Open main menu

Check RfAs.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology



I am WP:DROPping this entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Re: [1])

That's fine, I'm not going to revert you again. I thought you had misread the page history, but thanks for explaining. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I'm sincerely very glad that you understand. And I appreciate you making things clear to me here. I promise you that I am trying to be respectful to you and to all of the other administrators and functionaries who have evaluated the situation, and I'm sure that a close examination of what I added back will show that I have been careful not to interfere with any of it. But, although we do not make different policies for different editors and Wikipedia is not therapy, I am mindful that this is an editor who is at the high-functioning end of the autism/Aspergers spectrum, and that he was understandably upset. It is in his best interests to be able to read what various editors said, when everyone has had a chance to calm down. There has been entirely too much knee-jerk reacting going on.
Speaking more to everyone looking on than to you personally, I am considering opening an ArbCom case to examine some of the administrative actions that were taken. I really believe that the oversighted comment, whatever it was, should never have been made, but that it was largely caused by the entirely out-of-process extension of the initial block in what was entirely a punitive and frankly inappropriate manner. That doesn't excuse whatever was oversighted, but it is still a problem. --Tryptofish, t(talk) 20:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Tryptofish, the content you re-added was all removed by MPants himself, in the edit that has now been oversighted (I saw it before it was oversighted - in fact, I reported it). I have now removed all of that stuff again as MPants wanted - he had the right to remove it. I have also restored the most recent additions by other people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You have overreacted. That was really counterproductive. Yes, we can get all "by-the-book" and hide behind the fact that he did it himself, but he did it in a moment of anger. You should reconsider. And lift the full protection, because we now have Bishonen editing through full protection while no one else can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, Boing, I pointed that out already. I think probably we should all stop trying to figure out what should and shouldn't be on the page, as we have a frustrated editor rage-quitting along with many administrators intervening, and of course I'm partially at fault for that. I'm going to leave it alone unless anything else abusive is written, and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same (I don't know which version is currently visible, I'm not endorsing anything, only the oversight banner is compulsory at this point).
As for Arbcom, Tryp, go ahead and prep a case (I think you should, regarding a series of less-than-optimal admin actions) but may I suggest holding off on it for a few days? There is already some motion on this behind the scenes.
(after ec) It's entirely possible Bish doesn't realize the page has been temporarily protected, the "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO EDIT THIS FULLY PROTECTED PAGE" message does not show up for edit conflicts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ivan. I'll just say for now that I'm sure that Bish didn't realize it, and I pinged her just to make her aware. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The protection was only temporary so I could fix the talk page without multiple edit conflicts while everyone was just guessing at what the oversighted version looks like. I said so in the protection log. And as you can see, I have unprotected it now. And no, I think the error was in restoring material that MPants himself removed from his own talk page - sure he was angry, but he had the right to remove it all, and it's not for those who didn't see the oversighted versions (I did) others to override his decisions for him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I would encourage you to take some time and reflect on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, and my first reflections make me wonder what we're actually arguing about, as all I'm trying to do is uphold what MPants wanted. So a question if I may - do you think MPants had the right to remove material from his talk page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That misses the point. He did that in anger. See what I said in my first reply to Ivan, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understood the thing about it being done in anger (and yes, it was). But I don't think it's right for someone else to judge whether or not he really wanted it removed and make his decision for him - I think we should respect the decision he actually made, however we might interpret his mood. If you disagree and think it is right to second-guess what choice he might have made had he not been angry, and implement that, then I guess we'll just have to differ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
To call what I did "second guessing" is inaccurate, and I dare say I know the editor better than you do. But you were pretty quick to revert, before even seeing the discussion between me and Ivan here, and to slap on full protection right after. That was a very aggressive use of the administrative privileges, basically to treat something done in anger as something you needed to treat as though it was a "right". I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you do know him better than I, but I don't think that makes any difference and does not give you the right to override his decisions for him. As for the protection, I can accept it might not have been the best choice - and I'm happy to apologize it you think it was not an acceptable action. As for "I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people", I have no idea where that came from or why you might think I don't understand that. Anyway, at this point, I think it's probably better to withdraw from this discussion - so I'm off to bed, and I bid you goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope that things will be calmer in the morning. You keep framing it as "his decision", which although technically true is portraying something done in anger and haste as though it were something that required administrative action to preserve. You've now said at his talk page that there was nothing wrong with the content of what I put back, so I think that it's clear that I have carefully respected all of the issues involved with oversight. I was clearly and explicitly trying to give him the chance to look more thoughtfully at some helpful advice (as well as preserving the community reaction to the extended block, so it looks a little strange to see multiple admins seeming to want to make that less visible). I wasn't overriding his decision. I was trying to be helpful to him. I don't think that the knee-jerk reverts of my edits were really motivated by protecting MPants' decisions. They were saying: Tryptofish, you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done. And the result is that we have most likely permanently lost a good editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Last thing I'll say is that you are wrong about my knees and my motives, and I was absolutely not saying "you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done". Anyway, I really am off to bed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't claim to know your motives. But the way that you used the admin tools looks the way that I described it. I'm going to add: I don't think that you are a bad person, nor a bad editor, nor a bad admin. But there was way too much hasty and emotional reacting over the past 24 hours or so, from many editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that perhaps the editor in question does trust you to decide what should appear on the talk page. Given that the content you want the editor to review appears in the page history, though, from the outside I feel it seems paternalistic to decide that it should also be visible on the current version of the talk page. But of course you are the best to judge your relationship with the editor. Perhaps you can send a message to the editor to review the posts you recommend? isaacl (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Isaac. I debated how much to put back after I was reverted, and I decided to leave a friendly comment with a diff of my own earlier message, and another edit where I put a diff to the edit where I put the material back, and I guess that's enough for now. As for paternalistic, I feel like that misrepresents what I was doing in an effort to be helpful, and it only looks that way in the context of it being argued over. What I did was really very innocuous, but it was met with a backlash that was pretty much disconnected from considering the situation from a human point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you feel that way, and like I said I don't know what your relationship with the editor is, nor how your edit was interpreted. Although this has no bearing on the other editor's reaction, if it were me, I wouldn't want my own edits to my talk page to be reverted; I don't like people changing what I intended to publish, whether it was in a pique of anger or after long deliberation. I would find it kind of passive-aggressive for someone to revert me rather than talk to me about what they'd like me to look at. Of course, everyone may react differently... isaacl (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Passive-aggressive?   Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, if you ever want me to re-consider something I've deleted from my talk page, please just leave me a note asking me to do so. Let me do any reverting that I feel is appropriate, rather than deciding I'd be better off with the material visible. Again, that's just me; I just feel more comfortable doing my own reverts on my talk page. (Not counting, of course, partial reversions which break up conversations that are contrary to talk page guidelines.) isaacl (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I fully understand that that's what you would want on your talk page. But this was a different situation. For one thing, I couldn't ask him via a note, because his talk page editing was removed so he couldn't respond to me. This was nothing like a typical WP:TPO situation. I don't want to discuss this any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In fact and without being flippant he was angry most of the time. Had it not been for the block it seems unlikely that he would have restored what he removed so surely leaving it off is nearest the status quo? Anyway, having been falsely accused of trolling for expressing concern about all of your actions, I am saying no more. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's the other way around: without the block he would not have removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
And no, he is not someone who was angry all of the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re your request here, Tryptofish, I'd probably better leave any unprotection to the oversight fellows. But I do want to say that I'm suitably embarrassed at having written a greeting on User talk:MjolnirPants, when non-admins such as for instance yourself can't do it. I hesitated, for that reason, but it just seemed too sad to not say anything. And I'd encourage you in your plans to take the block extension to ArbCom. (I typed this message before I saw you complaining about my post above, and as it shows, Ivanvector, I was in fact aware of the full protection. The text goes pink! So perhaps I'll be taken to ArbCom before anybody else.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

No problems whatsoever, Bish! You, for one, are entirely blameless.   --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've dealt with some of this by email, but I guess it doesn't hurt to talk about some of the generalities here. One of the problems I can see, is that as an admin, if a right wing POV pusher sets up camp on some article and starts disrupting it, I've got the clout and street cred to do something about it. I probably wouldn't block them directly, but if I raised an ANI thread or some other report, or even said "do this again and there'll be a block", it would probably be treated with respect, even if everyone disagreed with it. For a "normal" editor, you don't have that luxury. You can complain at the relevant noticeboards, but you're then at the mercy of whatever admins turn up. Over time, it builds up into resentment that ultimately bleeds over to serious anger. In particular, any Arbcom / Oversight boomerang is difficult to take because by definition you don't know why you've been banned.

The whole incident yesterday got completely blown out of all proportion by a right-wing troll turning up and stirring the pot a bit. I've been recently reading about Diana and Unity Mitford and how someone superficially "nice" can turn into a thoroughly unpleasant fascist who hung out with Hitler, and this incident has struck a chord with me over that. I posted a couple of examples of "polite incivility" on the ANI thread yesterday, but it was closed soon after. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Following up on a suggestion I made above: as far as I'm aware what I thought was happening in the background has happened by now. I'm not an oversighter or an arb but that's my impression. I'd say, then, that there's no need to wait if you want to file a case, unless you want to wait for more of the dust to settle or just give it some more time for everyone to reflect. I'm going to email my private findings to the committee to be considered when a case is filed, and I'm assuming you'll name me as a party if I've correctly guessed how you're going to frame your request so I'll comment when I see it. Take care. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Both of you, thanks very much. I do want to wait a few days for dust-settling before going to ArbCom, as well as for me to get my own thoughts clear. Also, I want to fully deal with "exhausting all other forms of dispute resolution" before taking that step, so I intend to open a sort of block review at WP:AN to get comments (in addition to those that were already made at MPants' user talk at the time) first. Unless the response there effectively shuts down any chance of an ArbCom case (which I consider improbable, but I would want to discover before filing a case request), I'll go with the case request right after that closes.
My initial thought was to have a minimalist number of named parties, but now that you've indicated your desire, Ivanvector, to be a party I'll certainly include you. I'd welcome comments here from anyone about how many or how few named parties there should be, and who.
About the broader issues, it does seem to me that if I were an admin and made the same edit at his talk page that I made yesterday, no one would have reverted me. That's just the way things are, no matter any denials. My take on the actual events is this: There was indeed a right-wing troll who started a ridiculous discussion at a BLP talk page. MPants' comments at that talk page were well within policy, but led to some baiting (yes, baiting) of him at his own talk page. He removed the comments from his own talk page, which he was entirely within his rights to do. But he did so with an over-the-top edit summary. In the moment, I thought it was rather funny, but the troll started one of those ANI threads that never lead to anything good. An admin blocked MPants for 31 hours for the edit summary. I could quibble over the choice of 31 hours, but that is such a trivial thing that it would be wrong to second-guess it. There are arguments for and arguments against making such a block, but the block was entirely within policy and that too, I would not want anyone to second-guess. MPants made a lousy albeit understandable request for unblocking. The request was rightly denied. That should have been that. It should have ended there. But a few hours after the block lifted, another block was made on the basis of the unblock request. It was manifestly punitive, and the issues about the unblock request were already dealt with when it was declined, so the initial administrative decision of 31 hours, along with the decision to deny the unblock request without extending the block, should have been final unless there had been further bad conduct after the block was lifted. So, ArbCom here we come. I never saw the subsequent oversighted stuff, and I don't want to know, but that obviously never should have happened and the current indef oversight block is entirely appropriate, sad though it may be. The escalation resulting from the extended block does not excuse the posting of oversighted material. But it was escalation nonetheless, and I'm of the opinion that if the 31-hour block had run its course without the escalation, MPants would not have posted that stuff and we would now be back to peaceful editing without losing an editor from the project. I think I remember other stuff involving the blocking admin, and I'm going to go back and look for it in the next day or two.1 So there you have it: my cards are on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
1. Found it: [2], [3]. Remarkably similar, punishing an April 1 joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No comment from me (yet) about any of the blocks that preceded mine, but I'd suggest skipping the AE block review. The blocks (before mine) were already (kind of) reviewed at ANI, so really you'd just be rehashing, and IMO nothing will or can come of it except drama since ultimately it's an oversight situation. Nothing really can happen at this point without Arbcom's involvement. Totally up to you whether to make me a party or not, I'm intending to participate anyway and I take no offense either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I need to spend a bit of time thinking about it, and also hoping for any other feedback, from anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • On a lighter note, this has had quite an effect on the page views of my talk page: [4]! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, ... [5] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
OMG! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If page views were to be used in a marketing campaign for WP, my suggestion to those who want to ride the band wagon is to either file or be filed against at one of the dramah boards. I think maybe ArbCom would garner the most views over a longer period of time. Perhaps it's a sign of people needing something better to do? Atsme✍🏻📧 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, alas, the people who need something better to do include me. I feel awful about MPants, so I feel like I owe it to him, and to the good of Wikipedia, to take the measures that I'm planning here. But I'd sure prefer to do something else (getting a page about a beautiful garden to be an FA, something I helped with recently, was so much more enjoyable). But, in another example of something that involved the drama boards, I decided overnight last night to express support for you at AE, and I just did so. I found your words about your New Years resolutions very eloquent, and I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Awww, Tryp - thank you! You are such a sweetie. ❤️ Rest assured, I meant every word of what I said in my appeal. It's highly unlikely I'll venture back into that topic area because, like you, I get far more pleasure working with editors who actually have the desire to get articles promoted to GA & FA. You may recall that I volunteered to mentor SNAAAAKE!! last year, and helped him get his siteban lifted. There were times I'd worry about him working too hard - he pours his heart and soul into his writing - and the results are amazing (makes me teary-eyed). He is such an incredible talent. (Don't want to jinx anything so I'm not pinging). There was a moment or two back when I first encountered him that I was concerned things were headed south. I decided to change gears and invited him to go ahead and move forward without any interference from me. I watched in the background to see just what he could do, and I have no regrets. He has not disappointed those of us who trusted him to do the right thing, and just keeps getting better! Those are the things I want to keep experiencing during my time on WP. It's down home, feel good, mental stimulation with happy endings, and that's what makes one want to keep on giving. 💃 Atsme✍🏻📧 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)            
Group hug? And after wiki-knowing me all this time, you think I'm a sweetie? I must be better at deception than I thought! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've decided to do this in the following way. I am about to open a block review of the block extension at WP:AN. I realize that there will be drama, but that's going to happen in any case. And it doesn't particularly matter how it goes there, because all that it has to show is that there is a dispute that the community cannot solve. And I really do think that ArbCom wants to see that everything else has already been tried.
When I file the case request at ArbCom, I'm going to treat the case scope very narrowly and very focused. I'll be the filing party, and the only other named party will be the blocking admin. If anyone wants to add more named parties or broaden the scope, they can say that in statements on the request page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Now closed. I'm weighing what, if anything, to do next. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've decided that this is not worth any more of my time. If anyone else wants to open an ArbCom case request, I'll be interested in following it, but it will have to be someone other than me. I will add my opinion that I think WP has a problem with admins circling the wagons, something that I thought was in the past, but clearly isn't. Certainly doesn't do anything to make me any more interested in adminship for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-ANI, re MJPEdit

Thanks for closing the ANI thread]. It was clearly going nowhere.

However, I do have one question for you.

AT ANI, you posted here repeatedly to state that you have sincere concerns about my response to MJP's misconduct. I think we get that by now, and I reckon that it is probably imprinted permanently on the asphalt of them interweb superhighways.

However, some context is missing. You are clearly a wiki-friend of MJP, and as such you are one of the people who might have had his ear at the tine his customary aggression escalate to the point where he went completely off the rails.

So please can you post the diffs of where you expressed to MJP your serious concerns about MJP's conduct, and counselled/pleaded/warned/reproached him as a friend to back off or take a break. I assume that there was some point where you publicly wrote some variant of "cool your jets, pal" or "I want you back, but you need to stop this" or some words to that effect.

I assume that because you wrote above that you have no argument with much of what you say about civility: yes, it is a serious problem. I don't justify what MPants did after your block. I assume that was a sincere comment, and that you put at least much effort into restraining and calming your friend as you have now done into post-facto second-guessing those who have tools to restrain and took real-time decisions.

OTOH, if my assumption is mistaken, and there was actually no such effort by you to help your friend out of a uncivil and self-destructive episode and help the community of of a conflict, then please correct me. Either way, you will need to clarify this before you go to go to arbcom, so if there is evidence that you made significant efforts to pull your friend back from the brink, you might as well gather that evidence beforehand.

No rush. Take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy that you came here to discuss that with me further, thanks. And I really very much hope that we can have a better communication between us than what has happened up to now. So, to answer your question about my advice to him, there is this: [6], that I posted during the first block, a self-criticism as well as advice to him not to say that sort of thing. Please do not think of me as an enabler of incivility nor as someone insensitive to female editors, because I am neither, over a long time of editing here. I've had a long history of arguing for more civility and, although there was nothing gendered about what happened with MPants, I've also long advocated for doing more to make Wikipedia more inclusive and less of a boys' club.
If you look at the talk section just above this one, you will see my thinking leading up to the AN (not ANI) discussion, and you will also see that I have just decided not to pursue anything with ArbCom or anything further at all – beyond just discussions in user talk like this one here.
Let me tell you a bit more about why I have been so concerned, for your information to take or to leave. I certainly recognize that you do excellent work with categories. But I also clearly remember this and this, from this past April. There, I was unhappy to see that you had blocked an editor over an April 1 joke with no WP:BEFOREBLOCK and the reaction from me and others was quite similar to what happened with MPants. Then, you also lifted the block, and you said "Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served.": [7] That does not strike me as actually acknowledging the problems with the block, but rather, more like lifting the block just to make the complaints go away. Both then and now, I think that you have been defensive in the face of criticism. I can understand the human nature of that, but still I also think that admins should act on behalf of community norms, not to push those norms beyond where they are at present. It seems to me that both times you had personal opinions, about April 1 and about civility, respectively, that led you to issue blocks that reflected your own sense of right and wrong but that went somewhat beyond community norms. (Personally, I think community norms should be tougher on civility, as much as that might surprise you, but that April 1 stuff is no big deal so long as it does not happen on articles.)
I regard MPants as a genuinely nice person who has done a lot of good as an editor. It's an inaccurate stereotype when some editors describe him as always angry and incivil. Just before the blocks began, he was reaching out to help a new editor who appeared to be a young child who needed some help. But he is also someone at the high-functioning end of the autism/Asperger's spectrum (something he has discussed openly on my talk page, so I'm not revealing anything private here), and he can misjudge matters of affect. And when I argue for inclusiveness, that applies to persons with disabilities too. Of course, he still has to abide by our policies, so I have no problem, really, with Cullen's initial block. I really do believe that you did not give MPants a sufficient opportunity to get back on the right track after that initial block. There just was no real benefit to re-blocking him. I can't mind-read whether his subsequent posting of something that got oversighted was the result of the escalation resulting from the re-block, and he had absolutely no valid excuse for doing that in any case, but it would have been much better to deescalate things after the first block. And I'm not convinced that you really accept, even in the face of your very real concerns about civility, that you didn't really need to re-block him. And re-blocking an editor for failing to apologize when they haven't necessarily had enough time to calm down and make an apology raises all kinds of concerns about how many times someone can get blocked, and then get blocked again for the same thing, and on and on.
That's where I'm coming from. You can take it under advisement and learn from it for the future, or you can disregard it. If you would like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I missed the main discussion, but I want to pick up on a point BrownHairedGirl made about civility, and how excessive bad language has put women off from contributing. I have observed a couple of cases where women have contributed and had a negative experience, and just want to briefly outline these.
  • The manager of Curious Brewery tried to write an article on the brewery as Rc curiousbrewery. WP:OUTING prevents me from speculating further but I would say there's a 50-50 probability of this editor being female, based on what I know in real life. The article was prodded, sent to AfD and deleted with rather weak arguments (though I can't fault 78.26's close as he was simply following consensus and shouldn't be lumped in with the others) and the account was finally blocked as a sockpuppet through circumstances I think are extraneous. I re-created the article, predominantly using sources that were present nine months ago when the first version was deleted, and it's queued for DYK now
  • Georgina Downs took exception to claims on her article that were factually incorrect, most obviously her date of birth. I confirmed via Facebook that it really was her trying to edit her article, simply to correct mistakes, and she had no interest in learning WP policy and wouldn't have been in the mood to do so. The sad thing about this one is, from what I know about her, is she has the time and the aptitude to be a superb contributor to Women in Red and a potential FA writer - if only she wasn't put off by a negative experience
  • A user posted a thread on the help desk. She was trying to improve Renee Powell and having difficulty, having her changes reverted, and didn't know what to do - and hence was on the verge of giving up. I contacted her via email, and explained I could help improve the article; Megalibrarygirl went one better and got photographs of Powell to use in the article. I got an email wishing us both sincere thanks for our help, and that the editor couldn't have done it herself.
Now, the plural of anecdote is not data, and just three examples cannot illustrate a trend. However, the major stumbling blocks with women contributing are a) a confusing user interface, b) an over-reliance on template messages (that don't necessarily have the desired effect) over personal communication and c) an abundance of editors who treat policy as sacrosanct without thinking about improvising to the current situation. The conclusions I reach are Editors are put off by experienced editors simply following policy and doing what they think is the right thing and Two editors telling each other to fuck off on ANI does not cause new editors to leave.
Sorry for rambling on your talkpage Tryp, but hopefully this has been insightful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
For the record, no one here actually knows what gender I am. And, although there is no reason for anyone to know this, because I never said it before, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
And that poor Olivia. She's my favourite. But apparently she can't edit Wikipedia because she's 8 years too old! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do we only care about new editors leaving? Natureium (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not particularly aware of longtime female editors quitting. I know about Elisa Rolle, but she was kicked off rather than quit per se. If you've got any examples, I'd be interested to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it's good to have a basic understanding of perspectives and motivation; however, I'm somewhat concerned over the natural tendency for editors to group things when it should be kept independent. I think Ritchie333 stated it well as it pertains to PAGs and IAR. Over the years, I've seen/experienced a half-century of males struggling to understand the opposite sex. A word of caution - if you haven't figured it out by age 50, you never will. When I look at a problem that needs resolution, I see individuals, none of it gender-related because there are too many variables. I agree with Tryp regarding personality disorders and that it is well worth the time and effort to help productive editors manage them, but only to a degree. We are editors, not psychologists. I also believe editors will be far more successful finding resolutions to specific problems if they approach it in that manner. I understand BHG's position very well. I have also had delightful, intelligent discussions with whistle britches. Our #1 priority is supposed to be what we genuinely believe is the best solution for our readers and the project. Almost everything we say and do is available for the public to see, and I'm of the mind that we should be far more cautious about how we present ourselves, and how we air our dirty laundry. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I try and understand the opposite sex, sometimes I get it, sometimes I haven't a clue and I'm still learning. For example, if it's 10pm and I've got half a mile walk through a park in the dark from the station home, I think "well I'll be alright because I'm not a target". Or "Women speak with their mouths, not their breasts. Try looking in the right place". Some of the biggest fist-fights I've had on ANI is where I've been one side saying "do whatever is right to keep people on board and contributing" while the other side has been "policy, policy, policy, policy, policy, policy, policy". The recent "Johnbod vs The Rambling Man" drama-fest is a great example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Their mouths? Really? I think you'll find it's all a matter of incidence geometry. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up, I have heard from Mr Pants. He admits that he went off the rails completely and has apologised for that, but does not particularly want to return to editing until major issues with neutrality and impartiality are sorted out. I gave some examples of that on the original ANI thread, but they've been buried in the noise, but to summarise, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate Holocaust denial or to express views that most people would find unpalatable, irrespective of whether or not they were dressed in nice language. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. I'll be very happy to see him back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I have decided to very significantly decrease my participation in Wikipedia, for an undetermined amount of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't email you Tryptofish, so I can't say this off-wiki, but if you need a good listener to get you through tough times, drop Megalibrarygirl an email. She's more than just a kick-ass Wikipedian, she's a kick-ass human being full stop. (I think enough people have picked up on that through various other things I've said elsewhere). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I meant to write this to you at the end of last year, but somehow put it off: a number of times over the past year, we've worked together on improving the wording of various guidelines and so forth, and I've appreciated your collaborative nature. Too often other editors adopt confrontational poses over copy editing, and so your positive attitude is refreshing. Thank you for your contributions and hope to see you back again. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I will miss you, fish face. Even though I continue to always imagine you as Professor Denzil Dexter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
That's very sad. Hope you decide to return soon.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
😳...😞...😢...I'm a good listener and my email is enabled...but I'm pretty sure I already know why you've elected to throttle down. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you! As you can see, I'm not completely gone. I'll just be around a lot less, until I feel otherwise. About the offers to listen, please don't worry about my mental health; it's not an issue, and I have excellent health care should I need it. I said the thing about my early childhood because I wanted to make the point that editors should not see me as someone lacking empathy, since I was recently caricatured that way elsewhere onsite. I'll observe that it is quite pleasant to spend less time here and more time on other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No!!!! :-) North8000 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I will let the page sleep untill you 'get back' just to give you something to look forward to. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).

No nazisEdit

Posting here as I don’t particularly want to get into a discussion about it on MPant’s page, but since being moved to projectspace, the endorsement section has been removed and we cleaned out a lot of the profanity (and I also added WP:CRYRACIST based on 3 blocks I had to make within 72 hours...) Any help further cleaning it up would be appreciated, I’m sure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For watchers, Tony is referring to this: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Finally, some common senseEdit

After beginning to feel like Wikipedia has been gaslighting me, I want to thank Bishonen for demonstrating that someone besides me gets it. From User:Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia and the Signpost:

  • The best way to make established users more civil is to block them for a while. (Ask an admin to do it if you're not one yourself.) In the rare cases where that doesn't help, you can try putting a civility template on their page, or telling them about the policy WP:CIV, which they may not be aware of.
  • When people insist that before blocked users can be unblocked, they must apologise, admit their mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that they understand why exactly they were blocked and how right it was that they should be, or show remorse, it's probably not because the insister would like to see a show trial or ritual humiliation. More likely they have some psychiatric training and know how important it is to resolve conflicts and seek reconciliation, and how much better the delinquent would feel afterwards.


--Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sissinghurst Castle Garden scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Sissinghurst Castle Garden article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty quick! I'll catch up nearer the time to see how you want to handle changes on the day. They can get quite heavily vandalised, or they can have a quiet day in the sun. If the former, there's a bunch of editors who do the reverts. Sometimes, although not that often, a useful suggestion or two can result. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Am so sorry, I didn't see the discussion above re. your curtailing your time on here. It can be a very frustrating place, but also very productive and great fun. I hugely enjoyed our collaboration and am proud of what we produced. I shall keep an eye on it when it has its moment in the sun. Take very good care. KJP1 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal resultEdit

I've closed your AE appeal as successful, and logged it (and the original sanction) at the AE log. You are no longer under an IBAN with SashiRolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you very much! And thanks to all the other editors and admins who were supportive of me. This really makes my day! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey!!! Pomp it ooop!!! Getcha booty on the floor tonite ... make my day!! Chas and Ya Kid K123 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
You may now kiss. PaleoNeonate – 22:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I sure hope that this will be the start of a quieter stretch of time for me. (Sometimes, the best way to navigate the ugly side of Wikipedia is to play the long game.) But – Paleo's image of a kissing gourami has a bit of irony to it. The "kissing" posture is actually a display of aggression! Think of it as "kissing someone off": telling a rival for spawning to scram. There's probably a moral in there somewhere. Maybe just a group hug? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Cripes! I've yet to encounter a problem at Wikipedia with telling a spawning rival to scram, but I guess one never knows! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I was about to tell you to scram, but then I realized that I've never encountered a spawning rival on Wikipedia. And come to think of it, there's probably very little spawning here at all. But there are certainly many master baiters. And they tend to get hooked (didn't you know!). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The "kissing" posture is actually a display of aggression! Indeed, a mix of irony, of fish-related topic and of humor was the intention.  But I do hope for peace, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 00:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. And here's some nice clickbait for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
One's chum is always the best bait. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just not buying your twisted and subversive metrosexual bromance agenda, Tryppy! I'll saddle up my own rainbow unicorns, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"Twisted and subversive metrosexual bromance"! I'm at a loss for words after that! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Getting back onto a serious note, I just looked (now that I'm allowed) at the user talk page of the other editor in the IBAN, and it's really sad how the haters are coming out of the woodwork to, among other things, take shots at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Am saying nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's me, just a fish in a barrel.   --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
But it's a whiskey barrel, so the shots are on me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And I should have read the details before posting my joke, because it seems awkward considering that a one-way ban still persists (it was not my intention to troll the other editor)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, please don't worry about it. I didn't even realize that it could have been construed that way until you pointed this out. No offense is intended, either by you or by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


What part of WP:GMORFC does this violate. I looked (but not too hard). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with me. It changed some of the references in the RfC paragraph. There was a discussion specifically about this, and I've just tried to find it, but didn't. @Boghog: do you remember where that discussion was? Citation bot tends to keep changing the page numbers and some other things, and I know I checked those items for accuracy, so there's something that goes oddly when editors try to revise it using automated edits. The issue is that nothing in the RfC paragraph should be changed without serious discussion, per discretionary sanctions. I know that you were just making a helpful gnomish edit, but this particular paragraph has been a battleground, and it's best to not change it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I am not certain which discussion that you are referring to, but the discussion that I was involved with is found here. Boghog (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was it. Thanks for helping me find it! So that's the background, AManWithNoPlan. If anything I've said is unclear, please let me know. I'll be happy to try to clarify it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that even wrong page numbers are "frozen in time". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you see it that way. I'm reasonably sure that the page numbers were correct when the paragraph was written, and I would have trouble understanding how they could have changed since then. If they really are wrong, I think it would be quite possible to get a consensus to correct them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw that you added back the "nobots" tag; thanks for that. But I regret that you also added that rather unnecessary hidden text: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I stepped away from the computer and took a long walk to think about it, and I really don't want it to look like I want WP to have incorrect information. I hope that goes without saying. I don't understand why there seems to be a possible error with these page numbers, and I don't know whether the problem is with the original edits or with the software that has flagged it subsequently. I am so tired of the whole GMO thing, and tired of all the drahmah that's been happening lately due to Framgate, and I just don't feel the motivation to look into it. But if any of my talk page watchers might figure things out, and it turns out that corrections are needed, I'll be happy to help with the red tape so the corrections can be made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I am going to use the bot on the other parts of the page and commit those edits. Then I will see what needs fixed (if anything) in the sacred part of the page. It is possible that there is little of value in that area worth fixing . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds like a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That helped. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I share your sentiments on wanting to give the GMO topic some relative bearth now (partly why I've been taking a semi-break this summer), but I took a look at the edit and the original RfC.
Nicolia et al. at the time was actually "correctly" listed as pages 1-12 rather than 77-88. For those not familiar, when you see that happen, the journal at the time hasn't assigned formal page numbers within the current volume, and just gives pages within the manuscript instead. The same happened with Krimsky et al. and Panchin et al. too The last two were newer at the time, so completely understandable formal pages hadn't been assigned yet, but I'm guessing whatever was used for Nicolia et al. to populate the template was the early access web version I linked to. In the end, that's not really a big deal I'd really worry about going through the process of getting it changed. There are some housekeeping edits I do like in that edit (mostly adding a few doi parameters), but considering there aren't currently any citation breaking errors in terms of leading editors to the sources, probably best just to let it be for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. KofA, that makes very good sense, and now I feel like I understand. If the updated page numbers would be more accurate for our readers, I don't mind at all having that fixed, subject to WP:There is no deadline. It wouldn't be particularly hard to get an administrative OK for purely gnomish edits, and the only hassle would be getting it fixed at every one of the pages with that paragraph. Either way is OK with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That's mostly my sentiment too. It would be much later this summer, but I'd be willing to comb through the citations for anything else that didn't pop up in that edit before formally requesting a change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, thanks. And now I'm going to read and fret over the statement from the Board of Trustees that just came out. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I see that the bot has been gradually making these changes, even now at the RfC page itself, and the changes do appear to be correct. So I think the best thing to do is to let the bot do its thing, and the rest of us can just let it happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I did just put it on my to-do list once August rolls around (editing time is finally picking up again with field season settling down to a degree). I'll still take a look then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that would be good too, thanks for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: or anyone else who plans to work on it. I've just learned (from some edits that I had to revert) that there are WP:Linter errors in the RfC language as well. (I don't really understand linter myself.) They have to be fixed too, but without messing up the formatting of the citations and footnotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I heard about that earlier and still have to figure out what's going on myself. I just starting chipping away and proofing things a little bit this weekend, but I'll be checking over more this week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I think but have low confidence that it may be having something like <p> and </p> spanning a line break. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I went through and checked all urls either replacing them or adding an archive url, updated access dates, checked page numbers, etc. I looked for redundant urls where the doi already pointed to them, but I didn't find much. Unfortunately, that edit doesn't display so great as a diff, so I'll either have to go back and do a series of individual edits, or just point out specifically what was changed in a summary when this gets officially proposed. It's all just minor housekeeping stuff though that I did so far, but it's held together pretty well for being three years old.
I'll tinker with the above a bit more after the holiday and check out the linter errors, but in the meantime, do any other pieces or errors come to mind that have come up in previous conversations? Feel free to edit my sandbox page if you see something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds great – thanks! I'm not aware of anything else, other than the page numbers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been getting swamped lately and somewhat trying to stay away from the computer in downtime too. I think I got it (diff here). I setup one of the Linter checkers and it was all the paragraph breaks not having and ending tag </p> for the most part, but the quote template didn't seem to like paragraphs within as much. It seemed to stomach <br> a little better though. Lots of futzing to figure that out, but I can't find any more errors.
So I think the heavy lifting on editing is done. What do you think the most straightforward way to move forward with this is exactly? Just asking an admin for permission to make minor formatting changes as a DS, formal posting somewhere, etc.? My sandbox edits at User:Kingofaces43/sandbox2 between Sept 8-12 have all the relevant diffs with no changes to text, just citation formats.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries about the delay! I just checked over the sandbox version very carefully, and it looks very good to me. Obviously, it will be necessary to cut-paste it into each page where it appears – and I'll leave that to you, not me! So the question is, first, whether to do a procedural request for permission. In my opinion, yes we should do that, simply because skipping it would open up the door to someone else coming along and making other changes and claiming "but you let them do it without asking for permission". Given how nasty the GMO dispute can get, it's better to be absolutely meticulous, Caesar's wife and all that. I'll take responsibility for that. Please give me a day or two, and I'll file it at WP:AE. It will definitely be uncontroversial (famous last words!), and then the article changes can go ahead, after that. And thanks so much for your work on this! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And on a lighter noteEdit

My new favorite example of creative vandalism: [10]. @EEng: Given how much I know you love pro wrestling, this one's for you! (It's been a long time since a GMO edit made me laugh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So it's not him? EEng 21:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sshh... He's been moonlighting as a groundskeeper, for extra cash. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly misidentified coralEdit

Possibly misidentified corral-EEng

@Atsme: @Epipelagic: I was looking at Cycloseris, and the page has a photo that is labeled as C. wellsi. I'm concerned that the photo is mislabeled (and I figure I might as well post about it here as there). I can make out what I think are the polyps on its surface, and it looks to me to be nothing like any of the Fungiidae (cf commons:category:Cycloseris). What do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about misidentified - looks more like an early developing plate or star coral. Atsme Talk 📧 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's an error, the same editor also uploaded this. But see Fig 1(E–H) and Fig 5(E). This seems a better image to use in the article. – Epipelagic (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all, very much. I think the coral may be O.K. (per EEng), but I'm going to swap out the image for one of a different species (since the page is about the genus, not the species). It seems to me that pretty much all the typical species in the Cycloseris genus have a skeleton with ridges that radiate out from the center, and soft tissue between the ridges. So at best, the image is of an atypical species, and it would be better to replace it. In support of it being not-typical, the file page for File:Cycloseris wellsi, Egipto.jpg says that Cycloseris is a synonym for Coscinaraea. The journal article that Epipelagic cited seems to me to explain what is actually going on. The authors reclassify Cycloseris so that it still contains species that are "free-living and monostomatous", which is a fancier way of saying what I said about the radial skeleton, and additionally some species, such as C. wellsi, that are instead "attached and polystomatous" and were previously misidentified as Coscinaraea – which means that I'll use a more typical image for the lead section, and add the new info from that source, with the existing figure down below. And the figure now on the page actually does look like it could be "attached and polystomatous". Thanks again for the feedback, because it helped me figure this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of "toxic"Edit

I don't know which date you have in mind, - a recorded edit dates from 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually didn't have any specific date in mind, just a general sense that the term might have come from WMF rather than from the community. (For those playing along at home, this comes out of WP:FRAM.) But, wow! Maybe it was Jimbo who started it. (And I think I could be justified in associating him with the WMF.) But that example is just about as clear an indication as I can find of why it is, indeed, a bad idea to use the term. In my opinion, that user is just about the exact opposite of "toxic"! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, a piece of Kremlinology I heard from several institutional-memory type users at the time, was that Jimbo was in that post most likely actually gunning for my dear friend Giano, who was more of a provocateur then than now. You notice J is kind of vague, for instance he uses the plural (personalities.) Didn't stop Bishzilla from creating a few extra socks on the theme for herself though, including this one. Little Toxic Personality (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC).
My goodness, there are so many of you! (I have to admit: when I first saw the username, I thought that either someone was trolling me, or it was someone permabanned editing as a sock!) Whatever you do, please don't tell Bishonen what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect our beloved and dear leader never meant to block Bishonen at all, he had just confused his Knäckebröd with his Arrosticini. An easy mistake, if you rely on others for your information Giano (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There are certainly a great many mistakes that get made at this website. But any friend of Bish (in whatever incarnation) is a friend of mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A real problemEdit

Tryp - I can't discuss certain issues re:gaslighting, but here is one for the gipper: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts to evade detection - I could not believe what I was reading. It describes the ideal non-disruptive editor, and it is far more dangerous to productive editors than a little gaslighting. I've been there, too. Walk in my shoes 👠👠 19:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we are discussing gaslighting (not to be confused with lighting farts), growing out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 26. Atsme, I rather doubt that your shoes would fit me. But seriously, that section at the WP:Disruptive editing page ain't gaslighting. As I've said at the other page, I'm taking very seriously the possibility that there may be ways in which female editors can feel gaslighted, where most male editors would not, and there may be other categories of cultural differences where that applies as well. And I know that gaslighting is a real thing (arguably, it's what Fox News does).
The concern that I have is whether it really can happen in the course of Wikipedia editing. Any time anyone feels like all of the other users in a particular discussion are on some other wavelength, there is always a mechanism, such as an RfC, for getting more eyes, uninvolved eyes, on the discussion, and clearing things up. It seems to me that most of the time when a user feels like "I'm being gaslighted", what is actually happening is that no one else sees things the way that that user does. And at some point, we get to where we have to recognize that the problem is with that user, rather than with everyone else. "Wikipedia can't really be serious about that no original research thing, so all these editors must either be whacko or part of some conspiracy, so they are gaslighting me, and I need to expose this to the press." Um, no. I'm doing my best to push back against the careless use of the term, because otherwise it will simply give aid and comfort to people who should instead be shown the door. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
How I imagine Tryptofish when trying to figure out what Atsme is saying. --Atsme
I'm actually much cuter than that. --Tryptofish
  Newe, newe, newe...not what I meant when I included "evade detection". I attempted to change the subject and obviously did a poor job of it. It has nothing to do with gaslighting. The only similarity is that it's used to trap innocent editors.
You said, The concern that I have is whether it really can happen in the course of Wikipedia editing. Yes, it can happen and it does according to the definition WP:GASLIGHTING #4. There are more subtle applications of the term that are in no way as dramatic as what the movie portrays. Hypothetically speaking (not be the best example but it will have to do for now), I present a proposal and provide a list of RS that support the criticism I want to include in the article, but you reject it. The sources I provide use the proper name of an action rather than the acronym. You insist that the sources I provided are not RS because they do not support the material. I explain that it's the full word, not the acronym, but it means the same thing - we go back and forth a bit. You start accusing me of DROPTHESTICK, DIDNTHEARTHAT, yada yada. I back off and re-read the RS and what I proposed. But wait...I'm just providing RS and explaining, so why all the accusations? Another editor jumps in who shares your POV - neither of you want that negative info in the article, even though it is notable and does support inclusion. The 2nd editor agrees with you that it's not supported by the sources, and I should DROPTHESTICK. I go back and re-read the sources again because now I'm doubting myself and the sources...but wait - it means the same thing, it's just an acronym. So now I'm wasting valuable time trying to find only those sources that use the acronym. I'm in a tailspin over the accusations - I'm wondering if I'm really guilty of doing the things they've accused me of doing. I go back, and start an RfC for wider community input. That is met with further disruption. And that my WikiFriend is gaslighting per the WP definition - Gaming the consensus-building process - misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others - all to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Atsme Talk 📧 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not my fault. I'm just an agape Swedish actress. --Objective3000
No comment about whether or not I'm cuter than that. --Tryptofish
  • Atsme, I have to say, you misunderstood the meaning of the term and didn't use the WP link. We all make mistakes. But, frankly speaking, you owe apologies to those you accused of Gaslighting. No big deal, I try to apologize to someone every week. Works much better and more quickly than doubling/tripling/quadrupling down. (I love blackjack metaphors.) Frankly, I considered trying to remove the WP link -- but it's too late. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The tl;dr: I was trying not to get too pushy with you, Atsme, but I pretty much agree with Objective3000. The rest: I've been aware all along of the stuff that's been going on in American Politics, but I was trying not to acknowledge that. Now, I don't know specifically about acronym versus spelled out in full. But other than that, it doesn't sound like gaslighting to me, but rather what I described just above, and I think that labeling it as gaslighting is a dodge. And I'm not basing this on the movie. Using instead the lead paragraph of our page about it:
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.
(I didn't bother copying the blue links for the second sentence, since the dictionary meanings of those words are pretty clear.) First of all, gaslighting has to be intentional, so miscommunication between editors isn't it. It not only has to be targeted, but it also has to be persistent over time, plunging the target into a prolonged situation of cognitive dissonance. A proper RfC should clear up any situation like that, because more editors will arrive and sort it out. If editors are disrupting the RfC, that too can be sorted out. But if a consensus emerges that the RfC was malformed, or if the RfC yields a result that the editor who started it doesn't like, then it's time for that editor to edit topics somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. This is a significant part of why I try to stay away from editing American Politics. It's kind of noticeable to me that a lot of support for using the redirect, in the redirect discussion, is coming from editors who are active in that topic. Just sayin'. Also, it occurs to me that the M.O. used by Donald Trump really is gaslighting. Just sayin'. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That's your definition and you're entitled to believe whatever you want. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry that the discussion had to take this turn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
[11] O3000 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Glyphosate "desiccation" footnoteEdit

It makes sense to have moved the info to a footnote. But I was sorry to see it buried so I copied it over to the WP page on ..... ready?.... "Crop desiccation." A problem was that page was a mess with multiple flags, non-existent links, etc, so I had to spend more time than I wanted to in fixing that page. You might be interested at taking a crack at that page too.Lapabc (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Part of my reasoning for making it a footnote was actually that it reads a bit essay-like. I'll leave the desiccant page to others – my talk page watcher Kingofaces will likely be better at that than I would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that I did just see this finally. I haven't been able to catch up very much in the last month or so, but I'll be back to more regular editing this week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Huon, and Ritchie's talkpageEdit

Just so you know - Huon had said earlier If someone has further genuine questions about the block, they're welcome to ask me on my talk page or to bring it to WP:AN for a review.. I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not since you appeared be addressing Huon directly about the block [12]. SQLQuery me! 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I had pinged him, but you are right. I'll leave him a note at his talk. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Hey Tryptofish, I was hoping to get your opinion on a couple things by email but noticed that email doesn't seem to be enabled for you. If you're free, could you shoot me an email at wikipedia [at] kevinsli [dot] com? If not I completely understand. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I almost never communicate off-wiki. Is it possible to give me, here, at least a hint about what this is about? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Tryp, not a big deal, was just seeking perspectives on the recent IBAN. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I'll say it on-wiki. Should be two-way, no commentary, no admonishment, no nothing, full stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


  Hey, Tryptofish. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess this makes me wiki-old. (I sure feel that way!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  Thanks Tryptofish for your contribution to the Fram workshop! :) starship.paint (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A botanical, rather than a formatting, questionEdit

Evening Tryptofish - I hope you are keeping well. I'm slowly ploughing through the Grade II* list, making the necessary amendments, but the Grade I list made FL, for which many thanks! I'm currently polishing Chartwell, prior to its main page appearance, and have a roses-related query. In 1958, WSC and CSC's children paid for the Golden Rose walk, in celebration of their golden wedding anniversary. The sources tell me it comprises 32 varieties of Golden Roses. Is this actually a type, as opposed to a generic term for yellow, and are there any better links on here for it than Garden roses? I'm not seeing anything. Any suggestions much appreciated. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a puzzle. I've just looked through my books about roses, and I'm quite sure that there is no such thing as a group of roses that are, collectively, called "Golden Roses". Not surprisingly, there are lots of rose varieties that have "Golden" as part of their name ("Golden Beauty" and so forth). Rosa hugonis, or "Father Hugo's Rose" is also called "The Golden Rose of China", but there are not multiple varieties of it. I wondered if there were a hybridizer of roses whose last name was Golden, and I haven't found one on any of the lists I know of. (Searching online gives the name of a music group, which is obviously not what you want.) The closest is Golden State Nursery in Atlanta, Georgia, who grow roses, but I doubt that it's that. There is Golden Rose, a kind of jewelry, but it doesn't sound like something to make a garden around. What I'm left thinking is that it is simply a garden of gold-colored (sorry, coloured) rose varieties (basically: yellow roses), of which there are many varieties available. Sort of like the White Garden at Sissinghurst, except yellow and roses-only. That would be my best guess. You could write it as "golden roses", without linking "golden". I'm reasonably sure it has to be that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
No, really helpful. I wondered if it was a collective term for yellow rose, I was just slightly thrown by the capitalisation, which is used in a number of sources. But then, they don’t use you as horticultural consultant. golden rose it is. And I had no idea Buddleja is now spelt with a j - one learns something new on here every day. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, both I and the butterflies are appalled that it isn't Buddleia. Anyway, glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Action potentialEdit

See MOS:BOLDSYN, particularly the footnote explaining that bolded synonyms need not be redirects if these would be ambiguous. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. That was my mistake, and thank you for fixing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wording on Wikipedia:Notability (academics)Edit

Hey! Just wanted to drop a note to say thanks for looking over my last couple rounds of edits at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and contributing some historical perspective and technical know-how (that side-by-side view... looking at the wikitext, I'm still not sure how you made that happen...). I'm glad someone is looking at the page, and I certainly don't mind having my suggested wording tweaked or rolled back (this is a wiki after all). I was going to just press the "thank" button, but I thought that might seem insincere in this case. So this is the less efficient version of that button. TLDR: Thanks. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And thank you as well! I appreciate that very much. I do think the writing is much tighter now, so thanks for that as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Tryptofish".