Misplaced Pages

I know what caused this problem though, actually on some forums like craiglists forums or anandtech forums, one or two moths ago I saw people talking about the fact that they are thinking that Misplaced Pages reference desk is a forum because of its layout (people are talking on a non talk page), maybe stating on top that, this page is not a forum in big bold letters may stop the problem. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone account hopping and repeatedly blanking the pages: are the accounts being hard blocked, i.e. the person is IP hopping too? And what happened to Cluebot? It used to revert page blanking almost instantly. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:123.140.222.75

Is continuously changing birthplaces from Estonia to the Soviet Union on numerous Estonian people's articles (here, here, and here, to name a few). Has been warned several times and their edits have been reverted, yet the USSR was still readded as the birth places and reporting the user was the next step. WikiProject Estonia has decided that birthplaces should be listed as "Estonia" and not the Soviet Union since the USSR simply occupied Estonia and the other Baltic States, they were not officially recognised as Soviet by the international community either. { } 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As soon as one IP gets blocked he/she continues under next one all. 123.140.222.69 - has again changed the same 20 pages including:

Andres Oper 9 reverts against 5 other editors 1, 2, 3 etc. Maarja-Liis Ilus 9 reverts against 4 other editors and so on.

IPs she/he uses

123.140.222.69

123.140.222.64 - blocked ANI

123.140.222.75 - blocked

123.140.222.76

123.140.222.70

--Klõps (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W edit warring and semi-protection issue

User:Thomas.W removed several informative external links including some that were already there- which I did not add. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link.

As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them. Omniglot uses biblopgraphy .--94.204.144.31 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Few things that you need to be aware of,

1. You needed to notify the user when you made this post. I've gone and done it for you.
2. Edit warring isnt dealt with here its dealt with here.
3. Without diffs to back up your claims nothing is likely to be done.
4. I cant see anything that appears to be edit warring by Thomas.W.

Amortias (T)(C) 10:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The diffs are here: --94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't been doing any edit-warring, what I've been doing is reverting the IP's addition of links to a personal web site to multiple articles relating to languages, a web site that claims to be an encyclopaedia, but clearly violates WP:ELNO, both by being a personal web site not written by an expert in the field and by not adding anything worthwhile to the articles (sample pages on Omniglot: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/finnish.htm repeatedly added to Finnish language and http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm repeatedly added to Urdu; as can be clearly seen they're nothing but short stubs plus lots of links to other web sites, even linking back to the en-WP articles they're added to for more information...). The web site has been reported to the spam blacklist (there are 1,100 links to it on en-WP...) so it's up to them to take it from here, but as I said, I haven't done any edit-warring. For more info about what has happened see both my talk page and the IP's talk page. The semi-protection mentioned is a reference to Urdu being protected by EdJohnston because of edit-warring by the IP, not by me. Thomas.W 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor already asked about this on my talk page. I suggested he post at WP:External links/Noticeboard but he hasn't done so. At first glance the links do seem to go to a self-published site and are not likely to be approved. If the links are being added systematically to multiple articles a complaint can be opened at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The site has been reported at WT:WPSPAM too now. Thomas.W 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• First you blank out most of the external links, claiming the article is nothing but a collection of links, then accuse me of "advertising" the site, even though I done nothing of such. It's simply informative content on the articles subject, but your own twisted interpretation or better distortion of them, doesn't get it. You've been evasive on my argument why IMBD is used as an external link. Now you're latest excuse is that the site is privately owned, even despite it has a bibliography section. Now you've made it a crusade to keep it off wiki and accusing anyone of adding it as a promotion. I could almost swear you have a personal feud with the owner of that site, even though it's properly sourced.94.204.144.31 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. A number of other experienced people who have looked at it (both here and at other notice boards) have confirmed what I've said about Omniglot violating Misplaced Pages's external links policy. If they get blacklisted it's because of you BTW, because it was your persistance that made me take a closer look at the site, before that I had never even seen the links. Thomas.W 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And before you took a closer look at it, you accused it a commercial site and accused me of "advertising it". Now looking further at it, you've come up with a new "excuse" to remove it.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Another deliberate lie from you, like on EdJohnston's talk page where you claimed that I had told you that it was OK to add the links, which I of course hadn't. I reverted your repeated addition of the links since it was obvious from even a very quick look at the site that the links you added violate our external links policy (the "advertising" bit is part of the standard text in the spam user warnings). Your repeated re-addition of the links, and your edit-warring on Urdu before that to get "Omniglot - the online encyclopedia of languages and writing systems" into the text then made me take a closer look at the site, a look that resulted in a report to the spam blacklist. Thomas.W 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• no wonder his RFA failed, and now he's back to his old antics. 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by now blocked sock. Thomas.W 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

96.255.215.253 - Disruptive Gaithersburg, Maryland IP editor

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

Hi, I'm requesting admin sanctions against 96.255.215.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is the third time I'm aware of that this editor (aka "Destructive Destroyer vandal"), who typically edits from Verizon FiOS IPs geolocating to Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been brought to ANI. Previous attempts

Other IPs suspected of using:

• 108.48.144.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; Verizon FiOS
• 108.48.85.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.51.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.10.240.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - La Quinta, California; Verizon FiOS - this one is weird since it's on the other side of the country. I believe SummerPhD found this one.

There's a significant overlap, between these two IPs, for instance.

Anyhow, most recent edits have been problematic. User's MO in the past has been to include redundant and overly embellished prose "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair", "slender, slim body", "As an eighteen-year old teenager", etc. When confronted, the editor typically deletes talk page notes without replying, which they are doing from this latest IP. Editor has most recently been warned for:

• Not adhering to British English in articles on British subjects like here.
• Disruptive editing related to repeated submission of improper MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE formatting
• Another warning to adhere to British spelling in British articles.
• Submitting unsourced, speculative content, for instance here where again we have MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE problems. Also they're contravening WP:CRYSTAL.
• Blanking at Downton Abbey here.
• Another warning for MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:HEAD because of repeated mistakes at Winx Club .
• Editor also has been apprised that removing talk page warnings is proof that the editor has read them and understands them.

It keeps going on. The editor clearly has no interest in community preferences, participating in discussion, or making compromises, only POV editing. Their silence says loudly that they're not here to take part in a community project. I also believe that given their history of disruption, they are either here to be disruptive, or they lack the competence critical to editing in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidently the same person. Blocked for a month, though they will no doubt be back in due course. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - While I have run across, stumbled upon and encountered this editor, I think 108.10.240.190 is a different problem, the "Fictional ages editor(s)". This editor(s) is focused on assigning ages to characters in various kids'/family TV shows (Full House (particularly the season articles), Winx Club, Little Einsteins, 64 Zoo Lane, etc. I say "editor(s)" because the edits are very similar, but the IPs are all over the U.S. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Summer, I've stricken that IP above. I may have gotten confused skimming an old ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Cleaning up after this editor on a daily basis has become a major drain on my time and an ongoing frustration, and I see that others are similarly impacted. This IP disregards repeated requests to adhere to WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN) in British articles (particularly those related to the Downton Abbey series), and the behaviour continues. I have left a series of notices followed by warnings increasing in level, all to no avail. In addition to the spelling and punctuation style changes I have reverted (I'm never sure I have spotted them all), this editor seems to take liberties with content and with the deletion of citations; others have been dealing with those changes. Please protect the articles, as well as easing the load on the hardworking "cleanup squad", by imposing, at the very least, a topic ban of the IP from articles using British (or non-US) English, broadly construed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Evidence

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

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

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

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

• 360 edits overall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!votes re ban proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem

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

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

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

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)

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)

• Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Doors22 is a POV pushing SPA that has been disruptive in the topic area for years. The question shouldn't be whether or not to topic ban them, but why they have been allowed to be disruptive for so long. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Misplaced Pages to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Formerly98

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

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

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

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

Jmichelson27

Looking at Jmichelson27's talk page as of this edit, he has been asked four times to stop adding content that he supports with IMDb reference. User has most recently ignored these notes here where he again adds IMDb links. There are other issues as well, for instance I had to ask the editor in this discussion I asked him why he removed the bulk of most of the plot summaries (which ideally should be 100-200 words) in favor of fatty loglines. He never replied. And in 550+ edits, the user has only discussed something once and has only explained an edit with an edit summary once. Editor Geraldo Perez has reverted this user on the basis that they submitted false information. Not sure how to proceed with an editor who doesn't acknowledge community expectations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like some serious WP:IDHT going on there, and frankly, I'm surprised that s/he hasn't been blocked already. Erpert 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all of the edits the user has made have been unconstructive, like this recent edit after this discussion commenced. Unfortunately, there are those problematic ones mixed in, as Cyphoidbomb pointed out, plus sometimes removing necessary references like and . But seeing five final/single-issue/level 4 warnings on the user's page since February warrants some administrative action. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Edits on Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) Page

These users IP 71.239.172.110, 140.118.228.170, 180.191.84.3, 180.191.76.3, 202.92.128.136 & 202.67.40.50 keep changing the call-out order section of the Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) page according to their own biased judgement, as well as adding useless and false information that are nothing less than inaccurate from the show. Please check episodes of Asia's Next Top Model (Season 3) to verify the call-out order. These users do not even have a legitimate account, but they are always making incorrect edits. -Win- (talk)

Seems they had very similar issues in the article about the second season of this same show.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

YES! And for many other shows too! Why haven't they been blocked yet, I really do wonder. -Win- (talk)

Jody08 is also posting false information on the page. The user is attempting to post spoilers of episodes that have yet to be broadcasted, therefore there is no actual proof of final results. -Win- (talk)

First thing, Sign your posts. The sinebot posted on your talk page showing you how to do this. This looks more like we have a content dispute going on than a conduct dispute. Looking at the talk page, while I notice they haven't tried to discuss this there I also so note that you haven't. This case isn't really for ANI. Go to the talk page, provide source, discuss it, try to get a consensus, and if that don't work go open some form of dispute resolution WP:DR, like an RFC. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit warring over this reality show has been occurring since the show started several weeks ago. A week or so ago, I asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP but I guess the article was only protected for a week. Should we ask for a longer duration? It's a true dilemma because some of the IP editors make valid edits while some user accounts make incorrect edits, like reformatting the contestants' box. I think though as the number of contestants goes down, the edit warring will decrease. Liz 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I really wish we could put an end to this use of Misplaced Pages as a minute-by-minte tracker of every unreality TV programme on the planet. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cryptjohson

Anyone recognize this guy, who popped out of nowhere three days ago with fully-formed knowledge of Misplaced Pages and has been busting my balls ever since? Anyone interested should take a look at his contributions and edit summaries and his commentary on Talk:Cooper Union#Edit dispute, plus his edits here, where he tried to induce another editor to get involved, until I mentioned that I was aware of Cryptjohson's virgin birth, upon which he deleted those edits.

