User:Anthonyhcole/BFP

Following me around
Regarding this and this, do make sure that you are not following me around (whether it's to articles that you know I heavily contribute to, significantly contributed to, or recently contributed to). I most assuredly will not tolerate it for a second, especially since I would rather do without your copyediting. I will not hesitate to call the matter out as WP:Hounding.

And if you reply to me about this, it would be best to reply here at your talk page to keep the discussion centralized. I will see it if you reply because I will check back here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and here too. Every single editor who has followed me around when I did not want them to was either heavily warned, WP:Blocked, or WP:Banned; keep that in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My reply
Be assured that it is not my intention to single out any editor to join discussions on multiple pages or topics he or she may edit or become involved with multiple debates where he or she contributes, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. It is not my intention to create irritation, annoyance or distress to any other editor. I don’t target any editor. I have no reason to do so.

I am also flexible in my Wikipedia editing — usually going from welcoming new users, new page patrolling, nature articles, butterflies, moths, insects, animal behavior, answering editing questions in the Teahouse. Thanks to the comments of one Teahouse guest, I have now stumbled upon articles related to sexuality that need major copy-editing to make them more readable. I'm really good at using the audio-monitoring tool "hatnote" to catch vandals who make large, big bad edits.

I am a user who tracks other users' edits strictly for collegial purposes that would assist me in helping to support their efforts at editing. I have done this carefully and with good cause doing my best to avoid  the mis-perception that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I have no perceived slight. I have not been offended in any way by comments from other editors. As a matter of fact, I take the suggestions and comments of editors who have much more experience than I do constructively so that I can improve my editing.

I understand that the correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended by some Wikipedia policies.

I understand that the important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. If this has been the case I sincerely apologize. I understand if "following another user around" is accompanied by, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

I deny that I have been tendentiousness, made personal attacks, engaged in disruptive behavior or even reverting edits while working on recent articles.

I understand that the ‘hounding’ policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user. I am saddened to read that my actions have been perceived as such.

Yet, you will not find any unwanted correspondence or posting from me sent to other editors. However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions - the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

It is my sincere desire to conduct all correspondence with all editors civilly, assuming good-faith and with every intention to resolve any disputes instead of escalating ones.

Your comments are perceived by me to be a form of constructive feedback. I am willing to listen to criticism, I am willing to respond rationally to criticism, I am willing to change how I act based upon constructive criticism.

From what I understand about Wikipedia policy, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Administrators should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. persistent personal attacks;

personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site);

actions placing users in danger;

actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection;

disclosures of others' personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);

persistent copyright violations;

persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons;

vandalism;

gross incivility;

harassment;

spamming;

edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;

breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;

attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested. MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages. Typically, for poor self-conduct, such as mistreating others during a dispute.

Best Regards,


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Response
Regarding this and your unnecessary subpage on this matter, I don't care what you supposedly admire about the number of edits I have achieved. If you continue following me around, after I have been very clear that I do not want you to, I will seek action. And just in case you have not done the proper research on my block cases, they are at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases for you and others to read up on; as can be seen there, each of the serious block cases, except the first one, were successfully contested. The second one is basically explained by the first one, and acknowledges that I was telling the truth. My brother's ways of editing taught me even more about WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry than I already knew about those types of editing, but they cost me a clean block log. And the one block case of mine that I don't consider serious is when my account was blocked to specifically keep my brother from using it. In other words, your following me around is not excused by the "violations of Wikipedia policy" addition. You have absolutely no reason to be monitoring my edits. If you want to find an actual WP:Disruptive editor, rather than a sometimes-grumpy one, to follow around, then look elsewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My response
I have a sincere desire to de-escalate this situation.

I am not following you around.

I regret that I may have caused you distress.

The reasons why you were blocked and unblocked are irrelevant to my editing. I am happy for you that these issues were resolved in your past.

I suggest that, in the spirit of camaraderie, the assumption of good faith on your part in my part, and to allow me not to be distracted from editing you probably need to initiate action against me instead of threatening to do so. I would, of course rather you did not do so because again, it would take time away from my editing.

I believe what started this controversy was that I did not consider editing the sexism article to be controversial. And since you informed me that you have had much experience with controversial articles, I thought I would try to learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished. Editing articles after you have edited articles does not mean that I am following you around. I don't believe I have even ever reverted any edits that you have ever made, but I could be wrong because I never delved that deeply into your editing history. You may have made an edit one or two years ago, and I may have inadvertently reverted it with my editing.

I am in a quandary here. Many of the articles that you are editing are poorly written, poorly referenced, are long-winded and may not always contain a neutral prose style - you are not to blame here, it's just that all of the other editors have missed their opportunities to make the necessary corrections. Since the articles that I am editing have been edited by probably hundreds of people, it's not reasonable for you to think that I am following you around.

As you can tell, in the attempt to make you feel more comfortable and less "followed around", I have backed off the sexism article quite a bit until you feel less threatened.

Friend, fellow editor, fellow Wikipedian, please let us both get back to the business of making the encyclopedia even better than it is already.
 * Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reply

 * I'm not sure why you keep responding there, but if I wanted to respond there, I would have. I have responded here again so that this content is appropriately documented in Wikipedia's edit history and cannot be deleted from the edit history; subpages can, of course, be deleted from the edit history on a whim. The actual user talk pages? No. Making it seem like I have been responding at your subpage is annoying, as are some of your comments on this matter. For example, your claim that you are not following me around is silly. You are following me around; there is nothing inadvertent about visiting the Hymen and Gender role articles a little after I edited them. There is nothing inadvertent about making this edit to the Labia article after you no doubt recently saw me at the Mons pubis article. I have dealt with your type various times before; one notable case is this one; take note of how that case turned out. And, yes, targeting articles that I have edited, no matter if months or years after I have edited them, falls under WP:Hounding. As for the state of the articles I edit, I edit many articles. I was clear to you at the Sexism talk page that "the the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are unsourced or poorly sourced." So it is not surprising that you would be coming across poor articles when following me to articles. That stated, I have edited many WP:Good and WP:Featured, or otherwise decent, articles as well. And I have helped get articles to WP:Good or WP:Featured article status. Whether you consider those articles deserving of their good or featured status does not matter to me. What matters to me is that you stop following me around, and that, if you do follow me around, you do not mess up as you did at the Hymen article. From what I have seen of your copyedits, they often are not what is best for articles, no matter how great you think they are. After our disagreements concerning the Sexism article, you are the one who decided to take an interest in me. I have no interest in you, other than that I would rather not see your copyedits and would rather not interact with you. If I want a WP:Copyeditor, I know where to go. And that you've, so far, quit editing the Sexism article does nothing to stop the fact that you are following me around.


 * I'm done replying to you on this matter unless I see that you have continued to follow me around. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My reply
I don't think I am being appropriately clear. I am not following you around. I intend to copy edit articles having to do with the reproductive systems of man and women. I believe I can bring a neutral point of view to articles that may be considered controversial. This has nothing to do with you. I intend to copy edit articles that have to do with sexually-transmitted diseases. I intend to copy edit articles having to do with reproductive anatomy, I have found some errors in some of these articles and they have very few sources. I intend to copy edit articles having to do with gay lesbian issues. Since I'm letting you know this ahead of time, perhaps you can now see that I am not following you although you are welcome to follow me. I'm beginning to see a pattern of poorly sourced and referenced articles in these categories and they need work. I suggest that you initiate whatever action you believe to be appropriate at this time instead of making threats and questioning my good-faith.


 * Best regards


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22
Hi Bfpage. Flyer22 made me aware of what has been going on, and I have looked at difs and thought about this. Some things for you to consider:

good luck to you, in any case! Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the dif where you said you plan to follow Flyer around (at 18:39, 21 February 2015) This bit is especially unfortunate: "I believe what started this controversy was that I did not consider editing the sexism article to be controversial. And since you informed me that you have had much experience with controversial articles, I thought I would try to learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished."  In my view, that is a clear admission  that you indeed consciously set out to start following  Flyer.   You wrote that, it is there.
 * It is pretty clear from reviewing your edits that you have been trying to add some kind of "gender parity" to the Sexism article. Some of what you did was OK, but some of that was really bad editing - mangling the sense of the article and the sources in pursuit of gender parity in the content.   You wrote somewhere that you thought the articles needed a lot of just plain editing work.  Well, you made them worse in some ways.
 * The following is really important -- Issues related to "gender-related dispute or controversy" have been to arbcom and are subject to discretionary sanctions. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate.  I will provide you with formal notice of that below, and will make sure a notice is placed on the Sexism article Talk page as well.  If you don't know what that is all about, I strongly recommend you educate yourself before you go further.
 * since you have clearly written that you intended to start following Flyer, and since you are clearly seeking to change the POV of the articles she edits, in a way that is directly subject to arbcom, you are in a vulnerable position. If someone were to take you to arbcom, the likelihood is high that you would end up topic-banned or face other sanctions.  And if you continue to edit as you have been, the likelihood of you being brought to AE seems pretty high to me.
 * So you should perhaps reconsider your intentions.  If you decide to continue, I urge you to be very WP:CIVIL, avoid edit-warring, and talk about contentious changes on the relevant article Talk page.


 * Greetings! Jytdog and thank you for your courteous and thoughtful message here on my talk page. I'd like to address each one of your points, if I may, although this may seem out of order.


 * Your edit to the sexism article that clarified the section on wartime rape was excellent. I was glad to see the changes that you have made-the article is better for it.


 * I have searched Wikipedia for at least an hour and have found no reference to gender parity. Is this a policy? I understand the policies regarding a neutral point of view, not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints and information, but I cannot find a definition for gender parity. Perhaps this is something that makes the article controversial to begin with.  As far as I know, I am editing from a neutral point of view.  How is it possible to have a point of view concerning the article hymen? Or pelvic inflammatory disease?


 * I don't know if this is the right place to do this, but I am very willing to limit myself to not editing the following pages that are listed on the edit count summary (a statistical-looking page found here) of Flyer22:

Articles Flyer22 has created:

Where not to edit
Wartime sexual violence


 * 694       Sexual intercourse
 * 599       Clitoris
 * 591       Adolescence
 * 550       Anal sex
 * 520       Pedophilia
 * 434       Orgasm
 * 422       Vegetarianism
 * 334       Physical attractiveness
 * 320       Asexuality
 * 292       Vagina
 * 279       Virginity
 * 278       Bisexuality
 * 246       Rape
 * 225       Sexual orientation
 * 212       Tribadism
 * 203       G-spot
 * 193       Gender
 * 189       Ephebophilia
 * 165       Blond
 * 164       Supermodel
 * 154       Non-penetrative sex
 * 149       Hebephilia
 * 143       Child
 * 140       Pansexuality
 * 130       Homosexuality
 * 123       Puberty
 * 118       Lesbian sexual practices
 * 115       Human sexual activity
 * 114       Teen Mom
 * 111       Preadolescence
 * 48        Child sexual abuse
 * 19        Sexual fetishism
 * 9          Reproduction
 * 47         Rape by gender
 * 8          Childhood gender nonconformity
 * 38         Psychopathy
 * 59         Paraphilia (redirect from deviant sex)
 * 12         Prostitution
 * 66         Sex position
 * 26         Child sexuality
 * 26         Child pornography
 * 4          Child sex tourism
 * 41         (un-named)
 * 7          ovaries
 * 2          female genital mutilation
 * 4          uterus
 * 6          Vaginal fornix
 * 95         Cunnilingus


 * Unfortunately, she may edit more than what is listed here but I can't find the names of the are there articles that she edits so that I can avoid editing those articles. I hesitate to communicate with her directly, because I do not want make her feel hounded. It is fortunate that you are taking on the role of a peacemaker and I believe that this is helping to de-escalate the situation.


 * When I stated that there were topics that I planned on editing, I erroneously thought that announcing this fact ahead of time, rather than after the fact would show my good-faith in not following her around. I actually had no idea that most of those topics I mentioned were topics that she actually was active in. I knew what articles she had created, and made a few edits there because they seemed quick and easy to fix. Whenever I visit an article page, if I see an error I quickly fix it, not even thinking that it would be perceived as some type of harassment.


 * I must admit I had difficulty understanding this whole concept of following someone around. I have a couple of editors who follow me around all the time and use their semi automated bots to correct many of my editing mistakes especially having to do with references. As far as I know, no one has ever had any major problems with any content that I've added to Wikipedia, except thankfully for those editors who follow me around and correct my spelling mistakes and typos.


 * As for Issues related to "gender-related dispute or controversy" have been to arbcom and are subject to discretionary sanctions..." I have some questions that I have not been able to find answers to even after studying all of those policy pages to which you referred me. Am I to understand that the potential exists that I would be banned from editing certain articles? Categories? Talk pages? Templates? I read that the potential exists that I could be banned from editing topics.  Does topics mean specific articles? Portals? Subjects? Species?  If I impose a ban on myself to not edit the above listed articles, doesn't this accomplish the same purpose?


