User talk:Doors22

Finasteride

As I wrote on my talkpage, doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x is a reasonable source to support any claims of persistent sexual dysfunction after finasteride use. I suggested, however, that you wait until it has appeared in print so any reactions in the medical literature can be noted. I would also strongly suggest that you tone down the language of your addition; I can't see any evidence that there is a "controversy" here, for instance. Instead, I would integrate this information into the current "side-effects" section.

Wikipedia has a guideline for additions to medical articles, WP:MEDRS. Could I urge you to read through this document, because if you follow its advice your edits are more likely not to be reverted. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

September 2012

You can't expect other people not to edit the article, as you appear to say here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Biosthmors (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you want to try and create an article on the organization itself. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doors22. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm Puffin. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Finasteride, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Finasteride Sept 28

I am having technical problems with the Finasteride Talk page, so am temporarily placing my explanation of my edits here.

Several changes made on September 11 were reverted with the explanation "Please don't remove sections that have been discussed and agreed upon months/years earlier - Discuss further on talk page if you wish)". First I'd say that I don't see anything on the Talk page clearly indicating that the language you have reverted back to is "consensus". The discussion ended on February 24, with me asking you a series of questions that you never responded to.

• "In December 2008, the Swedish Medical Products agency concluded a safety investigation of finasteride and advised that finasteride may cause irreversible sexual dysfunction. The Agency's updated safety information lists difficulty in obtaining an erection that persists indefinitely, even after the discontinuation of finasteride, as a possible side effect of the drug"

As my edit summary explains, the quoted insert only says that there have been case reports and causation is unestablished. It is WP:UNDUE to call this a "warning". I've literally come across AERS reports in which people have reported "death of pet" as a side effect of medication. If we included every spontaneous adverse event report as a "warning" for other drugs we'd need several hundred thousand KB just to list them out. This is not meaningful evidence in support of a causative relationship. Furthermore, the link does not work, making this claim unverifiable and subject to immediate removal under WP:VERIFY

• "The UK's Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) cites reports of erectile dysfunction that persists once use of finasteride has stoppedIn April 2011 Merck revised the United States' warning in consumer and medical leaflets to include erectile dysfunction that may persist after stopping finasteride."

As noted in my edit summary, the cited document from MHRA appears to say nothing about sexual dysfunction. Being unverifiable, it is subject to immediate deletion per WP:VERIFY. You've restored this material without addressing my explanation for the edit, and in contrast to your comment, there is no consensus on the Talk page for including this material. Even if there were, it would violate WP:CONEXCEPT as the material is unverifiable.

• In April 2012, the warning label was further strengthened to include reports of persistent libido disorders, ejaculation disorders, orgasm disorders, and decreased libido. According to FDA, these warnings were added as precaution after reviewing 678 case reports of post-treatment sexual dysfunction received over an 18 year period. The Agency further stated that "despite the fact that clear causal links between finasteride (Propecia and Proscar) and sexual adverse events have NOT been established, the cases suggest a broader range of adverse effects than previously reported in patients taking these drugs."

This is probably an acceptable source as the FDA issued a release around the label changes.

I've deleted the Swedish Medical Agency and MHRA references and left the FDA one in place.

• "regulatory authorities have listed mood disorders as among the possible adverse effects of finasteride,"

As I noted in my edit summary, the cited reference does not support the statement "regulatory authorities have listed mood disorders as among the possible adverse effects of finasteride". You reverted my deletion of this material without commenting on the reason for the deletion. "Prior Consensus", which I see no evidence for on the Talk page, is insufficient to overcome the fundamental pillar of Wikipedia that all content must be sourced.

I've deleted the reference to "regulatory authorities" as unverifiable.

• "Some studies have shown that the dose of finasteride needed to treat male pattern baldness may be smaller than 1 mg.[44] Petitions to the FDA to re-examine the approved dosage in light of the statistical evidence and possible long-term risks,[45] were met with the response that a study had shown increased effect of a 1 mg dose compared to 0.2 mg without added risks; the same study also concluded that doses of 0.01 mg per day were found to be ineffective in treating hair loss.[45]"

Once again you've reverted me without responding to the reasons in my edit summary and appealing to a "consensus" for which there is no evidence on the Talk page. As I noted in the edit summary, this petition is non-notable. I could write a petition to the FDA tomorrow requesting that they re-examine the dosage for Lipitor. But I am not a well known expert in the field of cardiology, so its really not notable unless the FDA actually acts on it.

