User talk:Bfpage/guidelines

Guidelines for Bfpage

This is a set of guidelines that I (Kevin Gorman) and BfPage worked out after I blocked her for a variety of behavior. I believe BFP is acting in good faith and will not intentionally violate these. They will expire on December 1st, 2015 unless someone seeks and reaches community consensus that they are still needed. Violations - if there are any - will be handled depending on how severe they are, how many there have been in the past, and whether or not they were clearly intentional. This document may change over the next 24 hours, at which point it will be finalized unless either BFP or myself object. People with feedback pre-finalization may use the talk page here or may email me. If unusual situations necessitate adding new guidelines in the future, I will do so with 24 hours of notice of Bfpage. I think this is a good new start

I believe it is worth nothing that a lot of these were BFP's suggestions, and that she intended to stick to them even without anything 'formal' like this - this just represents a guarantee to the community that what caused problems in the past won't exist in the future. Almost all of the 'hard' rules here were suggested by Bfpage, who said she would have followed them to avoid drama even if a block wasn't at stake.

1. BFPage will not monitor the contribution history (past, ongoing or present) of Flyer22 or Jytdog unless it's strictly necessary (i.e., to fulfill CC-by-SA,) or BFPage is preparing to make a report that that evidence is important in within 72 hours
2. Except as required by policy (i.e., arbcom, ani notices,) BfPage will not post on the talk pages of either Flyer22 or Jytdog. Bfpage will avoid even looking at Flyer's talkpage in all practicable circumstances. If BF becomes aware of an interaction that she believes action should be taken on, she will bring it up with me, at ANI or at arbcom.
3. If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil refrain from editing that article for at least a week.
4. BF will only award barnstars, teahouse badges, and things of a comparable nature to editors who have made good edits, have made significant contributions to medical articles, or who has significantly improved articles in general. If an editor as had significant conflict with Flyer22 or Jytdog within two months, she will refrain from awarding such things.
5. If Flyer22 begins a comment thread on a project talk page or an article talk page article, BF will avoid participating in it barring exigient circumstances. If Flyer is involved in a discussion, BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc. If BF is participating in a discussion with Flyer and fears it's going to down hill, bF will withdraw as feasible.
6. BFP will not ping Flyer22 or Jytdog unless required to by policy
7. BFP will not refer to comments Flyer22 has made on the site unless directly questioned about them by an administrator, or they are absolutely relevant to a content matter under discussion (and will then do so sparing.) BFP will not refer to sanctions of any sort against Flyer if they ever happen.
8. BFP will not refer to Flyer on BFP's talkpage.
9. BFP will not edit the main article about sexism. This article has been removed from her watchlist.
10. BFP will only place medical reference templates on the talk pages of aricles that mention clinical content, and that already have a project med template placed. BFP will only place reliable med ref talk page templates on anatomy articles that contain clinical content.
11. Chance interactions caused by STIki don't violate any of this, although if they were found to not be stiki edits, the would.
12. BFP will not have the User pages or the Talk pages of Flyer22 or Jytdog on her watchlist.

About the barnstars and awards

Since I don't and won't be following the edits, talk pages, or discussions that involve Flyer22 or Jytdog, I won't be able to know if someone that I encourage with an award or barnstar is having a conflict with Flyer22 or Jytdog. I can view the 'awardee's' talk page and if it is obvious within the pageview that I can see while I am applying such an award, I can withhold the award. But then, if this happens I should be able to award the editor if I don't see any obvious conflicts on their talk page with Flyer22 or Jytdog. This isn't really doable unless someone can suggest otherwise.

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding categories to articles

I hope we have come to a consensus that adding categories to an article is not harassment nor is it following someone around. Adding categories, (by me anyway) is meant to connect articles and topics that are part of a larger topic. Any editor who disagrees with the adding of a category to an article is free to remove that category and I assume that it is for a valid reason. Adding a category, a wikilink, a template linking to another article should not be seen as a form of harassment because that is has not and and will not be my intent.

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor interaction analyzing tool and Flyer22

I plan on making a report and then posting it on ANI and the STIki tool article concerning the misinterpretation of editor interactions due to the high use of STIki between editors. When I am putting together the information comparing the edits between editors using STIki, I will need to only access the STIki leaderboard page and run the Editor interaction tool comparing article overlap among the highest users of STIki. At that time I will need to enter Flyer22's user name into the Editor interaction tool to generate the numbers that I will use in my report. Comparing Flyer22 to every other editor will not be done. I won't even bring up the comparison between myself and Flyer22. I will be able to prove my point with data from other editors and Flyer22. Please don't interpret this as stalking or harassment since my only intent is to point out the misinterpretation that the Editor interaction tool may cause when comparing the edits of highly active STIki users and editors with high edit counts. I don't expect to get to this 'project' of mine for a few weeks because running all those numbers is going to take some time. Hopefully my analysis will help some future editor from suffering from accusations of harrassment (and other distressing 'names' and 'mis-characterizations') that I had to endure based on the misinterpretation of data generated by the Editor interaction tool. Any comments on this are welcome.   Bfpage |leave a message  16:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments

I don't need to 'beat a dead horse' here, or to nit pick but I would like to express that these guidelines are something I can work with indefinitely. What I mean to say is this-what happens after six months? I'm still not going to edit the Sexism article, I'm still going to be doing my best to follow these guidelines because I believe it is in the best interest of WP:HERE.

What needs to be firmly established is the idea that editing the same article as another editor is NOT hounding. Anything other than this smacks of: WP:OWN. I do not want to be blocked at the end of this six month 'sentence' because any other editor disagrees with my edits. For heavens sake, if they are terrible edits, revert, edit to you liking, add a difference reference, reword, correct the spelling and grammar, use your prose-writing-skill, or add a colon. My editing style is to often work intensively on an article, putting up an {{inuse}} template and have a go at adding wikilinks, removing duplicate links, adding content, adding external links, entering data into wikidata about the article, removing phrases like 'research has been done by John T. Expert and he says...' and simply making a statement about the content that references John T. Expert. A long string of edits by me is not hounding.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Unintended edit to Sexual intercourse

I have unintentionally messed up on one of my guidelines and made an edit to the Sexual intercourse article. I forgot to review the article editing history before I made the edit. The edit consisted of updating a reference that was outdated issued by the World Health Organization. I assure you, it was an error and I will be more diligent in the future.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)