Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

November music

story · music · places

greetings from a trip -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

back home: what do you think about Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone who knows little about music and especially classical music, I can appreciate how difficult some of his pieces are to play. Yourself? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

(I didn't mean the music - sadly: of course not - but how a user new to a certain topic that I'm not supposed to mention is treated. I was new to it in 2012.) - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Hello talk page watchers. Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback.I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1.5 stars, spammed my watchlist with feedback requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought about doing it via MMS rather than manually but my guess is that would have also spammed it. Sorry for the flood on your watchlist but knowing how big your watchlist is it'll be knocked off the visible top in like the next hour. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's already halfway down, so it shouldn't be much longer. Busy day, can tell everyone is back at work after the long holiday weekend. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a positive opinion of you. I'm not sure why. It's just a general feeling of satisfaction when I see your username cross my watchlist. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Jehochman, it's because it feels like your drink is about to arrive ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Good admin; would support again. Communication makes thought processes transparent, and is thorough without being exhaustive or tedious. Reasonable person, strong work ethic. Downsides: despite promising "Bark" substring, dog puns difficult and largely unsuccessful. Folly Mox (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Folly. I appreciate the kind words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Buidhe

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing — although I don't really follow admin stuff too much, I do believe that you are a net positive as admin and therefore hope you do not resign
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently — although I am skeptical of the firewall that arbcom tries to place between conduct and content issues, if you are going to wade into content issues (such as whether some country has a "right to exist" or not) it's important to be informed about the content in question—see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive344#Nableezy where I hope you took into consideration the criticism of the assumption you made going in
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know

   Thanks Buidhe for the feedback. To your second point I do take it seriously and it's why I started by asking questions while also being transparent about my thinking behind it and then listening seriously to the answers. So I agree with your point and will endeavor to do it even better in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from RoySmith

My apologies for blowing off the 4 question format, but I just want to say that when you were on arbcom, you always struck me as one of the few adults in the room. I get why you left, but I hope you'll go back once you've got the U4C thing out of your system. RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Roy. got the U4C thing out of your system is an amusing way to hear that work of mine described, though I do appreciate what I perceive as the background thought: the U4C is a distraction from the core work we do on enwiki. Making that statement true is a major reason I've done this work for closing in on 4 years now. So I'm not sure I'm going to ever get it out of my system but I hope to reach a point where I feel like I will have done what I set out to do. I am also really enjoying not having the constraints of being an Arb - for instance I've once again had headspace to do content work when I've had the time and I love doing content work. Producing high quality content is why we're all here and so returning to those roots is really important to me. However, I did take satisfaction in the work I did as an arb and there are things about that work I miss, so I could see myself standing for election again someday. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Clovermoss

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know

• I think barkeep should do whatever they feel like doing and I trust them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks CleverClover. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Floq

• Pros
  • I think we tend to generally agree on the important things, and when we do disagree, you're wrong in reasonable, thoughtful ways. :)
  • Protecting enwiki from U4C or C4C or U4U or whatever the hell it is.
• Cons
  • I'm not on your list of people who could recall you?? That hurts.
  • Your automatic feedback form autofills the section as "Feedback from Barkeep49" unless you remember to change it.
• Overall score
  • 95% (98% if you add me to the recall list)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Floq for the feedback. I have no idea why I didn't include you on this list. I am pleased to have this be an exception to me being wrong in a thoughtful way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Risker

I think Clovermoss has it right: keep doing what you're doing, as long as you're getting a level of satisfaction from doing it. I'm happy to see you taking your extensive experience from English Wikipedia to a global level, and I hope that you bring back what you learn from working with global teams to share here on Enwiki. I think our project benefits greatly from this kind of diverse perspective and, as you are a good communicator, there's a reasonable hope that such messages will sink in to a few more people. We do tend to be quite insular on this project, although we'll make exceptions for Commons and Wikidata. I like seeing that you're puttering in the broad range of admin/functionary tasks, including SPI and XfD.

I'm really happy to see you returning into the content sphere, and am inspired to work much harder at doing that, too.

The one thing I would suggest is pacing yourself. It's hard to do when you're working on things that you feel are important/time-sensitive/valuable, but burnout is a real thing. Personally, I'm in favour of reading cheap trashy novels and long drives to see people I like or go places that are interesting, but I'm sure you have your own ways of bleeding off frustration. Risker (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I too am hopeful of bringing back things from other projects. For instance, I have found value in the way dewiki ArbCom does its case requests and I am considering bringing back an element from another project's blocking policy which I like. And yes continuing to find joy in our volunteer work is important. It is why, as you note, I'm happy to have headspace for content again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from PMC

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Being a voice of reason and gentle good humor
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Write more content so I can do GA/FA review for you, because I feel like that would be fun

That's it, man. Keep being you :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. As for me writing GA/FA I will definitely take you up on it. I am determined to get YouTube up to GA so be careful what you wish for (though I would bet I get something else up to GA/FL before that - no immediate plans for any FAs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Heya

Hey Barkeep, I got your note asking for feedback and per the others here I'll skip the questions you asked and just say the things I wanted to say.

My thoughts are almost universally positive. As you know, I've known you for a long time in wikiyears, and there possibly is nobody I'd trust more. The thoughtfulness, good faith, and sheer volume of work you bring to this community is very near unparalleled, and I'm beyond grateful for your presence here, both personally and when thinking about the future of this project.

In struggling to offer some actionable feedback, here's what I do want to mention: We really don't have a lot of barkeeps in this project. By that, I mean that we don't have many folks at all (right now, maybe just you) with the combination of availability, dedication, energy, gregariousness, precision of analytical thought, and ability and willingness to do the work that you bring to the table. I know that all sounds like a compliment, and it is that too, but my point is this: you're in a position to build new structures, institutions, and processes that will hopefully stand the test of time, both at enwiki and globally. To do that, you can't assume there will always be a barkeep49 ready to save the day. By that, I mean that there will be times – years at a time, even – when ArbCom, or the U4C, or whichever other body that comes along has nobody with that combination of qualities, and we need to build structures and institutions that are able to muddle along just fine in that case, even without someone like you. I think this is a hard message to internalize, because it's hard for anyone in particular to view themselves as that unusual (without being a bit of a narcissist, maybe). But my point is that you really should view your presence as an exceptional thing, and that you should not count on the availability of someone like you to serve on the bodies you are designing and getting off the ground, in the long run.

I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, as you know, I've been concerned for some time about the long-term sustainability, relevance, utility, and health of the projects and the associated communities, and it is people like you who make me feel optimistic that we can still get through this. No pressure :)

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me also say that I think this request for feedback idea is a good one and I think a lot of people would benefit from it. Thinking back on my own wikijourney, the last time I've really heard substantive feedback from a bunch of people was my own RfA, over six years ago now. And I think that both sides of the coin are valuable in different ways: of course actionable feedback for self-improvement is helpful, but hearing the reaffirmations of trust and appreciation can also be very important to both the effectiveness and enjoyment of this work. And there are many ways in which both of those (but perhaps the latter especially) are harder to access the longer one has been around the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. There's a lot to think about here. I'm not even sure where to start on the capacity building you mention (even if I don't 100% subscribe to the way you think I'm unique). My attempt at capacity building had been RfA. But as you know, I've had to put those activities on pause because I couldn't do that with enough remove; what happened around RfA made me reconsider my entire involvement in the project. Ultimately I decided the right answer for me was to step away from RfA while continuing other activities. So yes I agree with your general comment about capacity building (it was something I did at NPP when I was active there). If you come up with anything specific there I would love to hear it because my best answer so far has been to write about those things. But I will also give it more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I think what I was getting at is that we need to build systems and institutions that are resilient to the lack of people like you, at least for a time, which may sometimes mean shifting the expectations we have for volunteer-driven work. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but can I ask what you're referring to with what happened around RfA? I would assume you mean WP:RFA2021 in general, but it looks to me, as someone who post-dates that discussion and has the hindsight of WP:RFA2024 having occurred, that it was extremely successful, at least as far as anyone can be successful at trying to get this old ship to change course. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You're always welcome here asilvering. No. I'm referring to RFA2024 there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oof. I guess I assumed it was something further in the past since you've always seemed like such a rock. Glad you're still around. For what it's worth, to this post-RFA2024 addition to the corps, it looks like capacity has indeed been built, even if it felt awful at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the elections are a huge success. Very happy to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Epicgenius

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I've found you to be a level-headed admin who's always willing to offer a helping hand. Like PMC, I think you are doing well at being a voice of reason, so you should keep it up. Cliched as this may sound, admin or not, you are a positive presence on Wikipedia.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Unfortunately I don't know what feedback to provide in this regard. In my view, you have it pretty much nailed down; if anything, there should be more admins who are like you. I do realize that this would be a tall order, though, like L235 mentions above. Other than that, I suggest jumping back into content creation, even if only occasionally (I see you're already doing that). It'll be fun.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: I don't have any questions.
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: I don't have a list of things I wish you'd stop/do differently, at the moment, so I'm not sure how useful my feedback is. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but I do think it's worth soliciting feedback from folks who may have had disagreements with you. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks Epic. I appreciate the time and consideration you gave this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

   You're welcome. Hopefully my feedback can be helpful even though I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. Also, for Q3, I should have asked how you're doing, but then I'd be stealing Amory's idea. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Amorymeltzer

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Keep thinking systemically, broadly, and communicating your thoughts. You're quite good at it; putting a name to an issue and conveying it clearly is hugely valuable. I'd basically echo everything Kevin said above here, so all of that as well. Institutional is a word I'd use.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Take care of yourself! I can't know this and I think it probably belongs above, but I just want to make sure you're doing all the things we're saying we want you to do but keeping yourself balanced and on an even keel. Also—and I know this is contradictory—ArbCom.
3. Questions I have for Barkeep: How's it going? How're you feeling?
4. Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: You rock!

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I miss our paths crossing regularly. I hope you're well. Thanks for taking some of your limited time to comment here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok since you and Epic have now both said that you want to know the answer, I suppose I better answer your question. I'm generally feeling quite good about wiki related matters these days. Serving on ArbCom is a privilege I've been lucky to do and I miss some elements of the work, but its work also tends to occupy nearly all the space I have for wiki related matters. So not being on ArbCom has been tremendously freeing and reinvigorating; I'm truly enjoying being a volunteer again on wiki. And helpfully the U4C work has been good so far. The committee members are all great colleagues, we're doing a reasonable job of setting up systems and processes that are going to endure (which was my major reason for running). And having just the little bit of distance in work between what happens with ArbCom and the cases we've gotten has been useful too. Outside of not having as much time for wiki work as I once did, I do feel like I'm operating as my "best self" in the work with the U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

December music

story · music · places

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What pretty choral spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of this edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syrian civil war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed your comment about the committee getting more appeals in the past than it does now

That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That sounds like a bummer. That guy was pretty cool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from Girth Summit

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I haven't been keeping tabs on exactly what you've been doing lately. I know you were a first-rate new page patroller, and trainer of other people wanting to do that well, so if you're still doing that, great! I believe, from my own limited interactions with the committee, and from what other people have told me, that you were an excellent arbitrator, so I guess it would have benefitted the project if you had kept on doing that, but I'm sure you have your own reasons for stepping back from that and I would never want to put pressure on any contributor to work on an area of the project that they don't want to. Wherever you do it, I hope that you will continue sharing your extensive knowledge and encouraging contributors new and old.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: I can't think of any. There are things you do that I would probably do differently from you if I were doing them, but that's more about the different ways that different people interact with each other. One of the things that keeps this community working is the diversity of our contributors, their different perspectives and ways of doing things are a great strength. So, yeah - even if I occasionally take a different perspective on something from you, I wouldn't want you to stop and seeing things your way.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: when are you going to take that vacation in the UK?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: it seems like a long time ago now, but you should know how much I still appreciate the help you gave me back in 2019 when I was going new page patrol school. Your friendly, patient and thoughtful guidance was excellent. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Recall

Hey, I noticed your voluntary recall page has a typo on it. It says "immeadiately". My inner OCD cannot leave without pointing this out :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For my level of educational attainment I am an atrocious speller and there are some words I can never spell right. That's one of them. Thanks for point this out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Meta comments about AE

I'm concerned that three admins (User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Extraordinary Writ and User:Vanamonde93) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Raladic are considering a logged warning for both sides for edit warring, based on a single example supplied by Extraordinary Writ. In the previous AE on this area here Barkeep explicitly said "If people have concerns about anyone other than [the subject] they should file their own AE report" but here we see admins take it upon themselves to widen the scope of "those who may be sanctioned" to include the filer, for an issue separate from anything they wrote in the AE filing statement. And doing so with a single example that if that was all a typical user posted when filing a complaint, would result in a swift dismissal of "Nothing to see here, come back to us when you can offer an strong pattern of problematic behaviour". Once again I get the feeling that the rules about evidence are for other people. If you are going to arbitrarily take it upon yourselves to inspect other users' behaviour, why not also then any others present. What a jeopardy you have created, that being a filer of the complaint escalates hugely the risk of being sanctioned yourself, because those other guys could be 100 times worse than you, but you have to be perfect.

The statement at the last AE: "There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion" was a strong encouragement to the community to file additional reports on problem users. Which is what User:Void if removed did.

About my own AE... The filer basically made shit up and was caught out by the reviewing admins for doing that and yet... there were no consequences. Barkeep's rationale for that was that bad faith misinterpretation was not "limited to Snokalok". Quite bizare for me to read that because there are other bad editors, the filer isn't sanctioned for making claims about me that are patently untrue. So the lesson then was you can come to AE and post any old shit about an editor and hope the admins find some other fault in the subject (tone say).

The lesson from the Raladic AE, if you follow through, would seem to be that if you complain about an obvious activist at AE, you'd better be an absolute saint, or better still, not have any edits in the area to be examined, because if you make any mistakes, you'll get a logged warning back at you. And if one can get a logged warning because an admin finds a single diff, then presumably the next escalation is you get topic banned for one more mistake. (We warned User:X and they didn't heed the warning). I'm not provoking you to go find two or three diffs. But Void is one of the better players in this field, and of all the people at that AE, a long way from being those most in need of logged warnings.

I get it that boomerangs is a thing people do on Wikipedia. And at times it is useful to avoid vexatious filings from editors who are actually the problem vs the subject. But you guys explicilty asked us to make more reports, and it turns out Void was stupid enough to take you up on it.

This area is overrun with activist editors on all sides who use revert regularly and with impunity. That a medical editor trying their best to use WP:MEDRS might let their frustration lead to mistakes is somewhat understandable. Of the editors on both sides of this debate, I think Void if removed and Sideswipe9th are the only two I feel properly grasp that "other opinions exist and are valid, even if I disagree with them" and who understand our policy and guildeline limit and guide what we need to write in article space. Both of them are fully capable of understanding the other side's POV and fairly describing it. Unfortunately Sideswipe9th is no longer editing, and I am quite certain this AE will do the same for Void.

I fail to see why any reasonable editor would either file any more AE requests against activists in this area or even bother to edit in this area at all. I'm not aware of any other medical editors who edit articles in this topic. One or two post the occasional talk page comment. It will be left to the activists (on both sides) who lack any concern for building an encyclopaedia.

Colin°^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)