User talk:AlmostFrancis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:20, 7 May 2020

Welcome!

Hello, AlmostFrancis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, AlmostFrancis, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. You may have seen the already closed sock-puppet investigation. It is rather striking behavior for a month-old user to be giving advice to someone who has been in Wikipedia for 9 years longer. Pudeo (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cool story bro.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I've undone your revert (while also striking the part of my comment you objected to), because it's not a personal attack -- it doesn't comment on contributors per se, but on their edits. At most might it might rise to the level of invective:

(...) Editors are making the mistake of assuming that the claim being made is at all controversial (news flash -- some CAM's are more popular than others -- but maybe the news hasn't made it all the way out to Boise). (...)
— User:Middle 8 21:19, 10 February 2019

Instead of deleting such a comment, just ask the editor to strike it (or ignore it). As a courtesy and to de-escalate, I've struck it.

Personal attacks comment on contributors in some way, e.g. their motivations. This is from the same discussion as above:

As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends. (...)
— User:AlmostFrancis 17:39, 9 February 2019

Please reciprocate by striking "As is too often the cases in this area Middle 8 is misrepresenting the discussion for his own ends.". (Another reason to strike it is that it's not easily defensible should third parties start looking at edits)

Thanks. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. If third parties really have issues with my edits I will certainly take their advice on board. Obviously I believe that edit is defendable or I would not have made it. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every edit one thinks is defensible needs to stick. Sometimes for the sake of de-escalation people "take it down a notch". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And to de-escalate I think you should have more care when representing discussions. Also you probably shouldn't imply people who disagree with you are Randys from Boise. AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

I don't understand this revert[1] , why are you accusing me of dishonesty? Tornado chaser (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look mate if you want to reverse which behavior is primary maybe no one will care. However that is an editorial choice not a copy edit so should not be claimed as such.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Barkeep49 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide topics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Template:Z33 Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at MEDMOS RfC

You have leveled personal attacks at the MEDMOS RfC. Please strike them. For clarity they are: "Are the originators of this RFC so insecure that they feel they must control the inputs of everyone who comments?" and "who bludgeoned the discussion to start this RFC's". Barkeep49 (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first is a question and therefore not a personal attack. As for the second who exactly did I attack there? I didn't name them and didn't you already claim that bludgeoning was just impossible to understand? So to be clear, you can't understand bludgeoning but you no that it didn't happen and therefor any claim to it is a personal attack. Once again you are threatening people who point out the problem as opposed to the people that do the behavior. I didn't believe that you would let the RFC play out but I lived in hope. Any chance you will strike out where you misquoted me. Nah didn't think so. Good job pushing through the RFC. Any reason you didn't wait for an uninvolved administrator to do the work?AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostFrancis, I am an uninvolved administrator. As WP:involved says I have only interacted with you "purely in an administrative role". I will not be blocking you if you refuse to strike the above comments but I will enforce other sanctions. The reason I haven't had to levy sanctions against anyone to date is because they all have, when asked, walked backed remarks. I am happy to explain why those lines are personal attacks, but strike them first. Then we can talk. You can always unstrike them if that's where the conversation lands. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't had to sanction anyone because you completely ignored anyone who broke the sanction against bludgeoning and rehashing arguments. You admitted the first one and ignored the second. You are uninvolved in the RFC you launched? Weird I would have though launching the RFC would make you involved. Any reason you wont wait for a different admin to work on your RFC? Any reason you didn't let a different Admin launch the RFC you were pushing for? Look you were always going to sanction me. Both of us know this so I do not understand why you are waiting. You made your choice long ago. Any reason you still haven't stuck the smear you made that I orginally accused WAID of editing for pay with a quote mark? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your lack of civility and refusal when asked above to strike the remark, you are are banned from from all Medical Manual of Style discussions broadly construed as an arbitration enforcement. You may read how to appeal this topic ban here. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my shocked face. Any reason you didn't ask an involved admin or go to AE like you told me to do when I pointed out you misquoted me? Any comment on how you are uninvolved on a RFC you launched? An end date. Weird to have a indefinite topic ban after one problem AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions that I've not previously addressed, I don't need to wait for a different admin. Yes I am uninvolved in the RfC I launched. It's an unusual situation I admit but I was merely fufilling the community's instructions - I was not pushing the RfC merely implementing the consensus of editors who participated in a discussion. Fair point on going straight to indef. I will change the topic ban to six months. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you make it a week. Seems fair as it is the only sanction you have made this whole time and is my first offense. Why six months, I can't help but notice it is far out of line for first offences based on my parusing of AE findings. Plus, I can't help but notice it probably would not have survived an AE notice if left to other admins. Is there a reason you didn't use AE? I did not even get a logged warning, which seems to be standard. "Yes I am uninvolved in the RfC I launched." why not? You can claim it of course but it seems pretty standard to not administer a RFC that only exists because of your actions. Why do you not trust you fellow admins?AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about my trust in my fellow sysops. This is about your inability to stay civil. You were propely notified of discrestionary sanctions, the page you edited on had both a notice banner and an edit notice. You are not being blocked - for that six months would be dispropritiate as a first time offense. You are being topic banned. For topic bans I see a mixture of lengths for such actions. You are of course welcome to ask me before six months for the ban to be rescinded - I can definitely envision scenarios where I would happily do that. You are also welcome to appeal any or all of it following the instructions I left above. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Church

Really appreciate your recent interventions on this - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Church and AIDS

Thanks for your contributions at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS. This is how articles improve. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles improve if they are edited in an even handed way - adding material sympathetic and non-sympathetic church to the Roman Catholic church without favouring either. Damning AlmostFrancis with feint praise is somewhat disingenuous.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin board

Hi AlmostFrancis I thought you mind be interested in the discussion on posted on an admin board as you've also been involved in this issue. Best wishes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic_Church_and_HIV.2F_AIDS Contaldo80 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 Thanks for your contributions at [[Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS]]. This is how articles improve. --[[User:Slugger O&#39;Toole|Slugger O&#39;Toole]] ([[User talk:Slugger O&#39;Toole|talk]]) 01:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
+::Articles improve if they are edited in an even handed way - adding material sympathetic and non-sympathetic church to the Roman Catholic church without favouring either. Damning AlmostFrancis with feint praise is somewhat disingenuous.[[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 03:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
+==Admin board==
 Hi AlmostFrancis I thought you mind be interested in the discussion on posted on an admin board as you've also been involved in this issue. Best wishes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Catholic_Church_and_HIV.2F_AIDS [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 02:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)