User talk:AlmostFrancis

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]

Hello, AlmostFrancis,

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

I've undone your revert (while also striking the part of my comment you objected to), because it's not a

• (...) 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]

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]

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

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.

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

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

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

certain exemptions

.

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]

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

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]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

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

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]

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

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]

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]

I added the reference to st aloyisius being the patron saint of AIDS patients. Do you think this was misplaced? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not misplaced so much as trivia under the subject heading it was added too. If there was a history section then I think it could be added though.

Hi AlmostFrancis you might want to consider creating a brief user page as it shows you up more clearly when interacting. Can I also ask you to check whether you have any thoughts on the use of honorifics in the talk page for Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been away for over a month, can you fill me in on what's going on at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS? If you don't mind - thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese,There has been a bit of a disagreement on proper editing between Slugger and I, though I should be clear that I am not sure he is doing anything really on purpose. I believe he is eliding content from third party sources that is critical and using positive quotes from Catholic sources to create an article that is more positive to the churches conduct than is neutral. Of course he probably thinks I am being overly critical of Catholic sources and looking through cites for negative material, so there is always two sides to a story. :) I suspect the biggest problem is that it is a sad and nuanced subject, the church is against condoms and homosexuality but is also a large purveyor of all types of healthcare, and no one really wants to get involved. AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostFrancis, For what it's worth, I've never thought you were editing in bad faith. Sometimes reasonable people disagree, and I think that's what's happened in a couple of instances. As I said above, though, I'm glad you are now looking at the article and contributing as this is how articles improve. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlmostFrancis: I believe that this is happening, because it's his MO. I was unclear - could you be more specific? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roscelese. I think Slugger's intervention above is typical of him - to pretend that it's all about improving articles when his aim is to introduce bias. That's why he was blocked from all articles to do with the Knights of Columbus and frankly I'd like to see him blocked from editing any Catholic articles at all. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostFrancis, you've, I believe, spent more time tracking Slugger's disruption on the AIDS article than I have. Would you be willing to submit a statement to Arbitration Enforcement when I submit mine re: Slugger's years of tendentious editing on Catholic topics? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, Sorry I am not very conversant in the AE realm, are there discretionary sanctions that pertain to Catholic topics directly? I'll give it a try, but I did a quick perusal and it seems that AE really expects a tight case, which is almost impossible with polite editors. It seems mostly just to catch really dedicated edit warriors, and usually only after they have broken very specific discretionary sanctions. Sorry for replying so late, was on a vacay and didn't even notice I was logged out :) If you can show me the sanction you want to use though I could maybe come up with something. Even just opening a clarification about diocsene and clerical sources might help a lot and give us grounding later. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is part of the Christianity & Sexuality case (and in fact the case was largely over Catholicism and homosexuality topics to begin with). No worries about the delay, I'm in and out at the moment as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely
  topic-banned
  from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

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 discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

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.

I am formally alerting anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Also given the end of this case I am ending the topic ban I had previously enacted a few weeks early as I hope it will no longer be necessary and doesn't serve a useful purpose. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I admire your diligence in trying to eliminate bias. Thanks for all your work. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case request "JzG" that you are a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From this edit, it seems like you think the 1989 Vatican AIDS conference is an event worthy of its own article. I've started a draft in my sandbox and invite you to help me flesh it out before moving it to the main. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned this on the talk page, but I want to be sure you have seen that I requested some outside help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no value in continuing that conversation.AlmostFrancis (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

noted - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [3] Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to make changes if I have stepped over the line but your link is to your own comment.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]