The statement that doses needed may be less than 1 mg cites an FDA document, in which I can find no discussion of dosing issues. Like any other statement without verifiable sources, it can and should be deleted. Verifiability is one of the 3 pillars of Wikipedia. I've deleted the paragraph. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let you know that I proposed a 1 week block for you for retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh. I hope you are able to see the irony in proposing a ban for retaliatory editing (from many months ago) just because I contributed to the incident that was raised about you on the administrator's noticeboard. I wish you the best of luck with that. Doors22 (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a request to the ANI page that you post your evidence supporting charges of COI for evaluation by the community. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep the focus on content

Hello Doors, I made a change to one of your recent edits at a content discussion Noticeboard: I removed a sentence that served no purpose other than to disparage an editor, instead of focusing on content. I understand that you are passionate about the subjects you edit--this can actually be a problem on Wikipedia. Please try to maintain some detachment from the subjects, or consider not editing articles on those subjects. In any case, please stop using content discussion pages to make comments about editors. Thanks.... Zad68 23:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: With all due respect, my comments were not meant to be attacks or disparaging. It is tricky dealing with a user like this who has a history of antagonistic editing and makes repeated intellectually dishonest arguments to meet his goals. I appreciate that passion can be problematic, but I assure you I am doing my best to represent things in the most objective light possible. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle things with Formerly98 who has caused problems with many users over the past couple of months? Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Same as always. Focus on content on content discussion pages. Refer to reliable sourcing. Back up your arguments with policy and guideline. If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, discuss politely and respectfully on the editor's User Talk. If you still have concerns take it to a noticeboard like COIN, and make your argument without passion and supported by diffs. If problems still continue you can raise the issue at a board line WP:AN, again do it without passion and support it with diffs. HERE IS THE IMPORTANT ONE: If you have exhausted all those avenues and consensus is still against your postion, drop the stick and move on to something else. Happy editing... Zad68 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding: If you really could not see how your comments could come across as attacks or disparaging you really need to think carefully about making comments directed at editors at all. If you don't have the ability to tell when you're crossing the line, don't even approach it. Zad68 00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

yes doors

yes, i was still working on the posting at AN. i am indeed seeking a review of the close. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

quick note to you. You consistently say that i am after you. That is not true. if you said "yes i get it, i have to lay off pushing to emphasize sexual side effects in the finasteride article" my case vanishes (especially if you actually followed through on that) My issue is with your behavior in WP, not with you as a person. I am sure you are a fine person. However your editing here is a four year violation of SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you do not WP:OWN any wikipedia articles and you certainly cannot tell editors what they can and cannot contribute. My edits are backed up by up to date, MEDRS sources, from evidence based medicine and represent the gold standard of what wikipedia values. The fact you appear to try to suppress valid information is worrisome. Please stop with your harassment (WP:HARASS). I have adjusted my approach and I am no longer willing to fight with you so this "battleground" is quickly becoming one-way harassment. My understanding is the penalties for this are harsh and I have several obvious cases I can easily present on the noticeboard if necessary. This two week long crusade has gone on too long and wasted my time. Doors22 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

see my note above. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So you are basically threatening to continue harassing me if I don't submit to your demands and stop editing the article you want me to. Doors22 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

nope, that is not what i am saying. I am saying that you have been abusing Wikipedia for four years to push your agenda, and you seem unable to acknowledge that and unable to acknowledge that this behavior is a violation of WP:SOAPBOX which is both policy and a pillar. that is what i am saying. (I'll ask you - have read WP:SOAPBOX? When you read it, and reflect on your mission statement and your editing history, can you really not see a problem? Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read it and it very clearly states "An article can report objectively about such (scientific) things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Again, the current state of the article is very much written from a neutral (if not conservative) POV. Please refrain from posting on my talk page again unless required by wiki policy. You are continuing to harass me unless I agree to admit to something I do not agree with and stop editing an article you do not WP:OWN. This is very clear. Take care. Doors22 (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

We are getting very little response over at the Wikipedia Medicine page. Given the communities lack of interest, should we try a little harder to find an acceptable compromise? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The thread was confusing. I only just now read everything and now I get what you were saying. Let's see if we get more feedback. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you need a minute to reflect on your own edits. I have proposed different versions here which you have reverted. To say the foundation "says" XYZ is perfectly inline with good practices from WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT. You should be careful throwing around accusations of whitewashing, especially when they are completely off point. Doors22 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Finasteride

Hi Doors, I've closed the COIN. [1] Just to be clear, you have agreed not to engage in direct article editing, but to post edit requests on talk instead, per WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information. That can't depend on whether any other particular editor is active there. I hope that Jytdog does honour his own suggestion that he will walk away, but if he doesn't, or if someone else arrives that you disagree with, you will still be expected to stick to the talk page.

I suggest that you make the suggestions by writing out exactly what change you want to see; posting your source; quoting from the source where appropriate; and perhaps pinging Doc James (that assumes there won't be many requests; if there are, best not to ping because he has a lot to do). I will put the article back on my watchlist too. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Doc James so that he's aware of this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping me when you have done so. Thanks for the heads up SV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for closing the section. I agree with most of that and do agree to pursue those steps, however my agreement to do so is in response to JYTDog's offer to walk away from the page. I assure you that I will not be the one to violate our agreement but if he decides to not uphold his end of the offer, it will be clear he was not engaged in good faith all along and I will consider our agreement void. I am doing this as an attempt to introduce a more consensus based style of editing to the article and not because he has demonstrated that I have a conflict of interest, because he has provided no evidence that I do. Thanks a lot and I'll follow up with you if I have any other comments.Doors22 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doors, this wasn't an agreement between you and Jytdog but between you and me. I am asking you to avoid direct article editing there. It doesn't depend on what anyone else does there, but I am pretty sure that, if you honour it, things will work out. If they don't, we can deal with problems as they arise. That is how I closed the discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, for now I will WP:AGF on the part of JYTDog and assume he will not renege on his offer. Regarding a agreement between you and me, I see things a little differently as I only agreed to do this if JYTDog walks away. However, it sounds like he is amenable to this solution even if he did not directly state it. I respect your suggestion and your role in helping. As I mentioned, I will make a good faith effort to implement it but I just wanted to clarify my intentions in case issues arise in the future. Thanks.Doors22 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

JYTDog, you posted on my talk page a second time after you have been banned from doing so. At the very least this is a clear lack of self restraint and very disrespectful to me. Please treat the agreement with the agreement with the respect it is due and disruptions will be minimized going forward, which you stated is your goal. If you hold to our agreement, you will effectively get everything you bargained for with the exception of "proving" I have a COI. This seems to be "personal" more than anything. I am more than happy to let the past go if you are - my primary goal is improving the quality of this article more than winning a Wikipedia argument. Also, my talk page ban continues so if you care to respond, please write on your own wall. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Doors22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Finasteride again

Hi Doors, please don't keep mentioning editors you've had disputes with. The issue at that page is simply whether you gain consensus for your edit requests. Please focus only on that from now on. Otherwise, editors who feel attacked will respond, and the page will deteriorate. And if they don't respond, it isn't fair to keep discussing them. So either way, it's better to drop it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I understand your concern and I apologize if that wasn't the most appropriate way to bring up the issue. I have informally requested an interaction ban for Jytdog and as I mentioned he agreed to walk away from the article if I simply use the talk page. Do you have any suggestions for how to hold him to the agreement if he is going back on his word? Doors22 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What's likely to happen if you continue to discuss that is that you'll be blocked. You're an SPA at that article, almost certainly with a COI, and there have been problems there for a while. Against that, you've often made valuable suggestions, so it would be foolish to lose you. But you have to focus on content exclusively, as far as possible. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'd very much like to continue to editing the article and minimize any potential conflict. It has been several months since there has been significant editing on the finasteride page so I will just assume Jytdog forgot that he agreed to walk away from the article. However, if he continues to go back on his word I would appreciate it if you would help uphold the agreement. As you mentioned previously on my talk page, "I am asking you to avoid direct article editing there. It doesn't depend on what anyone else does there, but I am pretty sure that, if you honour it, things will work out. If they don't, we can deal with problems as they arise." Other than his objection, there seems to be unanimous consensus to add the content. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's right; it doesn't depend on what anyone else does there. Also, please read this post again carefully. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, would you kindly remind JYTDog that he is not to post on the finasteride article or talk page again per his agreement to do so? His participation there is problematic as it opposes the inclusion of new scientific research. I'm respectfully declining to address him on the talk page. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Doors, per the COI guideline, COI editors should refrain from direct-article editing. That pertains in particular to sensitive medical articles, for obvious reasons, particularly where there may be a financial incentive. The expectation that COI editors avoid direct-article editing does not depend on the presence or absence of any other editor. We don't allow COI editors to remove people by saying "I'll abide by the guideline if and only if he stays away."

Jytdog did say he would stay away, and I hoped he would honour that. But that issue and your COI are separate matters. You've linked the two so often, despite being asked several times not to, that I'm afraid you risk being blocked indefinitely if it happens again. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, out of respect to your fair judgment in the past, I have chosen to honor your request but I never actually agreed to anything or even to not directly edit the page. I was never sure where that perception came from. There was never any evidence for a COI on my part. In fact, I have actually stated I do not have a conflict of interest. I have chosen not to identify myself on Wikipedia to avoid putting my personal life at risk as having these side effects are personally embarrassing and the public disclosure of my identity may pose a personal risk to me. Doors22 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing from memory only, people gained the impression that you have a COI because you're an SPA who focuses on one alleged negative consequence of having taken that drug, and on adding post-finasteride syndrome and the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation to the article. You also declined to say whether you were part of a class-action suit. It would be easy to say no—that would surely not identify you—so people interpreted your answer as affirmative. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, an impression is not evidence of COI and when I was accused of having a COI, it was a failure to assume good faith on my part. Current wiki guidelines do not require me to reveal any personal information about myself simply because there was an unsupported accusation. In fact, COI guidelines protect users from having to do so.Doors22 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:APPARENTCOI says:

An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.[h] Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a business and for some reason appears to be the owner. In fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.[i]

In your case it remains unresolved because you declined to answer questions, which is your right. As a result, the assumption that you do have a COI remains. That aside, you've engaged in sustained advocacy, which is a policy violation in itself and particularly problematic when it comes from single-purpose accounts. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I accept your statement that I have an 'apparent' COI because that is based on the perceptions of others. Several other editors that frequently edit the same page also have 'apparent' COIs. I did previously attempt to resolve this through discussion with JYTDog by agreeing to his proposal that he would walk away if I posted on the talk page. I thought this was a resonable resolution and it has worked well until he broke his word. I'm just humbly asking that you help restore the agreement. I have put forth a concerted effort to ensure all edits are objective and abide by Wikipedia guidelines and respectfully listen whether others reasonably disagree. It only appears to be advocacy because there is such strong backlash for every edit I suggest, otherwise it would be clear I am just stewarding the article to ensure it is kept up to date.Doors22 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite for disruption.

Doors, I've blocked this account because of your continued focus on an editor with whom you've been in dispute at Finasteride. I've asked you many times to stop this, and I've explained many times that your being asked to avoid direct-article editing, because of a COI, cannot be linked to any other editor's involvement in the article. I warned you at 22:09, 14 March, that if you continued to make the link you risk being blocked indefinitely, and at 23:47 you did it again. Therefore, I have to conclude that it isn't going to stop.

The block takes into account that you're a single-purpose account with an apparent COI, and that there is a long history of problems on that page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doors22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have spent a couple days thinking about the events that led up to this block and I would like to apologize for crossing the line after being warned me not to bring up another editor's behavior again. I would like to request that my account is restored. I regretfully didn't appreciate the significance of the warning. I am practical and promise to refrain from commenting on this personal dispute if I will be allowed to make contributions. Nearly one year ago, SlimVirgin asked me to use the edit request template to make changes on the finasteride page, a request to which I have respectfully adhered. I have a lot to offer the encyclopedia because for the past several years, I have closely followed the developments in scientific research about serious adverse events caused by the hair-loss drug Propecia. My knowledge of the most recent WP:MEDRS compliant research helps keep the article updated. I appreciate your time to consider my request and would like to make it clear that I understand my disruptive focus on a dispute with another editor was the reason for my block which I assure you I will remedy. Thanks.Doors22 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@SlimVirgin: are you satisfied with the above response? Max Semenik (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MaxSem, if you want to unblock, I don't have a strong objection, although I wonder whether much will change.

I would expect Doors22 not to edit Finasteride directly; to use the {{request edit}} template on talk for any proposals (and actually use the template so that other admins might see the request; he hasn't used it, despite his claim in the unblock request); and not to mention the other editor, unless that editor initiates dispute-resolution against Doors. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To explain the comment above, I only attempted to make about two edit requests over that time period which I addressed to admins because I wasn't fully accustomed to how the edit request template worked at the time. I did not directly edit the article once Slimvirgin requested me to do so. Regarding SlimVirgin's previous edit, I think we are on the same page for expectations going forward.

@MaxSem:, at this point will it be possible to have the block removed? Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, will it be possible to get the block removed based on the terms discussed above? It has been a couple weeks already and I haven't received an answer, either approving or rejecting this request, so I'm sending a follow up ping. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Doors22, you can email UTRS to ask for an unblock. Follow the instructions at WP:UTRS and someone should get back to you. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, we would not consider an appeal at UTRS because there is an open appeal on this page, there is no private information associated with this appeal, and Doors22 has continuing talk page access. However, this appeal is under continuous review and the subsequent discussion will be taken into account when it is closed by an uninvolved admin. Just Chilling (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just Chilling, I can't see any reason Doors couldn't appeal to UTRS. Wikipedia:Appealing a block doesn't say anything about it needing to involve private info or no talk-page access. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Apart from obvious declines, where it is simply more efficient to conclude the appeal at UTRS, UTRS appeals that don't meet one of these criteria are routinely redirected back to the user talk page, that allows broader community input. If you want a second opinion you may wish to consult User:TParis or one of the UTRS tool admins. Just Chilling (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

For transparency, UTRS generally only handles appeals with private information or where the user has lost talk page access. And, apparently now, BASC type appeals. While WP:Appealing a block isn't clear on this, Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks seems to be more direct. Appeals shouldn't be handled in private unless there is a good reason not to handle it on-wiki. We want to avoid secret cabals after all. But, the reality is that it's hit or miss. Some UTRS reviewers won't bother checking to see if a user has lost talk page access and will just process it. Some will kick it back to the user's talk page. In all honestly, it doesn't personally bother me if an appeal goes to UTRS even if the user has talk page access; and even if it did, I wouldn't consider myself the arbitrator of UTRS requests. The developers provided a tool, but we're not trying to set policy regarding it. That's up to the community.--v/r - TP 17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An added reason why UTRS is inappropriate at the moment is that there is an open appeal on this page so that would need to be closed first IMHO. Just Chilling (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true. And the future version of UTRS (2.0) will check for these things beforehand, so it will become unambiguous at that point.--v/r - TP 18:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis and Just Chilling, thanks for the replies. It's an an easy enough matter to close this so that Doors can appeal to UTRS.

I almost unblocked earlier today rather than spend more time on this, but the reason I didn't, Doors, is that you really aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. You focus not only on one article, but on one aspect of it, and when you arrive at the talk page, everyone is expected to respond and do as you ask. In addition, you seemed to be targeting another editor in an effort to have him not edit there.

If you have any assurances, I'm willing to listen, but I'd really prefer that another admin handle it, which is why I suggested UTRS. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I respectfully don't feel as though that statement accurately describes my intentions here. I am honestly here to improve the state of Wikipedia and have made a strong point of incorporating high quality sources to the encyclopedia. I make edit requests on the talk page because that is what you have requested that I do and I have since followed your request to post on the talk page, so I don't feel it is fair to be blamed for that. I also edit other pages occasionally, but since those edits don't receive resistance they don't appear as significant in my editing history.

You mentioned in an earlier edit, "Hi Doors, this wasn't an agreement between you and Jytdog but between you and me. I am asking you to avoid direct article editing there. It doesn't depend on what anyone else does there, but I am pretty sure that, if you honour it, things will work out. If they don't, we can deal with problems as they arise. That is how I closed the discussion." I took this to mean that you offered to provide assistance and mediation if future battleground behavior broke out when you said "we can deal with problems as they arise." After following up with you it seems like you prefer not to be involved. I completely understand that and would probably feel the same way in your place, but I perhaps feel it is unfair to block me after following up on that issue when I have complied with your request to date.

My understanding is that I was blocked after causing frustration by bringing up that one editor, though I have felt bullied and harassed by him/her for a long time. Many, many other Wiki users have faced similar harassment and a basic Google search of the Wikipedia handle brings up pages of complaints. You may recall that the editor has repeatedly posted on my talk page after I asked that they stop doing so. If you prefer to no longer be involved, I understand that and even expect that. I will continue to use the edit request function without pinging you. I do respectfully ask that you reconsider the block because I feel that it was the result of my misunderstanding about your willingness to be involved because I have complied with your request to edit on the talk page.Doors22 (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Doors, your reply is another example of the problem, namely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You appear to have a COI, and perhaps a financial COI, regarding post-finasteride syndrome, the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation, and the class action against the drug company. You've made only a handful of edits not related to that topic. You repeatedly draw attention to another editor in an apparent effort to have him not edit that topic. You were blocked for continuing to pursue the grievance after a warning that you risked being blocked indefinitely if it continued. You responded less than two hours later by doing it again. And it continues in your post above. See WP:NOTTHEM.

I'm going to close this request so that you can decide whether to request an unblock via WP:UTRS. Apparently that can't happen if this request remains open. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, OK I will submit a request through the other mechanism if the other uninvolved administrators will allow this. I explained that I would comply with all the things you told me to do in order to resolve the problem. From my perspective, you communicated contradictory messages which led to the block. Initially, you offered to help assist with future disputes if I followed your instructions but when I asked for assistance I was threatened without any explanation of why you wouldn't provide assistance which confused me. I am just surprised that requesting assistance on my own talk page warrants an indef block. That is besides the point as I said I was willing to do what was demanded of me anyway.Doors22 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)