Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

conflict of interet and fraudulant editing[edit]

As noted in the last comment, this discussion appears to have run its course. There is no consensus for the need for any action by an administrator. For ongoing disputes related to specific article content, please consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I ask the panel here to take administrative action against editor Formerly 98 .

I first encountered him in the article Herbert L. Ley, Jr. (Head of FDA 1969) he removed very biting criticism againts big pharma, on the reason of copy editing.ok. so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later. But he also inserted a bogus sentence not in a citation in order to white wash criticism: "Dr. Ley stated that companies had not pressured him regarding decisions about specific products during his tenure". [11] It is just the opposite of Leys position.

He deleted another post about Ley in Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, this time with a bogus reason of not being relevent anymore. A clear criticism from a previous head of the fda not relevent! Lol.

I have looked at the editor's contributions; he is clearly on a crusade to delete criticism of big pharma all over wikipedia. This is when i decided to open this ANI. I think it is very evident, his motivations and actions on wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry and all that entails. There is little you can do about it on this noticeboard. The best thing you can do is do the research on Wikipedia's bias and have your findings published in the media. Don't bother with a medical journal because they are in bed with big pharma as well. Because this is the accepted "house bias", it is seen as acceptable. Therefore, I move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If biased POV can be established then I would support a topic ban on chemistry related topics on Formerly 98. This may present a loss for Wikipedia in some ways as this editor presents himself as a scientist. More specifically he says, "This user is a chemist. He gets cranky sometimes. If this happens, please try to ignore his bad behavior until he recovers his senses". As simple response to that, no! Please address your behaviour and, if you think that you may be in a cranky mood, don't edit. Stay away. Wikipedia is here to present non-biased content according to the standards presented at WP:NPOV. No other standard can do. User:Bigbaby23, who knows more about the situation may also know of reasons why this editor should be watched or why an admin, preferably with an interest in chemistry, may beneficially act as a point of reference if further issues of dispute may be raised. GregKaye 10:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific criticism here other than content disputes? Are there policies that have been violated? Edit warring? What exactly is the concern here other than disagreements about content?

  • The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".
  • I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.


I fail to see when looking at the edits how Formerly 98 has violated any Wikipedia policy. In fact, claims of "conflict of interest", "fraudulant editing", being "in bed with big pharma", and "Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry" show instead the clear bias of the complainants here. Deli nk (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Close and consider boomerang per WP:NPA. Primarily a local content dispute. Larger issues - OP is a newish editor who mostly edits martial arts articles, but has occassionally edited health-related articles with a strong bias against the medical mainstream and has, in good newbie-with-an-ax-to-grind fashion has liberally made personal attacks - charges of COI and bias - against editors who work to maintain NPOV content that gives weight to mainstream views - the very inappropriate title of this thread is an example, ditto this edit note: "revert formaly98 for conflict of interest, and blatant criticism removal." For examples of Bigbaby23's fringe-supporting edits on content related to health, see here for a rant about mainstream v homeopathy and "systemic bias" in WP; and here for a discussion about his/her edits to Water fluoridation controversy). And the present content dispute, where Bigbaby23 restored content that was COPYVIO in his quest to rip on mainstream medicine. Bigbaby23 will eventually learn to edit appropriately or will get angry and leave the topic or the project altogether, or will get topic or site banned. Seen this tons of times on articles related to health. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Jytdog that this seems to be a boomerang. I initially felt Bigbaby23 was probably mostly wrong but since it appeared to be a content dispute, it wasn't worth mentioning here. However upon looking more closely, I noticed that Bigbaby23 called "reason of copy editing", was actually copyvio as several people have noticed. (I haven't looked in to the details to confirm it is a copyvio, I don't see much point when there's no one explicitly disputing it, since Bigbaby23 doesn't even seem to understand what's wrong.) The fact that Bigbaby23 would readd a copyvio for any reason, is quite concerning. Bigbaby23 may still be relatively new, but they really need to quickly learn what a copyvio is and why they shouldn't be reverting for any reason other than it being clearly established by someone who understands what they're doing that it isn't a copyvio, if they want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been proven right, not to engage with Formaly69 directly, and bringing it here; see how he is totaly dishonest and doing his best to manipulate the system: Quote:

  • The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".

He is linking to my revert on the fda criticism article, that has no copyvio issues, to which i did call "inexplicably ". He gave a bogus argument there, because it looks bad if head of fda said these things. Quote:

  • I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.

Complete bullshit. Ref 8 is not "now" behind a paywall. It's in NY times archive. It has been behind paywall for years. He's been caught red handed, so desperatly he's trying to feed you something to keep you off track.Bigbaby23 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So there may be some confusion on the issues here. Bigbaby, part of the material you restored is shown below and in this diff:

"Another major event in October 1969, was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Dr. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) ingredients, was criticized for the delay.That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Dr. Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals. Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food.

The source language is

"One major event was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of safe ingredients, was criticized for the delay. That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals.Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food."

Do you see the problem here? This is not allowed and creates liability for the Foundation. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try side tracking the issue. Indeed i said the copyvio, should be rewritten. What raised alarm about Formally98, is that he specifically went after the hard criticism, trying to use different tactics to remove them. Here's a nice one: Formaly98 blanketed this paragraph, with the remark "Paragraph does not accurately describe the material in the source" :

Employees of the FDA recognized the agency had problems. in July 1969, the FDA released the “Kinslow report”[7] commissioned by FDA commissioner Dr. Ley, the study concluded, “the American public’s principal consumer protection is provided by the food and drug administration, and we are currently not equipped to cope with the challenge”. In total, the panel submitted 45 recommendations to the commissioner. Dr. Ley did not have time to implement any suggestions.[8] The New York Times in January 1970 reported in an article that "the HEW has done little to implement the report's suggestions, except to oust the man who set up the panel in the first place, Dr. Ley, Jr., and two of his top aides".[9]

There is nothing complex about this paragraph, and there is no ambiguity in the sources. But this looks bad for formally98 Coin PovBigbaby23 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It does not belong here. That being said, the material in the article did not capture what is in the source. The article quotes the Kinslow Report in Wikipedia's voice. But the source says that the Kinslow Report was bunk and was repudiated by Kinslow himself.
"Regrettably, as the Chairman of the committee and the author of the final draft, the report became known as the Kinslow Report. I can assure you that the last thing I wanted was to have my name associated with that report. But regrettably that's what occurred. I find it almost beyond belief that, over thirteen years later, there are people who still dredge up that report." (page 45-46)
So this is the substance of your evidence that I'm here as some sort of industry shill? Did you read the source before you reverted? Or did the fact that the source says that the quoted report was bunk seem like an irrelevant issue to you?" Formerly 98 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
you are deliberetly clouding the citations. The text describing the Report in the paragraph are 2 secondary RS sources. And are represented accurately. You are quoting a primary source.

you are only very strict to wikipedia guidelines when you wikilawyer.

Again, we are discussing a report that was repudiated by its own chairperson. And you felt that rather than going to the Talk page to discuss the content dispute, the best approach was to revert and then to come here and attack my character and accuse me of being a shill. This is not how we do things here. If you are going to be an editor long term, you need to read the rules. I'd suggest starting with WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact is, that you restored COPYVIO content which is a serious violation of policy. That is a "period, end of story" kind of thing - it doesn't matter what you intended to do later. And I don't see you discussing the content dispute with regard to WP:PAG (e.g. WP:UNDUE, BLP, etc), which is what we do here, per WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS. What I am seeing is an inexperienced editor with an ax to grind, creating dramah and personalizing a content dispute in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG. That you continue to make unsupported allegations of COI, even here, is even more of a sign that you are WP:NOTHERE. I am getting close to proposing a short term block. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur entirely. Or to put it a different way, if you agree it's a copyvio, why on earth did you add it back to the article, and then come here and complain about it? And why did you say in your reply just before that "that has no copyvio issues"? The fact that you did suggests there's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but it's on your part Bigbaby23, not on the part of Formerly 98. The reason this discussions is getting "sidetracked" is nothing to do with Formerly 98 but instead because you yourself Bigbaby23 have basically demonstrated serious problems with your behaviour here on wikipedia, but are igoring the plenty of people telling you it is a serious problem. And until you can give a good explaination as to why you did so (but I don't think there is a good explaination), or at least show an understanding of why it was wrong and undertake never to do so again, I don't think anyone is going to really care about whatever other problems you claim to have. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see I was slightly confused here. The section Bigbaby23 linked to above, does appear to have no copyvio issues and does seem to have been linked, I guess mistakenly, by Formerly 98 as an example where Bigbaby23 readded copyvio. I apologise for confusion due to my above statement. But the point Bigbaby23 seems to have missed is that even if Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section, since Bigbaby23 did restore copyvios, it would be fine for Bigbaby23 to point out Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section. But thy have no evidence of dishonesty instead a simple mistake. Particularly since Bigbaby23 seems to acknowledge clearly below they were aware they did restore copyvios, so they must know they did restore copyvios. (As I said below, Bigbaby23's repeatedly downplaying and ignoring of the copyvio issue, instead bringing up irrelevant stuff doesn't give confidence that they understand the seriousness of the issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Close and suggest a boomerang. I don't see anything provided the violates policy or is otherwise problematic with Formerly 98, and this posting appears retaliatory. Editors that edit in articles where companies are involved shouldn't have to deal WP:ASPERSIONS about being in bed with companies, shilling, etc. whenever a change is made that someone appearing to have a stereotypical "big bad corporate company" POV doesn't like by calling it whitewashing, etc. It's too common of an attitude that pop ups, especially with new editors, and shouldn't be entertained here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
that is another lie that you are fabricating. Anyone can see the time stamp, and that i reverted you on that article prior to me opening thid ANIBigbaby23 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal[edit]

OK, that's it. Propose two week block on Bigbaby23 for violating COPYVIO and NPA Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per reasons previously listed in section above. Doesn't seem like it's getting across that this behavior is problematic or is going to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So an editor (formaly98) that his whole contribution history on wikipedia is only deleting criticism of big pharma under a plethora of wikilayering, even if copyvio, his intentions are against wikipedia's rules intentions. I have demonstrayed that he fabricated a sentence contrary to citation. But nobody seemed to comment on this serious offense so far. This ANI is supposed to replace all the potential tedious editing and arguments in all the articles he "sanitizes"Bigbaby23 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me say this one last time. It doesn't matter why Formerly 98 removed a copyvio. If Formerly 98 says they are removing it for copyvio reasons, it's unacceptable to add it back for any reason, except there being good evidence it's not a copyvio. Adding back a copyvio is far more serious than anything you are claiming Formerly 98 has done. So even if your claims are true, it's completely normal and unsurprising people are largely ignoring your claims, when you are ignoring the people telling you your behaviour there was quite unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Formaly98 cart blanch deletions in one revert in the Ley article, because it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony . his reasons for deletion there were a mix of reasons, and after he reverted me back warning me about the copyvio, i did nothing more in that article (so only my initial general revert). I am not ignoring anything in this ANI; In my first paragraph here, i state "so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later". No fighting on this on my part. Copyvio is clear and next time I'll be more careful . Now on the other hand, editor jytdog has done nice work to try to delegitimise me from the very onset of this ANI. its a tactic ive seen in the past to try to make others not take seriously a newer editor complaints - especially valid ones. but im happy to see that new contributers on this ANI, are focusing back on the ANI subject itself. Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I know I said that would be my last comment, but it sounds like we may be finally moving forward even if only slightly. First let me repeat again, no one really cares why Formerly 98 removed the content if it was copyvio. If it was copyvio there is zero justification to add it back unless you have good reason to think it isn't copyvio. Even if it was only part copyvio and way more content was removed than needed to be, it still wouldn't be okay to add it back except perhaps if you very quickly then removed the actual copyvios. Heck even if Formerly 98 was a highly problematic sockpuppet who kept violating their ban, it wouldn't be okay to readd content remove for copyvio; except that it's possible in that case sometimes you can safely assume it isn't a copyvio without further investigating. And it doesn't matter that much what you plan on doing with those paragraphs in the future, provided you aren't planning to re-add copyvios. What is much more important is that you understand you should never have reverted a copyvio removal, no matter why you believe it was removed, unless as I said, you had good reason to think it wasn't copyvio. This is the first time you seem to have properly acknowledged you shouldn't have done so, but unfortunately it's still not enough for me since you still seem to be insisting on talking about why Formerly 98 removed it, which as I've said is largely irrelevant if it were copyvio. P.S. I don't think blaming other editors for your own mistakes is helping your case. The reality is you continually failed to acknowledge the copyvio problem. If you had accepted that you made a major mistake in re-adding the copyvio and were able to sufficiently allay concerns that you would do it again, perhaps at least me and others would have been more willing to look in to other aspects of your complaint, even if to be honest, there were a lot of other things suggesting it was without merit. But this didn't happen, and you only have yourself to blame. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The copyvio judgement mistake i made was in GF and due to my inexperience, and certainly i will not repeat it in the future. I did not say anything before about it, because i was sure it was evident that this is my position. Now that this is clear beyond doubt. It's time to deal with a malicious error done by Formely98: falsifying text. 99% of his contributions on wikipedia non other than coin pov pushing. His wikilawyering and abuse of the system is in practice on this very ANI as i presented above, and how he is reacting to another editor below. Make him the perfect candidat for a topic ban at the bare minimum.Bigbaby23 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So per your reasoning, its completely acceptable for you to re-add anti-corporate material that has been pointed out to be a misstatement of the content of a cited source, but if I make a bad edit that is tilted in the other direction, it is prima facie evidence of being a shill, of "whitewashing", of "malicious editing", and "coin POV pushing".
You're still not understanding the issues here. Outside the provisions of WP:GF, Wikipedia becomes a circus in which we all fight out every difference of opinion by attacking each other's character and motivations. I could equally well suggest that your re-addition of the Kinslow report material was a deliberate effort to mislead readers in support of your political viewpoints. But in the final analysis, that sort of personal attack does not help us move the articles forward. There needs to be a laser like focus on content, and not speculation about others' motives. This is a big problem and you need to change it. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you've finally said that. However by now I have no interest in looking in to any more of your allegations. Beyond the fact they don't seem to be well supported, your attitude here suggests to me it would be a waste of time. Plenty of people pointed out the copyvio problem here. You persistently ignored them despite the fact people kept saying it was a problem, and instead kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like the reasons Formerly 98 may have removed the copyvio content. Remember that Formerly 98 made it clear the first time around they were removing it for copyvio reasons. Now even when you've finally acknowledged the problem, you claim it should have been always clear, despite the earlier outlined facts (i.e. you persistently ignoring the concerns repeatedly expressed and bringing up irrelevant stuff). Not to mention the problems Formerly 98 outlined above. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:, I'm going to disagree with your remarks that Bigbaby's more recent comments are a step forward. He continues with his unsupported bad faith editing accusations which I see as equally problematic with the COPYVIO restorations. To quote
"it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony "
Even here at ANI, we move forward and make decisions based on proven violations of policy and guidelines, NOT on the basis of assumptions that anyone making edits that we disagree with is editing in bad faith. What Bigbaby is admitting to here and doing so without any sign that he realizes its a problem, is that he saw edits he disagreed with and immediately assumed bad faith. Neither I nor any other editor should be subjected to these unsupported personal attacks just because we had the temerity to make an edit that was out of accord with some other editor's anti-corporate viewpoints. It needs to be made clear that accusations of bad faith editing as an argument of first resort are simply unacceptable.
I made a bad edit here and I still can't figure out how it happened. But that does not justify the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions that BigBaby feels free to spout as if they were proven allegations. Its really inappropriate. [User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I would disagree with you on that. I'm not saying Bigbaby23's behaviour doesn't show problems because it does. But it's not as serious as the copyvio issue. Ultimately the harm that editors showing the behaviour you outlined is rarely as serious as editors who add copyvio material. Editors who do so can easily waste many, many hours of time, tracking down their contributions, making sure none of them are copyvio, and deleting those which are copyvio, remembers that it isn't unheard of that months or even years have passed since the material was added and it's been worked on by many different editors, efforts which will all go to waste because the material has to be deleted. While editors showing the behaviour you outlined do often waste time, it's often not as serious, in particular because it's unlikely to be something people will only notice years later, and even if it is, it usually just means some of the articles they worked on may be unbalanced. In terms of making other editors feel uncomfortable or reluctant to edit, I agree it's a serious problem, and one which has to be dealt with, but the question is how. It isn't always the case this should be a straight indef block, sometimes there may be an attempt to work with the editor and see if they can change while offering support to those who feel their are being unfairly maligned. (I'm not saying this is the case here, simply it can be.) By comparison, if an editor does seem able to understand what a copyright violation is, or that they shouldn't be re/adding them, I don't see there's much choice but an indef block to prevent harm to wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I and others have really tried to explain the rules here about WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS but he is simply defiant. Not generally a big fan of sanctions, but sometimes they are an important learning tool. Personal attacks and unsupported allegations are not acceptable as an argument of first resort, and knowingly restoring WP:COPYVIO material is not acceptable under any circumstances. BigBaby has not communicated that he will refrain from either behavior in the future, and has in fact given every indication that he plans to continue in the same vein. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support based on Jytdog's reasoning. Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support frankly I'd be willing to support an indef (which remember is not a permanent) block since they've not only given zero indication they understand why reverting a copyvio is unacceptable, they've also given zero indication they even are trying to understand despite multiple people telling them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Support 2 week block. Now that after so many attempts, Bigbaby23 has finally properly accepted that they should never re-add copyvios, no matter what they feel is they were removed (when they may genuinely be copyvios), I no longer see the need for an indef. But I do agree their behaviour as shown here is highly problematic. Even to get them to come around to the copyvio issue, it not only took way too long, but when they did their claim is they were always saying that. Despite the fact it's easy to see that several people brought it up, and they largely ignored it, instead keep talking about how Formerly 98 allegedly removed the copyvio for bad reasons. And continued even after I repeatedly point out this was irrelevant if the content was indeed copyvio. A short block will at least stop further such problems for now. Hopefully it will also make them realise they need to learn to collobrate better. (A long through their talk page history is also instructive. They've repeatedy removed people discussing problems with them which is their right, but have done so with uncivil edit summaries suggesting there is no problm, not exactly a sign of someone who is interested in collobrating and learning from their mistakes.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • BigBaby is an inexperienced and new user on Wikipedia which should be taken into context when looking at this situation. However, this isn't the first time that Formerly98 has antagonized a new users on Wikipedia. Issues have been raised about him about half a dozen times in the past year and they are generally calling out the same thing. They suggest he is 'whitewashing' negative comments about the pharmaceutical industry. It is easy to point fingers at a new user when they are unfamiliar with the customs of Wikipedia but Formerly98 needs to be called out for this as well. I have yet to see him constructively approach editors with whom he disagrees to try to reach a compromise and a real consensus. Many times he brashly reverts edits without adjustments which in and of itself is against Wikipedia policy. The organization Rxisk has even covered his editing patterns independently. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-wikipedia-falls/ I have personally asked him if he is a paid editor - a fair question since this is not an activity that is prohibited by Wikipedia - and he simply refused to answer and got aggressive with me. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Doors22 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of issues with this users work. May need longer block if issues continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm just going to point out that Doors22 is a WP:SPA editor who has engaged in a campaign of retaliatory editing since my removal of material not supported by WP:MEDRS compliant sources from the Finasteride article last year, and his comments here should be interpreted in that light. The current edit appears to be in retaliation for my comments on his proposed article on the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Research Foundation, which consists of 3 part time employees investigating a proposed syndrome for which there are no WP:MEDRS compliant sources for the existence of.

