This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 54564fd56f45f4dsa5f4sf5 (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 20 July 2012 (→Personal attacks and incivility at WikiProjectMedicine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active discussions

Personal attacks and incivility at WikiProjectMedicine

• WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• tylas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• bittergrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As some here might know, WLU has been wikihounding me for over a year, even including false accusations to this board. However, that is not the current reason I'm asking for help. I've long been watching wikiproject medicine, and noticed a post involving the Dissociative Identity Disorder article. There, WLU was making an ad hominen attack against another editor, pointing out her self-disclosed DID as a reason to revert her. WLU's victim had my sympathy, since he had used many of the same tactics against me. I spoke up to defend her, and WLU's friend whatamidoing echoed WLU's attack, and added a claim about my sexuality as a reason to ignore me, arguing that people with conditions were apt to "accidentally misread sources." I pointed out that these were ad hominen attacks, a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. WLU deleted both of my comments.

WLU has also edit warred to force his version of the DID article, placing a 3RR warning on Tylas' user page. WLU was at 3RR, Tylas was not. Tylas lost initiative in the edit war when she discussed the deceptive 3RR warning instead of reverting.

WLU's victim has invested a lot of time into the DID article in good faith. I would hate to see her driven off. However, there is little that I can do: I'll be out of town this weekend and if I do anything, WLU and friends will doubtlessly accuse me of wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bittergrey. That would be me! It's so nice someone on WP understands what it's like to try and work on an article where WLU has time invested. I have felt attacked since I first tried to edit the DID article. I still have had ever single edit I have ever tried to make reverted by WLU. ~ty (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add to this that in the past, I have attempted to edit this article and suffered similar attacks from WLU (as well as a few others), although not directed at any particular personal condition (perhaps because I have revealed none?). Unfortunately, these repeated attacks eventually drove me off, which is what they are apparently designed to do. Prior to giving up a few years ago, I considered perusing the dispute resolution process, except against DreamGuy (who has also engaged in similar activity). I would say that the two of them seem to work together to hold the article hostage to their POV. I've seen numerous new editors arrive and make descent contributions only to be blindly reverted. Then, they appear to wonder off figuring they can't get anywhere with the article (here's just one example). The environment for any would-be editor to this article is extremely hostile and, I believe, designed to deter editors from touching "their" article on "Why alleged 'DID' is just a lie invented for therapists to make lots of money", going so far as to saying that alleged trauma survivors have not endured any trauma at all, since their condition is one strictly caused by seeing a therapist. I would go so far as to call this a personal attack against anyone claiming to have DID and a sort of chilling effect (i.e., "you're lying/delusional/mentally ill, so shut up"). Daniel Santos (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your diff does not show anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU wanted editor and content expert TomCloyd banned from the DID article and he got his way. As a result, this man, Tom Cloyd, who worked happily as a Regional Ambassador left WP in it's entirety leaving this comment about his experience with WLU: "I have learned first hand why there are so very few content experts involved with Misplaced Pages. Initially, I thought it odd, but no longer. From the moment I showed up at the DID article, making clear who I was (something I have always done - at my User Page and professional website), and what my interest was (I offered an critique of the article, and some suggestions as to where I thought it needed to go), I have been meet with attempts to control me, and outright hostile reactions. At no point was I welcomed. I was treated as if I know little about Misplaced Pages, not to mention the subject of the article itself. On its face, both of these reactions should seem illogical." ~ty (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, your user talk page User_talk:Tylas#WLU_gets_a_Content_Expert_Banned and User_talk:Tylas#What_is_a_Wikipedia_Bully.3F has a number of inappropriate comments about WLU, I suggest you remove them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is no evidence of anything inappropriate by WLU. Firstly, don't interpret good faith actions to this board as "false accusations". Particularly when an apology was given. If the motives of an editor is relevant as mentioned here , then discussing them is important, there is nothing in this that can be construed as an Ad hominem attack. Your interpretation of the diffs is completely at odds with their content, what I see in is someone removing a number of off-topic bad faith assumptions. Similarly this comment is perfectly legitimate: . It was not completely improper for WLU to be removing bold changes from the article per WP:BRD, it was improper for the editor who was trying to edit war their version of the article in, if your changes get rejected take it to the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. First, an editor acting in good faith - or even appropriate skepticism - would have simply read the comment and then acted. WLU made accusations to this board based on a comment he hadn't read. His accusation here was in bad faith, an act of prejudice. WLU treats sources as flippantly, often fighting for bad positions based on resources he hasn't even read. Tylas gives a recent example. I could give older ones. I'll remind IRWolfie that content discussion should be driven by sources, not attacks against the editors. If motivation is to be considered, we need to consider WLU's chronic sense of ownership, even to the point of attempting to drive away many other editors. ...and that IRWolfie has a long pattern of taking WLU's side in these matters.

