User talk:MakinaterJones

November 2017
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Oncotarget that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller

Thank you for the warm welcome and the message here - I am a new editor, and I might have not been calling the conduct I was pointing out by the proper name.

Now, that I am understanding a bit better, I am under the impression that the user I made the comment about has a COI with the information that they are promoting. They have also consistently been in violation of the three revert rule, they have not left rational for their reversions and are generally engaged in edit warring on a consistent basis.

I wrote an argument regarding the reliability of a certain source and its general application across wikipedia and I was instantly labeled a COI, edit warring and several other issues...when in fact I believe that the people who labeled it are the ones that should be in review.

This is contrary to how new editors should be treated - please guide me on how to label a user with a COI request, three revert violations and editor warring.

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you don't need to add a help me tag to every section. One will be enough to call for help. Secondly, you'll find it difficult to argue that anyone else was edit warring here, or coming even close to a three-revert violation. And I'd be interested in why you think those who disagree with you might have a conflict of interest. To me this looks like a tit-for-tat response without considering whether both sides' conduct is equivalent. If you want to bring up other editors for a review of their actions, the places to do so are the conflict of interest noticeboard, the three-revert noticeboard and the edit-warring noticeboard, respectively. If you just want to warn the other editors, their respective talk pages would be the places to do so. Please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG, though - obviously inappropriate warnings or reports may come back to haunt the person who gave them.

Thank you for your attention on this Huon:

1. I do not understand what you mean disagree with me? I am only speaking to wiki policy I have no personal opinion here.

2. I believe there is a conflict of interest because there is a plain disregard for Wiki policy with repetitive reversions rather than engagement on the talk pages and noticeboards i.e. multiple repetitive reversions which is an obvious war with multiple editors

3. I do believe this is tit-for-tat, I indicated that I thought it was vandalism at first (and as I said above I know better to call it a COI now) and the moment I indicated this I was tagged with COI, edit warring and more simply for disagreeing with this editor. He refuses to cite wiki policy and on other occasions makes no edit summary what-so-ever.

4. I tagged help me to every section as I am under the impression they are separate issues to be addressed.

I would like to have another totally removed admin review all this for us - I do not want to war, I want wiki policy followed and enhanced.

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Mikhail Blagosklonny, Oncotarget, and Aging (journal)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog

These were literally my first edits ever - Mikhail Blagosklonny was on the BLP notice board and looked like the group of people in this discussion were in desperate need of a neutral point of view. I have evaluated BLP policy, reliable source policy, and the pages connected to his account to find that there is a large discussion around the applicability of a prima facia reckless addition to his BLP page - I asked that you do not revert my edits without finding consensus on the BLP noticeboard - yet you reverted and label me and edit war?

Moreover, another user came on to say we should take it to talk page - yet left the contested content on his page? This again is in volition of BLP Wiki policy.

If you have a problem with anything I have written about - please engage me on the talk pages and stop reverting my edits. You are engaging in edit waring and reverting edits with little to no rational.

How can I request neutral editors to evaluate an issue?

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Try WP:Dispute resolution. Huon (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi MakinaterJones. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date are on a bit of a run removing negative information from articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, MakinaterJones. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Blagosklonny or Beall, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Jytdog


 * Thank you for the information - there is no conflict of interest. You are asking this question why?


 * Overall, I have been monitoring Wikipedia and doing small edits for years now - the other day when I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP on the noticeboard I evaluated the contested material and made comments on the BLP noticeboard. I decided at that time to establish an account because one of the reasons you reverted something I wrote was because it was from an IP (which is not a reason in itself to revert Jytdog)


 * Then, I subsequently removed the information from his page in accordance with BLP policy (contested information should be removed until it is decided upon) and it was instantly reverted. Now, it has been suggested that we bring it to the talk page (which I will be doing monetarily) and I will be removing the content during our discussion.


 * Moreover, I believe there is conflict of interest between the editor perpetuating the information, violating 3 revert rules, not giving rational for reversions and generally edit warring over the issue. Please guide me on how to ask for COI discloser from this user...


