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

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

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

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

• 360 edits overall

• 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome
    • That AfD in October 2012 was a rodeo of meatpuppetry and led to an a sock/meat investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666/Archive over Finasteride, Post-Finasteride Syndrome and Wikipedia: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)

• Wikipedia Talk
  • 9 comments at Wikipedia 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. ^[1] The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC ^[2] and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. ^[3][4][5][6] In January 2011, a Canadian law firm filed a class action against Merck for failing to include warnings of permanent sexual side effects on finasteride's product label. ^[7]

References

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ [2]
3. ^ [3]
4. ^ [4]
5. ^ [5]
6. ^ [6]
7. ^ [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" He has been doing one thing here, and is resorting to increasingly ugly measures to achieve his goals.

• 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))[reply]

!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))[reply]

• Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) [reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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★lwart¹¹¹ 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Wikipedia with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Wikipedia in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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★lwart¹¹¹ 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

"It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."

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

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem

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

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sarah

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

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

Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. [9]. Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

By my reading, 10 support the proposal and 2 (including you) oppose it. Which means you've managed to convince 1 person that sanctions aren't immediately necessary to prevent you from further disrupting this project. And he didn't really seem to understand what was being proposed or why. That's a few more than "more than 50%"; more than 80% in fact. And you continue to argue that you're a necessary force for ensuring the article remains "neutral". There's absolutely no remorse here at all for what is long-term disruption, just vague references to "taking the bait" as if others are (once again) responsible for your disruptive actions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Wikipedia to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors22 clearly has a personal connection to the article, which is prohibiting him from making quality edits and rational discourse over the talkpage. Perhaps when some time has passed and Doors has expanded himself to other areas of the encyclopedia, the topic ban can be revisited, however its blatantly obvious that one is needed in the present day. cnbr¹⁵ 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban. Support alternative talk page restriction proposed below. Agree with above assessment of POV both ways. Agree with assessment that single purpose editing has frustrated gaining broad WP experience and normal WP socialization as might be expected from the number of years. Agree with above assessment of teaming. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Formerly98

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

• 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)[reply]

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☯^Consult 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

JYTDog - Vote Stacking

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

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

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

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

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

What a ridiculous diversionary tactic. And again with this business of trying to have those who highlighted your disruption sanctioned also. You still haven't actually accounted for your disruption or suggested any way that you might look to contribute productively in topic areas other than this one. At this stage I'd guess there'd be decent support for a indef block. Either way, this hail-Mary section should be closed immediately and a ban should be enacted to put an end to this nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The initial editor I warned:

• 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

Unusual! Of course it's the same user, per WP:DUCK, but they form the smallest range I've ever seen editing a wiki article — 8 IPs. Since they are different IPs, each with a separate user talkpage, they probably haven't seen your warning, and would be very difficult for me to talk to as well. Instead, I've blocked the tiny 128.231.237.0/29 range for disruptive editing; I think the person will see the block log, and I've put a recommendation in it to create an account for the purpose of communication. (I've left the "Block account creation" unticked so they can.) Feel free to let me know on my page if you should see them expand into the largesse of a /28 range or so. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This sort of IP definition could be a static pool of shared computers, such as a classroom or workshop. It would not be unusual for an editor to be taking a "space available" PC in a shared environment in a hospital recovery wing or rehab center. Not that it really adds anything to the discussion; just looking at the pattern. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, ScrapIronIV, I was wondering what such a small range could represent. (I don't really understand ranges or rangeblocks, I do them with a lot of help behind the scenes.) One person moving between different computers all in the one room, then. In the hope of confusing, or simply as one machine or another became available for use, who knows? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

Perhaps a page protection on the impacted articles would be appropriate. Perhaps that would encourage the registration of an account, so we could communicate with them. The edits seem to be in good faith, just a bit overzealous. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake: 128.231.237.4, 128.231.237.5, 128.231.237.6, 128.231.237.7 and 128.231.237.8 is not a /29 range but a /28 (still very small). That's why number 8 has been free to roam. See, this is what happens when idiot admins like me make rangeblocks. (I only do them because too few people do.) I've changed the block to reflect this, and also extended it to a week, since they don't seem to have learned anything from the 48 hours. I'd rather not semi, too many articles. ScrapIronIV, I agree they may well be in good faith, but they can really hardly avoid seeing my block rationale urging them to create an account: it comes up every time one of the blocked IPs tries to edit. IJBall, I don't think they could have not got the message, some time when they tried using one of the other machines. It's all the same person. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I would not categorize an error an "idiot admin" action. That sounds like a self directed personal attack (insert smile here) I appreciate the fact that you take action - and I haven't seen any hint of your self accusation being warranted. You seem like one of the "good 'uns." ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: you got all of them in the 128.231.237.0/24 range (I widened the range to see if there were any other subnets also active). After looking, I also found this same editor is also using the same /28 grouping within the 137.187.241.0/24 range. This is also a NIH network.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touching this thread to keep it alive until Bish sees it. Maybe 'Zilla carried her off for the weekend.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She did, yes, in her pocket. Nothing I could do about it. I had a lovely weekend, actually. Berean Hunter, are you saying there would be a point in blocking the whole 128.231.237.0/24? But why? Don't I get all those IPs in the same way with a 128.231.237.0/28 block? Please explain in words of one syllable. [/me thinks about IP ranges and wrings her hands a bit.] I don't see any recent obviously disruptive edits from 137.187.241.0/24; do you think it should be blocked? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I was showing the /24 ranges specifically to illustrate that only the /28 portion of both networks have been editing anonymously...just the lowest 8 addresses out of 250+ available. I was adding to your comments above where you were wondering why such a small subset of addresses were being used. Somebody has subnetworked small groups probably for administration and security purposes. The 137.187.241.0/28 range is what I'd block. That is your blocked editor...every edit in that range is theirs. I don't see any collateral damage. This edit on Friday is him on one of the same target articles. They have used most of those addresses persistently up to April 20 except for the one on the 24th so yes, they are quite active. Leaving that range open allows for block evasion. You may try checking the results on the link for 137.187.241.0/28 tomorrow. They seem to edit Mon-Fri. Any edit you see dated on the 27th will likely be block evasion...that and they are essentially refusing to communicate with other editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I only removed the template ONCE [...]." Wow. First removal: [10]. Second removal: [11]. Last time I checked you are not an admin, copyright check or OTRS agent as per "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." explicitly written on the template of the article (something you clearly can't comprehend). Excuse me, but your edits are disruptive. You are trying to make a point by edit warring, going at it in your own way, ignoring WP:Consensus, and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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