwlaw 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) And you need to know that I will not toleate your following me around with insults. Jgwlaw 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Biography"

Rob's entire bio of "G. Maxwel" is editorializing. I am going to nominate it for deletion. I cannot find where this man is a 'world renknowned expert' except in Rob's own mind. Also, the lawsuit is relevant if you are going to have this ridiculous article at all. IT seems to me like more advertisement for breast implants, again. If this man is notable, then most of the academics in the country should be worthy of inclusion.MollyBloom 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So would all academics be worthy of WIkopedian entries, according to you? That seems a bit excessive.MollyBloom 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgeley, that was a rhetorical question, for heaven's sakes. I don't have to read all the Wiki info to know that not all academics are notable for an entry. That is absurd.MollyBloom 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading some of it would be desirable. Not reading it suggests use of WP as a means to an end, not collaboration in making an encyclopaedia.

Your Insult is definitely NOT civil

How dare you suggest that I logged in as two users? Your false accusation is the height of incivility. Maybe Gfwesq is right, and you and Rob Oliver are one in the same. We are both lawyers, so we must be the same person? That is your logic? It IS a good think you did not become an attorney. You seem incapable of rational discussion. In addition, you have no idea as to why I nominated that article for deletion. In fact, it has nothing to do with my personal opinion on breast implants. It does have to do with the value of the article (or lack thereof) and the dubious ethics of the subject. MollyBloom 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that no such accusation had ever been made. A redacted edit in the afd gives the extremely close relationship of the two users, and an explanation of why they declare they are separate users on one IP address. The question[3], rather than a suggestion, was whether we were sure that the two users were entirely independent separate. I see that they are not separated.

Gfwesq and I are most certainly separate users. To say otherwise is untrue, and if you continue, it will be a lie.MollyBloom 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers perhaps, but with hallmarks of sock or meat-puppeting as well as a fixed single interest and a demonstrable intent to use WP to further a personal aim and push a POV. The explanation above might be true, but nothing about the behaviour of the person/s involved would suggest that to a vast cool intellect observing our planet from afar. NOr of course does the emotional temperature apparent support it. Midgley 11:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A vast cool intellect would be a good idea, Midgely. Try it sometime. Furthermore, I am really tired of your insults and attacks. I suggest your review WP:NPA. As to 'agenda', it seems the pot is calling the kettle black, here. Between you and oliver, I have not before seen such a biased 'agenda'. MollyBloom 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look in a mirror, if the one I hold up to your reality is not sufficiently clear. (You know where the vast cool intellect is from of course, HG Wells. Midgley 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• 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. [4]

  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. [5] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please may I ask you try and WP:AGF, especially when you are involved in a dispute, it helps keep everyone happier, and prevent disputes getting out of hand. Good luck! Ian13/talk 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What this means, Midgely, in case you can't figure it out, is that your accusation was entirely baseless, again. Please stop these attacks, NOW.MollyBloom 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lest anyone use this as a reference, the assertion made by Molly to an admin is that the reason she and the other user appear on a single IP address (!) is that they are married. So, not apparently separated. (Separated married couples surely would be on different IP addresses.) So the answer to my question, not accusation, is that no, they are not entirely separate. Midgley 16:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. OK. I always do AGF, but it wears thin after a while in individual cases, this being one of them. Midgley 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well try really hard, Midgely. And I will do the same for you. Believe me, it isn't easy.MollyBloom 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell

(some other comments removed)

Midgley, there are already several admins following this AfD and MollyBloom also. Comments such as this and this are not really helpful. Please, try to stay away from the AfD and Molly for now, I've given her the same warning. --bainer (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased that the issue is being followed. Midgley 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes two of us, Midgely. Now I am going to ask you again to stop your baseless accusations and personal attacks. Thank you!MollyBloom 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL

There are Wikopedia rules against personal attack, and you seem very adept at violating these on a repeated basis. There are also laws against cyberstalking.MollyBloom 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you (Midgley) on a personal attack?

I just want to know why you are on a personal attack?MollyBloom 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an entire section on "MIDGLEY CODDLING" on my talkpage? Why are you so venomous? You really have a problem.MollyBloom

This is of course WP:LEGAL. Don't do it.

Here's my offer in mediation

1. You learn to construct a logical argument without attacking and insulting your opponent 2. You learn that an argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says without evidence or citation 3. You make a full public apology to Molly without reservation.

And in return, I will stop pointing out the failure of logic your arguments and I'll stop pointing out your abusive tactics. Of course if you do 1 and 2 above, I won't need to point out your lack of logic and your abuse. Not much of a trade....hmm, I know, I will actually let you win an argument some time!

Gfwesq 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't in mediation. Put it there.

Midgely, leave me alone

You turned the Rfd in a free-for-all to attack the person, instead of discussing hte idea. You are the one with a problem. Now leave me alone. I will continue to delete all personal attacks that you make on me. I have already made a complaint against you for your venomous insults.MollyBloom 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq 03:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC) --> I have a page for this, on which this conversation might continue. It already has that text, and a reply. At the moment the link is absent, you'll find it in the history. When I choose I'll restore it. Don't revert a third time. Midgley 09:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

late civility

G'day Midgley,

I see (or think I see?) that you and Molly have patched things up while I was away. That's great to see.

Before we break out the champagne, however, I note that you characterised Molly's complaint rather harshly. Now, I don't intend to get into your differing perceptions on what was or wasn't true, but I have a couple of notes. Firstly, when you get a few complaints about being incivil, brushing them off as "unimportant" is also rather rude. Secondly, you have rather a history of being ... brusque ... at times, and (as I hope you've seen here) this can have an effect on your chances of working well with other editors. Sometimes conflicts that could and should easily be settled amicably escalate out of sight because the parties — by which I mean, you and someone else — haven't felt it necessary to be polite to one another. And that's sad. It's good that you're willing to work well with Molly, and I hope you'll keep the need to be pleasant from time-to-time in mind next time you find yourself working with a new editor. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Digging into the detail of this would be unhelpful at present, indeed posting this may only appear helpful from some angles at some times. So I'll avoid analysing it any further than I did there. Midgley 14:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that Midgely would no longer engage in this kind of diatribe. I believe this is past. Mending fences and learning from mistakes is always a good thing <>