Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:27, 23 April 2015

• 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

Disruptive sock/proxy IP

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

120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

The blocked sock modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles, inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me. Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with 120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs) and Mkb764920 (talk · contribs) show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The disruptive sock acting as if it could not hear me again re-inserted the same unsourced nonsense into the sentence about the lawsuit. This is the second time after my talk page explanation of 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC), linked above. Using faux, disruptive edit summaries like "sorry three revert rule" is the typical behavior of the recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs). I would like to request admin closure. Kristina451 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

administrator pls see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kristina451 she sock and violate 3RR first now want revenge to say I am socker !! Mkb764920 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

PortugueseManofPeace based his sockpuppetry allegation on "semantic analysis" of the "writing style" of a template I posted to his talk page. The blocked sock pretended to not know what a template is, the new sock pretends to not know what 3RR is. Mkb764920's account on ja.wikipedia.org was created on April 10, 2015 and has never made an edit. Kristina451 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat

The problems with this editor continue. In the most recent ANI last month, Toddy1 observed: "FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam..." —This modus operandi is now on display at the Rape jihad article, which FreeatlastChitchat seeks to "gut" without establishing consensus following failure at two recent AfDs (one launched by him days after the completion of the previous) to delete the article.

Edit-warring behavior consists of repeatedly blanking entire sections (he has never attempted to improve any part of the article). Difs (I'll dispense with fancy page templates since I'm not accusing him of 3RR and thus time-stamps aren't that important, but suffice to say that all of these have occurred during the last week): , (edit summary berates others to explain themselves on the talk page despite not having appeared there himself to seek consensus), (claims, ad nauseam, that sources are not reliable despite being unable to establish such a consensus on the talk page or at the AfDs),,,,,,,,, ,,.

Addendum: I've been adding to these as the days roll by. ChitChat has now reverted at least five different editors to blank a section, even after being warned against section-blanking. As of 4/16, section-blanking represents 100% of his editing activity at the article.

I placed a level-3 warning at his TP on the 13th (after reverting his edits when he was at 2RR); he responded an hour later by submitting the article to AfD again (see link above). It was speedily kept, and he immediately resumed reversion. The warning was not acknowledged.

In light of this unchanged pattern and demonstrated imperviousness to repeated warnings (his talk page history is a rash of warnings, including another added today concerning the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, a topic I have no involvement in) and persistent unwillingness to listen to counterarguments, I am suggesting a block for a length of time to be determined (last block was 24hrs), and a topic ban from Islam/Muslim/Jihad-related topics for a length of time to be determined (and that should be broadly construed to also include India/Pakistan conflicts, both contemporary and historical). Pax 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I have no Idea why my entire editing behavior is under attack here. But even then I will explain my behavior and why I have warnings on my talk page. Wall of text is ahead so bear with me please. I will start with my block for 24 hours for warring on Islam. Unbeknown to me I was being tag teamed by four sock puppets. When one left off the other would take up the warring.So yes I lost my cool and I was banned for 24 hours. However due to the warring bhaviural evidence was found to administer a check on the guys who were engaging me and they were found to be a puupet farm.Here you can read about the long term abuse by the person I warred with. I would like to add that the material the puppet master wanted to add was controversial and was removed(by another editor, not me) as soon as his puppet farm was made redundant. So if I am to be blamed for a past block now, I would like to know the rationale behind it.

Now we come to the warnings which I have left open on my talk page. The first one is about the role of Shah Jahan(a minor prince) in the Mughal Empire. He has nothing to do with religion, the dispute was about who killed him, Islam, or muslims had nothing to with it. Furthermore you can see that even though my edit appeared to be "controversial" it was only bold and the edit was not without reason. The discussion about the edit is ongoing. So if this is something I am going to be blocked for I would like the blocker to provide me some rationale or a precedence about the block.

Lets now talk about the Indo Pak war of 1971. This is an article which I have edited only twice the entire time I have been on Misplaced Pages. I was merely correcting sourced info. If you look here, you will see that the real warrior who was reverting everyone has been blocked for making a ton of reverts on the article.This edit is also not about Islam or muslims as both Bangladesh and Pakistan are muslim countries who follow Islam. If someone thinks that this issue is Islam related they should provide some rationale. So if this is the reason I am going to be blocked I would like to inquire abouts its reasoning too.

The fourth warning on my talk page has not been left by the user dawndusk even if it may appear that he has signed the warning. It is actually the user reporting me who put the warning there but did not sign his name so that the next guy commenting will sign his comment and it will look as if the next guy warned me. This is clear here. Although DawnDusk has been trying to get the same material put back into the article so it will be in his favour for me to get a ban. As is clear from his comment below.

We now move onto my edits and reverts on the article rape jihad. I have tried to voice this on the talk page but the user reporting me does not seem to be in the mood to discuss. I reverted /deleted/removed content which says that Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was included in rape jihad. The reasons for my removing the material were that firstly the entire page dedicated to the scandal does not mention the word jihad even once. Secondly, the newspapers which reported the scandal have not 'once' mentioned the word rape jihad as being the motivation behind these attacks. I have read almost 895 news stories by now and I have not found any mention of this being a religiously motivated attack. The only source given for this being a rape jihad is an opinion piece from the ultra right, ultra conservative, highly islmophobic gate stone institute which has been deemed not good at the reliable sources noticeboard. I tried to get this through in the talk page where one other user agreed with me and removed the material (after the user reporting me had reverted me), while one other user also agreed that that the source was controversial but said that it "doesn't appear to be quite as controversial as you're(referring to me) making it out to be." His objection was that the source I had given to prove that gatestone was islamophobic, prejudiced and known to misrepresent opinions as facts, was in itself not good enough, although such an attitude is clear from the article archive at gatestone. After this the user reporting me here did not discuss any further, he just gave his opinion which was directed at an uninvolved editor who had just pointed out that gatestone is not reliable. He said "When an editor leads off with a false statement, it becomes hard to take anything else they say seriously. You claim "in both cases the recommendation was not to use" and yet the first link you provide contains no recommendation. The second link consists of two respondents who dissemble over it being "partisan" (which is an arbitrary claim anybody can make about anything). In any event, such are not binding. Aside from notability, what makes a source reliable is that they are not peddling bullshit. Soeren Kern's article is corroborated by the other sources in the article, therefore this aspect of the discussion is moot." He then reverted me and two other uninvolved editors who removed material from the article. If an admin is going to block me for this, then I would like him to describe what I "should have done". I have only one revert in the past 24 hours while the user reporting me has two, one on my action and one on another uninvolved editors action(we both removed the same unsourced material and he reverted us both).

To be frank I don't know why someone's personal attack on me is being used here as an opening for a report. If someone is reporting me they should at least have the moral fortitude to open the debate with what I have done wrong and then leave me be instead of attacking me personally. They should just point out what infractions I have committed and let the admins make the decision. Inclusion of a personal attack at the very onset of the debate makes it look as if that "special" person knows everything and as they have said something personal about me then it must be true. This is kinda rude.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Chitchat, your past M.O. has been to characterize legitimate warnings leveled against you as personal attacks and vandalism (of your talk page). Whether or not a recent detractor was later revealed to be a sock-puppet is immaterial as to whether or not a sanction eventually levied against you was justified. (In my opinion it was lenient, as you offered, then as now, every evidence of being unwilling to change and continue being impossible to work with for multiple WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE reasons.) As far as sourcing for the article goes, I am not going to argue that with you here as it was within the last week center-stage at the AfDs, at which you failed to establish consensus. Pax 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Are these article titles neutral? on a related matter that isn't the sort of thing ANI normally addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Let me point out something that's really damning about FreeatlastChitchat: in addition to getting into edit wars on the page, which he should know better than because he's been blocked for it in the past, he went against policy by creating a new AfD 5 days after the one closed. In addition, for whatever reason, he recreated an old AfD about the article to make it look like the most recent decision was to delete it. Propose a topic ban for Islam related articles until he demonstrates that he can drop the WP:STICK the same way JoeM up above received one. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this board supposed to be reserved for reports only? Why are thread style personal attacks being directed at me? DawnDusk and PAX have the same agenda as is clear from the AFD on rape jihad and TP at rape jihad as am I supposed to reply to every baseless accusation of these two guys who want me off the wiki so that they can enter whatever they want into an article? I don't mean to be squeamish here but this guy has accused me of being a vandal for no reason using a report which started off with a personal attack and even then I took time to prove that I am editing boldly, not vandalising. He then posts another personal attack on my defense comment and now what should I do? and why am I being accused of edit warring here? WHY not just put a simple 3revert report and let an admin figure it out? Is it because these two know that multiple uninvolved users have been removing the same material that I removed, which only these two users want to add. So I would like to know when did proposing an AFD become a bannable offence and when did three users doing the same thing count as an "edit war" on part of only one of them. I will not be replying to thread style personal attacks anymore, until an admin mediates this discussion after taking a close look at rape jihad talk page and keeping in view the comments made here, here, here, and here by completely uninvolved editors.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that some of the editors are/were participants at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which otherwise has no editing history overlap that I am aware of with Rape jihad article prior to your participation in the AfDs) the potentiality of covert canvassing of meat-puppets has not escaped my mind. A bunch of quacking ducks just randomly show up during the last two weeks and begin carbon-copy section-blanking this sleepy little article while providing exactly the same specious cookie-cutter edit summaries as you do? Pax 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also this new thread down below: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team_edit-warring_on_Rape_jihad_counter_to_WP:BRD. The editor tag-teams with two other editors to edit-war and remove large chunks of material on various different articles. (I suppose a case could also be made that at least one of the team may be a sockpuppet.) Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So please start a SPI so we can get this over with. I have been saying from the get go. If you see me reverting more than twice, report me for 3Rvert and show some diffs, if you see me socking, report me for socking and start a Checkuser request I will endorse it myself, if you think I am canvassing, report me for that and show some diffs. Posting your opinion about me with unrelated diffs which show nothing just cuz I remove unsourced material from an article which you are fond of is kinda rude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring for many days on that article and others, despite repeated requests to stop and establish consensus. Doesn't even need an AN3 report; an admin could block you right now for edit-warring. A slo-mo edit war designed to evade 3RR and coordinated with a tag team is still an edit war, and you are continuing to edit war even as we speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Since FreeatlastChitchat is continually edit warring on Islam-related articles, I propose the following remedy:

1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, broadly construed.
2. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban.
3. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by:
   1. discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or
   2. appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee
4. If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter.

Amendment #1

Section 1 is changed to:

1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed.

- Esquivalience 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as Esquivalience's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see. Pax 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. @Раціональне анархіст: pinging. Esquivalience 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop. KrakatoaKatie 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP. Pax 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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. 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)

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)

Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)

Related ANI complaint:WP:ANI#IP editor resorting to abuse and malicious allegations against other users.

Could I get some attention to the removal of my recent comments please? It was my first edit on wikipedia after a long time reading and enjoying wikipedia. My comments were immediately removed and I was called a block evasion of User:Kaz as far as I can see from reading about Use:Kaz having been identified with him/her by Tody1, every time someone has come and edited the Crimean Karaites article in a way that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov do not like, they get the editor blocked saying it is a sock puppet of User:Kaz. The Crimean Karaites article is utterly appauling and I can see that Nepolkanov who also edits the Russian Misplaced Pages has "Outed" User Kaz and is removing all references to the International Institute of Crimean Karaites while at the same time using all of the images from the Institute!! Something really has to be done about this dynamic duo. I have to say I was extremely angered when my comments were removed from the talk page but I have been reading through all weekend to try and work out what Toddy1 was talking about when heshe removed all my comments, and after I see how petty and ridiculous the motivatin I simply can not find any pleasant words. Requesting intervention please. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are doing what Kaz did, bringing up his point of views. SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Having the same view point as someone else does not mean that they are the same person. More evidence is required than that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First: you should provide diffs to examples of what you are complaining about. You cannot expect others to go finding them for you.

Second: you should refrain from personal attacks as this edit summary, "disruptive edits by insane user Toddy1 ...". that could put you on the receiving end of the WP:BOOMERANG.

Third: Toddy1's reversion of your addition of the synthesis tag to the Crimean Karaites was a valid reversion if for an apparently invalid reason. If you are going to claim that an article contains synthesis then, as the tag states, you should start a discussion on the talk page stating what you believe to be synthesised and from where. I have reverted your synthesis tag because no such discussion has been started on that specific point. You have put much material on the talk page, but unless you have any reliable secondary sources to back you up, your opinion is never going to cut the mustard.

Finally: having looked at the editing that Kaz was indulging in before his block, I can see little if any similarity to your editing contributions. Toddy1's removal of your talk page comments would therefore appear to be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy and any admins driving past may wish to address that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:DieSwartzPunkt, but I really need an Admin to look at this. You seem to be unaware that a discussion about the synthesis was begu on the talk page and the reason I am posting here is not because the synthesis tag was removed, but because my talk was removed. In the same way I would like to add User talk:SamuelDay1 to my complaint for removing my comments from the talk page again. Seems like a bit of a tag-team going on here between User:Toddy1 and User:SamuelDay1

These users made direct personal attacks against me by removing my talk!!! It is sort of hard not to snap back at someone who attacks you for no reason at all. Nevertheless, I take on board your suggestion and will try to avoid angry responses to DIRECT PERSONAL ATTACKS in future.

So these are the disruptive edits I am talking about.

Evidence that Toddy1 (a very controvercial editor on all sorts of matters pertaining to the Ukraine) removes the work of anyone whose opinion he disagrees with and says they are User:Kaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=656961403&oldid=656930381

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=656961482&oldid=656931530

Evidence that SamuelDay is doing the same thing, apparently a sock puppet or meat puppet of Toddy1 since Samuel replied here instead of Toddy though I put the notice on Toddy´s wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=next&oldid=657189525

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=657189916

If they are not the same person then they are one of those tag-teams who work together to get around the three revert rule.

By the way, please can any Admin tell me if the three revert rule applies to reverting attempts to delete my complaints from notice boards and talk pages.

Concernign wikipedia Outing policy violated by User Nepolkanov there is a LOT of evidence from his contributions history, but very clear example is in this edit here

It seems like Misplaced Pages has been inadvertently taking sides in this by blocking the wrong editors and leading to an absolute free-for-all with regards to outrageous POV pushing by a small team of editors which has started to affect the mainstream view of what Crimean Karaites are, judging by the Huffington Post.

Please can these disruptive editors be put under some sort of a leash.

Thank you79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I should add here that I notice Toddy1 has also contributed to outing User Kaz in so that I was able to google the info they provided here] and here to be able to find everything about this man. I am extremely concerned that this Toddy1 is going to try and stalk me now too as he has already revealed my location. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been making personal attacks, and false allegations of socking that Toddy1 probably is a sockpuppet of Nepolkanov. Please reconsider your actions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

79.109.203.252. Admins may well take a look at this at some point. But regular users are entitled to pitch in and express their views. The admins will take all opinions into account.

You appear to have stated the material that you objected to is seen everywhere which means that you are admitting that this is mainstream thinking (by definition). You may believe that it is, "Crackpot Right-wing Zionist Bias Fringe theory Original Research", but that is only your opinion. I would suggest that you do not revert the article further especially given that you have now made three reverts within 24 hours and are on the edge of violating the three reverts rule which should land you with an automatic editing block. For the sake of completeness, the three reverts are; ; ; .

If you wish to challenge the material then you need to produce reliable and verifiable sources supporting your position. Without them, if you continue, the best that is liklely to happen is that you get blocked for edit warring (if you are not for the 4RR)

I am also very concerned that a fourth revert has been made using an alternate IP address which appears to be a dynamic proxy IP address which has been unused (for Misplaced Pages purposes) since 2013. Since the revert is the only edit that this IP address has made in over two years, it smells very strongly of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. If this is a sock and  Looks like a duck to me, then this puts the reverts at 4RR, though not within 24 hours but that is evidence of edit warring.

You have also stated that your are a Christian Zionist, in which case you would appear to have a conflict of interest in the neutrality of the article.

Appropriate warnings have been posted at the user's talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you all shown that you have conflict of interest in this article so I will prefer to wait until an admin pitches in then I wuill explain myself to them rathetr than to usernames which for all I know could be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. No more harrassment please.

I am calling for an Admin. The issues are WP:OUTING, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest, and I would also add to that cyber-bullying, but it seems there is no policy against that. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How it is outing? Also what personal attack? You are making personal attacks and using wikipedia for pushing your fringed opinions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No administrator action required here in connection with the socking allegations. Discussion here and at User talk:79.109.203.252 shows that this is just another instance of an agreived editor who believes that everyone who disagrees with him must be sockpupets of each other.

However, it is also clear from that talk page that 79.109... is indulging in abuse of those that oppose him. I also find 79.109...'s use of a sockpuppet IP address to continue his edit war at Crimean Karaites convincing enough (how many times have we seen similar one off edits following 3RR?). A clear WP:DUCK test winner. These actions alone warrant a block of 79.109.203.252. The socking alone warrants an indefinite block (the IP address appears static). I B Wright (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, even I B Wright agrees that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov´s claims that I am Kaz are "just another instance of an agreived editor who believes that everyone who disagrees with him must be sockpupets of each other". So now what happens next? 79.109.203.252 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I posted. I was responding to the point that you started this thread for, not any side issues). My point was that it is you who are accusing all those who disagree with you as being sockpuppets. As for whether you and and user:Kaz are the same person: as you have already resorted to sockpuppetry to support the same argument, I would regard that the WP:DUCK test proves the point. I B Wright (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, there is so much mis-quoting mis interpretation and misrepresentation going on in these discussions it gets very difficult to follow exactly who has said what! Nevertheless, my complaints that I was accused of being a scokpuppet by Toddy1 and my posts removed as soon as I started editing wikipedia still stand. I have been and am continually harrassed and called mentally ill and Nepolkanov is still calling me User:Kaz posting all the personal and private details of that User for the whole world to see which I understand is a violation of wiki policies, but it seems no admins have noticed this discussion yet. Hopefully intervention is not far away. Or perhaps you are all hoping I will just give up. Well I might just do that if there is no honest admin willing to step in. There is much more to life than suffering unnecessary stress on wikipedia.79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE:: I have had enough of the allegations and abuse so I have raised a linked ANI with a complaint about the OP. It can be found below at WP:ANI#IP editor resorting to abuse and malicious allegations against other users. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:38, 22 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)

WP:AIV needs attention

There's about a nine-hour backlog that could use some eyes on AIV; the bot has been 'stale'ing many reports since Friday night because of it. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should tell this to the WP:Bot talk page, I think people over there will help you. If that does not work out, you may need to contact the owner of the bot. If the owner of the bot is unreachable or is no longer editing Misplaced Pages, then we have a massive problem, and that means only a admin can stop the bot. There is a request admin to stop bot page on the bots page, if not then the user that uploaded the bot is breaking the rules of Misplaced Pages. Also, calm down. Its not like the bot is going randomly to random pages of Misplaced Pages and vandalizing those pages, if that was the case then there is a need to panic. The only people that need to panic right now about this bot situation is, most likely the owner of the bot that you are talking about, and maybe a few administrators. So calm down. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the OP meant that there were a backlog of reports rather than a problem with the bot. Anyway, the backlog is cleard now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this problem has been solved please tag this for being archived to decrease this pages data size! Doorknob747 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

After close comment I was saying the reports were up for so long the bot declared them appropriately stale, not that there was a problem with the bot, and my concern was completely calm. We have these 'WP:A-whatever needs attention' messages all the time here when things get backed up, Doorknob747; all it was meant to do was get some eyes on it. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reopening this - I just came from dealing with yet another AIV backlog. This is a daily occurrence now, sometimes two or three times a day. RFPP is almost as bad. We've got to get more admins looking at these two pages more frequently. If we discourage people from reporting to AIV because nobody ever takes action on their good-faith reports, we may as well mark the page {{historical}} right now.
  While I welcome and appreciate non-admin involvement here, the sysops really need to discuss this for a bit. KrakatoaKatie 10:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm back after clearing another 10-hour AIV backlog. The problem seems worst in the US evening and European early morning hours. KrakatoaKatie 09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:KrakatoaKatie, I see you got some of the RFPP and I got the rest. It seems to me that the most common time for RFPP to get backlogged is around 06Z or maybe that's just when I see it. I've been there at other times and it never seems that bad. Even just now it was fairly light. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Agree with your assessment of RFPP. It's the inattention to AIV that's becoming a thing. Maybe it's been this way for a while, I don't know - I've been ill for a very long time and I'm still catching up on the last year's worth of madness. I do know that we can't afford to be apathetic about dealing with good-faith vandalism reports, even if the ones I've seen languishing are usually no edits since the final warning or haven't been warned. Has it become the norm to leave that kind of thing there without comment until it's several hours old? KrakatoaKatie 09:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement SPA censoring the article

• Unesco2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeitgeist (film series)

Article regularly attracts WP:SPA fans who wish to censor the article. Unesco2015 has been told to quit censoring the article, and yet they continue to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the editor is at least 7RR. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unesco2015_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How does the intended censorship manifest? ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing reliably sourced information, perhaps replacing some of it with select or slanted promotional sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that the Zeitgeist articles aren't under general sanctions. I agree that this does look like a POV warrior. In this diff, he removes all mention of "conspiracy theory" and its sources, and it looks like he's been edit warring pretty hard on the article for his changes: , , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked for now. Anyone mind cleaning up? I'm at 3r. Also, would anyone see reason to discuss a topic ban, or are we just going to let the block expire and rinse and repeat until he's indeffed? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does give me pause that the time elapsing from the first warning on his/her talk page to being blocked was only 45 minutes. That's not much time to curb ones behavior. Liz 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Four reverts after the 3RR warning and no stopping to discuss. Plenty of rope. --NeilN 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this edit resembles the kind of pushes Unesco2015 was trying to make? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. Note that "Nathan Maas" is credited as an extra on the IMDB entry for a Zeitgeist film. I don't want to get into an edit war, but that's some suspicious editing right there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We've also got a TZM blogger (per their own admission) trying to censor the article now. We need page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian.thomson, you're somewhat off in terms of what is taking place at Zeitgeist (film series). The reason this was removed is because it's a WP:OR violation as I've explained here. The real problem with the article is a matter of WP:Own. I've made contact with an administrator to get assistance with this troubled article. At the end of the day we need more discerning eyes on that page and hopefully this ANI will help. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Describing TZM as an "informal social networking group" is dubious to say the least. Wile I don't subscribe for one minute to their wildly exaggerated claims regarding membership (which seem to be based partly on the assumption that anyone who signs a petition is a member for life), there is clearly more to them than "informal social networking". The Daily Telegraph for instance described them as a "protest movement", with "a large following in the German capital". 'large' is of course open to interpretation, but the NYT reported on a "sold-out crowd, a patchwork of perhaps 900 people who paid $10 a head on Sunday night to sit in a packed auditorium at the Borough of Manhattan Community College" at one of their events. Not really compatible with 'informal social networking' I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump, I'll give you three guesses as to who added that material and the first two don't count - - The worst thing about this situation is that there isn't an administrator to be found that will put this editor in check. I tried one here, and to be fair to him, it's clear to me that he's not privy to what makes this editor so disruptive. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a conspiracist cult with few actual members. The art director (and brother of the director) is also now making propaganda films promoting cancer quacks. A real prince. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's break your comment down: You said, "it's a conspiracist cult", without providing a reference (your opinion has no relevancy here) -- You also said "with few actual members", without providing a reference (again, your opinion has no relevancy here) - Then you go after his brother??? - I must say I am shocked that an administrator would post such an unhelpful comment. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New category of Supercar had been deleted earlier

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)
• 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)

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)

Congressional hearing

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

Is a request for an "investigation by Congress" and a "congressional hearing of Misplaced Pages" a legal threat? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:RBI. Nakon 05:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He is copying from , have a watch. SamuelDay1 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

histmerge

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

Histmerge .OOO frm corresponding draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Samsara 09:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And Draft:Caroline Harriet Abraham to corresponding article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Samsara 10:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spamming external links?

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)

OWNTV disambig page

An editor User talk:RobinColclough appears to be disrupting wikipedia and using it as a soapbox in a trademark dispute with Oprah Winfrey

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=OWN_TV&diff=643289117&oldid=511677480
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=OWN_TV&diff=prev&oldid=654504363
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=OWN_TV&diff=653285924&oldid=643947788

SageGreenRider (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Going to the website listed in the 'complaint' comes up with a 404 error, and the WHOIS just lists 1&1's common private registration info. Whatever issue the editor has here, they haven't proved their site deserves listing on the DAB page or their disclaimer should be hatted on the main OWN page. A bit of WP:RFP may be appropriate here; the protection for the Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel) page that expired days before unrelated to this issue (we were dealing with Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/the Dan Vs. vandal there, not this issue directly) kind of nipped the dispute there as a secondary concern and likely the user took it to OWN TV to keep the dispute up. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not disrupting the OWNTV wiki page, I just included factual information that anyone can verify at the USPTO and European Trademark office. If you go to www.owntv.com the site does not list as "404 error", and is fully operational. Could someone please explain where there is a problem with including that "OWNTV" is a registered trademark since 2006? /Rob Colclough/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your question, @RobinColclough. The disambiguation pages are not Google searches. They are purely to disambiguate similarly named articles inside wikipedia. To warrant a listing on the page, the article must first exist. See WP:DAB . To exist, the topic must be notable, see WP:GNG. Registering a domain name and/or trademark is not in itself at all notable. By the way, a good resource for editors unfamiliar with wikipedia is Misplaced Pages:Teahouse hth. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, @RobinColclough! I almost forgot the thing that brought me to ANI in the first place: it's considered bad form to make legal threats such as "Use of this trademark, or variations such as OWN TV or O.W.N. TV, or variations thereof, infringe the owner's rights." and "If there is a problem with this, please email me at info@owntv.com and allow my attorney to contact your legal department." Please see WP:THREAT SageGreenRider (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and SPI

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

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry conducted the following SPI after being contacted by a the Guardian journalist: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh. After the block, the Guardian published an article about it: and the SPI was also on BBC's frontpage: .

The Guardian article gives the following quote: The site’s administrators, selected Misplaced Pages volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Misplaced Pages ... and based on the evidence the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.”

This quote comes from the SPI as the admin initially wrote the editor is Grant Shapps (diff). The article suggests that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was in contact with the journalist before and perhaps during his sockpuppet investigation. And why did the journalist contact him the first place? And how much and what kind of correspondence did they have? These are pretty murky elements considering this SPI was done solo by the admin. Iselilja points out much of the evidence is rather odd for an SPI: it's comparing the edits to what the politician in question did in real-life. CheckUser result was "likely", however.

I don't know if Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did anything wrong but it's just rather obscure and doing this during the peak campaign time for the UK 2015 elections as a some sort of assigment from a journalist seems odd. Given very high-profile media coverage, this needs additional eyes and I'm posting this here. --Pudeo' 01:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, how can CheckUser link the account to one that has not edited since 2010? The IP information could have decayed already. Hackneymarsh only did 13 edits in 2010 and was only claimed to be Grant Shapps by the newspaper in 2012. Yet this new SPI is all about "evidence" of Contribsx following what Grant Shapps did in real life. Isn't CheckUser use pretty restricted when it comes to outing/political pressure? This whole affair seems worse than I thought at first. --Pudeo' 02:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I've left the case open to avoid any accusations of impropriety. I haven't looked into the matter yet and will have to do so tomorrow as it is late here. Feel free to review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have already initiated an arbitration case request: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sockpuppet investigation block. Please note that I have very specifically *not* included the name of the living person who has been linked to all of this, and I strongly urge other editors to refrain from doing so as well. Repeating unproven allegations about a living person is a violation of our BLP policy. Risker (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

COI editing and page creation by TITUSIIX

I am raising what appear to be very obvious and blatant WP:COI editing and page creation violations by SPA account editor TITUSIIX on Old Catholic Confederation (recent editing) and Old Catholic Church in the United States (recent page creation). It also seems obvious from the editing that this is not being done by an unexperienced editor so there appears to be be possible sockpuppet issues as well. Although I raised the COI problem on the editor's talk page this didn't achieve anything and the editor then blanked the page. I would appreciate administrators and others having a look at things and taking appropriate action. It seems clear to me that this editor is determined to ignore the COI policies. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, from reading the article, I can't tell how it is a blatant COI, but if you still feel it is, you might want to start a thread at WP:COIN. Erpert 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• WP:COI is pretty specific, that an editor is someone who benefits by promoting a particular point of view or painting competitors in a negative light because they have a close association, relationship or financial involvement with the subject of the article.
• What you might be perceiving is bias. In that case, you can take this case to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and see what the editors who frequent that noticeboard think. Liz 08:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not just perceiving "bias", I am seeing what seems to be clear COI issues as definied by WP:COI, among which is this statement:

"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict."

I don't see how the editing behaviour (including page creation) of a SPA editor who obviously already knows more than a little about editing Misplaced Pages articles can be perceived as anything but violations of COI and several other editing policies. Anglicanus (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So, you believe TITUSIIX is trying to advance his own interests or promote the visibility of himself, his family, employer, clients, associates or business? What evidence do you have that his family, employer, clients, associates or business is the Old Catholic Church in the United States or Old Catholic Confederation? I don't believe there is even evidence that he is a member on this organization...and if he/she is, this isn't, in itself, necessarily a conflict of interest. Being a SPA is not a crime. Liz 10:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do believe it. I cannot say more about this as it might constitute "outing". But I have good reason to believe that I know with a high degree of certainty who is doing this COI editing. You should become more familiar with WP's policies and guidelines on SPA editing and also sockpuppet editing as well as the COI ones if you think TITUSIIX's editing is acceptable. It isn't. Anglicanus (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am borderline involved, having been asked to Titus's talk page by helpme template. On my suggestion, Titus has asked for help and input on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Anglicanus has commented rapidly on his post re-asserting his accusations. Now Titus's posts may not be ideally formatted, but I am personnally finding Anglicanus's repeated accusations in various locations in Misplaced Pages a little bit much. Just wanted to inform and present a different view. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanus I am concerned about two things.

• first thing: you appear to be hounding TITUSIIX.

  • at his Talk page

  • 16:33 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 17:09, 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 17:18 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 17:22 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 17:35 21 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 02:16, 22 April here on Titus' user Talk
  • 14:42, 22 April 2015l here on Titus' user Talk
  • 15:04, 22 April 2015l here on Titus' user Talk

• • at the Old Catholic Confederation article

  • 16:29, 21 April reverted with edit note: "Reverted recent edits due to obvious WP:COI issues."
  • 16:29, 21 April tag article
  • 17:08, 21 April reverted with edit note: Reverted due to ongoing WP:COI violations"

• • at the Old Catholic Church in the United States article

  • 02:13, 22 April tag article with edit note "COI tag added due to blatant WP:COI editing."

• • at RPP

  • 14:21, 22 April titus requests page protection
  • 14:56, 22 April you again accuse him of COI

• you've been asked to provide actual evidence and to stop many times, and you have provided no evidence of COI:
  • 15:12, 22 April here by Happysquirrel
  • 15:24, 22 April here by Happysquirrel
    • 15:37, 22 April rejected by you here
  • 15:45, 22 April warned again by Happysquirrel
    • 15:58 22 April rejected by you here ("There is every good reason to believe that this is a very clear case of COI editing")
  • and Liz here several times

• so i will ask you and please respond clearly: what is your on-Misplaced Pages evidence of COI? If you cannot provide any, you must stop making these accusations. You said you have some outside-Misplaced Pages knowledge, but you cannot violate WP:OUTING. That is a bright line. If you are not familiar with the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, you should review it. The person in your situation was banned from Misplaced Pages. That case ~might~ come out differently today, but that is not certain.

In any case, a suspicion of COI is no excuse for harassment in Misplaced Pages; in my view your behavior has been really aggressive and unproductive. No one is going to disclose a COI if you hit them over the head. And Titus isn't going to let it accidentally slip now either. I will go ask him nicely and see what that does but I am not hopeful. Because of OUTING and the way that a signficant chunk of the community holds it as sacred, managing COI takes some delicacy and diplomacy.

It is however good that you finally brought the case to a board (thank you for that). Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog All of your comments about me are very seriously unjustified and way off the mark. If there is any harassment and aggression going on then it is principally from the other editor towards me - as his behaviour on my talk page and in various other places demonstrates. The COI policies exist for a reason. I acted on what I considered an apparent instance of it in accordance with the advice on WP:COI. The other editor chose to ignore my concerns and to assert himself by reverting, continuing editing the page on this church organisation and then creating a new one related to it and blanking his talk page. He has since tried to seek support from whoever he can and to attack me on multiple noticeboards. I don't buy it for a moment. And I don't think others should either. I also made it clear that I had no intention of attempting to "out" the other editor. I know this is wrong and I would never do so. COI editing is also wrong as the policies make clear. I believe I acted appropriately. If you don't agree then that is your problem. Anglicanus (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A few things:

WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. I think it would be great if it were, but there is no consensus in the community to make it a policy.

You have acted in a bad way; the diffs are above. You do not have the right to stop anyone else from editing WP, unless you are an admin. If you actually read WP:COI, you will see that there is guidance there for dealing with concerns about COI, and you did it the wrong way (the exact wrong way). Bring it up maybe once or twice nicely with the person, and if their behavior doesn't change, bring it to the community. WP:COIN is the board for it, but ANI is fine too.

You really have to grapple with WP:OUTING. Your concern seems driven by some knowledge you have that leads you to think that Titus is some person in the real world. You must face it that you cannot OUT someone. I know that this is a little crazy-making, but that is how things are in Misplaced Pages. There is a fundamental tension here between the very, very protected anonymity of editors (the WMF just sued the NSA over privacy and Jimbo wrote a big editorial in the NY Times (here) where he talked about the very very high value WP places on anonymity ... and on the other, very strong concerns everyone has with the integrity of WP. Currently, OUTING is policy (very strictly enforced) and COI is a guideline (which we can only try to manage with diplomacy - our hands are tied by OUTING). So please slow down and think through the issues.

While your concern about COI is great and is shared by many, including me, no one who has reacted to what you have done - not happysquirrel, nor Liz, nor I - has said that you acted well. You should reflect on that. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You continue to make numerous erroneous comments. How many damn times do I have to make it quite clear to you that I have no interest in outing anyone even if I knew things with certainty?! So I don't have to "grapple" with this issue at all. I understand the policy and I respect it. So you can stop going on and on about it. You are entitled to think that I have "acted in a bad way". And I am entitled to think the same about you. Anglicanus (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion should probably be moved to COI Noticeboard which is the appropriate venue for COI related concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind this being here. It might need admin intervention if it goes on like this. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanus let's bring the COI matter to a resolution. I asked you above to bring your evidence of COI. Please do so, clearly and concisely. If you have none that you can bring, please say so, clearly and concisely. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanus - asking again as you replied above but not here - what is your evidence of COI? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I hear kangaroos hopping in the distance... Erpert 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please get rid of my obscene history

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

A vandal apparently thought it would be funny if they added penises to my user and user talk pages, and referring to me using racial slurs (they likely saw my userbox saying that I was black). A user reverted these edits already, but they are still in the history. If I am not mistaken, the vulgar pictures are primarily used encyclopedically, so we can't just delete them. Can you find a way to get rid of the derogatory racial slurs and the vulgar pictures from my user and user talk page history? The vandal was PINGAS SUCKER. I would greatly appreciate it. I'm just so upset about this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've revision deleted the content of the edits on both your user and user talk pages, hope that achieves what your looking for. Monty₈₄₅ 03:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: Thank you very much. Consider this thread finished. I'm satisfied. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PA on SPI

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

It happened a long time ago, but still it bothers me. On a SPI on Misconceptions2, Andy Dingley added my name as sock out of the blue. Even asked for a checkuser. Running checkuser without strong reason is violation of privacy rights. Then he went on with his PA. The reason I am reporting it is not that it bothers me a lot, but because such behavior of listing users as sock without enough investigation because you disliked what they said and then going on with PAs is a bad habit and is not and example of WP:AGF. nafSadh did say 05:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Leave the matter alone, you haven't discussed with Andy Dingley either. SamuelDay1 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have; but it was evidently hapless. I do not like my name listed on SPI, and I'd love it if there is a way to remove it. An existing SPI attracts people with deliberate intention of harassment to misuse those. nafSadh did say 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has anyone actually harassed you though? If so, that you'd want to report, but—wait, at the beginning you said it bothers you, but then you said it doesn't bother you. Which is it? Erpert 06:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I said it bothers me is not the reason for what I brought up this. nafSadh did say 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I doubt that any SPI clerk or CU would remove a name from an archived investigation, whether or not you were noted to be a sock or if you were cleared. The only comfort I can offer you is that you can find investigations with the names of a lot of editors which found no connection to socks. This is especially likely to happen with new accounts. So, yours is far from the only case of this happening, it's more common than you might think.
• If it still concerns you though, the place to bring it up is Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Liz 08:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Anything relevant to this was said at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive#23 October 2014.

I see this as a valid SPI, for a prolific case of socking. At the time I saw behavioural evidence to link Nafsadh with this sock drawer. As he was the only user with a declared RL identity on his user page, I also considered that it was likely he was the sockmaster, rather than a puppet. A CU is quite appropriate at this point.

Mike V (whom I've notified of this) carried out the CU and reported that "I don't believe that Nafsadh is related to this case.". That's good enough for me. I am sure there was substantial socking in this case, but if the CU rejects it, I'm happy to accept that Nafsadh wasn't part of it.

If Nafsadh would like an apology for being suspected, then I'm happy to give that: Nafsadh, I don't believe you were one of the socks here. I apologise if you've felt slighted by being subjected to the enquiring probe of CU. I hope this can resolve the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. nafSadh did say 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference that is the subject of a civil action

Not sure where to go with this question, hence its arrival here. A number of times a user has removed a reference from the OnLive article, stating that it is "dubious", "The article author refused to fact check" and that its the subject of a libel case in Delaware.
On the talk page they posted a list of allegations from the libel case and restated their claim that because of this the source shouldn't be used. I mostly agree with their current reply to another user, that at present its only being used to reference a short sentence and is replaceable, my bigger concern is that the source contains material that could actually be very useful in expanding the article, and so does this libel case mean we shouldn't use it as a source?, its OK to use as a source until the libel judgement or some other stand point? - X201 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

X201, you might receive good feedback about this at the reliable sources noticeboard, WP:RSN, where they might have encountered situations like this before. Also, please inform the editors involved in this debate about any further discussion you have on a noticeboard so they can present their position on this dispute. Liz 10:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple 3RR violation even after admin warning

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

Kristina451 already has an admin warning about 3RR. but she still violate 3RR and refuse to discuss on article talk page ...

• Frontrunning

• Two Sigma Investments

• Dark liquidity

You can see these articles she also use Sockpuppets to 3RR . I do my job already report her Sockpuppets but even during her Sockpuppet Investigation she continue to violate 3RR ...

• Frontrunning
• Dark liquidity

can some admin please protect these articles? I am not familiar enough about these articles beside their GPU content and got no time to protect.Mkb764920 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are far from 3RR violations. Please read WP:3RR before commenting further. 129.9.75.252 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ok look like no problem, i close this Mkb764920 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock: can't create SPI

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

User:Surya (Official Cyril Magic) is an obvious block evasion sock of User:Hendrix Adi Surya, but I can't create an SPI as the username string is blacklisted. Sock's first edit was to create Hendrix (deaf), a re-creation of salted Hendrix Adi Surya. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already taken care of this. Carry on. --Jayron32 14:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PM (BBC Radio 4)

PM (BBC Radio 4) appear to have been editing the PM (BBC Radio 4) article via the Special:Contributions/PMpuppet single-purpose account. A reference/hint to this was made in the first-few seconds of the PM (BBC Radio 4) episode at ~17:01 BST (16:01 UTC) on 22 April 2015. —Sladen (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed on PM as I type. Quite funny! For those who are unaware of the context, it's about Grant Shapps's alleged editing of his own page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This requires URGENT semi-protection. PM has been encouraging its listeners to edit the page for testing purposes. BethNaught (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It has now been protected but only for a couple of hours. Please keep eyes on it in case protection needs to be extended or reapplied. BethNaught (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And now my comment above has been read out on air! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And was heartily approved by the presenters! Paul B (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please link a recording of the broadcast when it is finished? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

First trailed mention is at 00:50–01:02. First rollback was about 30 seconds later. —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was pretty amusing. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Subtitled-transcript of most of the relevant bits is now at TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-vandalism.ogg.en.srt. Perhaps this should be moved to the relevant Talk:PM (BBC Radio 4) page for ultimate archiving there. —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The ogg link doesn't work for me. For the BBC link the bulk of it begins at 28m:15s SageGreenRider (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

SageGreenRider: One will need to supply the audio media by other means youtube-dl 'http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw', or BBC Redux; the TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-vandalism.ogg.en.srt file above is the matching subtitles transcribed and uploaded in .srt format (which unfortunately need clicking 'edit' to view in this situation). Although interestingly, because of Speakerthon and related BBC/Wikipedia voice projects, it might be possible to get the matching audio on Misplaced Pages eventually. Does anyone else want to take that forward, perhaps in conjunction with contacting Pigsonthewing? —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Got it! SageGreenRider (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The audio is, I expect, unlikely to be released, but I will ask. I'm also raising the wider issue with my contacts at the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the account, by the way. Let them try and pronounce my name on the radio. Any informed admin is welcome to fiddle with the block. -- zzuuzz 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor resorting to abuse and malicious allegations against other users.

Editor complained of: 79.109.203.252 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Related ANI complaint: WP:ANI#Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)

Related SPI Case:Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/79.109.203.252

This IP editor has raised the above linked ANI case to accuse two editors of sockpuppetry, based solely on the evidence that they agreeing with each other. The reality, as is so often the case, is that they are disagreeing with 79.109.203.252 - a subtle but important distinction. 79.109.203.252 has now gone much further and is accusing everyone who disagrees with him as being sockpuppets of each other and has resorted to abuse of those persons.

In particular he has complied a list of his 'enemies' on his talk page in violation of WP:POLEMIC (here and here). It is interesting to note that the list contains editors who have made but a single comment either at the article or the above linked ANI and (I assume) previous encounters.

I have no wish to discuss the contentious issues here, they are properly discussed by many elsewhere. All I have attempted to do is to point out to 79.109.203.252, is what policy to follow when wishing to change an article particularly where 79.109.203.252 has declared a conflict of interest (in that he has declared on the article talk page that he is a member of the affected religious sect - here (first sentence)). My post here. At no time have I expressed any opinion as to who is factually right or wrong on the subject article (mainly because I have no knowledge or even care). Nevertheless, I too have been accused of harassment here - and there is no evidence of a previous request to stop harassment. I also seem to have made it onto that list of enemies and recorded as trying to, "hide what is written about Caraims in Russian" (whatever that is supposed to mean) in spite of expressing no opinion.

Since 79.109.203.252 has admitted in his rant that what he is trying to remove from the article, that, "we see everywhere", clearly implies that it is mainstream opinion and has provided no reliable evidence to the contrary. It is clear that 79.109.203.252 is simply accusing others maliciously of sockpuppetry, harassment and has even accused other editors of being directly involved in whatever problems he perceives exist (here).

I had not seen that list before, but it is very revealing. It lists fifty one other users who disagree with him. However, no other user, not one (ignoring the the obvious sockpuppet) has supported him. Apparently, even the mainstream external sources say that he is wrong, and he has produced no reliablr source to support his position. Is he right and the rest of the world wrong? Of course not. Misplaced Pages works by consensus and the consensus is clearly against him. I B Wright (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested action

This editor is WP:NOTHERE to co-operatively build a neutral encyclopedia and I call upon the administrators to block this IP address indefinitely (if the SPI case does not yield an indef block).

Further, the list of enemies here and here needs to be revdeled. (I have deleted the lists but they will still be in the history). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The lists of enemies is further evidence that the IP-editor is User:Kaz. It seems to be a list of everyone who Kaz and his sock-puppets ever had a disagreement with. I would prefer it not to be revdeled, is evidence of sockpuppetry is useful when dealing with socks.

The list of friends in the same diffs is interesting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I do not know who the IP Editor for IP 149.254.235.196 is. I was grateful for the support, but nevertheless politely asked the IP editor to keep out of this dispute as anyone can see on the IP´s talk page. Using an IP locator identifies the IP address as being based in London, while my IP has already been identified by Toddy1 as being based in Majorca.

I dispute the validity of the content of the Crimean Karaites article as it stood on the 17th of April this year and so I posted the Original Research Synthesis tag at the top of the page. I do not believe that my strong objection to the content can be called a rant as I produced evidence to illustrate the problems, quoting the Crimean Karaite prayer books, the Crimean Karaites own websites, Seraya Shapshal, Ilya Kazas, and initially three articles in Russian. I also posted a notice on the No Original Research Notice Board about Nepolkanov´s use of Misplaced Pages´s Crimean Karaites article as a platform for publishing his Synthesis of various ideas. My comments on the talk page were immediately deleted by User:Toddy1 who for no apparent reason immediately accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Kaz and he also removed my comment on the No original Research Noticeboard making the same allegation against me for no apparent reason.

Subsequently a troop of Meat Puppets jumped out of no-where defending Toddy1 and Nepolkanov. Toddy1 went uncharacteristicly quiet judging from his edit history under that username, leading me to suspect that one of these Meatpuppets is in fact a sockpuppet of Toddy1 which he inadvertently edited a response under and in order to keep up the pretense has decided to continue editing under that name, perhaps SamuelDay1 or DieSwartzPunkt whose sole contributions since the 19th of April have been in a campaign against me and apparently nothing else . When I have a better idea I will request a sock-puppet/meat-puppet investigation be opened. If it is not against wikipedia policy I would like to propose watching these users very closely in future. I welcome advice on how to proceed.

Nepolkanov meanwhile (whose only conversation seems to be when Toddy1 makes an allegation that someone is Use:Kaz generally a quiet editor though that in itself is no cause for concern) has been busy providing all the personal details of User:Kaz and most recently User:Neria . Evidence which DieSwartzPunkt now wants swiftly deleted falsely alleging that my open question constituted an "enemy list" as he puts it. Suffice to say all this evidence has been screenshot saved and fully documented by me and other witnesses in the meantime.

I have no where claimed that the POV on Crimean Kartaites is Mainstream as DieSwartzPunkt and his Meat-Puppets try to portray. I only compared it to the anti-Palestinian revisionism which I said is everywhere.

79.109.203.252 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that rather than trying to look for wikipediapolicies which you can use to stamp out the facts you ddo not want published in the article, that you swallow the gaul and begin to engage in polite discussion about the disputed material.

Excellent advice! Unfortunately that is exactly what others have been trying to do. It is you who are not heeding it by abusing everyone who disagrees with you. Wikikipedia works by consensus. Fifty one other editors disagree with your removal of the material from the article. Only you (ignoring the obvious sock) want it deleted. The material (whatever it is about) stays with a consensus of fifty one supporting it staying and only one for removal. I B Wright (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

in the meantime am going to take a break from wikipedia in order to de-stress. I ask no more harrassment in this time thank you, but I will be back if I am not banned in the meantime.79.109.203.252 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TLDR I B Wright (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

'Support: Indefinite block. Disruptive user. WP:NOTHERE.

Antisemitic POV editor

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

I've been holding off on this, because frankly, I don't like dragging people to noticeboards -- but this is getting out of hand. User:Strivingsoul continually edits in a POV-pushing manner, edit-warring when reverted and launching vituperative personal attacks on editors with whom he disagrees. He has made several extreme fringe statements, like this (and this), many of which more than verge on antisemitism: More recently, this general tone of inveighing against "Zionists" and "Jewish/Zionist elite power" has extended to attacking other editors for being "Zionist/US imperialist apologists": He has also mendaciously accused editors of "vandalism" for reverting obviously POV bold edits he has made on contentious articles:

As far as I can tell, Strivingsoul does not edit anything but Iran- and Houthi-related content. He has been personally unpleasant to work with on Yemen content (unlike, I might add, a number of editors with similar pro-Houthi sympathies who have been quite cooperative and willing to work toward agreeable solutions when problems arise) and has gone far beyond the pale in several comments he has made. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action here would be, but I would strongly consider a topic ban. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out on the Houthi talk page, what prompts such negative responses by likes of Kudzu1, is the fact that I point out and explain some of their cultural/systematic biases. I find it crucial to touch on these biases for I think they help to grow the community that can produce more objective/neutral content especially on Mid-Eastern/Islamic topics. I have already well explained myself on the links he has provided. I categorically reject charges of anti-semitism (so long as it denotes "racial hatred of Jews"). And as for the unease he (or those with his background) might have felt, I think is because of the fact that we come from opposite ends of a political/cultural spectrum with very different cultural/ethnic/religious/political backgrounds and experiences. So while I feel I have nothing in my views to fear the proposed probe, due care must be taken in examining his judgements about me and my views. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Many editors have "cultural/systematic biases" against falsehoods, propaganda, misinformation etc. These are completely appropriate biases that every civilized human possess, and there is no need for you to "touch on" them by adding such falsehoods, propaganda, misinformation to articles on Misplaced Pages. When you do anyway, responding negatively is exactly what other editors should do, given the inordinate amount of energy that goes into cleaning up after you and other Khomeinists who are incapable of respecting WP:R and WP:NPOV.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Outpouring of libels!! What falsehoods have I added to the articles? Again, a case of libel and defamation against me based on personal dislike! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that the content dispute he is referring to is being discussed in the talk page. And so far as my contested edits are concerned, most of them are being approved by the opponents. (The logo and the expert POV as of know.) See this and this. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is clear that strong political views influence User:Strivingsoul, and User:Strivingsoul does seem to have trouble understanding some Misplaced Pages policies in particular WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. User:Strivingsoul also on occasion ignores the thrust of talk page discussion to engage in diatribe. For example here; however, both Kudzu1 and User:Strivingsoul have gotten off the point at times and made personal comments. I defer to administrators regarding any appropriate warnings or sanctions. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul seems to be NOTHERE to contribute constructively, preferring to soapbox against a perceived ethnic/media conspiracy and periodically make wholly unhelpful content edits (more examples: ). As I said, there are a number of editors with a similar perspective as Strivingsoul on the issues in Yemen (in which I have no real personal investment or sympathies) with whom I have been working and discussing constructively. The difference is that they don't edit-war, don't regurgitate outlandish fringe theories or antisemitic screeds on the Talk page, and act in general good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

His views go beyond POV—they are practically indistinguishable from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's. I encourage a topic ban on the Syrian Civil War. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant). He hasn't made any edits as far as I know to Israel/Palestine-related topics, but I think a topic ban there would be a good idea too considering his many antisemitic comments. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards