User talk:Ezzthetic

Scientific misconduct

I've got no particular interest in the Christopher Gillberg case, other than having read about it. Damn difficult case; I can see why he acted as he did, as confidential medical records can't just be handed to anyone who wants them, but I'm also very much in favour of open data. Did I make an edit to anything to do with the case? I don't remember doing so. I'm interested in general in scientific misconduct and the investigation and reporting of it, but I have no axe to grind in any individual case. Fences and windows (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have good reason to believe there is sockpuppetry going on, read WP:SOCK for more on this and how to proceed. Staying calm and seeking help is the best way to deal with tendentious editors, so the mediation request was a good start. We can also try the BLP noticeboard if necessary, or the reliable sources noticeboard. Fences and windows (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The mediator is taking comments: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Scientific_misconduct. Fences and windows (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I'd advise that you're careful in the mediation and hold back from criticising FlagrantUsername's edits or behaviour (even if you think he deserves it), as you might end up getting blocked if an admin thinks you're just an uncivil hot-headed attacker and FlagrantUsername is a wounded party. He's waved this threat in my direction too. If he does actually delete any comments he thinks are uncivil, I'll take it straight to AN/I. The mediation hasn't got anywhere (funny how the SPA Irbteam went quiet) and FlagrantUsername is not giving up, so the discussion is back on the talk page. FlagrantUsername is gathering opinion on whether there are enough reliable sources to include Wang's case, before taking it to the BLP board. I have responded by explaining how the sources are inadequate, and especially how E&E is not a reliable source. Fences and windows (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)