It's an unfortunate aspect of our CU system, I believe, that "fishing expeditions" aren't allowed, so there needs to be some evidence about who this mysterious "new" user might be. Anyone who recognizes his style is welcome to post it here, or on my talk page, or to e-mail me with their thoughts. Or, if a CU recognizes this person, perhaps that would be sufficient for a check. BMK (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried my best to be civil and understanding with this editor, but his sense of superiority won't allow any constructive discussion. Cooper Union is an article that doesn't comply with Misplaced Pages:College and university article guidelines, and Misplaced Pages:Avoid academic boosterism. It was in an even more poor condition before I started fixing it . As can be seen from the history of the article, before I started editing it, BMK was engaged in an editwar with Arms & Hearts and violated 3rr. I tried to bring the article, on which BMK had been adding boosterism for quite a long time, to comply with Misplaced Pages standards, but BMK keeps trying to sneak in boosterisms. For example I removed the Misplaced Pages:Weasel word "recent" with this edit, while BMK readded it with this edit. He accused me of being a POV editor and had been very sarcastic toward me from the start (started when I added the sourced fact "Cooper Union ranks #31 in New York State by average professor salaries"(Ithacajournal), and BMK removed it stating there's no consensus to keep it & it's bad for Cooper's reputation), calling me fraud, liar editor with agenda.... Always saying that he doesn't trust me, despite me begging him to discuss and collaborate. He seems to have a conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. However, I'm not the only one to be his very recent uncivility victim, there's at least three other, see , , and . His behavior is really unfortunate.--Cryptjohson (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So there's another useful sample of his writing style to go on. He can't seem to decide if he wants to be the wrongly accused innocent editor or the thorn in my side. He posts a "divide and conquer" comment to Dwpaul's talk page, and then posts comments on the article talk page disclaiming any ulterior motives and trying to sweettalk me. It's all a fraud of course, but the guy's not good enough at it to keep up a consistent facade. BMK (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, pretty much everything he wrote above is innacurate, as can be readily seen by reading the thread on the article talk page. Transparently false descriptions. BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember, three days this account has been open, three days. Does the above look like the work of an editor with 3 days experience, or the work of an editor with considerable previous experience under other account names? WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, when we block or ban an editor, it's for good reason, and to allow such editors to create new accounts at will is detrimental to the project.BMK (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Being a new account makes no actual implication. They could have been an active ip editor prior and they could have gotten their current understanding of policy. I'm not aware of any policy against having a new account and being familiar with policy. I see no reason they need to explain to you how they know policy. Did they do something besides guilty of being new?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those are the usual excuses that make it much more difficult to control abusive editors, but I'm not talking about Wiki-fantasy here, I'm dealing in the real world. BMK (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK -- I don't think that under the current rules there is a way to address your concerns, without more evidence (and frankly, I'm not sure that continued posts to AN/I without more are the appropriate approach). However, if you want to expand the circumstances in which CU can be used, I would be supportive of that. But this isn't the forum -- if you wish to propose changes, the proper forums to explore doing so may be at Misplaced Pages talk:CheckUser and/or Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK has no regard for Misplaced Pages:College and university article guidelines, civility rules, and has a clear conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. Even after this thread was open here, BMK editwarred on Cooper Union, and violated 3rr for the third consecutive time in the same article, just to keep School of Art's alumni listed in the "School of Art" section, when there's a separate section on alumni, as well as a separate article on alumni already. When I proposed to move the arts alumni from the "School of Arts" section to the "Alumni" section, he refused and asked me to provide a "written policy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptjohson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Note that after he violated 3rr for the first time recently on Cooper Union (BMK recently violated 3rr in other articles also ), I notified him about it, and even assured him that I would request for his unblocking immediately if he gets blocked.. Time and time again, I pleaded with BMK, telling him that my goal is take Cooper Union article to featured status so that more people see it, BMK refuses to abide by Misplaced Pages rules regarding colleges, pushes to keep the disorganization and boosterisms he added for a long time, and keeps cursing me and telling me that I'm lying.--Cryptjohson (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

In POF, BMK has zero regard for sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. I attended MIT and Boston University in the 1970s, and have worked for an institution connected with Harvard. (NYC has been my home since 1976, but I enjoy the Boston area very much, it's my third favorite US city after NYC and San Francisco.) I did not attend Cooper Union, have never had any professional connection with Cooper Union, have never knowlingly communicated with anyone in Cooper Union's administration or faculty, and have not, in fact been inside a Cooper Union building except on one occasion. That was in trying to take a picture from inside their new building looking outward, and being denied permission by a guard. I started editing the Cooper Union article after taking some pictures of Cooper Union buildings. (I take a lot of pictures of buildings, upload them to Commons, and then put them into articles if the article needs them or if they're better than the photos that are already there.) I now have 13.3% of the edits to Cooper Union, making me #1 by that criteria, and 4.3% by the amount of text, which makes me #4. There, that's pretty much full disclosure. Now Cryptjohson can reciprocate by telling us his connection with Cooper Union or with any institutions which are competetive with Cooper Union, why he's doing his best to denigrate Cooper Union with his edits, what his account name was before he started editing with the account name "Cryptjohson" just a few days ago, and whether that previous account was blocked or banned. BMK (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, read CJ's two comments above carefully, and his comments on Talk:Cooper Union#Edit dispute and you'll see that the best he can come up with as a "boosterism" is the word "Recent" in a list of awards received by CU, as in "Recent awards include...", which I did not put into the article originally, but which came back quite accideentally in moving text from one place to another or in reverting one of CJ's edits. That is his evidence that I have a conflict of interest, the word "recent", about which another editor said "I've never thought of as a weasel word". CJ is, in fact, bending over backwards trying to find bad things to say about me, which raises the possibility that his focus may not be on Cooper Union at all. BMK (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Kumioko ban proposal

Floquenbeam has blocked Kumioko indefinitely. Noteswork (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Recently, Bgwhite and Magioladitis, both non-neutral parties attempted to remove any message or note that would indicate Kumioko as a sock on the talk page of HJ Mitchell, thus violating the WP:TPG.

Magioladitis has abused rollback.( Magioladitis has recognized this as "mistake". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log))

I don't see what is the reason behind that. Even after this extended and serious discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review, where he was provided standard offer, Kumioko has violated this standard offer multiple times, also check this SPI. And he continues to make up meaningless conspiracies about Arbcom. His ban should be reinstated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You just reverted comments of 3 admins asking you to stop. One more admin reverted your edits. If you keep disruptive editing I'll block you from editing. Consider this as a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Except when the comment includes some inflammatory stuff, you can remove them. But when you are removing the comment from others talk page just because you don't like, then it is vandalism. Yes you are causing disruption Magioladitis. Noteswork (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are taking it personally because of your heavy involvement (WP:INVOLVED) with me and Kumioko, but that is not going to justify that he is a ban-evader. You are not allowed to edit others comments or remove them as long as it is not your talk page. Have you read WP:TPG carefully? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo reverted your edits too. Bishonen left you a message too. How many admins does it take that you stop without a block It's not personal. I am trying to save you. I also left you a message to read WP:HELP in case you need extra help to familirise with this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because one person did something wrong, it doesn't means that you are allowed to abuse rollback. Well you even present Beeblebrox like they are supporting Kumioko, when Beeblebrox refer Kumioko as a "ban evading troll". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a totally non-involved user: Just drop the stick, because this is getting ridiculous. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not to pursue personal vendettas all over the place. Especially not on other users' talk pages. Thomas.W 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not support Kumioko neither in his actions. I do not support you neither in your crusade. I made this clear in the emails you 've been sending me too, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your history and recent acts, you do. I haven't sent you any emails related to this incident, what you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Magioladitis and I warned you in the reverted comments on your talk page. Beeblebrox told you. Nick has reverted you today. Ponyo has reverted you today. That is five admins that have either told you to stop or reverted you. You still haven't explained why you left a discretionary sanctions warning on Magioladitis's talk page. This comes on the heels of you not backing off the sockpuppet cases against Zhanzhao and the others you suspected. You pissed off all the SPI clerks. You have been told untold times to drop it and back off. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox told that one can retrieve the comments of banned editor if they are completely removed. Ponyo didn't reverted for that reason. Thus you are using all of these examples except yours and Magioladitis in completely wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Nick told that he is not going to increase block length. Bishonen told it differently. They are not saying that this is not allowed. They are acting within their limits while you are crossing them, by removing the comments on others talk page, when they are alerting about a banned editor. You have also edit warred with Fram on the talk page of Kumioko before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OZ, HJ Mitchell told you that "if you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell didn't knew then that it is a sock, and didn't knew that it is Kumioko. Thus your misrepresentation is likely not going to work. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like it's a really good idea to drop the stick, OZ.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is violating the WP:TPG, and abusing rollback? This is mostly about Kumioko evading his ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any proposal to extend Kumioko's block to an indefinite block or a community ban. He has been very poorly treated by the community, but he can still return to productive editing if the community shows him the patience, respect and is prepared to give him the sort of opportunities extended recently to people like Peter Damian. If it wasn't for (a) a pretty badly performed ban discussion in the first place and (b) a badly behaved group of editors fighting on his talk page, Kumioko wouldn't be blocked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, I don't see that we're actually protecting Misplaced Pages from anything by keeping him blocked (blocks being preventative, not punitive and not a form of punishment for upsetting an obsessed OccultZone). If he would agree to stop pestering people like Beeblebrox and respect requests to stay away from user talk pages when asked, he could quite easily be unblocked today. As it is, I'm still recommending we let the current block expire in August and work hard to reintegrate Kumioko back into the community. He has, unlike many blocked users, lots of productive content editing to give, if given the opportunity. At this point, I'm supporting a block of OccultZone for disruption, however. Nick (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What "disruption" you are talking about? Kumioko has treated others poorly, not that he has been poorly treated. Get them straight. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nick's own comment speaks his obsession/bias towards Kumioko, if he can find some previous report by Occult, against Kumioko, then he might be at least correct about Occult having something against Kumiko. Since Nick could not bring such evidence, his proposal is malicious. Noteswork (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• @OccultZone:, as an uninvolved editor, whilst I understand what you are saying, I must also ask you to please listen to what you are being told too. It is a user talk page and does not require that type of highlighting; a simple check of the IP's contributions reveals what it is you are trying to convey - as the block is highlighted at the top. If User:HJ Mitchell agrees with what you are saying, he will reinstate your edits as needed (in fact, maybe he will do so to resolve this more efficiently) - if he doesn't, feel free to air your grievance with him directly. But simply highlighting a banned user's contributions in that way here does not help and your repeated reversions do not help either. Your behaviour has really frustrated other users, and whilst Magioladitis will apologise to you in due course for misusing rollback or inadvertently suggesting you are a vandal, I really hope you will agree to withdraw this ANI in response to the apology so as to resolve the issue here. So long as you cease edit-warring on HJM's talk page on this issue and take this advice in the spirit in which it is given, I will oppose the proposed block on you. Can you please reconsider? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring there, instead of bringing it to 3RR(could be possible if I made 8 reverts, not just 1-1). Main issue is with Kumioko evading his ban, and there was a extended serious discussion before, when he was provided with standard offer. I am adding that link to my original post, give me 2 minutes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I see you have agreed to refrain from reverting about this issue on HJM's talk page which is good. If the community make a decision in relation to your proposal (whether it's to support or oppose it), would you be willing to avoid monitoring/enforcement thereafter? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

He still doesn't understand he is causing a disruption (See above, "What 'disruption' you are talking about?" or this) He still doesn't see anything wrong about his sockpuppet crusades. He only said he won't revert JHM's talk page, not any other ("I am not gonna revert or reinstate my edit on that talk page."). He still doesn't understand why it was wrong to be editing other people's talk page in regards to the sockpuppet. This isn't about a revert. This is about a failure to understand and not letting go. Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but unless you are suggesting my above question does not take that perspective into account, it would probably be helpful if OccultZone was given an opportunity to respond to that question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What is disruptive about reporting a banned editor? I would take them seriously if he had been told by someone who is not involved here. Though it is disruptive when you are badgering this discussion for your banned friend. Bgwhite. Noteswork (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Since I was asked by Ncmvocalist. In one of the issues raised after the ANI started and I have not noticed: Yes, the rollback was a mistake. I meant to undo. I apologise if I gave the impression the edit was vandalism. It was not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban I am highly surprised how he is still battling over the same issues over and again. He has evaded his ban upto 350 times since July 2014, and we know that he cannot restrain himself it is just better to ban again and next time it should be reviewed after 1 year. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Noteswork this isn't about Kumioko. The entire discussion is about OccultZone. Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I understand that some people have liked him, and you have feelings, but you should stop forcing them on others. Noteswork (talk)

• I am not keen on what OccultZone has been doing but I am even less keen on the disruption via block evasion etc that allegedly continues to come from Kumioko. Perhaps this discussion does in fact need to address that also. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But isn't allegedly the problem here? There seems to be a lack of evidence for the allegations unless I'm mistaken.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OZ's reverts started without enough evidence that the IP is/was still used by Kumioko. If a calmer/slower approach was followed we would have avoided the drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I had checked Kumioko's changes and it seemed like he found an opportunity to bite Beeblebrox. Issue is with your abuse of rollback. You seem not to be opposing Kumioko, rather supporting his actions, that's why they view your involvement as disruptive, even if he was not a banned editor, how you could edit others messages? Noteswork (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the entire discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, OccultZone needs to move on. Hopefully that's clear to him. Kumioko's IP address has been blocked. There's no consensus for extending the ban and even if there were it would likely be a futile gesture. Kumioko does himself no favours by trolling in project space (whereas if he was evading his ban to write articles, I doubt anybody would notice. Or even care.). Is there anything left to do here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• If block has to be extending it can be discussed elsewhere. I have observed that these discussions were usually long, before as well. I will shortly close this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Davew123 continued disruption after return from block

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

Several of us have been trying to explain how things work to Davew123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may not understand (e.g., editing talk page archives and others' user pages , ), or may be choosing to not listen (e.g., ). He has been creating articles (e.g,. Draft:Nonex , Domain validation) and editing articles (e.g., TV Everywhere) to include, either unsourced or from what appear to be self-published sources, references to his own own patents (e.g., , , ).

After being warned about his actions at User_talk:Davew123#April_2015, and informed about WP:COI , he attacked @Beeblebrox:, resulting in a recent ANI report and then a block by @Nihonjoe:.

Now that his block has expired, User:Davew123 is back to his same pattern of behavior, adding references to his own work to articles , and referring to the "fraud office some questions for you”, with edit summary "Mafia crooks 0%" , which appears to be a personal attack. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Session (computer science) still contains stuff he added years ago, again sourced only to himself. 80.189.137.19 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it , thanks. Any others? JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are more, two on other language Wikis:

• Weak reference - someone else fixed
• Chinese Misplaced Pages article “Weak references” - not fixed - still in subsection Java.
• Czech Misplaced Pages article “Session” - also not fixed, in section Session Management on the Web server fixed JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Wain says: All of my articles/amendments are factually correct. Note that commercially sensitive information is not normally published in academic papers. Most of my contributions are backed up with fully granted patents, which is a very exacting process. Other articles such as Moon Elevator (which has not yet been submitted) are designed to be fun and educational. Please read the content because it is thought provoking and correct. Davew123 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave,

Thank you for your civility in this response, and also thank you for not edit warring to restore the reverts of your recent article edits.

• Other than your initial contributions to be auto-confirmed, your contributions to English Misplaced Pages and other wikipedias have been to add text referring to your your work. Per WP:COI, “COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Misplaced Pages is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The Foundation's terms of use are Misplaced Pages policy, see Misplaced Pages:Terms of use”.
• These additions have either been unsourced or have been self-published. Per WP:SPS, “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”.
• Finally, that you assert your additions are all factual is insufficient for Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth.

So, what can you do? You could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if references to your patents would be considered reliable. I don’t think so, but I defer to those who volunteer there. Alternatively, you find a published journal article or book that refers to your work. The details you mention are not necessary, but that a 3rd-party or peer-reviewed journal published, vice yourself, is important. Finally, if you really think that the addition of reference to your work adds appropriately (see WP:UNDUE) to a given article, go to the talk page and make a note why it should be added, rather than adding it yourself. Otherwise, your additions are going to be viewed as purely WP:PROMOTIONAL.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The fraud office comment should attract an immediate block per WP:NLT. At the minimum, it is a blatant attempt at chilling discussion. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the previous ANI discussion (it still hasn't been archived yet as of this writing), people were already talking about possible WP:NOTHERE issues. Vague legal threats really don't help his situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• The overwehelming impression I get from this user is that they have absolutely no intention of even trying to learn how Misplaced Pages works, and have decided that instead they are going to make Misplaced Pages work the way they imagine it should. They also seem to enjoy throwing around inflammatory terms and phrases simply for effect without even considering if their remarks make any sense (i.e. the "no ethical or ethnic fraud" remark which is complete gibberish but sounds insulting) They also don't seem to get the distinction between the community and the WMF, which is what all that "fraud office" nonsens s is about. I don't believe they are here to help build an encyclopedia, they are here to show off their patents. They have done nothing but write about their own patents and show utter disdain for every other user who tries to explain things to them, rejecting their help with rudeness and insults. You can't collaborate with someone who doesn't care how this works and has nothing but contempt for pretty much everyone here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to me a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Blocked for a further week.  Philg88  21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• As he made still more threats after the block I have extended it to indef. the threats were pure nonsense but threats they were, and he had already been explicitly warned to stop making them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So these are the disruptive edits I am talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE:: I have had enough of the allegations and abuse so I have raised a linked ANI with a complaint about the OP. It can be found below at WP:ANI#IP editor resorting to abuse and malicious allegations against other users. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeffed sock puppeteer Mriduls sharma back again

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

During yesterday's move circus (see this section here on WP:ANI) Mriduls.sharma among other things made malicious page moves to then non-existant user names Sher Singh 111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Katrina Mukti D'Souza Kapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), two user accounts that have just been created, within minutes of each other, and started testing what they can and cannot do. Which, since there's no way in h*ll two random people with no connection to Mriduls.sharma could have created accounts with those exact names within minutes of each other, indicates that Mriduls.sharma is back again today. I've posted on C.Fred's talk page (since he took care of it yesterday), but he hasn't been active today, so could someone else please deal with it? Thomas.W 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced changes at Balkan Bulgarian Airlines

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

The following edits made by GogoLive123 (talk · contribs) replaced perfectly sourced information wiht poorly sourced one and, in the last diff, with no sources at all. Please also note that tha user seems to have a problematic behaviour at different Bulgarian airline articles (BH Air for example ).

All the above diffs have been reverted. Please also note that the user is not using the article talk, where I started a thread regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer  20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone here? There's another edit made by the user which shows their only intention is to push their preferred version. This last edit is unsourced as well.--Jetstreamer  00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Better off taking this to WP:ANEW – you'll probably get faster results over there. --IJBall (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at this . I've promptly removed it from my talk page.--Jetstreamer  00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Taken to WP:ANEW as suggested , but left this thread open too. This is not a matter of just warring but also introduction of unsourced content and therefore a violation of basic policy.--Jetstreamer  01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: GogoLive123 blocked for 36 hours at WP:ANEW by CambridgeBayWeather. Will probably need an eye kept on this editor after the block expires, as per: Jetstreamer's other concerns... --IJBall (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?

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

• 87.244.94.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) previously 87.244.71.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

In just the past few days, the IP has

• Asking for censorship of ISIL's human rights crimes, on the grounds that "the citizens of IS, that is sunni muslims, are treated very well and not subject to any problems" and "The only people who face punishment are criminals who commit crimes, just like anywhere else" despite readily admitting that Daesh kills people.
• "Otherwise by this logic we should have the islamic state Misplaced Pages page saying they are pure, original, perfect islam, which they are, but I can't get anybody to accept to put that in the leader because so many sources deny that obvious truth" - An admission of WP:ADVOCACY
• "It really is silly that you allow your hatred of them to cloud your judgement" - This accusation could be true if someone was trying to justify vandalizing the article, but is questionable when launched against editors who are defending the article's current title on the basis of reliable sources.
• Denying religious persecution by Daesh, proclaiming that Daesh "following exactly Quran and sunnah and they are adhering to shariah in every matter."
• Denying the well-reported raping and sexual slavery by Daesh
• "You see, terrorism is in our book! The Muslims will make the disbelievers know the meaning of terror now. Kill the men and enslave the women and children, no matter how much the disbelievers dislike it and never fearing the blame of the blamers."
• Insisting that Daesh be "allowed a voice via quotations from its own publications"

IP is WP:NOTHERE, recommend block, if not contacting the British government. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the IP cannot accept that ISIL adherents could possibly stray from religious edicts. Fundamentally incompatible with writing a neutral fact-based encyclopedia. --NeilN 23:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't deny IS sex slavery, that is celebrated by themselves with Yazidis. What I said was that this never happened to Muslim women, which is true. sex is only allowed with muslim wife or non-Muslim slavegirl, and can't and doesn't happen otherwise! Slavery is part of Islam, so no need to be embarrased or shy about this. Anybody who denies slavery being Islamic is an apostate. My beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had many slaves!

As for IS not straying from religious edicts, they don't. It's as simple as that, everything they do is in accordance with Quran and sunnah.

Secondly, regarding NOTHERE, what it is not It's not -Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner -advocating amendments to policies or guidelines -Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms -Focusing on niche topic areas

You can have whatever opinion of me you want, but I think you can see that I haven't been editing pages disruptively and only strongly advocating my position on the IS talk page, which you all duly ignore as is your right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Celebrate"...? Even kuffar know better than to celebrate that sort of depravity. You've shown that you're here to present the fajarah of Daesh as the legitimate form of Islam. If WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply, WP:CIR does. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're at it, anyone interested in discussing a topic ban? At least User:Cush and User:Aronzak have expressed support for that idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support IP user will continue to be a NOTHERE borderline troll after ban, recommend topic ban or indef. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No! We finally found an editor who won't have any complaints about Rape jihad, and you went ahead and blocked him? Dagnabbit... (Yes, that's sarcasm.) Pax 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll get no agreement from him Pax , you didn't read what he says did you? Paul B (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I shudder to think what Misplaced Pages is making of this situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is someone from Jersey who made the news last fall for trolling 4chan and other sites as a claimed IS supporter. The police questioned him and let him go, but are supposedly keeping an eye on him. I think we can safely treat him like any other troll. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that? When I checked the IP yesterday I got a location in Moscow. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you use "Alternate", which is located next to geolocation, you get a Jersey location. I'm 100% certain that this user is not Muslim but is just trolling. Liz 11:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I used WhatIsMyIP.com, what did you use? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Cush, if you click on Alternate instead of Geolocation at the bottom of the contributions page, you get this location from InfoSniper. I've found InfoSniper to be more exact but you have a limited number of times you can use it over 24 hours. I'm not sure of the exact limit (a dozen?) but I sometimes hit it and have to try again a few hours later. Liz 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Moscow must've been a typo. I copy-pasted it from the top and get the same thing on Cush's site as well... wait, Liz, are we on the wrong side of the dox-zone? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's odd. Today I get Saint Helier as the location as well. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's more reason for a community ban than a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a community ban is more appropriate, and in fact they (if, as seems probable, they're the same person) were charged by Jersey police, held for seven months and received probation in March, finding no link to IS. In any case they have no business on Misplaced Pages. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Does a community ban, or even a topic ban, work for an IP editor? Isn't it to be feared he's back in no time with a different IP ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point. DocHeuh (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bans are for the user, not the IP/account. If they show up again, WP:RBI can be used without any discussion or WP:3RR considerations. --NeilN 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add note; I have had problems with 87.244.94.46 on Eastern Lightning page, a Chinese Christian terrorist group (activities include killing an elementary school child and leaving a lighting symbol on feet, breaking arms and legs and cutting off the ears of victims, pulling out the eyes of a boy for trying to leave the religion, killing family members etc.) The IP has continuously tried to remove the terrorist organisation tag and editing other parts of the article in similar fashion, claiming he is "removing bias", despite numerous sources labelling it a terrorist organisation. He has been reverted by numerous page editors (including me), in the last few says removing the tag 3 times. I would perhaps suggest expanding the topic ban to terrorism-related articles or religion-related articles. DocHeuh (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Heuh0, please see my message on the talk page for the article. EL is horrific, as you have shown, but I honestly disagree with not including NRM as the topic sentence reference. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Community Topic Ban for 87.244.94.46

This IP's done some very dodgy soapboxing. I can't imagine a topic ban being controversial. But sadly no one ever notified the IP of ISIS discretionary sanctions, so he cant just be topic banned by an admin. Doubly sadly he'll be back in a few days time. I therefore propose the IP be banned from all topics pertaining to Islam broadly construed. Please lets get this over with ASAP. Bosstopher (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support given my original post. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: And support because they're likely a notorious troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support IP user will continue to be a NOTHERE borderline troll after ban, recommend topic ban or indef. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support yikes. hard to enforce on an IP but we may be able to SPI future instances. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think that's all we can really do since we can't hand him over to PKK. _Fortuna 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The PKK reference is not funny. ♆ CUSH ♆

• Support per DFFT and NOTHERE -- Aronzak (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Hajme 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my initial comment. --NeilN 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Yikes. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (tb for Islam, broadly construed Cban as per Acroterion) -When I saw him trying to purify the ISIL page of sources he did not like on the TP, I really wanted to be able to assume good-faith and be respectful, even though he probably hates my guts, but I have learned he's been given enough rope on this. I could accept his request for first-party sources (we're allowed to use first-party so in a limited sense)), but his non-acceptance of third-party sources (we have to base articles on those) and complaints that they are biased is a problem. He also has an edit warring problem: 1, 2, 3. He's also a contentious soapboxer 1. Clearly a TE. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Given that this user has specifically advocated violence against others, they can be blocked on sight with or without a ban, and any ban should be a community ban from Misplaced Pages, not a topic ban. We're far past a debate over neutrality of contributions. Acroterion (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Acroterion, advocated violence against others shouldn't be dealt with this lightly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• That seems to be as appropriate. Hajme 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously. Can someone close this? Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Violation of IBan

• The Marksboro, Robbinsville and Johnsonburg edits do breach the Iban, but appear to be accidental breaches caused by an AWB run. Alansohn, please be careful about this to avoid future misunderstandings.
• Magnolia677 is entitled to edit new pages, and doing so is not of itself a breach of the Iban. There is no way either user can be aware of what page the other user is "about to edit."
• I-bans can be useful in avoiding the blunt instrument of blocks, especially where the parties are valued members of the community. To work, they rely on some good-faith between the parties.
• There is not enough evidence (yet) that either party is seeking to game the Iban.
• If the Iban becomes ineffective through gaming, alternative remedies will be required.-- Euryalus (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Two days ago, I agreed to an IBan between myself and User:Alansohn. The details are on my talk page here. So far, this has given me two days without having every edit I make to New Jersey messed with by this editor. Then today, he changed one of my edits here. There was nothing wrong with my edit, and he had no reason to change it. It just has to be his way! This is the annoying stuff I hoped would stop with the IBan. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming Alansohn's term were exactly the same as Magnolia's, it appears he has left you no choice but to give him a block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) The section hasnt even been archived yet link. It looks like a clear violation of the second restriction. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Be it Nominated that a limited one-year interaction ban of the following terms apply equally to Alansohn and Magnolia677, to continue indefinitely unless both parties ask to have it removed in no less than 12 months or each 12 months thereafter:

(1) Neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN.

(2) Either party may edit the same article space or article space talk page, except that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit. Neither party shall follow each other's user contributions.

(3) A neutrally worded and impersonal response to a question posed by one party on the talk page (which we shall assume to be a valid question, aimed at improving the article, not criticizing an editor or edit) shall not be assumed to violate the above terms. In other words, one editor may not pre-empt comments by the other editor on valid issues by being the first to bring up a relevant issue on the talk page.

(4) New Jersey is larger than some 160 nations and dependencies. Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth.

(5) Violation of the terms of this IBAN shall result in increasing sanctions (temporary blocks) by any admin, without further warning.

BMK (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that Alansohn clearly violated #2, "neither party shall ... edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit". There was no intervening edit between yours here and his here. However, since your edit was made back on December 21, and his was just made today, I think it's a mistake which could easily happen. I would suggest that Alansohn should be given a warning in this instance, and that both editors should be reminded that when they edit articles about places in New Jersey, they need to check the article history before they make the edit to be sure they aren't violating the IBan. The whole IBan thing is new to both of you, so I think a little leeway needs to be provided for this very first event. BMK (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with BMK. This is a blatant violation of condition 2. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: No one formerly left Alansohn an ANI notice on his Talk page, and while it may be perfunctory in this case, I've just gone ahead and done that anyway... --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I actually linked to both the exact terms of the ANI RfC and the blocked user listing on both editor's pages, and am surprised this has come up so quickly. I'll refrain from commenting on exact consequences, although in my case the first response was a very explicit warning, not a block. Given the edit is four months old, a severe admonition seems sufficient. Certainly any repeat would deserve a stronger response. This should be taken as a mere opinion, not an uninterested response. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I meant an ANI notice for this topic, not the IBAN (notice for which was clearly left on Alansohn's Talk page earlier...). --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure of the difference, but I am also quite sure neither editor is confused as to what's going on, and both can read edit histories. My personal opinion would be to leave it to an admin and advise leniency on such an occasion, but it is only an occasion. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look through my edit history, and you'll find that much of what I do is done using AWB, running through series of articles to make multiple enhancements to each article. In advance of editing articles for CDPs, almost all of which I created, I did this search and removed any article from the processing list that Magnolia677 had edited that came up in the search. This included Manahawkin, New Jersey, New Egypt, New Jersey, Lopatcong Overlook, New Jersey, Cherry Hill Mall, New Jersey and Marlton, New Jersey, plus a number of other articles that I had edited after he did, mostly undoing his stalking. Every one of the article I have edited since the interaction ban is one that I have either created or previously edited often on dozens of occasions. On the other hand, since the interaction ban, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles he has never edited before, including Manahawkin, Cherry Hill Mall, Garfield, Lafayette Township and Lopatcong Overlook. The articles selected are edited entirely at random, without reason and without purpose, other than as further stalking. Even more disturbingly, he has stalked my talk page discussions, announcing here a discussion that was begun on another page that involved me and another editor.

Apparently, I did inadvertently edit the article for Marksboro, New Jersey, despite making every reasonable effort to avoid potential conflicts, including a check of edits that goes back four weeks before the interaction ban.

On the other hand, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles that I have edited before, most of which he has never edited before and for which the only apparent reason appears to be continued stalking. Whether this is a violation of the "wide birth " clause of condition 4 or if this is what WP:HOUNDING describes as "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.", it seems to me that this other editor is going out of his way in bad faith to manufacture potential conflicts.

I will redouble my efforts to avoid conflicting edits in every sense of the letter and spirit of this interaction ban, as I have for months. It appears that the other editor has no intention of avoiding conflict.

I had hoped that the harassment will end with the IBAN; It seems that it's only beginning. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my opinion you've committed any grave sin, but the problem is you've got to be careful. The consensus above seems to be that you don't deserve more than a warning. I've gotten such warnings myself. The good part is that it you are very careful you can avoid such warnings entirely, and be justified in asking for blocks. Don't protest too much! μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not protesting the warning; I'm pointing out the pattern of harassment on the part of the other editor. I think it would be useful to get clarification from this editor as to why he has gone out of his way to edit articles that I created / edited, which he had never edited before.

Why Manahawkin?

Why Cherry Hill Mall?

Why Garfield?

Why Lafayette Township?

Why Lopatcong Overlook?

Why on earth is he stalking my talk page discussions?

If these are not explicit violations of the Interaction ban clause 4 "Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth" and this isn't malicious harassment, I have no idea what is. Let's hear from the other editor before taking action. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agreed to this IBan, and so far the other editor has violated it 3 times: here and here and here. When I report it, he says I'm wikihounding and editing in bad faith. Oh my. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The persistent bullshit continues. After a series of bad faith edits to articles he has never edited before and stalking of my talk page edits, he filed this ANI report in blatant and deliberate effort to manufacture an excuse for the block he has been looking for since he started editing these articles. While this is going on and after he had been notified multiple times that his edits constituted harassment, he deliberately jumped into the sequence of articles I have been editing, including both Robbinsville CDP (for which I did a self revert, as he had deliberately tried to create an IBAN violation) and Seabrook Farms (which I was about to edit). Can someone get this WP:DICK off my back? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that both of you people seem to be hell-bent on getting yourselves site-banned permanently, which is (this is a prediction) what is going to happen eventually if you both don't shut the fuck up about each other and start editing the encyclopedia without bothering the rest of us. Really. BMK (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • (ec)And since the previous edits, he's gone on to edit Zarephath, yet another CDP article that he has never edited before, yet another violation of the "wide berth" clause. Now I will "shut the fuck up" and give everyone her the opportunity to review the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • (Non-administrator comment) BMK, I agree that both users are probably heading for blocks if they don't stop going at each other, but your telling them to "shut the fuck up" wasn't exactly the wisest choice of words either. Erpert 06:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm certainly more prone to senior moments than I once was, but I almost always choose my words with great care, and these were precisely the words that I thought were most appropriate in the circumstances. If someone wants to make an issue of that, rather than focus on the increasingly disruptive behavior of Magnolia677 and Alansohn, so be it. BMK (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass de-PROD-ding

While I think that de-PROD should be as easy as PROD both instruments are not really designed for bulk operations. Apparently Arb disagrees and de-PRODs with partially obscure reasons, cf. Mass_de-PROD-ding. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Is there an issue that needs resolving here, or are you just making a general statement? Erpert 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I checked some of Arb's deproddings and AfD comments. I think many of the deproddings are reasonable, but others are very silly. IMO this user has a poor understanding of what a reliable source is, and a total blind spot when it comes to recognising spam. And the amount of deproddings is also unreasonable. You deprod when you legitimately believe the article should not be deleted or go through AfD; you don't go through the list of about-to-expire prods and mechanically decline each one. Reyk _YO! 06:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Which article(s) is s/he even talking about? Erpert 06:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Arb can be extremely trenchant when it comes to de-PRODs. I've recently raised a few with them on their talk page. Eg: Ogg Writ (now redirected), Revolutionary Students Movement (now deleted via AfD) and Toor (currently at AfD). They are particularly clueless regarding WP:RS, eg: at the Toor AfD they are trying to use open wikis and mirrors. This is one of the more extreme examples of WP:ARS-member inclusionism that I have seen recently and I think they need to be persuaded to avoid matters relating to deletion until they can demonstrate a better understanding of core policies. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Please note that it is not just comprehension of RS that is problematic. Ok, we all make mistakes but the rationales are sometimes bizarre given that they come from someone who appears to have quite a lot of experience here. For example, the de-PROD at the Toor article completely missed the fact that most of the incoming links are from navbox templates. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, some of them are reasonable, but simply going through removing PRODs with an edit-summary of "I found some stuff on Google about this subject" is really not helpful. If you found "some stuff on Google" about the subject, why not use "some stuff on Google" to actually source the article? Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road for someone else to fix. And it's not as if Arb doesn'tknow how to cite sources. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ... Which is why I've just added something to Thorpe Park No 1 Gravel Pit and left a comment at Talk:Croydon Fire Company regarding WP:BURDEN. De-PRODing is easy but it doesn't in itself often help the encyclopaedia: far better to prove the point by addressing the PROD concern in the article, especially since they've (hopefully) done the WP:BEFORE stuff prior to actually removing the nomination. Of course, that then gets us back to issues such as WP:RS, where there really has been some incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And I've just noticed Karl Dalhouse because it was raised on Arb's talk page. That one was created by Arb and recently retained as "no consensus" in this AfD. The argument for retention was basically "something might turn up", based on vague search results, although they said in 2007 that they would sort out a specific citation soon as practicable. Worse, most of what the article did say (prior to my removals) wasn't even supported by the cited sources. I know 2007 is a long time ago but the deletion discussion was this month and there may also have been a COI. Nothing seems to be being learned: there seems to be a stubbornness to retain stuff regardless of policy. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Info forwarded to kikichugirl (closing user.) –Be..anyone (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No-one is going to revert that close, which correctly reflected that there was no consensus. It frustrates me that the default of "no consensus" is "keep" but that isn't going to change either. A new AfD is the only route. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Then look at another article they created. At this point in 2009, when they were the sole contributor, the one reason why this primary school article might have avoided summary deletion was because of the claim that it housed the first "integrated unit for deaf students" in Jamaica. The problem is, the source does not say that. Yep, it is old stuff but I am becoming more and more concerned as I start digging here. Are we going to have to check all of these things? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A WP:USERNAME#Misleading usernames notification/name change request might be in order too; I had to re-read this thread a couple of times before it made sense as I confused WP:ARB and Arb. —Sladen (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That has been discussed previously on their talk page and is why the disclaimer appears there. That said, I too was confused when I first saw it and I'd certainly prefer it to be changed. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tentative proposal

That some (and perhaps even the majority) of the de-PRODs are ok does not really act as a get-out clause when things are as iffy as this. As a tentative proposal, could we ask Arb to restrict themselves to, say, five de-PRODs per day and require them actually to validate such de-PRODs accordingly by working on the article, eg: if they say the verification is out there then add it? Additionally, ask them to confirm that they do now understand WP:RS and the limitations of paraphrasing/problems with misrepresentation. I don't mind keeping an eye on things, although it might be better if someone in an admin role took that on because I'm bound to be accused of stalking. To avoid gaming, might we want to include CSDs also? Not that I have any evidence that they would game, so maybe that can be put off for now.

Alternatively, someone needs to review every de-PROD that they make and needs to be willing to refer the issue back to the community if the problems continue. A sort of probationary mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Arb hasn't been online to respond to this section, and you're kind of dominating the discussion, so I think it's best to hold off until we hear what Arb has to say. Reyk _YO! 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Sitush's proposal is a helpful step forward. But, yes, our decision may be influenced by what Arb does next. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

nonsense "article" and trollish behaviour

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

Lloyd Morgan Evans (born 1995) (talk · contribs)'s creation of "article" Morgan Norbury, which also contains a photoshopped image of Pres. Obama and had been started with the edit-summary "Not much to see here, admins.", suggests rather trollish behaviour. The same user has also uploaded the cited nonsense image (File:Obama 4-20.png), currently shown in the "article", to Commons, where it has already been requested for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is some 4-20 humor. We should be on the lookout today for more of this. Liz 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't even realize the date. (sighs) At least it's not as much of a joke AfD magnet as April Fool's can be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Most of his other edits have been minor and even then he's still done some vandalism as with this edit (among others) to Ysgol Dewi Sant. I'm going to go ahead and block him for vandalism. His non-vandalism edits aren't major enough to where I think he'd really contribute to Misplaced Pages, although if he can convince another admin otherwise then he may be unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note- it looks like his work wasn't limited to just 4/20 and he'd been doing things like this for a while now. A shame- it looks like he didn't start off as vandalizing, which is likely why he didn't get blocked until now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV needs attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued Interaction ban violations by User:WarKosign

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

Despite an interaction ban with me, User:WarKosign continues to revert my edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=657331946&oldid=657331283

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=657331283&oldid=656586151

What is the point of an interaction ban if one party is going to continue to revert the edits of the other? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should get help with a admin by talking directly with one. It takes aproxametly 4 to 5 days for a admin to reply here I think, but directly talking with a amin you mot likely get a respose in a 24 hour time frame I think? Here are a few admins I know that are active a lot! User talk:Materialscientist, User talk:Beyond My Ken,User talk:NeilN, and User:BeenAroundAWhile. I suggest you talk with beyond my ken. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Doorknob747, from your list only Materialscientist is an admin. Liz 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz::::The others act like mature wikipedians and some are page patrollers, reverters, rollbackers, checkusers ect. that they are also able to help in this problem, I also forgot to mention u. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any interaction ban logged in at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Was this an informal, agreed-upon I-ban between the two of you? Liz 15:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Gouncbeatduke, can you (or someone else if it infringes on the iban) reference the discussion where this ban came into effect? This seems to be utterly stupid as both of you work on Israel related topics and are both regularly involved in debates. Either one or both editors should be banned or the iban should be lifted.

From my experience I have found WarKosign to be an extremely tendentious and, as far as I can reasonably perceive, an extremely evasive editor. Here is one situation: A discussion on Talk:Israel/Archive 45#Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel had left the template: Template:Largest cities of Israel in a situation in which it presented West Jerusalem as being marked as being in Israel as per the presentation of Israel as marked, for instance, by UN and other maps and the template, using similar reference as used within the cited source document of the template, read "Largest Urban areas of Israel".

Instead of resuming discussion WarKosign started a new discussion out of context at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#RfC on Jerusalem with the opening text:

A discussion at talk:Israel didn't come to a clear conclusion and there is some edit waring over Jerusalem.

Given that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is rejected by most of the international community, and that there is currently no available number on population of western Jerusalem alone, how in your opinion should Jerusalem be presented in this template ? A few options were proposed so far:

However, shortly after the opening of the discussion and without reference to the talk page WarKosign changed the title text from the use of the urban areas reference (which would have been more conducive to reference to West Jerusalem) and reverted back to a largest cities reference which, despite international views contesting that East Jerusalem is part of West Bank territory, would have placed Jerusalem, as a city, in an all or nothing situation as far as the template was concerned.

I have since found WarKosign to be very difficult to communicate with as I think contents of the talk page show.

I am by no means surprised to hear of WarKosign's reverts of contributions by Gouncbeatduke despite an iban and, to me, this seems typical of behaviour and approach. GregKaye 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ya that needed admin attention. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with Gouncbeatduke's iban. The reason for this iban was user's repeated baseless personal attacks against me, and until this complaint the user abided by it.

JzG closed an RfC and since the decision was that there was no consensus for any change, per WP:NOCONSENSUS I restored the article to the state it existed in before the dispute began. If it is preferred, I don't mind undoing my change so anyone else can perform it instead of me.“WarKosign” 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not start a edit riot or a Misplaced Pages fight on this page, it can lead to a banning if it starts. So keep the language to a good and non derogatory language to avoid something like that, please. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, The initial discussion that ended with the use of reference to "West Jerusalem" and "urban areas" was this one. I haven't seen reference to the case with Gouncbeatduke but there have been many times that I have needed to figuratively bite my lip when in discussion with you and have often needed to bring things down to yes and no type questions to, from my view, try to get a direct response. GregKaye 17:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I should not have made the change, so I self-reverted. The change itself is 100% correct but someone else should do it. I'll explain the situation if an admin asks me to, because I'm not supposed to be making even indirect comments due to the iban. “WarKosign” 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

But, WarKosign, the question remains why this I-ban isn't logged in to WP:EDR. Did it arise from a discussion on ANI? Or did you two just decide not to interact with each other? Because there isn't a record of it where there should be. Liz 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It was the result of this AE case. “WarKosign” 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, WarKosign, I appreciate it. Looks like I need to ask Cailil about it. It could be that I missed it on WP:EDR. Liz 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: the state of the discussion of the sockpuppet question here included the edits:

"I am not accusing you of anything. I am just asking if Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) was a sock you used. I don't understand why you can't give a yes or no answer. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)" which was immediately followed by

"The way in which you phrased this question implies that I regularly use socks, and this happens to be one of them. This is not a question, this is an accusation. “WarKosign” 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)"

In my experience WarKosign very often takes the route of not answering, avoiding and deflecting questions and now it seems to me that this extends to situations in which editors are faced with the potential emotional crisis of receiving death threats. GregKaye 06:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I cannot respond regarding the content of the conversation you quoted, but note that it is not the original version. Not every question can be answered with a "simple yes or no". For example (obviously false) : "GregKayeRandomEditor, do you still intentionally insert false information in all of your edits ?" “WarKosign” 08:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign The fact that you cannot respond comes, in my interpretation, in the context that you are both able to edit the same Misplaced Pages content but are not able to interact with another editor doing the same. Please do not use my name in any such example even if "(obviously false)". Please strike.

If an editor presents a content such as "... I am just asking if Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) was a sock you used. .." it is perfectly possible to answer yes or no and this in no way impinges on you ability to add suplimentary information. My interpretation is that you are failing to communicate with other editors directly. GregKaye 08:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I'll be able to respond regarding that specific conversation once the iban expires. In your case you repeatedly asked me the same question in different variations apparently hoping to get an answer that you would like or could use against me. Note that you are even doing it in this very conversation. I do not have to respond to your interrogations unless I feel like it. “WarKosign” 08:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign IMO you are taking this situation unnecessarily and inappropriately personally. There was no point that that I was hoping to get an answer that I would like or could use against you. It is, however, fair to ask for points of clarification in regard to the editing of article and related media content. GregKaye 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That RfC shows no consensus for anything, reversion or otherwise. It's irrelevant to current content. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In the results section of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive166#Gouncbeatduke Cailil said: "Unless there are substantive objections from other uninvolved sysops within the next 24 hours I'll enact the following, and close this thread with the result: "User:Gouncbeatduke & User:WarKosign are banned from interacting with one another as per policy described at WP:IBAN, for three months, per this AE request."" to which Callanecc added "+1". Can I propose that the ban is either extended to a three month topic ban to both editors or that the ban is removed.

Some time ago, of a length now permitting comment, an editor with whom I was associated with in connection to ISIL related topics wanted to impose an IBAN in regard, I think, to a specific incident in our interaction. I regarded there to have been a number of issues in the surrounding situation and submitted my own incident report. A voluntary resolution was proposed to which I think PBS fairly commented: "This will not work. Lets game play it. GregKaye makes an edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant other editor reverts it with some comment such as "edit unbalances POV". GregKaye writes on the talk page in a new section "Oh no it does not unbalance the POV because..." Other editor can not post an explanation, GregKaye reverts. Now what? WP:BRD breaks down. Second case Other editor makes an edit and explains in a new section on the talk page "edit to improve the POV", GregKaye can not reply and if GK disagrees and reverts with no discussion WP:BRD breaks down. Also point five "If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate." bad idea as the deleting editor can be seen as biased and it will shift the debate to one with a proxy. I could go through all your points one at a time, but in brief without good faith this will not work." This current case I think totally validates comment by PBS. Ibans on editors who work on the same topic area do not work. GregKaye 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• @WarKosign: from an administrative perspective you breached the IBAN, is there a reason you should not be blocked for the violation? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Could you please clarify the extent, if any, to which the current discussion falls into the context of: Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans, specifically: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum."? GregKaye 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I performed an edit that can be seen as a breach of an IBAN. I did not revert a specific edit by any user, but it is likely that I undid some work of the user. The edit itself was not to modify content (although obviously it did), but to implement the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy. It was a mistake, I should have waited for someone else to perform this edit. Once my mistake was pointed out I self-reverted, there is nothing else I can do at this moment. “WarKosign” 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: No issue with participation here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Thanks for the explanation I don't see that any further action is needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• We are still left in the, I think, absurd situation in which two editors, working in the same project area, can't talk to each other. GregKaye 10:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• And the I-ban was never logged in at WP:EDR so I'm not sure if it is even actually official or when the three months are up. Could some admin take care of this as Cailil has not responded? He just edited his talk page to say he would be away in April and May 2015. Liz 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving backlog on this page might cause a massive problem for mobile users that might look at this page using their data plan for internet access.

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

More info what I am talking about can be seen here! Doorknob747 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Imagine my concern.

There are some things that mobile devices with tiny screens and limited data plans are just not suited for. Editing Misplaced Pages is probably one of those things. Involving yourself in AN/I threads is most certainly one of them. There is no reason for Misplaced Pages to try to accommodate wannabe editors who insist on using unsuitable tools. Jeh (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat—incivility

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

SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been incivil and stubborn in a discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion concerning whether "James Bond" is a title for the series of books and should therefore be italicised in the Misplaced Pages article (title and body). Unfortunately, much time was wasted discussing various guidelines before identifying the most pertinent guideline, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Titles § Neither, which says:

SchroCat's view is that "James Bond" is a title for the series and should be italicised as such: "My reference to WP:COMMONNAME is that 'James Bond' is the title. It's referred to as such by Ian Fleming Publications, the rights holders to the literary estate. I went through my hard copy sources at home last night; the series title 'James Bond' is explicitly referred to as such by the following publications, three of which are also IFP approved reference books."

My view is that "James Bond" is not a title for the series and therefore should not be italicised: I noted that, of the publications that SchroCat referenced, none of those I could preview online treated "James Bond" as a title when referring to the series, thus undermining SchroCat's claim. "I don't think it's true then to say that "James Bond" is regarded as a title of the series as much as it serves as a descriptor for the novels and films featuring the character of that name." "These are the only ones from the above list that I could preview on Google Books, but it shows that these sources: refer to the series by various different terms, not consistently as 'James Bond novels'; do not format the words 'James Bond' (referring to the novel series) in the same way as they do the titles of books."

SchroCat later referred to evidence of two books that use the words "A James Bond novel" on the cover: "Note the wording on the top right of the Devil May Care book cover, and at the bottom of the Solo cover. As this is a form of wording used by IFP for several decades not used to refer to the character, but to the series, it's fairly clear what they consider the series title to be." I acknowledged that this would be relevant for those novels in a series: "Thank you for finally producing some evidence of two titles using 'A James Bond novel' on the cover, which would support considering 'James Bond' a title for a series containing Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks and Solo by William Boyd. What about all the other novels by Fleming that instead feature 'Vintage 007' on the cover—wouldn't that indicate using 'Vintage 007' or even '007' as the title of Fleming's series, not 'James Bond'?" I added: "Look at the covers for Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and so on. They all feature '007'—they don't feature the words 'James Bond'—so, if anything, 007 would be the series title."

Sadly, while I have tried to stick to the issue in order to reach a consensus, SchroCat has failed to assume good faith by other Wikipedians from the outset, even admitting: "... forgive me if my reservoir of AGF has diminished to low levels over people who are happy to make up their own rules when they want to, but will ignore them when it doesn't suit them. I'll post some examples later, and I really wouldn't be surprised if there is a sudden u-turn on whether to look at them or not." SchroCat has consistently been dismissive, insulting and profane (while also accusing me of similar incivility). Some examples:

• "Utter balls. ... you are too closed minded to look beyond anything but stubbornly defending a sub-standard MoS."
• "... frankly I have better things to do than read through you repeating tedious walls of bollocks which you call 'clarification', even if you are the one that needs some points clarifying."
• "As to the nonsense you've written again ... I'm hacked off at the misrepresentation and poor attitude to discussion here: it's not constructive and divisive, but from my experience, that's about par for the course for those who pass knee-jerk defensive judgements on the MoS."
• "It matters not one fucking iota whether other sources italicise the names or not ... Time for you to accept that other people have a fucking clue what they are talking about from time to time, and for you to be disruptive elsewhere."
• "My AGF has broken down because of the complete nonsense that has been dished out from the beginning on this."
• "... it's the sort of tedious and trite rubbish that drives editors away"
• "You can at least make an attempt to be honest." Edit summary: "Despicable behaviour, even by the standards you've displayed already."

SchroCat repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting their comment, although they never made clear how they supposed I had done so: "(For example I have never claimed, even remotely that 'COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Misplaced Pages article titles'. I've explicitly said so above, and the fact that you are not bothering to read and take on board what I say to be illustrative and, frankly, tedious and rude)." "I have never said that was the case, and it's tedious to have people mischaracterise so badly what I have and have not said." (Note that I had never claimed that SchroCat said, agreed with, or disputed the quoted text.)

SchroCat also falsely accused me of "saying 'series titles are not italicised'" when, in fact, I had said the opposite. To their credit, they retracted the attribution of this comment to me once I pointed this out.

I previously reached out to SchroCat on their talk page in an effort to make peace and show that I was genuinely trying to be constructive only for it to be deleted with the edit summary "turns out this was all deceitful balls" After I drew their attention to another related discussion, they again deleted it with the edit summary "No point in leaving the words of an uncivil and underhand bully on here"

—sroc 💬 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried any other dispute resolution about the underlying italicization issue (which is really a content dispute)? Maybe that could relieve some of the pressure. If there's a RFC then I might post a comment. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books. Can you imagine just how mind-blowingly frustrating it is to bang ones head against such a brick wall (and yet, irony of ironies, I'm the one being called stubborn here) It's certainly been enough to make me lose my AGF over the motivations here. I'm then accused of making up facts, which I find truly low and despicable. And now I'm being called stubborn because I hold a differing opinion to this editor on one point and haven't kowtowed towards his opinion. Despite suggesting a few times that we both step away to allow third parties to state their views, that hasn't happened. Because of the other editor's incivility in accusing me of making up facts, I've stepped away permanently. Their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to this has worn me down past any point of caring about this article, or the point they are endlessly pushing, and makes me question why I bother with the project. – SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the personal attacks (which an admin needs to pass judgment on), this seems like a content issue that can be better settled at dispute resolution like the third opinion process. Liz 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When you have the time to make a whopping 9.6 kb!!! post at ANI you know you've probably been worrying yourself unnecessarily. time to move on and put that time and effort into article building. I suggest a swift close from an admin here and this editor persuaded to stop wasting everybody's time and his own.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some articles smaller than this post. If sroc had've put in the kind of effort creating a new stub on something interesting rather than post this load of shit then we'd have all been better off for it. Cassianto 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have only just seen SchroCat's reply: "It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books." I must respond because this is patently false, as I have acknowledged this from my very first reply: "The difference here is that cases such as List of Star Wars books and Twilight (series) are based on existing works that feature the italicised words as the title (i.e., Star Wars and Twilight) whereas the films and novels featuring the character James Bond almost never include his name in the title (certainly none of the films or Fleming's novels or short stories), so it is not appropriate to italicise his name when referring to the series." I never denied that series titles should be italicised, only that "James Bond" is not the title of this series, which is borne out by the evidence. It is appalling that SchroCat has perpetuated this lie in an AN/I. —sroc 💬 09:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This thread is closed and the discussion over. Please leave it that way.  Philg88  09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement SPA censoring the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Big Wings" in The Battle of Britain.

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

I am not in dispute with anybody, I would like to know how my comments on the "Big Wing" aspect of the Battle of Britain has gone? I gave factual evidence to my post and have quoted; The Battle of Britain, James Holland, on several occasions. Can I ask how my request is going? Many thanks in advance. Ben Quinn 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Auk929 (talk)

I get the impression that you are not requesting action from an administrator. It isn't clear what matter you are discussing, as your account's contribution record shows that your only previous edit to Misplaced Pages was on the article Trowbridge more than 7 years ago. If you have concerns about a particular article, that article's talk page is the place to discuss it. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I presume the editor is the IPs 81.148.30.228 and 109.150.80.237 . If so, his/her questions have received no reply, probably because there is little traffic on the Big Wing page. The editor could ask on the main Battle of Britain talk page or ask for input from members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit in Peace

User:Murry1975 continues to call me a sock and has done so on 3 separate occasions , , . On multiple occasions he/she has linked me with User:Factocop yet has failed to raise a SPI. Can you please stop this pest or raise an SPI so this can end? TY Dubs boy (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Weeeeellll, the first step is to follow the instruction on this page that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page so that Murry1975 knows about this conversation. I have done that step for you. Liz 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz though Murry1975 has been less than courteous to me. Just want this sorted.Dubs boy (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest Dubs boy, your edits on this site do bear a huge resemblance to those of Factocop who is a known user of sockpuppets, but that does not mean you are him. All it proves is that you are simply someone of similar sympathies. Having said that you have a long history of troublesome editing and have been blocked before, which included block evasion, and have been told by a couple f administrators that you where on thin ice.

It also appears that towards the end of last year you where stalking Murry1975. I'd be weary of this AN/I boomeranging on yourself. Mabuska 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think stalking works both ways. Boomerang? Completely agree. I'm here for this reason. As the heading says I want to be able to edit in peace without the constant name calling. I shouldn't have to worry if Murry1975 or Factocop have edited that page prior. The unfortunate thing is that where Factocop has edited, Murry1975 has also edited. Both have staunch, albeit opposing POV's.Dubs boy (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah stalking me isnt nice, but as you have raised it here as I was gathering info. Murry1975 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Murry1975's revert of you on Nigel Dodds is fully qualified by the fact your edit violates WP:IMOS, a community agreed consensus on the name issue. You know this policy yet you went ahead and violated it regardless. In fact considering the recent edits on that article I have to suspect that Dubs boy may be the IP. Just to point out that on the 18th April that IP appears to have broken 3RR and is subject to Troubles restrictions remedies. If an SPI shows that Dubs boy and this IP are one and the same a longer block than Dubs last one should ensue as they know of these restrictions. Mabuska 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They seem pretty staunch to me. As for the IP, I had actually advised the anon IP to accept status quo at WP:Derry page. See here . I can't please everyone but thanks for another personal attack. I'll take it on the chin.Dubs boy (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can post as a registered editor and as an IP and comment on themselves as if a different person. It's called socking. If you think raising a very relevant point is a personal attack then this site is not for you for when anyone disagrees with you or raises an issue in regards to you, your going to be offended quite a lot. Maybe that explains your behaviour which borders on battleground mentality. Mabuska 09:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska, you are getting all flustered. I'm just raising the point that if my comment was removed because it was offensive in reference to Highking then I believe I have every right to be just as pathetic and thin skinned. Its not in my nature to be that way but it seems there is a mentality on Misplaced Pages of who runs to the teacher first to tell on the other. Just embracing it. The fact that you have commented here and at the SPI offering no real content makes me suspicious of your agenda. I'm sure someone else can connect the dots.Dubs boy (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:HistoryFightFan thinks he's 'outing' me

At Talk:MyFreeCams.com, User:HistoryFightFan keeps asserting what he believes to be my "secret identity." As per WP:OUTING, I will "not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information," even as foolish as the situation is. I wrote the MyFreeCams.com page to begin with, and I much later on added a long quote from a book addressing the subject, for some flavor. And sure, the book isn't the most authoritative source, but it's not put there to back any controversy-clad claims, but simply to provide a feel for the website which the news articles clinically dissecting its revenues and notoriety simply cannot do. And so FightFan assumes I'm the author of the book engaging in self-promotion, and deletes the quote--which I restored, which he then deleted again with some mostly irrelevant criticism of the actual author's rhetorical flourishes. And each time FightFan comments on this he smugly continues pressing this name which he foolishly believes to be my real name. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the undue quote from the self-published book from the article. An admin can address the outing concerns independent of the content-issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how a quote can be "undue" if it's not being used to source any proposition. Pandeist (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at the article talk page. The content issue is best discussed there, with the outing complaint being handled here. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

'k. Pandeist (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Whole article looks promotional and self-sourced, but yeah, HistoryFightFan should stop speculating about the real-life identity of another editor on the talk page. HistoryFightFan, if you think there's concrete evidence of a COI problem, open a WP:COIN report. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New category of Supercar had been deleted earlier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:CrazyAces489

This user has been attacking specifically articles I have written ever since I voiced my opinion on a discussion pertaining to the deletion of one of his articles (see their history). The user places "issues" on the top of the article, that I must note have been patrolled and approved, that do not relate to it. Ghmrytle (not available right now) even stated to the user that he/she had a personal vendetta against me. It's the second time around that I removed the baseless "issues" and I warned the user. I feel the warning will be unheard so I want the user to be temporarily blocked from editing until he/she proves he/she will stop the vandalism. Thank you for your time. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2015

@TheGracefulSlick: To me, the guy mentioned above (whose name I corrected) is trying to create a lot of edit wars with you, so both can be blocked. Be careful. I think this guy should be blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Cheers, MYS77 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm trying to avoid. He/she has been doing this and I am just trying to do the right thing by removing them. I don't intend to be involve in an edit war, but thanks for agreeing with me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015

@MYS77: TGS failed to put the required tag on my talk page but he did mention he would bring this to AN/I. I put on a tag of a self published source and he removes it. I also put up notability tags and he removes them. I put an African American Portal category and he removes that also. Ghmrytle has a stated friendship with TheGracefulSlick. He has edited articles I created and I don't make an issue about it. He doesn't WP:Own articles and others can edit them. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick and CrazyAces489: The true fact is that you two should be blocked for edit warring. One is following the other and creating issues where it doesn't exist. And by doing this, you two are clearly disrespecting the guidelines here.

Please you both, stop stalking each other and start collaborating as a team. I (and WP overall) would appreciate it very much. Thank you, MYS77 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@MYS77: How is putting up an African Portal Category problematic for an article? If the individual is african american? I see that as a problem. I have already placed multiple warnings for 3rr. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@CrazyAces489: The point is: you two are hounding each other, thus violating the WP rules. You two should be blocked for this, and maybe for 3RR (I didn't check any pages, that's why the maybe), in my opinion. MYS77 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@MYS77: I have asked him to stay off of my page , yet he still posts on it along with personal attacks . I don't care if he edits my articles, as he has done , but he takes it personal if I edit his articles As can be seen in this AN/I board. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was telling you to stop vandalizing, perfectly right to do despite you telling me to stay off. And it's not a "personal attack", many of your articles are stubs, or are questioned, and regularly deleted. So of course you are ok with me editing it since it improves the article you clearly hardly worked on. Also, I'm fine with people editing my articles, but your negative tags are unexceptionable, as they are only your idea of revenge. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

There are good arguments for questioning the notability of some of these articles, but the actions of CrazyAces489 are excessive, stalking and border on harassment. This, for instance, is just ridiculous. One warning would be enough. CrazyAces489 also needs reminded that is takes two to edit war and she/he is just as likely to get blocked. --Escape Orbit 08:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: The reversion template requires that each article receive notification. Thus it may seem to excessive, but it is not. Please look at the reversion template used. He reverted more than one article, so notification for each reversion was necessary. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I never wanted to edit war, but the user places the notability and orphan tags when notability has been established and the articles are not orphans. So, really, I'm doing what needs to be done by removing them. The users main use of time, however, is putting them back which is unconstructive. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Plus, other users also removed the tags, either because they saw its baseless reasonings or the user was placing the wrong tags numerous times. He/she isn't doing it for the betterment of the article, but as a type of revenge for believing his/her page should be deleted. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

User:Biantez

The fellow user mentioned above doesn't communicate (sent three messages already), and is copy-pasting texts from PT Wiki, using Google Translate to translate it (see his last creation here and the relatable article in Portuguese).

IDK what's wrong with this guy, tried to remove correct sections and clubs in Gerson Sodré without any further explanation. Can anyone take a look at this?

Thanks, MYS77 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For starters, that yellow box right above the text area where you started this thread clearly requires you to notify Biantez that s/he is being discussed here, which you didn't (although I did it for you). Erpert 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert:: Sorry, and thanks. MYS77 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban

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

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

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

• It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk _YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking into the future

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)

Block review

The discussion raised questions about 4 users by Floquenbeam, thus I think it has to continue further in the new direction. I wonder if they were notified somehow to participate in this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think they were all pinged. Noteswork might also want to contribute. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Floquenbeam and User:Magioladitis. You have raised doubts about my independence on Misplaced Pages and you asked how I know occultzone. I don't know him. We are not friends outside Misplaced Pages and I assume live in a different country. If you doubt this check my edits and articles. They mostly pertain to Irish subjects. In relation to the timing of my edit I was nearly the first person to vote but every time I tried there was an edit conflict. I can't speak for the other users. I was not pinged by anyone. I just don't support blocking unless it is absolutely necessary. Also I resent your comments about imperfections in my english. User:Delibzr you seem to be saying that I am a just a sockpuppet. I question your impartiality in this subject. It seems wrong that you level accusations against me. Anyway this hardly an obscure page and I regularly read the notices on it. If my vote is an issue I will withdraw it. This is the second time I have been accused of been a sock. The first time I was accused of being a person living in Asia. I have been here less than 10 days. If you lot are going to accuse me of being a sock you best make your mind up as to whose. So much for assume good faith. If you still have doubts talk to me on my page. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Trout71, it's unusual for a 10 day old account to find their way to AN/I, AfD and the Village Pump in their first few days. Many editors don't come across internal Misplaced Pages pages for months or years after they have created a new account and most readers don't even know they exist. Your appearance in these governance and maintenance areas so soon after creating an account raises suspicions in some longtime editors. I'd try not to take it personally. I doubt there is an editor on Misplaced Pages who hasn't been called a "sock" at some point in their editing career. Liz 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright fair enough User:Liz. I see your point. I am familiar Mediawiki and associated code and this is just a big version of that. It helps me find internal pages. Also if there is governance and maintenance going on I would prefer to be a part of it. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are a few steps ahead of most new editors, Trout71! I think it's often forgotten that while an editor might be new on en.wiki, they could have been active on other Misplaced Pages projects. Liz 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is enough here for a CU, both in the evidence and in the concerns voiced by veteran editors. I endorse the opening of a request, if a second editor is inclined to do so. That would address the possibility of us having a sock problem - though of course it would not address a possible meat-puppetry problem. Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:John Carter violating WP:UPNO

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

(EDIT CONFLICT) John Carter's user page looks like a talk page, and has confused me and several other users into posting there instead of on his talk page. When other users have made this mistake he has allowed them to revert themselves, but for me he has been maintaining my accidental post as a "record" of my "stupid mistake", even after I tried to undo it. Upon my original mistake, he criticized me quite harshly for it, so his refusal to allow me to undo it seems odd at best.

I asked him to remove it, and he refused, repeating a bogus accusation that I think I am perfect and never make mistakes.

Could someone please tell him to cut it out and remove that section of his user page, which blatantly violates the section of WP:UPNO that says "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" isn't allowed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(EDITE CONFLICT) I tried to notify him but he reverted me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you do not seem capable of understanding that despite your apparent belief that you have the right to dictate to others how they conduct themselves, you do not. Frankly, others have not engaged in the rather ridiculous, pompous, insulting conduct you rather regularly have, and you also seem to be incapable of understanding that after you have clearly been told to stay off my page here, you continue to have the right to not abide by that request. The rather offensive little sermonette you had the gall to give me with the notice would in the eyes of I think most rational individuals qualify as an unacceptable violation of my last request. It is also worth noting that the history of the page revealed that it was Hijiri himself who added it there, in one of his rather regular insults directed at pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, and I reverted his reversion, because, frankly, it is not his place to do so. There is a question whether an individual has a right to keep on his user page something someone else added, and, honestly, I believe it is reasonable to do so, and in no way a violation, as it was not me, but Hijiri, who put it there in the beginning with this edit. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I'm sticking by John Carter's side on this question. It's his user page, which he divided by sections, and if you're "confused" you can look to the URL and see that the page isn't a talk page. But Mr. Carter, I would recommend you to cool down a little bit.

And after reading the whole context of it, you started this totally unnecessary discussion only because Carter edited in two Japanese articles, Hijiri? Seriously, what's the need of this? MYS77 00:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:MYS77: User:In ictu oculi is among the numerous users who were also "confused by sections", I guess? Also, you didn't read back far enough: before posting the comment I had endured a weeks-long hounding campaign, in which he showed up on several article talk pages and posted nonsense comments whose sole effect was to undermine me. I'm not interested in talking about it. This is just about the section of his user page that maintains a record of my perceived flaws? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

But they engaged in reasonable discussion, which you rarely do. I find it amusing that someone who so engages in the rather ridiculous put-downs that you added there himself shows how ridiculous his own inability to understand pages is. Again, I am sorry that you, as an individual, seem to believe that you are capable of adding such rather silly insults and at the same time doing it on the wrong page. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously, John, you have the right to keep whatever you want on your userpage. That said, the fact that others have since made the same mistake and have been allowed to move comments to the right namespace (without issue) suggests that this is being kept there for bad-faith reasons. What's the f**king point? Your user page is confusing and even admins have made the same mistake as Hijiri88. But they didn't receive childish lectures from you. Forcing someone to maintain their obvious mistake on your userpage is dickish in the extreme. Be the bigger man and allow Hijiri88 the same courtesy you seem all too keen to allow everyone else. St★lwart 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed no other comments myself from the page. Someone else did, here. I believe it is amusing to have such an evidence of, dare I call it stupidity, on my page, when I am not the one who put it there. It is also worth noting that I had recently at least suggested as an idea an interaction ban with Hijiri, during the recent mutual i-ban with Catflap. I simply wish him to himself abide by the principles of standard acceptable behavior, which his own comment did not do, and, frankly, neither did his removal of it. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• And you're not required to remove other comments, nor are you required to keep them there. My user page is pretty obviously a userpage and I've still had people accidentally leave messages there. I don't lord it over them. As I said, the fact that an admin made the same mistake suggests its an easy mistake to make. You're "technically" in the right here but you're being more than a bit of d*ck about it which is a form of disruption in its own right. Some might think of that as being in breach of the principles of standard acceptable behaviour. St★lwart 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:UP#OWN, users don't own their pages, if it is something that is causing disruption which in this case it is then per policy it should be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carter made no such IBAN suggestion. User:Sturmgewehr88 suggested a one-way IBAN to get John Carter off my back. And I hope John Carter realizes that if he was IBANned with me, then quoting me on his user page would be a definite no-no. Also, how is this going to end? Everyone who actually read the discussion seems to agree that the section should go, but won't it just be reverted again? What's the normal procedure here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I've read it quickly, didn't search enough. It would be better (and very simpler) if Carter removes Hijiri's edit of his user page. I'm agreeing with Stalwart111 there.

And just to clarify: I have told Carter to cool down in my previous message. So, I wasn't agreeing 100% with him. OK Hijiri? Cheers, MYS77 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@MYS77: Acknowledged. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with carter removing the post, Carter its one post just remove it and have this ordeal closed already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the root problem here is in Hijiri88's editing, again. John Carter is acting reasonably. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: On what are you basing that? The issue at hand is that John Carter's user page is confusing enough that several experienced users including me, you and at least one admin have mistakenly posted there instead of his talk page, and while he has allowed you and the others to self-revert, he is choosing to deny me this privilege in order to keep a record of my "stupidity". UPNO explicitly forbids this. The only edit I made here that was "problematic" was the original post -- a month ago -- on the wrong page, a problematic edit you and several others have also made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

All one has to do is look at the top left of your computer screen, If it reads User:name then it is an editors user page - if it reads User talk:name then it is their talk page. Nothing could be simpler and how there could be any confusion about this brings up WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Even better would be to not go to JC's pages at all. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And there are and have been very serious competence concerns regarding Hijiri for some time, regrettably. I have been in contact, for some time now, with editors with whom Hijiri has argued in the past, generally for dubious if not irrelevant reasons. The obvious paranoia evident in his previous comment on this page here in which he states that anyone who does not have a public e-mail account must, apparently by definition, have sockpuppets, as well as several of his other recent comments, do reasonable continue to raise WP:CIR issues regarding Hijiri in his sole area of interest. The rather extensive correspondence I have been sent off-wiki, which has already been summarized and presented in a redacted version with the identity of the sender removed, as well as his recent history at Kenji Miyazawa in which he has for a rather extensive time sought to keep information regarding the subjects affiliation with a nationalist group, apparently solely on the basis that Hijiri as an individual does not want to have the subject labeled as a nationalist, and other recent, including his obvious and apparently regular, according to the e-mails anyway, insistence on belittling anyone who ever disagrees with him on anything he is interested in, continue to raise in my eyes very serious questions whether this individual is even here to even build an encyclopedia, or whether he might just be here to promote his own personal opinions about subjects he is interested in and help ensure, through dubious conduct and insults, that anyone who might produce sources which challenge his opinions retires through either, eventually, losing his temper, or through disgust with his conduct.

By the way, the offending comment has been removed, by me, although I believe Hijiri's real reason for objecting to it, as I believe I said earlier, is that he cannot abide facing the apparent fact of his sometimes obvious at best dubious competence and extremely questionable judgment and behavior. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:98.116.21.171

The user only places false information in various articles of telenovelas of Televisa, for example place as original string to Univision. For example here, Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do. Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do.

Here are more items on which adds the same information

• Morelia (telenovela).
• Laberintos de pasión.
• Volver a empezar (telenovela).

I hope that you can do something, because Univision is not the original broadcaster of those soap operas. And on the years in the language parameter to place it seems to me an act of vandalism.--Philip J Fry Talk 02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:X3250

User is removing content and editing another user's Talk Page here and here. 79616gr (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

I'd like to request a brief rangeblock of the 119.56.120.0/23 range (I hope I got that right). A single, IP-hopping editor operating in that range has been making disruptive edits to articles on Magic: The Gathering players. (see edit histories of Jérémy Dezani, Brian Kibler, Reid Duke, and Jon Finkel). Whenever a page gets protected, they simply move on to another one. Under normal circumstances, they would have been blocked already and that would probably have been the end of it, but since they've never made more than one edit from the same IP address this has not been possible technically. Your help is appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the whois, this would be a /18 for the entire provider. I'd recommend a CU review this to see if there would be any significant collateral damage before I would be comfortable issuing the block. Nakon 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing with a CU, there would be significant collateral damage to legitimate editors. I'll semi-protect the pages for a month. Nakon 05:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: I appreciate that, but it doesn't really address the underlying behaviour of vandalizing a single article until it gets protected and then moving on to the next one. I also don't think rangeblocking the entire provider is actually necessary, since all of their edits have been in the narrower range I cited above. (see range contribs). What I'm asking for is something comparable to a first-time vandalism block. No longer than three days. With only one edit in that range from someone else in the past week, I think the risk of collateral damage is manageable. More than anything else, I'm concerned about what kind of message inaction sends. Basically, this guy has just learned that while we may stop their vandalism eventually, there aren't really any consequences for it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CU has determined that there will be significant collateral damage if the range is blocked. There may be a large number of logged-in editors that use this range. Therefore, page protection is the best action that can be done. Nakon 05:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize rangeblock affected logged-in editors as well, but if that's that case then what you're saying makes sense, unfortunate as it may be. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(unarchived)

Um, a rangeblock is a normal block. It doesn't affect logged-in editors unless you make it a hardblock. Is there a significant amount of IP editor traffic on that /23? (for some reasons tools isn't working for me at the moment). Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This tool is the only one working for me at the moment - https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/. But yeah, there does seem to be quite a lot of collateral on the /23. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how you're evaluating risk of collateral damage, but I can't agree with it. Obviously a long-term rangeblock would cause serious collateral damage, but for something short-term, like what I proposed above, the risk is manageable (only one edit from someone else in the past seven days, only four in the week prior), and no longer outweighs the risk of damage to 'pedia involved in doing nothing. This guy has now vandalized two further pages (see Kai Budde and Richard Garfield), and I have no reason to think they'll stop until we stop them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued harassment by some disturbed individual

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

Some time ago, eight years or so, I created the Misplaced Pages page on an Australian company named SKILLED Group. Over the last couple of years some individual who has a grievance with that business has been continually harassing me on Misplaced Pages. Yet, I do not work for that business, I have no interest in that business, and nor do I have any involvement in whatever this guy's problem is let alone any resolution of it. He is mentally unhinged and needs to understand bugging Misplaced Pages editors is not going to achieve a resolution for whatever his real-world problem may be.

Previously I logged it here and Reaper Eternal dealt with it - https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Davidmwilliams#Uncivil_behaviour - but he has been back several times since, and again now, under the obviously fake username 'davidmmwilliams' - his sole list of contributions under this account are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Davidmmwilliams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmwilliams (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Congressional hearing

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

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

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

Vandalism after 24 hour block

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

Here. User:Céline_Rayne is vandalizing pages, again, after a 24 hour block. He also blanked his talk page which was full of warnings. --92slim (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Block request

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

Could someone please take a look at Laddypat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm involved, so can't block them but they are being disruptive - see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Basedow. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 Widefox; talk 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They've already been Indef'd, nothing to worry about. cnbr 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

histmerge

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Attacks by the TheGracefulSlick

User is a self admitted novice editor , whom is still in high school. While being in high school or a novice editor is a problem to me, other things are. He has already been referred to as a possible sockpuppet. . Individual has made numerous personal attacks on me from calling me a sockpuppet to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant . Any edits to articles started by him receive an almost instantaneous revert by him. In violation of WP:OWN . CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

first you call him sockpuppet then you complain he called you sockpuppet? and you think hes the only one to blame? 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@134.208.33.104: Can you please identify where I allegedly called him a sockpuppet? Other users called him a sockpuppet. He called me a sockpuppet. to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I only revert your edits, no one else's reliable edits, because you make irrelevant edits. My "personal attack" was said because you started attacking my articles when I believed your article should be deleted (and was). I never called you a puppet so you are lying, too, that was me merely saying if you did such and such it would be a bad thing to do. I have been a cooperative editer until this user started vandalizing articles I made and he/she needs to stop. I just want to go back to helping Misplaced Pages TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Somebody talk me out of blocking both these guys for 3RR on not one, not two, not three, but four different articles. Give it your best shot. KrakatoaKatie 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I haven't made any personal attacks as listed above. I have also given the proper warnings for edit warring. I have also brought forth a 3rr. As per , I will simply put up the articles for AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk · contribs) has very graciously closed the 3RR report (which you should have mentioned here) with a warning. Boomerangs can be painful, so edit with care. KrakatoaKatie 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This the second dustup I've seen between you two. Head immediately to dispute resolution and work it out. Repeatedly coming to ANI, trying to get another editor sanctioned is frowned upon unless there is clear evidence of sustained misconduct. Not getting along with other editors is part of working together on Misplaced Pages and not cause for an administrator's intervention. Figure out how to get along...that starts with avoiding antagonizing other people. Liz 18:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys are smart, so I don't know why you are encouraging CrazyAces' behavior. He/she is lying about me saying I called him/her a sock puppet and targeted specifically my articles because theirs is sub-par at best. If you read his/her diff I said if this activity was going on, it would be bad. I'm done with this discussion, as the user is not worth anything to me or this project, although I will try to reach a truce one last time, to continue, so I am ceasing any interaction with him/her unless I need to defend myself from more lies. I'm going back to improving articles, not sure what the user will do, but it's not my issue anymore. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015

Threats by Tolinjr

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

Yesterday I came across the works of User:Tolinjr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as part of a discussion about the notability of the article Thomas F. Olin, Jr.. Looking at the articles I found a very similar style of writing at the article ], written by Tolinjr. Looking further, I noticed the article Brigantine Yankee, using as sources works from a mr. Olin, Sun Hwan Chung, using as sources works from a (different) mr. Olin. So I tagged those articles to request better and independent sources. I refrained from tagging them as COI, although the suspicion is there. Effect was and Tolinjr started to remove the tags on both articles. I duly warned him about that. At Thomas F. Olin I did add the COI-tag and this too was removed multiple times. I have seen POV-pushers before, so this did not bother me too much.

But what does bother me are his threats on my talkpage here and here. I asked him to stop with that in a stern but polite way on his talk page. What was followed by another accusation.

This is definitely not the way to act and I do not want to get sucked into a string of edit wars. I hope someone can take a look at this. The Banner talk 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am Tolinjr. I am an editor, semi-retired, who has not been involved with Misplaced Pages since my user page was deleted by vandals several months ago (since restored by a master editor). This morning, I checked Misplaced Pages and found that The Banner talk had somehow searched my edit history and then proceeded to paste several maintenance templates on every article on which I have ever contributed. I do not know this person. I have never had contact with this person until this morning. I have no idea why this person is doing this. The handful of Misplaced Pages articles where I have contributed are random and not related. The only way for this person to accomplish this feat is to open up my edit history and pick them out. My only assumption is that either this person is associated with editors who previously deleted and vandalized my user page, or perhaps an editor I worked with on an income inequality article last year.

How can I be the threat when he ambushed me, out of the blue, this morning? I have done nothing on Misplaced Pages for months. However, it is clear that he is intent on damaging every page I have ever touched. He has also threatened to shut down my ability to edit. I have communicated to him that, as a result of previous malicious activity against my page, I am sensitive to such vandals and had to resort to having master editors shut them down.

He is not doing this because he legitimately questions the references ... his actions reflect specific motivation and intent. And in the case of Brigantine Yankee, my contributions were limited to the last paragraph (with three footnotes) and the photograph (that my grandfather took when it wrecked). But he still felt the need to tag the entire article, just like the other articles (across-the-board tagging), even when it was mostly written by other people. This is sheer malevolence. Tolinjr (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have received a complaint from Tolinjr that he is being wikistalked by The Banner. Be on the lookout for the applicability of boomerang sanctions here. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm starting to look at this. The OP's explanation is reasonable. On the Brigantine Yankee piece, largely devoid of inline footnotes, the REFIMPROVE flag seems very appropriate. The other flag seems excessive. I've restored one of two flags, hopefully that is a reasonable compromise. The way to lose the other flag is to source out the material better, whether it comes from a book or article by someone with the surname Olin or not. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect to Sun Hwan Chung, I believe those flags are inappropriate for that piece as it sits and endorse their removal. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect to Thomas F. Olin, Jr., I feel the COI flag was formerly appropriate, now that the article has been effectively gutted, not so much. As for the NOTABILITY flag, just haul the piece to AfD and let the matter be decided dispassionately there. I'd encourage The Banner to take down the COI flag and to list the piece at AfD for decision. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think bringing the Olin article to AfD is worthwhilte - the guy was the CEO of a major company. I've done some more cleanup of it. BMK (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I was confusing it with Thomas F. Olin. BMK (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It should either be hauled to AfD for decision or the Notability flag should be removed, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. BMK (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable here. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that you say nothing about the threats. Nor did you look into the clearly incorrect allegations that tolinjr placed on your talkpage. And when I was really after him, as he claims, the would have been a sockpuppet-case by now. Perhaps you are right that my tags were sudden and harsh, but still does not warrant the threats. The Banner talk 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The "threats" appear to have been the result of annoyance and misunderstanding, which may have been lessened if you had discussed the problem a bit more and templated him a bit less. I agree with you that Tolinjr appears to have a conflict of interest, and I have left a message on his talk page explaingin things (at least from my point of view), but I do not think you handled the situation optimally. Nevertheless, I agree with Carrite that there is nothing actionable here against either of you. BMK (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have listed Thomas F. Olin, Jr. for deletion debate, removing the NOTABILITY flag in the process. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also gonna go BOLD and remove the COI flag from the gutted version, which is fully sourced and innocuous. The flag on the earlier version was appropriate, in my view, but all possibly objectionable content is gone now. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

soviet balticum

i do not think there a better place to get things settled on the issue then here, i saw discssions and MASS REVERTING by baltic nationalists Klõps and Nug, this needs to be discussed on one place and reach a everlasting consensus once for all (i could not give nug a notice he protected his page) 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I notified Nug but I'm confused on which articles you are having a problem on, are you talking about Baltic states? It's essential you provide diffs, or evidence, to support your accusations. Liz 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I beleave I know what is the problem. The two mentioned editors live in denial that Baltic states were part of Soviet Union, and make all edits n a way to show that those countries were always independent and revert any correction that mentions Soviet rule over the countries until the USSR dissolution in early 1990s. This has been going on for years now. FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of this? Diffs? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• 81.235.159.105 has been making a lot of unconstructive edits. It is probably connected with IPs previous report . IP has been notified to discuss things before and warned , but all she/he did was to back warn me on my talkpage .
• The IP is edit warring for Lithuanian SSR , Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR articles to use her/his system for predecessor and successor flags. This system however is really complicated and misleading Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are both predecessors and successors and Reichskommissariat Ostland also goes both directions. This is in conflict with Template:Infobox former country that states If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary).
• @FkpCascais these are pretty seriously messed up claims. Hard to comment even. There is no denial, these countries were under the occupation.. see Occupation of the Baltic states, State continuity of the Baltic states. As we see there are some editors who think that de facto means de jure --Klõps (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

An issue arose on the Meghan Trainor tlk page in December last year over her being a singer or a singer-songwriter. The issue was since settled and the people came to a consensus of calling Trainor a singer-songwriter. From that time, User:Winkelvi started baiting me. I initially avoided them but it has become a big concern. The first nomination stalled as the user got the article unstable. I was very upset at it. I subsequently nominated the article again on 18 January. Within 5 hours the disruptive user started the issue again note that it had been settled. I had to remove this nomination again, becoming further upset. Mustering up enough courage after about three months of the issue having already been settled, I started a nomination on 20 April. Ten minutes later he returned to start the dispute again. They have since denied this. Was this all a coincidence. I don't think so. I request a topic ban. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Another content dispute? SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, with a bunch of canvassing and other...stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is not canvassing. These are the only active editors involved with the Trainor article. What do you mean by this statement? Is there anyone else relevant I forgot to invite? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yeah. Me. "Canvassing" also means carefully selecting your audience. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I know what canvassing means and you were not involved in the talk page discussion at that time. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful, MaranoFan, if your sig matched your username. It's very confusing the way you have set it up. Liz 17:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why so? For e.g. User:HĐ uses Simon. Why cant I use my sig? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Because editors have to go to some trouble to figure out who they are talking to instead of immediately knowing it is you. This is less of a problem when an editor sticks with the same signature so that people associate the sig with the user. But I've never seen you use this sig before. Liz 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion, back to the user in question. Winkelvi. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Winkilev isn't happy about a content dispute. Start up a formal WP:RFC to get a stronger consensus. Then you shouldn't have any further troubles, and you can go about your work on the article. That's all that really needs to be done here. What exactly do you expect to happen here? It's not like there's anything here worth a block or topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi isn't a little baby who we have to work hard to make happy. This is not a request for comment, it is well-established that Winkelvi (or one-two of his friends) are the only ones with the problem. This isn't even a real dispute. This is a technique WV uses to get my GA-nom jeopardized. This drama needs to stop. And we need to discuss the topic ban here. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban - Petty content dispute. Use an WP:RFC instead. If that happens, and there's still trouble, then look at a topic ban. At this point, its little more than someone being stubborn about a trivial detail. Just discuss further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

-But there is no dispute. This is a plain tactic WV uses to get the article failed. Everyone is ok with singer-songwriter. This was at Rfc just a few months ago. We have had singer-songwriter on the article ever since. This is not worth an RfC. He has a problem. We need a topic ban. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Counter proposal - OKay, I am fine if we leave WV without a block or ban, on one condition. When we go into RfC and resolve this. After which, and resolving all the other issues, I will give the article into GA reviewing. However, Winkelvi should not flare up the drama again. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with that. Start up an WP:RFC, and make sure the relevant WikiProjects are (neutrally) notified (no canvassing), and hash it out one last time. If its closed with a consensus against Winkilev's, yet he persists, then yes, at that point, I would agree its become disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Request removal of talk page privileges and/or page protection

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

Apparently Lotusmediadesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is pretty upset., , . S/he was blocked in 2009 for spamming. Perhaps one of you kind admins would revoke talk page privs and/or protect the page. It has an active block/declined unblock on it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, shouting nazi slurs in ALLCAPS with many exclamation marks. Nothing good will come of this. Reyk _YO! 18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Need quick block and deletions

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

Special:Contributions/PINGAS SUCKER SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

definitely agree, they are currently just posting pictures of penises around the Wiki. Also, can I have the edits by this user on my talkpage removed please? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Spamming external links?

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

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

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

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

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

OWNTV disambig page

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

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

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

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