Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HughD (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 26 April 2015 (→!votes re ban proposal: add to vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

IP editor 87.81.147.76 refusing to accept consensus

87.81.147.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly re-inserted material against the conclusion of an RFC in which he participated relating to an illustration of Mohammed at Islamic Calendar. RFC concluded;

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
— ] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has amended the caption of that image at least 8 times since the RFC closed. 10:50, 21 March 2015, 16:58, 22 March 2015, 11:54 23 March 2015, 16:43, 23 March 2015, 10:07, 9 April 2015, 14:53, 9 April 2015, 10:47, 13 April 2015 , 10:58, 13 April 2015

The user is also agressive and borders on personal attacks on the talk page; Last paragraph Last paragraph - Aspersions based on other pages edited

They have repeatedly taken this discussion to other venues such as the ANI thread on phantom consensus,,,, and a discussion of general sanction templates, on my talk page.

Can an Admin make them go away. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is now hounding me at an ArbCom request thread. I believe they've done similar to @NeilN: but I'll leave it to him to ring that up if he feels it necessary.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SPACKlick. It was one thing when the IP confined themselves to Talk:Islamic calendar but now they've taken to derailing unrelated conversations, often with blatant misrepresentations and attacks, as shown by the diffs above. --NeilN 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User is now attacking user:Tarc at the talk page diff SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from archive until resolved. SPACKlick (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And again. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This request is unlikely to get more admin attention, SPACKlick. At this point, I'd contact an admin directly with your concerns. Liz 21:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They've been quiet since April 16; is this still a current ongoing issue? It would make more sense to drop it unless they come back and do it again, IMHO. The conduct is offensive but they apparently quit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team edit-warring on Rape jihad counter to WP:BRD

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

Three new or newish editors (FreeatlastChitchat, RatatoskJones Xtremedood), with edit counts of less than 700: , , , have since April 5 been tag-team edit warring to remove a section (now titled "Rotherham") of Rape jihad that has been there since December 2014 (retitled in February 2015) and which as of now has 8 citations. I've started a BRD consensus-establishing section on the Talk page and tried to encourage the editors to present their cases rationally and establish consensus before wholesale deletion, but they continue to edit-war and remove the section. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand (and beyond reverting the wholesale deleters twice have only made a grammatical change to the article); however I do have a personal opinion on edit-warring against BRD. I would appreciate the article being locked (with the Rotherham section restored/retained please; it has been deleted again as of this moment), until consensus is established that it should be removed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We have been through a debate about sourcing. The entire section has only one source, the gatestone institute, the rest of citations have been copy pasted from the original article and do not mention rape jihad, the word jihad, holy war, struggle for God, Islamic jihad and in no way do these 7 other citations give the impression that the said sexual abuse is part of any "jihad" or motivated by religion. A discussion here was carried out to acsertain the reliabilty of the single source on which the entire section is based and it was established that source as unreliable. Having ascertained the source was unreliable the material was then removed by me, and as it was unsourced other editors also removed it whenever it was restored. I do not think that once consensus has been established about unreliability of a source , a second consensus needs to be established before removing the material from an article. If there is any policy which says so I will be glad to hear of it. To be frank this kind of editing cannot be classed as warring anywhere, they are just a bunch of editors removing unreliably sourced material and to be honest the people who restore the material should be taken to task for putting unsourced material back , but I do not like reporting people as I am prone to bold editing myself. So, in a nutshell, the material has been established to come from a single unreliable source and has therefore been removed. An editor who wants to restore it must provide rationale as to why it should be restored.

Further more I have not been warned on my talkpage that this discussion is ongoing, badfaith I dont want to assume, lets just say it was forgotten "by mistake"

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• You were pinged in my OP, and also told in the BRD discussion I linked that I would file a report unless you self-reverted, which you have not done. This ANI is not solely about you, but about the fact that the article should probably be locked with the complete version until consensus is established per BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not being picky but this is written at the very top of this page. 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. Anyway, as I said I don't mind this, what would like to ask however is that who will determine what the 'complete' version of the article is? The reliable source noticeboard says that the 'complete' version is one without anything from the gatestone institute. So what evidence is there to support your POV that gatestone is included in the complete versionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: This is not the first time these editors have tag-team edit-warred to remove large chunks of materials in articles. See Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present), Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present). -- Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note #2: See also the related thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FreeatlastChitchat above. (I was unaware of that discussion because FreeatlastChitchat continually blanks his Talk page.) Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, if your issue is with these editors, you need to notify them about this discussion on their user talk pages as FreeatlastChitchat says. A ping is not sufficient as per the orange notice at the top of the page when you edited this complaint that says this step must be done. I have left messages for RatatoskJones and Xtremedood. If this issue is about protecting an article, maybe you should be making your case at WP:RPP. Liz 11:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a section of a highly controversial article (twice voted for deletion , barely got a no consensus on its third iteration ) that completely failed to mention the topic, and only had a single source attached that actually mentioned the topic of the article (once, in the title, nowhere in the text). The source used has now been brought up to WP:RSN three times, and has been all but laughed out of the room every time. User:Раціональне анархіст then added a second source: an op-ed that barely mentions Rotterham. Here User:Раціональне анархіст attempts to defend their (first) source:

I see nothing but assertions made, as well as some troubling comments:

"The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes."

"Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view"

I've now added a citation needed-tag to the section. Hopefully more editors will look at the page, as it's one of the worst Misplaced Pages has to offer. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only "controversial" due to the antics of you and ChitChat. But I must congratulate you upon being ahead of your cohort in actually forming your very first edit to the article which didn't consist of a wholesale section blank. (I've reverted it for being a sneaky attempt to bury the important link to the main Rotherham article.) Pax 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? First, removing the main article link was a mistake, but your motivation for removing the "citation needed" tag ("You do not have consensus that those sources are unreliable.") is utter nonsense. Your refusal to defend your sources is also noted. I hope the administrators are looking at your behaviour. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So removing the main article link was a mistake when it was the only part of the section you were removing, but it wasn't a mistake when you blanked the entire section (including the main article link) multiple times. Got it. Pax 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't calm down and WP:AGF, I suggest you remove yourself from the article until you've composed yourself. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a part of any tag-team edit war. I simply made one edit, of which I felt it was necessary to remove content as the suspected perpetrators of the crime did not utilize religious motivations. It is racist to say that their ethnic origin has anything to do with religion. It would be like saying every white-person who rapes does it out of Christianity or a crusade, which I believe is fallacious. FreeatlastChitchat and I have a dispute going on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so we are definitely not working as a team. Like I said, I simply made one edit and I am in no way a part of any edit-warring tag team. Therefore my name should be removed from all this. Xtremedood (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Xtremedood, you have edit-warred for mass deletions alongside FreeatlastChitchat on Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present) and Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present), as well as having participated in the Rape jihad section deletion edit war, so you are indeed part of this discussion and this situation. @Liz: This discussion is about more than simply protecting the page (and its complexity is beyond the scope of RPP); it's about the continually disruptive tag-team edit-warring by these editors to remove masses of information, which has been going on in several articles since late March, and which is currently continuing in spite of repeated requests to stop and to observe BRD. This, in addition to the thread further above on this page, needs administrative analysis. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, for a length of time to be determined, on Islam-related topics, broadly construed to include historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities. Sneaky edits like this one, (in which a section's "main article" link is removed under cover of applying a citation-needed tag), and antics such as this, (in which, one hour after administrative lock commenced, RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop. Pax 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've explained that the link removal was a simple mistake; WP:AGF. Just how "sneaky" it was supposed to be is anyone's guess. I want people to go to the Rotherham article and see how utterly irrelevant it is to the Rape jihad article. Also, I tend to doubt asking for comments from neutral parties is "gaming the system". Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My entire deletion/removal was based on this consensus formed at the original article of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. But I was hounded and bereted and not one but two reports were lodged against me. Seeing that no one is going for a WP:BOOMERANG against Pax (I don't have anything to say against the guy who started this report, he just saw what looked like a violation to him and acted accordingly), I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore, seeing that even blatant POV pushing and hounding will not result in anything for the perpetrator. If an admin thinks that my actions were objectionable I would be happy to engage him in debate and provide him with a rationale of my every single edit, I don't have that many to be honest. However I will not replying to any threadlike discussion here until an admin takes part FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained ad nauseum during the most recent AfD discussion, the "original article" is entirely irrelevant since as it has been entirely rewritten. You also had no participation in either the original article or its AfD. Your promise to "forget the article exists" for four months, but then push for its deletion does not bode well as it implies you won't care what form the article is in at that time, changed substantially or not. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm close to recommending a WP:BOOMERANG with respect to Pax here. He has been pursuing this POV-fork over several noticeboards and seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:TRUTH in the face of substantive opposition to his understanding of neutrality and reliability of sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The user above arrives from an ideological viewpoint which concludes that all of the sources currently in the article are "ultra-conservative propaganda". Such a viewpoint will likely only be satisfied with complete deletion of the article, and that matter has already been decided. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I second Stephan Schulz. "Pax" is not exactly living up to his user-name. He's the only one whose approach to this topic can legitimately be called sneaky, to use his own word. The rape jihad article is a disgrace, treating the topic as though "rape jihad" is a real concept in Islam, rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists. We even have the claim that "Rape jihad is claimed to be a form of sexual slavery sanctioned in Quranic scriptures", as if Muslims have actually defended something called "rape jihad". No legitimate report into the events in Rotherham has ever suggested that they were in any way motivated by Islamism or constituted any form of "jihad". Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I did not coin the term "rape jihad" or write the first version of the article. Second, WP:ADHOM represents a poor defense of section-blanking edit-warriors. Third, if you wish to pursue the matter of whether or not the concept exists within Islam, you should take it up with ISIS or Boko Haram, because they are in agreement that it does. The Justification section of the article is liberally linked, and the supportive material exists in several other articles besides this one. In any event, these concerns of yours are not speaking to the subject of this ANI. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I criticised your behaviour by using the very same word you had used ("sneaky") to describe another editor's. Calling that WP:ADHOM constitutes WP:SELF-INCRIMINATON. I was legitimately commenting on your behaviour because you called an obvious mishap "sneaky", even though it had already been explained to you, and you referred to a legitimate RFC request on the talk page as "antics". There is no well supported evidence that any such concept as rape jihad exists. Paul B (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment "rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists." so? doesn't wiki's npov mean that it contains such articles, as long as they are well referenced? ie. "the good, the bad, and the ugly"(apologies to Sergio) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Coolabahapple, you completely miss the point. It's quite legitimate to have articles on notable terms, derogatory or otherwise - a point I have already made at the NPOV board. I have no problem with the existence of an article called "rape jihad" if the expression is shown to be notable, which I think is borderline. But the article should explain that it is, as I said, "a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists", which is exactly what it does not do. Instead it implies tht it's a real interpretation of scripture in Islamic culture. Of course it should also cover those aspects of Islamic traditions regarding concubinage that have been used to justify the claim that "rape jihad" exists. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B oops, sorry, yes the article does need quite a rewrite, when i dipped my toe in the water of one of its afdsMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) I mentioned the Rotherham words as overcite (but was thinking is it necessary?), intro could be rewritten "Rape Jihad is a term coined by ..... and adopted by ..... to mean ...." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the editors listed atop this ANI has shown any interest in actually improving the article. All difs have consisted of removing material. I agree with Paul above that the Justification section could use expansion, but such "nice things" are difficult to have in the face of constant disruption by section-blankers. Pax 17:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. There is no Islamic justification for "rape jihad" anywhere. There are reports of rapes, yes. This is, sadly, utterly normal in war-torn areas. There are also reports of captured women being forced to convert to Islam and being sold or given to fighters as wives. Yes, that does have precedent in Islamic tradition, but calling it "rape jihad" is either just using an attack term for something that is already known and long established, or a spurious conflation of separate phenomena. Throwing in the wholly unrelated issue of events in Rotherham, which have never been justified by any interpretation of Islam, suggests that rape jihad is nothing but an attack buzz-phrase. Of course the article can't be 'improved' at the moment as it's locked. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When you say "There is no Islamic justification for 'rape jihad' anywhere," you need to distinguish between whether or not you're referring to the English term (which is, of course, not employed by Arabic-speaking jihadists, but otherwise possesses sufficient usage in notable RS), or the concept (which Boko and ISIS are happy to publicize their sura justification for). Your sentence is only correct when the two are conflated into something like "ISIS doesn't use the phrase 'rape jihad', so this article is terrible!". In any event, this is side-tracking into an pointlessly interminable de facto AfD discussion, and that matter was recently settled with the closing admin recommending a five-month breather. Pax 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no sura justifying rape as part of "jihad", and the phrase is not some English translation of an authentic Muslim concept for which there is an Arabic equivalent. So no, Boko H and ISIS do not and never have justified rape as a 'jihad'. There is of course Quranic justification for concubinage, which is hardly news. We already have articles on the subject. And none of this has anything to do with taxi drivers in Rotherham. You are right, this is evolving into an AfD debate, since you have just provided a perfect argument for redirecting the whole sorry mess to Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, since you have just directly stated that it's the same thing. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with Boko Haram, ISIS, and their critics (who agree with them that their right to rape kafir captives is supported in religious script). But this is immaterial to this ANI, and pointless in any event since the article has survived AfD (with the closer recommending five months cooling off prior to resubmission). Pax 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As I say, that's exactly what Slavery in 21st-century Islamism is about. It's the same thing. Your "reply" merely confirms the point. But yes, this thread is clearly now dead. No action, it seems, will be taken on the original complaint about tag teaming (rightly IMO) and no boomerang is spinning back. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The unsuitability of that article was addressed at the recent AfD. Pax 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother to prolong this by replying, but I can't let a falsity stay unresponded to. The article is not mentioned in any of the AfDs. Do you just make this stuff up so you can says you have "answered" an argument? Merely writing some words under someone else's is not answering an argument. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul is right: Slavery in 21st-century Islamism was not mentioned as a merge target during the AfDs (although several others were); it's mentioned in a TP section.

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

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

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 Misplaced Pages appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Misplaced Pages and want to prevent others from doing the same"

• In pursuing this mission, Doors22 has come into conflict with members of WIkiProject Medicine, including Doc James, Jdwolff, Yobol, DMacks, Graham Colm, Alexbrn, Formerly 98, and me. Tryptofish did some great work mediating disputes (Miss him so much!)

• 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 Misplaced Pages appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Misplaced Pages 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

• content
  • 88 edits to Finasteride (which you can see here - almost all about side effects or Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation
  • 6 edits to Merck & Co. (maker of finasteride and that's what his edits were about
  • 5 edits to Spencer Kobren (hair loss guy)

• 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

• boards
  • 29 contribs here at ANI here - all in threads about me or Formerly98, jumping in to make negative comments. In my view (not surprising, I know), these are especially ugly (bringing anger over content disputes into other issues)
  • 11 posts at NPOVN (see here)
  • 1 contrib to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome
    • That AfD in October 2012 was a rodeo of meatpuppetry and led to an a sock/meat investigation Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666/Archive over Finasteride, Post-Finasteride Syndrome and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome that was instigated by Stalwart111 The close of the SPI was " Meatpuppetry is certain, but difficult to demonstrate here" and one editor (not Doors22) was indeffed for battleground behavior.
  • 5 edits at deletion review that he initiated over the deletion see here)

• drafts
  • 7 edits on Draft:Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation arguing that the article should be created (it was not). contribs to that are here (note, doors22 got very angry with me on this)

• Misplaced Pages Talk
  • 9 comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine (contribs) all about his issue

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. The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Misplaced Pages 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)

• next spurt was Feb 2014. battleground again
  • restored edit about FDA panel
  • added more to it and more and more

• Sept/October 2014 more battleground
  • jumped in to edit war over PRIMARY sources and more and more and more and more and this went on and on and we finally reached a difficult consensus, and he finally went away again at the end of October... but

• January/Feb 2015 high battleground.
  • right back at the same content again. which led to more difficult discussion on Talk and even after we reached a compromise on content mediated by Doc James, Doors pushed harder for yet more content on this. It is just relentless.
  • 36 contribs on Talk:Finasteride ( see here in January 2015 alone.

• 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.

• april 2015. more battleground, a bit on the article...
  • the PFS Foundation sponsored a meta-analysis on sexual side effects that published and Doors came back to put it in
• but even more so elsewhere:
  • Talk discussion getting increasingly personalized and heated
  • this: "You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again..."
  • the thread at NPOVN

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 Misplaced Pages appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Misplaced Pages 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.

• so here it is Proposal: topic ban for Doors22 from finasteride and side effects of drugs. Reason: long-term WP:Civil POV pushing and increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (repeated reason down here, for clarity. REDACT shown with underline Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

!votes re ban proposal

(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 (talk • contribs) 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. St★lwart 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 Misplaced Pages 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). St★lwart 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 Misplaced Pages as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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". St★lwart 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 ] 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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) 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 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) 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 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). As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. .

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. . 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) 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 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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. St★lwart 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) 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) 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. St★lwart 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 Misplaced Pages 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. cnbr 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)

Threaded discussion

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

• “For you to equate a research gift to a "bribe" or "incentive plan" is ridiculous but alas not out of character.

• "You are digging yourself deeper by showing making one deceptive argument after another."

• "this is why you are being deceitful in trying to discredit the study because of a small unrestricted gift. "

• You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again.

• "I have not made any assumptions about Formerly98. He has made his intentions clear by making not bad faith arguments that somebody with his alleged background, knowledge, and expertise would have never made."

• Even when third parties come to his talk page to warn him about these personal attacks, he defends them.

• 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 problem is longstanding. Here in 2011 he calls user: Jfdwolff a "dictator" in his edit summary.

• 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? Atsme☯ 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• and so now Doors adds some clear WP:CANVASSING to the list of BATTLEGROUND behaviors. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 20 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)

• You call bringing a ridiculous claim against me trying to learn and acknowledging your mistakes? Admins, please close this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JYTDog_-_Vote_Stacking when you close the discussion above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog - Vote Stacking

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. St★lwart 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Brian Peppers

Hi all. I am attempting to create an article about a popular meme, "Brian Peppers". I can't find any way to create the article - I've been to and there's no obvious way to start it. Also, I notice there's been a lot of activity in the past judging by the log on this page. Is there a reason this article doesn't exist? Onion quality (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was protected from creation some while ago. If you want to create it you will need to get an administrator to unprotect the page. It might be worth creating a draft article to show them what you plan to create before asking them to do so as a credible design may help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Old timer comment Onion quality, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it has tons of articles where contributions from newcomers are welcome and likely to be helpful, as well as (even now) lots of potential topics for new articles. There are also a number of topics that are touchy for one reason or another (typically involving controversies surrounding living people, or political disputes), and editing them without getting into a lot of conflict and drama requires a reasonable amount of editing experience.

  Brian Peppers was a hugely disruptive topic when Jimbo deleted the article, in part because Misplaced Pages's approach to biographies of living people was in a state of flux at the time, and Peppers was a living person back then (per Snopes, he died in 2012) but also because Misplaced Pages generally doesn't see internet memes as encyclopedic topics (and there was a battle over that going on as well back then, the heyday of Encyclopedia Dramatica). I personally don't think we need the article again but either way, recreating it would have to be done rather carefully, and as Amortias says, posting a concrete draft for review is probably the only workable way to start. It will certainly require a lot of adherence to Misplaced Pages editing practices (especially including solid sourcing) to be accepted, and new editors generally aren't familiar with how to do that, and "learning by doing" on such a topic is likely to be unpleasant.

  The best advice I can give you is to welcome you to Misplaced Pages and recommend that you start out on less contentious topics. If you're still interested in writing about Peppers after you've gotten more used to this place, you'll have a better idea of how to go about it. It's not something that can be explained in a few sentences. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Onion quality, I think you should look at some of these before you try and recreate that particular article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see my user page: User:Onion_quality - I've placed my first draft there. I'd be appreciative if someone could review it for quality and neutrality. Thanks! Onion quality (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've struck the address as unnessecary. It might be worth an admin moving it to a draft space rather than your userpage. Amortias (T)(C) 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As an admin I'd be more inclined to WP:CSD#G4 and suggest deletion review when ready. -- zzuuzz 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding an address strikes me as immediately-oversightable information, given that there is no need to expose a private residence address that is no doubt now occupied by someone else entirely. The purported sources are Snopes, an archive.org link, a Tripod page(????) and YTMND, none of which are really solid reliable secondary sources... Snopes is marginal at best. The entire article begs the question, "Why does this exist?" and I suggest that there is no good reason for it to. Consider this a !vote to keep deleted and nuke the draft. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This attack page has been deleted. There is no legitimate use of this page on the project. Nakon 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I may quietly disagree that there is no legitimate reason for an article about someone who has shot to considerable fame (regardless of circumstance) to exist, I accept the consensus here. What I do take issue with, is the labelling of my draft as an "attack page" by the user above. It was never intended to disparage the subject, only to quote direct facts with as much neutrality as possible. I am actually quite shocked and hurt by any suggestions otherwise. Onion quality (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I can also no longer create my user page. Can someone sort this out. Onion quality (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yikes, Onion quality, yeah, now you can see what I meant about editing this topic potentially being unpleasant. It looks like I inadvertently gave you bad advice by not checking first just how bad the old article was and how little usable sourcing seems to exist about Brian Peppers. So I don't think Peppers is a suitable article subject at this point. That said I think some newbie biting has happened with this deletion. The user page should not have been protected, and the A10 (attack page) classification sounds like it misinterprets the intent of the page. Onion quality, rather than posting drafts in your main user page, it's better to either make a subpage or use the draft namespace--see wp:draft for more info. But an admin should be able to unprotect your user page, if you agree to not re-create the Peppers article in it. Nakon (or anyone), can you unprotect the page? Thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a policy against bios on people notable for a single event ( WP:1E ). Between that and the other longstanding issues, this is not a great topic to engage on. Additionally, the address *is* out of bounds as a privacy violation, making the draft an attack page. Though it looks like everyone assumed it was ignorance not intentional flouting the rule. I unprotected. Please do not reinsert the address. Now, that would not be considered ignorance, and would result in sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nakon's restore did the unprotect, I was misreading log. Nevermind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

New category of Supercar had been deleted earlier

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

I'm not sure of the right place to request this, but the Category:Supercar was just created. A variation of it, Category:Super car, was deleted earlier at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9. I would appreciate an admin deleting the new category. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Already done by JzG, and I have emptied the category. Epic Genius (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, very quick. Thanks! Bahooka (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Epic, genius! Guy (Help!) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

hmm ... in Germany we have this category, but we have a very strong definition for it. Supercar, that word is common around the world. May be you should follow the strong definition we have in Germany. Also in wikicommons you have this category. In Category:Car classifications you have the category supercar and so on. I think, you should follow the strong definition of supercar in Germany. Doesn't make sense to delete such a category, the category is well known around the world. Wega14 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

we do. It has to fly. Anything that doesn't fly, doesn't make the cut. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment*: Does it matter that much if supercar is somewhat arbitrary (bleeding-edge + stupidly expensive)? Other automotive categories have wiggle-room. Pax 10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it does, since the category was deleted after a debate. I have no real view on it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban

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

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:

• Quinton CDP at 22:05 by me
• Ramblewood at 22:06 by me
• Ramtown at 22:10 by me
• Richwood 22:14 by me
• Robbinsville CDP at 22:48 by other editor, an article he had never edited before
• Seabrook Farms at 22:53 by other editor, another article he had never edited before
• Rio Grande at 23:00 by me
• Robinsville CDP at 23:03 by me

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages." 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz 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?

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)

Spamming external links?

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

Kraken347 looks like he is adding spam to the External Links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Kraken347 and click on some of the edits there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To me, it just looks like a new editor who hasn't quite grasped an understanding of WP:EL (and judging by the AfD notifications on his/her talk page, WP:N) yet; in addition, s/he hasn't edited in almost a month. Speaking of notification, though, you didn't notify him/her about this discussion (although Diannaa did). Erpert 07:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out and taking care of it. I am not sure why I didn't do it; maybe staying up too late, because I know the rule. I apologize to everybody involved. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You actually did notify, but at talk:Kraken347 rather than user talk:Kraken347. I deleted the malformed notification and re-did it (sorry not to have mentioned this sooner; I must have been sleepy myself). There's been no mention of our external links guideline on the user's talk page. I have now done that, using one of the handy templates available at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a paid editor who is on to there next sock puppet already. Rarely do they use the same sock for more than a few jobs. The best one can do is revert all the spam. There 4th edit makes is very clear they are not a new editor Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive IP User

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:

• 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs)

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

• 128.231.237.4 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.5 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.6 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.7 (talk · contribs)

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)

User:Sir fedora

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

With this edit User:Sir fedora flat out says that he plans on vandalizing Misplaced Pages. On his talk page, User:Mccsc warrior, User:Haxor krusader, and User:Ifartonblackppl420 (who's already blocked for having an offensive username) have commented on Fedora's talk page about joining him in battle against User:Edgar181. Seems like they are all just trolls who should be blocked. JDDJS (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)-

(Non-administrator comment) I agree; WP:NOTHERE is an understatement. Erpert 02:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hairynutz69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just caught with the same absurdness going on. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Both users blocked indef. Nakon 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I blocked User:Ineedsmoke420 as part of this same puppet pool. Probably based around User:66.244.123.98--blocked individually, but maybe needs to be expanded to a range. I have to run, will file an SPI in an hour or two if nobody beats me to it there and no CU pops up here. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the above  Confirmed as each other. Also Le haxor armie (talk · contribs), now also blocked. Didn't find any others so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ravi kumar sah-sonar

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

23.236.125.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - sock of User:Ravi kumar sah-sonar. 81.141.41.174 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you filed a report at WP:SPI? Erpert 02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't yet. What's my incentive?Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sock, IP blocked for 3 months. --Kinu /_c 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (note: User:Dandtiks69 has replied "No, I haven't yet", but I am not Dandtiks69) - 81.141.58.213 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (previously 81.141.41.174 (talk))

Wait, was that Jack? I'm sorry, then if it wasn't.Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion, long-term hoaxing

A new IP6 editor, Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:B041:B822:A099:19C3, cropped up today to continue adding hoaxes about Kenny Loggins, in the same manner seen by various Southern California IPs including the range 108.178.159.0/24 which was blocked for six months starting six weeks ago. More information about this hoaxer is documented at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Does IP range blocking work on IPv6 users? Epic Genius (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can per . Amortias (T)(C) 20:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Then I suggest range blocking the IP user. Epic Genius (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Misplaced Pages

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

Single purpose editing and ownership issues at Armenian Genocide threaten the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Étienne Dolet is most at fault and should justify his editing before his peers.

Picture of the Day for 24 April 2015 (i.e. today as I write) commemorates Armenian Genocide Day. The image originally suggested, a map used in the Armenian Genocide article, nominated by Étienne Dolet, was quickly found to have issues of copyright and authenticity and discarded in favour of the image used today. The caption was agreed by Étienne Dolet with the POTD administrator. Possibly because of a misleading lede in Armenian Genocide, the administrator erroneously used the phrase "eight years of genocide" in the caption. Whereas many people, including myself, might well think the massacres over eight years were genocidal in nature (I happen to believe the massacres were genocidal over the whole period 1894-1923), what is recognised as genocide are the atrocities over the period 1915-1916 coinciding with the notorious death marches promulgated by state decree. To have continued with "eight years of genocide" might very well have provoked a complaint from the Turkish government. Yet my attempts at both the article Talk page and the Template Talk Page to address this issue with a reasonable edit avoiding the phrase "eight years of genocide" were met with heavy resistance from Étienne Dolet, quoting walls of OR text in support of his thesis that the genocide extended over eight years. It was only when the POTD administrator corrected his edit that the issue was resolved, apparently because Étienne Dolet was not prepared to accept liability for the edit on his own account. At no point, and I do think this is significant, did Étienne Dolet address my suggestion that the point of the POTD was to commemorate the victims of the massacres and that it wasn't necessary to seek to make historical points about the duration of the genocide.

The passage in the lede at Armenian Genocide I suggest responsible for the error reads as follows;

The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...

In the first place it suggests the genocide lasted over the whole eight year period, but there is also an obvious difficulty in that the passage suggests the "genocide" after World War I was also carried out in two stages (i.e. involving death marches; these in fact ceasing in 1916, although it is another defect of the article that this important fact is not mentioned). I traced the origin of the edit on the Talk page: it is essentially a copy edit problem arising from an inadequate grasp of English. Finally there is a Misplaced Pages MOS issue in that the massacres after World War I mentioned in the lede are not given adequate attention in the article, save for a single mention in a single sentence in a paragraph whose section heading refers to the casualties in 1914-1918 i.e. during the war and not after it. I addressed all this at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#1920-1923_reprise. I said the issues needed attention, but that I was unwilling to spend yet more time on the article. Nevertheless I made it clear that if the issues were not addressed I would eventually do so myself. I subsequently introduced a new section "Massacres after World War I" and made an edit in the lede. These were peremptorily reverted by Étienne Dolet less than two hours later on the grounds they needed consensus.

Presently editors may not even correct obvious errors of fact such as the extent of the historical Armnenian homeland or the date when the Turkish republic was created, without first bringing it to the talk page for "consensus". Étienne Dolet has accused me of complicity in the Armenian Genocide and threatened to block me. Étienne Dolet has been editing for some eight years solely on Armenian related topics. I edit at Misplaced Pages mainly on Mathematics, privacy issues, and European Union law. I came to Armenian Genocide because I edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland, a decision at the European Court of Human Rights presently on appeal, whose crux concerns whether freedom of expression extends to denying the Armenian Genocide.

I am frankly affronted by Étienne Dolet's discourtesies to me. If they are not addressed at least to the extent that he apologises to me and restores my edits, I shall quit editing Misplaced Pages. c1cada (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are expecting anyone to take action because someone "accused of complicity in the Armenian Genocide", you will need to provide the necessary evidence - a diff showing the said accusation. Instead, you have linked one of your own posts, which clearly isn't evidence of anything anyone else did... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Andy. The diff where you imply Etienne accused you of complicity does not say anything of the sort. The threat to block you was similarly nothing of the sort. It was a reminder of the 1rr restrictions that are active on the article, presumably due to ARBAA2. As for your declaration to quit editing Misplaced Pages, see WP:DIVA. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrected the link. Not a diva. c1cada (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There is nothing actionable here (a poor (accidental?) editing word choice in a Talk page post, which doesn't suggest what the OP said it does, isn't an ANI concern...) – I suggest a third party close. --IJBall (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing actionable? That the POTD nearly went out with a caption that would certainly have provoked a storm of protest? c1cada (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. C1cada, the link you provide does not in any shape or form accuse you of "complicity in the Armenian Genocide" (and frankly, I can't see how any sane person could accuse someone of 'complicity' in events that occurred a hundred years ago). It may possibly be read to suggest that you were trying to play down the genocide by using the term 'pogrom' - which is another matter entirely. As to whether the suggestion is justified, I would express no opinion one way or another, beyond pointing out that EtienneDolet appears to have been making a legitimate case to the effect that the word 'pogrom' was inappropriate in the circumstances described, and that your unilateral Wikilinking of the term to the phrase 'systematic massacres' in the POTD caption was thus questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, Grump. As I made abundantly clear in my edits, I was advancing "pogrom" in addition to "genocide" to describe the massacres after World War 1. If you look at the edit I eventually made about those, I went to considerable pains to advance the case that this was a continuation of Ottoman genocidal policy (what I happen privately to believe), while at the same time affording due weight to denialist claims that revenge massacres justified the 1915-1916 genocide. That would be right about sane. Thanks for your input.c1cada (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand what I'm being accused of here. I want to clarify that the POTD should never be intended to commemorate anything. Indeed, the POTD does fall on April 24, which is the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, but that doesn't necessarily mean the wording of the blurb should be aligned to that effect. I've discussed with Crisco about that before, and I agreed with him that the POTD is not an avenue to commemorate the event .

I really don't like to participate in WP:NOTTHEM activity here, but frankly speaking, I'd suggest that this calls for a boomerang. I mean, I don't even know where to begin. The disruption is overt, and very noticable with a quick glance at the talk page and article revisions. The user has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:

Consensus:

Unilateral edit by C1cada:

Please note the timing of the consensus, and the unilateral edit. The POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages.

The user also wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And when discussing it with him, he repeatedly insulted my English. Even after I warned him several times, he kept on going on and on:

• Is English your first language, Étienne?
• I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne?
• You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language.
• It is an issue for us at English Misplaced Pages if your command of English is not sufficient
• I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary
• Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge

Since then, he's been hounding me for weeks. He reverts my edits of good faith, only to prove some sort of point, or to engage with me elsewhere. He refuses to discuss issues I have raised with him directly regarding his particular edits (for example: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Re_Grace_Knapp:_WP:OWNERSHIP_issues.3F), yet he still goes about reverts me.

Throughout my nine years of editing, this is my first time at ANI. I could say that I may not even have the experience to defend myself in times like this. At any rate, I wish I had more time to outline the concerning edits by the user, but perhaps I may save that for another time. However, if users here needs more assistance in that regard, just let me know. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor 192.30.95.97

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

This editor first started editing yesterday, and each one of their 5 edits has been either vandalism or spamming an external link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They haven't edited since receiving a warning, almost 24 hours ago. As it's an IP editor, who might have already changed IPs, I don't think there's anything more that can be done unless they start making similar edits again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd editing at Kate Kelly article

A number of editors want to include an edit at the Kate Kelly (feminist) about what they call "laptop-gate" (see here.) I have no comment on if this content is appropriate and a talk page discussion has been started on that. However, all these editors pushing for the inclusion of this content are brand new editors, i.e., within the past several hours. There may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved, but I believe an admin should review the editing pattern. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing and semi-protecting, discuss on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article. There are now about eight brand new users, with most of the accounts being created within minutes of each other. They all are posting support for including the laptop content. Do we need to do an SPI or is this just rather obvious that the accounts are related (sock or meat)? You can also tell they are related because all of them sign their posts the same incorrect way. Can their comments then be removed from the talk page? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's rare that article talk page comments are removed unless they are a BLP or copyright violation. But I think you should feel free to start a WP:SPI case. Liz 16:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I ended up creating a case at SPI with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Riboflavin6969. Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

LaLa200090

Not sure of I am in the right place, but to my opinion LaLa200090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Just a few weeks here, but his talk page is a plain list of speedy removed articles as recreations, copy & creations or plain copyvio. Even a block did not put him or her on the right path.

I doubt of this user will get his/her act together. The Banner talk 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a long term block (at least a week). I concur with the OP that the editor is engaging in abusive mass creation of articles, most of which clearly do not meet our standards. Many are naked copyright infringements and most do not appear to cite any sources (WP:V is not optional). If the problem persists after that then I'd just indef them per NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! Winx Club character articles?!? Is nuking from orbit an option?... --IJBall (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

117.197.156.226 admits to being Mriduls.sharma at the DRN here (look near the bottom of their explanation). Mriduls.sharma is blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry and harassment. Kharkiv07 17:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This was also posted on my talk page as I'm the original blocking administrator. I've blocked the IP for two weeks.--5 albert square (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Links: 117.197.156.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy

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 Misplaced Pages. 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?! 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . Second removal: . 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Failure to properly attribute material from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages 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)

Accusations and striking of comments.

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

Hello. I have been accused of sock-puppetry by user:Thunderlagoon in relation to my edits on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. This user has also taken the liberty of striking all my comments, on the grounds that I am a sock. I have asked that he restore them until such a time as he can conclusively show I am a sock as he as no right to strike other users comments unless the are in breach of BLP or are vandalism. He has not. I have looked at his account. Today is the first day this user has made edits. His account was created this morning. He has just added code to customise his user name. He had opened an SPI about me here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. While it is plausible that this user find his way to an AFD on his first day, I think it rather unlikely that the user would also open an SPI based on a very specific AFD he probably would have had trouble finding. I am asking that and Admin restore my comments to their former state as I am not here to edit war. I also would raise the question as to whether the SPI nomination was a malicious one and would appreciate an admins opinion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred this kept in one place, but I've added User:Thunderlagoon to the list of users to Checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. Could we wait until this sockpuppet investigation has been dealt with, and then work out the striking/unstriking of comments based on who's actually the sockpuppets? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Joseph2302 for adding his account as there is a genuine reason for suspicion when a 1-day-old accounts starts an SPI. I do not understand why this was not done earlier. I would however like the intervention of an as-of-yet uninvolved Admin and my text needs to be restored unless I am found to be a sock-puppet. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's all fine for me for checkuser check on my account cause I'm certainly aware of the outcome. Thanks Joseph2302 to put a mute to the meaningless war over a SPI. Thunderlagoon (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think your comments should have been struck out, Trout71, especially without a finished SPI and by an account that is only 10 hours old. Liz 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate someone with a neutral perspective. I am not particularly impressed with what is a highly unorthodox SPI being let go ahead, especially when it may be malicious. I am not a sock of users who clearly are from Asia. I live in Ireland. However there might be a silver lining. If he is not blocked User:Thunderlagoon can kindly undo his edit. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• 'I preferred sticking over removing for leaving it to others the reason for striking. All the Oppose votes were mainly made by IPs which is very suspicious. Moreover the actions of this user is bound to be more suspicious. I also stated that any experienced user is welcomed to unstrike if needed as already stated in SPI and AFD. There is no target of personal attack on the user. I have listed for checkuser which shouldn't bother the user if he/she is not a sock. Thunderlagoon (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? User:Thunderlagoon has been indefinitely block as a sock, and User:Trout71's comments have been reinstated. I therefore believe there is no more issues for WP:ANI to resolve. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Australian Beach and User:Scienceyperson

A strange sequence of events here:

• User:Scienceyperson created the article, Australian Beach on 15 April 2015, having registered their username the same day.
• It has been edited by several other editors since it was created, and PRODded and dePRODded.
• There has been some discussion at User talk:Scienceyperson about the sources.
• It is currently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Australian Beach because its references are unverifiable and its content untraceable.
• In the last hour s/he has blanked the article, added {{db-author}}, moved the article to User:Australian Beach and blanked it again to remove the template (sophisticated actions for such a newly registered user)

To avoid disruption to the AfD, I suggest that this editor should be blocked while it is running. If not indefinitely. PamD 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the chronology here, shouldn't the AFD just be closed as speedy delete (G7) which would just put and end to the disruption? Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, having started the AfD it might be better to let it run to get a consensus whether or not this is a hoax, with whatever implication that has for the editor's future on Misplaced Pages (is creating a "well-referenced" hoax article an "indef-block-on-first-offence" category of activity?). PamD 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the AfD should run its course. I'm more curious at how she was able to create a User page when there isn't an associated account. I tried creating a User page for an editor who couldn't figure it out and I couldn't unless I was logged in under their username. Liz 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno what happened for you, Liz, but anyone can create any page in the User space regardless of whether the account is registered, with the usual caveats about salted pages, etc. Keegan (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially with the odd behaviour, please let the AfD run its course. As nominator I have no idea if this is a hoax or not. While we could speedy it, I think this case is better allowed to run to conclusion. WP:SNOW may well apply in the not too far distant future, and that would be pragmatic. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for using their user page as a platform for commercial advertisement opportunities and for using Misplaced Pages for the purposes of perpetuating a hoax. Time to put the kibosh on this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support indefinite block, for exactly the same reasons as above. Promotions are not okay, hoaxes are not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support I just closed that AFD, and I support an indef block for anyone who uses Misplaced Pages to create hoaxes, or for advertisement. §FreeRangeFrog 01:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence

Would like permission from any admin to override 3RR re the above article due to editor who insists on inserting POV text with undue emphasis on partisan sources (see ). "I disagree" is insufficient grounds for him to violate NPOV, especially in the article lede. Quis separabit? 21:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Better option is to wait for other like-minded editors to revert (aside: is asking for assistance from other editors in a circumstance like this considered "Canvassing"?...), and then report for 3RR. I don't think it's a good idea for you to indulge in 3RR on your end, regardless of the circumstances... --IJBall (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would love for like-minded editors to step in but who knows when/if that will happen. I will, of course, heed your advice. Quis separabit? 22:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Question re Voćin massacre

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

"In the opinion of the Court, although the material before it raises grounds for grave suspicions about what occurred at Vocin, Croatia has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991."

Does this mean the incident didn't happen? Even I don't necessarily believe that. But if the ICJ rules that it cannot substantiate it then should the article exist? Please advise. I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

1. JUDGEMENT RE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. SERBIA), page 82; 3 February 2015.

How is this an issue for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just asking for advice. Like I said, I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Quis separabit? 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies

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

For some reason, this guy has made some pretty nasty slurs on me in the past week or so - namely that I insert into Misplaced Pages information that is either unverified, or misrepresents a source. Despite numerous requests, he's declined to either provide evidence or retract the accusations, and has instead just terminated our interaction with the words "we're done here, now fuck off". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=659058143 Which in fairness is at least consistent, it's basically the same sentiment I detected from our very first encounter. You can see the version of the article he's referring to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656850534, and the source I've supposedly misrepresented here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html I have a ton of other issues with this guy (Civil, Assume Good Faith), but I've seen enough disinterest from others to know I'd be wasting my time airing them. But given the basic purpose of this website (collation and presentation of sources), I think I'm entitled to resolution one way or the other on these specific two charges. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of User:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger's edits on Gunther Holtorf: , , - not many of these seem very helpful.

Your blocks here are basically just complaining that the article was bad, and completely ignoring the disruption highlighted above, and claiming that "I can no longer assume good faith".

Your current userpage is calling Misplaced Pages a waste of space.

Your posts on their talkpage here are non-civil and claiming they are a jerk.

All this evidence points to one unhelpful editor, you. I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but it hardly explains or excuses Drmies' accusations, does it? If I must comment on this, I got blocked for all that already. I assume double-jeopardy does not apply here? I've written an article, and then re-written it, even though I don't even think the first version was that bad (at least not bad enough to warrant ripping up). I've been more than helpful, and got nothing in response - hence why I say what I do on my userpage. Disagree all you want, but my userpage is not an article, the only source it needs is my own experience here. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My experiences with Drmies have shown him to be a fair, thoughtful, and incredibly patient administrator who is willing to help editors when they ask. You engaged him on his talk page, he responded several times, and then you exhausted his patience at which point this occurred . If you've exhausted Drmies patience to the point of where he tells you to 'fuck off', you crossed a line you never should have gone over. From what I can see, WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate where you and this report are concerned, Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone should take Gunther Holtorf to AfD. BMK (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the book he's written, the article subject seems to have received enough coverage worldwide to meet WP:GNG. The article, however, is pretty poorly written and at this time relies on only one source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Willing to help? I asked him very clearly - where did I insert unverified information? Where did I misuse a source? You can criticise the tone all you want, and like I said I got blocked for it, but you can't deny the question isn't there - it's there in black and white. Everyone can see he only told me to fuck off because he has no answer to give and got fed up of me asking. His responses, where they can even be called answers to questions, deliberately avoided these topics. If this gets shut down, then he will simply have been rewarded for telling me to fuck off when I asked him for proof to back up his accusations. That might feed well into this myth that he's somehow a great guy, always willing to help, but I fear the only people who think that are those who are never put into these situations. Have either of you had to ask him a question like this? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of Ranger's edits, the following demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, an unhealthy obsession with Drmies, WP:OWN issues, and a desire to propogate WP:DRAMA:

• "Seriously, is this a joke? Is this how you usually treat people who put HOURS of their night into improving articles here?" - Nevermind the years of work others have done around here, their experience isn't needed.
• After being blocked Ranger started to get it and even admitted "I don't have a fucking clue how to do it," and yet refused any offer for help, saying "This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a politics club." He descended into wikilawyering and posting pointless walls of text and out of context guidelines, eventually exemplifying WP:NOTTHEM.
• Ranger was clearly keeping up with what was going on on Drmies page, but interpretted what could be a mistake (given that the name is a clear play on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers) as a personal attack, which is just plain hypocritical given his attitude and continued overt personal attacks.
• He eventually backtracks on his admission that he didn't know how to do references, claiming that it was obvious that he was citing an existing source, despite never mentioning it.
• "If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along... I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith"
• Admitting he has no interest in working on anything else on the encyclopedia - Normally, I don't have any problem with someone who creates an account to make a single change and not bother with anything else. When that single change becomes a week-long temper tantrum, that's just disruptive editing.
• Rejecting any attempt by Drmies to end the issue.
• Creating a user page that is nothing but complaining about another user.
• Starting this thread.
• Other posts hostilely addressing or referring to Drmies: , , , , , , , , , , ,

That's about thirty links right there to problematic posts, out of (as of this post) 48 user talk page edits. Notable posts that do not address, mention, or reference Drmies include:

• confusion that the admins haven't immediately dropped everything they're doing to address him specifically
• taking a general statement about Misplaced Pages not being used for promotion way too personally

Could Drmies have been clearer and more professional in explaining reversions? Sure. Did Drmies actually violate WP:CIVIL before being pushed repeatedly by the overly hostile Ranger? Not when read under the assumption of good faith. Does Drmies behavior justify Ranger throwing a week long temper tantrum over 45 posts (out of 83)? Absolutely not. Does that temper tantrum indicate a user who is capable or willing to contributing to the encyclopedia in a mature and civil manner?

TL;DR: Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is here for the drama, and doesn't have the required patience. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're just annoyed that unlike you I don't particularly consider being made to feel like shit, or just generally be ignored, is a price worth paying to edit Misplaced Pages. I've read Civil and Assume Good Faith, so unlike you I do expect to be treated with respect without having to beg for it. And not for the first time, you put a positive light on everything Drmies has done, while you interpret everything I've done in a negative way, which is pretty shitty thing to do at the best of times, but particularly shitty when you consider I've been here just a few days, he's been here for what I assume is years (he must have if there's this many people willing to fling themselves on grenades like this, to the point of denying basic reality). You keep going on about competence - how's this for competence, even I know there's nothing in Civil that says you can ignore it if you think the other person is not Assuming Good Faith. But once again, it's an example of me being held to a standard you admit Drmies isn't even doing. When it's him, ah well, he could do better. When it's me, ah, he's this, that and the other, none of them good. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have recommended that you drop this. You keep ignoring this advice. More editors keep recommending you just move on. If everyone kept pointing out that you were on fire and recommended that you let them pour water on you, would you start arguing that it was actually quite chilly and don't want to get a cold? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If a fireman accused you of arson, then refused your requests for evidence, then eventually told you to fuck off, would you care one bit how many other people told you to drop it, when it was as plain as the nose on your face that not one of them was remotely interested in whether or not the accusation was true, they just think the fireman was a stand up guy, and any misunderstanding between you two is of course entirely your fault? Is that really how you conduct yourself here? Is that how little self-respect you have? Or is it more the case that you're only saying these things because you've not really considered it from my side at all? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Smelling a mighty strong whiff of WP:BOOMERANG on this one, especially considering this lengthy belligerent exchange, and the endless diatribes on his own talk page and userpage. Those, along with his edit-warring on Gunther Holtorf, constititute the OP's sole participation on Misplaced Pages. All kinds of problems here, including lack of competence, not being here to build an encyclopedia, battleground behavior, and of course disruptive and uncivil behavior and inability to edit collaboratively. This ANI is just the latest in a long line of aggressive and disruptive postings. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And considering he's got this long list even though all the time he hasn't been blocked adds up to less than a day? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention how I kick puppies too. This is ridiculous. I might as well put on an auto-reply, people are just repeating things I've already responded to, without even bothering to consider my earlier replies to the exact same things. Is that Civil? Acting like I'm not even here? I know it's not, as I've read the page many times these past few days. And how can someone who has written, and then re-written, and entire article, not be here to "build an encyclopedia"? If anyone wonders why the above is my "sole participation on Misplaced Pages", then I have to wonder if you possess the competence to judge me at all. I came here to improve that article, which was pure dogshit when I found it. I then spent a week blocked. When that expired, since nobody else had done so, I rewrote it, rather than leave it in the shitty state it had yet again been returned to, for reasons completely unknown, and never explained. I have spent precisely two days on Misplaced Pages not restricted to my own talk page, yet the way people are talking here, I'm supposed to have written articles on umpteen subjects? As well as arriving as the perfect editor, fully conversant in all policies, and prepared not to get upset if other people he encounters do not appear to have the same level of competence. What level of competence is it, to be still telling people to fuck off even after being here years? Or is that the reason for it? Do you all after a certain time stop even caring that it's not Civil, and instead as we see here, rely on your socio-political connections to ensure other editors will come and 'deploy a boomerang' on anyone who dares challenge your right to act that way, should you tire of being asked for evidence to back up your false accusations? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Mighty Morphin Army Ranger

Proposal: Block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, length to be decided by uninvolved admin or community consensus. Note: Has already had a one-week block which apparently didn't work and resulted in only further aggression and disruption. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support defined month-long block - Against better judgement, I'm for giving WP:ROPE here. He did initially come here to help, he just utterly failed at playing well with others. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed to month long, following Winkelvi. I do think that if he continually complains via hasty unblock requests (as he did last time), we might want (if possible) to revoke talk page access for a day, then a week, and then two weeks, before making the block (and revoked access) indefinite -- to make sure he gets the point that we don't support such hostility and help him focus on learning about the site before diving back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support month-long block - Time enough to cool down a bit, lose the aggressive battleground mentality, perhaps take more time to look around at well-written articles, find some other articles to edit, read up on policy and guidelines, and the like. Such a block would be truly preventative and not punishing. I say give the guy another chance. If he's truly hell-bent on being disruptive, it will become apparent soon after the month block and the correct measures can be doled out. If not, he should be given a chance to be a productive contributor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. The block was for disruption of the article, so how did it not work? Unless rewriting the article is disruptive? Since all I have done since the block is rewrite the article and file this complaint report, then any new block would be for one thing, and one thing only - for requesting Drmies be held accountable for his false accusations. Anyone who blocks me, is basically saying he can do what he likes. He can accuse anyone, of anything, and he can even tell them to fuck off if they don't like it. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support lengthy block. I can never get back the time I wasted reading this "editor's" combative, lengthy explanations for why they freaked out and how much they hate evil Drmies. This person is either a troll or utterly incapable of collaborating with others to build an encyclopedia. Time sink. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm neither, but thanks for your feedback. I look forward to the day when you find yourself in a similar situation, and I get to see how you collaborate your way out of it. I actually came here for serious consideration of a serious issue. More fool me. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've got nearly six years of productive editing here with minimal conflicts. Maybe that's because I brush chips off my shoulder, instead of enshrining them on my shoulder with SuperGlue. Also because I make improving the encyclopedia my first priority, as opposed to pursuing trivial vendettas. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not buying it for a second. Either this is not a true recollection of how you collaborate with others (bearing in mind my experience is where you would have been 6 years ago), or you've never been put in this situation before and therefore don't really know how you would react. If your first priority is the encyclopedia, I doubt you'd so easily ignore accusations of this type, since if anyone actually believed they were true, they'd never let you add anything to an article. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of whatever length the closing admin sees as the consensus. (Because the OP admits to kicking puppies) BMK (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support month-long block Drmies (who I might add MMAR, is a woman) told them to drop the stick many times, but they've persisted beyond the threshold, and coming back after the block to immediately unload on ANI hardly suggests they want to be collaborative. It's rare when Drmies does get profane (from my experience they've nothing but kind), but here they were completely appropriate in asking MMAR to stop their harassment. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies is not a woman. They are anthropomorphic, no, that's not right, androgynous, no, ambiguous, ambidextrous?, ambivalent ... well, that will do for now unless Drmies wants to add better words.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is Drmies. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bah, my apologies. They are who they are then and I did not mean to offend. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, Drmies would probably be pleased. Ian summed it up best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, two messages on a talk page is harassment is it? Come off it. Some of you aren't even trying to pretend you've looked at what went on. If all it takes for Drmies to swear, is to be asked twice, the second time incredibly politely given her continued provocation, why they were making these false accusations and where their evidence was for them, then their talk page must be like a sewer. But it's not. So what was it about this situation that made them lose their top? I'd like an actual answer here, one that makes sense, if I'm going to be credited with pushing an apparent saint over the edge, someone who is always polite and respectful. I'd also like to remind people that this all started with the way they approached me, and the way they continued to treat me. I'm not an asshole, if there had been at any time, even a hint that they had realised they were being disrespectful and were trying to row back, then I would probably have calmed down as well. But no, every single post from them has contained some element of untruth, mockery or sarcasm. Whoever the person is you people get to deal with and find perfectly reasonable, it definitely isn't the same Drmies I've have to deal with. I suspect (and have even read) that a lot of you don't think they're perfectly reasonable at all, that this 'edge' they have is there, and is perfectly normal. Well, check your rules again, the 'edge' in this case is downright against the rules. You do not get to accuse people of these things, then ignore them, then tell them to fuck off. It's a simple as that. Your various personal experiences to the contrary don't magically negate the basic truth of that assessment. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of any duration. This troll has been fed for far too longer. Any claim that Drmies is carrying some kind of grudge is ludicrous. "Edge"? "Rules"? Trolling is the "dramaz" being forced upon us here. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• support block and suggesting adding a month for each combative post that MMAR posts here before the thread closes. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Looks like it's time to revoke TPA. BMK (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done, by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Note: A request for unblocking has been sent to the UTRS team (#13582) and has been declined. Nakon 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

QUICKY: Mitchell328

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

Whatever's happening here needs a mass rollback, aaaand, probably an indef, even though we haven't climbed up the warning tree with him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Acroterion is on the case. Resolved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, popups is still showing the rev-deled edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not any more; possibly just takes time for the rev-del summary to percolate around the system. (And, with one edit, it is doubtless proven just how small is Lindsay's understanding of computers and WP.) Cheers, Lindsay 10:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Block request for user EauZenCashHaveIt

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

Hello, I recently seem to have crossed paths with a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation. It all started when I corrected a link to a disambiguation page , standard procedure. This user, who seems to be rather attached to the article concerned, rather bluntly reverted this change, displaying a relative lack of experience with Misplaced Pages by stating the obvious 'It's a red link, it leads nowhere'. Thus undoing a correction I introduced, and relinking to a disambig page. I then corrected him by explaining why we are making these changes , being reverted again: Then we should remove the link, since it leads nowhere. Comment noted, but that's not WP's policy.

But it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page. There I got a longread of incidents this user has already been involved in in just the course of a month, being told off and corrected multiple times, even being told to let it drop, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a block, Please remove that personal attack, Efforts to build Misplaced Pages are never improved by personal attacks on editors, etcetera, etcetera.

We're talking about a user here who has a good 200 edits, half of which seem to have been to talk pages justifying his behaviour, and repeatedly telling off experienced editors on good standing.

On this occasion, I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice. Upon being reverted, the user came harassing me on another, related, edit I had made, and has been making multiple agressive and/or personal attacks: As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post, Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means and the latest See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice.

Now, my sabre has been getting rather rusty lately, so I am no party for a duel. And this is where I am no longer going to entertain the behaviour of this user. Nobody comes to Misplaced Pages to be harassed or attacked, not me, not anyone else.

On the counts of harassment, agressive behaviour and personal attacks, I would therefore like to request for this user to be blocked, term to be defined by the admins, although I can't see this user coming to terms with Misplaced Pages. I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user. Thank you, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Removing and inserting redlinks has been always debatable, if enough people have agreed to keep them, then go for that. I don't see any personal attack if someone is telling other to sign their post. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly did not expect this masterful storytelling, nor did I expect the need to defend myself. I will try to balance out whatever has been said here so far.

• "a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation"... "it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page"... "I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice"... The condescending Willy Wonka meme comes to mind here: please, tell me more about how YOU were harassed and personally attacked. His heading on my talk page reads "Agressive and inexperienced editing - again".
• The above named heading leads to a seemingly standard warning, except that it was Midas02 who kept restoring content in a rather pushy and aggressive manner, in spite of my expression of valid concerns, on both List of The Blacklist characters and James Jackson pages.
• What Midas02 is calling "personal attacks" are replies to his own aggressive remarks:

1) As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post is a direct reply to the above named heading calling me inexperienced (he also gave me the wrong warning, but that's beside the point).

2) Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means is a direct reply to as an inexperienced user, please inform yourself on the guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Again, the pot calling the kettle inexperienced.

3) See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice is a reaction to Midas02 restoring the content without any explanation for the umpteenth time, right after he told me that repeatedly restoring content in spite of another user's objections is not OK.

• As for harassment, I checked the disambiguation page and sure enough, the name he was battling to keep as a non-existent link was added to the disambiguation list just a few minutes prior to the edit in question. It doesn't seem like a good practice at all, since some of Misplaced Pages's bad rep is that people can add anyone to these kinds of lists and then claim their validity as notable figures, when in reality they don't even have their own Misplaced Pages article. Both edits are intertwined, so I removed them. No harassment there, as I already explained to Midas02.
• I am not even sure what to read into his last paragraph here: "I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user." One minute I'm a noob who should know better, next I'm not? Please help me understand what the heck is going on here. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, posting this on the ANI board is a huge stretch, and requesting a block is ridiculous. This stems from an editing tussle regarding a link (Jamie Jackson) that points to a disambiguation page. Midas02's solution was to disambiguate with "(actor)", though the page doesn't exist yet. After reverting, and conversing through edit comments, EauZenCashHaveIt's ultimate solution was to remove the link entirely, a solution that follows WP guidelines, and one that I approve of. As I see it, the editing issue is resolved, all in a day's work, and there was no behaviour that even comes close to warrant wasting time on the ANI board. At best, it's a 3RR issue, with no talk page discussion, which is now resolved. Willondon (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

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

I changed EvergreenFir's original title "Canvassing by Guy Macon" to the more neutral "Possible canvassing" BMK (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in canvassing, specifically Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. See contribs here. I believe the extent of the canvassing warrants a direct ANI posting despite the good faith efforts of another editor to issue a templated warning. I have no recommendations for consequences (from trouting on up) as I have little knowledge of this user. However I request the canvassing edits be reverted at the least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Without looking very closely into the details, I will note that it's not considered canvassing if every contributor to a previous discussion on the topic is notified of the new discussion. It's only canvassing if the editor selects only certain editors -- those he or she believes will agree with their position -- to notify. Is that the case here? Did you ask Guy Macon how he determined the people he notified? Did you follow up to determine for yourself if that was the case. Did you, in fact, do anything at all beside come directly to ANI to tattle on this editor you have "little knowledge of" for an act that you have no real idea whether it broke a policy or not? BMK (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at diffs. 100s of article talk pages posted on. Posting here more for clean up than tattling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not canvassing in any way shape or form, because every editor who reads those talk pages -- pro or con the issue -- will see the notice, which was properly neutral:

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no suggestion of how anyone should feel about the issue, and nothing about the notice which might attract editors on one side of the issue rather than editors on the other. You don't know how he determined what article talk pages to place it on because you didn't bother to ask. BMK (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretation. I see this as canvassing given its scale and feel it warrants admin attention regardless of intent or rationale. I'll let an admin decide. If they agree with you, they are welcome to trout me for this ani. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any canvasing here. It's neutrally worded and generally circulated to all. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, my selection method was simple: Every page that would be affected (All biography pages that have "Religion: None", Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion None (atheist)", or "Religion: None (agnostic)" in the infobox). I am well aware of our canvassing rules, and I wouldn't canvass even if I could get away with it, for the simple reason that I value getting an accurate picture of consensus far more than I value getting my way. Right now the consensus is going against my preferences by over 2:1, and if that holds to the end of the RfC I will happily start plugging away at bringing those multiple pages into compliance with the consensus. And of course I expect to be reported at ANI for doing so -- some folks are really, really into making sure everyone knows that certain politicians are atheists.

Given how contentious this topic is, I wanted to avoid the multiple complaints that the last couple of consensus discussions on this subject generated from people who did not like their favorite pages being changed in a way that they felt strongly about without any notice that such a change was being discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINTY edit summaries

Guy Macon has been flooding articles with WP:POINTY edit summaries for months to hundreds of pages with absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus on their talk pages. Then he starts an RfC at Template talk:Infobox person. Rather than advertising the RfC to a couple related projects and central locations, he used a script to advertise on hundreds of article talk pages, inappropriate canvassing per WP:CANVASSING#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. This is also not the first time he's done this. Just over 2 weeks ago, he did the same thing for a different RfC (see same link, few pages in.) He was asked to stop in this instance by Samsara and reported by him to ANI also at this time. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:Guy_Macon_posting_large_identical_text_blocks_in_growing_number_of_venues ― Padenton|✉   07:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done Guy!. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So what....we throw out Misplaced Pages policy and consensus as long as we can salute Penn Gillette? Screw those editors of those pages too? Even when almost none of the pages said atheism was a religion? How about we all just get off our soapbox and follow consensus? Is that too hard? ― Padenton|✉   07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is not a surrogate definition for those who hold Theist belief systems. If Guy could even bothered to start an RfC or alternative venue for consensus, such redundant infobox descriptors would/should have fallen flat as being and nonsensical. This is not canvassing, it's a statement of fact. As plainly summarised, "Atheism is not a religion, bald is not a hair colour, off is not a TV channel." Consensus for a meaningless and offensive label? "Support, support, support" its removal as being a non-descriptor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for content debates, this is the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. ― Padenton|✉   08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So let's talk about user behavior. Your wikilinking "None" to atheist is clearly a back door method of re-inserting a version of "None (atheist") against a clear consensus not to do that. Some people really want certain politicians to be labeled "atheist" in the infobox, presumably to make them less attractive to voters. See Anna Lo for an example of this.

I would also like to see your evidence for the claim that I am using a script. The "spamming" claim was just addressed in the section above this one.

As for the "absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus" claim, there have been multiple consensus discussions on this:

• Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion
• Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 25#Tangential question related to religion parameter
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#religion parameter
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 13#Religion: Atheist?
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 12#Religion "If relevant"
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 11#Proposal to remove "religion" from template
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 5#Change Display Name for Religion Parameter to "Religion" from "Religious Beliefs"
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 3#'Religious belief' field

Until the RfC closes and I see a closing summary that tells me what the new concensus is, I intend to follow the consensus from the closing summary of Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. I don't follow my own preference in these things. I follow the result of the latest consensus discussion whether I agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not wikilink "None" to atheist. The article was like that until you decided to run a script to mass edit everything you disagreed with. That consensus says absolutely nothing on Religion = None, and the rate of your changes make it clear you made no attempt to look at the article's talk pages to see if there were any previous discussions. If you're claiming otherwise, how about a direct link rather than a list of irrelevant discussions?

Are you claiming that you aren't using a script? So you did these thousands of edits in that short timeline, maybe 5 different changes total to all those articles, with no automation?

You have yet to address your inappropriate edit summaries to these thousands of articles. Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries― Padenton|✉   20:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, Padenton, what you are saying is that Guy Macon is using snark when reverting your constant attempts to crowbar your belief that atheism is a religion, into infoboxes, despite unambiguous consensus that this is inappropriate. Apart from thanking Guy for his diligence and warning you that if you do this once more I will block you, what else did you want? Or can we close this now? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Interference

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

I seem to be being stalked by a user called Interference, he is using his 'revert' power to revert every edit I made.

We have edited some articles the same - we are disagreeing about deletion of some new articles

But this user keeps using 'revert' on all the edits I do. Even when they are not related at all. Like this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Help_desk&diff=659098213&oldid=659098140

I feel like I cant make any edits without him using his rveret powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You know why I'm reverting your edits and you seem to be avoiding any discussion as to why multiple editors think your edits are in bad faith. Interference 541 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Bobbertybob is disruptively adding and re-adding CSD and PROD tags to articles as well as making fairly useless AFD noms. --NeilN 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you just did this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lamont_Cain&diff=659105814&oldid=659105212

Can sonmeone help me fix the afd thing for that... and stop this person just 'undoing' everything?!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not 'avoiding any discussion' at all. I will talk to anyone about any of my edits. What is the problem? Why are you stalking me? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your interest in deletion of Ezra A. Bowen and Muara Bungo collide with WP:NPOL and WP:NGEO respectively. Furthermore, you aren't reading the talk pages of articles prior to re-flagging them in addition to ignoring WP:DEPROD. Interference 541 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobbertybob_reported_by_User:Jbhunley_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN 08:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BOOMERANG is needed here. Bobbertybob has been making pointy CSD nominations, reverting twice, then PROD and reverting twice then opens an AfD. He has done this at Ezra A. Bowen (Notable under WP:NPOL) and Muara Bungo (Notable under WP:GEOLAND) as well as trying it at Lamont Cain but seems to have munged the AfD nomination somehow. Several users including Amaury and NeilN have told him these nominations and reverting properly removed CSD and PROD tags were disruptive. I have reported him at ANEW and I see he has just now been blocked at AIV. Additional disruptive edits can be seen in his Contributions. Jbh (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Boomerang duly launched. Blocked for 24 hours per the report at ANEW.  Philg88  08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A user's constant insults and now curses towards me

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

(The user referred to is C1cada (talk · contribs)) User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The insults are overt and now that he's cursing at me, I believe it's time to report this here. This report is just a small extraction of the disruption and constant insults I had to witness and endure this past week. Seeing that he's new, I kept my patience with this user for quite some time. But he sent me to ANI yesterday for the most trivial of matters, and even after I laid out some of the issues I found concerning in his own edit-pattern there, the user continues to insult me and engage with me like it's a battlefield.

I warned him over and over again to not insult my English, especially in talk pages, but he just doesn't stop. Even other users, such as Alakzi, warned him about the ongoing insults.

Some examples (and I mean it when I say some):

• Is English your first language, Étienne?
  • Looking at that, the question is within the context of use of "massacre," a word a non-native English speaker could easily misuse as it means a sudden, violent mass killing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne?
  • Again "pogrom," a word with Russian-Jewish connotations which grates when used in a Turkish-Armenian context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language.
  • Harping nonsense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is an issue for us at English Misplaced Pages if your command of English is not sufficient
  • Does not contain that language in either the editor or the comment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary
  • He's having trouble himself User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge
  • Insulting and intended to be User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is simply that English is manifestly not your first language and that does put you at a disadvantage unless you are genuinely both bilingual and literate (schooled) in the language.
  • "you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches" seems hurtful and is a confession of serial offenses. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I compliment Etienne on the remarkable improvement in his grammar at the ANI.
• Once again I have to raise the question of your comprehension skills in English.
  • A duplicate User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I ask you to stop these pointy semi-literate interventions of yours.

And the more I warn him to stop, the more aggressive his language gets. Here's diffs from just a short while ago:

• So WTF is your problem, Étienne?
• I do think you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches.
  • Last 4 all from same source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been almost two weeks now since he's been hounding me. He reverts my edits of good faith, only to prove some sort of point, or to engage with me elsewhere. His edit-summaries often contain subtle insults towards my English as well (). He refuses to discuss issues I have raised with him directly regarding his particular edits (for example: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Re_Grace_Knapp:_WP:OWNERSHIP_issues.3F), yet he still goes about reverts me.

Elsewhere, the user displays a problematic editing-pattern in main space articles as well. He has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:
Consensus:

Unilateral edit by C1cada:

Please note the timing of the consensus and the unilateral edit. As you may have noticed, the POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages. The user was opposed over and over again when he wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And after failing in that regard, he attempted to play down an entire genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. That was voted against as well, but as shown above, he still went along with his edit. What's even more troubling is that the user then places the POTD template of the Armenian Genocide in the most important Turkey related articles and portals. He placed it in WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and the Turkey article in an apparent attempt to canvass Turkish users to support his argument. And when continuing the discussion with him, he repeatedly insulted my English, and responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages . The user also games the project over and over again when it comes to the 1RR rule at the Armenian Genocide article. This I find most concerning, and very frequent. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. At any rate, I apologize for the length of my report, but the disruption caused by this user this past week alone is extensive and deeply concerning. I can go on and on with this. If more examples of similar instances are needed, I can provide them upon request. But the bottom line is, I find it impossible to work with this user. And in light of all this, I feel the admins here should be able to handle this in an appropriate matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

His post where he "responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages " is translated, by Google, "For the rest of it, once again (wearily) ... not import what. And what the fuck is this: Please Etienne, can we the Chat things before hand before changing the blurb yet again ...., Stephen? Talk up the pot calls the kettle black ... shit, an "blurp 'really." User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Riiii...ght, my French is terrible ... I think it's very hurtful of you to highlight it like this, Fred. If it happens again I feel I will have no alternative but to take you to an ANI on it. Google doesn't do very well on "n'importe quoi" BTW. It's the French colloquialism for our weary "yeah right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1cada (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2015

I will ask him, on his talk page, to not engage in insults. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrepentant. The Armenian Genocide needs a section on the post World War I massacres, which carried off possibly hundreds of thousands Eastern Russian Armenians. The lede refers to it and accordingly the article should have a section on them. I provided that edit and it was immediately reverted by this editor as WP:NOCONSENSUS. So I took it, Massacres after Wordl War I, and two other issues Modification to the lede and "Historic homelands", to the Talk page and there has been no dissent save this weird one from this editor banging on about Tehcir law, the duration of the genocide and OR. But there is nothing in my proposed edit that references any of that (it refers to events several years on) and it's thoroughly sourced from two standard histories. Small wonder I question his comprehension skills. I have traced on the Talk page of that article how lack of English language skills leads to significant error.

I have no idea what is with with this editor. He treats me essentially as one of the denialist weirdos who persistently post at the article and whom I do duty reverting. I could add a list as long as his, but can't be arsed, of his insinuations that I am a denialist,. He has accused me (giving him the benefit of the doubt in a passage I find hard to construe) that I am undermining the article by supporting the Ottoman genocide, or something to that effect. He sees fit to remind me that I "may" be blocked for not observing the 1R rule in place there, though in fact I never engage in edit warring anywhere in my edits and haven't come close to reverting twice in a 24 period. c1cada (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is becoming a public forum. This is not what Misplaced Pages was intended to be for, @C1cada:. When two users are being disruptive/passive-aggresive to each other, one must take steps for a resolution of the said conflict; in this case, there is no reason to engage in a conflict with @EtienneDolet:, because you weren't threatened to be blocked. The latter user just informed you that there's a 1RR, or one revert rule which may lead to a block (this is true, actually). If you have any contributions to do, which I can see you do, remember to assume good faith. --92slim (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that, Slim. One reason it's becoming a public forum is that Étienne unilaterally did away with WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I can sense that Étienne is frustrated with my lively chat, but that's not because it's insulting as such but ... erm, well let's put it this way: I have quite good Russian and from time to time venture an edit on their wiki (which is absolutely excellent incidentally). But suppose I was to edit in some contentious area, say the Ukraine issue. I'm pretty sure I would be taken to the cleaners on their Talk page in short order and would just not be able to cope with their more forthright users, who can be very forthright indeed, and would quickly feel frustrated and aggrieved. Regarding the "Post War Massacres" edit I made, I gave 72 hours notice I intended to provide one and I explicitly invited you to provide it before me. I don't call that being a diva as some grump or other suggested to me on the other ANI, of which I happen to know an honest to goodness Russian one rather well as it happens (sdras!). c1cada (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Etienne did not "unilaterally do away" with WP:EDITCONSENSUS, because that's not how consensus works. If there is one editor who objects (as he and others have done), out of two, there is no consensus. No users have agreed with your edits, mainly because you don't include reliable sources to back your claims. This is where you'd like to start, in order to be taken seriously. --92slim (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He did so with his reverts. What is it that you thinks needs citing at Massacres after Wordl War I? It's meticulously cited. I remind you that Armenian genocide failed a Good Article nomination because of copy edit and citation deficiencies. My edit sets a standard. As for your latest remark on the Talk page, I answered there. c1cada (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is subject to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Modified by motion:

"The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Passed 10 to 1 on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors

";Decorum Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct." So what is an appropriate remedy? However, "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." From the way he is acting it seems User:C1cada is not aware that discretionary sanctions cover Insults and personal attacks. Therefore Template:Ds/alert needs to be placed on his talk page. Which I will do once I figure out how to format it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Somebody who doesn't like Yopie

Yopie seems interested in royal families, pretenders, and so on. This is of very little interest to me; it's of great interest to somebody who appears to be in Mesa, AZ, and anyway connects to the interweb via United States Phoenix Qwest Communications Company. What Yopie adds, the IP removes; what Yopie removes, the IP readds. Edit summaries sometimes look reasonable enough in themselves; but viewed as a bunch, they're vapid: the idea seems to be: (i) revert Yopie because Yopie, (ii) optionally add whatever edit summary might look OK at a mere glance.

I blocked 97.117.249.253. Before that block ran out, I also blocked 174.26.204.55.

Rather annoyingly, both IPs have, uh, expressed their displeasure with me (one IP, the other). I don't mean that the complaints annoy me in themselves (such complaints usually bore me but occasionally amuse me); rather, it might look as if I'm blocking this fellow because of his affronts to my dignity or similar. So I invite another admin to take a look. I also invite one or more admins to do some benevolent stalking of Yopie, to see whether another Mesa, AZ IP starts up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. IP is stalking me for 3 weeks, without valid explanation (just this]. All started as BLP issue with IP 206.213.43.100 about House of Orléans-Braganza and his members, where IP is inserting unsourced defamatory material. IP was in conflict with User:Materialscientist, User:Kober: and User:FactStraight too, all about BLP.--Yopie (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism again

Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who just came out of a block for this same behavior) has tagbombed the article on David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, because it cites too many "Jewish" sources. He's also completely in denial that David Duke is an antisemitic white supermacist neo-Nazi, which indicates some combination of trolling, antisemitic WP:TEND, and/or extreme WP:CIR issues that cannot be described both civilly and accurately.

We either need to implement a topic ban for this user (say, from race and Judaism) or another block (indef sounds good), user is going to be a completely unnecessary timesink otherwise. I'm happy with either. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the the previous block was unfair but even then nobody supported the charge of anti-Semitism against me which I still categorically reject as untrue. That block was in fact based on charges of "personal attacks" but even then I had really meant no offense and I explained the unease experienced by my counterparts had been because of me and my counterparts coming from very opposing political views, and this was testified by other observers as well. And that's why I think the previous block was also unfair (despite the fact that I admit I should've done better to sustain a softer language). But as for this recurring charge, it is clear that you also share my opponents' POV here! So I'd like you to admit that this is a POV difference and has nothing to do with the accusations you have leveled against me (which I have already rejected as untrue and unfair). I think the right course of action would be for your to explain why you think my activities on Jewish Supremacism are wrong. But you really didn't provide any strong reason there and have instead chose to rush to the noticeboard a difference that can be settled via the common course of action for content dispute settlement on Wiki! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1, User:Anders Feder, User:Bejnar, User:Monochrome Monitor, User:Bishonen, and User:JzG seemed to think you've got a problem, dunno where you're getting the idea that no one supported the charges against you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, these are the very same users with whom I still have an ongoing discussion on the Houthi talk page and Jewish Supremacism talk page! With all due respect, I think it was not wise of you to approve the block request by a user with whom I had an ongoing discussion i.e. before even his charges against me are proven. But one impartial observer User:DrFleischman also rejected the charges against me. I think you're being hasty in your assessment, and clearly hold a biased viewpoint similar to that of my opponents. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban, please. WP:NOTHERE - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So where's the line between content dispute and disruptive editing? NOTHERE certainly seems excessive. Has this user repeatedly failed to respect a clear consensus? I don't see that in the diffs. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, do you think that a person that says On the contrary, I think, those "rubbish" sources are specifically crucial for reducing such biases as espoused by likes of you! Self-centered, self-satisfied Zionist/US imperialist apologists who dismiss as "rubbish" whatever POV that doesn't reaffirm their deeply entrenched prejudices! is here to build an encyclopedia? Don't think so. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for that. But those were directed towards a user who had made equally upsetting remarks against me! As I said, this is an issue of conflicting political views! But I admit I should've sustain a much softer language all along the heated debate! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I think they have a strong POV, which is not the same as NOTHERE. As you of all people should know, a strong POV is not a serious problem if you are capable of observing process and consensus. And consensus doesn't mean a lot of editors think you're out of line in general, it refers to consensus on a single, fairly narrow content question. If BRD hasn't been closely followed here by all involved, Strivingsoul isn't the only one to blame for the results. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong POV is not the issue here. It is his behavior and attitude as reflected in his comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so make a case on behavior and attitude, which has nothing to do with how he feels about David Duke. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Strivingsoul's argument for tagbombing the secondary-sourced article about a 368 page antisemitic canard by Klansman and Neo-Nazi David Duke is that we cite too many Jewish sources, and arguing that David Duke (a holocaust denier and former grand wizard of the KKK) somehow isn't an antisemite despite writing a book that says that Jews secretly plot to take over the world. This is like tagbombing the article on The God Delusion, claiming that it cites too many Christian sources, and then arguing that Richard Dawkins isn't a New Atheist. That requires either two of other trolling, WP:TEND, WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not only staging some unfounded libels against me but are even falsifying the topic! First off, I should state clearly that I'm not a fan or spokesperson for Duke. But I have personally read his book. Nowhere in the book Duke ever claims any Jewish conspiracy or that "Jews secretly plot to rule the world." He actually clearly rejects those charges, and what is interesting is that you are taking those false allegations straightly from ADL's mouth, and that's one reason why I argued that the page content are completely biased for stating ADL's views as facts. And I have provided the links to the talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the link to the talk page discussion about said tagbombing? Did he participate in the discussion? Did he or someone else remove the tags during the discussion, per BRD? Did he respect the consensus reached in the discussion? If there was no discussion, you have no disruptive editing case there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the article, and the talk page isn't that hard to find from there. There is a discussion, of which there are three users pointing out that the tags are an obviously bad idea, and one user trying to pretend that David Duke isn't an antisemite. If we had an article about a historical white-on-black hate crime that mostly cited the NAACP and professors of African-American studies, and someone claimed the article was biased for citing too many black authors and not citing a neo-Nazi (while pretending that said author is a neo-Nazi), would we be having this conversation, or would we have just blocked that user as a under WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:DFTT? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion related to the tags is several hours old and includes comments from three editors including Strivingsoul. The tags are removed and Strivingsoul is leaving them that way. It seems to me you're in the middle of the D phase of BRD, things are proceeding normally, more participation is needed for consensus, and I don't know why you're here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He should be banned from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant and anything having to do with Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can this editor's opinion be considered an impartial judgement when he himself has been directly involved in the content dispute with me? Sorry, but this whole complaint discussion really is not fair and balanced. All users with whom I have had content dispute are tagged to come and testify against me! This is no justice! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing can comment on WP:ANI as long as they are civil. How can you say there is no justice when nothing has come of this discussion yet but simple conversation? Nothing is stopping editors who agree with your viewpoint from speaking on your behalf, if they are out there. Liz 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards