User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NPPSchool graduated userbox

Hi Barkeep49, Good day. I would like to propose NPPSCHOOL graduate user box and a NPPSCHOOL logo/graphic logo (like that of CUVA). Kindly give me your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I think it's a great idea. If you feel up to designing it, great. Otherwise I'd be happy to give it a go when I have a bit more time on my hands. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. I might not able to them it a the moment as I need to get the software set up and my only laptop is about to break into two (there is a huge crack between my screen and the CPU and I cant even close the screen - dont think it will last very long as it has been in such condition for 2 weeks now - need to get a new one :( ) plus I need to move back to AUS soon as I currently resides in SEA thus I will be a little busy looking for place to settle down. Just ping me when you have started so we dont both do the same thing :). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I manage to find a software program which I would do some graphic work and have a few draft on the NPP SCHOOL and NPP reveiwer user boxes. I placed them at the very bottom NPP material page. Kindly have a look and let me know your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I have done another NPP school and reviewer user box - let me know your thoughts - you can find them my sandbox - here. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I like the work. I am not a huge fan of the blue and red but everything else is great. My personal favorite is npp round logo but it like all the work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I have changed to blue and dark blue, let me know which one you prefer or you can just change the color as you see fit. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I like the dark blue better. Question, though. Does it make sense, for the rights boxes, to use your new ones or adjust the existing one? I would think we should change that one rather than make an alternative template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I have created 3 NPP School version using the original template with slight adjustments. Let me know of your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I went ooh when i saw them - those are very attractive too. I'm kind of agnostic about whether we should keep the modified wiki logo or your new logo. I definitely like the blue on blue graduate boxes you made in this latest revision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, It is up to you. The modified version would be the extension from the original reviewer version and it would be in the same design family and association. The new one would be, well... new I guess. Let me know. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, Just want to check with you regarding the NPPSchool userbox status as one of my trainee would be graduate from the program soon. Kindly let me know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I think we should go for it. Pick your favorite at this point though I would suggest, based on the feedback we received, to go with perhaps the one at the top that uses the traditional logo. Congrats on graduating a student. I look forward to seeing their application at PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, OK and thank you. The student had already granted the patroller user right and enrolled to the program because they are new to the task and would like to gain more knowledge on reviewing new articles. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, G'day. One of my students has just graduate from NPPSCHOOL and just wonder would the new NPPSCHOOL - see thumb|NPPS Cross Dark Blue &Light Blue be subsituted the current logo at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School (very top of the page on the left). I also created the cat for the NPPSCHOOL graduate template. template doc and cats - see Template:User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate, Template:User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate/doc, and . However, the

This user is an NPP SCHOOL graduate.

doesn't turn up right where by "program by graduate" should not be there but somehow it appears on the NPPSCHOOL graduate user box. I am not technical and tried many times to correct it but failed to do so, wonder if you could help and if not, could you point me to template editor who might be kindly enough to lend a hand. Thanks in advance and MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR to you Barkeep49!!!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I changed the logo at NPPS, however I'm not sure what your second question was. Can you try reasking? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: What do you picture the userbox looking like? You can just describe it, no wikicode needed Kevin ;(aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep 49, thank you for changing the logo at NPPS.

L235 and Barkeep49. I think the red colour text "graduate" is for sub and it will turn "blue color" once it is done - see User:Interstellarity. Since the userbox right side is blue in colour, the user name cant be since. Could we change it to either (1) just "This user has graduated from the NPPSCHOOL program" and link WP:NPPSHOOL but in white colour or (2) keep the all the text "This user has graduated from the NPPSCHOOL program by graduate." and link WP:NPPSCHOOL and graduate in white colour. I am not sure what I say above is more confusing to guys or more clearer of what I want and hope is the later. Suggestions are welcome. Kindly help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, gotcha. What do you think of just going with the version I've just made? Alternatively, wouldn't we want the instructor's name in the template not the graduate's name? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Good to know you get what I meant. Either way is fine. The student who has just graduated from my program sub it with the instructor name (my user name). My take is to be consistent, so all the NPPS userbox is the same here on. Your thoughts? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. Except for the infernal and unabating backlog, I'm really pleased about the way the leadership of NPR is working out for you. I do realise however, that it's a huge task and big responsibility for one person. I did it single-handedly for nearly a decade and it's amazing how much time I have for other things now that I'm able to step back. You're almost certainly going to need some help and I was wondering that with Rosguill now having been granted the bit, if the two of you would consider sharing some of the work, with Rosguill as co-coord, and with ICPH as another. Most big projects have several coords. Anyway, it's really none of my business now, and it's entirely up to you.

May I take this opportunity to thank you for all you have done and and are still doing for NPP, and wish you all the best for the festivities (whichever you celebrate, if any) and happiness and good health for the New Year  :) Chris (Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Kudpung, thanks for the kind words. I'd actually had a conversation with ICPH about officially being a coordinator with me and they indicated that it wasn't a good fit for them. When Ros went to RfA I thought about that too but have been busy with other bits and haven't given it full consideration. I hope you're having a great Christmas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Request feedback

Hello Barkeep49. I’m writing to ask why did you delete the page Sprout Social I’ve created recently? Why did it look like an advertisement for you? Recently I created the article about Roger Souvereyns and it was published. I’m a new editor here so I’m just learning how everything works. I want to improve editing skills and would be glad if you could tell me the reason for the deletion. Thanks. --Alishka93 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Alishka93, hi there. Thanks for your question and welcome to Wikipedia. I've no doubt that it was frustrating for your new article to be deleted and appreciate your coming here with such a learner's mindset. So the the person who tagged the article originally did indeed tag it for promotional material. I probably would not have deleted it on those criteria. However, the article had previously had a highly promotional version, which yours was similar to though shorter and much less promotional. This previous version had been deleted in after a formal discussion and so I deleted the article as a recreation of an article deleted after a discussion. My suggestion, as a newer user, would be to go through Articles for Creation for this particular article topic. Just a note, that the standard for starting an article about a company is much higher than for a chef. Hope that helps. If you have further questions please don't hesitate to ask them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks a lot for your feedback, it was really valuable! I'll keep in mind your advice. Happy holidays! --Alishka93 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Templar Trail

Hi there, After receiving your comments, I edited the Templar Trail piece and added more outside references. I also changed my login name. Hope this works better. If not, please help me edit it to make it work. Thanks. ~~pilgrimstales~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.189.57.11 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Alpiner123 the biggest problem was that the text came from a copyrighted source. If you are the owner of that text you may learn how to give permission for its use on Wikipedia here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Thanks for some real help this year, it truly was appreciated. It seemed to go well for you too, but to an even better 2020! Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Buster7: You already gave this message to Barkeep49 before. Interstellarity (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Barkeep49: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

happy holidays!

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBarkeep49たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Happy Christmas from Australia!

Hello Barkeep49: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)

Happy Boxing Day

This has something to do with Boxing Day... I guess?

I have don't know anything about this holiday. For whatever reason it's a thing. I have to imagine there is some backstory there or whatever. People do what they do after all. Cool.. Alright. Yeah, cool. Sure, I guess. Do people do anything special on Boxing Day? I would not know. This has never come up in my real life except as a passing joke on some TV shows once or twice. I hope your Boxing Day is... whatever it's supposed to be like.      Cheers. –MJL ‐Talk‐🤶 03:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The famous Boxing Day tree.

Happy New Year Barkeep49!

Happy New Year!

Hello Barkeep49:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Barkeep49. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there - I wonder whether you've ever had this happen to you. I was reviewing Jeff J Hunter, and nominated to AfD, while I was filling in the paperwork Thjarkur draftified it. I'm content with draftification as an outcome, but need to undo my AfD nom - is there an easy way to do that, or do I need to go through manually reverting myself at AfD and all the various lists of deletion discussions? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah - speedy work, thanks! I've manually reverted at the various deletion discussions - thought I'd better tidy up quickly before other people edited them. For future reference, is there a quick/safe procedure to follow for this kind of situation? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit seemed like the easiest thing was just to close the AfD rather than revert it. But that is a new edit conflict for me. See something new everyday on the Wikipedias :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinion about New page reviewer

Hi, Barkeep49. I hope you are well. I wanted to known that about my new page reviewer permission will expire on 02 January 2020, So can i request for again before 2 January? I have been working hardly since than ever before when i was getting this permission. [ actually i want to indefinitely this right because i'm from the beginning interested to helping article editing ]. I hope that i will get a positive answer from you. Have a great Night.-Nahal^(T) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

NahalAhmed, yes by all means post asking for the permission permanently. I haven't looked at your reviews but I can see you've done more than enough to get a good sense of where things stand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thank you so much for the good response. I will request for it tomorrow. Advance happy new year 2020. Happy Volunteering.-Nahal^(T) 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

AN/I close

I can't find the AN/I close for the pricing. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, here you go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors are now tagging the content since they can't delete it. Is this appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, it's a bit of a grey area but I do think goes against the spirit of the ANI prohibition. As such, I have asked that editor on their talk page to not do it any further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd definitely use this discussion and the corresponding edits in an ArbCom proceeding on the subject. potentially misleading edit summary, edit warring to de-emphasize a dispute, and the lack of engagement in resolving the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this what I think it is? Removing a bot-recovered citation? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. Seraphimblade removed all the pricing information, and the bot jumped in before it could all be restored. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Ronz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly enough issues of behavior by enough editors that an ArbCom case could be had. Does that create conditions that allow for consensus on the content issues at play to be solved? Maybe but it's no guarantee and even if it does create the conditions it's likely to be a tough road to achieving it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been holding off on acting on Wikipedia_talk:Prices#Move_to_user_space?. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, replying there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the article talk pages need protection. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have closed that thread per the ANI discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Can a draft of List of drug prices be expanded with more drug prices? It is not an article. It is all about drug prices. I was planning to update it next year and recruit more editors. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, my first reaction was "of course it can be". But then I started thinking it through more and realized it wasn't so simple. So sure it can be updated but with the following caveats. First, the safest way to ensure that it doesn't become a battleground would be to move it to your userspace rather than leaving it in draft space. Similarly, you would need to be careful about who you invited to edit to ensure it did not become a new battleground. It would not be appropriate to move it to mainspace until consensus is reached about the broader question of how we address issues of drug costs/prices. And once that consensus is reached the article might need to be changed to reflect that consensus. Does that all make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to leave it in draftsapce for anyone to contribute to it. I want to recruit students to expand it. If someone nominates it for deletion I would request it be quickly closed until things are worked out about the prices. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you leave it in draftspace then it is virtually impossible for it to avoid becoming a new battleground because you can't hand pick who gets to contribute. So people who disagree with you about pricing would be just as able to contribute as the students who you hope to recruit (and for the perils of inviting students to contribute to highly contentious areas I would strongly suggest you read this current discussion). That kind of editing process would run afoul of the spirit and the letter of the ANI consensus. I would strongly suggest that adding your voice to the discussion around formulating the RfC would be more productive than time spent editing that draft. The choice to engage, or not, is ultimately up to you and I have and will defend your right not to participate there but if you care as much as it seems you do that's a place where you can help move this process along so we get consensus and you could further improve that draft in the manner you wish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Since it's being discussed now: I ran across it yesterday. It appears to be a list that QuackGuru put together focusing specifically on high-priced medications. It also looks like at least some of it is QuackGuru's own work, rather than simply coping content/refs from existing articles... It would be helpful if QuackGuru would share from the experience of doing this work. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about adding pricing or removing pricing for an article about a drug. It is about the price list of drugs. It requires numerous contributors to expand it. I would like to start a discussion at AN/I to request it can be expanded. It can remain in draftspace. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I have just posted a general update at AN. In that update I stated that an appeal (yours) was going to be forthcoming. In the interests of keeping the conversation together I'd ask you to consider launching your appeal as a subsection of that update. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The appeal could turn into a deletion discussion. I think I should just wait for now. It is just a draft. No readers will be reading it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough QuackGuru. Happy New Year to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, can I please fix your typos and word omissions at AN? After all, typo is my middle name! Check it over, as some typos and word omissions lead to a lack of clarity. Otherwise, very nice summary (glad you didn't attempt to summarize my mess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, it's now at WT:MOSMED. I promise I did read it over before posting but yes go ahead and feel free to correct some typos and word omissions. I benefit greatly from the editing of others :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to see your own word omissions, because you knew what you meant and think the word is there when it's not : ) I will do an edit there, then, only if you promise to be right behind me to correct anything I may get wrong! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Activity

I see that User:Pbsouthwood added a clarify tag yesterday to Hydroxychloroquine. The drug is an anti-malarial but also has secondary uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and porphyria cutanea tarda. Peter asked "for what" the treatment price "per month" referred to. James then edited the article to clarify "treat rheumatoid arthritis or lupus", to remove the UK price completely, and to update the MSH source from 2014 to 2015 while changing the price from a range to, what appears to be, the median of two Buyer prices for 200mg tablets multiplied by 60 [never mind that the source does not give a dose for treating those diseases, or that two Buyer prices isn't "the developing world"]. I note the article does not date that price to 2015, so readers may think it current. I think it is not unreasonable to question "what for", especially as it actually appears that an anti-malaria drug is being given a "developing world" monthly cost, not for treating malaria, but for rheumatoid arthritis or lupus!

While Peter may have not been aware that "There is an embargo on adding or removing pricing during this process", James most certainly is. I don't think Peter's query, nor the clarifying "treat rheumatoid arthritis or lupus", break the embargo, but all the other changes, updates and deletions do. I don't think it would be wise to go around tagging all 540+ drug articles with templates asking to clarify what the treatment condition is or query where on earth the dose information is coming from. -- Colin°^Talk 16:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) My apologies, I was looking up unrelated information and added the query, not expecting it to be addressed immediately - these things generally remain unfixed for months. I was not intending to provoke anyone to break an embargo. Tagging that price claim is something that anyone might have done in complete ignorance of the dispute.
While it is not a surprise that there is an embargo, I don't remember actually reading about it, but I may have done so and simply forgotten. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, I agree tagging the price could be done in complete ignorance of the dispute and was indeed done by another editor unaware of the dispute a couple days back. And even for those who are aware of the dispute and the embargo, my interpretation of adding a disputed tag as a grey area that goes against the spirit of the AN/I consensus is not something anyone who hasn't been following closely (including watching this talk page) could possibly know. So no worries about your tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Noting that Colin is forbidden from pinging or notifying Doc James on his talk about this discussion, but Ronz has done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I took that drug for giardiasis when I lived in South America. I see no mention of yet another use for the med in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: I agree most of that update is appropriate and helpful. I have also indicated above to Peter that adding a dispute tag is a grey area it was fine he didn't know about. I have reminded the editor who added/removed information not to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you all seriously claiming that sourcing content to "Walmart receipt" is anything but vandalism? Did anyone even bother to look at the edit before they tried to score cheap points in an edit dispute. Barkeep can you please confirm that your prohibition forces editors to keep obvious vandalism in arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostFrancis (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, what Walmart receipt are you talking about? And this is not "my prohibition" this is an embargo enacted by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Please read WP:Vandalism andWP:ASPERSIONS, and please tone down your language. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Activity update

Just a note to those around here, I was just asked on DocJames talk page specifically about updating. I had discussed this previously with two other uninvolved syosps on IRC and all three< of us feel that updating information already present in an article does not qualify as "adding or removing pricing" and can be done even while the RfC creation process plays out. courtesy pings to @Ronz, Colin, SandyGeorgia, and QuackGuru:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that tagging/amending/updating prices on articles should be included in the moratorium. While I have no intention of editing the prices at present, the contentious issue is not just whether prices are included or not but that existing prices make false claims, do not represent what the source says, cherry-pick one database record rather than another, use prices drawn from buyers and suppliers, etc, etc. All these issues have been a source of conflict over the years. I wouldn't support the idea that James alone is permitted to modify their own price statements, and all evidence suggests that anyone else amending them will result in conflict. It would also be highly disruptive if editors modified the article text of drugs being used as RFC examples such that they deviated from the examples presented at RFC. We don't want the RFC discussion on what should be said to be played out by edit warring on the articles. It would simply be better that any statement about prices be left alone for now. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Barkeep; I am following the discussion at Doc James talk.

1. These personal exceptions for Doc James are part of why we are where we are. It is awkward that we can't consolidate conversations because of a) prohibitions on pinging/posting and b) lack of engagement in one place. One point of the ANI close was to prevent disputes from spreading. At ANI, "The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue". Full Stop. Your words. I agreed with JzG on these conditions instead of supporting a topic ban on Doc James as requested by another sysop (Nil Einne). Doc James has not come to the single venue to discuss, and one party is prohibited from posting to Doc James talk, and yet that party can be discussed there. This is a formula for dispute-spreading. There should be, in fact, no discussion of the price dispute at James talk, other than your notifications and further clarifications with James and Peter.

2. I have always been and still am opposed to back-channel decisions on IRC. (That is not "a single venue".) Conversations regarding a sysop who is continually given exceptions for behavior (eg edit warring) should be in full view of everyone else affected. Who are the two sysops who agreed that we can grant this change to the clearly established conditions? By conducting business off-Wiki, your excellent conduct in this matter so far puts you at risk for being drawn in to the precise pattern that needs to be addressed. Please provide the names of those sysops.

3. My recommendation is that you walk back this private discussion and decision, and leave the ANI close as was clearly agreed. I agreed with JzG's approach only because it was so carefully worded, and having been down this road before, knew what might happen. It has. Doc James breached the close. Please respect your own ANI close, and do not complicate a years-long dispute with non-public discussions where three sysops decide to exempt one sysop from a community agreement. OWNERSHIP is at the core of the pricing dispute and all previous disputes: exempting one editor, who has not engaged with the rest of us who are attempting to solve the problem, from a community-wide decision which accounted for this very possibility furthers the very problem we are attempting to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I was one of the editors who was consulted on IRC. The off-wiki consultation was clearly disappointing for you, and I'm sorry about that and will aim to be more transparent in this matter. It probably won't make you feel better, but I was presented the question in a very abstract sense and was not aware of the identity of the participants, and certainly did not intend my comments to be about giving a particular sysop an advantage or special exception over others. My reasoning was that the spirit of verifiability doesn't allow us to keep old bad information if newer, equally- or better- sourced information is available -- it must be updated or removed, and the closure explicitly prohibits removing it, so updating it is the only option. Additionally, updating pricing doesn't seem to involve the same dispute as to whether prices should be included or not. Thanks for your comments -- I hope I have addressed some of your concerns, and if not, please don't hesitate to reach out further. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

it must be updated or removed Howso? What's the hurry? Is there some BLP-like requirement? --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: thanks for all your thoughts here. I want to acknowledge that I've seen them. I think some of your criticisms of me are more than fair but want to take a few hours to think on them before replying (especially because other pieces of the analysis I respectfully disagree with at first blush). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

For today at least, pinging me will only increase my need for a calming cup of tea. That "tipping point" has been passed by sysops allowing the very behaviors we seek to address, to fester and grow by a participant who has not engaged. This Is The Pattern. Regular editors, who want to add medical content, have no place on this project. We have competent, qualified medical editors who have written numerous guidelines, featured articles and featured lists, but who do not have a sysop flag attached to their account, who are doing everything they can to assure medical content on Wikipedia is accurate, and being undermined by those who have a flag attached to their name. This is why good editors quit. This is why medical content is suffering. This is why good editors no longer engage to remove vandalism and quackery. This is why good editors stop trying to bring medical content to featured status. This is why I stopped editing for years and unwatched hundreds of medical articles. This is Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, (who I'm intentionally not pinging based on what she wrote above as there's only so much calming tea in the world but who I will ping tomorrow) thanks for all your thoughts. As I've expressed to you in the past, when you were working on the edit request, I knew that being the sole sysop involved in these issues was going to be trouble sooner or later. And now we're here, in part, because I took a half measure in this regard. There had been an increasing number of decisions that I had been asked to make about this situation. While the all the decisions had been respected I had become uncomfortable being the sole uninvolved sysop attempting to properly carry out the community's will in this regard. What I should have done was to solicit wider feedback formulate a different version of the update I'd posted and then reverted at AN. What I did instead was to reach out to others on IRC. I understand why this opaque measure rubbed you the wrong way. While I appreciate L235 chiming in, what I should have done after making the first mistake of consulting on IRC rather than AN was to just own the decision as my own - as I felt that updating prices was ok before the discussion and after. I included the IRC mention as a way of being clear what I had done but rather than being transparent it diffused responsibility for the decision in a way that it shouldn't have. Why was updating ok with me when I'd said even adding a tag was not? In my thinking it's different because it's not adding something new and because the embargo is designed to ameliorate the conflict not preserve bad information.

In the time that I've been working on this conflict I've worked hard to treat all editors with respect. Especially because the core group of editors, whether they carry the sysop user right or not, deserve immense respect for the longstanding ways they've made Wikipedia a better place. I can, and will if you or some other editor would like, explain how I've tried to treat all editors the same regardless of sysop status. But essentially my approach has been to make a polite request for specific action where I've observed a line being crossed. So far every time I've made a specific request to take/rescind an action the editor has agreed. I have also, attempted to follow the ANI close statement that there will be "no rehashing of grievances" by acting on not what's happened in in the past with editors but what's happening now. All of this has applied to all editors including DocJames.

But I also remember acutely what it's like when you don't have the sysop flag. I wrote, in a line I had to remove from my ACE statement due to space constraints, "I remember what it’s like to feel put down not or otherwise dismissed because" I wasn't a sysop. We lose so many good editors for so many reasons and I'm sorry that the conditions here are such that we're going to (potentially) lose you. The places you've chosen to contribute in this dispute have been made better because of your contributions. I can only hope you decide Wikipedia remains worth it.

As to the specific asks you've made, I have struck my statement here and on Doc's talk that refers to the discussion IRC. I am willing to discuss the decision to say that updating is OK further and have now laid out my thinking rather than just giving a "because me and two people you can't comment about said so" reasoning. Just to reiterate, updating feels different than adding or removing because the ANI close was about ameliorating the dispute and where the information is already present updating serves our readers without changing the scope of articles involved in the dispute. If you don't want to discuss it further we can all head back to AN/ANI or go to ArbCom as has been discussed below. If we head to AN/ANI (and obviously if it ends up at ArbCom) it will likely mean I step back from attempting to moderate the dispute for at least a bit to give the community space to weigh-in and indeed offer feedback on my own actions.

As for the final bit of keeping discussion at WT:MOSMED you're absolutely right. It has, at minimum, spread to this page, Doc James' user talk, WT:Prices, Talk:Ivermectin. I'm happy to take a more assertive stance on pushing stuff over there (for instance I should have replied to several of the questions posted here there). As you note some conversation will still be needed at on user talks but this would be much more one on one discussion. To that end if you (or others) want to continue conversations about updating with me, we should create a section to do so there. If you wish to discuss my actions that would of course remain more appropriate for this page (or AN/ANI/ARBCOM). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am back from Ceylon; I found life in a country where pings are outlawed very relaxing. Do you want me to respond here, or do we want to keep discussion at WT:MEDMOS? My suggestion would be that we continue this particular aspect here, in the spirit on not splitting a conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I think your decision to permit editing of price information is a rational one, assuming the conflict is only about addition or subtraction (or moving to body), and assuming that updating the text might change it from "bad" to "good". That really isn't the case; it is just differently bad. Attempts to resolve some of the OR or false claims have been rejected by reversion and on several occasions caused protracted dispute. I only see that being more likely during an RFC. You say you are not keen for an embargo to "preserve bad information" but no amount of tinkering or updating data from 2014 to 2015 is going to make the information good. Nearly all of the prices are many years out-of-date, wrong and misleading. We've lived with that for years and really it is best if they are left be for a little while longer. -- Colin°^Talk 13:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

We may be in disagreement about the "rationality" of the decision, Colin; I have very big problems behind the logic in this decision, and am surprised no one has seen the logical flaw. I am waiting to hear if this is the right place to have that discussion, and to make a recommendation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Colin: I have copied this discussion to WT:MOSMED to try and both not split the discussion and to honor the ANI close. Let's continue this strand of discussion there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, User:Colin/PriceEdits contains a computer-generated list of all price/cost insertion/deletion edits to 530 drug articles by any editor since 2015. It also contains my analysis of where editors have come into conflict. Plenty examples of why I note my concerns above. To take an example of the kind of "copyedit" being suggested by User:WhatamIdoing at the MEDMOS discussion, an editor changing "the wholesale price in the developing world is" to "The median buyer price according to the International Drug Price Indicator Guide was" sparked an edit war at Lactulose. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom

I think we should give considerable thought to ArbCom at this point to get the continuing behavioral problems under control. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current behavioural problems are so out of control that requires any urgent ArbCom intervention, provided the moratorium is on drug price edits in articles generally. I can't see anything good with permitting otherwise and don't see why there needs to be any rush to fix prices that mostly cite a database from 2014 or book from 2015. It would greatly help if certain parties acknowledged their edits were controversial and agreed to pause. As I mention above, permitting editing during an RFC is only likely to lead to grief.

I would still like to press ahead with the RFC that WAID has initiated creating. Hopefully something can be created that is worth offering to the community. I would like some clarification wrt where that RFC text should be discussed (RFC talk, or still at MEDMOS).

There is of course very much a long-running user-behaviour problem wrt medical article editing, of which the drug prices are but one symptom, and I have little doubt they will end up at arbcom. But the community needs to exhaust all normal venues for dealing with it, and it seems we must deal with it as a content dispute first. So let's try that approach and see where it takes us. -- Colin°^Talk 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

But the community needs to exhaust all normal venues for dealing with it Well said. I have to say I'm pretty exhausted with it. SandyGeorgia [2] has indicated something similar. I'm hoping that exhaustion is the reason the WT:MOSMED discussion lacks participation from the editors who have regularly weighed in on the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

My own two cents is that it is not premature to head to ArbCom at this point. It's also not the only option for addressing the issues (at least right now). However, if an editor feels it's the best way, well there probably is enough evidence that the community has exhausted all normal venues. I think it all depends on how much hope you have that the conflict will remain calm enough until an RfC can be launched. While I have no less hope that an RfC can be launched (though not certain it will) if things remain calm, each of the past few days have given me less hope that things will remain calm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been warming to the idea of an ArbCom case recently. I was the main filing party for the GMO case, and I might be willing to file for this one too. But I think that it needs to wait until either (1) everyone gives up on having an RfC, which hasn't happened yet, or (2) things take a bad turn during the RfC. And I have a suggestion for anyone who might be watching here: remaining silent at the discussion about RfC formulation may end up being a bad look, if a case happens. Better to make a good-faith expression of opinion there, even if it doesn't get listened to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. ArbCom's initial response (other than wishing they could hide under a rock – I always feel so sorry for the people who get stuck with that job) is likely to be that there are such significant content disputes involved that they'd like to see content RFC attempted first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe an astute arb would look at an abundance of evidence and:

• a) question the claim that there is a broad pricing dispute at all, anywhere, and
• b) ask the community why they haven't even tried to address the issues in evidence via, for example ANI, then
• c) wonder how many more pages like this could be put together to address the previous problems exactly like this one.

And then decline the case until the community deals with it at ANI. For example, if I were one of the "me, too" !voters who followed others to disputes, I'd be wondering how that's going to look in a hard data format put before the arbs. My suggestion is that the community has not tried to solve this problem yet at all, so the arbs are quite premature. Arbs ask, "can this be solved by the community, and if so, why are you forcing it off on us?" The community has yet to address the evidence, and the ANI close was formulated on the premise that a broad pricing dispute exists. I will address this further when I respond to Barkeep above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly should be obvious to all, given the evidence, that routinely adding prices to drug articles is not a community project and never has been: we do not have a group of editors working together by consensus to add and maintain these prices in all these hundreds of articles. Considering Wikipedia:About says "Wikipedia is written collaboratively" that should ring alarm bells. Talk is talk but what matters is the edits and the article content, and the edits are being made by a single editor and the article contents sucks. The presence of an openly declared agenda (Big Bad Pharma want to suppress prices; Wikipedia is not censored) should also be ringing alarm bells and in any other advocacy-editing situation, swiftly dealt with. I don't share Sandy's confidence in ANI, which seems to be a low-attention-span forum where editors are quick to form an opinion and express it loudly. This is a hard problem that needs wise owls, not windbags. I would still like to see where an RFC takes us.

Wrt evidence, folk may have guessed that I'm a big fan of evidence; I don't like unfounded statements (about anything, editors, sources, organisations). If I say that many of the MSH sources have no supplier data, I want to know if that is true: it turns out 30% don't. So I wanted a neutral way to discover who was making additions or subtractions to price and cost statements on our drug articles. That turned out to be fairly easy to code, and it was actually a bit of a surprise to me that one name didn't just appear most of the time, but almost all the time. What that program won't find is cases where people have tried to reword the price statements or update values, provided the number of "cost" or "price" on one wikitext line stays the same, or gave a price but didn't use either keyword. It is important to know the limitations of data. I don't think it would be so easy to find more nuanced instances of editing behaviour nor would I be keen to automate investigations into one editor. -- Colin°^Talk 13:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-read the ANI, Colin. There were multiple and reasonable admins who solicited rational feedback; I gave fair feedback against a topic ban that allowed one party to come to the table. Hence, they agreed with the approach. Barkeep's instincts were right when he posted (but later deleted) to AN. I would like to explore that line with him, among other messy things about what happened in the last day. We have not exhausted the possibilities of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Following on the notion that there ever existed a broad dispute on drug pricing, additional evidence that should be reviewed at ANI is that redirects away from a policy page and to a personal essay were created and stood for four years. The essay said that "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products"-- text that stood since Oct 2015. WP:NOTCATALOG (mentioning prices) was a part of WP:NOT policy as of the date the October 2015 statement was written, so editors have been redirected to a false statement about policy for four years.

After a month of examining all of these edits, and attempting to formulate an RFC, it has emerged that we are attempting to address the wrong (indeed, a non-existent) problem. No evidence of a broad drug pricing dispute has surfaced, while there are voluminous pages of evidence supporting that only two editors were seeking to insert drug prices into articles.

My suggestion, once we finish the discussion at WT:MEDMOS (as we still have unfinished business in that discussion), is that a focused discussion at ANI, moderated to prevent the kinds of unfounded attacks we typically see at ANI, should be initiated by Barkeep. We now have evidence-- that the community is capable of acting upon-- without need to approach the arbs. We now have current evidence of how Colin conducts himself, which is well contrasted by what we have seen from others. I would be happy to present a summary of the "me, too, per so-and-so" editors should that become necessary, but I hope they have by now gotten the point, and this WPMED cabalistic behavior will stop.

It is also possible to present pages of evidence, similar to Colin's above, that show one editors' preferences being inserted across hundreds of articles, on several different matters, but my recommendation on that issue is that it should not be necessary to present this evidence if that editor is reminded at ANI to cease confusing personal preferences with policy. With a few notable exceptions, and as evidenced at the MEDLEAD RFC, WP:MED has had a recent history of applying guideline as if it were policy, and ignoring policy as if it were guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Although my comments above were presented in the vein of how to move forward, and on a page that is not part of the pricing issue (safe place?), on re-reading, I am concerned that some can be viewed as "rehashing old grievances" (that is, covering territory before the pricing dispute). I am striking those portions that relate to issues before the pricing dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It is still my intent to update the community soon. I've had my eye on Jan 7 (one month after the close). That said AN/ANI is not a venue that is well moderated both by design and practice so I wouldn't expect that from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my inner Pollyanna is escaping again, but it was my hope that we could actually get something useful at ANI if you prefaced it with a reminder that editors are under sanctions which will be applied if aspersions are cast, etc. For example, we would not see it degenerate into diffless claims that "Colin edit wars", or the six different WikiAcronyms thrown at me on the talk page of the MEDLEAD RFC, with a complete absence of AGF. I feel like we have enough new information that we could get useful feedback at ANI, if presented by a neutral party like yourself, and moderated to-- at this point-- absolutely give a 24-hour block to those casting aspersions if they continue that aggression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to focus on the RFC. It was the resolution from the last AN/I, and it gives the whole community (not just admins and the sort of opinionated folk who hang out at ANI) a chance to review the issues. I don't want to be used as bait to bring out the pitchfork and torches mob just so admins can hand out some 24hr blocks while my name gets besmirched on the internet yet again. -- Colin°^Talk 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. I had unwatched WT:MEDMOS because work had moved on to the specifics of the RFC at a separate page, which I was watching, but now that we are all back at WT:MEDMOS, there I am :) Yes, full steam ahead on the RFC. We are so close, and nothing I said above should be construed to mean we shouldn't be focused on the RFC as well as other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Although I'll defer to Barkeep, obviously, about what he wants on his talk page, it's probably best to keep discussion about drug prices at the designated locale, and save defense arguments for the ArbCom case pages, should a case become necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I intentionally did not move this section to the page as I think it falls into standard exceptions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am safely home now, Barkeep, and will head over to the other page shortly. (Tea beckons again.) Thanks for wishing me safe driving, which I accomplished. When I unpack my concerns on the other thread at WT:MEDMOS, though, (step by step), the final step will lead us back to my point above, so we will end up with a somewhat split topic. I think most of us have enough focus to follow the plot, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'll ask here because I can't on your talk page, and might as well keep this in one place. I have examined your comments at WT:MEDMOS and find that, apart from an early comment about variable insurance pricing, I cannot determine your position either on drug prices (routinely vs exceptionally) nor on the many example texts+sources (do they fail OR, DUE, LEAD, V) nor on editor behaviour surrounding price insertion and reverts/wars that result. You have made a lot of comments about the RFC questions/format and considerable effort in proposing some drafts, which is very appreciated. But, unlike Barkeep, you don't need to play the neutral moderator role. So when above you say that you think an arbcom is brewing and you might even propose one, I'm rather in the dark as to what your angle is. For all I know, your angle is Big Pharma want to suppress drug prices and Wikipedia is Not Censored! :-). Obviously your view on most of these things belongs on other venue, not here, but wrt Arbcom, what is the case you would bring? -- Colin°^Talk 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, my reason for not having so far expressed an opinion about what my answer to the RfC would be is that I'm trying very hard to help create a successful RfC without taking a "side". But since you ask, my present opinion is that I agree with you and disagree with James about how drug prices should be presented, particularly on the basis of WP:NOTPRICE and WP:SYNTH. But I could also be persuaded to change my mind, given a convincing counterargument. I hope that there will be no need for an ArbCom case, and as I already said I think that one would be premature now. But if I were to file one, I anticipate that the locus of the dispute would be something like what JzG said here: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder who "they" is; we have focused on a resolvable scope, and have an RFC ready to go-- because we finally realized we were taking on too much and agreed to scale it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not argue the case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree such speculating doesn't much help matters. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AE may prove to be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's a specific editor conduct issue to resolve AE would be sufficient but in my nearly month of involvement here to the extent that there are editor conduct issues it's not singular and not the sort of line cross that AE excels at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's a piece of this issue I'm not seeing or privy to. From the point of view of a medical editor who just wants to be able to write medical FAs, and can't in the environment that prevails at WPMED (where guideline is policy, and policy is guideline, and you can't write an FA lead that will satisfy both policy and WPMED), I'm trying as hard as I can to "focus on a resolvable scope". I'm very sorry our efforts have not been good enough. I guess I should have gone skiing for Christmas. :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Re MOSMED Behavioral Concerns

This is in response to a series of edits SandyGeorgia made at WT:MOSMED. I'm going to respond to her statements in two pieces. The first will be at my here and focus on my conduct and that of others. The second part is will be at WT:MOSMED and will focus on the core content issue (should updating pricing information be covered by the ANI embargo).I normally wouldn't split discussion like this, but in this case there are related conduct issues (relating to my conduct and the conduct of others) and content issues (related to an interpretation I made of an a community decision. As one part of that close makes clear that the question of pricing is related to a single forum, it's important that the content based discussion be held there, while that talk page remains an inappropriate venue for conduct decisions. This is an imperfect solution but all available solutions are imperfect and so we're stuck with trying to make the best of a difficult situation. Now onto my response.

You wrote that you felt taken advantage of in part because I had been shielded from information. It's a lousy to feel taken advantage of and I do not want to diminish or dismiss that experience for you. You wrote that I've been shielded from information - I know you wrote this out of our mutual respect for each other and by assuming good faith. However, in all honesty I do feel like, after reading that ANI conversation carefully and having been so politely corrected when I've misstated something about this dispute, that I do have some grasp on the scope of the problem. Though I make no claims to having the same understanding that you and others who've lived it have.

So that brings us to actions since that conversation. For me an important part of the ANI close has been the third statement: "The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances.". For me this has meant several things but most importantly that while we should learn from the past, discussing it, debating it, or attempting to come to consensus even abotu what happened was not going to be productive. To do otherwise was going to end up in a "rehashing of grievances". I respectfully submit that some amount of what you write here falls afoul of that rehashing. This would be just as true if the discussion were still on my talk page as it is here. I am not suggesting the past is unimportant simply that it is not helpful at this moment in trying to come to consensus on the MOS guidance (and thus the content of a wide swath of articles). If you feel that the past simply can't be divorced from the present, well I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. Instead I'm going to say that the only options for how to proceed in that case are a conduct related forum like ANI or ArbCom.

Instead I have been focused on what's happening now, both in trying to help get the RfC on prices launched and in current behavior. Now you have presented conduct issues at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles (or its talk page) and I will acknowledge that I have read all of the issue you've presented but not focused on them as much as they probably deserved. My explanation for this is that trying to keep track of that and everything around prices simply became overwhelming and so I prioritized prices. The only apology I will make for this decision is not explicitly communicating it better and earlier when you made reference to it. I will just note, also by way of explanation, that I definitely did not ignore what you wrote but instead focused on other elements of what you wrote to me at those times when making my own reply.

As for conduct that you've presented around prices I have tried to be attentive to it. For instance following the comments you made about the single forum not being honored well that's why this discussion is here because at its base it's a content related discussion (and decision) not a conduct one and that discussion should be held here. I've looked at Doc James' talk page and since you fairly pointed out conversations should be had here (a development that happened while I was away from Wiki) that conversation stopped (as it should) with James agreeing the conversation should be had here. As for the different treatment we've experienced, I don't deny it's happened and it's likely happened for any number of reasons which according to Wikipedian ideals would not matter, but since we aren't living in that utopia have mattered. I do my best here and attempt, where I can without being a scold or heavy handed, to get others to do their best as well. If only I could wave a wand and improve our community's discourse.

So that brings me to my actions. You wrote that you cheered when I posted to AN. I had decided on the 30th that I needed to update the community and would do so on January 7th or a month afterwards. I debated posting that this was my intent but decided that would create an artificial deadline that might not actually be helpful to resolving the consensus. I also didn't want to post too early as I knew there would likely only be one such update and the conversation that came out of that stood a chance of derailing the RfC discussion (if no other sysops chose to get involved and it opened the floodgates for all the conduct issues that people have been sitting on) in addition to the chance it did of helping (drawing fresh perspectives and an infusion of people fresh enough to power the RfC to the end). However, when QuackGuru indicated that they were going to appeal my thinking about their draft, it forced my hand. When they then walked it back and no one had replied well I took advantage of that and reverted (but did post it to the talk page which I think did have some benefit). Sometime between now and then if this hasn't already been brought to a conduct forum I will be actually posting an update. And to your other point about the number of participants I too wish that attracted as many people, but as you know well policy and content writing is hard, much harder than just looking at conduct so it's unsurprising that more people participated at ANI than in the actual hard work (and in fairness there were a bunch of participants initially who stopped when the conversation got very long, very quickly).

As for my conduct around the decision, I've already explained my thinking around that, what actions of mine fell short of the ideal, and what I've learned and committed to acting like in the future. So I will not revisit that - I feel I've offered you what I can there and if you feel more is needed well then we're again talking about ANI or ArbCom. You do write that you feel James got special treatment. I must respectfully disagree or at least disagree that I treated him differently in my role as an uninvolved sysop, understanding that some of what you feel relates not to me specifically but to the broader unequal treatment of different people I addressed above. My first reaction when someone has broken some element of the ANI close is to ask them to revert. When it was pointed out to me that James had broken the close I treated him the same way. And, like everyone else to date, he respected my ask and reverted. And like several other people he asked for an interpretation, which I gave and then after your criticism retracted and replaced with what I should have written in the first place having already thought it out.

Ok I think that's a response to all the conduct stuff you've raised. So onto part two, discussing the meat of that decision, at at WT:MOSMED. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is in response to a series of edits SandyGeorgia made at WT:MOSMED, correct, but you have not mentioned here that I responded there after you moved the section from your talk page here and several times requested that I respond there, even though I was aware that those response more correctly belonged here. A person coming to this section for the first time, without reading the entire discussions, would not know that I responded there at your request, when the original post was here.

You wrote that you felt taken advantage of in part because I ... I did not feel taken advantage of by you, and I did not say that.I felt taken advantage of by having engaged in a process in good faith, while others did not even engage. I feel even more so, having gone just now to the talk page to try to help out at Trypto's RFC draft 2, since he is asking for feedback, but where I just now found that he advised you "quietly" that he was working on that draft on 26 Dec,[4] but only told the rest of us at WT:MEDMOS on 2 January.[5] How could we have helped sooner on that draft[6] if we weren't told the draft was being developed until two days ago? User talk:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2

I respectfully submit that some amount of what you write here falls afoul of that rehashing. I do not disagree that the way that the issue above (Section Activity udpate) unfolded led to a) me being upset about something presented as an off-Wiki decision (backchannel), that b) led to me ending up "rehashing" when explaining why that was upsetting. Rehashing that had been avoided during an arduous month, but which yes, did occur as my explanation for why that incident was upsetting. I agree that rehashing is not helpful. I, too, respectfully submit that it was my concerns about the transparency that led to my reaction, that then required that I give you an explanation, as your adminning of this matter has been exemplary. And I understand this to be the case regardless of which page it was on. If you feel that the past simply can't be divorced from the present, ... No, I do not feel that at all. In trying to explain why the incident in section Activity update was upsetting, and to explain that I wasn't blaming you, I did end up going into some old territory. I hope I get some credit for leaving out hundreds of kilobytes more than I covered. <that was a joke about my verbosity :) > I understand the importance of avoiding rehashing so that we can focus on the current dilemma, and will do my best to push back sooner from the computer if needed.

Now you have presented conduct issues at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles (or its talk page) ... You have twice phrased this as if presenting that there was my choice. A person coming to read this section would not encounter the history: that you moved it there and asked me to respond there, even after I inquired mutliple times whether I should. Again, regardless of where I answered, I agree it resulted in some rehashing, but it should be clear that putting my response on that page was not my choice, but yours.

... but not focused on them as much as they probably deserved. My explanation for this is that trying to keep track of that and everything around prices simply became overwhelming ... I recognized that days ago, and felt it was too much for one person, and understand. No apology is needed.

I do my best here ... As I have seen and acknowledged <repeatedly, with my typical verbosity>.

I debated posting that this was my intent but decided that would create an artificial deadline ... Very sensible.

... when QuackGuru indicated that they were going to appeal my thinking about their draft, it forced my hand... I saw that as it unfolded, and felt you handled the dilemma well. I still maintain that your instincts to post to AN were right, as you should have had more help sooner.

... and what I've learned and committed to acting like in the future. So I will not revisit that - I feel I've offered you what I can there and if you feel more is needed well then we're again talking about ANI or ArbCom. There is no need to revisit that. I explained why the incident upset me, I explained that it is not an overall reflection on your handling of this situation, and I am at this stage wondering why you feel the need to say this. Perhaps the tone of my response did not come through as intended. For that I'm sorry, as we're all responsible for what we write, and to some degree, how other people receive our comments.

You do write that you feel James got special treatment. I don't believe I've said that. Please point out where I said something that led to this, so I can clarify what I meant. I am not the clearest writer in the best of times. In fact, I said you have been fair and equal in how you have treated everyone. There has not yet been a need to sanction anyone, and only warnings have been issued, so had you sanctioned James, that would have been unequal. I still feel that it is not logical that we can't tag dubious information for the benefit of our readers.

... what you feel relates not to me specifically but to the broader unequal treatment of different people I addressed above ... No, here I fear there is a real misunderstanding. I specifically stated that your treatment had been equal, but that in other places and by other people, non-sysops were treated differently than sysops, and I quite specifically said that was not done by you. We have a misunderstanding here; I hope we can clear it up.

When it was pointed out to me that James had broken the close I treated him the same way. I agree, and said that. But, the result is the same; we are here, with a price udpate embargo and only one editor has edited price data, and we are finally (perhaps) in the last few hours seeing engagement at WT:MEDMOS where we might be able to understand the mistakes in that text.[7]

Re Sandy ... I thought we didn't personalize in headings?

Overall, it seems like your response here is not fully recognizing that, once I calmed down from the "IRC" issue, I was not questioning your conduct or blaming you; I was explaining my reaction. I'm sorry my explanation led to some rehashing, I'm sorry if I was unclear and you feel I was blaming you (I am responsible for my reactions, not you), and I'm sorry a difficult matter became more difficult by the split/moved conversation; we both learned something from that, I hope. In the future, if I am asked explicitly to respond on a page where I know the conversation doesn't belong, I will certainly reject that request. I understand your concerns are the same, regardless of which page the words were typed on. Other than that, yes, my explanation for my response led to rehashing, and I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't push back soon enough from the computer and head to Ceylon, but as we both know, it has been a very long month.

Now, I would very much like to understand how I can help Tryptofish fill out his draft RFC, but am quite unsettled to find that he told us about the draft on 2 Jan, but told you on 26 Dec, so ... I don't really know if I can be helpful at this stage. I had prepared a number of thoughts for him, but when I went to the talk page ... well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I will reply after I digest in the morning, but I never thought, or meant to imply in my writing, that you acted wrong with where you posted any of this content. You followed the lead I set and I've been trying to work towards the right balance (which I think I did with this latest split posting). I'll reread in the morning and strike things if I see that upon rereading but know that when I wrote all that at no point was I thinking you'd posted where you shouldn't have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please reread everything in the morning; I am (perhaps mis)reading your tone as offended, when just the opposite was my intent in my long explanation. Verbosity kills the cat everytime! And think how this reads to someone coming here for the first time, seeing my name on a heading, and not having the full background.

Sleep well ... we all deserve it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know, since Sandy mentions me near the end, that I've tried to respond on the content-related stuff at the guideline talk page, and I am about to discuss the more personal stuff with Sandy at my own talk page, where she has very kindly reached out to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It also occurs to me to let people know that, for personal medical reasons, I might not be editing on January 8 and 9. It's nothing serious and nothing to be worried about, but I just figured I should say that because it might be a very active time in the RfC-related work we are doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck on January 8 and 9.

So, I should also say that I got a phone call yesterday that my 89-yo's father's health is failing. I spoke to him this morning, and ... it does not sound good. I may need to get on a plane at any time in the coming weeks, and end up on the other side of the country in a somewhat remote area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I'm so sorry to hear that. That obviously is so much more important than what we're doing here that I'm a bit reluctant to really reply at any length. So let me just briefly write that I am not annoyed with you or really anyone involved in this disagreement. I have really enjoyed getting to know you and am sorry that through the vagaries of Internet writing I came off as annoyed. That output just reflects me in self-reflection mode. If you do want a response to something you wrote (I don't want to ignore you just be sensitive) please do let me know and I will happily give you a response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Barkeep, but don't let it trouble you. Without getting into excess detail, some fathers are better than others. No further response is needed, but if you have more to say, please don't hesitate because of my circumstance.

I feel REALLY sorry for you when you try to disentangle the sprawl at WT:MEDMOS, and think that should be the focus for all of us right now. We really need an archive; we are all talking past each other and there are too many sections. We have the beginnings of a sample discussion with James that could benefit from being extracted from the middle of the mess. Have fun in there, and thanks for the kind words, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah-ha

Barkeep, I had a big ah-ha moment yesterday from some of WAID's summaries, and can see that a lot of my focus on the RFC formulation has resulted in time and bandwidth misspent. Meaning, thank you for putting up with me ... different approach going forward :) Anyway, I'm really here to ask a question: was my ping and mention of CFCF appropriate here? I thought twice about it after done, and considered striking, but you can't undo a ping, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, regarding your concern in this section, I agree, and saw the problem right after I posted. But then I got very busy in the rest of the price sample discussion with James because we are making good progress for the first time in a month, and forgot to follow up further. I just wanted to ping you here as well, so that we can take this off the WT:MEDMOS page, as it belongs here under conduct. My sincere apologies once again. Having been away from Wikipedia for several years, through this I am finding how much I hate the pingie-thingie. Had it not been for the ping, I could have immediately simply removed that reference to you altogether. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@CFCF: thank you for your gracious response. I'm replying here instead of there out of concern that a whole lot of bloat on that page is my fault, for not having my "ah-ha" moment sooner. We can get there from here, and I hope we will see the WPMED I once loved and engaged return soon. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you and CFCF were able to work this out Sandy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Lack of AGF

I do not feel Tryptofish is editing collegiately, with the assumption others are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. Examples:

• I'm sure that you, for example, could easily provide examples and pro/con rationales. You probably could even copy-paste them. Of course, not doing that and then complaining that no one has done it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• rigging the RfC to get a desired result
• I think it will be a fiasco if that version of the RfC gets launched ... I feel like a very small number of editors are trying to run out the clock, and aren't really engaging with my expressed concerns, even though I've been revising my suggested version of the format in response to their concerns.
• Every time I've said anything recently, the same few individuals immediately step in, before anyone else can respond to me, and filibuster and divert the discussion to a side-issue
• It becomes very unpleasant to comment there ... I actually agree with the editors who have been making it so difficult.
• Well, I put up two such markups, but let's not let the facts get in the way.
• And as for Colin, ... maybe he is also the person who should not be trying at every opportunity to shut down the discussion. Yes, I said that, and if anyone does not like it, I really do not care.....The idea that the format I recommend is presupposing the view of the community or closed minded or polarizing, whereas the other one is nice and neutral, is laughable. "
• I am definitely saying that I expect to be able to have my comments discussed reasonably instead of being treated the way that is happening here.

I appreciate that you asked for one of these statements to be struck, and it was only partially struck. The attacks continue despite your request

"My talk page remains open if editors have concerns about another editor. All are reminded that "strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing" remains in effect. If a comment is about the RfC or otherwise going to move us forward there's a way to move things forward without naming, directly or indirectly, other editors."

Tryptofish continues to comment negatively on other editors, directly and indirectly. I also don't find "is laughable" and "will be a fiasco" as adjectives conducive to a respectful level-headed discussion on RFCs. The angry statement last night, following a direct attack on me: "Yes, I said that, and if anyone does not like it, I really do not care" is frankly worth a block imo, given the "strict enforcement of WP:AGF" that all parties are aware of, and given a previous warning on their talk page. That's just not on. (Just in case anyone thinks that this is convenient timing for the rival RFC to be launched, I would be happy to postpone, but I don't think it at all acceptable that I and others be expected to put up with continued attacks and "I really don't care" insults to any admin mediating enforcement). -- Colin°^Talk 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's avoid referring to them as "rival RFCs", since they are intended to be complementary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I don't think Tryptofish thinks WAID's "fiasco... laughable" RFC is in any way complementary. My point was to use language someone complaining about my "convenient" request might use. I think both RFCs are honest good-faith attempts to resolve the problem, but I have my preference about which we should run now, and think any followup RFC will be worded based on what we learn from that. -- Colin°^Talk 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: I am already out of steam for the day, and haven't had breakfast. Are you mixing up complementary and complimentary? I don't know, I'm hungry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I want to acknowledge that I have read this and appreciate the diffs you've provided to show the behavior you're seeing and feel goes against good faith. I want to think over your larger point and decide what administrative response is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it's easy to take selected passages out of context, frame them as something other than what they really are, without also presenting the context, including the provocations as well as the much larger amount of talk in which I have been trying to foster positive steps forward, all of which is a good reason why this is likely to end up at ArbCom. If you would like, I can provide a rebuttal, which will necessarily be lengthy. Up to you, please let me know. And there are reasons why, in over a decade of editing here, Colin is one of only three editors whom I have banned from my talk page. I also want to remind you of my post higher up on this talk, where I said that due to personal medical reasons, I'm likely to be away from Wikipedia for a few days this week. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Trypto, I once again implore you, as I did on your talk,[8] to not further anxiety about a potential arbcase. I feel that we are well beyoond that point, and have made good progress. Considering my earlier sense of "betrayal", James has a very good reason (90-hour work weeks), and you gave him very good advice to let people know when he would be away. But continuing "likely to end up at Arbcom" when we are all working well now is unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't start a section on Barkeep's talk page titled "Lack of AGF". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for the reminder that you'll be away for a few days this week that had slipped out of my mind. And yes thinking about the whole picture, including the whole picture shown by the diffs is important and why I didn't want to give a knee-jerk response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I am struggling to understand how offering to post a lengthy explanation of why Tryptofish's lack of good faith is justified, "why, in over a decade of editing here, Colin is one of only three editors whom I have banned from my talk page". I already suffered an AN/I where many people, including Tryptofish, got an open platform to make their deeply negative views of me public knowledge on the internet, and every time someone links to the ANI for the purpose of the closure statement, the link takes readers to that platform of negativity. Enough please. At this point, I'd expect some rolling back, olive branches and all that from Tryptofish, not threats to escalate. -- Colin°^Talk 21:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I have thought about the fact that your name is on that ANI thread too. I am sure it must have been painful. I had written more but you and Trypto have written faster than I could craft a reply so I'll hold onto those thoughts for now. But I didn't want to not acknowledge the feelings and experience you shared here. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• And every time, certain editors jumped in before anyone else could respond, raised not-quite-logical objections, and then diverted the discussion to side issues. Rinse and repeat

How many more assume-bad-faith posts like this before it is stopped? That's just not on to ban someone from your talk page and then use the page to criticise them multiple times over multiple days. -- Colin°^Talk 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why do you think I meant you? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A plea. Trypto, I would like to see WPMED be what it once was. I would like us to work together collaboratively as we once did, on building content. I would like us to be able to improve content together, as we did during the "collaboration of the month" days. Perhaps this isn't a priority for you because, as you have indicated (somewhere) you weren't ever an active WPMED participant; I submit that it does matter to many of the "principals".

During this process, I have made mistakes. Many mistakes. But I have also moved to a position where I can now work collegially and respectfully with a number of editors with whom, in the last four years, that had become difficult. And many of us have moved towards each other's positions when we have listened to each other. I don't know who you are criticizing, and can only speak for myself. Criticism of anyone, even if unnamed, is not good at this point.

I try to acknowledge my mistakes, apologize and atone for them. But you are still threatening to file an arbcase if things don't go the way you envision, because of things that should be by now in the past. Please let this process work. Please stop making posts that serve only to stir the pot. Kindly, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not threatening anything, and it's not about whether things go the way I "envision". And I cannot imagine how anyone could think that it's not important to me to have all of this result in better content and peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

One important conflict resolution method that we use at my workplace is "owning your 50%". Now in reality I don't believe that if two people are in conflict it necessarily means that each are equally responsible. But that's not this. This is an approach that encourages a person to consider the dispute from the other person's perspective and then taking ownership for the part that you've made worse. I don't have time to find a perfect writeup of it, but this is pretty decent. It might be helpful for both of you to give at least a little thought about.

That said it feels like emotions are running really high with both Trypto and Colin and I would ask each of them to consider whether further dialogue is going to help move forward or are going to be about the very real emotions and experiences driving the conflict. I'm not dismissive of the latter - at all - but also don't know they need further stating in rapid section here at this moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks. Personally, I'd like to let all of this sit for a few days, and I won't comment here any more so long as other editors don't keep asking me to respond to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not commenting negatively on other editors at the RFC or your own private talk page full stop. Not "as long as...". Full stop. Barkeep, does The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances not mean anything? "Let me explain at length why Colin is one of only three editors who I have banned from my talk page". I'm not really seeing any strict enforcement at all and wondering why. -- Colin°^Talk 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, It does. I have referenced it I don't know how many times. I think some action is called for at this point which is what I read you to be calling for. I don't, however, want to rush into that and want to find the appropriate action to take. I didn't become a sysop to take an administrative actions against editors who I respect. I'll do it, but unlike teen me who was a forum moderator, it doesn't excite me. And so I damn well sure I want to get it right. Which doesn't mean days but does mean I want to have thought about this and not just reacted, even though I'd be able point to policy/guidelines/community consensus to support what I did. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean by that, that you are thinking about administrative action against me, then I want to post a detailed rebuttal before you take any action. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the situation between you and Colin requires some sort of administrative action. That doesn't necessarily mean sanction against one or both of you (though it might). But does require action. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If that might be a two-way no-fault IBAN, I would actually welcome that. But anything beyond that, I would insist on writing a detailed rebuttal to the above accusations first. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, if it is something like that, and if an ArbCom case becomes needed, I will not be the one to file the case request. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Typtofish and Colin: I have spent a lot of time reviewing policy and procedure around discretionary sanctions. I have also spent a fair amount of time reviewing the content of WT:MOSMED. I had hoped to resolve this prior to my update at AN but I have run out of steam for this dispute. Normally I'd just sit on it until the morning. However, I have been waking up to a slew of talk page messages and notifications so it's not entirely sure this dispute will wait until the morning. Importantly, I also think the voices of the larger community (as well as needing, at minimum to find at least one willing uninvolved sysop) are needed at this point. I think the diffs Colin has put together are more than sufficient for a filling at WP:AE. Trypto if you have your own diffs and rebuttal, well that noticeboard offers a structured format for providing them. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Hi - if you have a minute, see Eric D. Schlager. The article is short on RS and long on puffery - I draftified it, and left the author (whose username implies a connection with the subject) some messages, but they've ignored me and republished it into mainspace. I'm leaning towards G11 for the mainspace article, and reiterating to the author that they should be going through AfC with their draft due to their connection with the subject, but thought I should get a second opinion. Any thoughts? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, when I went to look at the article I found it already tagged for G11. In reading the article I found the tag appropriate and deleted it as such. The editor, in my book, runs afoul of WP:CORPNAME - we have evidence of what they edit and it ties into their username. You guidance to go through AfC for Schlager is the right one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks - yes, the username is also an issue, I thought I'd give them a chance to disclose their connection rather than just blocking them, but I'll discuss that with them if they respond to me. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		🏈May your new year go better than the 31 teams who passed up on this guy🏈 Love, Action Jackson

Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Praxidicae and I hope you have a great 2020 even after my preferred team beats your preferred team in the Super Bowl. I do feel the need, as a Wikipedian, to point out that only 28 teams passed on Jackson (4 teams didn't have a pick before 1.32) and that one of those 28 teams were the Ravens. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References

You've got mail!

Hello, Barkeep49. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

∯WBG^converse 17:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I've replied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think similar attention is needed at User_talk:ShunDream#Please. Seem to have abandoned his account, after infiltrating into NPP and AfC to accept dubious spam. ∯WBG^converse 09:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, pulled. I don't have time to do a deep dive on the articles you've identified but I suspect several others would end up delete if taken to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Barkeep49,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Barkeep49!

Happy New Year!

Barkeep49,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 22:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Barkeep49,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Jewish American poets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Chess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

question

Hey, Barkeep! I wanted to ask you about your take on Stevey7788...it seems like he was clearly a very useful editor for over a decade and made huge contributions. We're sure he's implicated in this COI editing, I guess. Do we think he just was offered the chance to make some money on the side after he'd become a trusted user and just couldn't resist? Are we talking about this kind of thing anywhere? I'm wondering whether it would be worthwhile for us to be in contact with folks like him, asking them to help us discover others doing the same thing, help correct their own bad acts and any bad acts they know by others as a way to sort of repay their debt to the community. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: - Are you aware of this extensive sock-puppetry spanning for years? I have dealt with pretty many UPE rings via OTRS, and the primary lesson is to never trust anything they say, at face-value (unless we are dealing with rank-noobs). ∯WBG^converse 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, yes, that was an intermediate stop for me. Near the end of the investigation, we see I also deleted G5 everything I could (articles created prior to after 1 November 2017), including the country usernames listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musbaunow/Archive. I'll leave the remaining accounts (Techdude3331, Sunnyluo88, Stevey7788 and Siddiqsazzad001 already blocked) for someone else to figure out what to do with. (For the latter two, see the deleted contributions.) from MER-C, which made me think the Stevey7788 account might not be an actual sock, and if not maybe was a previously well-intentioned user who'd been approached with an opportunity (or searched for an opportunity) to edit for money. If Stevey7788 had been for more than a decade a good user but couldn't resist the temptation to earn, perhaps now they're ashamed and would like to make amends. My thought was that someone like S7788 might have knowledge that could help track down the entire organization. They know how they were paid. Petty criminals make good confidential informants. --valereee (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, It's an interesting question. I'm not aware, outside of COIN of this being discussed anywhere. Your idea has merit - I don't know who has enough of a relationship with him that could make an approach. We also don't know, of course, whether he's even monitoring the email on that account anymore. Also the most likely scenario, along the lines of what you suggest, is not that he was approached and turned to the dark side, but rather that he was the one who did the approach; he made an active decision to seek out paid editing. Happy New Year to you Valereee. ​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And to you! I suspect you're right, the most likely scenario is that he made the approach. (The prospect of getting caught)*(the perceived risk of it) < the larceny in his soul, unfortunately. But few of us are as bad as the worst thing we've ever done, and people often feel deeply ashamed after they get caught doing something wrong and sincerely would like to make amends. We might be able to use that to WP's advantage. :) --valereee (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I completely agree which is why it could be worth (someone who isn't me as I've got my Wiki plate full at the moment) figuring out who might be able to send an email seeing if he wants to talk. That figures to be more successful than someone reaching out blind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• For a long time, I was highly active in COIN/SPI/UPE, and using some unconventional methods while not breaking any Wiki rules, due to my training in a previous life, I was able to smoke out some truly undesirable characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the forensics but sadly I don't have the time to dedicate to it nowadays - sometimes I would spend 60 hours or more on my research until I was absolutely sure I could go to ANI with certainty of a conviction. My sleuthing has not appealed to everyone, editors and admins alike, and strangely, there are some even highly respected members of our community who don;t necessarily see much harm in paid editing. My stance however, has always been that I resent anyone making money out of my voluntary work and I believe that deep down, many highly committed volunteers share my indignation not only of the paid editors, but also of those who serenely and tacitly support it. The problem is that paid editing, declared or otherwise, is hugely lucrative. So much so, that it is as much a drug to those who engage in it as it is to those who do other well paid but illicit types of work: once a UPE, always a UPE. White collar criminality exists, so we should not fool ourselves over the extent of UPE in Wikipedia. It's tentacles reach throughout the entire fabric of the project, at every level, as Wiki-PR and Orange Moody have proven, and even within the WMF itself, and what goes on in the English speaking regions of Asia. I don't believe one should rush into this Stevey7788 idea, good as it sounds. Leopards don't change their spots. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Kudpung, at a fundamental level I agree with you when you write "I resent anyone making money out of my voluntary work." I have mixed emotions when it comes to our current UPE policies. If someone is following our policies and guidelines I don't think it fair to penalize them beyond what our policies and guidelines support (as someone would do) but I'm also not sure having an "approved" way to do PE is good. But I'm not sure having no way to do PE is better than our status quo either. And I do share your observation that some well respected members of our community are amazingly tolerant of even UPE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Whoops I got distracted and forgot the second point I wanted to make. However, I think you're misunderstanding what Valereee is proposing here (or maybe I do). I think the idea is not to welcome Stevie back to our community but to see if he'd be willing to share with us information about his experiences such that we could do a better job of combating UPE going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood, not for a second. I know exactly what is being proposed. It's a tactic that's common among investigatory forces and one I learned in a previous life. How can anyone be sure that Stevey7788 is still not in our midst? The difficulty is in knowing how to go about in such a way that it would have the desired result. I'm not sure that any of us has the skill to pull it off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year Barkeep49

Happy New Year!

Barkeep49,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Celestina007 (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

ping?

Hey, Barkeep, I just got pinged by you, but can't figure out to where...it seems to be an old post to your talk, but there's nothing new there from you. Did you need something? --valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, sorry about that. I was consolidating my archives because I decided I needed to up my max size (this current version would have taken up almost half an archive on its own). I didn't think it would ping anyone because there were no new sigs but that seems to be very wrong... So sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought I was being incompetent :) --valereee (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

radiant child
... you were recipient no. 2109 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt. I know I've expressed to you in the past how much this meant to me and my gratitude for this recognition remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated. Even after the year of thanks is over, and the year of vision began, a round of thanks in the morning is simply good for me ;) - not tomorrow though, when I'll be off to vacation days. Happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)