Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:26, 2 May 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

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

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

• Doors22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Claim: Doors22 is a long-time POV pusher, here to pursue one issue - increasing awareness of "post-finasteride syndrome", per his own words in Feb 2011 in his first month of editing when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Misplaced Pages appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Misplaced Pages and want to prevent others from doing the same"

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

• A context note: "Post-finasteride syndrome" is what Doors22 is concerned with. It is a putative "syndrome" where some men suffer long-term sexual dysfunction because of using finasteride, a drug used to treat enlarged prostate and hair loss. There is boatloads of litigation on this. The condition is not recognized by the medical literature, all though the literature does note that there is a correlation between some men having sexual dysfunction after using finasteride (causation is difficult to show in this). Last month, a single agency within the NIH (the Office of Rare Diseases Research) put a page up on "Adverse events of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors" that mentions PFS. That is the only recognition there is. Doors22 has a FRINGE stance.

• Action sought - Topic ban from anything related to finasteride or side effects of drugs for long-term Civil POV-pushing and increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Evidence

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

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

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

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

• 360 edits overall

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

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

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

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

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

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

• his block log - one block back in 2011 for calling another editor a Nazi (and not backing down from that) after calling him a dictator (for which he did apologize) (see below)

• In the course of pursuing the "raise awareness of sexual side effects" mission, Doors has received the following warnings and blocks:
  • In Feb 2011 called Jfdwolff a "dictator" here (for which Doors [apologized)
  • In Sept 2011 was back at it, receiving a warning for making personal attacks again, against the same editor (this time calling him a "Nazi" and then was blocked for the same by Doc James. attacks were here and here.
  • Sept 2012 warned here while edit warring over content about the Post-Finasteride-Syndrome Foundation (the mission of which is the same as Doors22's self stated mission - to raise awareness of the sexual side effects of finasteride.
  • October 2012 was part of the sock/meat puppet investigation mentioned above, over the AfD
  • Feb 2014 warned for deleting content from finasteride without edit notes
  • Jan 2015 I warned him for edit warring

• Sample edits to Finasteride
• Doors22 edits in spurts. First one was Feb-March 2011
  • 1st edit was a new section called "Safety controversy":

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

References

• • • note, it was Jfdwolff's revert of that content and subsequent refusal to agree to allow it, that led to Doors22's personal attacks of "dictator" and "Nazi" against him. That first discussion on talk started with Doors22 stating: "Without the need for further support, I think it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this be reported on Misplaced Pages, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Misplaced Pages as a reliable source for information and know very little about human biology and medicine which can allow them to make dangerously uninformed decisions about their health."

• next spurt was august - oct 2011. (note, effort to get Post-Finasteride Syndrome article created was during this time) sample edits"
  • dif about label of drug in the US, about sexual side effects.
  • dif adding content about erectile dysfunction
  • dif with edit note: "Very important for people suffering from Post Finasteride Syndrome and those interested in the ongoing controversy - Do not remove again before reaching a consensus on the talk page as per Wiki standards and regulations)"

• next spurt was Jan 2012. sample edit:
  • dif with edit note: "Merck did not decide to stop spending money on the website as every single other product page is originally up. They are adjusting their market strategy to respond to emerging controversies. Please do not delete without discussion on talk page."

• next spurt was April-May 2012. sample edit: (peaceful)
  • dif another label update

• next spurt was Sept 2012. sample edits (there was battling here
  • dif added new section on the PFS Foundation
  • dif used that new section as a COATRACK for claims that the syndrome exists

reverted by Jfdwolff with edit note "still no consensus for mentioning this group"

• • edit warred to keep it in, with note: "Added the sufficient third party source... do not remove again, discuss on talk page if desired"

reverted by Biosthmors with edit note; "revert. political advocates do not get to decide what adverse affects are per WP:MEDRS -- they are not reliable medical sources"

• • edit warred it back under new section header "Society and culture"

reverted by Edgar181 with edit note "m per talk page comments"

• next spurt was Feb 2013. one edit:
  • dif about FDA panel meeting, over-emphasized sexual side effects (content no longer in article, don't know when that was taken out)

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

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

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

• in March 2015 a draft article was created Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation and the discussion about that got very personalized, with Doors mistaking comments I made about the foundation for an attack on him (he may well be connected with for all i know - and i cannot know). (see the link)
• more troubling, Doors broadened his behavior into battleground, making all 29 of his contribs at ANI on postings about me and about Formerly 98 - just taking pot shots to take us down. Stuff like this and this.

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

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

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

!votes re ban proposal

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

• Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support and request one-way interaction ban with myself per my comments in the section below Doors exhibits the classic behaviors of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. As I outline below, every minor edit that does not support his position turns into an extremely lengthy WP:IDHT argujment, with personal attacks on the editors on the other side of the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 April 2015‎ (UTC)
• Support The edit-warring, misinterpretation of sources, exhaustive talk page posts, and personal attacks that Doors has engaged with respect to this topic suggests that he unable to edit this topic productively and therefore a topic ban is justified. I understand how devastating side effects of drugs can be and I understand wanting to include that information in an article, but crossing the line into disruption is not ok. Ca2james (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose JYTDog admitted below that this is at least partly a personal content dispute for him. Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have been accused by a handful of other editors of being "COI Ducks" - editors that have an editing style of being paid editors or having some other conflict of interest. While this is almost impossible to prove unless the editor in question volunteers this information, it is problematic nonetheless. Moreover, they seem to have formed a WP:TAGTEAM and will participate in each others skirmishes as they battle with other editors, usually to remove negative information about large corporations or side effects from drugs. Both of these editors have even attracted criticism from non-wikipedia sources which you will find if you google both Formerly98 and JYTDog. I also believe this is also a retaliation from when I contributed my opinion on noticeboard incident's when both of these editors were separately reprimanded. JYTDog has an established pattern of retaliating against editors with whom he disagrees by initiating incidents against them on this noticeboard. In an edit below, he even admitted he frequently submits complains on this board and he was reprimanded for doing so just a couple weeks ago.

Most importantly, this most recent complaint comes as a retaliation for a RFC (request for comment) I posted on the NPOV board. I recently put in a reference to a meta study published in a highly respected journal that called into question the quality of the existing clinical trials for finasteride. The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health but also received a small unrestricted gift from a non-profit group that is trying to organize research about permanent side effects caused by Propecia, a cosmetic drug. In my opinion, Formerly98 tried to poison the well by calling out that it was funded by an activist group. His statements were accurate to an extent, but they were misleading since he completely disregarded that the NIH, a globally respected research institution, was the main sponsor for the study. He often argues out of both sides of his mouth depending on his objective du jour. He decided the foundation was not notable enough to receive a wikipedia article but it is notable enough to mention when he feels it can discredit research that is unfavorable to the drug. Sometimes he feels the FDA is a authoritative source and other times he downplays its significance. What is very important to note is that an admin independently reviewed Formerly98's questionable edit yesterday and removed the reference to the funding source as he evidently felt it was not worthy of inclusion. When you look at things from the perspective of a tagteam of obstructive editors with a questionable history of downplaying side effect edits, things will look unfavorable but I would ask you review both of their edit histories to understand that they are the true source of this conflict. I made some mistakes in my newbie days (several years ago) which they have been eager to highlight but as many editors do, I have adapted as I gained an understanding of how things work around here. Doors22 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the inventors and proponents of "post finasteride syndrome" have been disrupting WP for years. The creation of a draft about the foundation (just to claim in the lede that this "syndrome" is legitimate) is the latest dirty trick in a tiresome campaign. The commentary now at Finasteride#Adverse effects is poorly written and disingenuously sourced but neither surprises me. The fewer hysterical, POV pushers in this area, the better. St★lwart 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few things that don't make sense with this post. People who recognize post finasteride syndrome aren't the "inventors" of the syndrome, it is something that is caused by an adverse reaction to the drug. In the past you have falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet which was proven to be baseless upon investigation by an administration. I also was not the one to create the draft about the foundation although I think it is worthy of existence. You also mention that the adverse events section is poorly written and disingenously sourced but it was last updated by DocJames and yet includes references from the National Institutes of Health, JAMA Dermatology, and the FDA. Lastly, despite what it says on your own user page, you apparently haven't assumed good faith about multiple editors by accusing them of carry out a "dirty trick" by creating a page for the post-finasteride syndrome foundation. The existence of permanent/crippling side effects is one of the most (if not the most) widely discussed issue about the drug. This will become quickly apparent after a quick google search or news run. I don't really understand why you are accusing editors of using some kind of a trick to create an article for a non profit that is already approved by the US government. Your whole edit makes very little sense. Doors22 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Misplaced Pages with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). St★lwart 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This statement is concerning because if you took the time to thoroughly review this incident you would have seen I already offered apologies for mistakes I have made. This incident is for the most part the result of a personal content dispute between myself and Formerly98 but the incident was opened by JYTDog on Formerly's behalf. Let me ask you this - How can you possibly collaborate with an editor who makes one argument to meet his objectives one day and then turns around and argues a more extreme version of the opposite case the next day in a separate context? It is almost impossible when you are dealing with another editor who is attempting to game the system and apparently has a lot more free time and will than are available to me at the current time. Diff SourceDoors22 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

no, i did not open this on Formerly's behalf. that is your BATTLEGROUND mentality. i opened this because in my view your behavior is disruptive to the point where we need to topic ban you; I am seeking the community's input on that.

You were warned to stop POV pushing many, many times - the following are just some of them:

• Jan 12 2015 by me here
• Jan 13 2015 by me here
• Oct 2014 POV pushing remarked by Jfdwolff here and expanded here where he wrote "No, my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Misplaced Pages as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Misplaced Pages to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied. "
• 29 March 2011 3 editors oppose your efforts to load animal studies into the article and note your POV-pushing: Talk:Finasteride/Archive_2#Even_more_animal_studies
• 18 March 2011 Tryptofish acting as a mediator noted your aggressiveness
• Feb 8 2011 warned by Jdwollf here and again here
• Feb 7 2011 warned by Jfwolff here

and you just not hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the proposed topic ban of Doors22. It is an open and shut case. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support.(uninvolved) The SPA behavior has been pretty well established above, and the personal attacks show this user's engagement in the topic has become problematic. I'd look for at least 6 months on a topic ban (maybe more), but definitely a short WP:ROPE after that. I've only recently seen some of this editor's behavior pop up on my watchlist articles, and that already seemed troubling before I saw the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Doors appears to have a specific POV, while Jytdog and Formerly 98 appear to hold opposing POV. Eliminating one POV from the discussion seems counterproductive in terms of ending up with NPOV articles. With respect to the content dispute and accusations of FRINGE, a cursory 30 second search reveals multiple MEDRS sources discussing Finasteride with respect to erectile dysfunction:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18421068/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24955220

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176115

It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Misplaced Pages in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat did you review the long history of behavior issues, supported by diffs, provided above? For that matter did you even review the 3 sources you provided to see if they were relevant to the content, because they don't appear to be. In fact the first one you provided, PMID 18421068, supports the opposite conclusion from what Doors is pushing, so how is it relevant? And neither of the other two really support all that well the existence of a "post-finasteride syndrome," which is the idea that sexual dysfunction continues after discontinuation of use--that is what Doors has been pushing. And what do you think of this edit by Doors, which removes a 2014 MEDLINE-indexed meta-analysis and review? And it's problematic to try to square off Doors' behavior issues as "POV vs. POV" when what really matters is, who is supporting development of article content along WP policy and guidelines, with respectful and collegial behavior? Because of all this I can't see how this !vote carries any weight. Zad68 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Zad, I did review the history. There's a lot to wade through but there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND on both sides. With respect to the 3 secondary sources I listed, I'm aware that the oldest one supports the opposite position. Not cherry picking among secondary sources I found on this topic, I linked them all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't really focus on the behavior issues, which is what an ANI thread should focus on, and you're aware your sources aren't really relevant to the editing by Doors. OK then. Zad68 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, BoboMeowCat, but I have to question whether you actually read the discussion above or the sources attached to that particular claim. It is the same problematic claim I highlighted immediately above your comment. The suggestion that an acknowledgement on their website that some anti-Finasteride activists use the term "post Finasteride syndrome" is not the same thing as "x group gave recognition to the syndrome" which is what our article now claims. That "men would like to be aware of" the anecdotal-evidence-based claims of fringe-dwelling activists is of no consequence to us. That's not what we do around here. Again, this is part of an ongoing, 4-year pattern of extreme disruption and POV-pushing from people who "just want to get the truth out there". St★lwart 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

"It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."

• The material in the first sentence is incorrect. As noted on the Talk page (note that I have not yet reverted, and Doors has not yet responded to my day old note) the page that Doors is referencing here contains an link to a disclaimer stating that the information on the page is collected by library specialists from diverse sources, including advocacy group sites, and the NIH neither vouches for its accuracy nor does anything on the page reflect official NIH policy. Any materials that the ORDR provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of ORDR, NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency. " In the course of adding this information, Doors removed two meta analyses, one of which found evidence for sexual dysfunction and one which did not. So high quality secondary refs were removed, and replaced with statements that are not supported by the source.
• The information in the second sentence has been there since 2008 (Before Doors22 edited here). To the best of my memory no one has tried to remove it, even though MEDRS explicitly states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall below minimum standards of evidence".

Formerly 98 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only did you try to remove this, but you were for the most part successful! I see you have a pretty selective memory. See the diff here. Am I the only one who is picking up on these misleading arguments? Doors22 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That is completely false. You conveniently removed the text that mentioned the global regulatory bodies (Sweden, UK, Italy, FDA). You specifically said "to the best of your memory nobody has tried to remove it" (referring to text about the Swedish Medical Products Agency). One falsehood begets another... Doors22 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors, this is why it is inappropriate for you to edit this article. The material about persistent sexual side effects was moved to a new paragraph and reduced from three sentences (one that said that it had been observed, a second that stated the Swedes had added it to the Swedish label, and a third that stated that it had been added to the U.S. label) to one. It was NOT removed and the reduction from three sentences to one was done by a consensus agreement among three editors and opposed only by you. Yet instead of accepting that your position did not win consensus, here you are 6 months later shouting in all bold, all caps letters (all caps removed by Doors after this response was posted) about "ridiculous tactic" and engaging in yet more personal attacks. This is classic WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is precisely why you should not be editing this article. You are too close to the topic to be objective. Formerly 98 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are now shifting your argument which is typical but it shouldn't distract too many. You winnowed down a reasonable section to text to 'there are case reports of persistent side effects'. All the while you deleted reference to the globally respected medical authorities that serve as valuable MEDRS. The problem is that you write like you are a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company - constantly trying to minimize valid information or deflect from issues that are disadvantageous to you. These are not personal attacks but observations about the validity and consistency of your arguments and your editing style. The 'ridiculous tactic' I am calling out is that you showed a clip of text that has been there for years and 'to the best of your memory nobody attempted to remove it', yet you were the one to cut it down by 75%. Call a spade a spade and don't try to create the impression you haven't reduced the text when you have. Doors22 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem

• Your ongoing anger about this edit six months after it was performed
• Your failure to recognize and accept the fact that your version failed to attract consensus support
• Your personalization of the content dispute, personal attacks, and defense of the same even when they are pointed out to you as a violation of policy

Formerly 98 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My current disagreement has nothing to do with the specific edit at all. My disagreement comes from the fact you tried to use this as an example just yesterday of an edit that you say nobody has tried to remove. With two seconds of research, it is determined you made an effort to remove the citation and now you are claiming you built a consensus around it. You could just admit that you chose an incorrect example as a mistake, but your unwillingness to do so illustrates you have no interest in having a constructive conversation. Would anybody else like to comment on this? Doors22 (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC+1)

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

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

• I was asked to comment here, but I know nothing about Doors22 or the issue. Formerly 98, can you help me to understand the exchange above? You wrote that the information about the Swedish Medical Agency (you provided this link) has been in the article since 2008, and that no one has tried to remove it. But you did remove it here in September 2014. It is no longer in the article.

There is a source for it on PubMed, an article from 2011 in the Journal for Sexual Medicine (I haven't checked to see whether it's correct): "The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the United Kingdom and the Swedish Medical Products Agency have both updated their patient information leaflets to include a statement that 'persistence of erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of treatment with Propecia has been reported in post-marketing use.'" Sarah (SV) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah

No that is incorrect. I did NOT make the statement that "the information about the Swedish Medical Agency has been in the article since 2008. What I said was that "The information in the second sentence ] has been there since 2008" The key information in that sentence is "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug". If you look at the diff I offered, the information is sourced differently but it is present in 2008. And if you look at the diff provided by Doors, the information that "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug" is still there after the edit that I made last year supported by a 3:1 consensus.

The key issue here as I see it is not in any case whether I made an inaccurate statement (I don't believe I did). The key issue is Doors immediately began accusing me of "falsehood" and being deliberately misleading. These are gross violations of WP:GF. He could have raised the discrepancy between what I said and his perceptions in a non-accusatory way, but as has been his pattern, he immediately went on the attack. Miscommunications, misunderstandings, and even inadvertent misstatements are commonplace in discussions about issues. What drives them off the track and into the ditch is the failure to apply reasonable assumption of WP:GF.

Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the exchange. (People are allowed to ask for uninvolved input, by the way; calling it canvassing isn't really fair.)

Doors22, Jytdog has asked for a topic ban from anything related to Finasteride. Would you be willing instead to confine yourself to the talk page? A topic ban would deprive Misplaced Pages of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed, but your adding material directly to articles is not a good idea because you have a conflict of interest if you're involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Also, focusing on one issue means you don't develop a feel for Misplaced Pages's policies. Reading them isn't enough; you have to see them in action and use them yourself, but if you're confined to one issue, and only sporadically, that learning curve doesn't happen, and everyone ends up frustrated.

It would also be important, if you remain active on talk, not to overwhelm editors with long or repeated requests. If you'd like something to be added to the article, use the "edit request" template, write up your edit along with sources, and post it. If the editors there say no, a good way forward is to start an RfC and abide by the results.

The material about sexual dysfunction after cessation of the drug is now in the article, as is Post-Finasteride Syndrome, and there's a mention of the Foundation too (though the heading "Society and culture" is odd). Is there anything important missing, in your view? Sarah (SV) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I appreciate your good intent here but looking at the comments above, I don't think this proposal will address the issues that I am having with this editor. Multiple editors, at least one who is uninvolved, have asked Doors to discontinue his personal attacks, and Doors' response has consistently been to deny that there is any problem with his behavior. I don't think he understands how to carry on a reasoned debate without getting personal, or else he is so emotional about this particular issue that he is unable to restrain himself or see his behavior objectively. I am concerned that this proposal will simply lead to the Talk page continuing to be filled with invective, and that other inappropriate expressions of anger will continue. I know you and I have very different outlooks on the world and our opinions are frequently very very different. But I hope you will agree that I deserve to be allowed to edit here without being constantly being called a liar and having my good will questioned over every difference of opinion on this issue. Others may have different issues, but those are my concerns anyway. Formerly 98 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98:, there are problems on both sides. We saw it in the exchange above. You posted something imprecise (that no one had tried to remove the second sentence, without specifying what you meant), Doors and I both (mis)understood it to mean the same thing, it seemed obviously false, Doors responded with frustration because he feels this happens a lot, and you then suggested that his frustration shows why he ought not to edit in this area. You then moved his post to the lower section, and suggested that I ought not to comment because Doors asked me to.

The usual thing with COI editors is to ask them to stick to talk. If they become overwhelming on talk, a topic-ban request is the next step. It makes sense to give this a try, because otherwise you lose Doors' input entirely, and he's seems well-informed about this, even if not always in a form that WP can use. Sarah (SV) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Slim, I think you are suggesting a false moral equivalence here. I find a lot of Door's comments "imprecise". But I don't call him a liar over and over and over again. If he is "frustrated", a break might be the best thing. Because judging by his behavior, he has been "frustrated" and "feeling this happens a lot" with multiple editors since 2011.

With respect to your comments on canvassing, do you really think Doors picked your name at random out of a hat as "an uninvolved editor", given your position as an admin, the many disagreements that you have had with Jytdog, and your posting skeptical remarks about my edits to the GlaxoSmithKline article the day before he sought you assistance as an "uninvolved editor"? This is where an editor with less respect for the rules and less confidence in the good intent of his peers might start getting "frustrated". But I"m not going to go there and Doors should not have either. Formerly 98 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Formerly 98, you indicated above that the relevant info has been there since 2008 and clarified you were referring to this sentence:

There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports..

This isn't true...quick review of history shows this info hasn't been in the article since 2008. Here's the relevant text from December 2008:

Recognized side effects, experienced by around >1% of users, include erectile dysfunction, and less often gynecomastia (breast gland enlargement). As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. .

Prior to Doors first edit in 2011, mention that this could be a long term/permanent side effect wasn't made clear. Here's the relevant text immediately before Door's first edit in 2011:

Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. . Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.

I would think most men would consider temporary erectile dysfunction very different than longterm/permanent sexual dysfunction. It seems Doors is largely responsible for inclusion of this rare but serious reported side effect being mentioned in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin several issues:

• I am sorry but in my view you are WP:INVOLVED and I view Doors22's posting on your page as canvassing. You raised questions here and here on your Talk page about the integrity/bias of both Formerly and me, as have other editors talking there; those editors have discussed concerns about pro-industry POV in the same breath that they have espoused FRINGE medical ideas like conspiracy theories about AIDS and autism/vaccines. Doors22, who also espouses FRINGE convictions about medicine (in his case, PFS) has made his main "defense" - really a distraction from issues raised here about his behavior - the putative bias/corruption/bad faith of Formerly and me. That you stepped up here to support someone advocating a FRINGE medical position who is making personal attacks of COI against people holding down the mainstream medical view, is just unfortunate.
• I raised no issue about COI about Doors22 nor has anyone else here, that I am aware of. I am raising issues about his long term POV pushing at the article, and increasing BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and at other noticeboards/talk pages.
• Thanks for the suggestion that Doors22 stop editing the article directly. That is not a terrible solution, but doesn't address Doors22's BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and outside it. I think it might be reasonable for the community to go with your recommendation if Doors22 agreed to refrain from directly editing, and acknowledged his battleground behavior and agreed to stop. On the other hand the community may also take the view that Doors22 has already demonstrated that he is NOTHERE and has already not changed course after many, many warnings, and that a topic ban is in order. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Formerly, people have the right to do whatever they want when they are canvassed. That is a distraction.

Slim, Doors is attempting to distract the community from his four year record with the pharma shill gambit over recent interactions. It is a four year record. With regard to outcome, I prefer a topic ban and that is the SNOW consensus here so far.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being involved doesn't mean people can't comment, so who is or isn't involved is a red herring, just as the canvassing guideline doesn't mean people can't ask for help, and MEDRS doesn't say anything that would prevent Wikipeda from telling its readers that the RECORD trial was GSKs. I see a lot of policy and guideline misuse, and whereas experienced editors can ignore it, the less experienced get frustrated, lash out at the unfairness, then get blocked or banned for having lashed out. Having said that, I don't support COI or SPA editing, and I don't think Door should be editing that article. Let's wait to hear whether he accepts staying on the talk page and making an extra effort to minimize drama there (which I hope others will do too). Sarah (SV) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SV of course you are free to comment here; I only commented on your involvement as you seem to have described yourself as "uninvolved". And bringing up things about GSK where Doors22 has never edited, shows that. Doors is responsible for his behavior. Editors other than Formerly and me have called his attention to his attempts to use of WP as a soapbox over the last four years; his behavior has not changed and he has become only more fierce. Please see the 7 support !votes other than mine and Formerly's, two of whom have had to deal with Doors at the article over the last four years prior to Formerly getting involved (~ 1 year ago at Feb 2014) or me (~ 6 months ago Oct 2014).Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for your commentary. I am open to some kind of solution like you proposed. I am not affiliated with the post finasteride syndrome as you may have thought nor have I given them a personal donation, however I have kept up to date with their activities as they are doing a good job to stimulate research and awareness for the condition. If I were to confine myself to just the talk page, I think it is only fair to do the same for JYTDog and Formerly98, especially the latter. JYTDog has accused me of engaging in canvassing you provide support for my cause yet we have never interacted before and I only contacted a single editor. Meanwhile, JYTDog signaled to eight users whom he specifically said were likely to come out against me and several of them did in fact support the motion to topic ban me.

I am concerned that if only I am confined to the talk page, Formerly will remove/condense/conceal useful text that discusses the controversy of Propecia's persisting side effects. He has done just this in the past. In one example, he reached a relative consensus with another editor Gilmour1201 in February 2014 and then about 6 months later he decided to reverse any compromise that had been established after the original editor left. Beginning on September 11, 2014 he embarked upon a series of edits where he removed references to Propecia side effects. Ironically, the first edit was a separate instance where he removed the reference to the warning label updated by the Swedish Medical Products Agency. Another good example of Formerly98's editing style is when he removed properly referenced information about Merck, Propecia's manufacturer, with a very weak rationale. These are just a couple examples worth highlighting. Moreover, the recent incident in which he made opposing arguments to represent his pro-industry POV was the latest that catalyzed this current debate. In the first edit he argues that the source of study funding affects study conclusions so it is reasonable to bring attention to a small unrestricted gift on the Propecia page. Yet the next day on the Glaxo Smith Kline page, he pontificates "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions?". The way I see it, this type of disruptive editing and argumentation has largely contributed the drama we are discussing today.

I think the current state of the article is not perfect but reasonable. There are several high profile studies that are currently being conducted on post finasteride syndrome, one of which by a Harvard affiliated hospital, and I'd like the article to incorporate the findings once they are published in the future. More studies will continue for at least the next several years. While this condition has been publicly known for over a decade, it is unfortunate that the Misplaced Pages community has been resistant to even mention this controversy. It takes many years to design a study, conduct the study, publish the (primary) study, and then even longer for somebody else to write it up in a secondary report which qualifies as MEDRS. How do you feel about the suggestion of having myself, JYTDog, and Formerly98 contribute solely through talk page discussions going forward? I think this solution may work well if editors who have not been involved in these long debates are ultimately responsible for deciding what goes into the article. Best Doors22 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? There is strong support (all but one) for a total topic ban with regard to finasteride (and derivatives, manufacturers and associated organisations - "broadly construed") which would exclude contributions to the talk page and every associated discussion anywhere on WP. SV is throwing you a (very generous) bone by suggesting that such a topic ban might be limited to article space so that you could contribute to discussions "behind the scenes". I don't support that at all but she has every right to propose it. And you're (basically) throwing it in her face by suggesting you'll accept such an offer, but only if those who have highlighted your disruption are sanctioned also? That's not how it works, mate. If you walk away from this (almost-100% consensus) without a total topic ban (or a block) you should consider yourself lucky. You're in absolutely no position to suggest that others receive equivalent sanctions as a result of your behaviour. St★lwart 06:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors22, I apologize for assuming you were involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. I mistakenly thought that had been acknowledged. If you're not, and so long as you're not suing the company or anything similar, you don't have a COI, but the focus on this one issue is still a problem. If a topic ban is imposed, perhaps you could use the time to edit more widely, then you could ask that it be lifted after six months or so. Sarah (SV) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, no worries about the mix up with the foundation. I recognize that I did take the bait on several occasions when I should not have which apparently got me into trouble. While I made mistakes, I feel it should acknowledged that I was provoked on multiple occasions that contributed to this ordeal. I'm sure you understand that it can be challenging to work with more experienced editors who are quick to quote a range of guidelines to get the edge in disagreements.

What is your current thinking about restricting myself to the talk page going forward? JYTDog mentioned he thinks it would be a reasonable solution to discuss edits on the talk page and Formerly98 recently said he would prefer to establish a better working relationship than go through the ANI process. I think it would help secure the neutrality of the article if the same policy is upheld for them as well. In its current state, I think it is reasonably balanced but I mentioned earlier that I'm concerned the balance will quickly evaporate if I am removed. Stalwart111 is under the impression that this board is unanimously against me for some reason but both I and BoboMeowCat oppose a topic ban and it isn't entirely clear where you stand. More than 50% have been in favor but two of those editors were directly involved in this incident and JYTDog canvassed eight users who were previously involved. Thanks again. Doors22 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors22, in future when someone cites a policy, calmly ask them to quote the relevant part from it, then read that part in context to get a feel for whether they're right. I think restricting you to the talk page is a reasonable compromise. It makes no sense to turn down an information source, and you've been mostly civil in the last couple of years (before that there were a few rough posts). But, as I said, consensus is currently against you, and this isn't up to me. An uninvolved admin will close the discussion. As for Jytdog and F98 also being confined to talk, that's unlikely to happen. Sarah (SV) 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By my reading, 10 support the proposal and 2 (including you) oppose it. Which means you've managed to convince 1 person that sanctions aren't immediately necessary to prevent you from further disrupting this project. And he didn't really seem to understand what was being proposed or why. That's a few more than "more than 50%"; more than 80% in fact. And you continue to argue that you're a necessary force for ensuring the article remains "neutral". There's absolutely no remorse here at all for what is long-term disruption, just vague references to "taking the bait" as if others are (once again) responsible for your disruptive actions. St★lwart 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Doors22 is a POV pushing SPA that has been disruptive in the topic area for years. The question shouldn't be whether or not to topic ban them, but why they have been allowed to be disruptive for so long. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Misplaced Pages to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors22 clearly has a personal connection to the article, which is prohibiting him from making quality edits and rational discourse over the talkpage. Perhaps when some time has passed and Doors has expanded himself to other areas of the encyclopedia, the topic ban can be revisited, however its blatantly obvious that one is needed in the present day. cnbr 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Support alternative talk page restriction proposed below. Agree with above assessment of POV both ways. Agree with assessment that single purpose editing has frustrated gaining broad WP experience and normal WP socialization as might be expected from the number of years. Agree with above assessment of teaming. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

context for HughD's vote. He edit warred against me (and Formerly and 2 other editors) at the GSK article and received a block for it. Was POV=pushing some politically-oriented content which seems to be an ongoing issue (edit war warnings on political articles here, here and here and those don't count the ones he deleted which you can see here). So the "oppose" is no surprise. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, we request you argue in the threaded discusssion section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at the edit history, as the reporting editor shows, arranged in spurts, bouts of wholly unsatisfying editing interspersed with long frustration breaks. Less than 400 edits, just 128 in article space. If you don't look at the years (5) the reported editor is a relative newbie to our project, never gained 5 years of experience. This editor's biggest mistake was following his passion into the pharmaceutical ownership zone, where he got summarily beat up and yeah, fought back, ineptly. All he knew of WP is what he learned there from the entrenched: revert, delete, snideness, tag teams, and notice boards. This episode is as much a failure in welcoming and inclusiveness as anything else. Warnings all around, please. Hugh (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin uninvolved in the dispute)There are problems here, on both sides. Someone will undoubtedly point out that I have had issues in the past with some of those seeking the ban. I also point out that we see way to many cases brought here by those seeking the ban that have a content disagreement mixed in. I do think that Doors22 has something to offer on the topic, but there are issues that they should think about. I oppose an indef ban but support a talk page restriction or at most a 6 month topic ban. (added later) This post by Doors22 on the WP:ANRFC board diff shows that there is hope in that he sees there is a problem and seeing a problem is the first step in fixing it. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

oh man. thanks for providing that link. so on the one hand he says "i am responsible" and on the other he says me and Formerly are responsible.... and most importantly he no where in that post acknowledges that he is here for one reason - to use WP as a soapbox nor does he acknowledge WP:SOAPBOX. what he said 4 years ago remains true today: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue" -- that is the definition of WP:NOTHERE. he is a longterm POV-pusher and the battleground behavior continues, as he continues to blame others for his behavior - and even takes advantage of my neutral request for a close, to open yet another forum to argue. and that you cannot see all that AlbinoFerret... Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the things I have found frustrating is when you have mis-quoted and mis-referenced policies that are not applicable to the situation. I do not attempt to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox and I feel that one quote from 4 years ago was taken out of context. The are reasons these guidelines exist and I recognize (and hopefully you do too) that edits will be more credible and useful if they abide by the rules. I try to always include MEDRS sources but you have to realize that new editors are not very skilled in doing so. It is unhelpful to keep bringing up edits I made four years ago. I would like to continue contributing on the article as new sources and studies are published. In order for that to be done most constructively, it will require you remain open to new sources and try to work with me rather than against me. I hope I am misreading the tone of your post above, but it feels like you are not assuming my good faith and are emanating hostile sentiments. This incident you filed was not fun for me which will act as a deterrent to avoid this from recurring if possible. I don't think it was fun for you either so hopefully you will meet me half way as I am extending an olive branch. Thank you for your input AlbinoFerret. I would prefer to have no restrictions come as a result of this incident, but either way I will be spending a high proportion of my time on the talk page to gather input of others to ensure things go more smoothly in the future. Doors22 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I see is an editor who has problems, but he also has something to offer. Its not impossible for people to change and he did say in that post "I take personal responsibility for my actions.". I dont think anyone involved in a battlefield is innocent. I dont think an indef is in the best interest of WP, multiple of points of view make for better articles. What would be best is if he does change and broadens his experiences on WP. I do think that restricting him to the talk pages will force him to work with others. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

albino you have obviously not reviewed the talk page discussions. hammering and hammering mixed with personal attacks does not make for a productive editing environment. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, I did, I said there were problems. But I also think that forcing someone to only be on the talk page will limit the problems in fighting over edits. It will force real discussion if Doors hopes to get anything included in the article, fighting wont accomplish that. I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault. While its only my opinion, I think every battleground should have page protection for a long time to force discussion. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

albino man. nobody else on the finasteride talk page brings up the same things over and over again. i get it that you have strong feelings about this from the e-cig article.. but that was a terrible entree into WP. that is not what things are like in most of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

No, thats in the past, I just find this page interesting, as is this section. But nice try trying to inject some kind of motive, there is none except what I believe to be best for WP. I dont know Doors, I have never edited an article with them, and the subject of the articles this happened I dont find interesting. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry, you misunderstood me b/c i wasn't clear. when i wrote "the page" above, i meant the talk page of the finasteride article, not here at ANI. fixed that above. sorry. what i was trying to say is that when doors comes around we can count on long drawn out battles on the talk page as he argues and argues to include content based on bad sources (less frequently now) or argues to give more weight to the sexual side effects; and that often devolves into personal attacks from him when he doesn't get what he wants. it just never stops. that would be likely to become only more intense if that is all he could do, based even on what he has said here - he has given no indication that he understands that using WP as a soapbox to push one POV is not OK here. Please read WP:NOTHERE, read his full mission statement ( "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue....") look at the diffs, and look at what he has written here at ANI. all he wants to do is retain access to this platform to continue doing the same thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Jytog is extremely aggressive in editing style: debates relentlessly (which IMO is often good), is quick to revert edits (bad), on occasion reverses position based on discussion (in the end good, but not so much when also created the issue with a contested edit), readily sanction-shops via noticeboards (bad), displays I guess you could call it highly emotional behavior (e.g, name calling then striking through, requesting you strike through your own comments deemed hurtful, making a comment and deleting it so you have to read the history; distracting). All of this adds up to a WP persona that is hard to slot, and makes for an editor who can be difficult to communicate with, even intimidating, while remaining just on the right side of "acceptable WP behavior."

• Jytog strongly supports the WikiProject Medicine take on guideline interpretation, a situation I've only recently begun to understand, and one that most of the editors in this thread that I recogize seem to support: it appears that Misplaced Pages is allowing conventions of evidence-based medicine (such as how to determine the relative weight of research papers and what they really mean) to be applied by anonymous editors (what we ALL are) in deciding what content may or may not be included. Medical research is a highly technical area that can be difficult to interpret, but the bottom line is, specialized content is being determined by self-appointed expert editors according to rules that are simply not accessible or understandable to the general non-technical editor or reader. This may seem to result in good, responsible medical content, however, it also seems to be against core verifiability policy, and results in exclusion of content that in any other area of WP would be clearly verifiable by our standards. This is a problem, and it makes it extremely difficult for any editor to edit or even discuss core WP:PAG-supported content that goes against that WikiProject standard and group of enforcing editors.

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

Tsavage, I think you offer an interesting idea. There are several editors on that article that I feel have ganged up against me and want to do everything possible to discredit/eliminate any new information about side effects that come from this drugs. However, a couple administrators have participated (DocJames for one) and his input has been objective. Protecting the entire article and only allowing admins or approved parties to make edits could help preserve a neutral POV. However, would there be enough interest from objective third parties that the article would get updated with changes and new sources in a timely fashion? Doors22 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doors22: Hard to tell, just have to see. I don't have much to say beyond that. After a decade of on and off editing, including some contentious topic editing, I am new in the last 4-5 months to this level of intense, essentially litigious behavior. It seems not uncommon in certain subject areas, it is tiring, and I feel an off-putting undercurrent through it all. If you're gonna try and hang in, and you're rational, not crazy, the one kinda painful thing I learned is you have to quickly disengage from arguing through content editing, that makes it too easy for your "opponents" (your disagreeing fellow editors) to charge you first if possible with edit warring, and eventually to build up a list from edit histories that can be characterized as bad behavior. And you have to unfortunately learn the policies and guidelines in some detail, and get a feel for how admin-involved processes seem to go, and be meticulous with your edits, stay calm and polite, vet everything your "opponents" say, especially when policies and guidelines are cited, and don't spend all your time in discussion, keep editing non-contentions articles to...stay real. :) That's what I've figured out so far. Fun for a while if you like arguing, but ultimately, it really sucks, no fun at all, if you simply enjoy expanding articles. And pretty unWikipedian. I suppose it will eventually come to a head, probably around the power of WikiProjects. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

i have yet another "fan"; marvelous. Tsavage, in your press to register a complaint about me, you have not looked at the issue. Doors22 announced his intentions in his first month here, and has followed through, pushing one point of view on one topic his entire time here. His contribs amount to one big violation of WP:SOAPBOX, a policy and a pillar. If you want to open a thread about me, knock yourself out, but I made my first edit to the article six months ago; Doors has been at this for four years. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You have 40K+ edits, and you reported a fellow editor with 178 article space edits. You are an adult asking our admins for capital punishment against a minor. The reported editor has behavioural deficiencies due to inexperience. What's your excuse? You have deficiencies in terms of welcoming and inclusiveness. It's long overdue for you to step up your game in terms of accepting your role in broadening participation our project. You routinely skip the step of looking at someone else's edit and seeing if there is something of value in the content or source. When you wrote above "I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while," by "a while" did you mean, like what, a week? Hugh (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents)" Thank you for your thoughful comment and for so eloquently articulating this issue. I would add based on my recent experience that that the zeal for the project-level standards spill over from strictly medical issues to large pharmaceutical corporations, with an unfortunate outcome that the articles are non-neutral with respect to their histories. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

JYT, if you have so many 'fans', did you ever stop to consider that you have a problem? Here is the latest example of unreasonable editing behavior. Zinedine included one of Bayer's early products, heroin, in the header which you brusquely removed because it was unsourced. First, this is inappropriate because if you really cared about a citation the right thing to do would have been to request one or tag the text with citation needed. Secondly, there is no reference for Bayer's production of aspirin in the lead so you are applying a double standard. After the user responds to your request and includes a source, you threatened with a block if the edit was put back in place. That's highly unacceptable after the editor after the editor provided a source that was not necessary in the first place and that type of action would never warrant a block, especially because it was not even close to the > 3 reverts in 24 hours rule. It's possible you didn't want to include a reference to heroin in the lead because it creates a negative tone for the company, but that should be the topic of debate, not some inapplicable technicality combined with a threat. Doors22 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

that worked out quite well with no drama or boards needed (despite HughD's efforts to add it). Doors, every time you do this distraction/counterattack thing you dig your hole] deeper, in my view. you are showing no insight into your SOAPBOXING. nada. this is getting more unseemly the longer this goes. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) (fixed thanksJytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC))

You have just presented another example where you cited wikipedia policy where it does not make sense to do so. WP:HOLE in no way fits within the context of your complaint. If you are going to frequently cite policy, it's important to do so correctly to have a constructive conversation. Doors22 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that the essay i linked to was not what i intended. i meant to link to this article: Law of holes. which is what you are not heeding. (when the close comes, if you would have said somewhere, anywhere - "hey i get it - i have to lay off the sexual side effects thing and I understand that i have driven everyone else who has tried to work with me crazy" this would go very different for you. but you have dug in harder and even tried to attack me instead. you are making the case for POV Pushing and BATTLEGROUND, every time you write something that is not that. That is what I mean by digging your own hole deeper. What the community looks for is whether you get it ) Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason that an editing disagreement on Misplaced Pages should make you "crazy" unless you have some personal connection to the issue but maybe I don't know the whole story. I have said several times I will adjust my collaborative style and so should you, frankly. Now that the work week is starting, I won't be able to frequently respond but I don't have much more to add as this conversation has run its course. Doors22 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors is a relentless POV pusher who does not help the project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

The wifione case that was actually conducted at Arbcom was about long term POV pushing. Arbcom said they have no hand in paid editing. I will just remove that from the section header. to avoid other people who misunderstand that case from being confused. This case about Doors22 is very, very simple. He only edits about one thing and pushes one POV on that one thing. Every time he shows up we get into long, disputes on the article Talk page, and he is becomingly increasingly disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. The evidence above iis, in my view, what a case against a long term POV-pusher looks like. we will see if i am right or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the interpretation by the press was that Wifione had a financial COI with respect to that bogus business school he was promoting. Promoting a bogus business school on Misplaced Pages for free would seem like an odd hobby, although I suppose possible. Whether or not you are successful in getting Doors topic banned related to POV doesn't seem related to Wifione....so I'm not following your "we'll see if I'm right or not" comment. I do appreciate you amending the section header to remove reference to a case that doesn't seem to apply here. I'll refrain on voting on this specific case until I have time to review the evidence provided. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Doors exhibit classic WP:SPA and advocacy behavior. Every minor edit turns into a a multi-thousand word discussion in which he becomes tendentious, exhibits WP:IDHT behavior against consensus, and engages in personal attacks. In fact, I rarely see a post from him in response to my comments that does not contain at least one personal remark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here on the NPOV talk board, he adds a comment responding to me in which he questions my integrity twice. The edit summary states that "a pharma employee should not pretend to be ignorant to the differences between a grant and gift" I have not been a pharma employee for nearly a decade, my COI statement clearly says this, and this has been pointed out to Doors multiple times. In the edit itself, he repeats his suggestiion that I am lying about my employment status, with the remark "I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry."

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

• The vindictiveness extends to retaliatory editing. Here, after an extended series of posts in which he accuses me of an undisclosed COI, he makes 3 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article supporting the other side of a content dispute that I am involved in. He has almost no history at this point of editing non-finasteride related articles, and has never before shown interest in electronic cigarettes. Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 and later reverts one of my edits to the article.

• Similar retaliatory editing on the Pharmaceutical industry article talk page, which subject he has never shown an interest in until another editor begins criticizing my rewrite of that article. Seeing a content dispute that I am party to brewing, he jumps in to support the other side of the argument. Diff

Formerly 98 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Formerly98

• I just said earlier that I have only really run into issues with Formerly98 and JYTDog and I believe this quick response helps to confirm my statement that they have a tendency to tag team one another one Misplaced Pages, trying to form a two person consensus. What I see here is two things. First, I edited a single page (electronic cigarettes) where you had been very active and you accused me of WP:HOUNDING you. This edit is not recent and to avoid any perception that I may be hounding I have not done anything like it since. However you continue to bring this up time and time again.
• Secondly, the history between us has led to my frustration and I apologize if you feel I made a personal attack against you. The reality is that you make arguments that do not seem to be what you actually believe for pushing a POV and this would lead to frustration for anybody. Somebody who claims to have a PhD in chemistry and experience working as a research scientist for pharma companies should know the difference between a research grant and a gift and not pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is very incendiary to refer to a research gift with no strings attached or obligations a "bribe" or "incentive plan". On your own talk page, you have written "If I disagree with you, its almost never personal. I may even secretly agree with you, but feel that the article in question is unbalanced and needs to be adjusted to a more neutral POV." In my opinion, it is very counterproductive to make arguments to which you personally disagree and can be very antagonistic to other editors making good points.
• Lastly, I'd like to highlight my edit that you called out on the WP:Pharmaceutical Industry article. This is very obviously not an instance of hounding yet you repeatedly bring this up (among other poor examples) which can get very exhausting. I am confident that anybody who spends the time to properly evaluate this example will see that your accusation is without merit because I merely offered a civil opinion on a topic to which you don't have a monopoly. The problem is that very few editors don't have the time and it's possible they take your accusation at face value which is highly misleading. I think this example is a good representation of the (lack of) credibility of many of your accusations and the aggressive/unfair editing tactics you often employ on Misplaced Pages. Both Formerly98 and JYTDog have run into problems with many, many other editors even in recent months where they seem to be the other two that have problems with my editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I know this looks like a personalized content dispute (and it is in part), which is why I reckon no one is commenting. But there is meat to this, or i would not have brought it. And I know that NPOV issues are difficult, since you have dig in some to see what is going on. I tried to tee this up so it would be very very clear. Hopefully folks will take some time to review the evidence I provided above. And I want to apologize to the community for showing up here again, but the BATTLEGROUND from Doors22 was just getting to be too much; and his NPOVN posting was just too.... ironic. Thanks in any case for your patience and consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhh, so you did notice that few are commenting. Curious - have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf by Aesop? Other editors have been hinting about the remarkable frequency they're seeing your name on ANI. Did you first try to settle this "personalized" content dispute on the TP of the respective article? Atsme☯ 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• and so now Doors adds some clear WP:CANVASSING to the list of BATTLEGROUND behaviors. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• No comments for a couple of days. Is this closeable? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you think there have not been any comments in a couple of days. If you look above my edit here, there were 5 new edits just today (April 23). I have done some research over the past few days and decided the best way to proceed is to file an incident for WP:Votestacking. I don't feel this was conducted in a way that was remotely fair or impartial. Irrespective of who I am working with, I have made mistakes and I am trying to learn from them and I feel the best way to handle this situation is to calmly proceed with this accordingly. Doors22 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

JYTDog - Vote Stacking

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

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

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

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

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

What a ridiculous diversionary tactic. And again with this business of trying to have those who highlighted your disruption sanctioned also. You still haven't actually accounted for your disruption or suggested any way that you might look to contribute productively in topic areas other than this one. At this stage I'd guess there'd be decent support for a indef block. Either way, this hail-Mary section should be closed immediately and a ban should be enacted to put an end to this nonsense. St★lwart 04:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had concerns that if we just topic ban Doors22 without him understanding that his behavior has been problematic that he will just carry on the personalized disruption elsewhere. His post above is not promising in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By hyperlinking all the editors with whom this editor had a dispute, the effect was to notify them of this thread, which of course is votestacking whether intentional or not. The closing administrator however requires "the clear and substantial consensus of...uninvolved editors", per CBAN. Whether or not the piling on of involved editors influenced the votes of uninvolved editors is something that must be considered by reading through the votes. With the huge amount of discussion generated, it is possible this thread will be archived without action, as few administrators would want to take hours to read through it. I suggest posting to AN requesting an administrator to close, as the thread has now been open several days. TFD (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really affected anything. Several of the names were misspelled, and so the ping was not received. For the most part the remainder of the list is identical to a list of editors who have been major contributors to the Finasteride article over the last 3 years and who are still active Misplaced Pages editors (and thus available to comment). If the list of people who have edited Finasteride is essentially identical to the list of people that Doors has had conflicts with, that tells us all we need to know. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look a more closely you'll see there was only one broken ping link. Yobol showed up as red because he/she doesn't have a user page but the ping was still received and JFDWolff was incorrectly referenced at first as "JDWolff" but a correct ping was listed later. An important point to raise is that the input for an ANI should be representative of opinions from neutral/impartial Wiki users, not editors who were previously involved in editing the article in question. Whether it was intentional or not, pinging 11 involved editors and having 6 of them offer opinions would heavily influence any discussion and voting process. Doors22 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

if you showed a whiff of "i understand the problem" you might have a shot at not getting topic banned, Doors. but you just continue this wikilawyering battlegroundy, IDHT stuff. It is terrible to watch. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• i've requested close at AN here Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• very much hoping someone will bite the bullet and close this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NAC reverted following close review

This is a non-admin close, coming a number of days after the original poster and the subject have asked for closure. That no admin has done so despite requests here and at AN speaks volumes, so despite some less-than-pleasant interactions with Jytdog, I am issuing this as an uninvolved close, since I have neither commented here, nor edited the article or to any drug article ever, to my recollection. The logical, and perhaps needed escalation from here is of course to ArbCom, where the edits of all parties concerned would be subjected to deeper scrutiny. For now, the subject's recent comment at AN expresses notable contrition and growing and sufficient knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy to move forward as an editor without sanctions, in this closer's view. I also note that the serious claims of canvassing and !vote stacking have not been dealt with: clearly, not a single admin regards them as actionable. However, I urge Jytdog and his allies to heed the message sent by the overall benign neglect of the admin community, who have pointedly declined action against the subject. That said, I am free as a non-admin to issue this strong rebuke to every admin who has reviewed this matter and just walked away: the community gave you tools and trust, so shame on you for letting this ANI report fester so long. You can, and must, do better than this. Jusdafax 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have restored this from archive and reverted this closure in view of the objection raised here at the close review. If no uninvolved admin is willing to close it, it would be better to be archived without a closing summary than to be marred with one when it does escalate further (which this is probably going to if everyone doesn't calm down). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your re-open, obviously, and take issue with your characterization of my close as "marred." In my view, re-opening this archived ANI thread will hardly "calm down" this issue. Jusdafax 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy

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

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

I've had similar encounters with Helmboy over the years, and he his a highly problematic editor, for exactly the reasons Callmemirela cites. He seems to see himself as some sort of television expert (he has, on occasion, described himself as a reporter, despite having no media affiliation,) and believes he is always right. Consequently, if challenged by another editor, he will do as described above: launch into a spate of edit warring, abusive edit summaries (generally the only time he uses them) and pointy editing. I concur that attention to his editing behavior is long overdue. How he's managed to fly under the radar this long eludes me. --Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My views concur with those of Callmemirela and Drmargi. The user in question has a know-it-all personality, as well as always-right and higher-priority. My edits on the pages linked by Callmemirela were to add correct styling, correctly sourced information, and corrected references to the page, but these were undone in complete by Helmboy, for the excuse of not allowing my edits given that he hadn't finished his and so that he could implement his lack of consistency. There have been run-in's with the editor and I on other articles, going against consensus on talk pages, and accusing other editors of poor arguments when he gives exactly the same in the very same discussion. He refuses to go by Misplaced Pages guidelines and well-known standard practice, insisting that each and all of his edits are required and more important and basing his reasoning entirely upon "common sense" or "it's either this or this, and nothing else", and refuses to let any discussion go even after the discussion has reached its obvious end (for example, the discussion of Callmemirela's use of the copyright violation tag - there was obviously no going backwards, and going forwards could only be reached by an administrator, yet the argument was continued). Such troublesome users are the ones who give Misplaced Pages it's bad reputation. Alex|The|Whovian 17:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Now to add some truth to this. First I only removed the template ONCE after simply removing the offending summaries which was the only thing that was needed in the first place. The other editor involved was only reverting his edits and had nothing to do with the added template. Adding the template instead of the mentioned action forces an unnecessary series of events that only these few bored editors enjoy engaging in, as well as the perverse enjoy they seem to get from trying to escalate good faith edits as though they are something bad. These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles. I was going to give up on this site, until some other editors told me to try to carry on, but I am at the end of my wick again due to this constant unnecessary harassment and bullying by a few known bullies. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Add some truth to this." Are you being serious? All you've caused and proved is that you cannot edit properly nor can you establish consensus amongst other editors. You have the know-it-all and I'm-always-right attitude. You go by your way and no other way.

Nothing constructive here. Just insults and harassment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"I only removed the template ONCE ." Wow. First removal: . Second removal: . Last time I checked you are not an admin, copyright check or OTRS agent as per "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." explicitly written on the template of the article (something you clearly can't comprehend). Excuse me, but your edits are disruptive. You are trying to make a point by edit warring, going at it in your own way, ignoring WP:Consensus, and so on.

Those both refer to the same single diff I made and only show when it was first added and when you put it back. If you look in the article history you can clearly see only the single diff. And there was NO discussion about you adding the template. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles." Pardon me if you are editing very poorly and can't follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Baseless accusations mon oeil. The proof is quite clear that you have no intentions to edit in a group but rather by yourself. Also, I wouldn't be talking if I were you. You accused me of wanting to get the article deleted when that is not my intention in a million years. It's called following the rules, something you are unaware of. You also accused me of being a vandal. Do you even know the meaning of vandalism? Read WP:Vandalism and come back to me. I have not vandalized the Misplaced Pages. I am enforcing what I've been told.

It IS poor editing to block an article when the simpler and correct option of removing summaries is all that was needed. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bullies" as you call it is not what we are when someone edits poorly and refuses to cooperate. It's called enforcing the rules, something you can't get through your thick skull.

Insulting and bullying comment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You continue to claim your unjustified argument (again, from poor editing) that the solution to the whole copyright crap is to remove the summaries. It has to be resolved by an admin first. Are you admin? NO. So stop with this nonsense. You cannot edit the article until the issue has been resolved by others. Again, you are not understanding this, considering I've repeated this endlessly as now. You cannot argue basing yourself on lame arguments when you can't properly edit or contribute to the Misplaced Pages with a bunch of nonsense. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You think you are an admin by taking upon yourself to just block the page and unnecessarily making a real admin decide it's fate. Your editing skills should have just been used to remove the offending summaries. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't like me and are still grinding an axe about issues. What's new. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And how many editors have had more run-ins with your controlling editorship? Including the ones that have given up. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

@Justlettersandnumbers: Then just blank the summaries as I did rather than invalidating the the whole article. Rewording changes nothing as it still has the same copied structure. Wasting admins time causes backlog and will solve nothing except having the whole thing deleted. helmboy 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this fix it? Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp2 Which should have been done to the original article which may still end up gone thanks to that template. helmboy 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• No. First problem I found, the lead is copied from somewhere. I haven't been able to establish where the language first appeared, but its on a ton of websites. Did they originally copy it from Misplaced Pages? Has a copyright infringement been around since early 2014? Don't know. What I do know is that where ever the language in the lead came from, there is no attribution in the temp version. As this is supposed to be a totally separate from the version under investigation, we still have a problem. Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: What about replacing the lead from the main article?? see revised. helmboy 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You still need to properly attribute things when copying within Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Failure to properly attribute material from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages makes the resulting article a copyright infringement. (We are bad at enforcing this, but we still must try) Monty₈₄₅ 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: All of this should have been done via the articles talk page, not by a copyright template block-out requiring a second that may not be accepted. Wasn't the use of the copyright template poor editing? helmboy 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Taking care of it would be simply removing it and not road blocking the article and giving the admins unnecessary work. As for your opinion on of what is "esoteric" information is only YOUR opinion, which is you still haven't gotten over. You still grinding an axe over that says more about you and how open to edits you appear to be. helmboy 02:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We get it. You think it wasn't needed. What's the point of arguing this? We. Get. It. Nothing can be done about it now. We can't remove it. The admins have the extra work. What else is there to argue? We get that you think it's poor editing. Also, your comment about not being open to edits makes me laugh - take a look at your own edit history and abusive tone. (What's also funny is your consistent argument that there's no rule for rounding down when I edited Season 2's table for Young & Hungry, and yet Season 1 was also rounded down previously, yet you were fine with that.) Requesting administrator intervention against user based on the above arguments and offending user's obvious tone. Alex|The|Whovian 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources for season 2 were a different site that doesn't auto round like the zap2it source, and the issue was in preserving the referenced source and keeping the figures accurate. As for nothing can be done if someone adds the template unnecessarily, that comes as no surprise and is just one of the reasons for backlogging the admins. And I believe you have had an extreme abusive and rude tone towards from our first encounter as well as with a number of others such as on the Constantine talk page. helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the user above me. The user continues to call off well-experienced users based on poor editing and lack of experience. The user knows no bounds and continues to argue that adding the copyvio template was unnecessary when it clearly was. I agree with Alex (I think that's your name) when they introduce Helmboy's tone. Seriously requesting admin intervention against the user in question. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No surprise, given you are the one who is trying to get rid of me and no doubt others by trying to make out they have done some major offense, when all they are trying to is get back to editing articles. Like I was trying to do with fixing a very minor problem the simplest way possible. And now all this thread seems to be is some sort of witch hunt by a select list of closed-minded editors who would run this site like soldier only following orders no matter the fallout.helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: All reports I've filed for ANI have been ignored. It took someone else to get what was required. Maybe I'm a jinx? Or I clearly need a new tactic to create more captivating titles to catch admins' attentions. :P (I clearly agree with the lack of attention, though) Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be worth it to just start pinging uninvolved admins to close/take action on this? It seems much of the longer threads here are being ignored. cnbr 13:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cnbr15: Good idea. Who should I ping, though? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Identify the admins who you think might, by some miracle, be responsive and try them. --Drmargi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Per suggestions above me, I am pinging the following admins, who have recently closed ANI reports, to finally get some closure for this on-going situation. @Newyorkbrad:, @Nick:, @Philg88:, @Bbb23:, @Black Kite:, @Favonian:, @GorillaWarfare:, and @Diannaa: please find a solution and close this report. It's been here for 5 days already, and no opinions have been stated by any admins. Thank you, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Callmemirela: So what exactly do you want an admin to do here other than close the discussion?  Philg88  05:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Find an appropriate solution to this "blowout" and situation, if there is one, based on what it's been written (very extensive unfortunately). I am not the only person having issues with the user, so there must be something at least. If not, then fine. I want a solution to the problem if there is one and closure. That is all. Thank you, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban

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

Restored from archive for closure again. Someone please close this. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk _YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

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

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

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

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

• Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.

• Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Misplaced Pages's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

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

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

Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking into the future

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

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

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

I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Misplaced Pages if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.

Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone want to wrap this up somehow?

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

Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

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

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

• Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 200,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above ) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• It's not clear to me, at first glance, what is so childish and disruptive about that edit. If Bill Clinton is listed as a notable person from Little Rock, Arkansas because he was governor, why should Christie not be listed as a notable person from Trenton, New Jersey? Or is it just that you don't like Magnolia677, so every edit they make to your area of interest is automatically disruptive? Reyk _YO! 06:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an easy one to answer, and if you do not know the answer, a little research would tell you the answer. Clinton lived in Little Rock before he was governor, that is why his presidential library is there. Christie has an office in Trenton as governor, but the official governor's mansion is in Princeton, New Jersey. If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols, that has a Misplaced Pages article, the list is going to be long. We have governors, state assembly members and both state and federal judges, as well as notable civil servants. We generally do not list people based on where they work, but where they have their residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm no expert on American politics and took it for granted that a governor's residence would be in the state capital. One has to wonder why, instead of a civil and polite explanation like yours of why an edit is erroneous, Alansohn has to scream and make personal attacks. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols. We aren't talking about "every politician and civil servant" -- we are talking about state governors . The list is for "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Christie has been governor of the state since 2010, and has been hugely in national and international news as NJ governor because of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Additionally, his firm had an office in Trenton since 1999. I'm not seeing why Christie would not be one of "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Beyond that, even if someone were for some reason to disagree with that quite rightful-by-definition addition, to call the addition "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult", after being asked to come here and resolve matters, pretty much speaks for itself. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional note/question: There seems universal agreement on this thread, by those auto-confirmed editors that have investigated the matter (four uninvolved editors here), that Alansohn is the disruptive and/or gaming party. Rather than demonstrating an interest in resolving the matter, immediately above he posted an aspersion. Up above in the thread there was support for a block of Alansohn; but it didn't get put into an organized subtitled proposal, so various lengthy intervening discussions have ensued. My question is, should we: (1) Make a subthread now titled "Proposal: Block of Alansohn"? or (2) Let this thread be closed with a warning that if it comes up again, either ArbCom or a NJ topic-ban will ensue? Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is all Alansohn's fault so there isn't universal agreement. And it's hard to resolve this dispute as long as Magnolia677 stays away and doesn't help address the problems. I do agree that this case should be closed and next time the participants appear at ANI, a topic ban is proposed at the beginning of the discussion, before the conversation has grown cold. Liz 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it the point for M77 to disengage as much as possible in order to not interact? 129.9.75.247 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that part of the IBAN is for the two editors not to use each other's names, etc. At the very least, when asked (or at least pinged, assuming pings are working and that they are checking this thread) to come resolve the matter and hammer out an agreement, Magnolia77 has not come in here and attacked the other party again instead, like Alansohn did above. I'm not taking sides, as I haven't reviewed all of the evidence at hand. I'm just saying that four out of four editors who !voted above supported a block for Alansohn. I was just asking a question. If no one wants to put it to a formal and organized !vote, I suggest that an admin close this thread with a stern warning (and also a warning against gaming by e.g. editing every single NJ article in existence so that the other party cannot "touch" them). Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A note was left on my talk page asking me to write something here. My biggest concern about Alansohn is that he is a bully. He name calls, he makes accusations of stalking and disruptive editing, he intimidates other editors, and looks for battles where there is only good-faith editing (see Battin High School). Owning a US state on Misplaced Pages is not always a bad thing. Look at the wonderful contributions of User:Coal town guy to West Virginia. My real concern is that bullies--even hard working ones like Alansohn--at some point become a liability, as we've seen in many of our workplaces, and on our kids hockey teams. Their squeeze isn't worth the juice. When there is ownership of a large part of Misplaced Pages--such as a US state--but no support for new editors, no goodwill, and no open-mindedness to alternative editing styles, you end up with countless articles which all pretty much look the same. How different would those New Jersey articles look if their government sections were trimmed, if other sections were permitted to expand, and if new editors to New Jersey were welcomed and supported? Personally, I feel bullies and mean-spirited editors are a liability and should be kicked the heck off Misplaced Pages--even if they've made a million edits--but that's just because I dislike bullies (and love Misplaced Pages). Thanks for listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88

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

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

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

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

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GregKaye 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific diffs? I have noticed that Hijiri88 often removes content from her/his TP seemingly selectively, some summaries are strongly worded and there has been antagonistically toned, IMO, comments on both sides. I do not see how Ibans can work when editors can still work on the same projects. GregKaye 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like WP:BOOMERANG to apply here. John Carter is in fact edit warring as well. Almost the entirety of his "contributions" to the talk page discussion was nothing more than assumptions of bad faith and (basically) calling Hijiri88 an incompetent POV-pusher. He claimed that consensus supported his reverts, then turned around and said "old arguments" don't apply. He requested page protection only five minutes after reverting Hijiri88 again, claiming that it was so an RfC could be held, but he has never once brought up starting an RfC over the dispute, and never mentioned the page protection until it was in effect. He complained that the lede was too short and he was keeping Hijiri88 from making it shorter, but wasn't willing to expand it himself, and after I expanded it myself, John Carter moved on to demanding sources. When they were presented to him, he ignored them. Whenever one of his arguments falls apart, he pretends it never happened and finds something else to argue about. All of this is unacceptable.

Because of such WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I strongly support an indefinite IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri88, and an indefinite TBAN on John Carter from Kenji Miyazawa, Nichiren Buddhism, and the Kokuchūkai. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the above editor's comments are, ultimatley, gross misrepresentation of fact by one of the few editors who consistently takes Hijiri's side. What he describes as "edit warring" on my part is to remove allegations which violate basic policies and guidelines. What he calls my "assumptions of bad faith" are in fact attempts to keep the content consistent with policies and guidelines, which Hijiri has little use for, apparently. The fact that he is apparently willing to defend violations of policies and guidelines if his friend is the person doing them is something that should very definitely be taken into account. He is, or could easily be seen as acting to perhaps misrepresent things to save his friend, which is really no more acceptable. The arrogant presumptuousness of the statement that implies I would need to start an RfC immediately itself indicates that the above editor is perhaps rather obviously acting in bad faith to defend his friend. He also frankly completely ignores the outcome of the previous RfC, which is yet further evidence of his own misconduct. I am sorry that he seems apparently incapable of realizing that edit warring in the defense of policy and guidelines is perhaps more permissible than Hijiri's obviously personally motivated edit warring. I strongly suggest that the above editor make some more visible effort to adequately represent the facts of the situation, rather than continue to engage in what seems to me a rather knee-jerk attempt to defend his friend. Also, FWIW, I just this morning finished the listing of "History of Asia" from the online Guide to Reference and have added all the encyclopedic ones to the appropriate pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias. Now that we have a clear indicator of the most currently well-regarded reference works in English anyway regarding that subject area, which was not available before this morning, finding relevant reference sources to compare to should be easier. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: "In the defense of policy and guidelines"? You're edit warring was violating WP:NPOV by allowing readers to conclude that Kenji was a nationalist. "We are not responsible for what editors may or may not conclude"? You have serious WP:CIR issues if you think it's ok to mislead readers with POV and that any policy or guideline backs you up. And no, I didn't expect you to immediately start the RfC, but you don't request page protection "to permit another RfC" if you have no intention of starting an RfC. I'll start an started the RfC myself. As for me taking Hijiri88's "side", that's laughable. Sometimes he's in the right and sometimes he's in the wrong, and my history with him shows that I've acted accordingly rather than "consistently". On the other hand, I could accuse the same of you and Catflap08. His past actions are what got you interested in this article too, isn't it? that's why it's on my watchlist at least. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I just went through the sources you added to the bibliography of encyclopedias list, and only one was at all relevant to this dispute. Within that one source, only one sentence was relevant to this dispute. That one sentence calls the Kokuchūkai a "Nichiren study group" (without even saying its name) and doesn't at all mention nationalism. Your unrelated work did not in any way contribute to the Kenji Miyazawa article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have had some interaction with Hijiri88, none of it good and his behaviour is a problem. I close RFC's and went to close one on Talk:Kenji_Miyazawa. I was uninvolved, and had never even seen the article before. The language questioning the closing was caustic. The little section is filled with insinuations and calling the closind dubious. Suggesting that I was somehow undermining something. Suggesting motives contrary to AGF. While I got him to remove some of it, and then unwatched the page. He has kept on it, At WP:AN he posted again on the dubious closing diff. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carter showed up suddenly on an article talk page he had shown no interest in before. He has not indicated that he has actually read the previous discussions, and much of what he writes indicates that he has no idea what that discussion was about. He started out saying that I was convinced that the subject was not a nationalist and that I was trying to remove this claim from the article, and claimed this was "OR". I pointed out to him how all our sources say he wasn't a nationalist, and suddenly he U-turns and insists that the article never claimed he was a nationalist. Then when I point out that it did, he suddenly shifts again. I have asked him numerous times if he has actually read the previous discussion, or if he has checked any of the sources; he has consistently dodged these questions. I would say he's only there to troll me, if I hadn't already seen a tremendous amount of evidence that he is engaged in off-wiki contact with a user with whom I have an IBAN.

I don't have the exact diff, but I think John Carter requested an IBAN with me previously (@Sturmgewehr88: did you check this?). I'm beginning to agree with him. I wonder if his opinion has changed since the previous IBAN discussion closed, though?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for once again making what others might not unreasonably consider paranoic tendencies on your part so obvious. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Someone posted an unnecessary request for closure on an already-finished RFC, and asked for an "experienced" user to close it. You are, to put it mildly, not an experienced editor, but showed up nonetheless and posted an extremely dubious closing statement. I said I wouldn't bring it up on ANI because you changed the close. Why are you showing up on ANI and asking for ... what? Me to be blocked? Also, the AN post was a general comment, on an ongoing discussion that was started by someone who had no idea about the Kenji problem. The enormously large close request question is an issue on AN, and I brought my two cents that a lot of them are unnecessary and are posted for dubious reasons, and attract non-admins to make equally dubious closures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have made over 5k edits since 2008, I have authored 3 articles. I have been involved in two very contentious articles. I am an experienced editor. This is just another example of the caustic discussion style. Again you use dubious, a word that implies underhanded action. The closure basically quoted policy diff are you saying policy is dubious? I didnt just show up at AN/I for you, I post on this page often. When the section opened up on your behaviour I posted on it. AlbinoFerret

@Hijiri88: It took me a bit of hunting but I found the dif. John Carter wants an IBAN, so he should get what he wants. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it might reasonably be seen by some that it would take a true idiot to not have seen that one of the options I suggested at the top of this thread was an i-ban, and made an effort to go through the history to find it, but I thank you for having made the rather obviously pointless effort, and for demonstrating your own abilities as such. At this point, I am very seriously reconsidering that earlier matter, in favor of potentially taking this to Arbitration. If you are going to presume to tell people what they want, please at least (1) make the effort of actually reading the comment at the top of the thread to which you have posted, where you could see a similar statement, had you bothered to look of course, and (2) refrain from making rather presumptuous judgments about what people do and do not want, as opposed to what they have suggested in the past and what they now think appropriate. It reflects very, very badly on you, in a number of ways, to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: And thank you very much for the extremely dickish and unnecessary comment! I did in fact see that you proposed an IBAN in your opening comment, hence you want (present tense). If you actually wanted (past tense) an IBAN, and prefer ArbCom, then you should at least strike or rephrase that comment. I looked for this dif because Hijiri wanted to see a previous (i.e. before this ANI post) IBAN request by you. It reflects very, very badly on your character to call someone a "true idiot". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A review of your own comments on the article talk page make it extremely clear you are in no position to criticize others here. Your own judgment is open to at least as much question. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this topic by John Carter who noted that I "have had previous involvement with the editor Hijiri88" and "would welcome any input might see fit to offer." My previous involvement was in trying to put a stop to Hijiri 88's overzealous removals of supposedly non-reliable sources relating to haiku and associated topics during Hijiri 88's previous incarnation. At the time Hijiri 88 had created a fair amount of damage due to slash and burn techniques but was amenable to reason. Looking over Hijiri 88's current portfolio of edits, I don't find that much to censure. But I do find that Hijiri 88 while making useful contributions can be something of a loose cannon, and tends to be drawn toward controversial topics, and therefore hope other editors will continue to follow his edits. With regard to the current Miyazawa Kenji controversy, it seems to me that the edit war over religion and nationalism has skewed the article towards these topics. If he was "a Japanese poet and author of children's literature ... known as an agricultural science teacher, a vegetarian, and social activist" it is unclear why so much of the article should be devoted to religion and nationalism. The lede goes on too long; the material in the second half of it should be moved to later sections. If there is a point to be made about the connection of Kokuchūkai and nationalism, shouldn't that point be made on the Kokuchūkai page? Having looked at only some parts of the current controversy I would still hope a plea for civility on everyone's part might prove more effective than banning possibly-useful interactions.--Icuc2 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The transparent paranoia of the above comment is definitely worth noting. First, I believe you know why I contacted Cuchulainn, although, I admit, I had trouble finding his active user talk page. And I find his continuing to indulge in "what about" fantasies as some sort of evudence amusing, and extremely indicative of perhaps a pronounced lack of basic logical capacity, which can and reasonably would in the eyes of many raise very serious issues of basic competence. It may surprise Hijiri to realize this, but he can contact anyone he wishes to as well. I did not review every single edit he ever made, either under his own name(s) or as an IP, although he, apparently, does not seem to necessarily believe that. There have been a remarkable number of people who have had extremely dubious contacts with Hijiri, under all his names, and it would be reasonable to receive evidence from them. I also note that, for all his posturing about why I should have done what he would want done, he has apparently not bothered to contact any of those individuals himself. It is not the obligation of anyone to have to provide the evidence for all sides in a dispute, although apparently that concept is one that Hijiri cannot or will not understand. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't "contact anyone I wish", because that would violate WP:CANVAS, both in terms of the actual guideline, and in terms of what you are likely to accuse me of if I even dare to try. Because when I do it it's canvassing; when you do it's perfectly acceptable behaviour and you can continue to get away with it indefinitely apparently without even a warning from an admin, much less a block to prevent you from continuing it. (User:Stalwart111 called you out on it, but he's not an admin and couldn't block you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have been requested by John Carter to comment on this issue, and mention an email he sent me a little while ago. The email was from a user whose details were obscured, but who had got into conflict with Hijiri88, and was detailing examples of Hijiri88's past behaviour. I left a comment on this on my talkpage during a discussion with both John and Hijiri88:

"John provided information he was given on previous incidents involving yourself, and asked for my feedback. It is difficult sometimes when a body of evidence is provided which paints someone in a bad light to know what to make of it, so getting other opinions is always recommended. In my response I said I felt you were a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others, but that I wasn't seeing sufficient evidence to open an investigation against you. My strong recommendation to you is that you focus on building the encyclopedia, and don't respond so aggressively to others. I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences. And I'd like to see you speak with more patience to and about other users - this will help reduce conflict, and make your own time here more pleasant and productive."

Friction has continued with messages on my talkpage, the Kenji Miyazawa talkpage, and on AN, either by Hijiri88 or about Hijiri88. Reviewing these, my observation is still the same, that Hijiri88's behaviour is brittle and provokes negative responses (which then makes things difficult for himself, others, and the project). He asserts his own believes and position too strongly, even when he may be right; but on the whole he's here to build the encyclopedia, he talks about contentious edits, and he responds to discussions. As experienced users we all know how exasperating editing Misplaced Pages can be at times, especially when there is a disagreement over article content, and so we are somewhat tolerant of occasional irritated behaviour, hostile language, threats of blocking, and repeated requests for assistance. But there comes a point when the community itself becomes exasperated. We have other things to do than continually monitor fractious users, and arbitrate minor editing disputes. And we don't wish the encyclopedia to become unstable as users have edit wars while arguing over what should be in an article.

There is nothing serious enough in Hijiri88's behaviour for admin intervention at the moment, but Hijiri88 needs to adopt a more diplomatic approach to dealing with editors who disagree with him because he is accumulating enemies, and he is wearing very thin the tolerance of the community. At the same time, John Carter should think carefully about how useful it is to keep stirring the pot over minor issues. If problems continue at Kenji Miyazawa it will be locked again. At that point a moderated discussion could take place to resolve the issue. If that fails to resolve the matter, then an article ban on all editors involved in the dispute could be considered. We can't keep returning to the same issue over and over again. Personally I am fed up with the dispute surrounding Hijiri88, and the amount of time it takes out of my allocation for Misplaced Pages, so this is the last time I will respond. SilkTork 09:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there may be sufficient evidence that there has been an ongoing failure, for apparently some time, for Hijiri to demonstrate an ability to abide by policies and guidelines. I agree we cannot, as Hijiri has obviously done, continue to make an argument against content after the content has been changed and the argument is no longer valid. There are, I regret to say, serious issues regarding both the prior abuse he suffered, and the pattern of abuse he has recently engaged in. There are also serious questions regarding his basic competence, so far as I can see, and I believe that is an additional cause for concern.

I said on the article talk page I would bring the matter to ANI should his problematic edits continue, and I have done so. I have not as of this time ruled out the possibility of arbitration regarding his pattern of behavior. I have hesitated to do so, because there is a serious possibility that doing so would cause Hijiri to react in his now trademark abusive way toward others, particularly an individual who has rather clearly tried to avoid him and advise others to do so in the past. The option of arbitration remains open and, honestly, is one I have not fully considered to date. I won't have a lot of free time till Thursday, but I believe I may decide on raising the issue of the recent pattern of his disruptive, attacking, problematic behavior to ArbCom later this week. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry John, but you did yourself a great disservice (as I suggested you were doing at the time) when you acted like a dick last week (right here) with regard to the same issues, the same editor and the same content conflict. I'm not saying they are right and you are wrong, I'm saying that if you had approached this whole issue with a bit of maturity and common-sense then this thread would probably be moving in a different direction. I honestly don't know if this conflict is the result of one person's problematic editing or the other person's problematic attitude. I accept you've tried to present evidence for the former but you also went out of your way to demonstrate the latter last week. Making beds, laying in them, etc. St★lwart 06:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've gotta say, continuing the dickish behaviour by canvassing Hijiri's adversaries from long-ago disagreements (, , , and ) strongly suggests your just here to pick fights and not to actually resolve anything. What purpose does that serve but to add drama? St★lwart 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am myself more than willing to have my conduct reviewed by the arbitrators, along with the behavior of all the others involved, and am, like I said, very strongly considering having all the information I have received, which included the information I linked to above, reviewed by the arbitrators. As I said on the article talk page, I very seriously doubt that I am the one who will come out the worst through such review by the arbitrators, if I do decide it has come to that. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's a lovely speech to make, but one of the first steps in the requests for arbitration process is to substantiate, "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Arbs might see it differently, but I can't see much evidence of that. What there is evidence for is you trying to escalate mole-hills into mountains, you being deliberately antagonistic and you canvassing other editors to try and swing this thread against someone by resurrecting years-old conflict. That's the polar opposite of dispute resolution. Sure, you might come out "better" but you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory thus far and Arbs are likely to take a dim view of that. St★lwart 23:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to thank John Carter for inviting me and others to look into this dispute, which is certainly one of the more amazing I have come across in my Misplaced Pages days. I've generally been a defender of Misplaced Pages against academic colleagues who contend that it is ineffective compared to more traditional forms of scholarship, but it seems to me that the semi-anonymous internet context encourages the escalation of pissing matches in ways that would never happen in in a real world context, and this type of escalating mud-wrestling match over relatively minor disagreements seems to support the anti-Wikipedians. The tendency on Misplaced Pages itself is to blame the people involved, but this only exacerbates the situation.

Having spent a few hours reviewing the somewhat fascinating Miyazawa Kenji dispute, I really have to wonder why it is so difficult for the editors involved to find common ground. Surely there are ways to work through a disagreement about the nature and importance of Miyazawa's affiliation with a nationalistic Buddhist sect without devolving to this level of personal attacks and attempts to find recourse in Misplaced Pages rules and policies. All that is required here is a little effort to maintain decorum. Everyone in this dispute is volunteering their time without self-interested motives, as far as I can see, and while egos may be involved, I don't see why a little respect for others' contributions seems so hard for people to muster. This is just Misplaced Pages, people, it's not Northern Ireland or Palestine. No one's relatives have been killed. There's no irreparable damage. Why not find some common ground and move on?

Often I find in these deletion matches that the problems can be resolved by some additions and reorganization. In this case, it seems to me that John Carter's effort to draw attention to the nationalism of Kokuchūkai is valid but misplaced. This argument needs to be made on the Kokuchūkai page and at most alluded to on Miyazawa's page, unless there are specific literary repercussions that are being discussed on Miyazawa's page. Hijiri 88 therefore has a valid point in questioning the overweighting of this material on the Miyazawa page, but as usual, needs to look for more tactful ways of resolving the problem. Surely Hijiri 88 would not argue that the nationalistic tendencies of Kokuchūkai are of no relevance; the question therefore is how to frame this material appropriately.

This leads me to my main criticism of the Miyazawa Kenji page, which is that it does not adequately deal with Miyazawa's literary work. There should be a section about his poetry and a section about his fiction, and both sections should explain about the major works, their importance, and characteristics. The absence of such discussions makes the whole debate over the importance of Kokuchūkai rather pointless at the moment.

These days I find so few people doing actual editing that I feel sad to see capable editors wasting time that could be productive on what are essentially personnel disputes. This wouldn't be so pathetic perhaps if people were actually getting paid. But life is too short. Why not try to enjoy the fact that you are not working in isolation? That's the nature of Misplaced Pages. If you want to make your own web page somewhere, go for it. If you want to make Misplaced Pages pages, learn to get along with other people, even when they are difficult. Just my two cents worth. Now I really need to get some work done.--Icuc2 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Icuc2: Thank you for your considered and well-researched comment. You and Nishidani are the two exceptions to the rule that John Carter otherwise followed diligently, to exclusively canvass users who were unlikely to weigh in in my favour. (Note I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the others: they have not weighed in against me either. I'm just saying that his choices of who to contact were dubious at best.) If he wanted to get a fair assessment of my behaviour across a variety of discussions, he should have contacted users like Cuchullain, Yunshui, Lukeno94, Drmies, Boneyard90, Stalwart111... who all, like Nishidani, have a history of interacting with me both positively and negatively on a wide range of discussions and don't always (in the case of Cuchullain and Nishidani, "rarely" would be appropriate) agree with me 100%. He didn't do this; he contacted a select group of users who had all disagreed with me once or twice years ago (the majority of others I'm sure he wanted to invite have been blocked, IBANned or SBANned because of their own abusive behaviour). His (accidentally or deliberately) avoiding posting on Cuchullain's main talk page but going to an old altaccount that hasn't been used in years is evidence enough of this behaviour.

You are correct in your analysis of the Kenji dispute, although I would also ask you to also take a look at the Kokuchūkai article where discussion of the issue was already added some weeks ago. If this is sufficient for that page, would you then not be saying that the issue should be "at most alluded to on Miyazawa's page"?

As for "so few people doing actual editing capable editors wasting time that could be productive on what are essentially personnel disputes": you and I both like classical Japanese poetry, so would you mind looking over my recent creations or complete overhauls of these articles here, here, here, here, here, here and here? I am considering doing the same for the woeful Kenji article (the only well-sourced section is, ironically, the one on his religious views that I wrote back in early March). But I had to stop as a result of the present dispute with John Carter (and the previous dispute, also with John Carter), and now he is asking that I be TBANned from the Kenji article so I am not allowed make said improvements.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a fair compromise would be for John Carter to withdraw his request to censure Hijiri 88 in exchange for Hijiri 88 agreeing to refrain from destructive edits, particularly destructive edits of the work of other editors involved in this discussion. At this point, only a psychiatric lawyer getting paid by the hour would have the patience to wade through all these reams of recrimination and counter-recrimination. How you all find time for this is beyond me. I can say from looking over this discussion that no one here appears to be blameless. So why not take the opportunity to reflect on how to make a discussion like the one over Miyazawa and nationalist Buddhism work. Somehow academics manage to get these discussions to work, most of the time anyway, and I can tell you that's not the result of any inherent superiority of academics. It doesn't look to me like any of you are inherently unreasonable. It's clear to me that everyone involved in this discussion is highly intelligent. I don't think the problem is inherent in Misplaced Pages itself. It's probably too simple to say it's is just a conflict of egos. I think it's more a problem of the absence of authority and organizational structure and the different expectations editors create to fill that vacuum. Most of us don't want to see Misplaced Pages become overloaded with rules and organizational structure, but in the absence of that, editors have to figure out how to get along on a case by case basis. I usually find that an interesting challenge, but I tend to work on unpopular pages so I probably get spared a lot of friction that others encounter more regularly.

Anyway, the gist of this is, it seems to me time to move on and get the focus back to the pages in question. There doesn't seem to me to be wide support for anyone being banned. If everyone would simply state what they need from others involved in this discussion in order to continue their work, and consent to allow others to do so without being subject to constant recrimination, life as we know it could go on and we could worry about larger problems like global warming and World War III.--Icuc2 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Icuc2: I agree completely with your proposed compromise. John Carter, do you also agree? Can we close this discussion now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Still waiting for your word on Icuc2's proposed compromise. Given that Sturmgewehr88's suggestion of TBAN/one-way IBAN for you has thusfar received somewhat more support than any of your proposed sanctions against me, I think it would be in your interest to accept. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Hijiri88's editing at the Kenji Miyazawa article is becoming increasingly vexatious.

He has just deleted my comment (in an apparent edit conflict) and is misrepresenting consensus, in violation of WP:TALK as well as making reference to "a wikistalker", which might be a violation of his IBAN, assuming that he is referring to Catflap08.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... everyone involved agrees the article needs to be radically expanded to focus more on his children's literature and poetry. It is also almost completely unsourced. I was specifically told on this thread to work on improving the article and not on user problems, and now you are criticizing me for doing just that?

As for deleting your comment -- it was a technical problem. I had an edit conflict with you, and when I tried to complete my edit, for whatever reason your edit wasn't preserved, or why I wasn't even told you had tried to make a post. The "edit conflict" screen looked like what happens when you click the "back" button onto the edit page and then try to save the page and have a conflict with yourself. It might have been that I clicked away and didn't notice the edit conflict for several minutes. I don't know. Anyway, you reverted my comment as well. I am willing to assume you had the same problem I did and it was a good-faith mistake. I already apologized to you. What else is the problem?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is not a "misrepresentation of consensus". The consensus in the most recent RFC is, if anything "don't mention nationalism in the lead"; I tried to alter the RFC question to address the issue of whether Kokuchukai should be named in the lead (which has never been established by consensus one way or the other); you overruled me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: the wikistalker he is refering to is John Carter. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I'm going to pretend I was waiting for someone else to point it out so I wouldn't violate my own IBAN by directly replying, rather than just missing Ubikwit's very obvious assumption of bad faith by accident. Sturmgewehr88 is right: the wikistalker I was referring to is John Carter, and no one can in good faith think that wikistalking is not what he has been doing to me over the last week or so. He followed me to the Kenji article and immediately reverted me as his first edit ever to that article (he had posted a single, nonsense comment in the previous RFC that indicated he hadn't read what the RFC was about). He then reverted me about a half-dozen more times; then when Ubikwit made the exact same edit he stopped reverting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Miraclexix won't leave me alone

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

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

I'm scared of getting blocked by an admin for harassment if I do that. I'm risking a block by bringing it up again here. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't be scared, just remove his gibberish from your talk page and move on. Pursuing a vendetta here when your own hands aren't clean will result in a WP:BOOMERANG hitting you right in the WikiFace if you keep pushing. You and the Miraclex guy are two trolls feeding one another, that much is obvious, so you'd be wise to drop the stick already and steer clear of troll-swatting central to which you're being drawn like a moth to a flame. But obviously you won't, you'll just keep pushing. *sigh* At least now you can't say nobody warned you. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TROLL Weegeerunner (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, just no! I refuse to believe anyone would take seriously a guy that whines on their talk page about their 'extremely administrable encroachments', (what the heck) and other such barely coherent nonsense, I simply refuse. If you weren't a troll yourself, you would've moved on long ago, shaking your head. Instead I'm shaking my head at your what, THIRD ani thread about the same troll that's playing you like a fiddle? Yeah, no. Now you might ask how do I know it's your third attempt at a suicide by admin, well here's how - I looked at your list of recent contributions and posting here about Mr. Miracle's all you've been doing lately, I see no other edits! This is not healthy, I'll tell you that much. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about extremely administrable encroachments. The reason that I haven done anything else is because I was hospitilized, and I can't go back to my normal editing if it is as problematic as he says it is. That's why I wan't closure. I don't feel right editing like that if it's really disrupting the encyclopedia. Look at what I have done, do you really think someone who reverted so much vandalism in the past would go troll? Weegeerunner (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner, you've not provided diffs or other evidence, and I don't see evidence of substantial problems on your talk page or on his. Unless you provide evidence, nothing can be done. Per WP:WIAPA, unsubstantiated accusations are considered personal attacks; if you make more assertions without evidence, it may be you who gets blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here, here and here. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

All of those are reasonable statements. Looking around at his talk page, meanwhile, I found , where the time-lapse between creation and tagging gives me the impression that you were stalking him. Unless you can provide solid evidence of serious problematic editing by Miraclexix, this thread will be closed either with no action or with a block of you. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a few questions. First off, with the Raymond Coxon thing, how was me putting maintenance tags on the article incivility? Can you explain the proper way to use them? And I still don't understand how warning someone for editing someone else's comments is harassment. (I shouldn't have just used warning templates, but It's still not wikihounding). Also, he constantly tried to paint me as a disruptive editor as seen here and here. If my editing is really that problematic, and I am nothing but a disruptive editor, that insults people, harasses people with tags, drives people away, and deletes articles and reverts content for no reason other than to be annoying, (or in other words, someone who is WP:NOTTHERE how come I was never blocked for that before? And if what I did is wikihounding, how is going to someone's talk page, finding an old discussion that died a natural death, and used it to paint me as a disruptive editor. If I am really such a horrible editor. I ask you to place an indefinite block on my account. Weegeerunner (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never used Twinkle, so I don't know: maybe you can't customise the edit summaries. Still, that's one small thing, and the force of his message still stands: it looks like he says that you're templating the regulars unnecessarily. There's nothing wrong with going to your talk page and responding to earlier discussions; the problem is when you're so closely following your opponent that you start trying to have his creations deleted within a minute of their creation. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I never did that. I tagged one article he created for deletion because I was patrolling the recent changes and I was unaware that A7 doesn't apply to software. And yes, it is true that I shouldn't have templates the regulars, and I have owned up to that mistake. But I still fail to see how that validates his claims of me being a disruptive editor who harasses people and is WP:NOTTHERE. And if I should stay off his talk page and leave him alone. Why can't I have the same right? He can accuse me of harassment, stalking, and vandalism for simply templating the regulars? And if using warning templates is considered blackmail, and I have been driving new users away with them, I assume I'm not allowed to use them on new users ether. So what's the point in having warning templates if using them is blackmail and bullying. And we shouldn't ignore WP:DTTR#AGF, and Why are we assuming the assumption of bad faith? How is using maintenance tags repelling good faith contributors and violating WP:AGF? Can you please explain the correct use of maintinance tags? I assumed you looked over an article, and if you felt it needed work, tagged it for maintenance. If that is driving people away, what is the correct procedure? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, you need to explain what you're doing: templating the regulars and adding unexplained tags is disruptive, as is your general battleground mentality. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained tags? I explained the tags very well. You can't change the edit summary in twinkle. I don't know what else to say. I did all that I could to explain why I put the templates there. And I did not know he was a regular. We can't just ignore WP:DTTR#AGF. And I do not have a general battleground mentality. Almost all my edits are recent changes partol. I follow the 4 step pattern to the best of my capability, and sometimes a discussion/dispute happens. Many times I have seen users who take every single thing said to them or edit reverted as a personal attack. Also, if I am really such a disruptive editor, Why wasn't I told about this before? I have conversed and even had disagreements with many admins. Why is it that only now am I being told that I am not helping the encyclopedia? It's hard to explain adding tags in twinkle. And still, where is the evidence of the big accusations of vandalism, stalking, and harassment? And again, I know I shouldn't have templated a regular, I owned up to that mistake. But how is templating the regulars blackmail? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why weren't you told? Let me be clear: your battleground mentality is driving off others, and it's easier to ignore you than to bother with enforcing policy against you. Just stop taking everything as a challenge, stop taking good advice as a reason to go to ANI, and stop harassing people. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, I do not have a battleground mentality. It just looks that way because I was in a dispute. And aren't admins supposed to help other editors? I do not take everything as a challenge. We can't just ignore WP:AGF Bear poking is not good advice. And I never harassed anyone. You keep saying I harass people, but you never show any evidence. If you are going to assume that I am WP:NOTTHERE aren't you supposed to have clear evidence? Weegeerunner (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I came here because of a WP:AN thread asking that this be resolved before you dug yourself into a bigger hole. My comments about your actions arise solely from this thread: you hauled someone here, without evidence, claiming malfeasance, and when required to provide evidence, you provided evidence that the other guy had been doing this right thing. When I fail to accept your arguments, you continue fighting, you don't or won't understand what I'm saying, and you continue repeating the same thing over and over again, even poking me to ensure that I can't ignore you like everyone else can. Let me make myself understood: if you don't stop immediately, your original request for sanctions will be granted in a Croesan fashion, i.e. WP:BOOMERANG. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Do it. I am clearly in the wrong here, I accept the fact that I am a harassing, blocking, vandalizing, encyclopedia ruining bastard. I want an indeffinite block on my account and my talk page access removed. (at least) Weegeerunner (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved COI

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

Thank you for the update. I am a little confused why you are so focused on this issue. There is a growing trend toward using wearable devices for autism, including the use of google glass. I am aware of a group of researchers in Germany and also another group at Stanford who are also using the same technology. I have not had time to make those additions at the present time. I do not understand why you think this is advertising when the information is sourced from leading charities and technology blogs? I am sorry if you are not happy with these edits, and I have only started using wikipedia recently, but you should really give autistic people a chance. It is starting to become an unpleasant experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some problems with your addition to the article: (1) Your 1st reference cannot be resolved by (my) Chrome, some certificate (secure http) issue. (2) There is already a chronological healthcare section, where your info would fit at the end. (3) So far all you did as Senpion was trying to add the info as new section several times, something folks here are wary of, known as "Single Purpose Account", and a pattern often observed with SPAm. (4) Your info is about some development planned for the start of this year, maybe it happened meanwhile, but from your 2nd reference it was a future product. That's generally not allowed here and known as "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball". (5) The long quote about happy children looking into the world is unencyclopedic, maybe hide it in a quote= string parameter of {{cite web}}, or better drop it, it really sounds odd. If you suggest your addition on the talk page ideally with a fresher additional 3rd party reference in the direction of your 2nd techcrunch reference, other contributors hopefully won't reject a sourced neutral addition of a short interesting fact. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, can you provide specific evidence (diffs) that support your accusations? Liz 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I can, but I'm going to run afoul of policy in giving public evidence. As you are an ArbCom clerk and used to dealing with certain types of information, I'll email you and explain my evidence. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Which I have now done. MSJapan (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. It is true that as a clerk we sometimes deal with sensitive information but I can not take any action on any information you send me as I'm not an administrator. There are other clerks who are admins or a regular admin can probably handle it. I haven't seen the email but I'll just delete it. Liz 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, then I'll go figure out who to get in contact with. MSJapan (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Beanyone. I will try to make the changes you suggest (it might take a couple of days if that is ok with you?) I appreciate your guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please hold off for the time being. The issue not mentioned above is that the nature of your edits indicate that you may have a level of involvement with the subject that does not make you a neutral third party. Sources are irrelevant if you are not editing neutrally and do not disclose that. MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

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

I think this complaint might be closed if User:Senpion will refrain from edits such as this one at Google Glass and this one at Asperger Syndrome. It would be OK if he proposed these changes on the respective talk pages and left the actual edits for others to make. In any case, (a) Google is discontinuing Google Glass, (b) these reports are describing possible future products that are still only in a testing phase. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ed, that is helpful for me, I did not know about the Misplaced Pages crystal ball notion until recently. Do I have to request talk changes for any changes because I am a new user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I want to apologize to both MSJapan and Senpion that the original thread at COIN was archived without action. We are just shorted handed there - nice job keeping the issue in the community, MSJapan, instead of going vigilante. I've reviewed edits by Senpion and I see MSJapan's point. I am taking this up with Senpion at their user talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Having seen Jytdog's engagement with Senpion on the talk page, he has gotten to the issue as I saw it, so I think we can let it run its course there. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat yet again

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

Only a day after the Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article came off lockdown, this editor has resumed section-blanking:

In addition to continuing this disruptive behavior which prompted the other incident report submitted earlier this month, I shall add another charge: brazen lying in edit-summaries. For example, in this edit he claims "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given" (even as the very edit he was making was eliminating one such source, and his immediately prior edit eliminated more).

And all after claiming he was walking away from the subject (in another associated ANI submitted earlier this month by @Softlavender:):

"...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..."

(Lack of action stemming from these other ANIs has apparently emboldened him to renege).

Could someone please implement Esquivalience's topic ban proposal from the first ANI? Pax 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not going to bother with a response as crystal clear consensus on the talk page shows that section should be removed (98% supporting removal, with only PAX and one other guy whom PAX canvassed disagreeing), but this has gone on for long enough. It is clear that this is a clear case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he owns that article and anyone who touches it should be banned and no one has any rights to edit that article, he even reverts any edits which have nothing to do with section blanking(I removed links to articles from a quote and was reverted without any explanation). His only explanation of why Consensus established at 'SIX' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ) occasions on RS/N is not good enough is directed at me and is as follows

"You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal." and more recently his reply to said consensus has been

"I know partisan censorship-hunts when I see them, and discount them accordingly. Meanwhile, you're on record above thinking that a Russian front-group is a worthy source of information, so I'm seeing little reason to consider your argumentation credible."

Furthermore he launched a false accusation of sock puppetry against some of editors who removed the section that backfired ,and it was noted that statements by PAX were "blatantly inaccurate". PAX then went into the archives and edited the archived SPI removing his inaccurate statement and was reverted immediately.

Even more damning is the fact that the user Раціональне анархіст has a history of being topic banned. As you can see from this Topic ban that more than ten users reached the consensus that Раціональне анархіст is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather he is here only to create disruption. He was recently topic banned for 30 days, with a high consensus saying that he should not nominate articles for AFd, but even then he has been continuing to do so again. I can ping those ten here and they will agree that this user should now be perm banned, but as it may appear to be a canvass I will refrain from doing that.

Add to this the fact that user Раціональне анархіст is highly, highly uncivil in his comments and generally derides others and accuses them of, sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and general vandalism even when there is no such thing going on as a recent SPI proved. He has made my experience of editing wikipedia a highly unpleasant one, he replies to me every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language.

Therefore, seeing this kind of behaviour where I am being attacked for following consensus I would like to recommend a Boomerang for PAX with topic ban on rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean the SPI that you requested starting? (My final reply in that) Regards the composition of 2% and 98%, I shall leave it to others to determine whether or not your misrepresentational counting is a matter of WP:BADFAITH or a troublesome inability to handle basic arithmetic. Pax 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст(Pax) should first discuss this thing at the talk page, he has not yet discussed the recent developments, before dragging this to ANI. I don't see what disrupive behaviour Раціональне анархіст refers when he too is engaging in the edit war without bothering to discussing their grievances or differences. Per this I doubt Раціональне_анархіст's ability to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. One can put a level four on his tp for restoring the content back, but that's is not the way to go about doing things. If a user states that they want to walk away and eats their words afterward, it is a silly reason to bring them to ANI.

This is more of a content dispute than diruptive editing, if a t-ban is warranted, it is more so for Раціональне_анархіст from ANI. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have twenty (and counting) posts on the TP this month. Section-blanking to remove massive numbers of RS while lying in the edit summaries in order to support spurious argument on the TP that the castrated article is then applicable for merging (in violation of the spirit of a recent AfD's closer's (@Davey2010:) suggestion to leave the article alone for at least five months) is not a "content dispute"; it is vandalism with an ulterior purpose. The editor has been warned of vandalism on previous occasions, warned specifically about section-blanking on previous occasions, been a subject in at least three ANIs over the last two months, not counting this one, and has been blocked twice during the same span for edit-warring. Pax 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This should be a very clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The only disruptive editor on this article is Pax. His behaviour has been deeply problematic for a long time. Other editors who disagree with him have attempted discussion and had asked for input at other venues, notable WP:RSN. Pax merely dismisses views he does not like, stating that the consensus at RSN doesn't count because editors there are "politicos" (what on earth does that even mean?). There has also been clear consensus at the talk page for removal of the section, which Pax simply ignores. The article itself is a mess, thanks in large part to Pax's kneejerk edit-warring. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs)

Of course I did, because consensus at all pages in which was discussed was to remove the section, as has been explained. This disingenuous attempt to make a consensus-supported edit look like vandalism is typical of Pax's tactics. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Drawing in a number of one-shot !voters with no history in the article, and swayed by discredited albeit voluminous repetitive blather to bury other commenters under mountains of text, does not constitute establishing a solid consensus for deleting the article by alternative means (the clear ulterior objective of the section-blankers). Pax 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean discussions do not count when they go against you. I'm glad we cleared that up. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of justifying their sources in the face of consensus that they are unreliable and/or improperly used in the article there is only edit warring and dismissal. An overwhelming majority on the talkpage have agreed that the paragraph is unsourced and unrelated to the topic. This is ignored. WP:RSN have disqualified the sources used in the paragraph. This is ignored. At no point has the user attempted to justify their sources by anything other than assertion. I have been dragged to a frivolous WP:SPI case, which Pax continued to flog even after it had been thrown out for being without merit and archived . Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article, and was a subject in a prior ANI regarding it.

Comment I do not recall having had anything to do with either of the editors in question, so cannot comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban for either one; but in treating an Islamophobic slur as if it is fact, that article is a disgrace. That article has no more reason to exist than would, for example, Christian babies in Jewish cuisine. Get rid of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2 cents (involved)

(Non-administrator comment) I got involved. I'm not happy with the title, which fails WP:NPOV in my view. I have made an argument that sexual violence in Islamic culture (proposed new title) is worth an article or rather, should have an article in much the same way as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This cannot only cover atrocities by cookoo cults like ISIL and Boko Haram, but also the accepted violence agains women in (for instance) the Pakistani community in Britain. I have cited several sources quoting Muslims explicitly acknowledging the problem and without any exception these were either ignored or deemed not reliable without any explanation of why they are unreliable. I do not think that the goal of my esteemed opponents is reaching some kind of consensus, but rather that their main goal is to obstruct improvements as much as possible by simply opposing anything and everything. With respect to FreeatlastChitchat I have reached the conclusion that WP:IDHT is applicable and I'm beginning to wonder about WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with all of that that Kleuske wrote above, including the fact of NOTHERE and so forth. I agree that the title change would solve every problem the article (which has survived recent AfDs) is experiencing. I also would like to state that the level of disruption and SPA partisanship and intransigency on the article talk page (and in the edit-warring) has long been at the level of unconscionability and unworkability. I would like to see obvious partisans held off of the article for a good length of time while neutral parties cleaned it up, titled it something neutral and verifiable as Kleuske has suggested, and then keep the warriors and SPA partisans out if possible. (PS: I'm not involved in editing the article but I have reported some of the tag-team edit-warriors.) Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

'Sexual violence in Islamic culture'. Yes that sounds neutral enough lol. On a serious note, there is already a merger on the table which has been proposed with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism. If you want to rename the article, why don't you support the merger? After all, what you proposed is all but a merger. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that, since sexual violence against women in Islam is (sadly) not restricted to 'islamism' nor the 21st century. See, apart from the sources I already mentioned this listing of 20 fatwa's. You are, of course welcome to suggest a title you think is better suited, but I kindly request you do it on the appropriate talk page. The above just makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an article Islam and domestic violence which is 'exactly' 100% related to you listing of 20 fatwa's. I don't get it, why are you proposing making new articles about something which already has an article on wikipedia? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kleuske, thank you very much for the input, and I am more receptive to this title proposal than the other you posed on the TP (even though the current titles is in actual usage by sources, and thus my current preferred), but to be honest it should wait until after this ANI is resolved, because no serious work can be accomplished until the disruption ends. Pax 03:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban

Since Раціональне анархіст is refusing to accept the consensus, (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) the following remedy is proposed:

1. User:Раціональне анархіст (Pax) is banned from editing the article Rape jihad for a period of six months.
2. In case of breach of the above ban, the ban is reset and the user may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for a period determined by them.
3. The user is encouraged to contribute positively to the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article and suggest changes.

--Fauzan_{✉ mail} 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post. RSN2: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. Spurious listing by an editor self-identified as a Marxist on his user-page. Discussion result was that the author was notable. RSN3: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A muslim editor gets a few bites complaining about Islamophobia. RSN4: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. RSN5: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A single question with a single response consisting of a red-herring argument. RSN6: An RSN posed by the subject of this ANI. A few participants (one overtly partisan) attempt to impugn author Kern (who it turns out is entirely correct regarding the other subject they were pillorying him for).

These RSN arguments are at best tenuous, do not cover all of the sources involved, and the secton-blankers have been reverted by at least seven different editors. It is clear that they lack consensus to do so at this point, and the article has been locked twice now in a state which preserved the material they sought to delete. Pax 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clear indication that Pax has no intention of collaborating with other editors and encourages WP: BATTLEGROUND behavior. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean I have no interest in collaborating with other editors except @Softlavender:, @Esquivalience:, @Guy Macon:, @DawnDusk:, @220 of Borg:, @Kleuske:, @Helpsome:, @BengaliHindu:, @KrakatoaKatie: and @AlbinoFerret:? (That's a list of editors who've reverted the section-blockers, sided against them on the TP, and/or voted to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat during the last ANI, or assisted in writing the article. I am not counting one IP and the two who both locked the article in a state not preferred by the section-blankers.) Pax 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question do not in any way refer to your behavior, and it is rather insulting to assume that just because I reverted some section blanking done by someone you are having a fight with that somehow translates to me collaborating with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. "Collaborating" was Soldier of the Empire's choice of term, not mine. Pax 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Pax cannot engage constructively in this topic. His comments are typically sneering and dismissive in tone and he regularly demonstrates that he has no intention of engaging with actual arguments, just repeating assertions ad nauseam. None of the editors he claims to be "collaborating" with come close to Pax's dogmatic POV, though some have supported specific claims of his (and rejected others). Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Nothing here rises to the level of a topic ban, this appears to be a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So ignoring consensus, constantly misrepresenting evidence and rejecting out of hand the opinions of independent editors, unrelenting edit warring, constitute a "content dispute". Nonsense. Those are behavioural issues. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I became involved because of the evidence I saw of Pax's behviour (which includes disingenuosly canvassing support by pinging you in a 'list' of his supporters, contrary to Misplaced Pages:Canvassing). Typical of his 'sneaky' tactics, to use one of his favourite words. Nothing to do with content dispute, everything to do with gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the last AN/I section on this. I also watch this page and comment on it. If you do a find on it you will see 18 or so posts, so the so called canvassing isnt really canvassing. If you read the words after the list above, it explains why they are all exceptions to the canvassing rule. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think he was canvassing, I think you are being very naive. Your other edits here are irrelevant to his motivations. I've no idea what you mean by invoking the "words after the list above", They simply demonstrate his disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That comment shows how involved you are and that you have lost objectivity. That post is close to a personal attack and likely violates AGF. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Attack on whom, you or him? I stand by my statements about Pax's disingenuousness. There is a mountain of evidence for his misrepresentations. This board is for discussing misbehaviour, so pointing it out with evidence is not a "personal attack". If it were, we would never be able to assess editor misconduct at all. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's supposed to mean something, I've no idea what it is. It's not a response to anything I've just said. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It means that this little conversation is going nowhere, and I if I dont respond, it does not indicate that I somehow agree with whatever points you may raise in additional comments. WP:SILENCE AlbinoFerret 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Both sides of the equation are problematical here; one side (Freeat lastChitChat and Xerxes..., etc. ) with tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking on more than one article; the other side (Pax) with (possibly) ignoring consensus. I'm not sure a ban on one side, or one side only, is going to help matters or is equitable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to deride you, as I said earlier. However I would like to ask if a consensus is reached on a talk page and numerous debates that a section ought to be blanked then someone blanks the section, how does that equate to "tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This has all been discussed and well-documented on previous ANI threads. It's all a matter of public record; I'm not going to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• SupportFor the simple reason that this is 'The only' article where Pax makes any contributions and has grown to think of it as his own property. He thinks everyone else is wrong even when consensus has been reached. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pax's contributions dont show any real unhealthy focus. link He has made more combined posts to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and its talk page. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite wrong. The combined green numbers in ebola pale in comparison to his activity in Rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at it again and again, and furthermore it is not my opinion that you are obsessed with rape jihad. According to x's tools. 49 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Rape jihad (36.57% of the total edits made to the page) while 28 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (0.31% of the total edits made to the page)

You are being willfully blind and evasive; The Xtools link provided by AlbinoFerret reveals as of this post 49 edits by me to the Rape jihad article and 71 to the two Ebola pages, and 36 versus 63 to the associated talk pages. In other words, I am half as interested in this subject as opposed to the other one by that metric. Even less so if, of the 49 edits, we discount the 16 which are straight reversions of vandalism by you section-blankers. Lastly, since I entirely rewrote the article from the original, and it's relatively new, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the edits to it would be mine. If you ran that tool the moment after I created it and before the earlier version had been linked, it would show that 100% of the edits were mine. Yes, it's shocking that editing is going on in here. Pax 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Paul B. Ignoring WP:V and WP:OR as well as consensus from talkpage and WP:RSN because they don't agree with it is not productive. I had hoped that Pax would start to defend their sources or find ones that actually can be used, but they have spent more time opening WP:ANI and frivolous WP:SPI cases. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A section-blanker wants a vandal-reverser out; nothing surprising there. Regards your falsely-asserted talk page consensus, a new arrival (Kleuske) is doing a wonderful job of demolishing various nonsenses. So, you can't even claim to hold that ground now even with lessened participation from myself and other previous participants who are awaiting administrative assistance in curtailing the disruption. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing sections that consensus says should be removed is not "vandalism". You are being dishonest again. None of your disputed edits constitute "vandal reversing". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic (with the exception of a single source, found unreliable at every turn at WP:RSN), which is what this is all about. Nothing has been demolished. Personally, I hope that people go to the talkpage and check it out for themselves. There is a barrage of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that would benefit from more eyes and voices, and could help with the WP:OWN issues. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDHT on display right there: Kleuske is exactly the "more eyes and voices" you clamored for, and are receiving, and he has addressed your RSN argument at length on the TP (as I did here before he arrived) while you pretend no one has done so. Pax 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So you ignore all the other editors who have commented on the talkpage because you found one other similarly ignores clear consensus from WP:RSN that you do not like? There is a great majority in favor of merging whatever can be salvaged from this article into Slavery_in_21st-century_Islamism, a majority that only grows with each day. As for the comments from Kleuske, they're running afoul of WP:SYNTH, which anyone who looks at the talkpage will see. None of the sources provided (except the Gatestone, which is unreliable) have anything to do with the topic. Even Kleuske wants to move the page, which you object to for reasons of, and I quote "What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING then sure to smother the article, as it has Chitchat's preferred Islam and domestic violence (whose very first sentence reads "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed")." which I personally find very telling. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. In your comment immediately above this one, you claimed "Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic." That's not true, as his dispute with you over the Gatestone source expressly concerns Rotherham. In fact, he's making solid arguments for extending article scope well beyond that. Dissembling like this is why I've amended the proposal to include you in the topic ban. You've sectioned-blanked the article, have the same WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problems, and present false narratives to this noticeboard. Pax 08:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted Proposal

(As originally submitted by Esquivalience in the previous ANI concerning FreeatlastChitchat.) Pax 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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.
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.

• Comment: There are also votes in the previous ANI, anyone closing this proposal should take them into account. Esquivalience 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous participation is here - vote below - Esquivalience 01:03, 29 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. <note: removed extra ping when moving previous discussion here.> 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)

• Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Moment of Truth

I think this has dragged on long enough. It seems clear that PAX will not agree with what I am saying(Lets just say that taking out rotherham is not based on consensus and it is my own, personal, POV, biased action). And I am not going to agree to rotherham being in the article, to be honest I would like to delete the article, but for now rotherham should be deleted in my opinion. Therefore being mature adults, I propose that we let the community decide what should be the content of the article. To this end I propose that

1. Both me and PAX, voluntarily remove ourselves from the Rape jihad article for the period of one month, to commence after the page is unprotected.
2. We both waive our rights to comment/participate on the talk page of the said article and/or mention the said article on any other page in English Misplaced Pages.(except an admins TP).
3. We both agree to voluntarily submit ourselves for speedy checkuser if an IP/anon is found to be editing the article in a way deemed "unconstructive" by more than 5 other editors.
4. We are both allowed to participate in editing the article by placing our suggestions on the talkpage of an admin(preferably the admin who closes this debate).
5. We both volunteer to be subjected by 1 revert in 24 hrs sanction even after this period is over.
6. We make at least 300 major edits to wikipedia articles in general (excluding nominations and tagging) during the 1 month period. So that others can assume good faith that we are not here just to fight, rather to build an encyclopedia.
7. We both voluntarily submit ourselves to an indefinite t-ban(non-appealable) if we are found to be editing the said article during this period of voluntary cool off, or if we do not comply with any of the conditions mentioned above.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You reneged on your last non-binding declaration (quoted in italics at the top of this ANI) to leave it alone, and came back in to lie in edit-summaries. The only "truth" I see above is finally a stipulation on your part that securing the article's deletion is your primary desire, not its improvement. Since your presence in the article at this point is one of bad faith, my proposal (already submitted by myself and others) is that your removal from the subject be made binding in the form of the submitted topic ban. Pax 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here, but the tinypic image of a "diff" labelled a "lie in edit-summaries" presented by Pax does not correspond to the actual diff in the page record . The so-called lie is nowhere to be seen. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have made it absolutely clear that you "don't know what is going on here" and aren't making any attempt to listen or learn. As anyone can easily see by clicking your own link (which exactly corresponds, contrary to your claim above, to the picture -- which I created to preserve a permanent record of this malfeasance in the Incident archives should the article ever be deleted in the future), FreeatlastChitchat has removed a source whose title is "title=ISIS and the Rape Jihad" while including in his edit commentary: "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", which is a patent falsehood (you'll note that Chitchat has not denied it despite the charge occurring multiple times in this ANI). Are you blind? Were you hoping no one would click it, or that you would not be called on it?

At this point, it really doesn't matter as this nonsense from you three is obviously not going to stop, So, could we please get some administrative action in this notice? The section-blankers have richly earned a topic-ban from this subject. (Please see Amendment to the Relisted Proposal below.) Pax 06:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you read the article you will see that it does not mention rape jihad at all. Rather it mentions slavery. Hence my summary. But it is almost impossible to argue with you. You are highly uncivil to anyone who has a different opinion and therefore I try to keep my contact with you to a bare minimum. This reply is for any admin who is looking through and your further comments will not be replied to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So "it does not mention rape jihad at all" except right in its VERY TITLE? Good God, please make this person go away. Pax 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to the Relisted Proposal

For multiple reasons expressed elsewhere in this notice, I propose including Paul B and RatatoskJones (who have also section-blanked the article) in the topic ban restrictions to be applied to FreeatlastChitChat in the Relisted Proposal above. This would also address an unresolved separate ANI over the issue.

Pax 05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you want to topic ban three editors Me, Paul B and Ratatosk Jones? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What kind of fantasy world are you living in Pax? This proposal is utterly frivolous, or rather it is a disgrace. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've removed the poorly-sourced section twice, the last time on April 16th. Since then, my edits to the article mainspace have been solely to insert a citation-needed tag, which Pax removed twice (once directly, once by reverting FreeatlastChitChat's removal of the section one revision too far) without consensus. I'll WP:AGF and assume the second one was a mistake by Pax, but since I've edited and commented on the article, I've gotten nothing but attacks by Pax. I have been falsely accused of vandalism and sockpuppeting, of being "sneaky" and "disingenuous" , and this nugget where asking for comments from uninvolved editors is met by: "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." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Urgent page protection needed

David Coburn (politician) needs urgent page protection, it's being vandalised about every 3-5 minutes by IP addresses, and lots of the edits come under defamatory content/BLP violations. Requested semi-protection a couple of hours ago at WP:RPP, but no response- the influx of vandalism is no doubt caused by this story being released. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just now handled by John. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to open up a space for comment on my admin action on a page where I am involved as an editor, as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I hadn't seen the requests here or at RPP but shortly after editing it I saw and reverted a flurry of obvious vandalism and thought an IAR semi-protection was appropriate. If another admin wants to symbolically unprotect and reapply mine or a different regime of protection, perhaps that will keep us right in case of any challenges. After all, this is a politician standing in an upcoming election who has apparently edited his own article, then been blocked from editing. (See David Coburn MEP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and I should ping User:JohnCD who was the blocking admin.) In case this should turn contentious (though I don't see why it should), I am putting my actions up here for review. And of course any informed commentary at article talk is always welcome. I will certainly take no further admin action in the area as I am now involved in editing the article and in the talk page discussion there. --John (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the pagelinks:

• David Coburn (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:John is asking for a review of his semiprotection of this article, given that he was also acting as a regular editor. It looks quite reasonable to me. Some IP comments were bad enough to be oversighted. It is hard to see that IPs have an absolute need to edit between now and the election, giving the extent of the abuse. On 29 April the Guardian asserted that the blocked Misplaced Pages account was User:David Coburn MEP. The latter was indefinitely blocked on April 6. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No objection on my part: I discovered that he'd protected it only because I went to protect it myself and found that the job was already done. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• From my (uninvolved) perspective, semi-protection here would seem to fall into the category of "any reasonable admin" type stuff. Would a completely uninvolved admin have done the same as a result of a request at WP:RFPP? Probably. The above certainly suggests as much. St★lwart 10:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with semi-protection. Incidentally, Coburn is an MEP (Member of the European Parliament), not a national MP, and so is not directly involved in next week's General Election. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies, for some reason I thought he was standing next week. Maybe I was thinking of Nigel Farage. --John (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Shenanigans, possible sockpuppetry at Robert L. Gordon IV

After a significant gap in editing, Bldfire created this article a few days ago. I noticed it when an entry was added by an IP here. After going through this version I concluded the article was little more than a resume and asked Bldfire what he was thinking. Another IP reverted immediately and Bldfire joined in. I posted my concerns at BLPN and a new editor, making their first edit, responded. They added sources to already sourced material while leaving the unsourced and poorly sourced material alone and for some reason deleted their welcome. Today, I again chopped out all the unsourced, poorly sourced, and outright misleadling content and another new editor showed up, reverted, and called me racist or biased. This "new" editor also has quite the inconsistent user page.

I also have a feeling that some of these editors might be socks of Cali11298 who likes to create socks to interfere with other editors. I recently tangled with Scaravich105nj who was a sock of Cali11298. I'll be asking Flyer22 to comment here as she knows their habits well. Not sure if this is enough for a SPI but something is going on with that article. --NeilN 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Since this person is clearly (from the current article) not notable in their own right - they don't meet WP:RS/WP:N - I have redirected it to the parent organisation. It will be interesting to see what happens now. AFD might be in the future. I also smell paid editing. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: for the record, Soklassik (talk · contribs) and EditingNUPE (talk · contribs) are  Technically indistinguishable from Bldfire (talk · contribs).--Jezebel's Ponyo 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to state that there is definite WP:Sockpuppetry going on there, but this has obviously now been confirmed by WP:CheckUser Ponyo. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I took Bldfire's user page at face value. I shouldn't have as now I see he has a total of 141 edits. --NeilN 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the above, I have fully protected the redirect. Looking at the accounts now to see which ones need blocking. Edit: I see that's already been handled. This can be closed now. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, someone helped but I got the blocks and sockmaster tag taken care of. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Bldfire account should be blocked for at least 24 hours. I know that blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. And I know that Georgewilliamherbert gave Bldfire a warning about WP:Sockpuppeting. But looking higher up on Bldfire's talk page, it is clear that he is no stranger to the WP:Sockpuppeting policy. So right now we have a WP:Disruptive editor (Bldfire) with a clean block log. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Ponyo went ahead and indefinitely blocked the Bldfire account. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And to be completely fair, it might be worth someone uninvolved looking at the original article to see if Mr.Gordon may possibly be notable. I don't think so, but that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What differentiates Mr. Gordon from Rachel Haot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B021:FFAE:E552:FFDD:4C0A:1D0F (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record here - Ponyo notified me on my talk page after he noticed my warning on Bldfire's talk page, and I reviewed and responded on my talk, and I am fully OK with the indef on Bldfire at this time and Ponyo's actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the would-be article on Robert L. Gordon IV, which is now only a redirect to America's Promise. However, there is no mention in the main article of Robert L. Gordon IV. That means either that the redirect should be deleted, or the article should have information added to it. I attempted to do an RFD on the redirect, and that was locked out because User:Black Kite has fully protected the redirect due to sock-puppetry, possibly to salt it against re-creation to Bldfire. However, in the process, Black Kite has accidentally introduced an anomaly that non-admins cannot rectify. Black Kite: Can you either please enter an RFD against the redirect, or provide enough information so that the role of Robert L. Gordon IV can be inserted into America's Promise? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Why must we get rid of the redirect? What harm does it do? If this non-notable person is associated with the organisation, then a redirect to the organisation is the best possible outcome; any handful of readers who search for Gordon's name will get our most relevant article instead of a blank page. It would be nice if the page they landed on mentioned Gordon, but admin tools are not necessary for closing that gap. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When I look for something and am redirected elsewhere, I expect there to be at least one occurrence of the original item. If there isn't one, it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly. To answer User:Bobrayner, the redirect actually is harmful because it tells you nothing but makes the reader think that it is trying to say something. Either the non-notable person should be mentioned in the article in passing, or the redirect should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced medical information and copyvios

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

64.222.173.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): unsourced copyvio, unsourced medical claim, unsourced medical claim, unsourced, replacing sourced text with unsourced, etc. Talk page is already full of warnings. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Notified (which you should have done with {{subst:ANI-notice}}) and blocked for 72 hours to get their attention. Miniapolis 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Talk:RKO Radio Network

. Some legal intimidation anyways. This is very likely related to the hoaxing attempts on the Lester Coleman article which have gone on for years. --NeilN 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's coming close to NLT but, in the interests of safety, and an abundance of caution, I asked WMF Legal if they're actually involved and there's a real issue or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this new account, Talkwiki7708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely the same user as Manuke7708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made similar threats two days ago? —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hah. Yeah. Groan. Ok, sockpuppetry on top of everything else. Ok, are either of these associated with other accounts we know of?... Is there a Checkuser in the house? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pretty obvious. Just more craziness to add to what's already there. Secret twin brothers! Huge government conspiracies! An Emmy-winning journalist turned international spy turned respected Middle Eastern professor who's been dead for years! --NeilN 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Both were created about five minutes apart on the 24th. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question and assistance request for those following this more closely: If you could scan this user creation log section and let us know if any of the names look familiar...

2015-04-24 1244 user creation log

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for obvious attempt at a chilling effect, torpid as it was. I was amused at how the "wikifoundation" was investigating "wikieditors" and Worldcom (!) had been notified of their shenanigans. §FreeRangeFrog 23:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just CU-reblocked that account along with Talkwiki7708 and Cyberwikied (talk · contribs) for socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of SPAs at Talk:Lester Coleman's archives, but all too old for CU data to still be available. A few IPs as some related pages too, but nothing recent (CUs please let me know if I should dig further to find them). DMacks (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:68.35.244.34 appears connected to this as well. --‖ Ebyabe - State of the Union ‖ 23:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikimedia Foundation Legal mailed back and indicated they had no contact from RKO, so it appears entirely spurious. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:67.235.248.142 caught my eye from a few years back. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial"'s Deeds at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎

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

Twice now Dave Dial has presented deceptively manipulated search engine results at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ which by their presentation would be taken to represent the full result of the search, but which careful examination reveals use inapplicable date ranges which in fact yield results very different from the outcome he claims.

The first instance is this edit, where he claims that "Scholar(HRC, HC) and ngram results favor Hillary Rodham Clinton," presented these links with no indication that they represented the oddly limited date range. When I called him on it the first time he deleted my observation claiming that comments go in the discussion thread (which is weird because he himself then started a new argument in the "wrong" section and edit-warred against other editors seeking to move that to the discussion section).

When I called him out on in the discussion section his response was that "the valid dates are 1970-2000. because that is when the article was created(2001)." That's not made at all clear where he initially posts them up. And, had he gone to the actual date of article creation the numbers would have been somewhat worse for his position. If that's just a mistake, fine. But then he does it again.

Here, he claims "these Ngram results are totally false" and instead (in the last paragraph) claims "The actual results should look like this Ngram." Now, here's the Ngram he provides. But this time the dates are from 1986 to 2003. Which is especially weird because right after that the numbers start to go the other way, so if he'd showed the EXACT SAME SEARCH with results up to the most recent date range it looks like THIS.

I call foul. This is deception. The excuse he offers in response, that he intended to stop an (an irrelevant) 2001 date range, and made a typo or whatever doesn't hold water. That he presents a deceptive date range after being called for a previous deceptive date range nails shut that coffin.

And there are other things. In the edit history following that post (from 22:11, 29 April 2015‎ to 22:34, 29 April 2015‎ he revert-wars with both User:Calidum and User:Kenobi5487. Despite relying on falsifications himself, he belittles numerous other editors for disagreeing with him: here he tells User:331dot "your support !vote is ridiculous", and here he claims of User:Anythingyouwant "the editor has no clue". And his most recent response to me is this one where falsely accused me of having been "topic banned from some kind of topics concerning women" which is a disgusting and degrading lie. (Full disclaimer, I was "DeistCosmos" until February, when I had my username renamed to reflect my Twitter handle; I have NEVER been topic-banned from anything, nor proposed to be topic-banned from anything, nor involved in any discussion remotely like that; making an accusation like that is a serious thing which requires some foundation in reality).

Because of all this, I propose:

1. That User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial" be topic-banned from this move discussion, and all his participation therein struck.
2. That User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial" additionally be blocked and prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages under any account until the whole thing is at an end.
3. That, in discouragement of these tactics, the move discussion be summarily closed as moved, to be revisited in one year. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 and #2, Oppose #3 as unwarranted. Any notes that need to be made to closing admins (admins closing the RM) regarding the situation may be made on that page. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 and #2, Oppose #3. As Pandeist says, Dial did falsely accuse me of having no clue (and of systemic bias), and fortunately I was able to put an end to the discussion by civilly proving him wrong. But still, I think summarily closing the move would not be appropriate. The rest sounds okay. Unfortunately, I think Pandeist also needs to be warned about canvassing; the only person he was required to notify here was Dial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if I was mistaken, but my impression was that it is appropriate to give notice to involved parties, even if they are victims of the conduct instead of its perpetrators. Pandeist (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's understandable. Probably the template near the top of this ANI page needs to be clarified. The problem is that it's really easy to ping the defendant plus lots of plaintiffs, which leaves the defendant greatly outnumbered here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I humbly submit that that's the defendants own doing. He's the one in control of how many people he insults/edit wars with. Pandeist (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DD2k notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1a; #1b, 2, & 3 seem like over-the-top grandstanding by the filer to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1, though I oppose #2 as being over-the-top and oppose #3 as too early of a closure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• FFS. Is this a freaking joke? If an admin wants me to further explain myself(more than I have in the current and past move requests), I will. But this 'incident' report is absurdly ridiculous. What about the move request presenter giving results from just 2014-current? As if 'Hillary Clinton' just popped out of nowhere and she never existed as Hillary Rodham Clinton from 1970-2001. You know, when she became a public figure. An absolute joke. I am amazed that editors are voting in this. Dave Dial (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anybody can present whatever date range results they wish; but what they can't do is simply toss it out as "here are the real numbers" while hiding (even after being warned for it once) date range manipulation which distorts the truth to prevent the collapse of their claim). And as to the move requesters citing the change in the past year, that's plainly and honestly presented as the change in the past year. It supports that the case is stronger now than it was then (and will be that much stronger again next year). Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1, Neutral #2 & Oppose #3 as absolutely ridiculous. While the 7 revert edit warring was very over the top, that seems to have calmed down for now. #3 was... ridiculous. EoRdE6 03:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Trout for Everybody - Jesus, what a fucking stupid waste of time. Close this idiotic thread. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Idiotic, is it, to point out a participant falsifying data to spur opposition (who knows how many opposers relied on that errancy), revert warring with two others to keep this deception in the wrong place, while insulting many more participants and making an absurdly false topic ban claim? Are those the standards you wish to see exercised against you when others dispute your positions in discussions? Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose #3 -
  • Q: Hey, why was this article moved to Hillary Clinton?
  • A: Well, an opposing user misbehaved in the RM and that voided all opposing arguments.
  • ?: Oh.
  • Trout is too good. Carp for the OP. Neutral on #1 and #2. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Added after close

• Support option 1 and oppose the close of this discussion. This whole affair has had a great deal of unpleasantness imo and this is capped by manipulation of information. Philg88 imo the close of this thread was disruptive. GregKaye 12:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: The thread was closed to prevent any further unpleasantness in what is clearly a sensitive discussion - prolonging it here is not going to improve the Encyclopedia. Your use of the word "disruptive" beggars belief.  Philg88  13:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor Concerns: Technical 13

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior, often undone with the idea that he is doing "good work." The continuation of problematic behavior is a strong indication that previous situations have not been properly dealt with. It should be noted that "good work" is not a sufficient reason to allow a user to get off easier when they violate a Misplaced Pages policy, disruptive behavior and other policy violations inhibit other editors from doing their own work while they deal with the situation and it is quite easy for several editors to do more "good work" than any single editor.

Past behavior

This section is not meant to be a complete list, it is meant to briefly list some past problematic behavior.

1. Discussion related to removal of TemplateEditor right as a result of edit warring
2. In a frivolous request for arbitration, Technical 13 makes accusations against a sysop in what seems to be part of several responses to having his TemplateEditor right removed and, when he notices the boomerang, appears to attempt to appeal to the emotions of the arbitrators before saying his original concern didn't matter and dropping the case.
3. ANI posts by Technical 13 created after the removal of TE: call for removal of TE from another editor and a request for reinstatement of TE
4. Evidence of another poor response to critisism/resistance , ending with the block being endorsed later undone on the condition of it being the "last chance"
5. Unblock disussions related to the above block
6. Edit warring related block information can be found

Recent issues

Though I've tried to include as much as possible, most of the things here have some connection to me, that's how I'm aware of them, and so this should not be considered a complete list and others may wish to add onto it. Deciding between putting something here or in the section above was not based on a fixed date but more on if any actions were taken in response to the incident with some consideration for how long ago "ignored" incidents happened so the line may be a bit fuzzy when it comes to slightly old incidents. I've tried to keep the incidents here somewhat brief to prevent people from not reading due to length, I am, of course, willing to provide more information on request.

1. Another unnecessary appeal to emotion . While I don't have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims, Technical 13 was made aware in his request for arbitration that he should not attempt to use these sorts of "excuses." Regardless of the truthfulness of his statement, continued use of these appeals to emotion appears to be evidence of an attempt to sway the opinions of others by making them feel bad for him.
2. Here a side discussion confronts Technical 13's marking of edits as minor where he claims that the only way he can not mark certain edits as minor is to revert them as vandalism, as the other editor points out this is not true and appears, to me, to indicate that Technical 13 feels that other editors are required to work around him and what he wants
3. In relation to , Technical 13 recklessly reverted a fix to a template, even after being explained that the change was a fix and created a RFPP where one of his comments indicate that a reason for protection was to gain an advantage in the content dispute. Technical 13's reverts reference and misrepresent WP:BRD by saying that it "doesn't apply to highly transcluded templates and this kind of behavior could result in you being blocked." WP:BRD is not a policy and states that it can be used on "high-profile" cases. The RFC was created and so far no one except Technical 13 has considered the change as anything more than a fix. On the RFC, Technical 13 even says he does not object to the change, despite all the previous occurrences where he insists it would break all transclusions. Technical 13 quickly goes back to saying it would break transclusions, only giving an explanation of what exactly is broken a few days later and, to be honest, the reason seems to be whatever random difference in behavior he could find to avoid admitting he was wrong by dressing it up as an issue.
4. Technical 13 again demonstrates recklessness when he indicates that he either did not read the proposal or that he intends to mislead other readers by claiming issues exist that do not here, the issues are explicitly accounted for in the proposal. In the same post he references a change he made to nicks after this one had be proposed, his change appears to have been made without any consensus or discussion. Technical 13 also attempts to use his status as "Editor of the Week" to give his opposition, which is based (almost?) entirely on false or questionable information, more weight. His idea that the truth of his claims is self evident does not seem to be isolated to this incident and is not a mindset anyone on Misplaced Pages should have.
5. Technical 13 seems to often only reply to parts of replies directed at him. An example is here where hardly any of my concerns about his opposition are addressed, he even completely ignores my statement about fixing any technical issues with the code, simply reiterating that they exist after implying that the code creates a privacy and security issue without explaining what the issue is. This sort of behavior unnecessarily delays and complicates the consensus building process.
6. Edits that appear to be POV pushing at Template:Centralized discussion, best demonstrated by . The edit summary is "Misleading. This is about adding global javascript, claiming it is "just about a disclaimer" is deceitful and dishonest." however the edit reverted makes no indication that the proposal is "just about a disclaimer" it, in fact, mentions the sitewide JavaScript and so it appears that the intention of the revert is to include the phrase "add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help" in the link which, though accurate, is not neutral. There is a discussion related to the change here and was one here.
7. Technical 13 made a controversial and major change with no apparent consensus to IRC nicks. Some of the templates edited were template protected. The change effectively tricks users into linking their username and IP address by prefilling the nick with what looks like a random number but is actually a revision ID. This was all done while a proposal on the village pump, that Technical 13 is aware of, that conflicts with the change Technical 13 made was active and editors have expressed similar concerns with the change as I have here.

Suggested remedy

I'm not entirely sure what should happen to Technical 13 as a result of this behavior but, as the very least, Technical 13's TE rights should be removed indefinitely per WP:TPEREVOKE. (1) Number 7 in the section "Recent issues." (2) Number 3 of the "Recent issues" section above indicates that Technical 13 does not always exercise sufficient caution when making changes to templates and (3) his RFPP shows an intent to use the right to gain an advantage in disputes. Removal of his TE right has already been tried, and as shown by the information in this post has be ineffective so to do just that would be ineffective. Regardless of what is done, if anything is done I feel that it should require community consensus here if anyone ever wants it to be undone to ensure that the community agrees it is appropriate. I ask that those who discuss this resist any urge to recommend minor remedies since it appears that the community has already put quite some effort into resolving issues with this editor and it is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to have the community continue to deal with the same problems. Since many of Technical 13's problematic actions can carry on without any "special" rights, I feel the only effective solution would be one that, somehow, limits or completely blocks Technical 13's ability to interact with Misplaced Pages and the community. Though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work". PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• No to put it simply. I really think you are pulling at straws and digging through very old issues, remember we all make mistakes sometimes. More importantly, in my opinion T13 is one of the most productive and active template editors we have around here, and always is the one to answer my Template Protected edit requests. EoRdE6 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the 7 points in the "recent behavior" section are what I would consider old, (with a quick look back I don't think anything there is older than a month) and quite a bit of it is unarguably recent. Everyone does make mistakes but opposing a change based on what appears to be, at best, a complete lack of understanding of what the proposal does (though that doesn't explain the fact that he still seems unaware even after being specifically told) is evidence of a serious issue with technical skill, if Technical 13 interacts with other editor's proposals in the same way he has interacted with mine then a high number of answered edit requests is a bigger issue than a low number. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems a bit trumped up. If there were a repeated pattern of very recent transgressions, that would be one thing to possibly bring to ANI. But I'm not seeing that in this. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral I currently, due to recent events, need to be neutral on this, but I feel as though the community should look through the diffs and past edits of T13 that PhantomTech posted, as they might pose a serious question on T13 usage of his Template Editor permissions, and should not just dismiss the claims outright due to T13 doing "good work" in the past, rather dwell on the fact that some of his edits currently might be viewed as breaking policy by other editors. The fact that they have done good work before, should not used to keep an editor that might be disrupting the community, and it should not be excused outright due to that fact. Thanks, TheMesquito 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Cause for concern? While I'm not exactly sure about the remedy here, the user did breach 3RR through POV-pushing (diff above). While I have mostly interacted with Technical 13 on IRC, and I agree he does good work in templates, there is also a net negative that I see some users like PhantomTech concerned about. Additionally, while I understand that IRC is off-wiki, the user has been particularly argumentative and disruptive in IRC over the past few days in my opinion, templating newbies to the point where they are confused, repeatedly insisting on continuing arguments there ad nauseum, etc. For me to recommend a remedy would probably impose IRC bias. However, TheMesquito and PhantomTech have made perfectly valid points.

• First of all, it is, in my opinion, unacceptable to use Editor of the Week in an oppose as a basis for your argument. We are all editors here, and in the end, admins do not say "My argument is better because I am an admin."
• Secondly, while Technical 13 is indeed knowledgeable about templates and other technical know-how, it is imperative that he explains his technical rationales for supporting or opposing a change clearly and without the effect of the "technical walled garden" so that the community at large, not just Technical 13 and other template editors, can understand his rationale. In templates such as Template talk:Freenode, he should not simply say "It will break all these transclusions" yet fail to provide a single example of a template that it will break, expecting everyone else to be technically knowledgeable and able to find an example to support his argument instead of supporting it himself. This is also evident in the RFC for global javascript/disclaimer (diffs above), where he claims that it is against WMF code, but drops that bomb without elaboration.
• Finally, one should not expect a buried proposal/suggestion comment without any replies on WT:WPAFC to construe a consensus. A widespread policy, involving the use of Revision ID to link them to IP addresses, should have been resolved by RFC, not unopposed edits to template-protected pages where editors in opposition of the change and concerned about their privacy are unable to oppose or revert. Seven days is not a very long time. In fact, while this is all a very recent trend and may not be a trend at all, Technical 13 did not seem to find it necessary to notify people about this widespread change, but rather actioned it in the morning while several users were asleep and unable to comment. On the other hand, he has been notifying, violating 3RR people about a change that he vehemently opposes. In another IRC change he opposed, he insisted on using the channel's bot welcomer to welcome everyone who came to the channel in an effort to ensure that every single person was able to comment on the proposal, often spamming the channel when multiple users entered or quit and reentered in a short amount of time.

• While I do not see this as a support or oppose situation, I do see some cause for concern, and recommend that editors here carefully take a look at PhantomTech's diffs and avoiding the "editor X is too valuable, it doesn't matter what else they do" argument. — kikichugirl  18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Statement: I agree with PhantomTech and KikichuGirl above. However, my interactions with Technical 13 has been almost entirely, if not entirely, on IRC, making it impossible for me to accuse him. I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - a discussion probably would have remedied this whole issue. I don't find him to be unreasonable or uncooperative. Quite the opposite is true. Atsme☯ 01:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It may very well be that he's reasonable and cooperative most of the time, but he appears to suffer from frequent bouts of terribly bad judgment - which would've been fine if he'd ever fess up, but he doesn't. This has to stop. In addition to the diffs provided by the OP:
    1. Here's where I asked him not to flag his reverts in content disputes as "minor" and he responded with, 'I'll have to click on "Vandal Rollback". Your choice.'
    2. Here's where he was casting aspersions in all directions out of the sweet blue.
    3. Here's where he threw a tantrum about being reverted once, requesting admin assistance and sanctions. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is far from a single issue, I alone have listed a significant amount of concerns and other editors, like Alakzi, have brought up more. Additionally, some of the issues are related to cases where editors attempt to discuss with Technical 13. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• +1 to kikichugirl and I Dream of Horses. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Well if it can't be resolved at this level, it's pretty obviously going to be escalated through WP:DR, so it's probably in everyone's interests if some sort of voluntary agreement can be reached to move forward - but I don't think anything is going to result here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Probable sock makes accusation of e-mailed threats

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

@Doorknob747:@Knowledgekid87:Sent me an email threat saying they will come to kill me at my home. They even provided the correct home adreess of mine. I want these wo users permently banned from wiipedia. Thank you in advnce. Logging off!10,000RPM (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is another sock of DodoBirdsDie6 (talk · contribs). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I never sent any one a threat I just got out being banned some one help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 April 2015

I'm thinking block for the original poster, anyone else? EoRdE6 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well now I know what this "revenge list" is . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I found that he has another sock account that he used to use a bot to vandalise peoples user pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Dodo_birds_die5 Doorknob747 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

although lucky i think the bot stopped at first edit on @Epicgenius: I think that Dodobird6 is sock of Dodo birds die5 which is sock of dodobirdsdie4 which is sock of dodobirdsdie3 and on and on....Doorknob747 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the ones I could all under User:Dodo bird die3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I thought of checking if any other users were taking advantage of me by searching my username, and guess what, I found another dodobird sock, that used my name falsely! https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Andabandaanda How many accounts does this stupid bird use so he cna abuse me and other usrers names? Im searching again trying to see more, I suggest you and epicgenius do the same, who knows he may have 10 accounts?Doorknob747 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Andabandaanda last edited almost two months ago. Forget about them. Let the admins and checkusers do their work. BMK (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@DivineAlpha:was the target there.Doorknob747 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look... Oh, I realize what this is... I'm not going to bother looking (or discuss any further on this) DivineAlpha 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: Is this edit related to the possible socks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the sockmaster also informed me that I was on his revenge this, I'm assuming that "I like unassigned characters", who has already been indef blocked, is just another sock. BMK (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

^ da *blleep* how does one make those symbols?Doorknob747 (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just happened to check my watchlist and saw the obvious abuse, someone else blocked the account, and I'm not in a position to CU it right now, although I can ask another CU to see if he can look here. Doorknob747, try unicode... Risker (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, it seems we were all put on some "hit list" is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Very little doubt about it in my mind. I've asked Barek, who blocked the other as a VOA, to block this one as well. A CU would be good, maybe a rangeblock as well. BMK (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

6 socks in total 6!Doorknob747 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Its nothing new, some users have made upwards of over 100. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Intersting, but now you you are just scaring me. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can trust in the sock's word that it was the last sock of the day. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bottom of page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2015‎ (UTC)

What Doorknob was pointing out was another sock, Dinn===u===f==ck==a , who has already been indef blocked for disrupting AN/I abusing multiple accounts. BMK (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the username is talking about the rotation of the boomerang that is arriving any minute now. Blackmane (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OP is blocked. BMK (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OP, Doorknob747, and the others are all the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. BMK (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A classical attempt to get sympathy, and make people see him as a victim, instead of seeing him as the disruptive troll he really was. Thomas.W 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good block, good call, these socks should be monitored though. I feel we have an active sock master here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in hindsight, it was kind of obvious, but that was actually a good block. I've counted about 12 socks so far. Epic Genius (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Abem12 creating inappropriate articles after a level 4 warning

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

See User talk:Abem12: this user has been creating spam (promoting his/her own interests) and inappropriate articles that are all eligible for speedy deletion eight ten times, despite being warned with two level 4 warnings. Although they were two bouts of inappropriate page creation spaced 18 days apart, because he/she kept creating such articles after receiving a level 4 warning on both of these bouts of inappropriate page creation, and they constitute vandalism and spam, the user is probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Esquivalience 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Looks like they were trying to replicate this make-believe thing on here. But enough is enough. §FreeRangeFrog 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DefconBot Never Updates to Me For Vandalism Updates

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

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Admins Please Help me Because DefconBot Has Inactive Because If never updates for Vandalism Info Can You Please Help Me Thanks!.National Names 2000 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...what's going on here? Erpert 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me as if National Names 2000 is having trouble with DefconBot, and posted about it here instead of going to User talk:DefconBot where they should have gone. They also posted the AN/I notice here, instead of on User talk:DefconBot, where it belonged.National Names 2000: This page is not for fixing problems of that sort, it's for serious behavioral problems. Please don't post that kind of thing here again, and if you do run into a behavioral problem, discuss it with the editor in question on their talk page before you come here. In this case, please go to User talk:DefconBot, which will redirect you to the talk page of the editor who runs the bot. Explain the problem you're having there, and you'll probably get the help you need. BMK (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, again

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

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

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

This has affected the following articles:

• William of Rennes (on the very first day after his unblock)
• Summa de casibus poenitentiae , Talk
• Draco Normannicus Talk
• Prophecy of Melkin Talk
• Female infanticide in India Talk
• Rape during the Rwandan Genocide Talk

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

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

I just looked at a few of the diffs but they didn't appear to be vandalism to me and seemed to actually add sources to articles. There are over 4 million articles on the English Misplaced Pages...could you take your focus being DS' unappointed monitor and have faith that if he makes mistakes other editors can deal with it? There is no shortage of work that needs to be done and I think your interest in policing another editor is misplaced and I can see how it feels like stalking to DS.

You could also view ArbCom's taking no action not as dropping the ball but the fact that they didn't view DS' edits as disruptive. Liz 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about "vandalism"? Please read again what I said those reverts were, rather than creating red herrings. Yes, they "added sources to articles" – misrepresented sources. And other editors aren't taking action on these things. The errors in the Rwanda article had been in the article for a year, and they had slipped through a GA review unnoticed. The errors in the India article were about to slip through a GA review unnoticed (at least the reviewer didn't spot them in their first pass). And the medieval articles are on such obscure topics it would be madness to hope that any other knowledgeable editor would even chance across them to fix them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If the topic ban on "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" imposed on DS is still in place, why is he editing our article on Human rights in Pakistan? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that happens to be a violation of a topic ban too (though the edit as such would be justifiable on its merits.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right - it would be a bit harsh to block someone for reverting the deletion of sourced content. Though DS might be well advised to take such articles off his watchlist, and let others deal with problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit that DS reverted would count as disruptive, if not vandalism, in my book; surely BANEX applies in the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no, let's keep clear about what the rules are. WP:BANEX exempts only "obvious vandalism". The edit DS reverted was tendentious, I agree, but there's no indication it wasn't made in good faith, hence it wasn't vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, are you going to finally bring forward some argument why you think it's legitimate to take a statement made by one author about one historical event and present it to the reader as if it was by a different author and referred to a different historical event? Some might think that's a rather serious form of source misrepresentation, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

How many times must I tell you, I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone and stop fucking stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, you don't get the luxury to choose who is or isn't allowed to fix your bad edits, as long as you keep making bad edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the first time he has disregarded his topic ban, see here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Calypso, that AE case was closed with the decision that there had been no violation. Fut.Perf., that edit was not very different from the one above; the meaning of the content was completely reversed, and a misleading edit-summary given. This is not to say that DS' conduct is perfect, but violating his topic-ban is not one of his sins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde , it's not clear whether you are supporting DS, or opposing him.C E (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

CosmisEmperor, I am neither "opposing" nor "supporting" DS. I am pointing out that two of the edits linked above are not problematic, or certainly not as problematic as they are made out to be. I've worked with DS before in the one topic area that both of us edit (or used to, in his case) and he can be brusque, abrasive, and so forth; but on the articles I have worked with him on, his knowledge of the source material is far superior to most other editors, particularly those who turn up with a political POV to push. The articles that brought the matter here I have not sufficient knowledge of, and not the time to look into, so no comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Darkness Shines requires rollback, and should be asked to forfeit the right. He's only used it twice over the past week: once to mistakenly revert me, and the other to revert Fut.Perf., for no immediately apparent reason. I've looked far enough into his contrib log; he uses rollback only sparingly, sometimes on - admittedly - clueless non-vandals. I have no opinion on any of the rest of it. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I agree. I also do not see any wiki-hounding by FPAS. The topic ban on DS was put for a reason and there is no improvement. It is evident on this page too, instead of adressing the concerns raised DS goes on swearing and alleging wiki-hounding. --AmritasyaPutra 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving this thread; it still needs resolution. At the moment, DS is lying low and has ceased reverting on this set of articles, but that doesn't mean the issue is solved structurally. At the very least, somebody will need to get the message across to DS that automatic edit-warring is not a legitimate reaction to other people's edits, no matter how much he dislikes them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to assess the situation as several diffs have been presented but without commentary as to what in particular is meant to be wrong with them. In many cases, while the content may not be of a style that I would present, I tend to use lots of refs, in many cases the contributions seem quite valid. If any of the editors here can specify perceived problems then this would be appreciated.

This is not to say that there aren't problems but my first thought when seeing the names "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and "Darkness Shines" was that perhaps these two were bound to clash.

Darkness Shines Can I please ask you to make every effort to deal with others here with the highest level of respect possible. Swearing about situations may not be a biggie as long as people are not being attacked. Misplaced Pages needs to work together as a cooperative group and, in the same way as has happened in other situations, if it is not already happening, I'd ask you to do what you an to play your part here.

Again I would be grateful to know what edits have been a problem. GregKaye 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

All the problems (source misrepresentation, misattributions etc.) are outlined in detail at the talkpages of the respective articles. Akhilleus explained two of the issues quite clearly just above, too. Please follow the "talk" links at the end of each entry in the list of articles above. I'm afraid explaining all the issues in a way brief enough for inclusion here at ANI won't be possible; there are many of them, and it's in the nature of such issues that explaining them takes up some space and understanding them requires some reading. – That said, the objective quality of the edits is not really the main issue here anyway. The issue is the behavioral pattern of meeting challenges to them with mechanical blanket reverts and refusal to discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not been laying low, I have been busy. Greg, I have no intention of editing collaboratively with someone who hounds me, forum shops to get me banned, and has wanted me off the project fro years. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DS, We do not always have that luxury in the Misplaced Pages community. It is down to all editors to work effectively with all other editors and, if paths legitimately cross on issues relevant to the improvement of content, then we have to work together. If another editor is hounding you on issues that have no valid point that seems to go beyond issues of accidental mistake then you can file report and get them banned.

In regard to the edits mentioned by Akhilleus the problem I have is that they are references from books that I don't have to hand and regarding a topic with which I am unfamiliar. It creates difficulties when books are not on line for verification. Its an author who only one piece of published material accessible and not the book in question. The content of the citation is also problematic, ""It is also rape unto death,... It is rape as an instrument of forced exile,... It is rape to be seen ... It is rape to drive ... It is rape as genocide..." yes but what is "it"? In effect the citations present stand alone contents expressing a conclusion that there has been rape as genocide but giving no more detail than that. Worst: it is sitting on the mat. Better a cat is sitting on the mat. Best: the cat is sitting on the mat. GregKaye 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since DS has stated he has no intent of editing collaboratively, I think it's time to renew the ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Isaid I will not cooperate with one editor, hardly grounds for a ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

When you are reverting an editor without providing a reason related to article improvement and refusing to cooperate for the purpose of improvement of the article, you are disrupting wikipedia, and this is a ground for a ban. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I did a spot check of some material DS added during a past AE request. See AE archive and my talk archive. Although DS provides sources/authority for edits, those sources were misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. Misinterpreting sources can do substantial damage to WP. Many editors will AGF and presume that a cited source says what is claimed; offline sources may be difficult to verify. When material is challenged, DS does not undertake a careful or thoughtful review of the challenge or the underlying sources. I haven't examined the above edits, but comments above suggest that misinterpretation is a continuing problem. A ban would be appropriate for misusing sources. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Travelbybus

Travelbybus (talk · contribs)

This user adds unsourced claims in several articles related to politics repeatedly without feedbacks. See , , , . --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor's behaviour is very reminiscent of that of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6. RolandR (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone

Would an admin please put a stop to this post-haste? The filing party seems to have dirty hands and the discussion is getting pretty heated.

I responded there because of a request at WP:AN (same section header as here), hoping to defuse things, but I discovered that the filing party (Weegeerunner) hadn't provided any evidence. In response to my request for evidence, I was shown edits that manifestly did not demonstrate malfeasance on the part of Miraclexix, and indeed seemed to demonstrate that Weegeerunner was at fault. I've repeatedly tried to say "you're the one in the wrong here", explaining what the problems are, but I've basically been greeted with a battleground perspective throughout, a refusal or inability to get the point and to drop the stick when told "you're in the wrong". I wonder if we're getting into trolling territory, between the persistent "if this is a problem, why didn't someone tell me before" (I said basically that he's driving off people, making it easier for them to ignore him than to resolve the problem) and the insistence on continuing the situation when I've said "stop it", bordering on harassment (just look at the bottom of my talk page), plus the combination of "am I not right" and "ah, just go and block me indefinitely", which isn't at all helping things.

Diffs: I'm just asking you to see the section on this page (permalink), including the links provided therein, and his talk page, and to take action from those two pages. I've not interacted with him except purely in an administrative role, but I'd still rather ask someone else to do it who's not at all involved. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please hear me out. First off. I am not someone to believe I am in the wrong just because someone says so, I feel like you are mistaking the fact that I don't believe I am in the wrong because of a lack of evidence shown to me as a battleground mentality. And also, this dispute started around the same time my struggles with MDD began to worsen. I am planning on taking a wikibreak because the stress I have been under and issues in real life lately have began to show in my recent behavior on wikipedia, (ie my more iratable behavior). Weegeerunner (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist SPA using Misplaced Pages for soapboxing

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

The single purpose account Leventopoulo appears to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose of righting great wrongs on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. And the wrong they want to right is WP:MOSMAC, one of the more firm Misplaced Pages policies. There's nothing wrong in wanting to change policies, but after after several users have tried to explain MOSMAC to Leventopoulo, the user continues with arguments that have nothing at all to do with the article, but increasingly irrelevant soap-boxing that even verges on the racist in its attacks on Macedonia (" a country that lives by non-democratic standards and no fair-play") . As the user has descended into mere soapboxing, I've warned them both on the talk page of the article and their own talk page about soapboxing , eventually removing the latest soapboxing but to no effect. In short, a request for an edit was made, and declined in line with WP:MOSMAC. While the user may have had some legitimate argument at first, I believe that these posts , , and do not contribute anything to Misplaced Pages or to improving the article, and constitute an obvious case of WP:SOAP that only serves to disrupt. The user is not here to construct an encyclopaedia, only to right a great wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor has been alerted to WP:ARBMAC. Further action should be at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have gone there had the editor actually edited the article, but it's semi-protected from new editors exactly because of this. So the violation is rather for repeated soap-boxing, which I why I took it here.Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Soapboxing is a form of disruptive editing because it violates talk page guidelines. Soapboxing in an area subject to discretionary sanctions is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. If I am mistaken, then someone can disagree. However, Arbitration Enforcement typically works better than community discussion here, and indeed that is why the ArbCom imposes discretionary sanctions, so as to deal with disruption by an effective procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of it but you're no doubt right.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock genius wanted

Hi admins. A bunch of us have had problems with someone I've dubbed the Marhc Vandal. He's almost a daily annoyance. Anyhow, I'm hoping that one of the more technically-minded admins can help set up one (or twenty?) range blocks, or figure out something that will help suppress the disruption for a while. List of some of the IPs used are here. Please feel free to add notes to that document as you wish. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about we start getting serious about eliminating this kind of crap once and for all with real name registration and sign-in-to-edit? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Help desk

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

Please see WP:Help desk#Sannie Carlson pages where User:Marcomarati included a clear legal threat in the fist post. (The editor has been notified) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind - the editor was blocked while I was writing the above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

IP 190.201.129.183

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

Not sure where to report this, but edits today by 190.201.129.183 appear consistent with JarlaxleArtemis, including use of Cantv Servicios, Venezuela IP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

190.201.129.183 (talk · contribs) This link makes it easier for others to check on the IPs editing. You may want to take this to SPI though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor adding demonstrably false information

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

User:Beyond My Ken, an editor with a history of contentious editing is knowingly adding demonstrably false information to The Swimmer (1968 film).

For example, He writes, "Pollack reportedly reshot several transitions and scenes, including the Shirley Abbott scene with Janice Rule now playing the part originally played by Barbara Loden." But his own cited source (TCM) contradicts this, saying, "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule." There are other uncited claims as well.

I did try to discuss this on his talk page. You can see his final, uncivil response there. . Adding knowingly false information and insisting on it seems remarkable to me, and try as I may, this is a difficult editor to speak with. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I want to add the ANI notice to his talk page, but he has made it very clear, in extremely sharp language, that I am not allowed to put anything on his talk page. What is the procedure in such a case? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Any information I added to the article came directly from a cited source. If the cited source doesn't have the information Tenebrae refers to, then it was in the article before I edited it.

Tenebrae is mistaken regarding his contention that Joan Rivers made her film debut in Once Upon a Coffee House and not in The Swimmer. As can be seen here, the actor in question is John Rivers, not Joan Rivers.

Nothing else to say. BMK (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there's always one more thing. The specific information complained about by Tenebrae as being unsourced was not added by me, it was added in this edit by MikeHippie during a re-write of the article. BMK (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not mistaken. Here is a screengrab of the end-credits. He additionally does not address the Pollack falsehoods. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

non-free image removed Mdann52 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IMDB confirms Tenebrae's contention that Joan Rivers appeared in Once Upon a Coffee House, It lists here as part of a group, "Jim, Jake and Joan", presumably singing at the coffeehouse.Nevertheless (1)Tenebrae cited the TCM cast list in support of his statement in the article that The Swimmer was Rivers' second film, (2) TCM doesn't actually have the name "Joan Rivers" it has "John Rivers", most probably a clerical error, (3) But error or not, it is WP:SYNTHESIS on his part to draw conclusions that the article doesn't state. (4) On the other hand, the TCM article on The Swimmer says explicitly that it was Rivers' "film debut".I agree that this is a content dispute on should be handled on the article talk page, not here, and not on my talk page, but Tenebrae seems reticent to go there, preferring instead to make behavorial allegations against me. BMK (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Close as a content dispute. BTW, TCM states "But almost from the beginning, the star and the director clashed and undermined each other's work to such a degree that after Perry completed the film, Columbia brought in three other directors, including Sydney Pollack, to do additional work on it. One sequence that was shot by Pollack was the scene where Merrill visits his ex-mistress played by Janice Rule. Barbara Loden was supposed to play this role but she never completed her scenes under Perry's supervision. In the end, less than half of what Perry filmed ended up in the studio cut of The Swimmer." The article does not say "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule." Glrx (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, TCM does say that, but in the "Notes" section, not in the "Article" section. BMK (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. If BMK had pointed out TCM's own discrepancy in a civil way instead of losing his temper, all this could have been avoided.

Read the two sections more closely, there is no "discrepancy" between them. The wording you objected to above was not added by MikeHippie on the basis of the TCM article. BMK (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• TCM Notes: "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule."
• TCM Article: "One sequence that was shot by Pollack was the scene where Merrill visits his ex-mistress played by Janice Rule."

Those statements are perfectly consonant. BMK (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. " "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule" is not the same as "Pollack reportedly reshot several transitions and scenes , including the Shirley Abbott scene with Janice Rule...." Aside from the weasel-word "reportedly," the phrase "only the scene" and "several transitions and scenes" are demonstrably inconsistent.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Article" meant the TCM article, not ours. I've amnended the description. BMK (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It continues not to be Joan Rivers' first film, however.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your SYNTHETIC conclusion. As I said to you before, find a source that says that, and you're golden, but you can't create statements out of thin air that the source never said. BMK (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If it was, IMDB missed it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. I'm sorry I fueled the fire. Take this dispute to the article's talk page; it does not belong here. Glrx (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You can see all 79 minutes of that movie here. Joan shows up with her two colleagues at about 20 minutes in. The film looks like some college student's project. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dfrr's conduct on Misplaced Pages.

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

It is clear that the user in question User:Dfrr has been spamming multiple users. He according to my counts has sent over 390 of these messages. Furthermore he has admitted to sending over 390 of those messages.

Many of these messages were WikiLove sent even though they had not had interactions with the user and they were also sent invitations to the WikiProject of R&B and Soul Music despite these editors not being involved in the WikiProject. The reason I was sent the WikiLove was due to praising another editor.

He was also told to not spam.

The user also has placed a large amount of unneeded information on his user page. I think most would be breaching U5. Blatant misuse of Misplaced Pages as a web host. I truly believe he is also Not here to improve Misplaced Pages under Focusing on Misplaced Pages as a social networking and a General pattern of disruptive behavior. I do hope this discussion is productive and I open the floor. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

right like you would ever edit Fonzie & The Golden GirlsDfrr (talk) 20:30, right like you would edit James Brown & Bob Saget User:TheGRVOflighting for him and only himDfrr (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)) Here is what I will do I will ping @StuRat, EpochFail, JackofOz, Cullen328, Trimethylxanthine, Dr. Blofeld, and StephanieM:Dfrr (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)) More More More ping@Bollyjeff, Canuckian89, Winner42, and UrkelDood:Dfrr (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

I agree with above. Also going to ping @DawnDusk, Conifer, Ritchie333, TheGRVOfLightning, PizzaMan, and MrWooHoo:, who have been involved in the past with this user. Also because I'm a genius I'll try again with a signature to actually ping people here... EoRdE6 01:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with GRV that Dfrr's userpage falls under U5, which is intended to disallow diaries, blogs, and the like. A collection of animated images, while unorthodox, is on the topic of the encyclopedia and isn't disruptive to any other users (assuming the images are not fair use). Conifer (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that having a cluttered user page and sending unsolicited WikiLove messages should be met with a block? I can see how they might be unexpected and spammy but I think a warning is sufficient. Liz 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Dfrr has received many warnings about talk page spam (from myself) and thanking spam, but I still get a few thanks a day from them. They act like they understand when you tell then to stop, but then it keeps happening. Review some posts from other users on their talk page. I agree with the possible not here analysis. EoRdE6 01:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that I've gotten WikiLove/kitten messages from strangers, including those with no main space edits, and it was no big deal. You can always delete the content or tell him/her not to post on your talk page. It just seems in the big scheme of "ways to damage Misplaced Pages", this is pretty small stuff. Liz 01:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha this is just the fact that i am awesome and everyone loves meDfrr (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)

Dfrr comes across as being young and excitable - like Liz, I think what they do is annoying but nothing more. I already told them that their mass-invitations to projects and various other talk page messages are not what Misplaced Pages is primarily about, and to focus on articles, so I am disappointed but not at all surprised to find a thread here. ANI is a serious matter, Dfrr, and you really need to say you will stop with the mass messaging, otherwise there is a serious risk that less forgiving members of the community will conclude you are not really here to build an encyclopedia and wonder if you should be blocked. Don't go there. Ritchie333 10:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This man needs to be removed from the encyclopedia per WP:NOTHERE. And no, @Ritchie333: he is not a child. He is a troll pretending to be one. After goading me into swearing and a temporary bloc, he promised never to bother me again, but then he decided to spam me with thanks yesterday. He knows exactly what he's doing and the fact that anyone is falling for his facade of being a child that doesn't know any better is a disgrace. He's not worth the time we're wasting here. Permanent block. --DawnDusk (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this supposed "child who doesn't know any better" also pinged me to this page. --DawnDusk (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

hey User:DawnDusk you chose to swear not me i am not a troll and i did not cause the block that User:Mike V (Who is going to reply here) put on you okay Mr. Dusk secord of all you fooled me into thinking that you were my friend really now? that is like Laura Winslow from Family Matters telling Steve that he is her friend then saying mean crap about him plus you people need to cal down and watch Happy DaysDfrr (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Actually, it was EoRdE6 who pinged you. Liz 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz and DawnDusk: As did Dfrr in his spammy reverted edit. EoRdE6 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is awesomeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Well, that was a spammy edit and I'm glad it was reverted. Liz 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) It might be worth noting his recent input at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#Editor Conifer and its associated talk page. Hope no gets surprised by the content on the page of course. Based on my own reading of the phrasing of the statement on that page, I tend to agree that he comes across as a younger person, or, perhaps, one with a rather unique dialect. I tend to agree with Ritchie, at least on the possibility that Dfrr might be young and excitable. I've never gotten the impression that Liz is "young and excitable." Really, really bad joke here, based on obvious misreading of statement. Please send trout to my user talk page. I might be doing some fish fry over the weekend, and can probably use as many as I can get. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you simply look at Contributions/Dfrr, you will clearly see WP:NOTHERE. Annoying a large number of editors is a clear disruption of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

okay you people take everything the wrong way like Richie Cunningham did to Chachi Arcola in Happy Days frist of all i am trying as hard as i can to get new members for the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music] and i am reaching out to peolpe who have never heard of the project. i sent User:StephanieM one and i have not heard anything from Steph yet plus you people need to listen to Dave Koz music and calm down. and Bob Saget is awesomeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

I am awesome no matter what anyone says Like User:LandLord77 who i have talked to beforeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Archie Bunker has smelly breathDfrr (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Is Dfrr a vandalism-only account? The user is clearly not here to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I am in serious consideration to file the user under the vandalism page, because their edits consists nothing but spam, random edits and nonsense. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the edits he made here I think it's clear that this is a vandalism only account, Also he has clear ego issues as illustrated by this: I am awesome no matter what anyone says Like User:LandLord77 who i have talked to beforeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)). Anyways. This will be my last edit on this matter until around 5:00 PM (AEST) due to the fact I'm meeting Hulk Hogan. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Grov guess what? did you know that I am the most awesomeest person in the whole wide world because you know nothing about me. because Bob Saget i think that Misplaced Pages is awesome and you all should just leave this issue alone because James Brown needs improvement and nobody wants to edit James Brown or Bob Saget who is awesome and no I do not have clear ego issues you just want to think really you can do better than this okay?Dfrr (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Block indefinitely. An obvious troll. Pax 22:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine for all I care cause I an' Dfrr (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Yup indef. - Clearly not here to contribute, Obvious troll is obvious. –Davey2010 23:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Stephen

I'm having some problems with this Stephen (talk · contribs). He deleted one of my comment on ITN and claimed it should be taken to the "appropriate" talk page. But he won't tell me what talk page to take it to. So I figure he's just jerking me around, and I'm taking this here (ugh) in an effort to get an answer. Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You know how sometimes you get stressed out or pissed off about things that don't actually matter? This is one of those times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I never get angry. But I know you're a fair, understanding and knowledgeable admin. So what's the answer to my question? What would be the appropriate talk page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the easy solution would be a new nomination for ITNC. Talk:Main_Page#Baltimore_Riots indicates that several people are interested in restarting discussions. If you think the article should now appear on the main page, it may be better to just start a fresh nomination than attempting to restart a long closed one. --Jayron32 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a great place for the comment that was being removed, as it is over 67% snark and under 33% legitimate point. But I agree with Jayron that a good place for a similar, but less snarky, comment would be a new nomination if you think things have changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayron's suggestion was essentially taken up at ITN and the story was finally posted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Orthodox Christianity by 124.178.53.76

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

The IP user 124.178.53.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is insisting on adding an unsourced, OR, POV comment to the article on Orthodox Christianity (see here, here, and here). He has rejected criticism of his edits, insisting that what he is adding is obvious and doesn't require sourcing, and saying that if he is blocked, he "will just get back with another IP" (see here). I have imposed indefinite pending changes protection on the article (see here), but I have not reverted the IP's most recent edit (done before I protected the article), lest anyone should accuse me of edit warring. I've done all I think I should do here, so I'm passing the baton to AN/I for others to deal with the matter as they see fit. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.  Philg88  07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Vimalchand013 and Daltonganj Railway Station

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

Could someone please review User:Vimalchand013 and Daltonganj Railway Station and take action if necessary? The latter appears to he copied from Ranchi railway station. Thanks. 82.132.238.106 (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have had to block him for copy vio. Another admin deleted all his copyright-violating images, and his response was to re-upload the pics. The article was also already deleted once. Unfortunately he will have to remain blocked until such time as he can demonstrate that he understands copyright law and how it applies to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at AN3

Here contains a legal threat, due to the fact they appear to disagree with anonymity on Misplaced Pages- their quote "if you cannot put their names in public I will create a facebook page with this title- Suing Misplaced Pages" seems to be a clear legal threat/intent to sue Misplaced Pages. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blathering on FB would hardly constitute a lawsuit, so I don't think this comment is actionable. I shall remove it from the notice board, since it clearly doesn't belong there. Favonian (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is an actual legal threat or not, the intended purpose was to produce a chilling effect on other editors they are in a dispute with. The entire point of the NLT is to eliminate such chilling effects. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested how one person's campaign will "sue Misplaced Pages". I challenge the IP user to correctly identify their arse from their elbow before they go any further. Lugnuts 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange message on my talk page

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

Does anyone know what to make of this? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They do appear to have successfully added User:PaulinSaudi to their DR case, so I'm not sure what more you need to tell them. Yunshui _水 10:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you might have asked them directly for clarification. Liz 11:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• But what's strange is that the IP (User:64.121.83.151 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked last year here for being a sock of blocked account User:Jacobkennedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The interest of the sockmaster appears to be LGBT issues. The IP has since then resumed its disruptive editing connected with LGBT topics - I recently noticed them at Legal system of Saudi Arabia - and is obviously a static IP. Why isn't the IP blocked? DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IP is now blocked for a year. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

User:Conman22 has hit me with a whole round of personal attacks and shows no intention of stopping.37.136.79.183 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please include diffs or links to such complaint. It would ease your report. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any specific examples? And show what IP/account you were using when he attacked you? (Your contribution list says this is your first edit from this IP address.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Conman22 has never edited anything on en-wiki. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that myself. 37.136.79.183, did you write the wrong user name? Or is this all just a bogus report? Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I meant User:Conman200 and I used account User:Petrustweak when attacked, I dare not to use it anymore, using dynamic IP:s instead.37.136.72.45 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That account doesn't even exist... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry again, it was Conman220.37.33.1.157 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Even Handed

Please see my comments here re the recent warning against me for edit warring. I believe the adminstrators have not been even handed nor strict enough on the editor that made a personal attack against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#Even_handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For the WP:3RRN discussion, see here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the personal attack that was struck through and for which an apology was offered? Tiderolls 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

How many times is it allowable to ask someone "what the fuck are you doing", call them an "asshole", a "jerk" etc, just to be threatened with being blocked, say "sorry about that" and strike it out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, what do you think would be fair? Tiderolls 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Once? After which recurrent and overt personal attacks should be dealt with with short shrift and lame, artificially crafted apologies should be treated as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find the most problematic thing about BMK's posts to be the initial assertion that because he's been editing Misplaced Pages longer, he's got the right to determine content The swearing was uncalled for, but the WP:OWNing here seems to me to be more significant - it is entirely contrary to the Misplaced Pages ethos. Having said that I don't really think that further sanctions would be justified, given that BMK apologised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Both are equally problematic. BMK shouldn't have just been ticked off, he should have been sanctioned for his overt personal attack and ownership claims. The apology was pure "theater". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice job not notifying the party being talked about, everyone. Anyway, Robyn, per the discussion that unfolded, BMK apologised for what he said, was warned to be more cautious with his words, and both of you were warned for breaking 3RR, as would be expected when you both reverted 4-5 times-- what now? What else would you want an admin to do? Furthermore, based on your comments at the end of the AN3 thread, you give the air that you don't think you should have even been warned for editwarring, at least not to the same degree, and that's going to seriously undermine a request for further sanctions, especially against the opposing party in the edit war when the affair is over and done with. It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith-- if you're not reverting obvious vandalism, you don't revert more than 3 times, end of story. I'd think further sanctions against BMK would be warranted if he showed further behavioral infractions, and as an uninvolved/neutral party I don't know if he has a history of problematic behavior (or from an unbiased standpoint would constitute problematic behavior). BlusterBlaster 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing for a series of shameless personal attacks doesn't excuse the 3RR violation here, and BMK's long-running combination of offensive personal attacks and blatant 3RR violations / edit warring is one that needs to be addressed. A look at BMK's block log lists four separate blocks for edit warring / 3RR violations, including two in the past 18 months:

• 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
• 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
• 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
• 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

The warning given here for a blatant violation of the 3RR rule is entirely unjustified, especially from an editor who has regularly reported other users for their violations and is more than aware of his obligations under 3RR. Furthermore, BMK has received an inordinate number of such warnings and non-blocks in the past two years, in situations when blocks of mounting lengths would be amply justified based on his record (including in November 2013, here in January 2014, February 2014, October 2014 and here in April 2015, last month) for serial offenders such as BMK. A bright line violation here resulted in yet another mere warning. It's well past time for a block here. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone should ping @Beyond My Ken: to let him know about this thread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He was pinged and acknowledged the thread, in his own unique way. Alansohn (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block on BMK for a long, persistent pattern of false accusations without evidence, a history of personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Just recently, BMK accused me of being a sock puppet with no evidence. He's repeatedly been asked to provide evidence, and I'm asking him now to submit an SPI. Put up or shut up, BMK. More recently, he made additional bad faith accusations without evidence when I participated in an RfC about images on a page he claimed ownership. It's impossible to edit any article or participate in any discussion where he shows his face. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• And for the record, even after my comment above, BMK is still persisting in making paranoid, bogus sock puppet accusations. Please block BMK for repeatedly making false claims to malign other users. BMK repeatedly refers to some kind of interaction we had in 2008. At that time, the only major editing we were involved with together took place in the Philip K. Dick article. As you can see from the page statistics, approximately 956 IPs have edited that page. According to BMK, I apparently used one of those IPs as a sock, a sock which according to BMK only made two edits. As you can see from the page history during that time, there is no connection between me and that IP (wherever it is supposed to be, as BMK wont specify who or what it is). For the record, I have not engaged in any sock puppetry. However, for the record, BMK has. I'm wondering if another SPI should be done on BMK at this point due to the continuing disruption. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, Viriditas...it's nice to know that you have not been socking as one of you is more than enough. Screeching for a site ban because an editor of your stature has been afronted has a certain laugh factor at least, and we thank you.--MONGO 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• So you think it is acceptable for an editor to continue to make false accusations without evidence? That's a direct violation of our policy on civility and personal attacks. Your comment makes it clear why the community, in a rare display of their best judgement, chose to desysop you. For that, I thank them. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I read BMKs comments on his talk page and its obvious you're misleading the evidence as usual. Not to disagree with valid complaints made above your idiotic screeching for a site ban, considering your block log and history of personal attacks about all you deserve is indeed the door so it's truly laughable that you'd have the arrogance to demand anyone here be site banned.--MONGO 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong. BMK's comments pertain directly to my request for evidence, which he deleted, which in turn refers directly to his accusation about sock puppetry made on this board. Since he deleted those comments from his talk page, you couldn't have "read" them, and since you didn't know about the comments he made here, you weren't aware of them. I'm sorry, but I don't speak MONGO-ish, so I can't parse "misleading the evidence", but if you meant "misreading", yes, that's exactly what you are doing. BMK has a long history of making baseless accusations and attacks and you defend this behavior. Why? We'll never know, because all you offer is tu quoque as a response. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No one in their right mind is going to adhere to your arrogant demand that the editor in question be given an indefinite block. The only thing your demand does is reduce the validity of the more rational side of the complaint that was presented before you showed up screeching like a wacko.--MONGO 09:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Viriditas...you were blocked for three months for doing the exact same things you are accusing BMK of doing, yet you give no proof that BMK has done the things you claim. Earlier comments by others regarding BMK's editing issues have validity but your accusations are actually things you have done yourself, and received multiple blocks for them.--MONGO 09:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• BMK has most certainly done what I claim and the diffs are freely available:

1. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who created a sockpuppet in the attempt to win a dispute. 08:35, 4 February 2015

2. Uh-huh, you deny sockpuppetry. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.08:55, 4 February 2015

3. And that sockpuppetry? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using puppets made out of socks -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! 09:19, 4 February 2015

4. BTW, any admins want to advise me on what the chances would be on getting a block on a puppetmaster whose sockpuppet made two edits in 2008 and then disappeared? ... Yeah, that was what I thought. 03:23, 2 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank)

• The false accusations are there and continue to be repeated without evidence. No amount of fallacious tu quoque distractions from MONGO will change it. The reason BMK can't produce any evidence of sock puppetry on my part is because it in fact never happened. When BMK is losing an argument, he has a tendency to make paranoid, false accusations to distract others from the discussion. This is quite unlike MONGO, for example, who will instead resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments and distorting block log entries. I really can't thank the community enough for desysopping him. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so it's become glaringly obvious that people with laughably gargantuan snarling packs of dogs in this fight are beginning to coatrack this thread into something quite ugly and likely to be closed as no action by the admin least willing to wade through this garbage, so if this is going to go anywhere anyone wants it to go, I'll recommend we look at the following facts about this specific situation and only those facts:

• BMK has been blocked for editwarring twice in the last 18 months. Bringing up issues from a gap of five bleeding years ago seems a little excessive, so let's keep it recent if this is going to be about addressing his behavior now and not nursing some unrelated wound. But why block him and not the editor, or why not both, since they both editwarred and equally should know better?
• BMK has also been, in this case, using his editcount and tenure as reasoning to undermine another editor's contributions, which is needless to say not acceptable. He should be striking that comment out and apologising for that if anything else, and I'd consider it blockable if he made a habit of pulling that card.
• However, I don't see how blocking him is going to actually address the behavioral issues. I'm new, but I'm not stupid; I know that it's all going to become irrelevant in face of all the gravedancing that's sure to come of a temp block, and indeffing him is needless to say excessive. But if you want his behavior to change, coming at him at any given opportunity with an army's worth of axes to grind ain't gonna persuade him, so grow the hell up and get back to editing if your own little snits with him from years ago are getting in the way of contributing neutrally to a discussion of his actions.

Warning him for this incident is all that's really actionable from an administrator's standpoint, as far as I can see. Past that, I'd say his actions certainly were obnoxious in this case, but unless he obviously isn't going to work on playing more nicely with the other kids and says as such, I don't see what else can be done. The piling-on by unrelated editors who've had past bas blood with him is more obnoxious to me, but hey, par for the course on ANI. BlusterBlaster 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The most recent diff related to the continuing false accusations of sock puppetry was dated today. However, I can refer you to another recent interaction, this one having to do with an innocent RfC on Talk:William Street (Manhattan) that took place last month. Here are some highlights from that discussion:

• Since you clearly know nothing about the street, or what's on it, and since you failed to suggest an alternative from the Commons image pool immediiately available to us, or do any research about other possible CC images which we might use, there's no particular reason to take your comments into account at all, except, of course, that your obvious superiority to us lowly peons requires us to get on bended knee and kiss your ring. Since we actually live in a democracy, however, and since Misplaced Pages is more of an anarchy than anything else, I'll just ignore your bullshit and wait for the comments of other editors more interested in improving the encyclopedia, and less involved with the aggrandizement of their own egos.
• Is that something that you're able to understand, or shall I rephrase it in words of one syllable so you can understand it more easily?
• Thanks so much for your comments, but since you seem to be unable to follow a simple set of instructions, I'll just file your input away in the circular file, where they can keep the majority of your Misplaced Pages comments company.

This exchange was then followed by BMK's collapsing of my response to the RfC, which of course, defeats the entire purpose of an RfC and illustrates the same ownership problems listed above. If that's a representative sample of the kind of interaction one can expect with BMK, then as they say, Houston, we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as a representative sample of how BMK interacts with you, and in that RfC I'm seeing problems with how both of you approach the issue-- from my view, if you had a problem with the photos, instead of riffing on the photographer's skills you really should have suggested a better photo from Commons or something, but that aside, the both of you needling each other turned the thing into a dramafest. As for the sockpuppet accusations, they seem be some back-and-forth thing you have with him over some sockpuppet dispute that was over and done with in 2010-- and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be bringing it up if you wouldn't keep bringing it up, and vice versa. My suggestion? I think I speak for many when I say to both of you, grow up. BlusterBlaster 11:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I was not involved in either of the two disputes you mention. In the former, I responded to a random RfC (from the listing page) and in the latter, I had nothing whatsoever to do with either the SPI or discussion about BMK's use of multiple accounts in the past. There's no back and forth here at all. BMK's behavior in both instances listed here, to make false accusations about sock puppetry, and to make personal attacks during an RFC, are exactly the kind of behavior under discussion. The point in me bringing them here to this thread is to show that the behavioral pattern has remained consistent. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let me be clear (I have said these things before). I accept that I broke the 3RR rule. I accept that there is a sanction for this. I accept the warning given. I do not accept the way Misplaced Pages deals with editors that persistently are uncivil or break the rules and guidelines (or the way some administrators interpret the rules). Editors who persistently are uncivil or break the rules as seems to be the case in my brief look at BMK's editing history should have stronger sanctions than repeated warnings and requests to apologise. Its a bit like parenting really: constant warnings don't change behaviour, clearly defined sanctions that are enacted do. My request for further sanctions for BMK is not motivated by anything personal even though I received a personal 'attack' from this editor. Rather it is motivated by improving the process of Misplaced Pages editing. I think temporary bans enacted earlier in these situations are a possible way forward giving any editor time to reflect and change their behaviour. I am happy to accept any consensus about this and do not want this to drag on. I just needed to make my views clear. Robynthehode (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sanchitwa

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

User:Sanchitwa is putting speedy deletion tags on all the pages I created, in protest that I put their article Programmingquery up for deletion. This is clear harassment, please can someone block this user, and remove the tags from all my articles? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Other users have restored all but this one: List of England cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut. User is blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threats

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

User:My Butt Is Large has threatened to sue editors here and here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's already been solved. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, possible sockpuppetry

Is at it again. Check his talk page for more information on his disruptive behaviour. --92slim (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean that Tiptoe is always incorrect. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It means that he is disruptive, as he adds citation tags for no reason. --92slim (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, it does not mean that. You're going to have to establish that in this particular case the user's edits are indeed disruptive, because right now I don't see it. In fact, the user seems to make what appears to be a very detailed and substantive argument--much more detailed than yours. So, from what I can tell we have a content disagreement here which should be hashed out on the talk page and until there is evidence that Tiptoe is somehow being disruptive here after your cursory and false claim of vandalism. (You're both edit warring, of course, but their edit summaries are much better than yours.) Did you notify them of this? You're supposed to. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Three times , , in recent days 92slim has deleted citation required tags that were added to the Malatya article, as well as making edit summaries displaying bad faith and an absence of reasoning. I asked him to self revert his last edit, but instead he has escalated his bad editing behavior by making this complaint (which he did not notify me about). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not three times in 24 hours or even recent days. Also, the citation tags are not required. See this for my argument, which refers only to his tags and not the content. He didn't ask me, but made me an WP:ULTIMATUM in my talk page which was promptly deleted. --92slim (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors SHOULD NOT delete citation required tags. Editors should leave them in place or provide a source for the tagged content. It is not up to you to decide that they are not required and then delete them, especially since your sole argument on the article's talk page consists of "obviously". Editors also should not use words like "vandalism" in edit summaries. I asked you to self-revert because you had clearly exceeded what was acceptable. All you are doing here is adding to that excess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to this long paragraph full of nonsensical stuff, all I have to say is that the source (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia) was already provided before you placed the tags. Please, stop being disruptive. --92slim (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to add to this discussion that Tiptoethrutheminefield has a long history of personal attacks against me. Could something be done about that also? 37.136.37.236 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

To 37.136.37.236, I wouldn't be surprised. User:Tiptoethruthemainfield is now using an obvious IP sock (IP:176.239.33.146) to evade his personal account. Keep it up. --92slim (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nbier8

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

Uses Misplaced Pages as vandalism for fun. His vandalism has been logged on his talkpage as of 2015-05-02, 1:53 (CST). I'd suggest removing account and banning IP. Knowledgebattle (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The wikilink you gave is User talk:Nbier8#May 2015 but I removed your ref because they are not useful on a page like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger. Knowledgebattle (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards