Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor[edit]

I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while, but there is something that needs doing. This is about the following user:

Doors22 opened a thread at NPOVN on Formerly98's edits at Finasteride. This is a boomerang on that thread. I am posting it here, because of what i am proposing.

  • Claim: Doors22 is a long-time POV pusher, here to pursue one issue - increasing awareness of "post-finasteride syndrome", per his own words in Feb 2011 in his first month of editing when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"
  • A context note: "Post-finasteride syndrome" is what Doors22 is concerned with. It is a putative "syndrome" where some men suffer long-term sexual dysfunction because of using finasteride, a drug used to treat enlarged prostate and hair loss. There is boatloads of litigation on this. The condition is not recognized by the medical literature, all though the literature does note that there is a correlation between some men having sexual dysfunction after using finasteride (causation is difficult to show in this). Last month, a single agency within the NIH (the Office of Rare Diseases Research) put a page up on "Adverse events of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors" that mentions PFS. That is the only recognition there is. Doors22 has a FRINGE stance.
  • Action sought - Topic ban from anything related to finasteride or side effects of drugs for long-term Civil POV-pushing and increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
  • Evidence

Doors22 started editing WP in January 2011. After getting his feet on the ground on a few other articles, he got to the finasteride article, and started editing in a strongly POV manner, emphasizing sexual side effects of the drug. For four years now, he has been hammering away at that.

He made a foundational statement on his talk page, a month after he started. He wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

This turned out to be a prescient declaration of WP:NOTHERE.

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

  • 360 edits overall
  • Talk
    • 104 edits to Talk:Finasteride (which you can see here) arguing, often with personal attacks, to get his changes into the article.
    • 28 edits on other users' talk page, either about finasteride or politicking around it

Add all that up, and 293 edits (81%) are pursuant to his mission - one issue about one drug, or trying to get rid of people getting in the way of him achieving that mission.

  • his block log - one block back in 2011 for calling another editor a Nazi (and not backing down from that) after calling him a dictator (for which he did apologize) (see below)
  • In the course of pursuing the "raise awareness of sexual side effects" mission, Doors has received the following warnings and blocks:
    • In Feb 2011 called Jfdwolff a "dictator" here (for which Doors [apologized)
    • In Sept 2011 was back at it, receiving a warning for making personal attacks again, against the same editor (this time calling him a "Nazi" and then was blocked for the same by Doc James. attacks were here and here.
    • Sept 2012 warned here while edit warring over content about the Post-Finasteride-Syndrome Foundation (the mission of which is the same as Doors22's self stated mission - to raise awareness of the sexual side effects of finasteride.
    • October 2012 was part of the sock/meat puppet investigation mentioned above, over the AfD
    • Feb 2014 warned for deleting content from finasteride without edit notes
    • Jan 2015 I warned him for edit warring
  • Sample edits to Finasteride
  • Doors22 edits in spurts. First one was Feb-March 2011
    • 1st edit was a new section called "Safety controversy":

Over one thousand users of Finasteride report that they developed "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" that persisted despite continuation of finasteride treatment. Symptoms of Post-Finasteride Syndrome include, but are not limited to erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, genital shrinkage, emotional lability, and lack of energy. In December 2010, several American doctors published an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine that found evidence in favor of a causal relationship between finasteride use and prolonged sexual dysfunction. [1] The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC [2] and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. [3][4][5][6] In January 2011, a Canadian law firm filed a class action against Merck for failing to include warnings of permanent sexual side effects on finasteride's product label. [7]

References

      • note, it was Jfdwolff's revert of that content and subsequent refusal to agree to allow it, that led to Doors22's personal attacks of "dictator" and "Nazi" against him. That first discussion on talk started with Doors22 stating: "Without the need for further support, I think it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this be reported on Wikipedia, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for information and know very little about human biology and medicine which can allow them to make dangerously uninformed decisions about their health."
  • next spurt was august - oct 2011. (note, effort to get Post-Finasteride Syndrome article created was during this time) sample edits"
    • dif about label of drug in the US, about sexual side effects.
    • dif adding content about erectile dysfunction
    • dif with edit note: "Very important for people suffering from Post Finasteride Syndrome and those interested in the ongoing controversy - Do not remove again before reaching a consensus on the talk page as per Wiki standards and regulations)"
  • next spurt was Jan 2012. sample edit:
    • dif with edit note: "Merck did not decide to stop spending money on the website as every single other product page is originally up. They are adjusting their market strategy to respond to emerging controversies. Please do not delete without discussion on talk page."
  • next spurt was April-May 2012. sample edit: (peaceful)
    • dif another label update
  • next spurt was Sept 2012. sample edits (there was battling here
    • dif added new section on the PFS Foundation
    • dif used that new section as a COATRACK for claims that the syndrome exists
reverted by Jfdwolff with edit note "still no consensus for mentioning this group"
    • edit warred to keep it in, with note: "Added the sufficient third party source... do not remove again, discuss on talk page if desired"
reverted by Biosthmors with edit note; "revert. political advocates do not get to decide what adverse affects are per WP:MEDRS -- they are not reliable medical sources"
    • edit warred it back under new section header "Society and culture"
reverted by Edgar181 with edit note "m per talk page comments"
  • next spurt was Feb 2013. one edit:
    • dif about FDA panel meeting, over-emphasized sexual side effects (content no longer in article, don't know when that was taken out)
  • in March 2015 a draft article was created Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation and the discussion about that got very personalized, with Doors mistaking comments I made about the foundation for an attack on him (he may well be connected with for all i know - and i cannot know). (see the link)
  • more troubling, Doors broadened his behavior into battleground, making all 29 of his contribs at ANI on postings about me and about Formerly 98 - just taking pot shots to take us down. Stuff like this and this.

This is just not letting up. So again, from some of his first comments here when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" He has been doing one thing here, and is resorting to increasingly ugly measures to achieve his goals.

!votes re ban proposal[edit]

(note: "break 1" was originally "survey" and "break 2" was originally "discussion". was changed by SlimVirgin in this dif with edit note "not an RfC". Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)) note no longer relevant, changed again by Guy in this dif Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

  • Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and request one-way interaction ban with myself per my comments in the section below Doors exhibits the classic behaviors of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. As I outline below, every minor edit that does not support his position turns into an extremely lengthy WP:IDHT argujment, with personal attacks on the editors on the other side of the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talkcontribs) 11:54, 19 April 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Support The edit-warring, misinterpretation of sources, exhaustive talk page posts, and personal attacks that Doors has engaged with respect to this topic suggests that he unable to edit this topic productively and therefore a topic ban is justified. I understand how devastating side effects of drugs can be and I understand wanting to include that information in an article, but crossing the line into disruption is not ok. Ca2james (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose JYTDog admitted below that this is at least partly a personal content dispute for him. Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have been accused by a handful of other editors of being "COI Ducks" - editors that have an editing style of being paid editors or having some other conflict of interest. While this is almost impossible to prove unless the editor in question volunteers this information, it is problematic nonetheless. Moreover, they seem to have formed a WP:TAGTEAM and will participate in each others skirmishes as they battle with other editors, usually to remove negative information about large corporations or side effects from drugs. Both of these editors have even attracted criticism from non-wikipedia sources which you will find if you google both Formerly98 and JYTDog. I also believe this is also a retaliation from when I contributed my opinion on noticeboard incident's when both of these editors were separately reprimanded. JYTDog has an established pattern of retaliating against editors with whom he disagrees by initiating incidents against them on this noticeboard. In an edit below, he even admitted he frequently submits complains on this board and he was reprimanded for doing so just a couple weeks ago.
Most importantly, this most recent complaint comes as a retaliation for a RFC (request for comment) I posted on the NPOV board. I recently put in a reference to a meta study published in a highly respected journal that called into question the quality of the existing clinical trials for finasteride. The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health but also received a small unrestricted gift from a non-profit group that is trying to organize research about permanent side effects caused by Propecia, a cosmetic drug. In my opinion, Formerly98 tried to poison the well by calling out that it was funded by an activist group. His statements were accurate to an extent, but they were misleading since he completely disregarded that the NIH, a globally respected research institution, was the main sponsor for the study. He often argues out of both sides of his mouth depending on his objective du jour. He decided the foundation was not notable enough to receive a wikipedia article but it is notable enough to mention when he feels it can discredit research that is unfavorable to the drug. Sometimes he feels the FDA is a authoritative source and other times he downplays its significance. What is very important to note is that an admin independently reviewed Formerly98's questionable edit yesterday and removed the reference to the funding source as he evidently felt it was not worthy of inclusion. When you look at things from the perspective of a tagteam of obstructive editors with a questionable history of downplaying side effect edits, things will look unfavorable but I would ask you review both of their edit histories to understand that they are the true source of this conflict. I made some mistakes in my newbie days (several years ago) which they have been eager to highlight but as many editors do, I have adapted as I gained an understanding of how things work around here. Doors22 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the inventors and proponents of "post finasteride syndrome" have been disrupting WP for years. The creation of a draft about the foundation (just to claim in the lede that this "syndrome" is legitimate) is the latest dirty trick in a tiresome campaign. The commentary now at Finasteride#Adverse effects is poorly written and disingenuously sourced but neither surprises me. The fewer hysterical, POV pushers in this area, the better. Stlwart111 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a few things that don't make sense with this post. People who recognize post finasteride syndrome aren't the "inventors" of the syndrome, it is something that is caused by an adverse reaction to the drug. In the past you have falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet which was proven to be baseless upon investigation by an administration. I also was not the one to create the draft about the foundation although I think it is worthy of existence. You also mention that the adverse events section is poorly written and disingenously sourced but it was last updated by DocJames and yet includes references from the National Institutes of Health, JAMA Dermatology, and the FDA. Lastly, despite what it says on your own user page, you apparently haven't assumed good faith about multiple editors by accusing them of carry out a "dirty trick" by creating a page for the post-finasteride syndrome foundation. The existence of permanent/crippling side effects is one of the most (if not the most) widely discussed issue about the drug. This will become quickly apparent after a quick google search or news run. I don't really understand why you are accusing editors of using some kind of a trick to create an article for a non profit that is already approved by the US government. Your whole edit makes very little sense. Doors22 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Wikipedia with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). Stlwart111 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This statement is concerning because if you took the time to thoroughly review this incident you would have seen I already offered apologies for mistakes I have made. This incident is for the most part the result of a personal content dispute between myself and Formerly98 but the incident was opened by JYTDog on Formerly's behalf. Let me ask you this - How can you possibly collaborate with an editor who makes one argument to meet his objectives one day and then turns around and argues a more extreme version of the opposite case the next day in a separate context? It is almost impossible when you are dealing with another editor who is attempting to game the system and apparently has a lot more free time and will than are available to me at the current time. Diff SourceDoors22 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
no, i did not open this on Formerly's behalf. that is your BATTLEGROUND mentality. i opened this because in my view your behavior is disruptive to the point where we need to topic ban you; I am seeking the community's input on that.
You were warned to stop POV pushing many, many times - the following are just some of them:
  • Jan 12 2015 by me here
  • Jan 13 2015 by me here
  • Oct 2014 POV pushing remarked by Jfdwolff here and expanded here where he wrote "No, my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied. "
  • 29 March 2011 3 editors oppose your efforts to load animal studies into the article and note your POV-pushing: Talk:Finasteride/Archive_2#Even_more_animal_studies
  • 18 March 2011 Tryptofish acting as a mediator noted your aggressiveness
  • Feb 8 2011 warned by Jdwollf here and again here
  • Feb 7 2011 warned by Jfwolff here
and you just not hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed topic ban of Doors22. It is an open and shut case. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support.(uninvolved) The SPA behavior has been pretty well established above, and the personal attacks show this user's engagement in the topic has become problematic. I'd look for at least 6 months on a topic ban (maybe more), but definitely a short WP:ROPE after that. I've only recently seen some of this editor's behavior pop up on my watchlist articles, and that already seemed troubling before I saw the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doors appears to have a specific POV, while Jytdog and Formerly 98 appear to hold opposing POV. Eliminating one POV from the discussion seems counterproductive in terms of ending up with NPOV articles. With respect to the content dispute and accusations of FRINGE, a cursory 30 second search reveals multiple MEDRS sources discussing Finasteride with respect to erectile dysfunction:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18421068/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24955220
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176115
It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Wikipedia in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat did you review the long history of behavior issues, supported by diffs, provided above? For that matter did you even review the 3 sources you provided to see if they were relevant to the content, because they don't appear to be. In fact the first one you provided, PMID 18421068, supports the opposite conclusion from what Doors is pushing, so how is it relevant? And neither of the other two really support all that well the existence of a "post-finasteride syndrome," which is the idea that sexual dysfunction continues after discontinuation of use--that is what Doors has been pushing. And what do you think of this edit by Doors, which removes a 2014 MEDLINE-indexed meta-analysis and review? And it's problematic to try to square off Doors' behavior issues as "POV vs. POV" when what really matters is, who is supporting development of article content along WP policy and guidelines, with respectful and collegial behavior? Because of all this I can't see how this !vote carries any weight. Zad68 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad, I did review the history. There's a lot to wade through but there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND on both sides. With respect to the 3 secondary sources I listed, I'm aware that the oldest one supports the opposite position. Not cherry picking among secondary sources I found on this topic, I linked them all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
So you didn't really focus on the behavior issues, which is what an ANI thread should focus on, and you're aware your sources aren't really relevant to the editing by Doors. OK then. Zad68 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, BoboMeowCat, but I have to question whether you actually read the discussion above or the sources attached to that particular claim. It is the same problematic claim I highlighted immediately above your comment. The suggestion that an acknowledgement on their website that some anti-Finasteride activists use the term "post Finasteride syndrome" is not the same thing as "x group gave recognition to the syndrome" which is what our article now claims. That "men would like to be aware of" the anecdotal-evidence-based claims of fringe-dwelling activists is of no consequence to us. That's not what we do around here. Again, this is part of an ongoing, 4-year pattern of extreme disruption and POV-pushing from people who "just want to get the truth out there". Stlwart111 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

"It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."
  • The material in the first sentence is incorrect. As noted on the Talk page (note that I have not yet reverted, and Doors has not yet responded to my day old note) the page that Doors is referencing here contains an link to a disclaimer stating that the information on the page is collected by library specialists from diverse sources, including advocacy group sites, and the NIH neither vouches for its accuracy nor does anything on the page reflect official NIH policy. Any materials that the ORDR provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of ORDR, NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency. " In the course of adding this information, Doors removed two meta analyses, one of which found evidence for sexual dysfunction and one which did not. So high quality secondary refs were removed, and replaced with statements that are not supported by the source.
  • The information in the second sentence has been there since 2008 (Before Doors22 edited here). To the best of my memory no one has tried to remove it, even though MEDRS explicitly states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall below minimum standards of evidence".
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only did you try to remove this, but you were for the most part successful! I see you have a pretty selective memory. See the diff here. Am I the only one who is picking up on these misleading arguments? Doors22 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That is completely false. You conveniently removed the text that mentioned the global regulatory bodies (Sweden, UK, Italy, FDA). You specifically said "to the best of your memory nobody has tried to remove it" (referring to text about the Swedish Medical Products Agency). One falsehood begets another... Doors22 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Doors, this is why it is inappropriate for you to edit this article. The material about persistent sexual side effects was moved to a new paragraph and reduced from three sentences (one that said that it had been observed, a second that stated the Swedes had added it to the Swedish label, and a third that stated that it had been added to the U.S. label) to one. It was NOT removed and the reduction from three sentences to one was done by a consensus agreement among three editors and opposed only by you. Yet instead of accepting that your position did not win consensus, here you are 6 months later shouting in all bold, all caps letters (all caps removed by Doors after this response was posted) about "ridiculous tactic" and engaging in yet more personal attacks. This is classic WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is precisely why you should not be editing this article. You are too close to the topic to be objective. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You are now shifting your argument which is typical but it shouldn't distract too many. You winnowed down a reasonable section to text to 'there are case reports of persistent side effects'. All the while you deleted reference to the globally respected medical authorities that serve as valuable MEDRS. The problem is that you write like you are a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company - constantly trying to minimize valid information or deflect from issues that are disadvantageous to you. These are not personal attacks but observations about the validity and consistency of your arguments and your editing style. The 'ridiculous tactic' I am calling out is that you showed a clip of text that has been there for years and 'to the best of your memory nobody attempted to remove it', yet you were the one to cut it down by 75%. Call a spade a spade and don't try to create the impression you haven't reduced the text when you have. Doors22 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem
  • Your ongoing anger about this edit six months after it was performed
  • Your failure to recognize and accept the fact that your version failed to attract consensus support
  • Your personalization of the content dispute, personal attacks, and defense of the same even when they are pointed out to you as a violation of policy
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
My current disagreement has nothing to do with the specific edit at all. My disagreement comes from the fact you tried to use this as an example just yesterday of an edit that you say nobody has tried to remove. With two seconds of research, it is determined you made an effort to remove the citation and now you are claiming you built a consensus around it. You could just admit that you chose an incorrect example as a mistake, but your unwillingness to do so illustrates you have no interest in having a constructive conversation. Would anybody else like to comment on this? Doors22 (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC+1)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Doors, one more time. No one tried to removed the information that there are case reports of sexual dysfunction that continue after stopping the drug. What happened is that by a 3:1 consensus, a decision was made to not to add a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that added this to the drug label. (We don't have a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that approved the drug, after all.)