  • Over 90% of of Doors22 edits are on the subject of finasterside, Merck (its manufacturer), or baldness experts who have endorsed finasteride
  • Over half of the remaining 10% are retaliatory edits, in which he reverts my edits or jumps in on the other side of a debate from me on an article he has never shown interest in before
  • Diffs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rapid fire reversions and votes on the other side of the issue from me on Electronic cigarette, which occurred shortly after I removed some improperly sourced material from Finasteride. Diff1 is a quickly written rebuttal to a comment by me in a discussion on the talk page. , Diff2 is a reversion of my edit, and in Diff3 he takes the opposite side from me in an RFC. Note that he had never before edited the article, and this came immediately after the dispute on the Finasteride page.
  • Ditto 2 weeks later, in which I become involved in a dispute on Pharmaceutical Industry. In Diff1, Doors, who has nearly zero history of editing any non-Finasteride related article, jumps in to rebut my comments in a Talk page discussion here as well. In diff2, he jumps in in a bizarre way to muddle the discussion after I have asked for clarification of a point from another editor. Again, in Diff3, more of the same. Again, once the controversy dies down, he shows no interest in the article or making any edits. Once there is no longer a controversy that he can join sides against me in, he loses interest. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Problematic editing/begaviour in evidence. A cooling off period may help. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
EllenCT that is irrelevant. This proposal is about BigBaby's behavior, upon which you didn't comment. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
BigBaby is reacting to Formerly 98's behavior, so it is relevant. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No. There is no excuse for violating COPYVIO, ever, and there are ways to address concerns about behavior without resorting to personal attacks. You are not dealing with Bigbaby's actual behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Doors22 for retaliatory editing[edit]

Per the comments immediately above, I propose a 1 week block for Doors22 for engaging in retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not retaliating for your recent edits. I saw an incident was raised about you on the noticeboard and since I have a lot of experience with your editing behavior I decided to contribute. I hope you appreciate the irony in that you are trying to get me banned for retaliatory editing, simply because I contributed my opinion about your editing history. Many others have complained about you in the past year and some have even filed formal complaints. Speaking of editing history, 90%+ of your edits are for removing or toning down side effect profiles of a variety of drugs or removing criticisms of multinational corporations. This editing history is suggestive of somebody who is a paid editor. Are you in any way receiving money directly or indirectly for your edits on Wikipedia? This is not a strictly prohibited practice per Wiki policy but you would certainly be required to fully disclose this. Doors22 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Because this is ANI and not an article Talk page, I am going to say this once (and only once). I do not have any COIs with respect to the content of any pharmaceutical product or company, and have never performed paid editing. You've made these accusations repeatedly on article Talk pages, in violation of multiple guidelines, and without any supportive documentation other than that you disagreed with the particular edits. The issue here is not COI on my part, but your retaliatory editing and non-stop violations of WP:TALK and WP:GF. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Striking - I over reacted. I do work a lot on articles related to drugs, pharma, the FDA, etc. A lot of these articles have what I find to be an anti-pharma POV and I have done a lot of work over the past year to bring more NPOV (as that is defined here) to these articles as well as adding content that makes these articles more complete (well-sourced content on their uses, their impact, and controversies (yes, I add negative information too). Along the way I have come under attack by lots of anti-pharma advocates, or as in the case of Doors, editors who lock in on their perceptions of side effects of drugs and give them UNDUE weight here (you would be surprised... or maybe not when you think about it) how much of that is. And many of them are quick to fling charges of COI. And sometimes the accusations of bad faith get under my skin. I lost my cool there, sorry. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

These comments specifically relate to your most recent ANI and even earlier ones since this issue keeps coming up. If you want me to extend the "supportive documentation" I am happy to do so. I can easily locate 50+ incidents of you removing, diminishing, or countering statements of litigation, criticisms, or controversies of various pharmaceutical companies or products. In fact this represents the large majority of your work. The remainder is more of the same for other companies like Coca Cola, Mallinckrodt, Dow Chemical among others. I will go ahead and begin to compile this list if other editors would find this helpful. At the very least, please review WP:BITE because you should be assisting new editors rather than driving them away and trying to penalize them. Doors22 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that you struck your comments as soon as I offer to compile a list of supportive documentation, which would be so long it would take hours if done exhaustively. I honestly have yet to see you offer "negative information" and your editing history at the very least has a very strong POV and possibly suggests you are an editor with undisclosed conflict of interests. You also answered you do not have a WP:COIN with respect to the "content of any pharmaceutical product or company" but I noticed this does not fully answer the question if you have any COIs to disclose relating to any of your edits. Again, this is not a problem so long as the WP:COIN is disclosed to give other editors context. I ask other editors involved in this ANI if it would be helpful for me to begin to compile this list of supportive evidence. Again, this is not an unreasonable discussion and I will be willing to find multiple other recent instances where it was believed Formerly98 had a POV or COI related to his editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please provide your list of supportive documentation. Honestly, Doors, lets have the discussion here on the ANI page where it belongs. It is time to put an end to unsupported allegations on the Talk pages. But simply striking poorly sourced negative information is not evidence of COI, anymore than your singleminded focus on criticizing finasteride, Merck, and baldness gurus who have endorsed finasteride is evidence that you work for tort lawyers engaged in litigation against Merck. If you have credible evidence that I have accepted money in exchange for editing services, or that I work for any of the companies whose pages I have edited, that woiuld be appropriate to include in your list. Otherwise you are just speculating in violation of WP:GF Formerly 98 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Doors, that is yet more assuming bad faith. Editors who react emotionally and then strike shouldn't get punished for acknowledging a mistake and your connecting the strike, to what you wrote, is yet more bad-faith sloppy conspiracy thinking. Likewise, your continued charge of COI against Formerly is without foundation and if you continue to make that charge, I will take action against you for WP:NPA. COI is a very serious issue in WP and I work a lot on it; but ax-griding editors like you, and like BigBaby, reach for that irresponsibly and use it as a weapon in arguments about content. You ~may~ have a case to bring related to WP:ADVOCACY but without actual evidence of COI (and you have none), you must stop making clams of COI.. I am dead serious about that and I will move to bring action against you if you continue. You are warned. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
And Doors, you have a bad history of making personal attacks on the Finasteride article - this is just some of it:
  • Back in 2011, when Jfdwolff, an admin, was working on that article with you, you called him a Nazi and accused him of editing in bad faith and claimed he had a a "very strong bias" among other bad behavior. He warned you even then that your account was a [{WP:SPA]] and that if you kept being uncivil, you risked a longterm block.
  • In Oct 2014 Jfdwolff noted noted: "I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Didn't we agree that we needed to be very selective about sources in this highly disputed area? Doors22 isn't anything if not persistent." and later told you "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." Doc James was involved in those discussions as well.
  • In Oct 2014 you turned another content dispute in the article into a personal attack, now against Formerly, where you wrote: "I added another meta analysis draws the opposite conclusion. They both look at a similar number of studies, but one journal is of a higher quality than the other. Formerly 98, are you getting paid to edit Wikipedia? It seems to be a full time endeavor for you since you are editing at all hours of the day. The majority of your edits involve reversions about side effects or information that is not favorable to pharmaceutical companies" and later you pushed it harder, writing " I also noticed you live in San Diego, where a lot of pharmaceutical/biotech companies are located and you have referred to yourself as an "industry guy". For all I know, you could simply own Merck stock and nothing more. Do you have any conflicts of interest that would affect your edits on this article? "
  • You followed up on that, with a post on Formerly's page, again accusing him of COI.
  • I warned you then to back off the personal attacks and irresponsible accusations of COI.
So really Doors, you are WP:SPA (per your contribs), dedicated to emphasizing the sexual side of effects of Finasteride in WP. You make personal attacks all the time to further your agenda and seem to believe that editors who uphold Wikipedia's NPOV policy and MEDRS guideline must be on the take from Big Pharma. As I did before, I suggest you stop making personal attacks to further your agenda here. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
These examples are taken out of context and are very dated, going back to 2011. Some of your comments are factually inaccurate too. I do not see how anything I have posted in this incident is a personal attack, visit WP:NPA and please tell me how my behavior fits any of those categories. I have stuck strictly to Formerly98's editing behavior. I am not a complete newbie in Wikipedia but I am also far from a seasoned editor. Will you please provide some guidance on what kind of "proof" is required to demonstrate a COI? I am not as familiar with whatever standard is generally accepted and this can be somewhat arbitrary. What you are suggesting to me seems like it is literally impossible to show evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest if he/she chooses not to disclose any but showing POV or advocacy (which would result from paid editing or some other COI) should be no problem. Doors22 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

COI and edits by Formerly 98[edit]

I specifically request that @Doors22: presents the list of evidence that he feels proves that I have a WP:COI for evaluation as part of this ANI review. I further request that the list be evaluated by the other editors here, and that he be asked to stop making these accusations on article Talk pages in the event that the evidence is not found to be supportive. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly oblige you but it may take me some time to get to this. I will be away beginning tomorrow evening and may not be able to respond fully until sometime next week. 04:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talkcontribs)