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See above. You haven't explained why the editor should have a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, MakinaterJones.  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, now to the substance. Thanks again for replying here.  You responded by evaluating whether or not you think you have a COI, but that is not the question I asked.  As you noted you are new here, and it isn't reasonable for anybody (you or me) to expect that you would understand how conflict of interest is evaluated here in Wikipedia.  What I asked, is for you to disclose any connection you have with Blagosklonny or Beall.  I ask that question because your edits have focused on the interaction between those two real world people.  We have a policy that we strictly enforce, WP:BLPCOI, which says that you cannot bring a real-world dispute with someone into Wikipedia, and carry on that dispute here.  Your edits make it seem that this is what you are doing.
 * Would you please disclose any relationship you have with Blagosklonny (or companies or organizations affiliated with him) or Beall? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * I was wondering about that Jytdog, thank you. My name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention and a nice meaty wiki policy discussion not simple grammar changes. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account) I begged for the editors to stop reverting and take it to talk - they refused.


 * So, I created an account ;) and I will continue to seek consensus with my fair and neutral policy application.


 * I have no relationships with any of these people and I have been focused on application of policy - because I believe wiki needs to be more neutral and editors need to work harder to adhere to the community outlines - I could care less about these BLPs or Oncotarget - please be clearer in where you believe my outlines I have applied to talk pages and noticeboards have been about either BLP and not about direct policy application ?


 * I would like to ask RandyKitten and David Eppstien if they have COI with these same topics to be fair...


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying (and for indenting). Thanks for answering the question about relationships.   To be frank, your answer is not credible to me.  I have asked, with the goal of helping you get oriented.  I cannot do that if your answer doesn't match your behavior.
 * With regard to your question I could care less about these BLPs or Oncotarget - please be clearer in where you believe my outlines I have applied to talk pages and noticeboards have been about either BLP and not about direct policy application ? -- I cannot make sense of this. Please ask a different way. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * You have made a claim that because I am editing these pages I could have a COI - yet I have only applied facts to policy. Furthermore, I have explained the events that led me into having interest on this topic...I have asked you to substantiate your claim by telling me where I am focused more on the BLP or the Oncotarget page than I am with the application of wiki policy ? Have you read Beall talk page about split? Mikhail BLP noticeboard page? Oncotarget talk page about Beall as a RS?


 * My dedication, my background and my intentions are with policy, and wiki policy - I am happy to get involved in other issues when we find consensus about this, there is nothing that says I cannot engage on one subject at a time. Most of all, the application of these sources to a living persons biography is reckless and egregious disregard for wiki policy - claiming there is consensus about this as a RS at all is facially incorrect, and especially in light of a BLP. This BLP needs help. I have gone above and beyond in my willingness to provide my expert insight on the specific issue by putting forward my name into a formalized profile (which I did not want to do). I am not going to give you my social security number but I have given you my name, my graduate institution, affiliations, interests and progress to this point in my editing. What else do you want?


 * Wiki is never final and I am allowed to raise this discussion, it is up to those who want it to stay to defend the rational and they have not - moreover, as I have said from day one, I would like the COI question raised with Randykitten and David Eppstien in regard to this issue as well - they have been hawking these pages since day one and always advancing negative one sided information with little to no edit explanations, little to no consensus, and little to no wiki policy application - please be fair to both sides here.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your description of why there is an WP:APPARENTCOI here is incorrect and your edits have consistently violated policy which is why they have all been reverted. The apparent COI is very... apparent. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * I am confused with your comment, I described why there is an apparent COI and I was incorrect ?


 * Can you please be specific about what edits I made violated policy? I know I made a mistake with forcing a press release and deleted it, it was an honest attempt to make the article more accurate. Also, I have not expanded pages, and I have not tried to edit pages until I learn a bit more about the specific application of policy. I have tried to remove a few things that I thought were poorly sourced violations of policy - when I found that we disagreed, I put my thoughts onto the talk page - and I have not had more then a couple responses so far. Can you please be specific where you feel I am arguing too much?
 * Overall, your claim is very general - and although I understand your suspicion - what more of an explanation are you seeking without providing direct substantive issues about your claim?
 * MakinaterJones (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in engaging with you on general matters, since I do not believe you are accurately describing your relationships. If you want to discuss any specific edit, please do so at the relevant article's Talk page.  Please be aware that if you continue behaving as you have, you are likely to end up indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * If you don't tell me your specific issues, or what I have done wrong as a new editor, I am not sure how to correct your general concern. I believe you are saying I have a COI because I write a thorough analysis summarizing relevant policy and then applying it to the facts? You are not being clear. If you want to discuss any specific edit, please do so at the relevant article's Talk page and Ill be happy to keep responses after my initial engagement shorter...


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss specific edits and learn what you have been doing wrong, you can open a discussion about those specific edits at the relevant article's talk page and ask (and really ask) what was wrong. If you ask fake questions and ignore the answers, you will of course end up indefinitely blocked.  If you ask real questions, and listen, and learn, then you have a better chance of becoming a Wikipedian. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * Excellent - now I finally feel like we are getting somewhere in this discussion. I will do what you have suggested here - feel free to make more suggestions to me. Who do I ask? Do you want me to put a tag or something?


 * But overall, lets be clear - it is not an apparent COI in any way shape or form - don't jump to conclusions - I have multiple advanced degrees and I have been a policy expert for over 12 years now working on everything from small private policy development to massive interstate policy agendas. My analysis might seem a bit intense to an average wiki editor, but that does not mean by default that I am getting paid to do it - I like doing this, enjoy it and happy to be involved. I want to become someone who can be relied on to read, interpret and apply policy to situations in wiki just like this issue here for a long time to come. Moreover, the prior analysis on this BLP and RS issue was ill willed, just not done, or done with blatant and reckless disregard of wiki policy. Me volunteering my time to prepare something substantial that could help the discussions should be evaluated on the facts presented and not ignored because they take more than 30 seconds to read - please do better than this if you want to come to a solid conclusion.


 * You have also failed to cite how anything I have done is in violation of policy besides the one source I added, which I apologized for and removed. If you can be specific I can address the issues as you have asked me to above.


 * Ill add this in general response to your threats to ban me - Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible . I have asked you to bring more to the table here so we can have a discussion - please drop your threats and engage in the discussion.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you say about your real world experience is irrelevant - On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog and we have no way to validate such claims nor any interest in doing so. What is clear is that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. This is normal. It takes time. In any case we have nothing more to discuss here and I will not be replying further. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing comments that I have already responded to. This is not OK. Please see WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * It's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them - I was making small improvements before you posted your reply, its not like I came back a week later to make a change.


 * Changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided but if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes - why would you falsely tell me it is not OK to edit comments?


 * It is okay and I should have just added these indicators...I didn't know about these till now, thank you for guiding me to them, I will use them in the future...but I have left edit summaries if you or anyone else is confused.


 * Any deleted text should be marked with ... or ..., which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.
 * Any inserted text should marked with ... or ..., which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted.
 * Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g., ; edited 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC), using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.
 * To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment immediately below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate, insert a comment in square brackets, e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]", or use [corrected] to insert a superscript note, e.g., [corrected], linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.

If you Jytdog or anyone else has a concern - please stop the accusations and be prepared to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR,WP:RS,WP:NPOV and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing

I will, however bad I believe the faults of my accusers are, think long and hard about my own behavior.

And in a personal critique, I have been less than perfect with some of the ways I have tried to describe issues and I have learned ALOT in the last couple weeks - bg difference between making small IP based edits and having an account and trying to bite into a meaty policy issue.

To counter my "newness"I tried to provide high quality analysis with reliable secondary sources to back my interpretation of wiki policy on talk pages an noticeboards - instead I am accused of tendentious editing.

To find out what people find problematic about my edits I have asked that they take their concerns to the talk pages or noticeboards (but they have refused)

If y'all feel that I am are "on the brink" of becoming a tendentious editor on these certain articles, I will take a break and will not edit or even look at the articles for a day–or even a week.

If someone wants to suggest another policy issue for me to view instead - please suggest.

MakinaterJones (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My comments
Please read WP:Vandalism which tells you what we consider to be vandalism. Anything else isn't vandalism. I was going to advise you on conflict of interest but that's already been done. Editors can have their own point of view, that's a different issue. Wikipedia has it's own point of view in that it is a mainstream encyclopedia based on reliably published sources. Many editors here are very concerned about predatory journals, that is in line with our insistence on reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing access to this policy - I appreciate it a ton.

I may have not used the proper describer here, I meant to claim a COI with the editor and the information being perpetuated.

Sorry for any confusion - can you please provide information on how to install the COI tag on their talk page?

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, see above. You don't need to leave them a templated response; explaining why you think they have an undisclosed conflict of interest would suffice. Huon (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Huon

These two editors David Eppstein and Jytdog are on a bit of a run adding, reverting, arguing in an extremely biased way, and not citing wiki policy to keep negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

For instance he is doing it right now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oncotarget&action=history

Someone please stop this editor from warring, and encourage to cite policy and gain consensus.

November 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Oncotarget. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''In addition, if your removal of what is accepted as a Reliable Source is reverted, please do not go removing it again. See WP:BRD.'' David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard

Thank you for the information - I didn't mean to revert that portion.

I am going to formalize my editing role here, and I will be focusing on learning more about tags, and source editing (always been doing visual editing up to this point) Ill try the sandbox!

I have brought all my issues to talk pages and noticeboards (or will be momentarily) However, I will be reverting contested information off the BLP page until we reach a consensus on talk page.

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't even a question. There's no need to add a help me tag when you're not asking for help. Note that "BLP" is not a magic word that automatically means your actions are beyond dispute or reversal when you invoke it. None of the information you removed here, for example, presented a BLP issue. The only person mentioned there, living or dead, is the one criticizing the journal, and reporting that he did that can hardly be considered derogatory or in any other way problematic from a BLP point of view. Huon (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Huon

Sorry, I will always remember to phrase in the form of a question moving forward.

You are referring to the wrong page...

What I need help with is the fact that this contested information on the BLP to be off the page while it is in discussion, I do not want to revert and be accused of warring - but it is general wiki policy "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is a conjectural interpretation of a source relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP"

It was said in the revisions on the page that we should take it to talk, however the contested information remains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

Fixed up your edit warring report
Hello MakinaterJones. Instructions for creating a report are given at the top of WP:AN3. I tried to fix up your report. It is now at: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You should notify User:David Eppstein that you've reported him. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

Thank you for the help! I normally use the visual editor and I am trying to learn more about source editing - and this form was in source side and was very very unclear to me...

Secondarily, I notified Eppstien before I committed the report (basically begging for a discussion) on the personal attack section he created on Oncotarget talk about me. After I issued the report I updated the box to indicated that it was now submitted and again begged him to actually engage in discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oncotarget&action=history

Jeffrey Beall
Since you mentioned that you were planning to nominate this article for deletion, I suggest that you first read Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Beall. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Cullen328 ,


 * Thank you for the message - I appreciate your guidance and positive approach!


 * I am under the impression that Doug Weller  will be bringing it to the RSN as a first step


 * The deletion I mentioned on the BLP's talk page and in regard to the BLP himself being mentioned next to his list in citations, was in mainly in regard to supporting a split of the BLP page. More specifically, yes I believe there is consensus on the BLP talk page split section (since the list is now single event) that Beall is not notable and should be nominated for deletion in due time.


 * I hope this allows you to understand the processes that are already in motion better! Happy to discuss the issue if you want to get involved with the Bealls List as a RS on the RSN when it gets there!


 * Also, I will read the deletion nomination policy you have included here


 * Sincerely,


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am quite confused by your response. Jeffrey Beall has 48 references, many of them to high quality reliable sources devoting significant coverage to Beall. Look at the references. Consensus in the debate I linked to above is that Beall is notable, and nothing you have said above leads me to doubt that in any way. I see no such discussion at Talk: Jeffrey Beall. What do you mean by "the BLP's talk page"? Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Cullen328|Cullen328 ]],


 * I tagged you in the Oncotarget talk page where I have started talk ing about this issue - I believe your thoughts would be better applied there or on the proposed split section of Beall's talk page (the BLP)


 * I left comment on Beall's BLP talk page under proposing a split - there was a general consensus on the split - I said I support the split and would subsequently nominate the page for deletion (you should discuss this on his talk page and not mine)


 * Overall, there has been substantial changes since that deletion nomination was created - and as I said I think its going to the RSN 1st (which is separate from the proposed split) and only getting to a nomination for deletion much later


 * Hope this helps! MakinaterJones (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I will oppose any attempt to delete this article. Beall is notable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 ,


 * Sounds to me like you might have a problem or are unwilling to remain neutral and come to consensus? Please feel free to bring in some applicable wiki policy points to the discussion on the BLP page or the Oncotarget page in response to the discussion there to support your predisposed opinion...


 * No matter the case, my talk page is not a place to discuss this issue, and the link you have given to me...I will review - however, keep in mind a lot has changed since that was archived (like the BLP closing his controversial, highly opinionated, self published tabloid, off wiki dispute furthering, blog with little to no explanation)


 * I again - encourage you to discuss this in the appropriate venue!


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your talk page is the appropriate place to discuss your announced agenda of deleting this article about a clearly notable topic. I will most certainly discuss it at AfD if you or anyone else try to delete the biography of this notable person, and I have already made a comment to that effect at Talk: Jeffrey Beall. My mind is always open and I have no "predisposed opinion" as my eight year editing  history shows. The only problem I have is with any editors who come here to push an agenda. I am completely opposed to that in all cases. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 ,


 * Okay, not clear - I have answered you about my "announced agenda" (that after we finalize consensus on the split...a discussion I didn't start...I will be making the nomination for deletion) and it seems like you ignored what I said and just tried to scare me from the discussion by telling me you will bring your predisposed opinion to the discussion "I assure you that I will oppose any attempt to delete this article. Beall is notable." How does an opinion get more predisposed than that statement?


 * I am here to discuss wiki policy and this just happens to be a meaty interesting discussion - I am not going to be bullied away from this - wiki needs people who are applying wiki policy to cold hard facts and not simply carrying around predisposed opinions like a big stick. ALL topics on wiki are open for constant and evolving discussion - nothing is decided forever in this construct, I do not believe consensus was ever found - and I am sure that I am only helping wiki by pointing that out. Screaming BLP is RS over and over does not mean consensus <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  You haven't figured this out in your eight years of editing?


 * If you have something else to talk about (besides your outdated archived discussion about the BLP) that directly applies to me or my page - please be specific. If you want to talk about your opinions about the BLP, again, please do it in the appropriate venue.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD debate I linked to above is a perfect example of consensus, and calling it "outdated and archived" shows how little you know about how our deletion processes work. Please study them. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As for your comment "Screaming BLP is RS over and over does not mean consensus", that is utterly incoherent and bewildering. There is no direct connection between the concepts "BLP" and "RS" except that we require all articles, including BLPs, to summarize what reliable published sources say. In other words, this particular article deserves to stay in the encyclopedia because this person is extensively discussed in reliable, independent sources. It is that simple and anything else is a diversion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 ,


 * Please explain what you find confusing about me pointing out that users are using LARGE font to make their point rather than discuss policy and facts? I call ALL CAPS screaming.


 * I find it bewildering that an experienced editor would think that by SCREAMING they are gaining consensus without citing policy and facts - beyond pointless, I also find it irritating and inappropriate.


 * I believe that BLP and RS are intimately connected in this circumstance because the BLPs notability largely comes from "the list", or his blog, which is falsely believed to have found consensus as a RS. The entire thing is a convoluted example of circular reporting. If the list is not a RS and really a controversial, highly opinionated, self published tabloid, off wiki dispute furthering, blog that was unpublished close to a year ago (thus a single event) - than the notability of the person is questionable. Maybe, you could help me understand why this is or is not coherent for you or wiki?


 * I have put some of my analysis onto the Oncotarget talk page in the Beall section, this might help you understand much much better - or at least allow us to have this discussion on the same page. I will gladly read anything you ask me to in regard to a wiki policy issue :)


 * On a BLP page - they require highly reliable sources with multiple high quality references - not simply a reliable source. Moreover, as I said on the page an individual cannot be a NP if they are only notable for a single event - since the list was unpublished over its controversial nature it became a single event - no?


 * I understand that the BLP has been discussed in outside sources - I am happy to start to discuss those individually, please bring them to the table or point me to them...but again, prior to that please try to digest my outline on the Oncotarget talk page ;)


 * (Now I know why this one guy gets annoyed when I make small edits after I post hahahaha, its hard to keep track when there are edits in-between ;) I am going to bed - I will touch base tomorrow --- I was thinking about taking a "cool down" form this topic for a week or so, I don't want to seem like such an instigator, I have just done my analysis and I am ready to discuss! Getting past accusations and everything else, has caused some irritation on both sides - I appreciate you being involved even if we disagree, honestly I think it will help a lot if there are two people who can vehfitmely disagree and find consensus on an issue - night)


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see this discussion getting heated about what seems to be some misunderstanding. It's evident that MakinatorJones is using "BLP" as an abbreviation to refer to the particular biography (of a living person) that is under discussion (Jeffrey Beall) and is (usually) not particularly referring to the body of policy around biographies WP:BLP (which is what Wikipedia editors most often mean when they use "BLP").


 * Second, MakinatorJones claims excellence at reading and applying policies but seems to have latched onto an interpretation of some policies that is at odds with how most Wikipedia editors view those policies. By boldly editing based on their interpretation—in one specific subject area—they have run into some fierce opponents. This has triggered accusations of COI editing and edit warring. Rather than taking a step back and re-evaluating their interpretation, MakinatorJones has doubled down, clearly ignoring the advice and warnings from editors and admins with far more experience. Continued bullheadedness is not the right way forward.


 * MakinatorJones: I suggest that you take a step back on your understanding of policies and their application and ask some questions about why such and such statements in, say, the Oncotarget article are or are not supported. Don't be too dogmatic about what you think the policy says. Assume good faith on the part of your seeming antagonists. Ask more questions when things don't seem to match your understanding. If things are not going well in one particular topic, try working for a time on a different subject that has similar problems. Don't try to imitate the abbreviation-laden way of writing on talk pages that many experienced editors like to use until you are more sure that you're using terms in the same way that other editors understand them. It's okay if you come off sounding like a new editor.


 * Beall is notable as established by the discussion at AfD. There's no reason to expect Beall's article will be deleted. You may want to bring up the way in which Beall's work and criticism of certain types of journals have evolved and whether those findings are backed up by other sources. There are legitimate ways to question what an article currently says and whether a source continues to be considered reliable. But when you raise these questions, listen to the answers.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two points: The first is that I have never once commented in "all caps", so that statement is a red herring. The second is that I endorse the comment by above. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear jmcgnh,


 * Thank you for taking your time on this - what you are saying is extremely valid and well said. As a new editor this receptive, firm and guiding tone is extremely appropriate - respect!


 * Yes, I believe I am raising a discussion about interpretation of policy that differs from what was an assumed consensus - most of all because I believe there are several archived noticeboards where users disagreed and they were ignored as well. I accept the facts if the Jeffery Beall page does not get deleted, but the point here is that we are far from even a nomination at this point in time - its not even in discussion yet...I simply let people know my next step if there is consensus on the split...sorry?


 * The hard part here for me is that there is more conversation about me than there is about the facts of the issue up to this point...I don't know how I am doubling down by asking that we have a discussion around the points I have raised and stop talking about my alleged COI or "agenda". I read everything everyone refers me to and I on my on volition the other day I came to the suggestion that I will be taking a week away from this topic to let it develop more. As far as this section goes and <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 's promise to bring in their predisposed position on this topic - I would also like them, and others who have been reverting and sole contributors to these pages, to stay away - lets see what is said on the talk pages and noticeboards by people who are not regulars to the page. Also, I have asked over and over how to ask about potential COI disclosures from Randy Kitten and David Eppstien's opposing "agenda" - during this period it would be nice to have these processes completed as well.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 ,


 * I mentioned you and another editor in the same reference - that editor was using the LARGE TEXT and you were agreeing with them...I don't think LARGE TEXT means consensus - I am looking for strong policy arguments so that we can come to consensus. Sorry if you feel like I was singling you out, maybe take another read on it?


 * I will talk to you next week on this - in the meantime, can anyone suggest how I can get involved with another policy issue with some substance? I would like to get notified when other people need assisantce or an outside viewpoint on the issue....I am sick of editing grammar and spelling.


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about your recent behaviour
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
I am blocking this account indefinitely for several reasons. Comparison of timeline between Special:Contributions/40.134.67.50 and Special:Contributions/MakinaterJones suggests intentional logged out editing to avoid scrutiny. Editing patterns in Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny shows evidence of single-purpose account with clear agenda and undisclosed conflict of interest. Behavioral evidence compared with the history of these pages suggests potential violations of sock puppetry. To appeal your block, please refer to Guide to appealing blocks. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)