Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/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)

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 because 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 embarrassing 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 suppress 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 because 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 embarrassed 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)

I would like to make a point: In the process of altering evidence pertinent to my current case, as much as 90% of it was 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 a form of persistent, 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 as such, from the Conflict page history, as it should have been done by Viajero in the first place. With such evident malevolent misinformation and deletion of evidence, perhaps one could hardly overstate that clearly, a trusted third party repository, complete with time stamps MUST assist all legal solutions. Such legal solutions concerning very weird Wiki "editing" habits include the outstanding case: It appears that all those who persistently indulged in libel against me (or only helped the perpetrators of libel) now alter evidence on an emergency basis and perhaps according to a spurious hope that truth will be not known. Please do not remove, misinsert or bit-losing transfer this paragraph. TIA ! Happy editing : O) - irismeister 00:17, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

WHAT'S NEW

Irismeister has finished gathering evidence for a monstrously big case against the fascist penchant of Wikipedia against alternative medicine. I hereby publicly thank all those candid or only stupid admin/sysop/police/whatever caring to answer my deliberately provocative and elaborate evidence-gathering process. I'we nailed you, fascists :O)

You bet you'll think twice about your career as Wikipedic "editors" after the facts are made public - Look for legal papers with your usual interest, for they are coming to all of you (you know who you are :O) any time now and soon enough for a public show about the nakedness of Wiki Staff, Emperesses and co-workers! I'm happy I could find such incredible numbers of gullible anglo-american would-be fascists! My friends now have all the data from the trusted third parties, to organize a Nuremberg-like HUGE trial based on the very evidence these wiki "editors" so eagerly supplanted. There is ugliness, censorship and deliberate disinformation in Wikipedia. Things are bad enough to warrant that serious legal consideration which I felt was needed the very moment I experienced censorship. The days of censorship and fake "ban you for personal attack" policies used as a figleaf for brutish force are over. Hang on to your mice, fellas - you'll need them sooo badly :O) Nobody hides truth indefinitely, using the pathethically, terminally diseased pharisean culture - You asked for it! You will be served with the very seed you planted, only for justice! And for those of you who wrote for the record that I "threatened" you with trials - you may breathe again! It's started! Only it's now you who will have to explain just that, for a start: Since when is rendering JUSTICE a THREAT ? May I suggest JUSTICE for dummies - an excellent reference you'll find amusing and useful in your future wiki editing careers :O) irismeister 12:19, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)