Yes, I misread your diff and said that it was a move to another paragraph and did not note that there was also a reduction in weight (one that was supported by a 3 : 1 consensus). You could have corrected that, though I don't really see how it matters since it was a consensus decision. What you decided to do instead was to immediately start accusing me of lying. This is the wrong approach and against policy. You don't see me here accusing you of lying and deliberate falsification when you add information stating that the NIH has "officially recognized" post finasteride syndrome, which given the disclaimer on the source page, strikes me as obviously incorrect. I simply assume that it was a mistake or difference in interpretation. You need to realize that you are a beneficiary of WP:GF here and that you need to practice it as well. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I was asked to comment here, but I know nothing about Doors22 or the issue. Formerly 98, can you help me to understand the exchange above? You wrote that the information about the Swedish Medical Agency (you provided this link) has been in the article since 2008, and that no one has tried to remove it. But you did remove it here in September 2014. It is no longer in the article.
There is a source for it on PubMed, an article from 2011 in the Journal for Sexual Medicine (I haven't checked to see whether it's correct): "The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the United Kingdom and the Swedish Medical Products Agency have both updated their patient information leaflets to include a statement that 'persistence of erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of treatment with Propecia has been reported in post-marketing use.'" Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sarah
No that is incorrect. I did NOT make the statement that "the information about the Swedish Medical Agency has been in the article since 2008. What I said was that "The information in the second sentence [of my quote of BobMeowCat]] has been there since 2008" The key information in that sentence is "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug". If you look at the diff I offered, the information is sourced differently but it is present in 2008. And if you look at the diff provided by Doors, the information that "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug" is still there after the edit that I made last year supported by a 3:1 consensus.
The key issue here as I see it is not in any case whether I made an inaccurate statement (I don't believe I did). The key issue is Doors immediately began accusing me of "falsehood" and being deliberately misleading. These are gross violations of WP:GF. He could have raised the discrepancy between what I said and his perceptions in a non-accusatory way, but as has been his pattern, he immediately went on the attack. Miscommunications, misunderstandings, and even inadvertent misstatements are commonplace in discussions about issues. What drives them off the track and into the ditch is the failure to apply reasonable assumption of WP:GF.
Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the exchange. (People are allowed to ask for uninvolved input, by the way; calling it canvassing isn't really fair.)
Doors22, Jytdog has asked for a topic ban from anything related to Finasteride. Would you be willing instead to confine yourself to the talk page? A topic ban would deprive Wikipedia of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed, but your adding material directly to articles is not a good idea because you have a conflict of interest if you're involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Also, focusing on one issue means you don't develop a feel for Wikipedia's policies. Reading them isn't enough; you have to see them in action and use them yourself, but if you're confined to one issue, and only sporadically, that learning curve doesn't happen, and everyone ends up frustrated.
It would also be important, if you remain active on talk, not to overwhelm editors with long or repeated requests. If you'd like something to be added to the article, use the "edit request" template, write up your edit along with sources, and post it. If the editors there say no, a good way forward is to start an RfC and abide by the results.
The material about sexual dysfunction after cessation of the drug is now in the article, as is Post-Finasteride Syndrome, and there's a mention of the Foundation too (though the heading "Society and culture" is odd). Is there anything important missing, in your view? Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, I appreciate your good intent here but looking at the comments above, I don't think this proposal will address the issues that I am having with this editor. Multiple editors, at least one who is uninvolved, have asked Doors to discontinue his personal attacks, and Doors' response has consistently been to deny that there is any problem with his behavior. I don't think he understands how to carry on a reasoned debate without getting personal, or else he is so emotional about this particular issue that he is unable to restrain himself or see his behavior objectively. I am concerned that this proposal will simply lead to the Talk page continuing to be filled with invective, and that other inappropriate expressions of anger will continue. I know you and I have very different outlooks on the world and our opinions are frequently very very different. But I hope you will agree that I deserve to be allowed to edit here without being constantly being called a liar and having my good will questioned over every difference of opinion on this issue. Others may have different issues, but those are my concerns anyway. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Formerly 98:, there are problems on both sides. We saw it in the exchange above. You posted something imprecise (that no one had tried to remove the second sentence, without specifying what you meant), Doors and I both (mis)understood it to mean the same thing, it seemed obviously false, Doors responded with frustration because he feels this happens a lot, and you then suggested that his frustration shows why he ought not to edit in this area. You then moved his post to the lower section, and suggested that I ought not to comment because Doors asked me to.
The usual thing with COI editors is to ask them to stick to talk. If they become overwhelming on talk, a topic-ban request is the next step. It makes sense to give this a try, because otherwise you lose Doors' input entirely, and he's seems well-informed about this, even if not always in a form that WP can use. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Slim, I think you are suggesting a false moral equivalence here. I find a lot of Door's comments "imprecise". But I don't call him a liar over and over and over again. If he is "frustrated", a break might be the best thing. Because judging by his behavior, he has been "frustrated" and "feeling this happens a lot" with multiple editors since 2011.
With respect to your comments on canvassing, do you really think Doors picked your name at random out of a hat as "an uninvolved editor", given your position as an admin, the many disagreements that you have had with Jytdog, and your posting skeptical remarks about my edits to the GlaxoSmithKline article the day before he sought you assistance as an "uninvolved editor"? This is where an editor with less respect for the rules and less confidence in the good intent of his peers might start getting "frustrated". But I"m not going to go there and Doors should not have either. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Formerly 98, you indicated above that the relevant info has been there since 2008 and clarified you were referring to this sentence:
There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports..
This isn't true...quick review of history shows this info hasn't been in the article since 2008. Here's the relevant text from December 2008:
Recognized side effects, experienced by around >1% of users, include erectile dysfunction, and less often gynecomastia (breast gland enlargement). [1] As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. [8].
Prior to Doors first edit in 2011, mention that this could be a long term/permanent side effect wasn't made clear. Here's the relevant text immediately before Door's first edit in 2011:
Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. [9]. Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.
I would think most men would consider temporary erectile dysfunction very different than longterm/permanent sexual dysfunction. It seems Doors is largely responsible for inclusion of this rare but serious reported side effect being mentioned in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin several issues:
  • I am sorry but in my view you are WP:INVOLVED and I view Doors22's posting on your page as canvassing. You raised questions here and here on your Talk page about the integrity/bias of both Formerly and me, as have other editors talking there; those editors have discussed concerns about pro-industry POV in the same breath that they have espoused FRINGE medical ideas like conspiracy theories about AIDS and autism/vaccines. Doors22, who also espouses FRINGE convictions about medicine (in his case, PFS) has made his main "defense" - really a distraction from issues raised here about his behavior - the putative bias/corruption/bad faith of Formerly and me. That you stepped up here to support someone advocating a FRINGE medical position who is making personal attacks of COI against people holding down the mainstream medical view, is just unfortunate.
  • I raised no issue about COI about Doors22 nor has anyone else here, that I am aware of. I am raising issues about his long term POV pushing at the article, and increasing BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and at other noticeboards/talk pages.
  • Thanks for the suggestion that Doors22 stop editing the article directly. That is not a terrible solution, but doesn't address Doors22's BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and outside it. I think it might be reasonable for the community to go with your recommendation if Doors22 agreed to refrain from directly editing, and acknowledged his battleground behavior and agreed to stop. On the other hand the community may also take the view that Doors22 has already demonstrated that he is NOTHERE and has already not changed course after many, many warnings, and that a topic ban is in order. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Door presumably asked me to comment because I had concerns about Formerly 98's insistence that research funding be included in relation to the Post-Finesteride Syndrome Foundation (he argued that "funding impacts study outcomes" here, 17:44, 17 April), but when it came to GlaxoSmithKline's RECORD trial studying Avandia and cardiovascular outcomes argued the opposite (e.g. here, namely that it would be second guessing, because the FDA had decided the funding didn't matter – which isn't correct; they asked for an independent review of the trial). The result is that we're probably the only source discussing the RECORD trial that has deliberately omitted that it was a GSK trial (F98's edit here).

There seems to be a lot of removal of well-sourced information when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, and this is perhaps what caused Door22's frustration. Returning to the issue, the question now is whether he will agree to stick to talk, as Jytdog seems to be willing to consider this. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Slim, the bottom line is you should not be here. You have a recent history of conflict with both Jytdog and myself, and this lack of objectivity is exactly what Doors was hoping for when he canvassed you. Do the right thing. Strike your remarks and withdraw. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Formerly, people have the right to do whatever they want when they are canvassed. That is a distraction.
Slim, Doors is attempting to distract the community from his four year record with the pharma shill gambit over recent interactions. It is a four year record. With regard to outcome, I prefer a topic ban and that is the SNOW consensus here so far.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Being involved doesn't mean people can't comment, so who is or isn't involved is a red herring, just as the canvassing guideline doesn't mean people can't ask for help, and MEDRS doesn't say anything that would prevent Wikipeda from telling its readers that the RECORD trial was GSKs. I see a lot of policy and guideline misuse, and whereas experienced editors can ignore it, the less experienced get frustrated, lash out at the unfairness, then get blocked or banned for having lashed out. Having said that, I don't support COI or SPA editing, and I don't think Door should be editing that article. Let's wait to hear whether he accepts staying on the talk page and making an extra effort to minimize drama there (which I hope others will do too). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
SV of course you are free to comment here; I only commented on your involvement as you seem to have described yourself as "uninvolved". And bringing up things about GSK where Doors22 has never edited, shows that. Doors is responsible for his behavior. Editors other than Formerly and me have called his attention to his attempts to use of WP as a soapbox over the last four years; his behavior has not changed and he has become only more fierce. Please see the 7 support !votes other than mine and Formerly's, two of whom have had to deal with Doors at the article over the last four years prior to Formerly getting involved (~ 1 year ago at Feb 2014) or me (~ 6 months ago Oct 2014).Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, thank you for your commentary. I am open to some kind of solution like you proposed. I am not affiliated with the post finasteride syndrome as you may have thought nor have I given them a personal donation, however I have kept up to date with their activities as they are doing a good job to stimulate research and awareness for the condition. If I were to confine myself to just the talk page, I think it is only fair to do the same for JYTDog and Formerly98, especially the latter. JYTDog has accused me of engaging in canvassing you provide support for my cause yet we have never interacted before and I only contacted a single editor. Meanwhile, JYTDog signaled to eight users whom he specifically said were likely to come out against me and several of them did in fact support the motion to topic ban me.
I am concerned that if only I am confined to the talk page, Formerly will remove/condense/conceal useful text that discusses the controversy of Propecia's persisting side effects. He has done just this in the past. In one example, he reached a relative consensus with another editor Gilmour1201 in February 2014 and then about 6 months later he decided to reverse any compromise that had been established after the original editor left. Beginning on September 11, 2014 he embarked upon a series of edits where he removed references to Propecia side effects. Ironically, the first edit was a separate instance where he removed the reference to the warning label updated by the Swedish Medical Products Agency. Another good example of Formerly98's editing style is when he removed properly referenced information about Merck, Propecia's manufacturer, with a very weak rationale. These are just a couple examples worth highlighting. Moreover, the recent incident in which he made opposing arguments to represent his pro-industry POV was the latest that catalyzed this current debate. In the first edit he argues that the source of study funding affects study conclusions so it is reasonable to bring attention to a small unrestricted gift on the Propecia page. Yet the next day on the Glaxo Smith Kline page, he pontificates "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions?". The way I see it, this type of disruptive editing and argumentation has largely contributed the drama we are discussing today.
I think the current state of the article is not perfect but reasonable. There are several high profile studies that are currently being conducted on post finasteride syndrome, one of which by a Harvard affiliated hospital, and I'd like the article to incorporate the findings once they are published in the future. More studies will continue for at least the next several years. While this condition has been publicly known for over a decade, it is unfortunate that the Wikipedia community has been resistant to even mention this controversy. It takes many years to design a study, conduct the study, publish the (primary) study, and then even longer for somebody else to write it up in a secondary report which qualifies as MEDRS. How do you feel about the suggestion of having myself, JYTDog, and Formerly98 contribute solely through talk page discussions going forward? I think this solution may work well if editors who have not been involved in these long debates are ultimately responsible for deciding what goes into the article. Best Doors22 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you? There is strong support (all but one) for a total topic ban with regard to finasteride (and derivatives, manufacturers and associated organisations - "broadly construed") which would exclude contributions to the talk page and every associated discussion anywhere on WP. SV is throwing you a (very generous) bone by suggesting that such a topic ban might be limited to article space so that you could contribute to discussions "behind the scenes". I don't support that at all but she has every right to propose it. And you're (basically) throwing it in her face by suggesting you'll accept such an offer, but only if those who have highlighted your disruption are sanctioned also? That's not how it works, mate. If you walk away from this (almost-100% consensus) without a total topic ban (or a block) you should consider yourself lucky. You're in absolutely no position to suggest that others receive equivalent sanctions as a result of your behaviour. Stlwart111 06:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Doors22, I apologize for assuming you were involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. I mistakenly thought that had been acknowledged. If you're not, and so long as you're not suing the company or anything similar, you don't have a COI, but the focus on this one issue is still a problem. If a topic ban is imposed, perhaps you could use the time to edit more widely, then you could ask that it be lifted after six months or so. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, no worries about the mix up with the foundation. I recognize that I did take the bait on several occasions when I should not have which apparently got me into trouble. While I made mistakes, I feel it should acknowledged that I was provoked on multiple occasions that contributed to this ordeal. I'm sure you understand that it can be challenging to work with more experienced editors who are quick to quote a range of guidelines to get the edge in disagreements.
What is your current thinking about restricting myself to the talk page going forward? JYTDog mentioned he thinks it would be a reasonable solution to discuss edits on the talk page and Formerly98 recently said he would prefer to establish a better working relationship than go through the ANI process. I think it would help secure the neutrality of the article if the same policy is upheld for them as well. In its current state, I think it is reasonably balanced but I mentioned earlier that I'm concerned the balance will quickly evaporate if I am removed. Stalwart111 is under the impression that this board is unanimously against me for some reason but both I and BoboMeowCat oppose a topic ban and it isn't entirely clear where you stand. More than 50% have been in favor but two of those editors were directly involved in this incident and JYTDog canvassed eight users who were previously involved. Thanks again. Doors22 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Doors22, in future when someone cites a policy, calmly ask them to quote the relevant part from it, then read that part in context to get a feel for whether they're right. I think restricting you to the talk page is a reasonable compromise. It makes no sense to turn down an information source, and you've been mostly civil in the last couple of years (before that there were a few rough posts). But, as I said, consensus is currently against you, and this isn't up to me. An uninvolved admin will close the discussion. As for Jytdog and F98 also being confined to talk, that's unlikely to happen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
By my reading, 10 support the proposal and 2 (including you) oppose it. Which means you've managed to convince 1 person that sanctions aren't immediately necessary to prevent you from further disrupting this project. And he didn't really seem to understand what was being proposed or why. That's a few more than "more than 50%"; more than 80% in fact. And you continue to argue that you're a necessary force for ensuring the article remains "neutral". There's absolutely no remorse here at all for what is long-term disruption, just vague references to "taking the bait" as if others are (once again) responsible for your disruptive actions. Stlwart111 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. Doors22 is a POV pushing SPA that has been disruptive in the topic area for years. The question shouldn't be whether or not to topic ban them, but why they have been allowed to be disruptive for so long. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Wikipedia to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors22 clearly has a personal connection to the article, which is prohibiting him from making quality edits and rational discourse over the talkpage. Perhaps when some time has passed and Doors has expanded himself to other areas of the encyclopedia, the topic ban can be revisited, however its blatantly obvious that one is needed in the present day. cnbr15 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. Support alternative talk page restriction proposed below. Agree with above assessment of POV both ways. Agree with assessment that single purpose editing has frustrated gaining broad WP experience and normal WP socialization as might be expected from the number of years. Agree with above assessment of teaming. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
context for HughD's vote. He edit warred against me (and Formerly and 2 other editors) at the GSK article and received a block for it. Was POV=pushing some politically-oriented content which seems to be an ongoing issue (edit war warnings on political articles here, here and here and those don't count the ones he deleted which you can see here). So the "oppose" is no surprise. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, we request you argue in the threaded discusssion section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Look at the edit history, as the reporting editor shows, arranged in spurts, bouts of wholly unsatisfying editing interspersed with long frustration breaks. Less than 400 edits, just 128 in article space. If you don't look at the years (5) the reported editor is a relative newbie to our project, never gained 5 years of experience. This editor's biggest mistake was following his passion into the pharmaceutical ownership zone, where he got summarily beat up and yeah, fought back, ineptly. All he knew of WP is what he learned there from the entrenched: revert, delete, snideness, tag teams, and notice boards. This episode is as much a failure in welcoming and inclusiveness as anything else. Warnings all around, please. Hugh (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (non admin uninvolved in the dispute)There are problems here, on both sides. Someone will undoubtedly point out that I have had issues in the past with some of those seeking the ban. I also point out that we see way to many cases brought here by those seeking the ban that have a content disagreement mixed in. I do think that Doors22 has something to offer on the topic, but there are issues that they should think about. I oppose an indef ban but support a talk page restriction or at most a 6 month topic ban. (added later) This post by Doors22 on the WP:ANRFC board diff shows that there is hope in that he sees there is a problem and seeing a problem is the first step in fixing it. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
oh man. thanks for providing that link. so on the one hand he says "i am responsible" and on the other he says me and Formerly are responsible.... and most importantly he no where in that post acknowledges that he is here for one reason - to use WP as a soapbox nor does he acknowledge WP:SOAPBOX. what he said 4 years ago remains true today: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue" -- that is the definition of WP:NOTHERE. he is a longterm POV-pusher and the battleground behavior continues, as he continues to blame others for his behavior - and even takes advantage of my neutral request for a close, to open yet another forum to argue. and that you cannot see all that AlbinoFerret... Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the things I have found frustrating is when you have mis-quoted and mis-referenced policies that are not applicable to the situation. I do not attempt to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox and I feel that one quote from 4 years ago was taken out of context. The are reasons these guidelines exist and I recognize (and hopefully you do too) that edits will be more credible and useful if they abide by the rules. I try to always include MEDRS sources but you have to realize that new editors are not very skilled in doing so. It is unhelpful to keep bringing up edits I made four years ago. I would like to continue contributing on the article as new sources and studies are published. In order for that to be done most constructively, it will require you remain open to new sources and try to work with me rather than against me. I hope I am misreading the tone of your post above, but it feels like you are not assuming my good faith and are emanating hostile sentiments. This incident you filed was not fun for me which will act as a deterrent to avoid this from recurring if possible. I don't think it was fun for you either so hopefully you will meet me half way as I am extending an olive branch. Thank you for your input AlbinoFerret. I would prefer to have no restrictions come as a result of this incident, but either way I will be spending a high proportion of my time on the talk page to gather input of others to ensure things go more smoothly in the future. Doors22 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
What I see is an editor who has problems, but he also has something to offer. Its not impossible for people to change and he did say in that post "I take personal responsibility for my actions.". I dont think anyone involved in a battlefield is innocent. I dont think an indef is in the best interest of WP, multiple of points of view make for better articles. What would be best is if he does change and broadens his experiences on WP. I do think that restricting him to the talk pages will force him to work with others. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
albino you have obviously not reviewed the talk page discussions. hammering and hammering mixed with personal attacks does not make for a productive editing environment. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thats incorrect, I did, I said there were problems. But I also think that forcing someone to only be on the talk page will limit the problems in fighting over edits. It will force real discussion if Doors hopes to get anything included in the article, fighting wont accomplish that. I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault. While its only my opinion, I think every battleground should have page protection for a long time to force discussion. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
albino man. nobody else on the finasteride talk page brings up the same things over and over again. i get it that you have strong feelings about this from the e-cig article.. but that was a terrible entree into WP. that is not what things are like in most of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC))
No, thats in the past, I just find this page interesting, as is this section. But nice try trying to inject some kind of motive, there is none except what I believe to be best for WP. I dont know Doors, I have never edited an article with them, and the subject of the articles this happened I dont find interesting. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
sorry, you misunderstood me b/c i wasn't clear. when i wrote "the page" above, i meant the talk page of the finasteride article, not here at ANI. fixed that above. sorry. what i was trying to say is that when doors comes around we can count on long drawn out battles on the talk page as he argues and argues to include content based on bad sources (less frequently now) or argues to give more weight to the sexual side effects; and that often devolves into personal attacks from him when he doesn't get what he wants. it just never stops. that would be likely to become only more intense if that is all he could do, based even on what he has said here - he has given no indication that he understands that using WP as a soapbox to push one POV is not OK here. Please read WP:NOTHERE, read his full mission statement ( "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue....") look at the diffs, and look at what he has written here at ANI. all he wants to do is retain access to this platform to continue doing the same thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I am an uninvolved editor as far as this topic and Doors22, a name I've not even seen before. I am quite familiar from the last four months or so on Wikipedia with Jytdog, and to a varying lesser degree with several of the other parties involved here. I have also just been in a lengthy "discussion" via an AfD nomination (not mine, and for topic I was previously uninvolved with), across Talk page and noticeboards, for a Medicine article. This gives me some perspective. As this is a Jytdog complaint about editor behavior on a medical topic, I find these two points relevant:

  • Jytog is extremely aggressive in editing style: debates relentlessly (which IMO is often good), is quick to revert edits (bad), on occasion reverses position based on discussion (in the end good, but not so much when also created the issue with a contested edit), readily sanction-shops via noticeboards (bad), displays I guess you could call it highly emotional behavior (e.g, name calling then striking through, requesting you strike through your own comments deemed hurtful, making a comment and deleting it so you have to read the history; distracting). All of this adds up to a WP persona that is hard to slot, and makes for an editor who can be difficult to communicate with, even intimidating, while remaining just on the right side of "acceptable WP behavior."
  • Jytog strongly supports the WikiProject Medicine take on guideline interpretation, a situation I've only recently begun to understand, and one that most of the editors in this thread that I recogize seem to support: it appears that Wikipedia is allowing conventions of evidence-based medicine (such as how to determine the relative weight of research papers and what they really mean) to be applied by anonymous editors (what we ALL are) in deciding what content may or may not be included. Medical research is a highly technical area that can be difficult to interpret, but the bottom line is, specialized content is being determined by self-appointed expert editors according to rules that are simply not accessible or understandable to the general non-technical editor or reader. This may seem to result in good, responsible medical content, however, it also seems to be against core verifiability policy, and results in exclusion of content that in any other area of WP would be clearly verifiable by our standards. This is a problem, and it makes it extremely difficult for any editor to edit or even discuss core WP:PAG-supported content that goes against that WikiProject standard and group of enforcing editors.

Given these two points, and having surveyed chunks of the cited edit history, and read this thread, this looks like a swarming, with a group of like-minded editors piling on a lone opposing editor. The value of Door22's actual edits aside (as this is a behavior complaint), Door22 may or may not have the patience or temperament to deal with a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents) in a murky editorial situation, but trying to drive an editor over the edge in this way, and then use that behavior to ban them is...reprehensible, and I'm sure not in the spirit or core policies of Wikipedia. If it's a specific article/content dispute, there seem to be many other, even admin-enforced, ways to resolution, by focusing on the content, perhaps putting protection on the article in question so only Talk page consensus edits can be made, and so forth. Don't shoot the messenger. --Tsavage (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, I think you offer an interesting idea. There are several editors on that article that I feel have ganged up against me and want to do everything possible to discredit/eliminate any new information about side effects that come from this drugs. However, a couple administrators have participated (DocJames for one) and his input has been objective. Protecting the entire article and only allowing admins or approved parties to make edits could help preserve a neutral POV. However, would there be enough interest from objective third parties that the article would get updated with changes and new sources in a timely fashion? Doors22 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Doors22: Hard to tell, just have to see. I don't have much to say beyond that. After a decade of on and off editing, including some contentious topic editing, I am new in the last 4-5 months to this level of intense, essentially litigious behavior. It seems not uncommon in certain subject areas, it is tiring, and I feel an off-putting undercurrent through it all. If you're gonna try and hang in, and you're rational, not crazy, the one kinda painful thing I learned is you have to quickly disengage from arguing through content editing, that makes it too easy for your "opponents" (your disagreeing fellow editors) to charge you first if possible with edit warring, and eventually to build up a list from edit histories that can be characterized as bad behavior. And you have to unfortunately learn the policies and guidelines in some detail, and get a feel for how admin-involved processes seem to go, and be meticulous with your edits, stay calm and polite, vet everything your "opponents" say, especially when policies and guidelines are cited, and don't spend all your time in discussion, keep editing non-contentions articles to...stay real. :) That's what I've figured out so far. Fun for a while if you like arguing, but ultimately, it really sucks, no fun at all, if you simply enjoy expanding articles. And pretty unWikipedian. I suppose it will eventually come to a head, probably around the power of WikiProjects. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
i have yet another "fan"; marvelous. Tsavage, in your press to register a complaint about me, you have not looked at the issue. Doors22 announced his intentions in his first month here, and has followed through, pushing one point of view on one topic his entire time here. His contribs amount to one big violation of WP:SOAPBOX, a policy and a pillar. If you want to open a thread about me, knock yourself out, but I made my first edit to the article six months ago; Doors has been at this for four years. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You have 40K+ edits, and you reported a fellow editor with 178 article space edits. You are an adult asking our admins for capital punishment against a minor. The reported editor has behavioural deficiencies due to inexperience. What's your excuse? You have deficiencies in terms of welcoming and inclusiveness. It's long overdue for you to step up your game in terms of accepting your role in broadening participation our project. You routinely skip the step of looking at someone else's edit and seeing if there is something of value in the content or source. When you wrote above "I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while," by "a while" did you mean, like what, a week? Hugh (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents)" Thank you for your thoughful comment and for so eloquently articulating this issue. I would add based on my recent experience that that the zeal for the project-level standards spill over from strictly medical issues to large pharmaceutical corporations, with an unfortunate outcome that the articles are non-neutral with respect to their histories. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
JYT, if you have so many 'fans', did you ever stop to consider that you have a problem? Here is the latest example of unreasonable editing behavior. Zinedine included one of Bayer's early products, heroin, in the header which you brusquely removed because it was unsourced. First, this is inappropriate because if you really cared about a citation the right thing to do would have been to request one or tag the text with citation needed. Secondly, there is no reference for Bayer's production of aspirin in the lead so you are applying a double standard. After the user responds to your request and includes a source, you threatened with a block if the edit was put back in place. That's highly unacceptable after the editor after the editor provided a source that was not necessary in the first place and that type of action would never warrant a block, especially because it was not even close to the > 3 reverts in 24 hours rule. It's possible you didn't want to include a reference to heroin in the lead because it creates a negative tone for the company, but that should be the topic of debate, not some inapplicable technicality combined with a threat. Doors22 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
that worked out quite well with no drama or boards needed (despite HughD's efforts to add it). Doors, every time you do this distraction/counterattack thing you dig your [[WP:HOLE] hole] deeper, in my view. you are showing no insight into your SOAPBOXING. nada. this is getting more unseemly the longer this goes. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) (fixed thanksJytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC))
You have just presented another example where you cited wikipedia policy where it does not make sense to do so. WP:HOLE in no way fits within the context of your complaint. If you are going to frequently cite policy, it's important to do so correctly to have a constructive conversation. Doors22 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for pointing that the essay i linked to was not what i intended. i meant to link to this article: Law of holes. which is what you are not heeding. (when the close comes, if you would have said somewhere, anywhere - "hey i get it - i have to lay off the sexual side effects thing and I understand that i have driven everyone else who has tried to work with me crazy" this would go very different for you. but you have dug in harder and even tried to attack me instead. you are making the case for POV Pushing and BATTLEGROUND, every time you write something that is not that. That is what I mean by digging your own hole deeper. What the community looks for is whether you get it ) Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There really is no reason that an editing disagreement on Wikipedia should make you "crazy" unless you have some personal connection to the issue but maybe I don't know the whole story. I have said several times I will adjust my collaborative style and so should you, frankly. Now that the work week is starting, I won't be able to frequently respond but I don't have much more to add as this conversation has run its course. Doors22 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are two issues with your behavior - first, long term POV pushing on one issue since you started here, creating endless tangles on talk when you don't get to push your point into the article. Not once have you said "I get that this is a problem; i will stop" The other issue is BATTLEGROUND. while you have said some things about changing your style, at every chance you had here, you have attacked me or Formerly. So... where is the actual change. The way you could have avoided what i am pretty sure is coming, would have been to acknowledge the problems and promise to stop. and actually stop. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Discussion here, please Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Question Jytdog, the above it quite long and confusing as is the title you chose for this ANI complaint. What does this have to do with Wifione? Are you alleging that Doors is being paid to be concerned about sexual side effects of medications? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The wifione case that was actually conducted at Arbcom was about long term POV pushing. Arbcom said they have no hand in paid editing. I will just remove that from the section header. to avoid other people who misunderstand that case from being confused. This case about Doors22 is very, very simple. He only edits about one thing and pushes one POV on that one thing. Every time he shows up we get into long, disputes on the article Talk page, and he is becomingly increasingly disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. The evidence above iis, in my view, what a case against a long term POV-pusher looks like. we will see if i am right or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems the interpretation by the press was that Wifione had a financial COI with respect to that bogus business school he was promoting. Promoting a bogus business school on Wikipedia for free would seem like an odd hobby, although I suppose possible. Whether or not you are successful in getting Doors topic banned related to POV doesn't seem related to Wifione....so I'm not following your "we'll see if I'm right or not" comment. I do appreciate you amending the section header to remove reference to a case that doesn't seem to apply here. I'll refrain on voting on this specific case until I have time to review the evidence provided. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Response There are a lot of reasons why I feel your accusations are inaccurate but I don't have the time to respond to each one. However one example is when you tried to warned me of edit warring after a single edit, which was not even a reversion but was rather a correction to a previous edit. It is also very untrue that post finasteride syndrome is not recognized by the medical community. Over the past few years it has been gaining increasing awareness in MEDRS sources and was documented before that in countless blogs written by doctors, internet forums, and foreign regulatory bodies. I have been upfront that I am a patient who continues to suffer from seemingly permanent side effects due to taking a COSMETIC drug, a very unfortunate consequence which will negatively impact the rest of my life when the offered benefit was negligible in comparison. My goal is to create an accurate and objective encyclopedia article to help other potential consumers make informed decisions with the up-to-date information on this drug.

Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have an extensive history of removing/diminishing reports of side effects for a wide range of drugs/corporate products. This has made it very challenging to create an article that is balanced. It is also worth noting that on many occasions the two of you have ganged up on me to try and create a "consensus" and have tag teamed each other on editing conflicts on many other articles. I have not had significant issues with other editors, barring my initial days as an editor several years ago when I admittedly was much less aware of proper editing etiquette on Wikipedia. I really do not think a topic ban is appropriate, especially given my edits on the article are very grounded in facts, and look forward to hearing the feedback from other editors.

This is also worth mentioning, even if its less relevant, but a couple weeks ago you were reprimanded on the admin noticeboards for acting with incivility towards another editor and were warned to stop initiating so many incident reports on these boards as you have been initiating a large volume in the recent past. Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Doors exhibit classic WP:SPA and advocacy behavior. Every minor edit turns into a a multi-thousand word discussion in which he becomes tendentious, exhibits WP:IDHT behavior against consensus, and engages in personal attacks. In fact, I rarely see a post from him in response to my comments that does not contain at least one personal remark.
  • Here on the NPOV talk board, he adds a comment responding to me in which he questions my integrity twice. The edit summary states that "a pharma employee should not pretend to be ignorant to the differences between a grant and gift" I have not been a pharma employee for nearly a decade, my COI statement clearly says this, and this has been pointed out to Doors multiple times. In the edit itself, he repeats his suggestiion that I am lying about my employment status, with the remark "I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry."
  • The vindictiveness extends to retaliatory editing. Here, after an extended series of posts in which he accuses me of an undisclosed COI, he makes 3 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article supporting the other side of a content dispute that I am involved in. He has almost no history at this point of editing non-finasteride related articles, and has never before shown interest in electronic cigarettes. Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 and later reverts one of my edits to the article.
  • Similar retaliatory editing on the Pharmaceutical industry article talk page, which subject he has never shown an interest in until another editor begins criticizing my rewrite of that article. Seeing a content dispute that I am party to brewing, he jumps in to support the other side of the argument. Diff
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Response to Formerly98
  • I just said earlier that I have only really run into issues with Formerly98 and JYTDog and I believe this quick response helps to confirm my statement that they have a tendency to tag team one another one Wikipedia, trying to form a two person consensus. What I see here is two things. First, I edited a single page (electronic cigarettes) where you had been very active and you accused me of WP:HOUNDING you. This edit is not recent and to avoid any perception that I may be hounding I have not done anything like it since. However you continue to bring this up time and time again.
  • Secondly, the history between us has led to my frustration and I apologize if you feel I made a personal attack against you. The reality is that you make arguments that do not seem to be what you actually believe for pushing a POV and this would lead to frustration for anybody. Somebody who claims to have a PhD in chemistry and experience working as a research scientist for pharma companies should know the difference between a research grant and a gift and not pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is very incendiary to refer to a research gift with no strings attached or obligations a "bribe" or "incentive plan". On your own talk page, you have written "If I disagree with you, its almost never personal. I may even secretly agree with you, but feel that the article in question is unbalanced and needs to be adjusted to a more neutral POV." In my opinion, it is very counterproductive to make arguments to which you personally disagree and can be very antagonistic to other editors making good points.
  • Lastly, I'd like to highlight my edit that you called out on the WP:Pharmaceutical Industry article. This is very obviously not an instance of hounding yet you repeatedly bring this up (among other poor examples) which can get very exhausting. I am confident that anybody who spends the time to properly evaluate this example will see that your accusation is without merit because I merely offered a civil opinion on a topic to which you don't have a monopoly. The problem is that very few editors don't have the time and it's possible they take your accusation at face value which is highly misleading. I think this example is a good representation of the (lack of) credibility of many of your accusations and the aggressive/unfair editing tactics you often employ on Wikipedia. Both Formerly98 and JYTDog have run into problems with many, many other editors even in recent months where they seem to be the other two that have problems with my editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I know this looks like a personalized content dispute (and it is in part), which is why I reckon no one is commenting. But there is meat to this, or i would not have brought it. And I know that NPOV issues are difficult, since you have dig in some to see what is going on. I tried to tee this up so it would be very very clear. Hopefully folks will take some time to review the evidence I provided above. And I want to apologize to the community for showing up here again, but the BATTLEGROUND from Doors22 was just getting to be too much; and his NPOVN posting was just too.... ironic. Thanks in any case for your patience and consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahhhh, so you did notice that few are commenting. Curious - have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf by Aesop? Other editors have been hinting about the remarkable frequency they're seeing your name on ANI. Did you first try to settle this "personalized" content dispute on the TP of the respective article? AtsmeConsult 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No comments for a couple of days. Is this closeable? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you think there have not been any comments in a couple of days. If you look above my edit here, there were 5 new edits just today (April 23). I have done some research over the past few days and decided the best way to proceed is to file an incident for WP:Votestacking. I don't feel this was conducted in a way that was remotely fair or impartial. Irrespective of who I am working with, I have made mistakes and I am trying to learn from them and I feel the best way to handle this situation is to calmly proceed with this accordingly. Doors22 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog - Vote Stacking[edit]

Moved by me from bottom of page, should have been up here. BMK (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am currently the subject of an incident for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and have been subjected to WP:VOTESTACKING by JYTDog. As a result of the vote stacking, more than half of the editors who contributed to the incident were involved or partial participants. As a result, the so called "consensus" is really not representative of objective opinions from uninvolved editors. I have made mistakes and there is a degree of truth to engaging in this behavior, but I am trying to learn from my mistakes. I think this is the best way to proceed when I feel I am on the receiving side of unfair/biased editing behavior.

The filed incident can be found above. In the past, I have been ganged up on and when I didn't know how to proceed I became frustrated without any options. This wasn't due to bad faith but just due to the sentiment of being bullied by other more experienced editors throwing around policy and guidelines to get an edge in disputes. JYTDog said that I had engaged in WP:CANVASSING, so while reading up on the subject today I realized he had actually subjected me to WP:VOTESTACKING. According to the article, votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. JYTDog called out 10 editors whom he even claimed had disputes with me in the past in order to bring them to comment on the incident. Some of these disputes were from as far back as 2011.

As shown in this diff, JYTDog tagged 11 different editors whom he highlighted had disputes with me in the past. Five of these eleven editors participated in the incident to vote against me (and notably at least one of the eleven is inactive). Meanwhile, I was accused of canvassing due to asking an admin for advice. I have never interacted with this admin prior and I don't think she has ever edited on Finasteride, the article involved in the debate. The votestacking was effective in racking up votes against me. Moreover, it poisoned the well to influence new editors who came along. Only 4 uninvolved editors supported the proposal to ban me and most of them came after the votestacking, potentially biasing their opinions. Not including myself, one uninvolved editor opposed the proposal and the other (who I allegedly canvassed) neither opposed nor supposed the proposal but offered a more balanced solution. As you can see, this created the impression that a large consensus formed but 60% who voted in favor of the proposal were brought by JYTDog and the others were likely influenced from the already tendentious discussion.

I would like this issue is to be objectively evaluated because I think it would be destructive to the encyclopedia if I am banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when a double standard is applied to my accuser. I openly admit I have made mistakes, but maybe some will be able to understand when I have been on the receiving side of this kind of behavior for some time without a solution to manage the situation properly. Doors22 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous diversionary tactic. And again with this business of trying to have those who highlighted your disruption sanctioned also. You still haven't actually accounted for your disruption or suggested any way that you might look to contribute productively in topic areas other than this one. At this stage I'd guess there'd be decent support for a indef block. Either way, this hail-Mary section should be closed immediately and a ban should be enacted to put an end to this nonsense. Stlwart111 04:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've had concerns that if we just topic ban Doors22 without him understanding that his behavior has been problematic that he will just carry on the personalized disruption elsewhere. His post above is not promising in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
By hyperlinking all the editors with whom this editor had a dispute, the effect was to notify them of this thread, which of course is votestacking whether intentional or not. The closing administrator however requires "the clear and substantial consensus of...uninvolved editors", per CBAN. Whether or not the piling on of involved editors influenced the votes of uninvolved editors is something that must be considered by reading through the votes. With the huge amount of discussion generated, it is possible this thread will be archived without action, as few administrators would want to take hours to read through it. I suggest posting to AN requesting an administrator to close, as the thread has now been open several days. TFD (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it really affected anything. Several of the names were misspelled, and so the ping was not received. For the most part the remainder of the list is identical to a list of editors who have been major contributors to the Finasteride article over the last 3 years and who are still active Wikipedia editors (and thus available to comment). If the list of people who have edited Finasteride is essentially identical to the list of people that Doors has had conflicts with, that tells us all we need to know. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look a more closely you'll see there was only one broken ping link. Yobol showed up as red because he/she doesn't have a user page but the ping was still received and JFDWolff was incorrectly referenced at first as "JDWolff" but a correct ping was listed later. An important point to raise is that the input for an ANI should be representative of opinions from neutral/impartial Wiki users, not editors who were previously involved in editing the article in question. Whether it was intentional or not, pinging 11 involved editors and having 6 of them offer opinions would heavily influence any discussion and voting process. Doors22 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
if you showed a whiff of "i understand the problem" you might have a shot at not getting topic banned, Doors. but you just continue this wikilawyering battlegroundy, IDHT stuff. It is terrible to watch. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • i've requested close at AN here Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive IP User[edit]

I have come across a user who keeps adding unsourced and questionable material to video game and movie-related articles. I initially warned the editor to stop introducing unsourced material. The user seemingly returned with another but similar IP address and began re-adding the content I removed:

The initial editor I warned:

I then noticed similar edits in the History/Revision log of each article from similar IP address.

All IPs belong to the same organization and are quite possibly the same user. Maybe I'm wrong and everyone at National Institute of Health likes editing movie and video game articles. Please advise. Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Unusual! Of course it's the same user, per WP:DUCK, but they form the smallest range I've ever seen editing a wiki article — 8 IPs. Since they are different IPs, each with a separate user talkpage, they probably haven't seen your warning, and would be very difficult for me to talk to as well. Instead, I've blocked the tiny 128.231.237.0/29 range for disruptive editing; I think the person will see the block log, and I've put a recommendation in it to create an account for the purpose of communication. (I've left the "Block account creation" unticked so they can.) Feel free to let me know on my page if you should see them expand into the largesse of a /28 range or so. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
This sort of IP definition could be a static pool of shared computers, such as a classroom or workshop. It would not be unusual for an editor to be taking a "space available" PC in a shared environment in a hospital recovery wing or rehab center. Not that it really adds anything to the discussion; just looking at the pattern. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate it, ScrapIronIV, I was wondering what such a small range could represent. (I don't really understand ranges or rangeblocks, I do them with a lot of help behind the scenes.) One person moving between different computers all in the one room, then. In the hope of confusing, or simply as one machine or another became available for use, who knows? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While the other IPs were blocked, 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs) seems to be continuing to edit – is there any evidence that they've gotten the message?... --IJBall (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a page protection on the impacted articles would be appropriate. Perhaps that would encourage the registration of an account, so we could communicate with them. The edits seem to be in good faith, just a bit overzealous. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I made a mistake: 128.231.237.4, 128.231.237.5, 128.231.237.6, 128.231.237.7 and 128.231.237.8 is not a /29 range but a /28 (still very small). That's why number 8 has been free to roam. See, this is what happens when idiot admins like me make rangeblocks. (I only do them because too few people do.) I've changed the block to reflect this, and also extended it to a week, since they don't seem to have learned anything from the 48 hours. I'd rather not semi, too many articles. ScrapIronIV, I agree they may well be in good faith, but they can really hardly avoid seeing my block rationale urging them to create an account: it comes up every time one of the blocked IPs tries to edit. IJBall, I don't think they could have not got the message, some time when they tried using one of the other machines. It's all the same person. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
Well, I would not categorize an error an "idiot admin" action. That sounds like a self directed personal attack (insert smile here) I appreciate the fact that you take action - and I haven't seen any hint of your self accusation being warranted. You seem like one of the "good 'uns." ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bishonen: you got all of them in the 128.231.237.0/24 range (I widened the range to see if there were any other subnets also active). After looking, I also found this same editor is also using the same /28 grouping within the 137.187.241.0/24 range. This is also a NIH network.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Touching this thread to keep it alive until Bish sees it. Maybe 'Zilla carried her off for the weekend.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
She did, yes, in her pocket. Nothing I could do about it. I had a lovely weekend, actually. Berean Hunter, are you saying there would be a point in blocking the whole 128.231.237.0/24? But why? Don't I get all those IPs in the same way with a 128.231.237.0/28 block? Please explain in words of one syllable. [/me thinks about IP ranges and wrings her hands a bit.] I don't see any recent obviously disruptive edits from 137.187.241.0/24; do you think it should be blocked? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
I was showing the /24 ranges specifically to illustrate that only the /28 portion of both networks have been editing anonymously...just the lowest 8 addresses out of 250+ available. I was adding to your comments above where you were wondering why such a small subset of addresses were being used. Somebody has subnetworked small groups probably for administration and security purposes. The 137.187.241.0/28 range is what I'd block. That is your blocked editor...every edit in that range is theirs. I don't see any collateral damage. This edit on Friday is him on one of the same target articles. They have used most of those addresses persistently up to April 20 except for the one on the 24th so yes, they are quite active. Leaving that range open allows for block evasion. You may try checking the results on the link for 137.187.241.0/28 tomorrow. They seem to edit Mon-Fri. Any edit you see dated on the 27th will likely be block evasion...that and they are essentially refusing to communicate with other editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bishonen: They used 137.187.241.4, 137.187.241.5, and 137.187.241.8 today. Compare this from your blocked editor with this edit to see that it is a duck.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy[edit]

I have no idea how to start my complaint. I've encountered myself in quite a few messes with User:Helmboy. It all began when they removed the {{copyvio}} template here. They again removed the template here after I reverted them. Then edit warring from their part began on the article, all within an hour. This can be viewed here. It occurred between User:AlexTheWhovian and the user being reported. I reverted to the good version of the article (with the copyvio template) again. Nothing happened after that. Both AlexTheWhovian and I began giving warnings to the user. here and here. This became a giant blowout on their talk page as the user refused to listen to what they were being told. They have a know-it-all attitude as Helmboy also came to my talk page. They are now accusing me of wanting to delete the article and being a vandal when I am just following what the template is written. Helmboy is being rather stubborn and is refusing to seek WP:Consensus. Instead of agreeing and seeing wrong to what they've been told, they refuse to corporate and continues to disrupt Wikipedia. I am at a loss on what to do except come here to "knock some sense into something", in hopes to get this stopped. UPDATE: Helmboy has now edited my signature once and has edited my comments by advertising their rewrite. I really am getting annoyed and frustrated. Can an admin say something already?! UPDATE #2: The user continues to have the know-it-all attitude as they called out a well-respected user for adding the copyvio template here (I, of course, had to but in). Can an admin PLEASE intervene in this situation?! Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar encounters with Helmboy over the years, and he his a highly problematic editor, for exactly the reasons Callmemirela cites. He seems to see himself as some sort of television expert (he has, on occasion, described himself as a reporter, despite having no media affiliation,) and believes he is always right. Consequently, if challenged by another editor, he will do as described above: launch into a spate of edit warring, abusive edit summaries (generally the only time he uses them) and pointy editing. I concur that attention to his editing behavior is long overdue. How he's managed to fly under the radar this long eludes me. --Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
My views concur with those of Callmemirela and Drmargi. The user in question has a know-it-all personality, as well as always-right and higher-priority. My edits on the pages linked by Callmemirela were to add correct styling, correctly sourced information, and corrected references to the page, but these were undone in complete by Helmboy, for the excuse of not allowing my edits given that he hadn't finished his and so that he could implement his lack of consistency. There have been run-in's with the editor and I on other articles, going against consensus on talk pages, and accusing other editors of poor arguments when he gives exactly the same in the very same discussion. He refuses to go by Wikipedia guidelines and well-known standard practice, insisting that each and all of his edits are required and more important and basing his reasoning entirely upon "common sense" or "it's either this or this, and nothing else", and refuses to let any discussion go even after the discussion has reached its obvious end (for example, the discussion of Callmemirela's use of the copyright violation tag - there was obviously no going backwards, and going forwards could only be reached by an administrator, yet the argument was continued). Such troublesome users are the ones who give Wikipedia it's bad reputation. Alex|The|Whovian 17:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Now to add some truth to this. First I only removed the template ONCE after simply removing the offending summaries which was the only thing that was needed in the first place. The other editor involved was only reverting his edits and had nothing to do with the added template. Adding the template instead of the mentioned action forces an unnecessary series of events that only these few bored editors enjoy engaging in, as well as the perverse enjoy they seem to get from trying to escalate good faith edits as though they are something bad. These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles. I was going to give up on this site, until some other editors told me to try to carry on, but I am at the end of my wick again due to this constant unnecessary harassment and bullying by a few known bullies. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"Add some truth to this." Are you being serious? All you've caused and proved is that you cannot edit properly nor can you establish consensus amongst other editors. You have the know-it-all and I'm-always-right attitude. You go by your way and no other way.
Nothing constructive here. Just insults and harassment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"I only removed the template ONCE [...]." Wow. First removal: [10]. Second removal: [11]. Last time I checked you are not an admin, copyright check or OTRS agent as per "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." explicitly written on the template of the article (something you clearly can't comprehend). Excuse me, but your edits are disruptive. You are trying to make a point by edit warring, going at it in your own way, ignoring WP:Consensus, and so on.
Those both refer to the same single diff I made and only show when it was first added and when you put it back. If you look in the article history you can clearly see only the single diff. And there was NO discussion about you adding the template. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles." Pardon me if you are editing very poorly and can't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Baseless accusations mon oeil. The proof is quite clear that you have no intentions to edit in a group but rather by yourself. Also, I wouldn't be talking if I were you. You accused me of wanting to get the article deleted when that is not my intention in a million years. It's called following the rules, something you are unaware of. You also accused me of being a vandal. Do you even know the meaning of vandalism? Read WP:Vandalism and come back to me. I have not vandalized the Wikipedia. I am enforcing what I've been told.
It IS poor editing to block an article when the simpler and correct option of removing summaries is all that was needed. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bullies" as you call it is not what we are when someone edits poorly and refuses to cooperate. It's called enforcing the rules, something you can't get through your thick skull.
Insulting and bullying comment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You continue to claim your unjustified argument (again, from poor editing) that the solution to the whole copyright crap is to remove the summaries. It has to be resolved by an admin first. Are you admin? NO. So stop with this nonsense. You cannot edit the article until the issue has been resolved by others. Again, you are not understanding this, considering I've repeated this endlessly as now. You cannot argue basing yourself on lame arguments when you can't properly edit or contribute to the Wikipedia with a bunch of nonsense. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You think you are an admin by taking upon yourself to just block the page and unnecessarily making a real admin decide it's fate. Your editing skills should have just been used to remove the offending summaries. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


I know you don't like me and are still grinding an axe about issues. What's new. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
And how many editors have had more run-ins with your controlling editorship? Including the ones that have given up. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I blanked List of Young & Hungry episodes for copyright reasons on 5 April and listed it at WP:CP; it should have been dealt with long ago, but that board is backlogged and under-manned. For some reason everybody and his wife thought they could carry on editing the page even though the copyvio template carries a large clear warning not to do so. I undid a number of edits and replaced the template on 11 April, but seem to have failed to notice the subsequent edit war, for which I apologise. As far as I can see Callmemirela has behaved entirely correctly, replacing the template and asking people instead to work on the rewrite she has done. Helmboy, on the other hand, has not, and shows no sign of wishing to edit in collaboration with other editors. In case any helpful admin was thinking of moving the rewrite into place, it is not useable (sorry, Callmemirela!) – the "Webisode" summaries are clearly copied from somewhere too. I'm tempted to suggest just redirecting it to Young & Hungry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp

@Justlettersandnumbers: Then just blank the summaries as I did rather than invalidating the the whole article. Rewording changes nothing as it still has the same copied structure. Wasting admins time causes backlog and will solve nothing except having the whole thing deleted. helmboy 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this fix it? Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp2 Which should have been done to the original article which may still end up gone thanks to that template. helmboy 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. First problem I found, the lead is copied from somewhere. I haven't been able to establish where the language first appeared, but its on a ton of websites. Did they originally copy it from Wikipedia? Has a copyright infringement been around since early 2014? Don't know. What I do know is that where ever the language in the lead came from, there is no attribution in the temp version. As this is supposed to be a totally separate from the version under investigation, we still have a problem. Monty845 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845: What about replacing the lead from the main article?? see revised. helmboy 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You still need to properly attribute things when copying within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Failure to properly attribute material from elsewhere on Wikipedia makes the resulting article a copyright infringement. (We are bad at enforcing this, but we still must try) Monty845 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845: All of this should have been done via the articles talk page, not by a copyright template block-out requiring a second that may not be accepted. Wasn't the use of the copyright template poor editing? helmboy 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Helmboy, if something is a copyvio, we don't leave it there, plain and simple, and we take care of it as soon as possible; reading the text on the List of, there's a clear copyvio there of the ep descriptions. Enforcing the rules of the encyclopedia is not bullying, because if we don't enforce copyright, we aren't going to be here because someone justifiably sued the WMF off the web. You used that term for me a year ago when I removed esoteric information about captioning, satellite feeds and useless pictures of color bars on Entertainment Tonight, and I had barely ever said a word to you. If you can't learn to collaborate, maybe this isn't the place for you. Frankly I'm amazed that Callmemirela was as patient as they were before asking for ANI intervention; I would have asked for action long before they did on your behavior. Nate (chatter) 04:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking care of it would be simply removing it and not road blocking the article and giving the admins unnecessary work. As for your opinion on of what is "esoteric" information is only YOUR opinion, which is you still haven't gotten over. You still grinding an axe over that says more about you and how open to edits you appear to be. helmboy 02:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. We get it. You think it wasn't needed. What's the point of arguing this? We. Get. It. Nothing can be done about it now. We can't remove it. The admins have the extra work. What else is there to argue? We get that you think it's poor editing. Also, your comment about not being open to edits makes me laugh - take a look at your own edit history and abusive tone. (What's also funny is your consistent argument that there's no rule for rounding down when I edited Season 2's table for Young & Hungry, and yet Season 1 was also rounded down previously, yet you were fine with that.) Requesting administrator intervention against user based on the above arguments and offending user's obvious tone. Alex|The|Whovian 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources for season 2 were a different site that doesn't auto round like the zap2it source, and the issue was in preserving the referenced source and keeping the figures accurate. As for nothing can be done if someone adds the template unnecessarily, that comes as no surprise and is just one of the reasons for backlogging the admins. And I believe you have had an extreme abusive and rude tone towards from our first encounter as well as with a number of others such as on the Constantine talk page. helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the user above me. The user continues to call off well-experienced users based on poor editing and lack of experience. The user knows no bounds and continues to argue that adding the copyvio template was unnecessary when it clearly was. I agree with Alex (I think that's your name) when they introduce Helmboy's tone. Seriously requesting admin intervention against the user in question. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No surprise, given you are the one who is trying to get rid of me and no doubt others by trying to make out they have done some major offense, when all they are trying to is get back to editing articles. Like I was trying to do with fixing a very minor problem the simplest way possible. And now all this thread seems to be is some sort of witch hunt by a select list of closed-minded editors who would run this site like soldier only following orders no matter the fallout.helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye[edit]

GregKaye seems to be on a bit of a crusade at the moment to fix the great wrong of 'the' not appearing in article titles such as List of most common surnames in Asia. He has opened a number of RMs, which all seem to have gone against him, so has now abandoned that approach and is simply moving pages with titles he has problems with, despite many of them clearly being contentious based on the many still open and contentious RMs. He seems to be similarly tendentiously dealing with other matters that concern him, such as the great bias of the BBC on the name of ISIL, despite his earlier warning about editing in that area, and The borders of Israel. Perhaps he needs to step away from the keyboard, or at least from these areas, for a few days and let them settle down, before not returning to try and re-argue the same issues yet again.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne Your content above relates to my comments on "[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BBC misrepresentation of sources|great bias of the BBC]]"
In this content I finished by asking, "How is it neutral of the BBC to ignore the majority of what their various interviewees say and go their own sweet way and then to compound this with an actual misrepresentation of content that their interviewees have directly presented?" I don't personally see anything wrong in raising this. There was no warning. GregKaye 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The warning is linked above (and was copied to your talk page). If you think it does not cover the WP:RSN edits then it certainly covers your April 23rd edits to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne I really should have followed up on the "any further misconduct" comment at the time as the only thing that had been of issue was a limited content of interactions with one editor. If you really think that my comments about "BBC misrepresentation of sources" constitute misconduct in regard to ISIL related topic areas, or tendentious editing, then you are at liberty to present your case. I would also warmly welcome other editor involvement in regard to Israel related topics.
I also think that suggestion of tendentious editing is especially questionable in the light of the content of the thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#JoeM and Islam, a safe combination? in which I was an editor invested significantly in advocating for and helping an editor who had pushed for edits that were diametrically opposed to edits that I had made. GregKaye 10:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne In regard to titles such as:
a substantial number of similar you have been perfectly in your rights to present your views here and here.
Similarly I have then been perfectly in my right to respond with content as:

Please look at the way this type of grammar is presented in books. As you should have seen from the other thread: I proposed the use of a books search :(most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the" which gives the results (as they contain a "fooest" followed by something like an "in bar" type content). These results in sequence are:

  • The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
  • The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
  • The Most Important Fish in the Sea
  • The Most Dangerous Area in the World
  • The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
  • The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
  • The Most Dangerous Man In The World
  • The Most Important Little Boy in the World
  • Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
  • The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
  • The Most Successful Small Business in The World
  • Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
  • The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
  • A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
  • A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
  • Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
  • The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
  • The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
  • Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
  • Most Beautiful House in the World

I went through 18 examples (not including, presumably, reprints or the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article. All I am trying to do is to present content that does not mak, as I see it, grammatical error.

Please explain how this is disruptive or strike your content. I have proposed consecutive proposals so that they can be viewed together on the Request moves page which gives the benefit that the whole content can be considered in one go or that words may be considered separately if desired. I am also providing a long list of relevant articles which might not otherwise be a feature of an RfC.


In a search on grammar guide superlative

Results in sequence were:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/comp.htm presenting:

1-syllable adjectives: add -est to the adjective (plus the)

  • My sister is the tallest in our family.
  • Yesterday was the coldest day of the year so far.

... and so on

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/comparative-and-superlative-adjectives presenting:

  • Superlative adjectives:
We use the with a superlative:
It was the happiest day of my life.
Everest is the highest mountain in the world.
That’s the best film I have seen this year.
I have three sisters, Jan is the oldest and Angela is the youngest.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/ presenting:

SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Superlative adjectives are used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). They are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.

Noun (subject) + verb + the + superlative adjective + noun (object).

The group that is being compared with can be omitted if it is clear from the context (final example below).

EXAMPLES

  • My house is the largest one in our neighborhood.
  • This is the smallest box I've ever seen.
  • Your dog ran the fastest of any dog in the race.
  • We all threw our rocks at the same time. My rock flew the highest. ("of all the rocks" is understood)

This text is as presented on the website and represents basic grammar.

The fourth website - http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html - shows that even the Germans get this right. Why can't we???

Please check other grammar guides to see if anything different is presented...

Rightly or wrongly but with good faith I have chosen to attempt to address what I regard to be grammatically flawed content on Wikipedia through the use of an associated set of RMs. Again and again we have presented content in a format "List of the fooest bar in baz". I do not see this type of the type of format presented at anywhere on Britannica or other similar source. In my personal opinion this seems to me a really basic grammatical mistake that I find embarrassing. I would like our encyclopedia to have content that is correct in every way. I make no apology for that.

GregKaye 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are dealing with article titles, not English sentences, and the strict rules of grammar don't necessarily apply. And, in any case, English is a language in which "the" can often be dropped without any loss of sense - think of a sign which says "Push button for elevator." If it were to be strictly grammatically correct, it would say "Push the button for the elevator [to come]," but English is quite happy to allow signs and other non-sentences (headlines, for instances) to drop words which are not necessary for understanding, and are provided mentally by the reader.
At the very least, you should get a consensus for any mass changes before you do them. Not doing so can be considered to be disruptive. BMK (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. However I do not see any content in a source such as Britannica dropping articles. From a personal perspective I find it surprising that our encyclopedia does not have significant content in WP:PG in regard to a presentation of accurate English and I think that this is to our general detriment. However my hope has been that we can present content that we might not get marked down for if we presented it in an English exam or that would not present bad usages of English that might be copied by, amongst others, school students. I am genuinely trying to do what is right. I thought that an appropriate way to proceed was to submit RMs as the most appropriate method to facilitate the discussion of article titles. WP:RM provides one of many contexts by which consensus is established. GregKaye 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
From discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion and elsewhere GregKaye seems to have a rather wide interest in correcting what he, rightly or wrongly, perceives as errors. To an extent, I salute him for it. To an extent. It can become a bit more problematic if, seemingly, an individual seems to be spending most of his time engaging in some sort of crusade or other, and it probably doesn't help make people see better of him if he seems to engage in too many such crusades. Particularly for the matter of article titles, I think it might be going a bit too far to change them to all match the perspective of a few usages of English. I know of at least one academic journal article, written in English and published in English, which I literally could not read at points because of the unusual usages. I tend to think that in at least some cases using words like "the" too often might create similar issues of confusion with other editors from parts of the world whose English we might find difficult. We don't really sacrifice clarity by not including all the "the"'s, and we might in some cases actually lose some for all I know. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
From my point of view, the inclusion of the "the" is a legitimate cause, though I'd probably have tried a single test case first or raised it at MOS (which from the response here it appears Greg hasn't). In any case I don't think this is tendentious editing, rather just going about something the wrong way combined with strong opinions (which from my POV are good to have because you care, though may mean you need to act a little more carefully). I also can't personally remember any problems with Greg on ISIL. Banak (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
AN/I is not the correct forum to argue for or against "the" in a Wikipedia article title. The question, Greg, is if you are moving pages with titles you have problems with that might be seen as contentious moves. It seems like you are going through the WP:RM process (Wikipedia:Requested_moves#April 22, 2015) and I don't see diffs offered here of moves you have done which are considered out of order. You have presented quite a lot of move requests at once and I would just trust the process and not rush the moving decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
TY John Carter both for your inputs at the Wikiproject and here.
I am also hoping that any editor may give clarification in regard to WP:PG content on what issues should be addressed in which forums. In regard to matters of the use of the English language, the only relevant content that I know is Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles within which it simply says "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." I have simply viewed that titles are to be written in English. It has been within this context that I had considered it it to be of benefit to try to ensure that the English used was, amongst other things, grammatically correct. Please, can anyone give guidance as to any reason why these may not have been appropriate moves to request? GregKaye 23:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
TY Banak "John Smith" of old :). Your comments are appreciated.
TY Liz, the reason that I thought it best to present, let's face it, a lot of moves was to provide an opportunity for the issue to be properly discussed in a way that would give a wide variety of interested parties to contribute. GregKaye 23:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "written using the English language" means as opposed to using French or Mandarin Chinese. It does not imply that all titles must be in perfectly grammatically correct English (in fact, most titles aren't, since they are the names of people, places and things), any more than the elevator sign does. You are being much, much too literal, and in the process misinterpreting the meaning of what is written. BMK (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
TY BMK, I am hoping that any editor may give clarification in regard to WP:PG content on what issues should be addressed in which forums. Three editors: AjaxSmack, Iryna Harpy, JohnBlackburne have accused me of disruptive editing in regard to the RMs. It would help my understandings to know whether there is any basis to these charges. GregKaye 00:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, if you go around making controversial mass changes without discussing it beforehand, yes, that can be considered to be disruptive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you've misconstrued objections as meaning "accused me". What has been discussed is the issue of your deeming these change to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT, whereas other editors are pointing out why it is not (for example, per my comment here). At no stage have I done anything other than assume good faith on your behalf, nor have the other editors you've mentioned above. The issue of such localised changes has been deemed to be disruptive due to broader ramifications for the entirety of Wikipedia by editors arguing against your proposed RMs. Being disruptive is not necessarily a bad faith intention on your behalf. I seriously think that you should consider that no one is suggesting that you're a bad editor (your track record suggesting quite the antithesis), but that even suggestions made in the best of faith are not necessarily going to result in positive outcomes for the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW, if uninvolved editors are allowed to weigh in, I personally generally value succinctness in List article titles. I also value observing due process in moves, which includes official public RMs and following community consensus as determined by a majority of those, and, again, always using official public RMs if similar moves have been opposed or controversial in the past. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I one editor who implied that User:GregKaye was being disruptive when I stated that his "mass proposals are borderline disruptive"[12] but my gripe was that the method s/he chose to bring about article moves was not ideal (multiple discussion locations for long lists of articles). I prefer a single discussion location of the issue to gauge support before moving to the WP:RM process when the ramifications are so wide. However, I believe s/he could have a legitimate argument and I fully support her/his passion for the issue — I do not think this is an ANI issue and have absolutely no personal or project-wide problem with her/him. —  AjaxSmack  04:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • While I agree that succinctness is more important than forming longer but more sentence-grammatical constructions, because these are titles not sentences, that's not an ANI matter. We're supposed to be addressing the user behavior. As someone actually move-blocked for three months for very similar actions some time ago – unilaterally mass-moving articles without establishing a consensus to do so and in the face of some expressed opposition from multiple parties – and having seen the error of those ways, I have to concur that these direct moves to be brought to a halt. If we don't do potentially controversial article renaming that way, then we don't do it that way, period. That said, the only user behavior issue here is the direct moving of articles to suit a proposed pattern that is still under somewhat heated debate. The notion that any user can be punitively enjoined from actually using RM – the prescribed process for proposing potentially controversial article moves – is patent nonsense. You can't punish people for following proper procedure, nor prevent them from doing so. The complainant here may not like the proposals, but GregKay has an editorial right to propose them, just like anyone else. If someone just can't stand seeing these proposals and the arguments made in them, they obviously need to take a break from RM discussions, and maybe change the settings for the bot-posted discussion notices to which they may have subscribed their talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Other IP User[edit]

There is another IP user that used to have the accounts User:Dodo birds die, User:Dodo birds die4, User:Epicgenius2, Dodo birds die...etc. User was blocked in December multiple times for sock puppetry but, recently this month has come back abousing me and and my fellow ikipedian project member's talk and user pages. This user now uses IP.Doorknob747 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a admin please remove the User:Dodo birds die main User page. This account had been permanently blocked, and clearly that user is not going to have any use of that account again. Also, the rest of the sockpuppetry accounts have the user pages removed so why not this one? So can a Administrator please remove the main userpage of that account. Thank you in advance. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
(non-administrator comment) I've replaced the contents of their User page with a {{Blocked}} tag instead. Hopefully this is satisfactory... --IJBall (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Links:
And here's the SPI investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dodo bird die3
Question: What's the IP address of the new version of this troll? --IJBall (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
(non-administrator comment) I also replaced the contents of the master's user page with a {{sockpuppeteer}} tag. Hopefully it's OK for non-Admins to do this... --IJBall (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: Please stop turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. It is obviously okay for a non-admin to do that. Also, you don't need to use that abysmally stupid {{Nacc}} every time you comment on this page. Regards. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I have no interest in misrepresenting myself as an Admin when I'm not one, which is why I generally self-label that way – those templates were created for a reason. Also I have no idea what you mean when you claim I'm "turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy". --IJBall (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have to disagree with the IP user, some admins really don't like nonadmin editors to template user pages as being sockpuppets. They prefer to leave that act to admins blocking the accounts or CUs or clerks at SPIs and sometimes they don't do it all. Maybe some admins can weigh in here. Bbb23? Mike V? Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly. I really would like to know if it's OK for non-Admin to add "sockpuppet" tags like this. --IJBall (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's my general opinion. If a user has been blocked.abusing multiple accounts, I don't really care who adds a tag as long as they know what they are doing and it will be useful. There is one exception which may be held widely. The userpages and categories of any sockpuppeteer who makes usernames or adds templates to get recognition and add themselves to these categories should be aggressively deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This conversation is where I saw this issue being discussed, IJBall. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(Pinging those involved at the discussion that Liz referenced: @Bbb23: @Vanjagenije:) Well, I'm not planning on doing this very often (in this case, I only tagged those pages at the request of the original poster here). All that said, if this is indeed the case, then 1) it needs to be written in to policy formally, and 2) they need to revise the documentation involved with all of these templates to make clear that only Admins and Clerks should be using them (which is not the case with those templates' docs currently)... --IJBall (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As long as that user does not comeback, I have no problems in what ever you people think of doing about this situation and those users. Also, what is this discussion over a sock puppetry tag? Also, if this vandal wikipeidia editor user ever comes back and vandalizes me or anyone of my fellow Wikipeidan's pages or talk pages, I am going to come back to this discussion and am going to get heavily involved in deciding what will be the final decision that will be taken for this situation, and this vandal user! Thank you, for, all of your support in advance. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, non-admin/non-SPI clerks should not tagg userpages with any of the sock templates. Often, there's a reason why the page wasn't tagged, and that's best left to the discretion of those whose role it is to make the determination in the first instance. If you feel strongly that the page should have been tagged, i.e., it was inadvertent, then ask the blocking administrator or the person who handled the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 to what Bbb23 said. Template:Sockpuppet#Usage has a version ({{sockpuppet}}) which can (but very very rarely) be used while an account under investigation but other than that the tags should be placed by admins/SPI clerks who take action. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Callanec, please pay attention, or you're never going to make Arbitrator, which is clearly where you're heading -- we're no longer talking about the tags, we're now talking about what IP Doorknob747 was referring to at the to of this discussion. Be aware - Arbitrators have to be a bit sharper than you're showing yourself to be. I moved your comment up here to save you some embarrasement. BMK (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am still talking about the tags. And the point is, nowhere in the documentation of those tags does it say that only Admins or SPI Clerks should use them. Nor does this seem to be an official "policy", but a preference of SPI crew. Both of these things should probably change, if they don't want garden-variety editors to use them... --IJBall (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in knowing what IP it is that Doorknob747 (who's a bit of a disruptive editor himself - see the multiple edits here on AN/I, despite a topic ban placed on him 8 days ago by Floquenbeam from commenting on AN/I threads that don't concern him [13]) is accusing of being a sockpuppet, since I don't see that information above. Who is the IP who is supposedly a sock of Dodo birds die? BMK (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
2600:1017:B809:AE93:24F6:8DF5:75E5:981E There is another one. Note the other ip address will tell you how this one links to the other one which definitely links to the sock puppet. Doorknob747 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
here is the other one 2600:1017:B800:4B55:24F6:8DF5:75E5:981E Doorknob747 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban[edit]

Restored from archive for closure. BMK (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.
I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking[edit]

User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

  • Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.
  • Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pretty sure WP:AN/MINORITYREPORT isn't a blue link. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone regularly follows his victim from place to place, showing up each time after the victim arrived at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley, we'd all call that stalking. If someone studies his victim's habits, and shows up at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley 20 minutes *before* the victim arrived, that would be an even more demented version of stalking. No sane person would blame the victim for showing up *after* the stalker; any rational individual would see an even bigger ick factor of a creep who is so preoccupied with his victim to go to such lengths. What BMK calls "pre-stalking" is far worse than merely following someone around; it demonstrates a level of obsession and harassment far above what is acceptable.

The other party has usually stalked me in the traditional, creepy version, at Battin High School (a brand-new article) and again at the same article, but also at Scotch Plains, with some more stalking at the same article. Far worse, he's gone out of his way to study what I'm editing and then jumped ahead on the list. This isn't a case of "apparently reading [my] mind", this is stalker who sat down, reviewed my edits and saw that I was editing the List of census-designated places in New Jersey. This isn't my supposition; In this talk page edit he describes how "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered...." He knew what I was doing and deliberately edited Robbinsville CDP, just 15 minutes before I would get there, followed on that list minutes later by Seabrook Farms and Zarephath.

Be it Battin High School and Scotch Plains or be it Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, he had *NEVER* edited any of those articles before. The only way he would come across those is to deliberately stalk my edits, either imposing his changes on articles I had just edited, or -- even more disturbingly and downright fucked up -- looking at my edits, checking the list and jumping a few minutes ahead to deliberately manufacture a violation of the Interaction Ban.

In real life, a stalker who persistently follows his victim after being warned would be given a restraining order. Someone who starts stalking his victim after a restraining order has been issued, and then starts showing up in advance after guessing the victim's next steps, would be tossed in jail. Whether you look at our definitions of Stalking or read WP:HARRASS or you look at the IBan clause 4 re "wide berth", we are each obligated to make our best efforts to stay out of each other's way. I've tried my best, as described above, to avoid even touching anything he has touched. The other editor has been persistently stalking my edits, at articles he has never edited that aren't on his watch list, and now resorts to maliciously looking ahead to jump a few articles ahead on a list. In Wikipedia, we have ways to deal with this kind of messed up behavior, and a block combined with a meaningful interaction / topic ban are needed, above and beyond the present IBAN that he has been gaming from day one. Alternatively, an apology by the other party, combined with a genuine commitment to avoid further stalking may be a legitimate alternative before taking further action. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words, but what it still comes down to that you want first dibs on articles on places in New Jersey, and expect Magnolia677 to back away entirely from that subject area, on the mere possibility that you will edit an article within in. Unfortunately, that was not part of the IBan, which set up specific rules for editing in the same subject area: i.e. whoever edited an article first, the other editor couldn't revert their edits until a third party had edited articles first. There was a clear mechanism for complaints about the contents of the others edits, if it was felt that they were wrong or harmful to the article, but there was and is nothing in the IBan which forbids either of you from editing in the same subject area, and certainly nothing that requires the other editor to read your mind. I made a suggestion that you both post a short list of srticles which you intent to edit, and you (both) ignored that. You have instead returned to making the same basic complaint. Unfortunately, by acting on what you want to be the case about the IBan, you have actually broken the real, specific conditions of the ban yourself -- which is why all uninvolved commenters who have expressed an opinion have suggested that you should receive a block for your behavior. BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the future[edit]

For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.

It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.

I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.
Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone want to wrap this up somehow?[edit]

The thread seems to have been inactive for a while now, and I think that there is enough of an indicator that there should be at least some form of action taken upon it. So, before it gets archived, would some admin either want to review it and do whatever is required, or, alternately, offer an !opinion as to how to resolve it? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)
The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.
As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

I unfortunately have too limited availability to be able to mediate this (I'm away a lot of the time). My take on the existing agreement is that it's so legalistically written that it almost asks to be gamed. The only thing missing was "Hear ye, hear ye" at the beginning. Alansohn and Magnolia, could the two of you just divvy up the articles somehow? E.g. Alansohn edits NJ articles from A to M and Magnolia gets N to Z, then switch after a while? Or Magnolia stays away from direct edits on NJ articles (talk page suggestions are fine) and Alansohn stays away from some other state(s) nominated by Magnolia? Does anyone understand the nature of the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia in individual articles (maybe it's somewhere up there in the tl;dr)? I think that info is needed to get a sense of what kinds of agreements can work. Anyone mediating will have to spend a while looking at older disputes and examining diffs. But the basic idea is reasonable. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Zero-tolerance anything generally doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when there's a lot of room for gaming. 2) If Alansohn is focusing mostly on NJ while Magnolia is working on all 50 states, why topic ban both from NJ? That stops almost all of Alansohn's editing but only 2% of Magnolia's. Unless I'm missing something we might do better to restrict Magnolia from NJ and Alansohn from the other 49 states or some subset of them. I guess either proposal would require some diff-counting to see how equitible it was. But I think it's better to figure out the root of the conflict if that's possible. Alansohn and Magnolia, could you each name one specific article where you think your disagreement was especially bad before the IBAN, and give your side of what happened in it, with diffs? Maybe we need an arbcom-style presentation, either on an ANI sub-page or by the actual arbcom. Or is there still such a thing as the mediation committee? It looks like MEDCAB is dead. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 100,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above [14]) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that I've been clear as to the issue here; I want to be able to edit in peace without having this editor riding my ass out of what appears to be nothing more than spite. Whether before, during or after the implementation of this interaction ban, the other editor seems to be persistently stalking my edits as part of a consistent pattern of harassment. There are multiple examples in the recent past of this deliberate stalking / harassment at articles he has never edited before and which would never appear on his watchlist, such as at Battin High School, Scotch Plains, Robbinsville (CDP) and Seabrook Farms. I have worked over the past few months since he started editing these articles and creating conflicts to stay out of his way, to provide warnings when he appears to be engaging in harassment and to provide the "wide berth" required by the interaction ban; I haven't seen any corresponding effort by the other editor. We've heard BMK, JC and other editor's versions of his story, but without hearing directly from the editor in question with explanations for his recent edits and his plans to avoid further conflicts over the next 360-odd days left in this interaction ban, it's hard to make any substantive suggestions to tighten or modify this Iban. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.
At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen childish WP:POINTy edits before, but this edit where the editor in question added an entry to the list of notables in the article for Trenton, New Jersey adding "Chris Christie, as governor, he is closely associated with the state capitol city." I'm not quite sure how I provoked this disruptive edit. It's this kind of bad faith edit at an article this editor has never edited before, that demonstrates the nature of the problem. I too am afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point if the other editor is unwilling to edit like a mature adult. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm willing to see this closed, if we can't get the two of them together here to agreeably work out a detailed deal without casting aspersions and making accusations -- on the understanding that if it comes to ANI again (from either side), a proposal for a NJ topic ban for both of them, of whatever length, is likely going to ensue; or ArbCom. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IP User, Wikifiddling and refactoring talk page discussions on Crown colony[edit]

Some strange behaviour on the article Crown colony

202.55.32.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

IP has been removing/changing dates without explanation. He has been reverted by Jaaron95 and myself as it appears to be Wikifiddling. One of the dates he is changing is clearly wrong [15] and he has been corrected see Talk:Crown colony#British Nationality Act 1981. The other dates check out on daughter articles.

He has also repeatedly refactored the talk page discussion, variously removing my comments and changing the comment I replied to, in one case changing it to give the impression he'd added a source when he hadn't [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Has been referenced to WP:TPG and warned twice previously but is continuing. WCMemail 09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP has seemingly done the refactoring at the Talk page again (see here), though they are seemingly only removing their own Talk page comments, so it would seem that that isn't against policy (is it?...). --IJBall (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't normally be etiquette to refactor after someone has replied, in particular given he's now changed the comment I replied to the answer no longer makes sense. WCMemail 11:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that what this IP did in that last edit is against etiquette, I'm just not sure against guideline or policy. So, unless the IP returns to more vandalism-type editing (e.g. with the date changes), I'm not sure there's anything for ANI to do here... --IJBall (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
[22] And his latest completely buggers up the talk page making it appear I replied to someone else and the context of my reply is completely out of kilter. This is simply being disruptive and as part of continuing pattern of disruptive edits needs effective action like a block. WCMemail 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the changes made are within the spirit of policy or good behaviour. WP:REDACT says, "[r]emoving or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse" and strongly recommends other less extreme methods of doing this, such as by using square brackets to explain changes, and by striking the comment.

This change alters the text significantly, including removing section headings and other markup in such a way as to suggest that WCM's comment actually applied to a completely different post. I think it is fair to say that by removing the context from WCM's post it reaches the point of misrepresenting WCM per WP:TPNO. Block-worthy? Not at this stage, per WP:BITE. But an admin note on policy on his talk or on the article talk page to push him in the right direction couldn't hurt. Kahastok talk 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88[edit]

I am frankly fed up and truly disgusted by the above editors insistent refusal to abide by even the most basic standards of acceptable behavior. The regular grossly unacceptable, outrageous outbursts this editor has made at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa are probably the best example, although I suggest that any editors reviewing this matter also look at the conduct discussed in the recent mutual interaction ban requested by Catflap08, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88, perhaps particularly the comments by administrator and former arb User:SilkTork there, including, and I quote, "Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works," and later, again by SilkTork directed at Hijiri88, "But you have since lost the plot. Listen to me again - stop this chest beating, and adopt a more collaborative approach to editing or you will find yourself not just facing a restriction on interacting with one user, but a restriction on editing Wikipedia." And it is worth noting that the events involved here were only 2 weeks ago.

Since then, he has engaged in edit warring to remove information from the lede, and started a new subsection of the article talk page Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the body, which is plainly ridiculous and raises extremely serious questions regarding this editor's basic competence as per WP:CIR because the article does not currently say that the subject was a nationalist, but rather that he was a member of a group which had nationalist tendencies. In fact, the article has not described the subject as a nationalist for some months, favoring the changed phrasing, although Hijiri seems unwilling or incapable of recognizing that change. This raises even further issues regarding his basic competence, specifically whether he is capable of recognizing and adequately dealing with current reality. The current version of that talk page also is a remarkably good indicator of the varieties of gross and unacceptable conduct in which Hijiri88 has regularly indulged lately.

It is worth noting that I have received off-wiki communications from another editor, who I will not name here more or less at that editor' request, to the effect that he had concerns about my entering into conflict with Hijiri because there seems to be a pattern of editors either retiring or eventually losing their tempers and being blocked in some way after having to deal with the irrational hissy-fits Hijiri regularly displays. I have forwarded a redacted copy of some of those communications to SilkTork as well, and, if required, am willing to forward the full versions to an administrator, under the absolute condition that the admin in question agrees up front to in no way disclose the name of that other editor, for fear of Hijiri engaging in his tendency toward inexcusable bile toward that editor.

I believe the time has come for Hijiri to be placed under some sort of definite sanctions. Including the existing I-ban with Catflap08, I think it might be reasonable for Hijiri to be topic-banned from the subject of Kenji Miyazawa, and, possibly, from the broad topic of Nichiren Buddhism. It is worth noting that Hijiri's only interest in Nichiren Buddhism seems to relate to the fact that the nationalist group with which Miyazawa was associated with was a Nichiren Buddhist group. I might also request an i-ban of him with me, and or perhaps a topic ban from Christianity and older religions, to prevent his engaging in stalking and harassment of me similar to that which he had indulged in against Catflap08, which was the direct cause of Catflap's temporary retirement from wikipedia until the i-ban was first discussed. Hijiri's grossly unacceptable regular attacks, insults, and repeatedly demonstrated dubious competence to my eyes raise very serious questions whether that individual is capable of contributing in a reasonable way at all, and I also think it might be reasonable and appropriate to consider some form of site ban until and unless he learns to reign in his grossly unacceptable comment. However, as I am clearly an involved party, I think it best if that decision is made by others. I will however try to meet any specific requests for specific instances of misconduct at request, but, honestly, there are so many such instances, in so many areas, that I don't think anyone should have any trouble finding them. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide some specific diffs? I have noticed that Hijiri88 often removes content from her/his TP seemingly selectively, some summaries are strongly worded and there has been antagonistically toned, IMO, comments on both sides. I do not see how Ibans can work when editors can still work on the same projects. GregKaye 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like WP:BOOMERANG to apply here. John Carter is in fact edit warring as well. Almost the entirety of his "contributions" to the talk page discussion was nothing more than assumptions of bad faith and (basically) calling Hijiri88 an incompetent POV-pusher. He claimed that consensus supported his reverts, then turned around and said "old arguments" don't apply. He requested page protection only five minutes after reverting Hijiri88 again, claiming that it was so an RfC could be held, but he has never once brought up starting an RfC over the dispute, and never mentioned the page protection until it was in effect. He complained that the lede was too short and he was keeping Hijiri88 from making it shorter, but wasn't willing to expand it himself, and after I expanded it myself, John Carter moved on to demanding sources. When they were presented to him, he ignored them. Whenever one of his arguments falls apart, he pretends it never happened and finds something else to argue about. All of this is unacceptable.
Because of such WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I strongly support an indefinite IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri88, and an indefinite TBAN on John Carter from Kenji Miyazawa, Nichiren Buddhism, and the Kokuchūkai. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the above editor's comments are, ultimatley, gross misrepresentation of fact by one of the few editors who consistently takes Hijiri's side. What he describes as "edit warring" on my part is to remove allegations which violate basic policies and guidelines. What he calls my "assumptions of bad faith" are in fact attempts to keep the content consistent with policies and guidelines, which Hijiri has little use for, apparently. The fact that he is apparently willing to defend violations of policies and guidelines if his friend is the person doing them is something that should very definitely be taken into account. He is, or could easily be seen as acting to perhaps misrepresent things to save his friend, which is really no more acceptable. The arrogant presumptuousness of the statement that implies I would need to start an RfC immediately itself indicates that the above editor is perhaps rather obviously acting in bad faith to defend his friend. He also frankly completely ignores the outcome of the previous RfC, which is yet further evidence of his own misconduct. I am sorry that he seems apparently incapable of realizing that edit warring in the defense of policy and guidelines is perhaps more permissible than Hijiri's obviously personally motivated edit warring. I strongly suggest that the above editor make some more visible effort to adequately represent the facts of the situation, rather than continue to engage in what seems to me a rather knee-jerk attempt to defend his friend. Also, FWIW, I just this morning finished the listing of "History of Asia" from the online Guide to Reference and have added all the encyclopedic ones to the appropriate pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias. Now that we have a clear indicator of the most currently well-regarded reference works in English anyway regarding that subject area, which was not available before this morning, finding relevant reference sources to compare to should be easier. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: "In the defense of policy and guidelines"? You're edit warring was violating WP:NPOV by allowing readers to conclude that Kenji was a nationalist. "We are not responsible for what editors may or may not conclude"? You have serious WP:CIR issues if you think it's ok to mislead readers with POV and that any policy or guideline backs you up. And no, I didn't expect you to immediately start the RfC, but you don't request page protection "to permit another RfC" if you have no intention of starting an RfC. I'll start an started the RfC myself. As for me taking Hijiri88's "side", that's laughable. Sometimes he's in the right and sometimes he's in the wrong, and my history with him shows that I've acted accordingly rather than "consistently". On the other hand, I could accuse the same of you and Catflap08. His past actions are what got you interested in this article too, isn't it? that's why it's on my watchlist at least. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I just went through the sources you added to the bibliography of encyclopedias list, and only one was at all relevant to this dispute. Within that one source, only one sentence was relevant to this dispute. That one sentence calls the Kokuchūkai a "Nichiren study group" (without even saying its name) and doesn't at all mention nationalism. Your unrelated work did not in any way contribute to the Kenji Miyazawa article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have had some interaction with Hijiri88, none of it good and his behaviour is a problem. I close RFC's and went to close one on Talk:Kenji_Miyazawa. I was uninvolved, and had never even seen the article before. The language questioning the closing was caustic. The little section is filled with insinuations and calling the closind dubious. Suggesting that I was somehow undermining something. Suggesting motives contrary to AGF. While I got him to remove some of it, and then unwatched the page. He has kept on it, At WP:AN he posted again on the dubious closing diff. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
John Carter showed up suddenly on an article talk page he had shown no interest in before. He has not indicated that he has actually read the previous discussions, and much of what he writes indicates that he has no idea what that discussion was about. He started out saying that I was convinced that the subject was not a nationalist and that I was trying to remove this claim from the article, and claimed this was "OR". I pointed out to him how all our sources say he wasn't a nationalist, and suddenly he U-turns and insists that the article never claimed he was a nationalist. Then when I point out that it did, he suddenly shifts again. I have asked him numerous times if he has actually read the previous discussion, or if he has checked any of the sources; he has consistently dodged these questions. I would say he's only there to troll me, if I hadn't already seen a tremendous amount of evidence that he is engaged in off-wiki contact with a user with whom I have an IBAN.
I don't have the exact diff, but I think John Carter requested an IBAN with me previously (@Sturmgewehr88: did you check this?). I'm beginning to agree with him. I wonder if his opinion has changed since the previous IBAN discussion closed, though?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for once again making what others might not unreasonably consider paranoic tendencies on your part so obvious. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: Someone posted an unnecessary request for closure on an already-finished RFC, and asked for an "experienced" user to close it. You are, to put it mildly, not an experienced editor, but showed up nonetheless and posted an extremely dubious closing statement. I said I wouldn't bring it up on ANI because you changed the close. Why are you showing up on ANI and asking for ... what? Me to be blocked? Also, the AN post was a general comment, on an ongoing discussion that was started by someone who had no idea about the Kenji problem. The enormously large close request question is an issue on AN, and I brought my two cents that a lot of them are unnecessary and are posted for dubious reasons, and attract non-admins to make equally dubious closures. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, I have made over 5k edits since 2008, I have authored 3 articles. I have been involved in two very contentious articles. I am an experienced editor. This is just another example of the caustic discussion style. Again you use dubious, a word that implies underhanded action. The closure basically quoted policy diff are you saying policy is dubious? I didnt just show up at AN/I for you, I post on this page often. When the section opened up on your behaviour I posted on it. AlbinoFerret
@Hijiri88: It took me a bit of hunting but I found the dif. John Carter wants an IBAN, so he should get what he wants. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it might reasonably be seen by some that it would take a true idiot to not have seen that one of the options I suggested at the top of this thread was an i-ban, and made an effort to go through the history to find it, but I thank you for having made the rather obviously pointless effort, and for demonstrating your own abilities as such. At this point, I am very seriously reconsidering that earlier matter, in favor of potentially taking this to Arbitration. If you are going to presume to tell people what they want, please at least (1) make the effort of actually reading the comment at the top of the thread to which you have posted, where you could see a similar statement, had you bothered to look of course, and (2) refrain from making rather presumptuous judgments about what people do and do not want, as opposed to what they have suggested in the past and what they now think appropriate. It reflects very, very badly on you, in a number of ways, to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: And thank you very much for the extremely dickish and unnecessary comment! I did in fact see that you proposed an IBAN in your opening comment, hence you want (present tense). If you actually wanted (past tense) an IBAN, and prefer ArbCom, then you should at least strike or rephrase that comment. I looked for this dif because Hijiri wanted to see a previous (i.e. before this ANI post) IBAN request by you. It reflects very, very badly on your character to call someone a "true idiot". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in on this topic by John Carter who noted that I "have had previous involvement with the editor Hijiri88" and "would welcome any input [I] might see fit to offer." My previous involvement was in trying to put a stop to Hijiri 88's overzealous removals of supposedly non-reliable sources relating to haiku and associated topics during Hijiri 88's previous incarnation. At the time Hijiri 88 had created a fair amount of damage due to slash and burn techniques but was amenable to reason. Looking over Hijiri 88's current portfolio of edits, I don't find that much to censure. But I do find that Hijiri 88 while making useful contributions can be something of a loose cannon, and tends to be drawn toward controversial topics, and therefore hope other editors will continue to follow his edits. With regard to the current Miyazawa Kenji controversy, it seems to me that the edit war over religion and nationalism has skewed the article towards these topics. If he was "a Japanese poet and author of children's literature ... known as an agricultural science teacher, a vegetarian, and social activist" it is unclear why so much of the article should be devoted to religion and nationalism. The lede goes on too long; the material in the second half of it should be moved to later sections. If there is a point to be made about the connection of Kokuchūkai and nationalism, shouldn't that point be made on the Kokuchūkai page? Having looked at only some parts of the current controversy I would still hope a plea for civility on everyone's part might prove more effective than banning possibly-useful interactions.--Icuc2 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, John Carter above refers to this talk page thread. As any competent Wikipedian who actually reads my comment can tell, it refers to my removal of a short paragraph near the end of the article discussing the minority theory among scholars that the subject was a lifelong devotee of the Kokuchukai and a nationalist. I had written this entire section myself, but had on the talk page expressed doubts about it violating WP:WEIGHT. No one else disagreed and said it belonged in the article, so two months later I self-reverted by removing the paragraph, based partly on the fact that it had misled at least one good-faith user into thinking this was a significant part of the subject's biography. John Carter completely misread my self-reversion and has been continuing even after I have explained it to him. Sturmgewehr, User:Dekimasu and myself appear to be the only users who have contributed anything substantial to the article in the past year, and I am the only one has contributed anything substantial to the Kokuchukai article ... ever. I find John Carter's request that I be TBANned from these areas frankly offensive, given how he himself has shown no interest whatsoever in contributing to this area, and has over the past week been doing nothing on the Kenji talk page but baiting me.

Also, for the record, I don't appreciate John Carter Contributions&offset=20150427211148&limit=20&tagfilter=&contribs=user& target=John+Carter&namespace=3 selectively contacting users with whom I have conflicted in the past.The only two users notified of this dispute whose history with me was not both (1) very brief, and (2) generally negative were User:Nishidani and User:Cuchullain, and of these two Nishidani roundly told John Carter that I was righton the substance,andCuchullain was forsome reason notified on a defunct talk page of an alternate accountthat hasn't been used for almost a decade and they are extremly unlikely to see. Why were not User:Dekimasu, User:Prasangika, User:Wikimandia and all the others with specific knowledge of the present dispute (the one from which John Carter wishesme topic-banned) not contacted? Could it be because,withonlyone ortwo exceptions, they all agree with me? Let alone the hundreds of others who have had one or two brief, positive interactions with me in unrelated areas over the years?

User:Icuc2's comment is both fair and well-researched,butmyhistorywithhim has nothing whatsoever to do with the present content dispute, andwas so briefthat I hadhonestlynot remembered it until now. John Carter's annoying such users with this discussion, based one or two brief conflicts with me years ago is extremely creepy and stalker-ish, and I don't think the fact that the one who has commented so far was fair should be an indication that this activity by John Carter was not a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The transparent paranoia of the above comment is definitely worth noting. First, I believe you know why I contacted Cuchulainn, although, I admit, I had trouble finding his active user talk page. And I find his continuing to indulge in "what about" fantasies as some sort of evudence amusing, and extremely indicative of perhaps a pronounced lack of basic logical capacity, which can and reasonably would in the eyes of many raise very serious issues of basic competence. It may surprise Hijiri to realize this, but he can contact anyone he wishes to as well. I did not review every single edit he ever made, either under his own name(s) or as an IP, although he, apparently, does not seem to necessarily believe that. There have been a remarkable number of people who have had extremely dubious contacts with Hijiri, under all his names, and it would be reasonable to receive evidence from them. I also note that, for all his posturing about why I should have done what he would want done, he has apparently not bothered to contact any of those individuals himself. It is not the obligation of anyone to have to provide the evidence for all sides in a dispute, although apparently that concept is one that Hijiri cannot or will not understand. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been requested by John Carter to comment on this issue, and mention an email he sent me a little while ago. The email was from a user whose details were obscured, but who had got into conflict with Hijiri88, and was detailing examples of Hijiri88's past behaviour. I left a comment on this on my talkpage during a discussion with both John and Hijiri88:
"John provided information he was given on previous incidents involving yourself, and asked for my feedback. It is difficult sometimes when a body of evidence is provided which paints someone in a bad light to know what to make of it, so getting other opinions is always recommended. In my response I said I felt you were a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others, but that I wasn't seeing sufficient evidence to open an investigation against you. My strong recommendation to you is that you focus on building the encyclopedia, and don't respond so aggressively to others. I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences. And I'd like to see you speak with more patience to and about other users - this will help reduce conflict, and make your own time here more pleasant and productive."
Friction has continued with messages on my talkpage, the Kenji Miyazawa talkpage, and on AN, either by Hijiri88 or about Hijiri88. Reviewing these, my observation is still the same, that Hijiri88's behaviour is brittle and provokes negative responses (which then makes things difficult for himself, others, and the project). He asserts his own believes and position too strongly, even when he may be right; but on the whole he's here to build the encyclopedia, he talks about contentious edits, and he responds to discussions. As experienced users we all know how exasperating editing Wikipedia can be at times, especially when there is a disagreement over article content, and so we are somewhat tolerant of occasional irritated behaviour, hostile language, threats of blocking, and repeated requests for assistance. But there comes a point when the community itself becomes exasperated. We have other things to do than continually monitor fractious users, and arbitrate minor editing disputes. And we don't wish the encyclopedia to become unstable as users have edit wars while arguing over what should be in an article.
There is nothing serious enough in Hijiri88's behaviour for admin intervention at the moment, but Hijiri88 needs to adopt a more diplomatic approach to dealing with editors who disagree with him because he is accumulating enemies, and he is wearing very thin the tolerance of the community. At the same time, John Carter should think carefully about how useful it is to keep stirring the pot over minor issues. If problems continue at Kenji Miyazawa it will be locked again. At that point a moderated discussion could take place to resolve the issue. If that fails to resolve the matter, then an article ban on all editors involved in the dispute could be considered. We can't keep returning to the same issue over and over again. Personally I am fed up with the dispute surrounding Hijiri88, and the amount of time it takes out of my allocation for Wikipedia, so this is the last time I will respond. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that there may be sufficient evidence that there has been an ongoing failure, for apparently some time, for Hijiri to demonstrate an ability to abide by policies and guidelines. I agree we cannot, as Hijiri has obviously done, continue to make an argument against content after the content has been changed and the argument is no longer valid. There are, I regret to say, serious issues regarding both the prior abuse he suffered, and the pattern of abuse he has recently engaged in. There are also serious questions regarding his basic competence, so far as I can see, and I believe that is an additional cause for concern.
I said on the article talk page I would bring the matter to ANI should his problematic edits continue, and I have done so. I have not as of this time ruled out the possibility of arbitration regarding his pattern of behavior. I have hesitated to do so, because there is a serious possibility that doing so would cause Hijiri to react in his now trademark abusive way toward others, particularly an individual who has rather clearly tried to avoid him and advise others to do so in the past. The option of arbitration remains open and, honestly, is one I have not fully considered to date. I won't have a lot of free time till Thursday, but I believe I may decide on raising the issue of the recent pattern of his disruptive, attacking, problematic behavior to ArbCom later this week. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, again[edit]

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), only recently returned from an indef-ban through a BASC appeal, is back to permanent edit-warring. He feels that I am "hounding" him, despite having been told only last week that this charge is groundless, and has been meeting each and every edit I make to articles of his interest with immediate, indiscriminate blanket reverts.

Now, it is true that I have been touching quite a few articles of his. While he was indef-banned, I noticed he had recently created a series of articles on medieval philology – undoubtedly a laudable idea, but unfortunately riddled with so many factual errors I saw myself compelled to fix or rewrite most of them. (Obviously, there can be no "hounding" of an indef-banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place.) Last week I noticed he had again become embroiled in an edit-war elsewhere, at Female infanticide in India, so I did what I would always have done in such situations: intervened (in his favour!) to get a disruptive sock out of the way [23], found that the sock was wrong about most things, but that DS was also wrong about a few others, so I ended up challenging his poor use of sources on a number of counts [24]. This article is an exemption from an area he is otherwise topic-banned from, to allow him to get it up to GA status, but the points I raised will, I believe, make that aim difficult to reach [25]. Since I know from multiple prior occasions that DS has a persistent record of pushing poorly used sources through review processes such as GA, DYK or FA, I finally went to check up on another article that he got through GA last year, Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, only to indeed find yet more of the same kinds of problems [26]. Of course, per WP:HOUND, this is all perfectly legitimate: it doesn't constitute hounding to check a user's contribs history to clean up persistent patterns of unambiguous errors and clear policy violations on related series of articles.

DS has reacted to each and every attempt at cleaning up behind him with the same tactics: immediate, repeated reverts, often abusing Twinkle rollback; in almost every instance indiscriminate blanket reverts including entirely uncontroversial, trivial cleanup edits; combined with an utter refusal to meet any of my challenges with substantial arguments on talk.

This has affected the following articles:

This is precisely the same disruptive pattern that earned him his topic ban from the India/Pakistan area last May [40], and it needs to be stopped.

Note that Arbcom members were discussing part of this issue last week [41] but dropped the ball again and took no action [42] – but then, it doesn't seem they took any notice of how his hostile behaviour was still continuing on several articles even after they began their review. Fut.Perf. 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at a few of the diffs but they didn't appear to be vandalism to me and seemed to actually add sources to articles. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia...could you take your focus being DS' unappointed monitor and have faith that if he makes mistakes other editors can deal with it? There is no shortage of work that needs to be done and I think your interest in policing another editor is misplaced and I can see how it feels like stalking to DS.
You could also view ArbCom's taking no action not as dropping the ball but the fact that they didn't view DS' edits as disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Who said anything about "vandalism"? Please read again what I said those reverts were, rather than creating red herrings. Yes, they "added sources to articles" – misrepresented sources. And other editors aren't taking action on these things. The errors in the Rwanda article had been in the article for a year, and they had slipped through a GA review unnoticed. The errors in the India article were about to slip through a GA review unnoticed (at least the reviewer didn't spot them in their first pass). And the medieval articles are on such obscure topics it would be madness to hope that any other knowledgeable editor would even chance across them to fix them. Fut.Perf. 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban on "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" imposed on DS is still in place, why is he editing our article on Human rights in Pakistan? [43] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that happens to be a violation of a topic ban too (though the edit as such would be justifiable on its merits.) Fut.Perf. 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you are probably right - it would be a bit harsh to block someone for reverting the deletion of sourced content. Though DS might be well advised to take such articles off his watchlist, and let others deal with problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit that DS reverted would count as disruptive, if not vandalism, in my book; surely BANEX applies in the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not really, no, let's keep clear about what the rules are. WP:BANEX exempts only "obvious vandalism". The edit DS reverted [44] was tendentious, I agree, but there's no indication it wasn't made in good faith, hence it wasn't vandalism. Fut.Perf. 21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines' edits are problematic. The edit to Human rights in Pakistan would be fine if he weren't topic banned, but he is, and I do not think the edit he reverted qualifies as obvious vandalism. Unconstructive, sure, but not vandalism. I don't think DS should be blocked for his edit, but he should not be involved in this article at all--so he should take the article off his watchlist, he should not revert any edit to the article, even the most obvious vandalism, so he doesn't raise any suspicions of having violated the topic ban. Any further edits in the area should result in an immediate block.

The edits to other articles are also problematic. Take Prophecy of Melkin as an example: DS created this article, but clearly misunderstood the sources he used, to the extent that he didn't realize that Melkin is a legendary character, about whom no real biography can be written, and who is only known because of the text transmitted under his name. So Fut. Perf. rewrote the article and changed the title to better reflect the sources, and DS reverted these edits, without any substantial attempt to discuss matters on the talk page ([45] doesn't count, because Fut. Perf. explained at some length how the cited sources didn't support DS' version of the article). I haven't looked into Darkness Shines' history or the reason for his ban, but if behavior like this was the reason he was banned, he doesn't seem to have learned much. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And it goes on and on. I gave him 24 hours time to respond to my challenges on talk at Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, which he failed to do; yet he immediately reverted my reapplied fix within minutes just now [46]. I also found that the same misrepresented source was present on several other articles; there too I was immediately reverted, all with rapid-fire, blanket "undo" without even an edit summary [47][48][49]. Fut.Perf. 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? Since my unblock FPaS has stalked me to five articles, as soon as I said I would no longer edit Female Infanticide in India because of his harassment he has since gone to two other articles I created for the sole purpose of pissing me off. This hounding has to be stopped and I insist an IBA?N is put in place. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And now it is six articles he has stalked me to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, are you going to finally bring forward some argument why you think it's legitimate to take a statement made by one author about one historical event and present it to the reader as if it was by a different author and referred to a different historical event? Some might think that's a rather serious form of source misrepresentation, you know. Fut.Perf. 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
How many times must I tell you, I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone and stop fucking stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you don't get the luxury to choose who is or isn't allowed to fix your bad edits, as long as you keep making bad edits. Fut.Perf. 11:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not the first time he has disregarded his topic ban, see here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Calypso, that AE case was closed with the decision that there had been no violation. Fut.Perf., that edit was not very different from the one above; the meaning of the content was completely reversed, and a misleading edit-summary given. This is not to say that DS' conduct is perfect, but violating his topic-ban is not one of his sins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde , it's not clear whether you are supporting DS, or opposing him.C E (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
CosmisEmperor, I am neither "opposing" nor "supporting" DS. I am pointing out that two of the edits linked above are not problematic, or certainly not as problematic as they are made out to be. I've worked with DS before in the one topic area that both of us edit (or used to, in his case) and he can be brusque, abrasive, and so forth; but on the articles I have worked with him on, his knowledge of the source material is far superior to most other editors, particularly those who turn up with a political POV to push. The articles that brought the matter here I have not sufficient knowledge of, and not the time to look into, so no comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that Darkness Shines requires rollback, and should be asked to forfeit the right. He's only used it twice over the past week: once to mistakenly revert me, and the other to revert Fut.Perf., for no immediately apparent reason. I've looked far enough into his contrib log; he uses rollback only sparingly, sometimes on - admittedly - clueless non-vandals. I have no opinion on any of the rest of it. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been able to look at some more of Darkness Shines' edits and I agree with Fut. Perf. that there are serious problems that DS is refusing to discuss. Something that really jumps out is a quote that DS is edit-warring over at Rape during the Armenian Genocide [50] [51], Rape during the Rwandan Genocide [52], and Rape during the Congo civil wars [53]. Notice it's the same quote in all three articles. If that quote is to be used in each of these articles, it should be about each of these three historical incidents. But it's not--the quote is from a 1994 article by Catherine MacKinnon, "Rape, genocide, and women's human rights", which precedes the Congo civil wars. Now, DS seems not to realize where the quote actually came from, because he cites a 2010 article by Lisa Sharlach that quotes MacKinnon. So he's not only misusing the quote, but mis-citing it as well. From a quick look at the MacKinnon article, it's clear she's discussing the wars in the former Yugoslavia, not the Armenian or Rwandan genocides, nor the Congo civil wars. So there is strong reason for this quote to be removed from these articles, and Fut. Perf. discussed these reasons on the talk page of Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, and DS has made no real effort to justify the quote's inclusion—he just accuses Fut. Perf. of hounding and edit wars against him. I think this calls for a block of DS (who, remember, has just returned from an indefinite ban through an appeal!) and perhaps a further topic restriction. Of course, the simpler solution is just to ban him again... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Zimimi[edit]

BLOCKED:

Zimimi blocked by Swarm for 72 hours for edit warring. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 11:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User continually changing the Casualties secion of the Battle of the Somme infobox from

623,907

to

623,906
Alan Seeger killed

Has been reverted and warned on talk page, but continues disruptive behavior while ignoring warnings (simply blanks the warnings being given)

Evidence

Warnings to user

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish59 (talkcontribs) 20:39, April 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

Who are you, that is filing this complaint? You didn't leave your sig. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for forgetting to sign. Hamish59 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I posted it only as a reminder. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on his edits, I just want to comment on this edit summary: watch the personal attacks and bad faith. only (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Returning to the issue of Zimimi's edits, a look through their contrib list (which is not long) shows a tendency towards obstinacy resulting in edit warring (not only on The Battle of the Somme, but also on 2015 military intervention in Yemen) , disruptiveness (for instance the removal of an article section without explanation or apparent reason [54]), and what appears to be possible POV editing. Plus, of course, the name check insertion of "Alan Seeger" reported above.
I'mnot sure what this adds up to sanction-wise, possibly a final warning and a short block in the next instance? BMK (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone had issued a {{Uw-ew}} warning during the 13-14 reverts, this would be an easy edit warring + 3rr block. In the absence of the right warning, and as its a new account, I'd be inclined to go with a final warning. Though policy doesn't actually require a warning before a 3rr block. Monty845 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think it all depends on what Zimimi does next. BMK (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Admin Swarm blocked Zimimi for 72 hours for edit warring, with a warning that the next block will be significantly longer. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


User:Drjamesphillips[edit]

BLOCKED:

Drjamesphillips and associated socks are blocked. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While doing the WP:New pages patrol, I encountered editor Drjamesphillips. What was interesting to me is that the same day he created his account, he placed the {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}} tag on his user page and started doing the WP:new pages patrol. It is very unusual that a newly registered editor even knows about the new pages patrol, not to say that a certain (high) level of experience is needed for that job. Just 18 minutes after the account was registered, he proposed an article for speedy deletion ([55]), but the article was kept because it actually does not fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion. I kindly asked Drjamesphillips on his talk page to explain how he came to know about the new pages patrol. He first gave me this answer, but than few minuets later removed the question and answer altogether [56]. The behavior of this user is obviously not useful to the project, because WP:NPP is highlt sensitive issue and requires competence. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2015

If you would like to point me at the guideline that forbids new users from doing this then I will delete my account. You seem to have a vendetta here and have been dogging me for the last day. I would appreciate it if I could be left to get on with this. I have helped with dozens of articles in the last few days. Some I have questioned on the chat forum. I think your behavior towards me as a new user is designed simply to discourage and the fact your messages failed to do so has made you decide to escalate the issue inappropriately.. Thankfully for me I am not a child that can be bullied. If however the site does not wish my help then I invite an independent admin to block it permanently within 7 days. If this has not been done I will take it that I have not broken any site rules Drjamesphillips (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I do not have any desire to participate in any site that has users that harrass and belittle new users in this way. Could an admin permanently block the account with immediate effect. Drjamesphillips (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Did this really have to go to AN/I? They might be new, but at least 90% of the edits (probably more) I've seen them make regarding New Pages has been absolutely fine. Just because a new person makes a few mistakes, why has this been escalated into such a big problem? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302. Almost everyone here was pleasant and supportive but if it has users like Vanjagenije then it is not for me as it clearly rewards the wrong type of person. Enjoy your time on wikipedia. I will stick to real life editting from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.132.127 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who raised this issue (Vanjagenije) should not be dealing with new users if they cannot do so in a sympathetic and understanding manner? I Work with James and it was I that suggested to him that the site would benefit from him working on the pages that related to his expertise. I am disappointed and frustrated with this.Lemlinspire (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Why not also blocking 82.41.132.127 (talk · contribs)? It is obviously used by the same person. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If it is the same IP, it will already be autoblocked. As Virgin IPs in the UK tend to be fairly dynamic they can likely just cycle through to another IP or range anyway. All that being said, if any admin feels it would beneficial to block then feel free.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't anticipate that he was a sock but he clearly wasn't a new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Talk:Gensophobia; Suspicious behavior[edit]

RESOLVED:

Talk page (and article page) deleted. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I've today noticed a simply beautiful page called "Gensophobia". I decided to post (as a joke) why it shouldn't be deleted. For humor. Shortly after, there's a mysterious swarm of IP addresses that are contesting deletion (along with the article's creator, Thefuryshoota). I don't think this is a coincidence. Is there some potential proxy editing going on? Thank you for your time. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is an insult to those of us who have a deep, irrational fear of the Global Educational Network for Satellite Operations (GENSO). See http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ for details. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
...what...the fuck is that zapatoni page? I don't even know what's going on here. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely suspicious, the Latin is all wrong. On a more serious note, I deleted the article, but left the talk page for the time being, as its being discussed. My inclination would be to just leave the socking alone, maybe toss some warnings, but if they don't continue disruption, that should be enough. Monty845 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Gensophobia is currently deleted. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Odd activity at Mulalo Doyoyo[edit]

Over at Mulalo Doyoyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the article has seen a flurry of activity from four named accounts and some IPs that don't seem to have any interest outside of this person and some other articles with which he is connected. While not a problem in itself as the article subject does appear to be notable the article needed to be expanded with sources, I have grown frustrated at attempts in my attempts to apply cleanup tags and a lack of getting any discussion on the article talk page.

At this point, I intend to just walk away from the article as BLP articles are not my forte and I really don't want to get dragged into this one. But I wanted to bring it up here in case others who are more motivated towards BLP articles may want to try cleaning up the big wall-of text article, find some sources for some of the remaining BLP info that remains unsourced, and cleanup some of the remaining promotional wording regarding the subject's works. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Barek: I concur that there is definite "odd activity" (wp:SPA and wp:COI) here. One editor has admitted a connection between him and Mulalo Doyoyo, see here. I have welcomed a few of the registered accounts, as they (mostly) had only HostBot notices on their talkpages, and requested they use edit summaries. I also restored and added to the maintenance templates. 220 of Borg 04:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have dropped ANI notices on the talk pages of : Rduvvury‎ (talk · contribs), Yyyj4 (talk · contribs) and Cmoon100 (talk · contribs) directing them here.
All the same accounts have also edited Cenocell, one of them created it. Quote:
"Cenocell is a patented concrete material ... It was invented by Mulalo Doyoyo and Paul Biju-Duval at the Georgia Institute of Technology."
I note that all 3 accounts I 'pinged' have valid e-mail addresses, so I think good faith, but somewhat misguided editing. So there it is, lets see what response we get. 220 of Borg 05:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Need administrator to close move discussion[edit]

ACTIONED:

Discussion closed and page moved. Next time please post this type of request at the requested moves talk page - it's not really an incident.  Philg88 talk 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Talk:CIA transnational human rights actions#Requested move 10 April 2015, there appears to be a consensus to move CIA transnational human rights actions to Human rights violations by the CIA. Could we get an admin to review and close (if appropriate)? Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Elindiord[edit]

BLOCKED:

All contributions seem to be Twinkle reverts without explanation. Furthermore, there are no responses to legitimate complaints on their talk page. Blocked for 48 hours.  Philg88 talk 04:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elindiord has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits [57], [58], [59], [60] using only the default Twinkle summary, generally as mass rollback of a single user's edits (see Special:Contributions/Elindiord). They have not explained these edits in any way, and have not responded to multiple inquiries on their talk page by other editors about their behavior. Conifer (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Miraclexix won't leave me alone[edit]

The dispute that I thought had ended turned out didn't. Now Miraclexix is going on my talk page, finding already fixed disputes, and butting in and antagonizing me. If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is. I would like this dispute to be resolved because I am sick of being poked. I will admit to violating WP:BEAR (a great essay by the way). But now he is doing the same thing. As the accisations of harassment keep getting thrown at me. I feel worse about contributing, as I feel that I am just destroying the Wikipedia. If I am really in the wrong here, than why haven't I been warned/blocked earlier? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm scared of getting blocked by an admin for harassment if I do that. I'm risking a block by bringing it up again here. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be scared, just remove his gibberish from your talk page and move on. Pursuing a vendetta here when your own hands aren't clean will result in a WP:BOOMERANG hitting you right in the WikiFace if you keep pushing. You and the Miraclex guy are two trolls feeding one another, that much is obvious, so you'd be wise to drop the stick already and steer clear of troll-swatting central to which you're being drawn like a moth to a flame. But obviously you won't, you'll just keep pushing. *sigh* At least now you can't say nobody warned you. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:TROLL Weegeerunner (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, just no! I refuse to believe anyone would take seriously a guy that whines on their talk page about their 'extremely administrable encroachments', (what the heck) and other such barely coherent nonsense, I simply refuse. If you weren't a troll yourself, you would've moved on long ago, shaking your head. Instead I'm shaking my head at your what, THIRD ani thread about the same troll that's playing you like a fiddle? Yeah, no. Now you might ask how do I know it's your third attempt at a suicide by admin, well here's how - I looked at your list of recent contributions and posting here about Mr. Miracle's all you've been doing lately, I see no other edits! This is not healthy, I'll tell you that much. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I never said anything about extremely administrable encroachments. The reason that I haven done anything else is because I was hospitilized, and I can't go back to my normal editing if it is as problematic as he says it is. That's why I wan't closure. I don't feel right editing like that if it's really disrupting the encyclopedia. Look at what I have done, do you really think someone who reverted so much vandalism in the past would go troll? Weegeerunner (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on television show related articles[edit]

PROTECTION APPLIED:

Not withstanding the unhelpful response from 162.209.0.32 which could've been stated much kinder, protection has been applied for a month. Non-admin closure. Nate (chatter) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several IP users have been vandalizing several television show related articles, including 2014–15 United States network television schedule and 2015–16 United States network television schedule; among others, and replace some parts of those articles with Marlton School and many users, including me, have been reverting those vandalizing edits for a few months For example from the diffs.

2014-15

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3

diff 4

diff 5

diff 6

diff 7

diff 8

diff 9

diff 10

diff 11

2015-16

diff here

Other television related articles

diff 1

These vandalizing edits have to stop and I mean real soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Then better post at wp:rfpp soon and I mean real soon. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Threat of legal action[edit]

BLOCKED:

Totemi blocked by JohnCD for making legal threats. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 11:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Totemi has just threatened legal action against User:Willkane82 and Wikipedia, at User talk:Willkane82: [61]. This is apparently over some content dispute at WP:BLP Giuseppe Vatinno. More info at Talk:Giuseppe Vatinno, though I don't yet understand what Totemi's complaint is about. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Clear legal threat. User blocked. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Repeated copyright and BLP violations from editor[edit]

BLOCKED:

Barbie diamond indefinitely blocked by Philg88. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barbie diamond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Despite all the "final warnings" editor has not used any talk page and continues to add copyright violations (last one a few hours ago). --NeilN talk to me 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.  Philg88 talk 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure how effective 48 hours will be as they tend to edit weekly but I'll keep an eye on their future edits. --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Philg88: If someone is repeatedly violating copyrights, then the necessary response isn't a slap on the wrist, it's an indefinite block. An individual who isn't respecting the copyrights of others is an ongoing danger to this project, and needs to be prevented from further editing until they clearly and positively indicate that they understand the problem. (Note that 'indefinite' isn't the same as 'permanent'. The block could be lifted in 1 hour if that's how long it took for the editor to demonstrate an understanding of the problem and undertake to avoid it going forward.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, extended to indef.  Philg88 talk 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Unsolicited Requests For Password Change[edit]

In the past couple of weeks I have received 3 e-mails from Wikipedia saying that I requested a password change (2 on 4/14/2015, and 1 today, 4/27/2015). I have made no such requests, and would like to find out who made these requests. How can I find out who is doing this and stop them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdpeng (talkcontribs) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hdpeng: It's really nothing to worry about if you didn't request it yourself. See here where I inquired about it a long time ago. - Amaury (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This happens to me a couple of times a month. I assume it's just an editor who I have annoyed. Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Refusal to accept consensus and warring[edit]

User:Neuroscience325 a.k.a. User:Biotheoretician a.k.a. a whole bunch of different IP addresses has been trying to insert pro-fringe material into the PEAR article since at least early December if not earlier. He pops up every so often, pulls a fast one, and promptly gets reverted. He seems to think that if he does this enough then people will eventually get tired of reverting him and will let him have his way.

Complicating the situation is the fact that he is impossible to talk to because any attempt at communication is met with fantastically longwinded screeds about the evils of pseudoskeptics, closed-minded scientists, and other malarkey that no reasonable person cares about.

Could one of you administrators do something to stop Neuroscience325 from continuing to molest the PEAR article? User:Manul’s attempt at reasoning with him was unsuccessful, and I don’t think that any of the other editors are willing to give it a try. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to do no such thing--my only goal is to improve the factual quality of the PEAR article, which in its present state is abysmal. The PEAR article had major problems long before I ever touched it and is still plagued by editors who simply have not read the relevant sources, have personal biases against parapsychology, and generally do not understand the history that lead to the founding of PEAR.
If you'll note, I'm basically the only Wikipedia user doing any sort of research for the PEAR article at present:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#Nature_ought_to_be_one_of_the_primary_sources_used_by_the_article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#CSICOP.2C_the_primary_.22skeptical.22_source_cited.2C_is_an_ideologically_motivated_group_of_crackpots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#Concerns.2FComments_regarding_the_History_section
I have done my very best to be more than forthright on the PEAR talk page, and any users who have a problem with the sort of edits I've made are more than free to express their concerns on the talk page or to me personally in email or through my user page--in fact, I encourage it.
PEAR was run by Robert Jahn, Princeton's former Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, funded by aerospace pioneer James S. McDonnell. As it currently stands, the group is made to sound like a bunch of fools too stupid to understand how the scientific method works: this is defamatory, poor editorial works that needs to be remedied.
As I wrote on the PEAR talk page,
Since the SRI article mentions the successful publications that Puthoff and his associates got into mainstream academic journals, I think it's also fair that this PEAR article mention the couple of successful papers that Jahn and his associates have managed to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Is mentioning the publications of major physics journals and Ivy League-educated physicists somehow "pro-fringe" as 76.107.171.90 seems to claim?
Is this really an unreasonable goal for the PEAR article--the utilization of historical facts rather than the passing commentaries of ideologues with no relevant scientific training (i.e., Robert Park)?

"He seems to think that if he does this enough then people will eventually get tired of reverting him and will let him have his way."

This simply is not true. These past months have taught me that none of you will let me have my way unless I construct a careful historical argument and really invest myself into PEAR's research to craft well-written and historical content--which I've done.
For example, TheRedPenOfDoom (who has himself been destroying all improvements I and others have made to the PEAR page for many months) removed the entire History section I added to the PEAR article after I fixed it up, which added a much needed discussion of Jahn and Dunne's background, without offering any insightful commentary on the matter--he just removed it and didn't deal with the fallout of his action whatsoever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#Concerns.2FComments_regarding_the_History_section
This is the irreverent attitude taken by almost all Wikipedia editors to PEAR--it's weird, I don't understand it...so I'm just going to hack it to pieces and call it a day. This is poor and sloppy editorial work, completely divorced from any reasonable definition of rational skepticism.
Because I don't accept this attitude and I claim we ought to critically analyze the sources (i.e., CSICOP and the New York Times), it seems I've upset some of the more materialistically-minded Wikipedians. But unlike most of the other editors of the PEAR article, I actually own all three of Bob Jahn's books, have bothered to listen to what the man himself says, and have studied the pre-PEAR history of parapsychology extensively. For that, I do not apologize.

"He pops up every so often, pulls a fast one, and promptly gets reverted."

Since we're having this discussion right here and now and my changes to the PEAR page have in so many cases been reverted, I don't think this qualifies as "pulling a fast one". If anything, I'd call it making a serious attempt at improving the sourcing for an article on an academic project that people such as yourself have destroyed for no other reason than sloth and anti-intellectualism. The fact that I'm at present perhaps the only meaningful contributor on the PEAR talk page underscore this point perfectly--I actually care about PEAR and want to see a reasonably well-functioning and well put-together, historic, and encyclopedic Wikipedia article on PEAR. Whereas you dislike PEAR from the outset and want to vandalize--erm, prevent--all attempts to actually improve on what every other Wikipedia editor has hitherto failed to do: namely, to construct a historical article on Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.

"Refusal to accept consensus and warring"

It sounds like you're saying I ought to be intimidated by the anti-psi status quo and you're angry that I'm not. As I wrote on the PEAR talk page:
Certainly if not at Princeton then on the West Coast at Stanford and Berkeley there is an actual academic following for this sort of thing [parapsychology]. Are you disputing this as a fact?
Neuroscience325 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
These experiments were of great importance for many years among parapsychology research. Unlike almost all such research, it was being conducted by established people using modern instrumentation and sophisticated analysis. I think it is fair to say that at the time this was the major challenge to the conventional scientific view of these reported phenomena. With respect to sourcing, Journal of Scientific Exploration, was specifically formed to publish material that nobody else would publish, and Foundations of Physics has taken pretty much the same approach. My personal view is that it is good such journals are published, but we do need some way of indicating they are a little different from others.
Therefore, I think these experiments are important enough that the history section proposed does belong in the article. It is well enough documented that such is indeed the history. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
DGG, please don’t derail the thread by discussing article content. This is a conduct issue not a content issue. If you want to talk about the PEAR article then you can do so at Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The user user:Robert McClenon told me that my above reply was too wordy and incomprehensible, so I'll try for brevity (although I'm sure why you can all sympathize with my distaste for being told I must "accept consensus" by an anonymous IP--it's very annoying and off-putting and upsetting).
As it currently stands the PEAR article suffers from numerous problems--principally, it lacks a proper history of PEAR (and especially of lab director Dr. Robert Jahn and lab manager Ms. Brenda Dunne), and the article's assertions (particularly the anti-PEAR ones) come from sources that are wildly insufficient to demonstrate a scholarly consensus and do not come close to addressing the scope of PEAR's research.
It is unencyclopedic to use CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) as a source--the group was founded by anti-psi skeptics like James Randi in the 1970s for the specific aim of discrediting Hal Puthoff (who had millions in parapsychology contracts with the CIA, Air Force, etc., all funded for 20+ years on taxpayer dollars) and his parapsychology research at SRI International and Project Stargate (though the full extent of Stargate was not known until the 1990s). Because PEAR was in part founded to replicate the remote viewing research done at SRI (this was a big part of Dunne's contribution to the lab), it makes no sense to cite groups like the CSICOP (now renamed the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry") as either unbiased or scholarly (which the current Wikipedia editors have chosen to do)--they are an ideologically motivated anti-psi group of scientists just as PEAR and the Global Consciousness Project are run by scientists who are ideologically motivated and pro-psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#CSICOP.2C_the_primary_.22skeptical.22_source_cited.2C_is_an_ideologically_motivated_group_of_crackpots
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research/
Psi researcher Rupert Sheldrake--a professor at Schumacher College and Biochemistry Ph.D. from Cambridge University--has noted how his own Wikipedia page has been vandalized and attacked by Randi and Dawkins type individuals who haven't bothered to study the first thing about his sort of research. It is my allegation that the same thing has happened to the PEAR page, which was originally written by unabashedly pro-PEAR individuals (if not members of PEAR itself) with an obvious though not necessarily undue pro-psi slant.
http://sheldrake.org/reactions/wikipedia
http://sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/wikipedia-under-threat
The current article openly calls PEAR pseudoscience even though it was run by some very smart people out of Princeton University School of Engineering and Applied Science and there is no good reason to believe anything about the lab was improper--other than the fact that some academics find parapsychology personally offensive. This is simply inexcusable behavior from Wikipedia editors and doesn't make any sense, and when I point this out in no unambiguous terms, people get mad at me and come crying to the administration. And I don't understand that either.
Nobel Prize winners like Brian Josephson and Wolfgang Pauli have supported psi research, and it is from men like these and the engineers who came after them (i.e., Puthoff, Targ, and others) that Robert Jahn, Princeton University's former Dean of Engineering, found his inspiration.
Indeed, Jahn’s own interest in testing for evidence of such “anomalous” interactions between mind and machine stemmed from his efforts to replicate experimental work done in the late 1960s by a fellow plasma physicist, the German Helmut Schmidt, then employed as a research scientist at Boeing.2 Schmidt appeared to have demonstrated that a particular experimental subject had the capacity to guess numbers generated by a randomizing algorithm at a rate considerably outside the calculated margins of probability.
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/34/burnett.php
Jack Houck retired after 42 years of being a systems engineer for Boeing, the aerospace company. He had an MS degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from the University of Michigan. Independently, he is a researcher of paranormal phenomena. Jack is the originator of Psychokinesis (PK) Parties, and is recognized as one of the foremost authorities in the world on the subject. He has given more than 360 of these workshops to over 17,000 people during the last 23 years, and maintained meticulous records on them.
http://www.jackhouck.com/pk.shtml
http://www.jackhouck.com/index.shtml
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research was itself funded by aviation pioneer James S. McDonnell through his James S. McDonnell Foundation--McDonnell Douglas itself was later sold to Boeing.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=354542
Whatever a couple armchair philosophizing Wikipedia editors don't like about PEAR--"it's claptrap", "it's pseudoscience", "it's woo"--really isn't my problem. I'm a cognitive science major at college (studying psychology, AI, and philosophy), and PEAR is relevant to my field. Its encyclopedia article ought to actually discuss the topic critically rather than parrot the opinions of James Randi, Robert Park, and Stanley Jeffers. If there isn't a chance these men could admit psi might exist, then they aren't acting as scientists, they are acting as ideologues. That isn't to say they aren't intelligent or their opinion isn't worth considering, but the PEAR article needs to be more aware of the failings of its own sourcing.
I've been accused of "trying to insert pro-fringe material" into the PEAR article, but I don't believe I've done any such thing. This is history, plain and simply, and the PEAR article ought to acknowledge this FACTUAL information. That other people are uncomfortable with PEAR really isn't my problem--this was major research that costed many millions of dollars and was done at the top of the top of the Ivy League for 28 years.
Neuroscience325 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Its encyclopedia article ought to actually discuss the topic critically rather than parrot the opinions of James Randi, Robert Park, and Stanley Jeffers. is a clear description of where you go completely off the rails. Wikipedia in fact MUST "parrot" the sources that represent the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked IP socking[edit]

Blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:DUCK. Continues to edit after being asked to stop. [68], [69] --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


66.168.88.182[edit]

USER BLOCKED:

IP user blocked for 6 months by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hoping this is a quicky: 66.168.88.182 (talk · contribs) keeps making unsourced and unexplained edits, for example to PBS NewsHour here, here and here. History of disruptive editing on talk page, and no edits in talk space. I'm at 3RR, but I consider these obviously disruptive edits. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Recently returned from a three-month block by User:HJ Mitchell, I see. Supposedly dynamic, but it doesn't much look like it. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Thanks B. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article[edit]

As you can see here: [70], [71], [72] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gtrbolivar, there is a noticeboard that focuses on edit warring at WP:ANEW where you might want to move your request there. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Liz I'll post it there as well. Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Liz I made the post on both pages but I haven't see any reaction so far. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's common for there to be backlogs at some of these maintenance areas...we don't have enough active admins, I think. But someone will get to it in the next 12 hours, I bet. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism orgy in Olympiacos B.C.[edit]

Page was protected at 20:55 by Ymblanter. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have already asked from the much esteemed admin Ronhjones to protect this page due to ongoing vandalism for months. These ip users: 77.69.114.74 and 46.176.157.125 are vandalizing the page continuously. I urge you to protect the page. Thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd recommend you go to WP:RPP and post your request there but there is quite a backlog of requests and it might get faster attention here. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Legal notice[edit]

User:Manuke7708 appears to be trying to contact legal at Talk:RKO Radio Network? Didn't know where else to report this, so placed it here. Thanks. --Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: This is the correct place to report legal reports, however you must inform them when you do so. I'm informed them on your behalf. Seems like an implied legal threat to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

He seemed very upset with the deletions from this article. He was directing his comment to legal at Wikimedia, not threatening a lawsuit. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cristinamolina12042[edit]

Talk page access revoked by FreeRangeFrog. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user has been blocked for self-promoting, but is now using their talk page as a draft article, with massive unsourced BLP violations about celebrities they've (alledgedly) worked with. Please can someone remove talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, and all of that... stuff removed from talk page as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Copyright concerns at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa[edit]

I would welcome input regarding the material at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Other sources and possible violation of copyright by apparent inclusion of the full text of multiple copyrighted encyclopedia articles there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) WP:CP might be a better venue for this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no copyright violation. Brief quotes from a selection of encyclopedias that are relevant to the discussion is fair use. This is just a tactic to interrupt an ongoing RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please block John Carter for this blatant WP:WIKILAWYERing? He has been spending the last month or so trying to get me blocked, and now is making completely bogus accusations that quoting between 4% and 10% of several encyclopedia articles (the portions of those articles with the remotest relevance to the current dispute) is a copyright violation. Anyone who actually read the quotations would know that they couldn't possibly be any more than brief quotations, and even those who don't read Japanese can clearly see the ellipses. John Carter is not only assuming bad faith on this point, but actively searching for excuses to do so. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ip editor vandalizing freddie gray death article[edit]

Page semi-protected for a week. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP editor keeps vandalizing the Freddie Gray death article with nonsense such as this, this and this. Make no mistake, this isn't an honest mistake on his part. The police incident today makes clear only one police cruiser was destroyed. Even if he hadn't read that, he had to know that his edit "Millions of police cruisers were destroyed" and "Reportedly, every known police cruiser in existence was destroyed" was false, nonsense, and vandalism. I thought the first time he made a mistake, but when I frequently explained it to him in the edit summary, he just kept at it. I'm thinking a block is in order – he evidently is just using Wikipedia to vandalize. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: He just did it again, and this time he's adding false quotes. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article needs page protection stat. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Generally unproductive editor[edit]

Mistakes happen. Rule of thumb is to go to the user's talk page before opening an ANI. Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factchecker atyourservice has engaged in two recent edit wars, his username differs from his signature, AND he's removed an editor's comment. Why hasn't anyone done anything?--A21sauce (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those two edits were really reverts, they were both pursuant to a talk page discussion and the second one was actually pursuant to an agreement formed in that discussion, and then the subsequent revert by a third editor seems to have been at least partially mistaken because he thought I was saying "condemned" when I was really saying "commended". Also, I didn't remove anybody's comments! Another user accidentally removed an IP's (generally unproductive) comment, and tried to get somebody to rollback, and then failing that reposted the comment himself. Eh. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User isn't responding to me at my talk page or his and is going on making other edits to the article. I think if he tried to add diffs to the complaint he would realize he is mistaken, other than that not sure what's going on here. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My bad, sorry to bother everyone.--A21sauce (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: A21sauce - It would be helpful if you provided links to the edits you find objectionable. Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Warring upon an inadmissible closure[edit]

A non-admin Davey2010‎‎ (talk · contribs) speedily closed a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Antony-Barber after a single day of discussion with delete votes.I reopened the discussion, voted delete since IMO it was clearly a nn case (explained), but the user reverted me. I additionally posted in his talk page that this premature closure is against the rules, but the user says he is doing fine and reverts me again. Please interfere. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I withdrew the AFD, You reverted it and then !voted and then proceeded to edit war over the closure just because I closed one of your AFDs as Speedy Keep - It's absolutely childish!, As I've now said for the third time you can either go to DRV or renominate it, I 100% stand behind the PAB closure which I believe is fine and within rules, I'll also admit I did call the user a "twat" in the closure which I apologize for (I tend to get frustrated easily unfortunately). –Davey2010Talk 01:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You fail to see an important difference: I objected against keep-closure of the case where I voted keep, i.e., I was not pushing my POV in this AfD. Whereas you closed the AfD where some other person voted delete for an absolutely nonnotable third-rate actor with no references. Also, if you are being easily frustrateand uyou know this, then probably you have to avoid activities where you may be easily frustrated and thus decrease your ability to act rationally. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My position is you have to right to speedy keep an AfD wherte there are "delete" votes and then make me jump through the hoops. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Davey, the problem is that you use speedy keep #1. That says "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." The bold part is the problem. Speedy Keep #1 only applies if there are only keep votes. Once someone other than the nominator says delete, it no longer applies. When you closed it someone else had said delete. -- GB fan 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, can you show us where the delete !vote was withdrawn? If there are any outstanding positions in favor of deletion, its not eligible for speedy close. Monty845 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Once there's a single delete !vote in there it becomes academic whether the nominator withdrew or not, they should wait for an admin to close, unless there's 20+ calls for snow keep in there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reopened the AFD. -- GB fan 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
6 edit conflicts so far Face-grin.svg, That shouldn't of been there!, It should've said withdrawn - I'm so used to Speedying I guess I just forgot but then the obvious thing would've been for Stasek to notify me of my error as opposed to this. –Davey2010Talk 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well as far as I knew Delete !votes or not you are are allowed to Withdraw at any given time ?, I've withdrawn more than once and no one's had any issues so not sure why it'd be one today but hey-ho "stuff" happens lol, Lesson learnt I suppose. –Davey2010Talk 02:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, don't grief me; I did notify you in your talk page that you are violating policies. And I also wrote quite friendly that I have nothing against all other your non-admin speedy closures. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Your free to withdraw your support for deletion as nominator at any time, but as long as at least one other editor still supports deletion, it is not eligible for a speedy keep close. If every editor in favor of deletion including the nominator withdraw their positions, it may be speedy closed, but that is unusual. Monty845 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, speedy keep § 1 only applies to nominations with no outstanding delete votes. But, assume good faith should be invoked here. Also, part of the reason that it took so long is that WP:SK wasn't timely cited, a claim with proof is more credible. Esquivalience t 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well this person has been so active in AfD, it did not occur to me that I have to guide him by hand over the policies on the issue. My mistake. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Dude you don't even know how to Ping without screwing it all up so I'd move on if I were you!, At the end of the day I withdrew and everyone was fine with it bar you, It's been reopened so all's good, Can someone close this monstrosity please?!. –Davey2010Talk 02:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to anyone who was notified that they were mentioned in this section, and doesn't understand why: You were referred to this section because when this section's creator created the section, rather than pinging Davey2010 with their username, they transcluded their whole user page by placing {{User:Davey2010}} instead, which transcluded their whole user page. So, most parties pinged here probably gave Davey2010 a barnstar at some point! Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a pretty how-de-do![edit]

As close as I can tell, User:Arthur Bazikian was renamed to User:Barevhayer110 and then to User:Rockman1880.

The user moved their own User and User talk page to a certain degree. The name change also automatically moved them, overwriting the original pages. The user also performed a number of other page moves relating to these user names and:

  • Rockman1886
  • Rockman1887
  • Rockman1889

In addition they moved User:Xhaoz/RC to User:Xtoz10 and blanked the page.

I would suggest that these changes should be undone.

The account seems to be a vandalism only account, and is blocked as such on Commons.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Unresolved COI[edit]

Per this COI item, I have reason to believe that User:Senpion has a COI, insofar as the types of material he has added give reasonable grounds to indicate that he is adding his own research to Wikipedia articles. His major contributions span all of an hour-and-a-half of editing a few months ago and are wholly limited to article additions regarding a particular researcher. I believe that the nature of the material added indicates a COI, but I won't go any further into why due to outing rules. However, no outside engagement on COIN by a third party occurred, and the user only indicated the belief that sourced material overrides COI, which it does not. The obvious problem I see is that it looks like advertising and promotion of a company by a related party. Without resolution, the only result will be a slow-moving edit war. I removed the material for that reason, and the user re-added it. As nothing was done on the COI board, I believe it is necessary to bring it to a larger forum for some sort of resolution. The edit specificity and general lack of actual time on the encyclopedia makes it unlikely that individual engagement on the talk page will work, given the total lack of understanding of COI exhibited. MSJapan (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)