User:Formerly98 has received attention off Wikipedia regarding alleged COI / POV editing. The website www.rxisk.org features an article specifically about User:Formerly98 [1] It shows a previous version of user page, discusses his deletion nomination of an article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction, and inquires: “Do we expect Wikipedia posts to be more conservative than the label produced by the pharmaceutical company?” which is apparently referring to Formerly98’s work in “toning down” the side effects on the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly explicitly says there, that he has no COI. More bad-faith editors crying COI - and you have now joined the ranks - doesn't any more real. BoboMeowCat, that if you continue making unsubstantiated charges of COI I will seek action against you. You are warned. COI is not something to throw around in a content dispute. And you, like Doors, have POV-pushed on side effects of drugs. (in your case, asthma as an effect of acetaminophen. You are another editor who has tried to violate NPOV and MEDRS and made personal attacks as you pushed your POV. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I request that we just play this out without threats of disciplinary action and have these arguments evaluated by the communityFormerly 98 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What is going on here is a witch-hunt by a newbie angry editor (OP), and two well-known POV-pushers. I don't think going down the "throw down" path is good for anybody or WP, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
We have 3 editors here making the same accusation in nearly every interaction I have with them, and several others who have not yet posted on this thread. I suggest we ask the community to evaluate, and then we will have a consensus one way or the other. At some point we need a clearly voiced community decision, either that I am allowed to edit in peace and without constant aspersions, or that the overall community believes that I need to change my editing practices. I don't see that as a "throw down". What I don't want is to be back here next month. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. Put that way, this makes a lot of sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In my experience here, it doesn't seem like warnings get the point across that this behavior in inappropriate to editors that do this (often with an ax to grind). I wouldn't see interaction bans for certain users completely unwarranted depending on how the conversation goes. I'm not seeing anything right now that shows a legitimate COI or even POV concern on your part Formerly, so it's still looking like these accusations against you are aspersions at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Bob. The Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Article was nominated by me for deletion, but was deleted by community consensus, so that may not be the best example. But here are the Diffs for Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin before and after I rewrote both, removing about about half of the total content of each and adding new material. I'd request the community to examine these for POV, as I am overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of these articles, though some of the work was performed as an IP editor and some under a previous username.
Ciprofloxacin Diff
Levofloxacin
It really isn't very helpful for you to provide your own examples of how you are a balanced editor. Others would have to independently look through the history of your edits to verify for themselves. They will see the overwhelming majority of your posts involve toning down side effect profiles and criticisms of large corporations.Doors22 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Those weren't my choices they were BobMeowCat's. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically we follow WP:MEDRS for medical content. While he and I may occasionally disagree, User:Formerly 98 uses high quality sources nearly all the time and thus I have not significant concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand that he uses what is deemed to be high quality sources for what he adds but this alone does not make a NPOV editor. Removing material that you don't want on an article does not require you provide any sources at all. There is the famous quote, 'there is no such thing as truth, only the presentation of facts'. One can easily finds one reason or another that fits some kind of policy to remove unwanted material and create a desired perspective. All the while avoiding providing any sources if one wishes.Doors22 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


My 2¢: basing a COI argument relative to a manufacturer's Rx info (the label) is a a bit asinine, as these vary by country due to regulatory/approval processes for the document. E.g., a Therapeutic Goods Administration approved label by Aspen pharmaceuticals lists suicidality, aggression, and homicidal tendencies as potential adverse effects of amphetamine in spite of the fact that it acknowledges elsewhere in the document that these are just isolated aftermarket reports w/ no comparison to placebo (these events could in fact occur less frequently vs people on a placebo).[2] The current USFDA-approved label by Amedra pharmaceuticals is thankfully much less hand-wavy and doesn't list suicidality or homicidal tendencies as "potential adverse effects" and further notes that there is no systematic evidence of any relationship between stimulants and aggressive behaviors (this is a comparison between arbitrary conjecture [TGA label] and evidence-based medicine [FDA label]).[3]
So, with all that said, it raises the question: which label are we comparing the WP article to, an evidence-based label or one which would better serve as toilet paper than a wikipedia citation? The way we at WP:MED resolve issues like this is to apply WP:MEDRS, which is something I know Formerly does based upon my interactions with him in every article we've both worked on.
NutshellNutshellTLDR: arguing that Formerly has a COI simply by comparing his edits to the adverse effects on an arbitrary label is completely retarded. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Formerly98 diff and Jytdog diff joined in to remove referenced COI statements on the Glaxo Smith Kline article. Formerly98 and removed the claim from the Johnson and Johnson page diff AlbinoFerret 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please Formerly 98 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is late so I don't have time to pull up specific diffs but Formerly98 was very active on the e-cigarette page until it was temporarily frozen. I initially thought it was so strange that he was more or less exclusively involved in making pro-drug statements while being anti-e-cigarettes. But then I did some very quick research and saw the pharmaceutical industry was strongly lobbying against e-cigarettes because it threatens their existing products (ie Nicorette). In the example above, Formerly98 removed this mention from the GSK article because it lacked 'notability' which is a very common page from his playbook. At the very least, it is suspicious and certainly indicates a strong point of view.Doors22 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Diffs please. thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff Here is one example from Mallinckrodt where you reverted another user's edit that discussed the company's history of illegal waste dumping and justified this by saying the company had a "complex series of takeovers and spinouts" so that historical actions are no longer associated with the current company.
Thank you, I assume then that you disagree with this edit. How does it establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff2 In another example, you deleted 2 sentences on sleep talking caused by Ambien because you arbitrarily deemed them to be too rare.
I reduced the number of sentences from 6 to 4. I understand that you disagree. What is the basis of your belief that 6 is the correct number? How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff3 Here you edit David Healy's article (who is the doctor who independently brought attention to your edits off wikipedia) and you felt the need to replace a neutral tone with a more aggressive tone.
I see that I attibuted a statement made by Healy to Healy instead of stating his conclusionhs in Wikipedia's voice. I understand you disagree. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff4 Another example of a separate editor believing you to have a bias and POV which you correctly decided to strike. Notably this is on the e-cigarette page.
This appears to be a Talk page discussion, so maybe off-topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff5 Here you completely erase discussion of regulatory capture on the pharmaceutical industry page, despite it being a widely accepted topic of controversy that generates substantial discussion in the outside world and academic circles.
I'm not seeing "completely erase", what I see is a reduction from 4 sentences to 2. I assume you believe that 4 was the correct number of sentences? How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff6 This one is quite telling. You deleted well sourced but negative facts about Merck that discussed unethical actions they took during past controversies. You wrote the article should "tell the story and let the readers decide", but really you just erased the negative evidence which was really descriptive and not judgmental.
This was probably not my best edit, but it is one of many that I made to the article, including restoring a section describing the company's products, which one editor had deleted as "unimportant". How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
diff7 Here you completely remove a section from the pharmaceutical industry about "me-too" drugs which is another very commonly discussed issue that obviously belongs on this page in some fashion.
True, but the section was actually pretty balanced and not all that critical of the industry, and as the edit summary notes, it was based on out of date refs. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just a very small sample of what look like POV/advocacy editing to me and there are hundreds of more examples. I strongly suggest other users take a look through his contribution history because his contribution history looks like it was written by a PR professional (at least to me). Doors22 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I second this recommendation. I described what I saw in their editing, specifically with the Depression and Astro Zeneca articles circa May 31 and early June 2014, here. Seeing just a few day's worth of this person's edits (spindoctoring on steroids) was the final straw for me before throwing up my hands and ending my editing here at WP. petrarchan47tc 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
[Later edit] It was the Anti-depressant article that first alerted me to this activity. Here is a talk page section to help navigate, but I am unwilling to spend time digging for diffs. If one were to peruse F98's contribs in early June 2014, they would see what I saw. It doesn't take a sleuth in this case, it's extremely obvious pro-Pharma, SPA editing. petrarchan47tc 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So your position is that you are recommending sanctions but "are not willing to put in the time to generate the diffs"? Hmm. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Petrarchan, could you please provide actual article diffs? Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think merely providing diff's is the best way to go about this because other users who don't have history discussing matters with Formerly98 will completely miss out from seeing the whole context of his edits which is very important. Do any more experienced editors have any suggestions for how to best proceed with this COI/advocacy issue? I mentioned I will be away for the next few days starting tomorrow and would like to contribute to this conversation so please don't interpret my absence as though I am finished with the discussion.
I do think it is pretty telling that Formerly98's 'spin doctoring' drove away the editor above and when I have more time will be able to point out examples where he proactively drove other editors away. I also think it is telling that he tried to get me banned because I tried to contribute to this discussion and he attempted to backed down when he was concerned the issue might escalate to an investigation of his behavior.Doors22 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Doors, I think what you need to do here is to establish some criteria for "COI" and "POV editing" that don't measure POV by the distance between the viewpoint expressed and your own opinions.
I think your statement that I "backed down when he was concerned that the issue might escalate into an invesigation of his behavior" is hard to reconcile with the fact that I invited the exact discussion we are having now. And so far, all you have brought to the table are content disputes. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Taken as a whole; formely98 contribuion history is that of a duck, his edit/delete arguments are that of a duck, and his tactics even on this ANI are that of a duck. Formelly98 is a duck.
lets not forget, that his initial response here to the fraudulent statement he added to the Ley article "oh it was a different reference i cited, but now its behind a paywall" a.k.a we cant verify his claim now, i easly demonstrated was a total lie ; it was a NY Times archived article that has been behind a paywall for years. He felt comfortable because due to jytdog theatrics, they went after me and let him slide. But the moment i reached some kind of understanding with editor niel, and editor doors was also accusing him, formely98 felt the shift in the tide, paniced and changed his tune, first he erased his attack on doors and then also changed his story about the fraudulent statement he added "im sorry i don't know how that happened". He should be banned just for lying and manipulating the ANI panel.Bigbaby23 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I obviously disagree with this for reasons cited above. Importantly, I never claimed that the source was in the paywalled article only that I thought it might be but could not check it for myself. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am here because recent edits to an article flagged by my database queries showing heavy editing on economically sensitive topics compelled me to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time. I urge administrators and other interested parties to examine the issues raised at Talk:Pharmaceutical industry/Archives/2015#Questionable deletions where Formerly 98 has over the past few years been slowly scrubbing the most uncomfortable criticism from that article. EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To be fair Ellen, its not strictly true that you "felt compelled to examine Formerly 98's contributions for the first time" based on a database search. You and I have taken opposing stances on multiple issues over the last year, recently at Pharmaceutical industry, Hydraulic Fracturing, and Electronic cigarette. And your proposals at Pharmaceutical industry failed to gain consensus. Given the support I recieved from other editors there, who as group rejected your suggested changes, how can this be used as evidence of POV editing or COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is completely untrue. The group did not reject her edits by any means. They were discussed constructively and a compromise was reached. I have yet to see you engage in this kind of discussion. Any editor who takes the time to do the research on this investigation will see you are not telling the truth.Doors22 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
In all of our previous interactions, I had not, nor did I feel it would be a worthwhile use of my time, to look through your specific contributions instead of just individual article histories. That changed when I saw you trying to obscure a pharmaceutical company's corporate inversion in the same manner that a new SPA who had been reverted six times for it had just done. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98's response to the comments above[edit]

I deliberately opened up this discussion in order to illustrate the level and type of personal attacks that I deal with on a daily basis as an editor here. Above we have over 2000 words of criticism from editors who accuse me of being a POV editor and having undisclosed COIs. Representative evidence includes:

his indescriminate removal of negative criticism some were copyvio and some were not, and that was in the Herbert Ley article and if he couldn't think of a reason or pduedo reason that would some how pass to remove material, he would add stuff to tone down the criticism, and when he even didn't have that, he simply fabricated a sentence and added it, to yet again, nalify criticism. In the FDA article he removed a previous head of FDA criticism against big pharma influence in the fda, giving balony reasons.Bigbaby23 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
you are further discrediting yourself with this ranting, Bigbaby. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been criticized on the website of a virulently anti-industry activist and author. If fringe websites are criticizing my edits, I'm not sure that should be viewed as a problem, should it?
  • One editor noted that I edited Electronic cigarette in a way that was perceived as negative, and noting that some pharmaceutical companies sell competing quit smoking products, concluded that this was evidence that my edits were driven by a desire to increase pharmaceutical company profits. This reasoning seems a little circular to me.
  • Several authors present as examples of "POV pushing" changes that I made that were supported by consensus upon challenge. I'm not sure how I can win consensus so consistently if I am a fringe POV pusher.
  • Pharmaceutical industry, in which my edits were challenged and supported by editor consensus
  • Another example of my "POV/COI editing" is the deletion of the Post-SSRI Sexual Disorder article, which was not deleted by me by by community consensus after I nominated it
  • Finally, we have the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles, which I rewrote and which by community consensus, remain in almost exactly the state I left them in when I finished editing them a year ago. How do extreme POV articles that get 1000 hits a day remain almost completely unedited for a year when they are so commonly accessed?

Some of the other remarks simply seem silly. One editor links to an exchange that occurred several months ago that "drove her to stop editing". But her editing history shows she is still active. Another claims to have discovered by POV editing by a database search, but s/he and I have a history of editing disagreements that far predates the reported date of the search that my name putatively appeared in.

I respectfully request closure with a warning to all that WP:GF will be more vigorously enforced in the future, and that I be guaranteed the ability to edit here in peace without being continuously the subject of speculative personal attacks by those who view disagreement with their position as proof positive of paid editing and COI.' As noted here by the Head of the Wikipedia Medicine Project and other medical editors, my editing has generally been well sourced and high quality. I deserve to be allowed to go about my business without being abused by those who believe personal attacks are the best argument of first resort. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think you get to be the one to determine when closure has been attained for an investigation about your behavior. It also shows you were not acting in good faith when you engaged in this discussion to prove a point. The problem generally is not with what information you add to articles but what you delete. Your justifications are very frequently off base and indicative you are trying to erase negative information. Let me ask you - why are you the only editor that seems to be getting a negative response from many others when you claim your edits are objective and high quality?Doors22 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is another diff that shows an edit I found particularly repugnant. You erased a reference that a pharmaceutical company produced Zyklon B, the poisonous gas that was used by the Nazis to murder millions of people. Your justification, again, was very weak and you tried to say that Bayer was responsible for manufacturing the poison, the the conglomerate. This makes no sense as it is on the Bayer article that you thought this was irrelevant, but this would certainly warrant more than a passing mention even on a parent level article. I don't always disagree with your edits or points but I almost always disagree with the tactics you use to bury negative information. I am not inviting you to respond to this message but I am including this for other editors to see, evaluate, and comment.Doors22 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That reason given was "Bayer <> IG Farben". That diff was a month ago, and there have been about 20 edits by other editors since then, and it has stuck. So hm. And, btw, way to pull the Nazi argument. Lovely. You have reached the Godwin's law stage of desperate argumentation. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions of the historical actions of actual nazis. EllenCT (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with Godwin's law but after looking at the article it certainly does not apply to this discussion. I never compared him to the Nazis but drew attention to the fact he erased corporate ties to the Nazis on various articles. However, you are wrong that IG Farben <> Bayer as they were the same company during the years of the Holocaust - the company was split up after the war. Formerly98 has also removed instances of corporate link to the Nazis in other articles as well - Coca Cola is another one. This latest justification is also off-point and repugnant. 'It is OK and not notable because everybody had links to the Nazis.' Another two solid examples of his pattern of whitewashing corporate controversy. I request other editors contribute because JYTDog has a long history of collaborating with Formerly98 on many articles and is not being objective about this. When I get the time, I am going to retrieve instances where other editors have directly had similar problems with him but that may need to wait until next week.Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not quite sure what the point is that some are trying to make here, but when an appropriate argument was made, I personally restored to this article the fact that Bayer-IG Farben used slave labor during the same war after it had been removed by others. Not exactly the behavior expected of a good Nazi, is it?
So this provides yet another example of this same group of editors cherry picking data to make their point and accusing me of POV editing for changes that were approved by editor consensus. Once again I respectfully request closure and a warning to all participants in this thread that WP:GF will be rigorously enforced with sanctions moving forward. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
On the cotrary. This proves what a manipulative liar you are. You were vigorously against adding the nazi info to the Bayer article, with all sorts of your usual twisted arguments. You decided to re-insert that paragraph only when it was made clear to you, and you checked it yourself, that Bayer's own website history page, also tells this fact in their wwii history chronichalBigbaby23 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, do not pretend like I called you a Nazi because that is simply untrue and I have been completely civil during this discussion unlike yourself. After extensive discussion and pushback on the Talk:Bayer page you reluctantly added back a mention that the company used slave labor for a concentration camp to prevent more serious material from coming back. Hypothetically, if my agenda were to make Bayer look good I'd rather mention the use of labor than being accomplice to millions of murders. Moreover, you characterize this as being one instance of many companies that collaborated with the Nazis but completely fail to mention Bayer was the only company to create its own concentration camp, Monowitz, during the war. Request for closure declined until you actually get feedback from independent editors who review your history. Your easily anticipated defense that we are cherry picking data is why I have repeatedly requested editors look through your history holistically.Doors22 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Your note states that I readded the slave camp material after "extensive pushback". Thats not true. Someone else had deleted it and I added it back as soon as I saw a persuasive Talk page post that convinced me it belonged there. Not only did I re-add it, I debated with the person who deleted it and wanted to remove it again, arguing that it should be left in place Formerly 98 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a little dizzy from all your spin. Other editors - check out the actual discussion to see how it evolved from start to finish. I actually think this discussion is not in the proper place which is why we have not seen feedback other than the few other users that had problems with Formerly98. I'll do some research to figure out proper protocol and reset discussion in the proper location when I get the chance. Doors22 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for block - IP disrupting a course with students, no rationale given[edit]

Hello. I have a group of students in a course. Some IP has said that our course promotes vandalism by posting on the course page and deleting our course page. They give no further explanation. This is a disruptive harassing stalker. Can these IPs please be blocked?

I am happy to talk with anyone but this disrupts a group of people and this user obviously knows enough to engage on Wikipedia, because they know how to disrupt many people at once. I did not notify this user on their userpage per WP:TROLL. I requested page protection at the protection board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The 70.121 IP has no edits, and the 72.68 IP has not been active since 27 February. I don't think a block is in order at this time. However, if the problem recurs, then protection (if not already done) or blocks can be undertaken. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that gets their own IP listed on the history page of the course? Known bug? Rettetast (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The answer to that question is yes. I have that exact same issue - Bluerasberry, are you thus sure those aren't your own IPs? Very weird bug. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah. My own IP also shows up as well when I saw the page. Epic Genius (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Me too. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Me six. I philed a bug on Phabricator[4]. Keegan (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the proper IP in question is 72.68.239.80 (talk · contribs), as found in the database by a developer at phabricator. Mamyles (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that the course pages cannot be protected. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User page used for canvassing[edit]

Hello,

Could an admin please take a look at this user page, being used to canvass editors inappropriately to a Commons deletion request, to judge whether it is appropriate and what action is appropriate if not. Note that the editor in question is a recent (and acknowledged) return of User:Ecemaml (see meta:User:Discasto), i.e. is not as new as his contribution list would make it appear. Thanks, Kahastok talk 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request closed as speedy keep. Soap 13:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
How can I have canvassed anyone? The very same WP:CANVASS policy describes it very well when talking about notifications. Have I notified anyone? --Discasto (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) PS: as former commons administrator I do know what's the name for the spurious deletion attempt in commons (fortunately, Commons is not censored)
I believe that to be Wikilawyering. It was clearly campaigning to get people to support you in the deletion request. This isn't about the question of the deletion so I shan't comment on it.
But the user page remains, now accusing anyone who disagreed with Discasto in the DR of "politically motivated censorship", which would seem to be a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:POLEMIC. Do we feel that this is appropriate on Wikipedia? Kahastok talk 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of Troubles Restrictions 1RR[edit]

The following IP Special:Contributions/86.188.201.211 has violated the 1RR that is imposed on articles and issues that are to do with or related to the Troubles Restrictions. In this instance their insistence on using Derry for the county when per WP:IMOS it is Londonderry, and their insistence of Ireland as the country over the actual country, which is Northern Ireland. The article of violation if Slaughtneill GAC, edits having taken place today.

I had informed the IP of this restriction only a few hours before they decided to do go ahead and revert again. Only two days ago after making a change at Kilrea GAC which was reverted by User:John of Reading who also left the IP a message notifying of the issue, the IP reverted within the space of half an hour. Whether this constitutes two violations of the 1RR (one which occurred after being notified of the Troubles Restrictions) or just one I leave up to admins.

All 21 or whatever of their edits across various GAA articles this month have all revolved around changing this information.

I also gave the IP a NPOV caution, to which User:Murry1975 has since given them a formal warning for disruptive editing.

The IP had been notified about WP:DERRY, WP:IMOS and WP:IRE-IRL by three different editors at his talk page prior to their 1RR violation so they know what manual of style must be used on this issue.

Mabuska (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on NI politics (I prefer to just drive up the Antrim Coast Road and look out of the window) but I believe in the case of Slaughtneill GAC, the Gaelic Athletic Association uses different county names to the Northern Irish government, so "County Derry" can be considered correct. Therefore, I would strongly advise against anyone reverting with a summary of "rvv" and highly recommend using the talk page. As you've also breached 1RR ([5], [6]), so take care! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If I may. The other team articles use 'County Londonderry' in their content :) GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's highly likely (I won't go the SPI route) that the IP is a ban/block evading editor, as we've seen an IP:86.xxx around these Ireland/Northern Ireland related articles before. Anyways, there's an agreement that Derry is used for the city & County Londonderry is used for the county. BTW, both are within Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333 there is an agreed WP:IMOS in regards to this situation. Also we are stating "County Londonderry, Northern Ireland" for the actual geopoliical location of the club and that is not dictated by the GAA. The second sentence of all these club articles does make reference to the clubs belonging "Derry GAA" which satisfies what the GAA call it. If we followed your suggestion then the whole Wikipedia Ireland project would be a mess with editors using "so and so use it so use that" as a reason for mass edits and resulting edit-wars. It is why we have the WP:IMOS and things like the Troubles Restrictions.
Also I have reverted an IP that is being disruptive and is now vandalising as they have been told of the IMOS so my reverts of them in my view do not constitute breaching 1RR. Mabuska (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Understand that, but sports (certainly Rugby union which is incredibly popular all over Ireland) originate from a time when the entire Island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and hence the nomenclature used is something of a grandfather clause (note how teams play for the province of Ulster, which includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic). If consensus is to use "County Londonderry" full stop, everywhere, no if no buts, that's okay (and indeed it's what I use), but it does mean I'm twitchy about it being "obvious vandalism". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism or not it violates the 1RR Troubles Restrictions. And yes the consensus is to use County Londonderry full stop regardless, just like consensus is to use Derry for the city full stop regardless. That is what WP:DERRY makes very clear. Mabuska (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I just get the heebie-geebies about the word "vandalism".... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough but after being warned and notified of the manual of styles and 1RR Troubles Restriction it can easily be construed as vandalism. Mabuska (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If the IP is who I think it is, the IP will need to be blocked as it likely won't stop reinserting what it prefers. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────A sanction for breaching 1RR will hardly deter them either down the line but it is protocol to report it. Whether they are the same editor or not will have to be seen down the line and dealt with when we get to that bridge. Mabuska (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP editor three days for the 1RR violation and alerted them about the discretionary sanctions under the WP:TROUBLES case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Ritchie333, consensus is to use Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city, if an editor is to was [[Derry GAA|County Derry]] when refering to the county GAA team that would be fine too. This "new" editor seems to be making a point. An unfortunate amount of time is spent on these reverts and there is a certain perception that making many such edits may be vandalism, my own view is it is POV and against consensus for the first few times, after that just purely disruptive. Thanks EdJohnston for the intervention, but it hasn't had the lasting effect Special:Contributions/80.4.175.165. Murry1975 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's more or less the conclusion I've come to. I think the main difference is I would revert, block, ignore - wouldn't bother reverting without a block first; an obvious POV pusher (which this was) would just revert again and again and again. And calling it "vandalism" runs the risk of a long and tedious or abuse explanation of why it isn't. Anyway, IP blocked, article stabilised, I guess we're all done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately User talk:Ritchie333 the article hadn't stabilised with the block and the issue done with. As User:Murry1975 pointed out, a new IP (geolocated to the same county) suddenly appeared since the block to do the exact same edit on that specific article. This is obviously now a case of sockpuppetry and thus block evasion. Though User:EdJohnston has since semi-protected the article thankfully to prevent IP edits which should now stabilise the article. Whether the IP will now play ball and adapt to Wikipedia policies is up to them. Mabuska (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch[edit]

This article and a related controversy page have recently been brought to BLPN several times by Collect and myself.[7][8][9] In the most recent string I suggested it was more appropriate for ANI at this time.

There seems to be a lot of personal attacks, trolling, assumptions of bad faith, combative editing and WP:NOTBUREAU that have created a toxic and un-productive environment on the article. For example, @Hipocrite: and @Nomoskedasticity: have both been borderline trolling me, by sarcastically saying their edits are for auction, that they can be paid to leave any article alone, and in Hipocrite's case asking if I was paid to defame him.[10] Here the same two editors accuse me of spinning the article by intentionally omitting major controversies, but refuse to provide any sources regarding the alleged omissions and in other cases have accused me of being unethical, spinning the article and so on.

I don't feel this assumption of bad-faith is warranted, especially since I provided sources to verify beyond a doubt that the MBA controversy belongs on the page, pro-actively suggested adding COI concerns with her father and a debate about her tax inversion strategy. Additionally, they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits[11] or edits supported by consensus[12] (see @Jimbo:'s comments here), using very bureaucratic, technical rationales, like requiring consensus be established on the Talk page of the article, rather than noticeboards or Talk pages, or saying consensus is not clear enough.

Not doing the whole self-righteous charade of demanding blocks - just think it needs attention from editors experienced in handling this kind of drama.

Disclosure: Please note I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see this ANI post for what it is: a paid editor is trying (at his client's behest) to make this BLP a more promotional piece and then complaining here when other editors don't agree that this is what should happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hipocrite and Nomoskedasticity have both been warned previously for this type of conduct by User:Jehochman. These are also the type of comments that when an editor seeks help on an ANI board to deal with issues, that cause them to lose faith on Wikipedia and eventually quit. The sniping, specifically the comments about others and having been paid by someone to defame another is nearing harassment. Also Corporate, can you link us to where the consensus was at BLPN? I see some discussions but not like a full on consensus of the content. Tutelary (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tutelary:Within this diff are links to the BLPN post, two user Talk pages and an IRC respondent (no link for that last one obviously, but that was @DragonflySixtyseven: who made the edit after picking up on the IRC chat) that all agreed the prior controversy section was UNDUE (it was pretty obvious). Though there wasn't explicit consensus for exactly how to handle it (trim and merge or summary style), but it's this kind of editing that concerns me; where the two editors edit boldly, but then require an impossibly high margin of iron-clad consensus for anyone else to make changes and often find trivial or unsubstantiated reasons to reject edits from others.
It's worth noting that @Jehochman:'s warning was given after these edits, however it appears as though this may be representative of their editing conduct in general or at least in other COI situations[13] and part of a long string of disputes between these two and Collect.[14] CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have very much seen this type of editing before and it's even being stated within this thread that Hipocrite likes to argue while sniping comments at people. The comments about how you're apparently being paid to cast aspersions against him are not convincing and are starting to inhibit the ability to discuss this matter at ANI--which is a frequent problem here I might add. Also particularly because this is a BLP, they are afforded much large protection via the larger WP:BLP policy, the bar might be higher for sourcing. But regarding their editing habits in general, if their comments on ANI are any representation of how they argue on the talk page (without even looking at it), then they need to be barred from this topic. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, you have stated that I edited boldly against consensus. Please show me where I did such on the page. Use diffs. I'll be sending Mylan a bill for my time, by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hipocrite is correct in that I referred to both of them collectively as if they were a single person, but some very specific comments may refer to just one or the other. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So really you have no comment about me except that I don't like you whitewashing your clients? Which of what you wrote applies to me, specifically? This comment cost Mylan $50. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone is being paid to take me to ANI? No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Still further "they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits?" Where have I done so? This paid aspersion casting needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hipocrite, I thought you had better manners than that. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hipocrite, you aren't convincing anybdoy with this sort of argument. Please stop. Companies, like it or not, have an interest in seeing that their articles and their related biographies are accurate. We can't just blow them off when our articles have an impact on their real lives of people who work at these businesses. Please be patient and listen to whatever concerns are presented, and don't be disrespectful or dismissive. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Companies do NOT have an interest that their articles are "accurate". They have an interest that content about them shows them in a good light. Nobody gets a bonus or dividend payment because their Wikipedia article is "accurate". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You know what, fuck it. I'll avoid all Mylan related topics from here-on-out. Enjoy Pepsipedia, brought to you by IBM. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never attempted to position her government lobbying as director of government relations as a philanthropic effort. On the contrary, I have provided excerpts from the source material[15] to assist in making it more clear how the legislation benefits Mylan. I did mention on @Drmies: Talk page that editing patterns suggest the two editors may be colluding offline, but immediately struck-out the comment as unsubstantiated. Mylan does not know there is a discussion at ANI or that these two editors are giving me a hard time; my edits are my own.
I have not actually requested a ban, but suggested diplomatic intervention was needed. Someone would have to do a deeper dive into their editing to see if a BAN was needed, but off-the-cuff an IBAN with all disclosed COIs paid editors (the behavioral problems seems to be exclusive to paid editing[16][17][18] at least for Hipocrite) seems worth considering. Again, someone would have to investigate their behavior in a broader sense than just this one article for that kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As much as I dislike agreeing with a corporate anything, let alone a minion, I see no need to censure (or bitch at) CorpM here, who I believe has been going about this the proper way. The current version of the article isn't bad--I suppose this material, added by Nomoskedasticity is fine, but I don't rightly see why this material had to be removed. Either way, that's fussing over content, but getting all Pepsipedia over it is exaggerated and shows a tremendous lack of good faith. I mean, I suppose such lack of good faith with a COI editor is understandable, maybe, but it doesn't help us and our article. If Hipocrite stays away from this, that would be a good thing, if only to bring the temperature down. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I'd hoped this would slide past unnoticed, but now that you're standing on the mine, you're going to have to defuse it. I strongly sympathize with Hipocrite's position, in that I think CorporateM's proposed text, understandably enough, was meant to go just deep enough to make his client look good without really putting a full understanding of the circumstances as a priority - as I explained there, I think it tended to make activities sound altruistic that, though quite possibly of substantial benefit, ultimately served commercial ends. Unfortunately, I also have to recognize CorporateM's complaint about edits for auction. Taken in full, I think any reasonable person can see that Hipocrite is speaking rhetorically in the middle when he says "I think that all goes out the window when you could literally burn $100,000 with no life impact. You should rename this Cokeapedia, brought to you by Apple. So, no, it's not ethical for a billion dollar corporation to do anything more than say "please look at this article" once. Of course, if they were paying me, I'd think differently. I'll leave this topic area for $1,000, and argue whatever the subject wants for $5,000. Contact me via email this user for Bitcoin details! Wait, is that ethical? I'm so confused where the line is drawn. " Yet in cases like with Bill Cosby's alleged daughter, we've seen claims of "extortion" in the U.S. taken to ridiculous extremes, even against people who simply promised to tell the truth to the press. So I think that ANI may be obligated to think this one over very carefully, even put it to wider community/WMF consultation and write up a policy, in order to determine the best way to deal with an offer to be paid not to edit, and possibly take a hard line here that may involve topic-banning him from the article, despite his positive contributions. I don't desire anything bad to happen to Hipocrite, but the point is, now that process has been invoked, Wikipedia has to convince the public at large that there is no possible way that anyone can really threaten to slant your Wikipedia article against you unless he's paid off and get away with it; otherwise I fear that people in his position might actually be in some kind of legal risk, which would be much worse. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your concerns in a reasonable way @Wnt:. As stated before though, I never intended to imply that her government lobbying as director of government relations was philanthropic. You'll see here that I basically agreed that this would be good information/context to add and provided sources for adding it. I'm not sure why it keeps being said that I'm POV pushing for making it sound purely philanthropic - I don't believe I've ever advocated for any such thing. There's no conspiracy here to subtly imply one thing or another - just a minor editorial thing in a first draft that could be easily fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoplophobia article: Recurrent IP vandalism of valid references[edit]

User 72.56.9.232/208.54.38.247 repeatedly vandalizes a legitimate reference to a valid archive of "Jeff Cooper's Diaries." Claims the reference is "link spam," which it certainly is not. This may be a legitimate understanding or it may be a ruse for POV pushing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The two IPs that the original poster (99.242.102.111) is referring to are 172.56.9.232 and 208.54.38.247. This is an example of one of 172.56.9.232's edits, which does considerably more than remove a reference. It introduces/restores a considerably POV commentary. However, 99.242.102.111, you are engaged in an editwar to restore the references. The place to discuss the appropriateness of this reference (and from Talk:Hoplophobia#Gunsite Gossip source, it may not be appropriate) is at the article's talk page. Incidentally, the article is now being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia (2nd nomination). Voceditenore (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Never heard that term until today. It's nice to know that NRA types are editing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Because such people cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia. Pax 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, we're all Nazis. Dick. --NE2 20:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand: the purpose of that link was to remind the trolls that not everyone interested in owning weaponry is a southern redneck or a gung-ho jarhead (i.e., the stereotyped NRA member, by snide implication to only persons desiring to keep that article). Pax 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
And simultaneously to remind the trolls (I'm reclaiming this term) that some of them may be Nazis who want to kill Jews without them fighting back. --NE2 21:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So, are gun owners evil, or not? Or is it those who don't like guns who are evil? I'm getting confused now. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're a 'roided LA SWAT unit enforcing CA gun-control at Glock-point, you're OK. Otherwise, you're ebil. Pax 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
NOW I understand! Thank you! Guns in the hands of government agents is good. Guns in the hands of private citizens is bad. No "What if?" questions allowed, right? It is a good thing that all governments are good, kind respectful entities that always desire the best for their citizens. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fuck the police and the wannabes posting above. --NE2 01:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Denver rail articles[edit]

Hi. 174.16.208.234, who has also edited as 147.153.168.23, (they geolocate as home and university respectively) has repeatedly inserted material into articles relating to FasTracks that the Northwest Rail Line, a component of this plan, has been cancelled ([19], [20], [21] [22]). If you look at the sources they cited ([23], [24], [25]), this is untrue: the line has simply been put on the back burner compared to a rapid bus service in the same corridor. They also reverted my edits with under the guise of reverting vandalism ([26], [27], [28]), which is patently false even if I'm wrong on the content aspect, then kindly gave me a warning ([29])—I don't think I've ever got one before. Conifer (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting an occasional warning from an IP or brand new editor is usually just a sign that you're doing interesting things, I wouldn't worry about it. Since they titled the section on your page 'accidental vandalism' (which isn't a thing,) it's a pretty good sign that instead of intending any malice they just think their representation is more accurate and don't realize that a content dispute isn't vandalism. Nothing really sanction-worthy that I can see, I'll drop a note on their home IP address (since many uni IPs are shared and notes to them are often read by unintended parties without ever reaching the right party. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean it in a bad way. No matter the context, it's still amusing to be on the other end of a UW notice, since I've given out so many. Thanks for the semi-protection; hopefully we can work this out on the talkpage. Conifer (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Always makes me laugh too, I just figured I'd make sure :). One of my funnier on-wiki moments was a rather interesting user getting annoyed I AfD'ed their article opening an SPI on me, heh. Feel free to poke me if the problem persists and I don't notice it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Account sharing and block evasion by confirmed troll[edit]

USER BLOCKED
User indef blocked for account sharing (and trolling) by JzG. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

See here. User:Icemerang claims to be a shared account, one of those accounts (User:Ronaldlheureux) being a blocked refdesk troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation, edit warring and sockpuppet[edit]

USER WARNED
User warned by Drmies. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I have reverted them for the BLP violation and will warn. I can't judge the possibly socking right now; perhaps starting an SPI is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent admin oversight needed over an IP account[edit]

See the revision history at Ottoman empire. The IP's have been personally attacking users with very insulting remarks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Fut.Perf.. Stickee (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sticker Although I genuinely appreciate Future Perfect at Sunrise's good faith effort, I think semi-protection solves only part of the problem. The IP accounts called other users cockroaches and many other unspeakable personal insults. Do these IP account not merit a block? Or else, were at risk of getting insulted elsewhere. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, they certainly "merit" blocks, but since they are IP-hopping anyway, a block would have no concrete effect at all (unless it was a very large rangeblock). Fut.Perf. 09:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just gently throw into the mix that some of the other comments have not been particularly civil either, so it looks like the IP has just responded in kind. Dr.K. should not be calling other editors bigots, IP or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

When they express clearly bigoted views, that's hardly unwarranted. The IP was not "just responding" to unprovoked uncivil comments. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying the IP wasn't at fault, and I think semi-protecting the article was the right call ... but when faced with these sort of abusive comments, the best thing to do is keep a cool head and not retaliate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Different meaning of "just", Paul. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Really? How? Just about the only justifiable meaning of 'just' I can derive from Ritchie333's statement is 'merely', which is how I used it. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"Just" as in "just now". Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"Stupid personal attack" is possibly unnecessary but mild in comparison to the IP's language (I'm about to remove one edit summary); Dr.K., thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is very important, so make sure when you answer you can provide evidence: has there been any change at all to any instances of "ottoman empire" or "turkish empire"? Ping me when you reply please, and I'll check any evidence you have for a comparison. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusation of forum-shopping[edit]

John Carter (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly[30][31][32] accusing me of forum-shopping a DRN thread onto ANI. THE DRN thread in question had nothing to do with me and I didn't even know about it until he brought it up. (Though the user whose conduct I was complaining about was involved, though.) I initially assumed a good-faith mistake and explained (first angrily, then politely with an apology for my earlier snark) that he was mistaken. His recent activity indicates he was well-read in the DRN thread, and almost certainly knew I had nothing to do with it.

I asked for a retraction several times and he just repeated the accusation, and even after the ANI thread closed and I again asked for a retraction he posted this on my talk page.

Could someone tell him it is inappropriate to repeatedly make incorrect forum-shopping accusations against other editors after being corrected? If not, could I get an IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll admit that what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment, but...don't you remember when I said that you can't make someone retract their comments just because you disagree with them? And it was clear in that very long thread (btw, it was ironic that you brought up WP:TLDR at one point but then you made longer and longer comments yourself) that John wasn't the only person who thought you—and the user you reported—were forum-shopping; in fact, I brought that up first, not John. I have no opinion on an IBAN, although I do agree with him that you need to drop the stick. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Erpert: You posted your own opinion that there was forum-shopping (based on Catflap08's behaviour more than mine) on the article talk page. You later speculated that my ANI thread on Catflap08 was also forum-shopping. This was your interpretation of the facts that before you. The facts that were before you. You never lied and claimed the specific topic Catflap08 snd I were conflicting over was the subject of an open DRN thread. John Carter did this, without making any reference to you. You and I had a "disagreement", and I never asked you to retract your posts because you were neither posting based on a gross misunderstanding nor lying. I initially assumed that once I clarified for John Carter that his understanding of events was wrong he would be so embarrassed by the mistake that he would retract all his comments and apologize. Then I realized that what he had done was not make a mistake but deliberately lie about my activities. What John Carter and I have is not a "disagreement": he is lying about me and I want him to stop. As for WP:STICK: If I was still actively requesting a TBAN or block for Catflap08, maybe that would apply, but I withdrew that request two days ago. Now I'm asking for someone to tell a different user to quit his persistent and unjustified attacks against me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

John's completely inexcusable insinuation is a clear violation of NPA and can be seen as a continuation of efforts to insult and degrade individuals. I make no secret of the fact that I have been involved in the Soka Gakkai material for some time now. Also, if you bothered to actually look, you will note that the topics merit being covered, see how much material can be found on them, and then try to determine weight. Honestly, that is to my eyes probably the most reasonable way to proceed.

Please make some sort of visible attempt to act in accord with conduct guidelines in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoltAsResearch (talkcontribs) 06:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:JoltAsResearch: was this meant for John Carter's talk page? Your use of the second person implies you are talking to me, but I don't think I've ever interacted with you. Apart from the fact that JC randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread, and the above post randomly brought up Soka Gakkai in an unrelated ANI thread, I don't see how any of the above is related in any way to my complaint of false accusations or anything Erpert said. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (edited 10:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC) )
Yes, what is all that about? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • JoltAsResearch is now blocked by User:HJ Mitchell for being an "obvious bad hand account". Thanks Harry--but you only just beat me to it, and to the $10 check from the WMF. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
First I think it worth noting that Jolt shows the same simplistic understanding and virtual obsession with NPA in the above comment that Tgeairn has rather regularly demonstrated, and that on that basis the comment provides additional support for the conclusion that this is, in fact, a sockpuppet of Tgeairn.
Regarding Hijiri's statements, it seems to me that even in his response to Erpert above there seems to be a rather obvious insistence that Hijiri can, basically, do no wrong. And, frankly, considering that Hijiri himself has demonstrated a remarkable tendency to using obvious, frankly obnoxious, and completely unsupportable personal attacks such as "jackass" and "jerk," I find his sudden aversion to anyone questioning his sometimes dubiously rational and wildly emotional responses amusing. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's possible that Tgeairn has a sock drawer, but only in the sense that it's possibly for anyone to have it. I doubt it very much. Hijiri, one cannot make an editor retract something; the best thing you can do is say "dude you're wrong", remove it from your talk page, and consider banning him from your talk page. I agree with Erpert that "what John posted on your talk page wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment", and I could phrase that a bit more strongly, but it's not really actionable. If, however, the action you're looking for is an admin saying "John don't do that anymore", I can give you that much: John, please don't do that anymore. I can't and won't block for such a comment, but it's really unhelpful. At the same time, though, Hijiri, ANI may not be the best place for such a request. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I specifically asked for an IBAN. This user showed up randomly on an ANI thread and posted lies about me in order to derail a discussion of his friend Catflap08's indisputably bad behaviour. He accused me of doing the exact same thing Catflap08 had done, and he was completely silent on it when his friend did it. If Catflap08 comes back and continues the same disruptive behaviour, I need to be sure he can't count on his friend John Carter to always bail him out no matter what happens. Entirely aside from that, it bothers me when people post lies about me. I'm pretty sure ANI is the place to ask for an IBAN with a user who has been harassing me like this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry; I missed the last words of your opening statement. I am not in favor of iBans, and I wagged my finger, so I'm out. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I rather think the odds of his having a sockpuppet are rather better than you do, obviously. The sometimes superficial nature of many of the comments and, possibly, thinking seen in both is to my eyes indicative of a linkage. And, frankly, I am unaware of any policies or guidelines which indicate that one cannot or should not question the actions of others if they believe those actions are in violation of policies or guidelines. There does seem to my eyes to be some basis in thinking that the hypersensitivity that I have regularly seen, and sometimes comment on, in Tgeairn, as well as the apparent view that policies and guidelines seem to only apply to individuals other than themselves, may not be limited to him. And, FWIW, considering I have been working to finish the content from one source relevant to the Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies as a primary action for the past several days, I acknowledge having given a cursory overview of my own talk page and just today saw Hijiri's comments there. I actually am not used to getting many messages there on the same day, and, in this case, I acknowledge I didn't check the page entirely. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Remind me again, what part of forum shopping it here was a good idea? Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or the sockpuppet? If me, it's because ANI is the best place (as far as I know) to ask for sanctions against a user who has been lying about me in order to deliberately derail legitimate discussion of his friend's inappropriate conduct. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:John Carter[edit]

John, including the above you have directly and indirectly accused me of sock puppetry at least six times in the past 24 hours.[33][34][35][36][37][38] Additionally, you have made all manner of statements about my ability to edit, read, follow policy, etc. You are a former admin here and you know damned well exactly how to report sockpuppets, POV issues, behavioural issues, etc. It is not by going to multiple talk pages and slinging mud.

I request an immediate block for John Carter for these personal attacks and unfounded accusations, as well as his behaviour in general with editors that he disagrees with. He has been warned repeatedly and in many venues, and has not slowed even a bit. At his request[39], I am not notifying John of this thread. I am pinging him though. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I thank you for explicitly stating your obvious contempt for policies and guidelines by having the gall to state that you have pointedly refused to abide by the standards at the top of the page. Also, it would be worth noting that, so far as I can tell, being a former administrator does not necessarily mean that one knows "exactly" every variant rule, and that very few people knowing much about the rules would even think to say such a thing. An SPI case has in fact been filed regarding the above editor, and I personally think that the timing of this might well have been to prevent such in what may well be a desperate attempt to avoid the possible sockpuppetry being investigated. It is also worth noting that, unlike some others, I have been active on other sites today, including wikisource, and it was only in the last few minutes, actually, since I started the SPI page, that I got the ping regarding this message. It is also worth noting, as has been done before, including the recent AE regarding him, that the above editor has a seemingly deeply flawed and obsessive regard for what he mistakenly calls "personal attacks" as per NPA. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused; why is this block request a subsection of an ANI thread that someone else started? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that every time I post something on ANI the thread almost immediately gets hijacked by someone with a bone to pick that has nothing whatsoever to do with the concern I raised and who apparently didn't even read my OP.
Move to close (the whole discussion, including mine) with no result. This thread too became a fustercluck that's unlikely to have any positive outcome. To the best of my knowledge the only time John Carter and I have ever interacted other than indirectly (I'm pretty sure JC might have also commented on that historicity of Jesus fustercluck a few months back) was earlier this week over the Catflap08 debacle. I asked for an IBAN because that would have prevented John Carter from again rushing to post bullshit about me in order to defend his friend Catflap08, but that's not really necessary anymore. Enough users have figured out that the latter's constant misrepresentation of sources is either severe incompetence or maliciousness that he'll get a TBAN or block soon enough, and I don't need to worry about JC getting in the way of that.
As an aside, in the future I'll try to be more careful when posting ANI threads about users to do thorough background checks on them first, to make sure that no one can wrongly accuse me of being involved in a DRN discussion with them at the time, and that no obvious sockpuppets are harassing the subject and will likely hijack my ANI thread with even more bullshit.
And yes, User:Erpert, I am aware of the irony of saying the thread has become TLDR in the middle of my own TLDR comment. My point was never to accuse specific other users of posting comments that were too long: I meant that posting bullshit off-topic comments, no matter how short each one is, can build up and make the thread unreadable. My own individually TLDR comments have all been posted in threads that were already irredeemably TLDR, so one more long comment couldn't hurt. As an aside, why, when I posted apologies to you, JC, and Doncrum earlier, did only Doncrum accept, while you and JC responded like I had just attacked you? I got the very distinct impression that you hadn't actually read the comment.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple promotion attempts[edit]

User indeffed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While new page patrolling, I came across Raihanul shezan, a page created by Raihanul shezan a future (talk · contribs). A review of the user's contributions and talk page shows multiple attempts of probable self-promotion since the beginning of the year. Raihanul shezan a future was deleted once and Raihanul shezan was deleted thrice. Raihanul shezan a future also contributed an Articles for Creation draft at Draft:Raihanul Shezan and uploaded an image of the same person. It is evident that the editor is only here to promote this person and has ignored several requests to stop. MJ94 (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uherský Brod shooting[edit]

Hello,

I have recently added "background section" to article on Uherský Brod shooting. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com felt that it is speculation and synthesis and deleted much of the added content, without even first contacting me or bringing it to the talk page.

In my opinion, particularly the following was deleted for not good reason:

In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sextagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts.[1] Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors.[1]
Media further pointed out that in the atheist Czech society, pubs and restaurants play a very important societal function. Targeting a restaurant in the Czech Republic thus has the same symbolism as does targeting a church in other countries.[2]

Both information are relevant to the article (most mass murders in US are committed by teenagers, in Western Europe by 30-40 yo males), they also point to the motive (without expressly speculating about it), the symbolism is also clear. No speculation in either. In addition, all information was taken from the linked source - a weekly that deals with the shooting in articles taking over 8 pages - no synthesis was made by me.

I have some understanding for deletion of the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhage