User talk:Bfpage/guidelines

Guidelines for Bfpage

This is a set of guidelines that I (Kevin Gorman) and BfPage worked out after I blocked her for a variety of behavior. I believe BFP is acting in good faith and will not intentionally violate these. They will expire on December 1st, 2015 unless someone seeks and reaches community consensus that they are still needed. Violations - if there are any - will be handled depending on how severe they are, how many there have been in the past, and whether or not they were clearly intentional. Unfortunately, during the initial intended alteration period of this document, I lost control of my account, so some changes may reasonably be needed. If situations necessitate adding new guidelines in the future, I will do so with 24 hours of notice of Bfpage. I think this is a good new start

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

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

About the barnstars and awards

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

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

Adding categories to articles

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

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

Editor interaction analyzing tool and Flyer22

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

More comments

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

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

Unintended edit to Sexual intercourse

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

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

Guidelines re-done

As the guidelines listed above expire in a few weeks, I would like to review and update how I intend to act in good faith to improve the encyclopedia and do my best to refrain from causing stress or create the appearance of contentiousness related to the above two editors. I am open to any comments regarding the revision of guidelines that are acceptable to all involved. Please feel free to comment on the talk page of these guidelines.

I am also asking for the cooperation of the other two editors to refrain from causing a disruption to my own enjoyment of editing. Understand that I have emotions and that I was seriously shocked and affected by some of the false accusations that came about by other editors related to my block. The comments left for me were hurtful and unnecessary. If following my activity is accompanied by language that is disruptive behavior, tendentiousness, accusations of being another gender, accusations that personal information that I share about myself is false, or personal attacks, I will ask for intervention by another uninvolved editor, and then if that doesn't resolve the issue of my being harassed, I will ask for the intervention of an administrator.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 1:

BFPage will not monitor the contribution history (past, ongoing or present) of Flyer22 or Jytdog unless it's strictly necessary (i.e., to fulfill CC-by-SA,) or BFPage is preparing to make a report that that evidence is important in within 72 hours

I will monitor the editing history of articles that I intend to improve with editing, copyediting, replacing older references with newer references adding content and references. I will continue to monitor the pages on my watchlist. I will not monitor the following pages: editors Flyer22 or editor Jytdog.

I am requesting here that I be afforded the same courtesy, and that Flyer22 and Jytog refrain from monitoring my contribution history. Knowing that my contributions are being watched intently causes me distress and seriously reduces the enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia. I am very uncomfortable knowing that I am scrutinized by editors who were involved in my past block. If this is not agreeable to Kevin Gorman, Flyer22 or Jytdog I ask that any objections be discussed here so that there is constructive dialogue that takes place here. Otherwise there is no way for me to know if Flyer22 or Jytdog have read and agreed to these revised guidelines.

No issues on my part with this one. I'm not sure Flyer wants to directly engage with you here at all, but I think it can be safely assumed she has no issues with it either. I can't speak for @Jytdog:. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, admittedly can not speak for the other two editors but there is no way for me to know that they have seen the updated version of this page. They should be pinged by you because if there is a future problem, I assume that you will be contacted asap if either editor feels that I have somehow done something blockworthy. I am not asking for interaction with Flyer 22 (reborn?). I am asking you to let her know of this page and its updates. If she has a problem with what is written here, it should be addressed now, not after you get another request to have me blocked. In addition, you need to explicitly state what you feel is block-worthy. Don't make me guess or speculate. You blocked me after I had stopped doing the things that got me blocked weeks before being blocked. You were contacted that I had somehow continued to do those things that got me blocked. None of this is true. I cause distress to these two editors-I am sorry, THAT is what I did wrong. I had stopped my behavior, and then I was blocked. Who do I contact do get the 6 month block removed from my editing history if you can't do it?

Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure Flyer is okay with the eventual comments I leave here. Jytdog is banned, which means he has less of a say currently (Flyer was aware of the page already, btw.) As a general rule, blocks aren't removed from editing histories - ever. I mean, I have one in my editing history from a time my account got hacked. IF you want, I can block you for literally 1 second with the note "previous block was only four days; behavior afterwards exemplary" (although anyone who looks at it will realize you were only blocked for four days.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note but I originally misspoke - Jyt wasn't banned, just blocked by a functionary for functionary type stuff (I don't follow him very much or have his talkpage watchlisted, so I honestly have no clue for what,) but once everything on this page is more or less finalized lets condense it down to a list of pretty much bullet points, and I'll make sure Flyer and Jytdog are okay with the guidelines (either through them publicly commenting here, or through private correspondence if they don't want to interact here.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 2:

Except as required by policy (i.e., arbcom, ani notices,) BfPage will not post on the talk pages of either Flyer22 or Jytdog. Bfpage will avoid even looking at Flyer's talkpage in all practicable circumstances. If BF becomes aware of an interaction that she believes action should be taken on, she will bring it up with me, at ANI or at arbcom.

I will leave no message on Flyer22's or Jytdog's talk page, unless I believe that NOT leaving them a message would cause them more distress. I ask for the same courtesy. If I am discussed on any other talk pages or administrator pages, I would like to be pinged.

I think for Flyer at least, the original version is probably still preferable. If you're discussed on administrative pages, policy normally requires you to be pinged anyway (with a few weird exceptions.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this. But do you really want to be the unofficial arbiter and listen to me whine? What will get these two editors blocked? Their mischaracterizations of me personally were quite destructive and had a negative impact on me creating content. That did not seem to be blockworthy. I still want to be pinged when my behavior is being discussed, probably just like anyone else.

There is something you need to know about at this point. Before my block, Flyer22 (reborn?) and me were editing the article Child grooming, we are at a standoff over some unsourced content that if I revert it will be my third. The content is in the Overview section of the article in the third paragraph. The content remains unsourced. It also reads like a 'how-to' manual. Providing information on how to seduce a child, if it can't be sourced, should be removed. I don't know how to solve this issue with Flyer22 (reborn?) if there can be no interaction, I have to ask you or another editor to become involved. What say ye?

Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 18:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have a plenty of contact with people I less like than the two of you. If you don't have an issue with it and Flyer doesn't (I'll ask her later,) than I don't have a problem working as a go between or mediating discussions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 3:

If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil refrain from editing that article for at least a week.

I think this is a good idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know "first mover advantages" are generally bad ideas, but maybe modify this so that if you've recently been actively editing the article, you can continue to do so? Including talk page discussions about content disputes etc... just being very careful to focus on the content and not the editor (unless there's a bigger conduct issue in which case I would suggest either flagging me to it, or bringing it up at a noticeboard.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 4:

:BF will only award barnstars, teahouse badges, and things of a comparable nature to editors who have made good edits, have made significant contributions to medical articles, or who has significantly improved articles in general. If an editor as had significant conflict with Flyer22 or Jytdog within two months, she will refrain from awarding such things.

Honestly, as long as you exercise a modicum of common sense, I think you can scrap this guideline entirely. It's obviously a bad idea to award a barnstar to someone who just got Flyer or Jytdog 3rr blocked or something, but that would be the case regardless of who it was. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! One less thing to think about.

Bfpage |leave a message 18:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 5:

If Flyer22 begins a comment thread on a project talk page or an article talk page article, BF will avoid participating in it barring exigient circumstances. If Flyer is involved in a discussion, BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc. If BF is participating in a discussion with Flyer and fears it's going to down hill, bF will withdraw as feasible.

Looks good to me, and after the last six months, I think you have a pretty solid grasp on what 'exigent circumstances' or 'necessary for the flow of the discussion will reasonably mean. You really have impressed me over the last six months given the stuff involved in the original thread, and although I can't make you recommit for a longer period of time to any of these really, if you think it makes following them more likely to make your editing productive and not conflict-y, I think it's both admirable and worthwhile on your part to continue to follow them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this concept seems agreeable to you, I would like to ask for the same courtesy. If Flyer22 (reborn?) or Jytdog are involved in a discussion, they should not respond to comments made by me unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article. In addition I would like you to get them to agree to this and they should also agree with you that any instance of personal attacks will get them a warning from you. Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 18:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to worry about Jytdog at the very-present-moment (he's indeffed by functionaries - which doesn't mean permanent,) but I'll talk to Flyer later and make sure she's agreeable to it. I suspect she won't have a problem with it (and suspect she already tries to do it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, any instance of a personal attack on an editor that I'm made aware of (with the exception of a few people who I couldn't block if I wanted to, anyway, and aren't worth mentioning here,) will draw a warning or block from me depending on the severity of the offense. I'll ask both of them to try to more or less minimize interaction with you unless it's necessary for article improvements, etc. Certainly comments coming from all sides should focus on the content and not the editor, unless it's in the context of a discussion about an editor's conduct which generally shouldn't happen on article talk pages. By the way, if it wasn't obvious to you: you don't have to accept these guidelines in general if you don't want to, and you don't have to accept me acting as a de facto mediator over this set of disputes - you can always scrap them and have any future issues either dealt with whatever admin notices them or taking to ANI, etc. I think it's probably a good idea to have guidelines and to avoid ANI where possible (there's a reason why WP:CESSPIT literally directs to ANI,) but when it comes down to it it is up to you. I think it will result in better results with less drama for everyone, but I just wanted to reinforce the point that I can't make you handle this situation in this way or anything like that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 6:

BFP will not ping Flyer22 or Jytdog unless required to by policy.

This is still quite agreeable to me. I don't mind being pinged so I won't ask for a similiar courtesy from Flyer22 (reborn?) or jytdog.Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 18:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 7:

BFP will not refer to comments Flyer22 has made on the site unless directly questioned about them by an administrator, or they are absolutely relevant to a content matter under discussion (and will then do so sparing.) BFP will not refer to sanctions of any sort against Flyer if they ever happen.

This guideline was never clear to me since I don't know what 'site' we are referring to. Also, I have run into situations where an administrator does not identify themselves as an administrator so unless I look up the information on the userpage of anyone questioning me, I won't know they are an administrator.

Bfpage |leave a message 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I never quite got it either, iirc it wasn't one of the ones I wrote. I assume it basically meant you won't talk about Flyer unless an admin (who would identify themselves as an admin in this situation) asked you about it, or there was no way around it in dealing with content. Not positive what was meant; it seems to mostly be covered by other guidelines. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 8:

BFP will not refer to Flyer on BFP's talkpage.

Sounds good. I hope this will lessen the distress caused by unnecessary interactions.

Bfpage |leave a message 18:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good thing and will ask Flyer if she minds making it reciprocal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 9:

BFP will only place medical reference templates on the talk pages of aricles that mention clinical content, and that already have a project med template placed. BFP will only place reliable med ref talk page templates on anatomy articles that contain clinical content.

This guideline needs to be dropped. Here is why: Many articles are not comprehensive, complete or sourced correctly. To make the encyclopedia free from POV editing, I will insert relevant medical content as needed. For example, Sex toys contains a 'health' section but does not contain information from the CDC on how sex toys can cause the spread of sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis or vaginitis. Leaving out the information about the health risks, when I have the references and content, would be irresponsible. After inserting medical content, the article will then have to be tagged and identified to Project Medicine. As an editor I maintain that it is my responsibility to add medical content to articles that currently don't contain medical content. Since I never add content without referencing, citing reliable MEDRS sources won't be a problem. I can't be bound from editing articles that need medical content. There is nothing wrong with tagging articles and adding categories that are appropriate.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with dropping it and revisiting it if it somehow comes up as an issue later. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 10:

BFP will only place medical reference templates on the talk pages of aricles that mention clinical content, and that already have a project med template placed. BFP will only place reliable med ref talk page templates on anatomy articles that contain clinical content.

This guideline is totally unworkable and frankly as User:Barbara (WVS) I am required to improve articles which requires editing talk pages by placing templates on such pages. There should be no limitations on my editing to apply templates to talk pages or article pages. My supervisor at the University of Pittsburgh uses those templates to monitor my editing activity and are a very valuable tool for him. WikEd also has no problems with my templates. I even create templates as needed and want to continue to do so.

Having said that, I would like Flyer22 and Jytdog to refrain from removing categories that I have placed on article pages. Those edits were not scrutinized closely during the discussions related to my block but that activity has happened more than once before my block and afterwards (if I remember correctly). I prefer to assume good faith on the part of those removing categories, but I am not too sure that Flyer22 or Jytdog review categories on a regular basis; it seemed like it was only my categories that were deleted. I could be wrong, and I've been wrong before. I would like Flyer22 and Jytdog to refrain from removing categories from articles that I edit and would like them to agree to do so.

Well the funny thing about this guideline to begin with is it never specified that you couldn't yourself place a wikiproject med template, and then later on add medical reference templates :p for now I'd suggest scrapping the whole guideline, and if you have problems with them removing your categories (FWIW, they both do regularly play with categories,) maybe approach me and have me mediate as a third party to eliminate the likelihood of stuff going downhill? Congrats on the visiting scholarship by the way. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing deleting categories with no explanation by these two editors. I would imagine, and based on my memory, there was a 'thing' going for a while where I felt as I were being followed around and having my adding of categories removed by these two but didn't think it was worth mentioning during my block or afterwards. Yes, please let them know that kind of editing smacks of harassment, especially if no explanation is given in the editing history or is lame.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to delve very much in to content issues (because that has the risk of someone accusing me of being on the wrong side of WP:INVOLVED, when my goal here really is just to try to mediate the dispute and ensure no one ends up unnecessarily blocked,) but from what I've seen, I don't think categories were really being capriciously removed, generally speaking. I'd also note that a number of your categories were removed by people other than Jyt or Flyer, and that when discussion did occur, a number of other editors tended to agree with Jyt or Flyer's removal. I'm confident that they aren't intentionally trying to hound your categories. If a removal occurs where you don't agree with it, I would suggest taking it to the talk page and pinging me so that I'm aware of the discussion and following the normal WP:BRD cycle. It might be a good idea to also notify other groups of editors likely to be interested in or have comments on the cat removals, such as Wikiproject Med, just to draw more outside opinions in. It's a bit awkward since your editing interests tend to overlap, but there's currently not enough evidence of real cathounding (that shorthand reminds me of the use of Rhodesian Ridgebacks - a type of pretty awesome hound - to hunt lions heh) to try to prohibit Jyt or Flyer from editing categories in areas they normally edit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about: you approach me if you feel like you're being, for lack of a better word, category-hounded, and I take a look at it, see what's up, and take appropriate action? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 11:

Chance interactions caused by STIki don't violate any of this, although if they were found to not be stiki edits, the would.

Unfortunately, the editor interaction tool does not differentiate between stiki edits and regular edits. If anyone had carefully gone over the edits to the articles that both Flyer22 and I edit, they would have seen that edits within minutes, hours or days have been edits by her to revert mine. Those short periods of time between edits made me look bad during the block discussion when in fact it has always been Flyer22 who reverts my edits-not the other way around (with one very significant exception which does not need to be brought up here...) Unfortunately, an administrator will use the editor interaction tool, and has, to question my good faith editing. This should not be done. Since I am not the one reverting the edits of Flyer22, If a problem arises that my edits continually get reverted by Flyer22, I would like to bring it to the attention of an administrator. Jytdog doesn't seem to have this problem.

I'll figure this out on Monday. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed a lot of the historical posts about this fairly extensively and having talked to several of the people involved, I don't think that Stiki played a significant role in past incidents. Stiki also uses an editsum by default identifying its use, and almost everyone who uses Stiki, even if they modify the default editsum, leave intact the fact that Stiki-use was involved. Not all administrators use the editor interaction tool you're talking about, either - I use it myself fairly sparingly, and mostly for sock investigations. If an incident comes up where you think the problem is Stiki, I would encourage you to to raise the point, in whatever discussion is occurring about it, and with me as well. I'll be able to untangle Stiki edits, and both wouldn't block you myself for Stiki edits, and would vocally argue the point in any AN/ANI discussion if the problem really is Stiki edits (as well as likely accept a block appeal if another admin made a block that didn't go to ANI etc after discussing it with them if the issue really is Stiki.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guideline 12:

BFP will not have the User pages or the Talk pages of Flyer22 or Jytdog on her watchlist.

This not a real problem since I have never had the talk pages of Flyer22 or Jytdog on my watchlist (that I can remember)and do not intend to change now or in the future. Even if I did or do have their talk pages on my watchlist, this should not be a reason for a block.

I generally agree with you here, particularly since users can't tell what pages other users have watchlisted. I can't remember which one of us wrote it, but the general theme was trying to ensure that situations that could go bad would be avoided or de-escalated so that nothing bad happened. I couldn't have blocked you for it because I couldn't have actually been able to tell. I'd still suggest just leaving their talk pages off your watchlist, but you are right that this is more of a good faith provision than an enforceable one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due process

There is no possible way to change the way blocks are handled by all administrators. I understand that. I would like all involved to encourage the use of warnings before blocks and to allow those who are blocked to participate publicly on the Adminstrator's page where comments are solicited. I would like the exact, quantifiable reason for a block to be crystal clear. I would like the reason for the block to be spelled out and referenced with policies and guidelines. In my perfect world, those who participate in block discussions would be gently reminded that personal attacks against the person being blocked is not really necessary. In my perfect world, confession and repentance should not be part of a block discussion. No such 'confession' requirement to be unblocked exists. In a congenial mode, the action(s) that precipitated the block should be crystal clear, the documentation supporting the action that precipitated the block should also be a clear as possible. If the editor who has been blocked states that they will no longer 'do' whatever it is that got them blocked, then that agreement by the editor should be a good enough reason to be unblocked (repeated behavior that was previously clearly described, does constitute another block). I would also like the record of the block edited to accurately describe the duration of the block put on me. The first thing visitors will notice on my editing history page is that I had a six month block. Since this is not true, I would like my history to reflect the fact and the true block time (4-5 days?) The Very Best of Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 21:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you here, and admit I may have made an error by initially placing the length block I did (although I will say you definitely would've been blocked longer if you hadn't agreed to avoid certain behaviors.) For a variety of reasons (namely that your block log entry reflects on you as much as it reflects on me,) I can't redact it entirely. I can place a literally one second block on your account if you'd like that comments that the six month block original duration doesn't reflect what happened and that your behavior in the interim was commendable. I also try to avoid repentance/confession requirements although I'm sure I've included some in the past incidentally. The main thing I'm usually looking for is "I will not do X," unless it's someone with a block history a mile long Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

@Jytdog: was just unblocked, which means he's relevant to this discussion. Jyt, if you'd like to designate me to act on your behalf rather than worrying about this directly right now, drop me an email and I'll confirm anything with you before committing to it if it requires your affirmative consent. I'll try to be active on this over the weekend as well as I can. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]