Ad hominem attacks, such as the ongoing(...) cracks about my sexuality, have no place on Misplaced Pages. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU works to drive off editors that do not agree with him. He has stalked me off WP, looking for anything he could find to get me off the DID page. He swore at me and attacked me as my introduction to the DID page. So much for a warm welcome to new editors. Given his list of subjects of interest that he displays on his page, his looking for me off WP scares me since I do have 5 children. I was ran off a couple of times now by WLU, but keep coming back in hopes that the rest of WP is not what editor WLU makes it for many of us - a place where even on a medical article, he and his extreme POV dominate. ~ty (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey is a self-disclosed activist for people like himself, who have paraphilic infantilism. By "self-disclosed", I mean that he has advertised his personal website in support of PI people on his Misplaced Pages userpage since 2006. It can hardly be a "personal attack" to say about himself exactly what he says about himself, unless you believe that having an apparently harmless paraphilia is somehow dirty or shameful.

So the "personal attack" must be my recognition of reality, which is that people who strongly and publicly advocate for a position in their real lives—no matter what the subject or position is—tend not to be the single most unbiased editors in the community. People who self-identify with a particular psychological condition or quirk, no matter whether that is condition that society calls "normal" or "abnormal", tend to believe that they know a lot about the condition and that their beliefs are the Truth about their condition. This is just basic human reality: if they thought they were wrong, then they'd change their minds!

This has practical consequences for Misplaced Pages: People with _____ (fill in the blank: paraphilias, psychiatric challenges, special educational needs, whatever) psychological situation (1) tend to be interested in editing the articles about those conditions and (2) tend to want to make the articles sympathetic to and reflective of their own beliefs about their conditions.

So Tylas identifies with DID: Tylas is interested in the article on DID (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the DID article to reflect Tylas's own beliefs about DID. Bittergrey identifies with paraphilic infantilism: Bittergrey is interested in the article on PI (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the PI article to reflect Bittergrey's own beliefs about PI. We could name other examples: people with bipolar disorder want that article to reflect their views; parents of children with mental retardation want that article to reflect their views; people with multiple chemical sensitivity want that article to endorse their views; people with learning difficulties want special education to reflect their views; transpeople want that article to reflect their views; gay men want that article to reflect their views; and so on.

And this is fine, within limits. The problem is that some single-minded editors don't understand the limits. Activists and other people with strong commitments to their point of view often don't realize that their view isn't actually the mainstream view. So Bittergrey isn't trying to have a biased articles about paraphilias, but his best efforts to make them accurately and adequately (in his mind) reflect his personal beliefs about the subject have the actual, if inadvertent, effect of promoting a minority viewpoint (in this case, promoting the viewpoint of the sexual minority itself over the viewpoint of the academics). Tylas is trying to write a balanced article about DID, but it's very difficult, if not humanly impossible, for a person who has dedicated years of his or her life to a particular psychotherapeutic approach to really take on board the critics of that very approach. What looks "balanced" to a dedicated adherent of any particular point of view will look "biased" to anyone else.

This isn't unique to psychological subjects: Having a close personal relationship with the subject can be a conflict of interest no matter what the subject. Religious people aren't always able to see their bias in favor of their religion; anti-religious people aren't always able to see their anti-religious bias. Neither the pro-abortion-rights nor the anti-abortion activists are the people we should look to for balanced, unbiased work on the abortion articles. The woman who believes her cancer was cured by drinking juice isn't the best person to work on Breast cancer treatment. Even when these people search for sources, they tend to choose, believe, and favor sources that validate their own experiences. It's called confirmation bias, and it's hard-wired into the human brain.

This is just reality: if you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to have a clear, undistorted view of the subject. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to recognize or accept sources that completely disagree with you. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to notice when sources subtly disagree with you. This happens even if you are trying your level best to avoid it. That's why WP:MEDCOI echoes the main COI guideline by encouraging people with any medical condition to be wary of re-writing articles so that the articles match your own personal experience.

All of which adds up to this: Bittergrey is fond of filing noticeboard complaints, but COI and inadvertent POV pushing are the real issues here, and it is never a personal attack to accurately point out a COI problem or an instance of POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WAID - why do you do this? You twist things around when you run to WLU's rescue. #1 - I do not want the article twisted to my own beliefs. I am neutral on the subject and have said many times that I do understand iatrogenic methods and have no doubt that a temporary dissociated state can be created through poor therapeutic practice used in the past. #2 - There is some slight controversy as to how adult can get DID. Rather than overwhelming the board here with vasts amount of research on this topic: see this page. It is a good summary of what is the general consensus in not only the psychology, but the medial world of DID. #3 - You talk to WLU so I am sure you know exactly where those stats come from. In case you do not, since this is the 2nd time you have repeated this foolishness and I have corrected you in the past but again - any edit (I think it is absolute and he might have missed one or two but I doubt it) I have ever made on the DID page WLU has reverted almost immediately. A couple of weeks ago, I began to edit, he reverted. I reverted back and continued to work on it. Two other editors came in and did a bit of work. WLU left me alone while I did edits pretty much one at a time on the DID - so that others, and hoping others, including WLU would come and help. I know my WP procedures are not up to par with WLU, but I still had hope he would help and others would come as well. This all ceased when WLU reverted everything to a version he had in his sandbox. I am not saying the version I was working on was more WP correct, but it was certainly more accurate. And Encyclopedia should report correct information about the subject at hand. I was working on the other issues and had posted a notice on an editors board for unbiased editors to come and help. I wanted help with this project. WP is not a one man show. So - all those edits you are boasting of were made during that period where WLU left me alone, then he reverted every single one of them in one sweep to his own version from his sandbox. Please quit spreading this same inaccuracy around. ~ty (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WAID - Again not true. If you know about DID then you know I am ANP - hypoaroused and unemotional. I have a BS in Biology and a MS in ex. Physiology. I spend my school years learning to not be biased. I have not dedicated years of my life to anything. I only recently found out that I have DID and I am totally open to learning all I can about it. I want to learn all about it - everything, but this extreme POV of iatrogenisis, has it's place in history but for now it just a minor issue that good researchers are trying to get out of they way so they can do real work. Even so as I have stated and as I had, there was mention of it in the lead - there was a long paragraph about the entire controversy and there was a great deal of it in the history. It is important to the history of DID research, but times change. Those with a strong POV on DID tend to be of a percentage of the population with a like mindset.~ty (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change my comments. I have undone your changes to my comments, fixed the formatting, and moved your comments to the end.

WAID - I did not "change you comments" I answered in the part of the paragraph that was about me. Please talk about me and Bittergrey in separate paragraphs. It makes it difficult to reply to you.~ty (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not defending WLU; Bittergrey is accusing me of being uncivil for noticing the contents of his userpage and believing them to be a good example of POV pushing due to a personal or ideological conflict of interest.

And your reply basically proves my point: you say "I am neutral on the subject", which actually means "Like all humans, I am often unable to recognize my own biases on subjects that are very important to me". You don't have to be angry or fearful or sad to be biased. I believe that you are making a sincere effort to be unbiased, quite possibly more of an effort than any other person who has worked on that page. But while you effort is admirable, that does not mean that you have been wholly successful. Like any other person with a conflict of interest, you need to take advice from the editors without a conflict of interest. On the DID article, that means writing the article so that editors who don't have DID, aren't treating people with DID, don't have family members with DID, don't have websites promoting a viewpoint about DID, etc. think it's an appropriate description, not so that people who have been affected personally or professionally by DID think it's right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And ultimately it's not the COI that is the problem; it's the behaviour of the person with the COI that is unacceptable. Nobody will block Bittergrey for being a paraphilic infantilist, or Tylas for having a diagnosis of DID. Blocks or bans will be issued if either one breaks the 3RR, POV-pushes beyond the tolerance of the community or persists in incivility or personal attacks. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution