User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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)

Barkeep49, I have been faced some problem , recently some reasons for changed my name. but at this moment I can no longer use AutoWikiBrowser & AFC review tools. I had a user right permission for these two. I'd like it back, can you help me? Since my name has been changed there will be a later problem when calculation AFD work? here are reasons to change the Global rename. I hope that i will get a positive answer from you. specially thanks.~ Nocturnal^talk 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnal306, AWB and AFC are based on the username so I went in and updated both lists to this new name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49Thanks you . updating my new name will definitely help work for AWB and AFC.~ Nocturnal^talk 21:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm sorry for that a mistake here my name is User:Nocturnal306, Please can update again. As soon as I fix it using my signature and full name. I'm sorry again.~ Nocturnal^talk 21:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnal306,  Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (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)

@Tryptofish 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) Fixing ping to Tryptofish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Seems to be moot now - after ten years of solid content work Tryptofish has walked out. That kind of work is going to be missed. Pissing people off (and I'm only saying, not finger pointing) seems to be Wikipedia's New Year's Resolution.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm pretty upset on multiple levels to read this news. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  We are both upset, but I am not surprised. Other issues have surfaced overnight, in a return to the editwarring behaviors to install personal preferences, and you were right to be concerned that "this dispute will not wait until the morning". I have no idea if Colin intends to continue editing Wikipedia, but I know I will not continue in this environment, where multiple editors are unable to peacefully exist and we see editwarring to install personal preferences according to no guideline, and certainly not policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

1/12

Thanks for that reply, Barkeep. I have taken a deep dive in to FA TS to try to rescue it from five years of neglect because of the WPMED issues, so that I can unwatch it, knowing I've left it in the best shape possible. I understand your reasoning there, but I'm still happiest with WAID's version. There is no such thing as a perfect, or perhaps even a good, outcome wrt that sourcing dilemma. I really think someone (like me, but better if not) needs to point out at the AN thread that you are still doing this all alone, which is unconscionable. Especially with failure to AGF in evidence right on that thread, and yet, you standing alone ... taking the beating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks for the update. Overall I think the AN thread has done something important - inviting in some new voices to the discussion. It still might end up being the same RfC as before but it'll have been "stress tested". I also appreciate that we have at least one closer for the RfC lined up. The lack of other sysops involving, well we're all volunteers and I understand why no one else has raised their hand if still being a bit disappointed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You have far more patience and tolerance than I do :) I think it is quite awful that no admin has surfaced to help you on the behavioral aspects. I spent 10 years polishing and maintaining TS, only to let it fall into complete disrepair over the last five years. If I can get it to an unembarrassing place, my work in the medical realm will be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of strict enforcement of civility, AGF, etc, could we get something done about the number of times we have to read “fighting words” like “bludgeon”, along with charges of COI, POV, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "new voices" plural. I see Isaacl is new which is welcome. Levivich was involved at the start, making their POV clear. AlmostFrancis's contribution hasn't risen above personal attack and smear (e.g. User:Colin/ExistingPrices, which is in fact tens of thousands of words written by Doc James is somehow "Colin's original research" and therefore "not neutral"). I think you need to press for those claiming something isn't "neutral" to explain factually why, with evidence. For example, the WT:MEDMOS sections "Mistakes" and "Out of date" give solid evidence that one in five of the MSH drug prices is incorrect, even if one accepts all the other bad-practice things are correct, and the volatility of prices is clearly shown since 25% of them change by a factor of 2 or more each year, and 50% of them change by a factor of 2 or more after 5 years. We get one side saying "the mistakes are just rounding errors with the number of days in a month" or "the prices aren't out of date" but those claims are unsourced and unfounded and unfair. If those claiming "not neutral" are in fact just complaining about inconvenient facts, then they should be ignored and in fact that should be raising alarm bells about whether they are playing fair. -- Colin°^Talk 10:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

1/15

Barkeep49, AlmostFrancis has three choices I can see. He can comment on the content of those pages and explain why the content is biased. That would be useful and productive, but since the content of one of those pages was written by James, he's not chosen to do that. He can offer his opinion without any explanation, which as you say he is allowed to have but any admin would be quite free to ignore. Or he can base his negative opinion solely on who the creator of that content is and its location in my user space. That's what I count as a personal attack which clearly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In this edit the link & text marked dubious: "You don't get to add Collins OR to the background without hearing the otherside". And "Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral". Let's imagine that someone reverted an article edit I made, using the summary "Remove text because it was added by Colin". I object to the claim that those links to article text and MSH data should be allowed to be disparagingly called "Colin's original research". That is personalising what is really just text on a page. I would appreciate if AF was reminded to discuss the text rather than negatively comment on who wrote it. -- Colin°^Talk 16:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, "but since the content of one of those pages was written by James, he's not chosen to do that." is speculation that I don't think you could back-up with a diff and, even in these confines, should be struck. Still reading the rest but that jumped out at me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok struck. I think you should look at where Contributions/AlmostFrancis and Contributions/73.162.31.92 are heading. This comment about an editor "paid to be on Wikipedia" seems inexcusable, as does this accusation of admin bias, which isn't the first. I accept I've not always managed to remember to post a complaint here rather than on the RFC. It is tricky. -- Colin°^Talk 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Am busy now for a few hours. Will take a look when I have time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis is welcome to find fault with my actions as administrator. It's part of WP:ADMINACCT. I tend to have a pretty thick skin and don't think AF has really crossed too far into "the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith" which one must adhere to even when doing ADMINACCT. The paid editing line is different but I don't think has been repeated. Some of the criticsm seems to make allusions to me being involved but so far I think my actions have stayed in the realm of administrative actions. However, if someone were to make a personal attack against me that would require action from a different sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Would that "action from a different sysop" come about at AN, ANI or AE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if someone were to make a personal attack against me I would weight the best forum to ask for an uninvolved look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you view this in the context of that and that, and the AN statement, I ask if that time has not already come. And while I understand that many people were busy over the holiday, and no one was forced to participate, some of us (perhaps foolishly) gave our holiday to put together an RFC in good faith. I do wish people appearing after the holiday would give some indication of having read the whole thing, to see how we got to where we got, and so that we don't have to keep repeating points already covered, at the risk of then being accused of "bludgeoning". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep can you please show me where I said anything about paid editing. I of course might have but I don't remember and will be happy to strike. The diff you are referencing says "another paid to be on Wikipedia". That WAID works for the WMF is clear on their talk page, and just for clarity I have no reason to believe and seriously doubt the WMF is paying for her work on either of these RFC's, but that doesn't change the fact that being paid to be on Wikipedia is notable when someone is adding the verbiage that WAID is adding.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, no it was indeed [9] comment. Which based on [10] [11] I presume to be you. Let me tell you how I read the comment and I welcome learning what the intent was: the way I read it was that there were only three editors in favor of the RfC and one of them doesn't count because they are paid to edit Wikipedia. The whole idea behind User:WhatamIdoing and User:Whatamidoing (WMF) is to make clear what is being done in an official capacity and what is being done as a volunteer. Especially because no one employed by the WMF is "paid to edit". So this makes your statement incorrect and arguably a personal attack. Of course, I was really suggesting that there should be no sanction for this edit despite some pushback from both Colin and Sandy. But I am glad that you wrote about this so that I had the opportunity in my role of an uninvolved sysop to have discussion and offer an explanation about community norms, and offer suggestions on possible wordings and approaches. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Colin:, yes he should write "You don't get to add OR to the background without hearing the otherside" rather than mentioning you by name. And yes if an editor wrote "Remove text because it was added by Colin" that would be a problem. But he didn't write that. And saying that it's Collins (sic) OR, is roughly the equivalent of "It really doesn't help your case that the content of one of the links is 99% Doc James" which you wrote. Arguably that is also troubling because rather than work to find consensus it basically divides editors into sides. Having distinct sides is not a formula for consensus. But to the point at hand, noting who wrote content and saying the content is flawed is not ideal because it does create ill feelings as you've demonstrated. But it's also easy to slip into when trying to discuss a charged dispute even with good intentions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, my main point is to puzzle how "Colin's original research" which is a page I created but did not actually write any of the content is "Colin's original research". The editorship of those drug prices is not in any doubt. I agree mention of "side" is unhelpful, but framing a "Its biased because Colin created the page" is toxic to consensus. There's no way to fix the content of those links in order to satisfy the complainant. I don't think calling it "OR" is helpful either, because all text we write is original and I don't go about claiming that what X says or what Y says is "original research" in a disparaging way. It is simple content, and needs to be discussed as words on a page rather than with smears. -- Colin°^Talk 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So can I take that to mean that you are not going to strike out your assertion that I accused someone of paid editing in that Diff? Of course people employed by the WMF are paid to edit Wikipedia, which isn't even a problem. WAID is a community liaison and is paid by the WMF to edit Wikipedia, this is beyond dispute and is the only reason User:Whatamidoing (WMF) even exists. They also edit Wikipedia in their personal capacity. None of this changes the fact that you closed an ANI discussion that had multiple conditions that were supposed to be tightly enforced. You then made zero effort to enforce prohibitions on bludgeoning or rehashing of grievances and only had issues with AGF and personalization when it was one side being called on their conduct. Look you are popular and can have me blocked whenever you want. As I have repeatedly said to both you and Colin I am happy to exit these conversation and make my point in the RFC, but please keep mentioning how uninvolved you are. AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I don't know if I'm popular but I have been entrusted to be a sysop. And I take that responsibility seriously. This is why your reply, which you've misplaced, is underneath a discussion where I defend you. You may not like how I have enforced the ANI close but have done so consistantly. I have also sought out other sysops to be involved who perhaps would have been more willing to issue the kinds of sanctions you clearly wish to happen. Even as a sysop we're all volunteers and so I have discrestion over how I use the tools, or in this case don't use them. In this case, I have leaned towards discussion over blocking. Consistently.

You didn't chose to answer my question of what you intended when you wrote that WAID is paid to edit, merely restated why you think what you wrote is correct. That's fine. You have no obligation to respond. But since I do have an obligation, per WP:ADMINACCT I will say that I am not willing to strike a comment where I summarized your comment as paid editing when what you wrote was "paid to edit".

I know that my inactions, which I stand by, have not been to your liking and I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to exit the conversation. Perhaps we will encounter each other again in the future and if we do I hope we will find ways to improve the encylopedia together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The diff that you are referring to is clear that I said "another paid to be on Wikipedia", even Colin acknowledges this. So when you quoted "paid to edit" this is nothing but a smear as it certainly not a quote from that diff. The only time I mentioned paid to edit was in reference to you saying no one is payed to edit Wikipedia which is obviously wrong because WMF accounts exist. Of course you can smear anyone you want as you are utterly in charge of this situation but please stop lying about me.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

More accurately, I am paid to be off Wikipedia. The WMF does not write content or content-related policies, and it does not pay me to do so. Neither I nor User:Doc James, who is on the WMF's Board of Trustees, work on any health-related content for the WMF. The WMF pays me to sit through meetings and to answer their questions. They do not pay me to create content or to write policies for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify my financial engagement with the WMF, I pay my own travel and accommodations for meetings including board meetings. And receive no money from the WMF. I have donated more money to the WMF than I have ever received. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@DJ: I have donated more money to the WMF ... Ah ha! So you admit it: you paid to edit! – Levivich 03:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I think this is the point where you strike "WAID is a community liaison and is paid by the WMF to edit Wikipedia, this is beyond dispute". While your original wording was "paid to be on Wikipedia" rather than "paid to edit", arguing over the difference becomes futile once you have now repeatedly claimed WAID is paid to edit, which isn't true. And this doesn't change Barkeep49 (and my) impression that the original intent of your words were to dismiss WAID's opinions because of who they are, rather than what they said, which is a personal attack. -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin please do not ping me anymore. I am not overly interested in your input on Barkeeps actions. The long and the short of it is that they misquoted a diff in such a way to put words in my mouth. WAID has a job for the WMF for which they have made many edits. The disclaimer on their page contains the following "I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I try to use for edits or statements I make in that role." If they are now claiming that actually that account is not used for paid work then I don't know what to tell you. Seems weird to have two accounts if you use both for volunteer work. I have already made clear I was not accusing them of editing for pay on the RFC "and just for clarity I have no reason to believe and seriously doubt the WMF is paying for her work on either of these RFC's".AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several options for people who don't want to be pinged. They can mute a specific user here, or they can post to Barkeep in their own section of this page to avoid interaction with other editors. Considering the extent to which the pingie-thingie is used these days on Wikipedia, it is not useful to expect a given individual to remember who they can ping and who they cannot. (I disagree that Barkeep49 did anything other than correctly paraphrase what was stated at AN.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 17 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.

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)

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)

Kudpung, that's probably the best reason not to try this -- lack of skill. I do actually see harm in paid editing, even when disclosed. Paid editors earn for creating long walls of text; volunteers get fed up with it and stop arguing. I've worked with several paid editors, and they just keep coming, asking for minor tweaks, wanting to insert every minor mention, it's more than just a little annoying when they treat me like it's my job to help them. I do it because I think it's better to have these paid editors disclosing. If S7788 had disclosed, he'd still be doing the other kinds of stuff for us that made him a useful editor; we'd just be watching him more closely. Actually he probably wouldn't have been able to get away with doing NPP, maybe that's the highest-paying job? Maybe you make more if you don't disclose because you're more likely to be able to slip stuff through? --valereee (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I discovered one two years ago who had a whole raft of user rights and abusing them to make a lot of monney - including OTRS. About the only right he didn't have was Admin. He was a very hard nut to crack because once exposed it meant he was going to have to refund his 'customers'. The pages and drafts we know about were deleted and salted, but all these people do is go and create another account. There are even admins and WMF employees who have been blatantly editing for pay. It's unscrupulous, unethical, and like being caught with their hands in the till, it is theft of the work the rest of us do by building and policing this encyclopedia for free. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 8 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)

A cup of coffee for you!

You are a saint in your patience in mediating discussions at WikiProject Medicine. Everything I have seen you do seems correct and nothing that I have seen you do seems incorrect. Your skill in mediating, the initiative you take to intervene, and the tone you use in conversation are all satisfactory and beyond my ability to advise for any improvement. Thank you for stepping into this in the way that you have. I appreciate the support. I do wonder a bit if your presence as a mediator has itself heightened tension, and if conflict would be so frequent if you as an authority were no observing. Wikipedia needs a design intervention for many aspects of mediation to recommend best practices, when to engage and disengage, and what parts of the process to divest to specialized support groups. Thanks for all this - Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words and I certainly share your questions about what effects my mediating had and whether those were net positive or net negative of the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Different strengths of tea for Barkeep (L to R): green, yellow, oolong, and black SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, re, "what effects my mediating had and whether those were net positive or net negative", remember my response to your concern about my possible need for travel in upcoming days? We are only responsible for our own conduct; we cannot hold ourselves responsible for that which we cannot control in others. You should not have been handling this alone, with no other admin assistance, and you have done your very ... very ... very best. For my part, I am sorry for anything/everything that came from me (verbosity :) that made your task even harder. As a daughter whose father is failing, all I can do is my best to be a good daughter; I have no say in what kind of father I had. The events are not always within our control, we do our best anyway, and you have. Have some tea :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 & NPP

I note the editor's interest in NPP rights; you should review their talk page history. I and others have upbraided them over called their attention to clearly incorrect taggings, warnings which are swiftly removed from the talk page. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, thanks for the feedback, it's useful as a starting place. I do always take a look at both the user talk page and the recent history, though I am not the only one granting NPP these days. I'll just note (not having looked at what you or others wrote) that upbraid is probably not the word you were looking for in this situation. I would surely hope that in a collaborative encyclopedia problems we notice are not passed along in a way, to use Meriam Webster's words "to criticize severely : find fault with" (or) "to reproach severely : scold vehemently". I'm sure it was just the first word that came to mind and not actually a reflection on how you approached Celestina :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I decline a lot of A7s, but few are as obviously in error as some of the recent ones from Celestina (eg Sefaattin Tongay, H. Keith Moo-Young). I don't deal in conduct issues but I do start to wonder at good faith when an editor selectively removes negative messages from an admin. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, having now looked at their talk page and the tags you've declined I completely agree with the messages you left expressing concern over their A7 tags. Thanks again for the feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict you are correct I’ve made errors in judgements no doubt, the Sefaattin Tongay appeared to be an autobiography article hence I’m sure there’s a policy that states autobiographical articles are to be tagged immediately. I’ve made some errors yes, but if you could go through the entirety of my works so far I’d say I have been a net positive. Barkeep49 if you also go through my talk page you’d see several individuals who have acknowledged & commended me for my good works so far and even users with the NPP rights have asked me to apply for this right. Have I made mistakes in the past? Of course we all have but in your honest opinion do you think my effort so far in the NPP has being satisfactory? i leave that to the community to decide. It’s a shame my shortcomings are being spoken about but my other good efforts are being ignored. And what policy mandates me not to remove already read messages from my takpage??? That’s a prerogative of mine now isn’t it? I have deleted several messages from my talk page & not only those who leave negative comments & queries in fact I recently removed a message from my talk page with a subject which read “Kudos to a work Welldone” that was a very positive flattering message which many other editors would have left on their talk page as it is ego boosting but that’s not my kind of person. Furthermore Espresso Addict we have had many interactions in the past & if me removing your entry from my TP upset you for that I’m sorry & would keep of using the CSD tags for now although I should note that you are probably the only admin who keeps declining my CSD tags & I should note that i have also created good AFD’s which can be observed.Celestina007 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, you definitely have the right to remove messages from your talk page "although archiving is preferred" according to our guidelines. Our policy on autobiographies is a bit more nuanced and does not require immediate (or ever) deletion. I don't have time to do a complete evaluation right now of your NPP efforts, but it feels like you might have some gaps especially around A7. This would indeed suggest that NPP School might be a good option for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My appoligies

Hello, I am regretful for my earlier comment. I looked at the article that Colin complained about and found an earlier diff that was reverted for citing a Walmart receipt and though that was what was being complained about. I did not consider that Colin was interested in a later revert. While I may have issue with your encouragement of bludgeoning I was wrong to accuse you of furthering harassment. I apologize for any pain I might have caused you and with you well. I also believe asking for more comments on the noticeboard. I would ask you thought to consider what happened to Blue Rasberry. They made a single comment which was answered not only on the noticeboard but also their talk page. Do you think this encourages participation? You also approved of the person that shut them down. Does this really help increase participation. You might ask yourself while such a supposedly important discussion has become a one way conversation.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, thanks for clarifying your earlier comments and know I always welcome feedback. However, and I could be wrong here but think I'm on good footing, but I think you're misreading the tone between WAID and Blue. At least if you're referring to this thread. Blue is an academic and WAID is comenting on an area of their academic interest and research in what I am pretty sure is a friendly and collaborative manner. I would certainly not want to shut down useful conversation (as you've noted I'll err on the side of allowing too much) and have generally found WAID to be respected by all participants in the dispute. The silence at AN could mean any number of things and I too have been thinking about what it says and appreciate hearing your perspective on the matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lane and I have been editing together for over a decade. As is typical for any old friendship, our conversations will not always make sense to others.

I do not expect to be losing any of my old friends over this RFC. We all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and we all know that building Wikipedia is each other's most important goal, even when we have different ideas of how to get there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi! I wish you a great and happy new year! First of all I'd like to say I'm thoroughly enjoying my recent tasks! I've learned so much, and I like how every day presents different challenges, which I think is NPP's greatest attraction. Secondly, I wanted your opinion on the following matter: I was subject to IP range blocks twice through no fault of my own over the past month. I wonder if this will be a continuous occurrence, and if so, if an IP block exemption might be in order? These blocks are quite disruptive while in the middle of an editing session, and I'm after a more permanent solution, rather than a mere "oopsie" and swift unblock. I tried to request this on my talk page was was told to submit a ticket. Thing is I'm not longer blocked, so the ticket submission system won't allow it. Could you help me or at least point me in the right direction? Thank you very much, PK650 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh and also if you don't mind, could you help me with talk page archiving? I would like an index, but find the instructions at User:ClueBot_III#Index_generation somewhat unclear. I'm not used to Wikipedia templates yet! Best, PK650 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

PK650, So sorry for ignoring your earlier message. I feel terrible. Did you get an answer? As for arching I would be happy to help. You have a few big decisions:

• How long do you want a message to stay on your talk page?
• How do you want to organize your archives? By date or by size?
  • If by size how big do you want each archive to be?

But good news awaits. If you find this all complicated you can just put {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}} at the top of your talk page and ClueBot's default setup will go in motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's alright, buddy! I know we're all busy and a message can often be overlooked. I did not, unfortunately. What do you recommend I do? Of course I could do nothing, but on the other hand it's happened twice already...

As for archiving, I set it up last week, but it dawned on me earlier today that I didn't set up an index so now everything's archived but seemingly hidden. Can I now make an index (as I've seen in other people's pages) with the directory that's already there? I might do what you suggested if that sets an index up too, without all the fuss. Thank you again, PK650 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail 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) 23:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Application For NPP Tutorship

Hey, I was wondering if you could be my mentor/guardian at the NPP school. I’m not sure how it works but I stumbled upon five names or thereabout who are experienced seasoned editors who guide & teach aspiring new page patrollers & for obvious reasons as I have always considered you a mentor, I was wondering if you could accept me as a student? Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I am happy to take you on as a student. My first piece of advice in this role: add a bit more "chill" on Wikipedia. 2 emails (both of which I've read) and 7 talk page messages in about a 90 minute period is a lot. High activity with high quality work is fantastic but can be less great when communicating with others. And as you've seen by reading the syllabus communication is an element of NPP. Head on over to User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Celestina where we will do our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Source guide discussions

Given that the last discussion on this subject got derailed rather inconclusively, I'm tempted to go ahead and draft an RfC discussion for Ghana as I had earlier suggested. What do you think? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've started work here. I was somewhat dismayed to find out this morning that the Reuters report that I heavily leaned on to write the Turkey draft does not publish information about Ghana, and our own articles on the subject are threadbare. I'm going to reach out to professors of journalism that specialize in Ghana to see if they'd be interested in advising us on these matters, in addition to doing what I can with available resources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, it looks like Reuters doesn't cover Africa at all and is limited in Asia? That's really too bad. I'll do a little digging too and see if I can find something that could serve as a basis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reuters did have a listing for South Africa, so I don't know about "at all"...but yeah it's disappointing. I've surprisingly been making quite a bit of headway with a German-language print source cited at Media in Ghana, which is available in full on Google books [12]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, excellent. I didn't spend too much time looking once I saw you had that but the best I found was this very minimal listing from the BBC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope its OK to just call you Barkeep

I probably should have asked before shortening your name to Barkeep and dropping the 49. If it important I promise I will start adding it back right away.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, it doesn't bother me in the least though there is a User:Barkeep so just make sure you ping the right person :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A couple question while I have you. What do you think it says about WAID's RFC that you can not find one uninvolved administrator to certify it as neutral? After all your involvement with the RFC during its creation do you honestly think you should be the one to certify it as neutral? You already pushed the decision to the community when Trypto got bludgeoned out of the discussion, I can't help but feel like you are rewarding that by certifying a RFC with one sides research in the lead.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, well as I wrote above to Sandy what I take the lack of a volunteer is that this is quite something to volunteer for and no sysop relishes this particular challenge. I read your latest note at WT:MOSMED about the lack of neutrality in the RfC but have not done another read with your criticism in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A GA request

You had previously reviewed my Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck article, but I got stuck when I couldn't find material for a theme section. I have now wrote Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Wrecking Ball and I feel that it is good enough for GA-class. Could you please review it? Scrooge200 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge200, give me a few days to really look at it. I would like to make sure it would go well before agreeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Hi Barkeep49,

Regarding your comment here, I wanted to express my appreciation for your note and extend my belated congratulations on your successful RfA. I'm sorry for not responding to you sooner; my activity over the last several months has been inconsistent and I missed your note until just now when I was adjusting my talk page's archive logic.

All the best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Falcon, no response was necesary but I appreciate you taking the time and effort to leave one regardless. I hope 2020 is a good year on wiki for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For a minute there, I forgot we are in a new year and decade. :) Thanks, and wishing the same to you. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but we haven't actually started a new decade yet! I couldn't help myself :) PK650 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh gosh. I hadnt realized I had #decadetruthers watching this page. :) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)