 * Thank you for becoming involved. I know that you have helped me to understand things.


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 04:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply and for engaging so graciously in this discussion.


 * i guess you are not aware of the following... but there has been an influx of "men's rights" editors into WP (mostly driven by the controversy over the Gamergate article here (really just an extension of the controversy across the internet about that). Many articles related to gender have been affected and one of their key goals has been to correct what they see as anti-male bias that they see as systemic in WP;  attaining "gender parity" is often their goal.   It was good that you put your finger on this first - that pattern in your edits to Sexism is one of the things that made your stated intention to start following Flyer22 around especially disturbing.  She works on a lot of the articles these activists have targeted.


 * as for the "whole concept of following someone around"... this place is full of humans, and humans have this icky tendency of getting angry at someone, fixing on that person in their anger, and stalking them, actively pursuing conflict across articles. It actually happens, and not infrequently.  it is why WP:HOUND (which is policy)  was written.  Sometimes people are able to remain mostly calm in what they write, but are actually angry and actually engage in this behavior.


 * i hope that context helps you see that your behavior and statements gave the appearance that you may be committed to gender parity and you may be hounding Flyer (which has actually happened to her)... and why that caused her to react strongly, and caused me to reach out to you.


 * with regard to arbcom and discretionary sanctions (DS).... this stuff is deep in the bowels of wikipedia's bureaucracy and I am still learning about how it actually works.  Here is my understanding so far.
 * People disagree in Wikipedia all the time, as you imagine.  Most times disagreements get worked out in Talk pages (or people just give up and go work on something else and the conflict goes away) and Wikipedia' whole dispute resolution (DR) process is never formally or thoughtfully engaged with - many people never learn about it.  But part of the wisdom of this place and part of what has kept it working, is that there actually is a whole well-thought out set of DR process.  See WP:DR for a description of it.   We have separate processes for content disputes and for behavior disputes.    As that article describes, there are articles and subject matter where content disputes get so intense that people across the spectrum of positions start behaving badly and DR completely fails.   Those articles and subject matters  - more specifically the people involved in them - end up at arbcom.  That is kind of our Supreme Court.  If they take on a case, they look at everybody's behavior, look at the content that has been disputed, look at the relevant policies and guidelines, and issue a statement in which they a) define the facts of the matter (who did what);  b) define the key content and behavioral policy-principles that are at stake in the dispute and for the project overall (linking the dispute with the goals and ideals of WP); c) make judgements where they apply b) to a);   d) mete out "punishments" on people based on the judgements in c) - everything from warnings, to temporary blocks, to topic bans, to complete bans from project - they tend to apply these quite... liberally, across the board;  e) issue a statement that topic X is now under "discretionary sanctions"


 * what that final step means, is 2 things. 1) there is now a fast track to arbcom via what we call an "arbitration enforcement" (AE)  for people who act badly at that article or in that subject matter.  This skips the usually drama boards like ANI etc.   2) if the article gets locked into conflict again, and "uninvolved administrator" (a technical term here) can step and impose sanctions at his or her discretion.  for example. usually you have to exceed 3 reverts to get blocked for edit warring WP:3RR).   To prevent articles from becoming destabilized, an uninvolved admin might step into an article subject to DS,  and impose a 1RR rule.  After that, if you revert more than 1 time in a given time period (established when the 1RR is imposed), you can be blocked for edit warring.


 * that is the short overview, as well as I know it.


 * what you choose to do now, is of course your call!  It seems like you ~might~ have just stumbled into something that you didn't intend to, with the gender parity and HOUNDING thing. I don't know enough to judge.  We know that people involved in Gamergate have lied about their gender and played all kinds of trolling games; they are sophisticated in internet ick.  But like I said, i have no idea how your editing career here will play out nor what you are up to. (only time will tell)   but if I were you, there would be three things I would really focus on:
 * whatever it was you were thinking when, in the course of your intense interaction with Flyer, you made the decision you describe here: "And since you informed me that you have had much experience with controversial articles, I thought I would try to learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished."... i would re-think that, in light of the context that you have now been told about, and maybe say something to Flyer about your re-thinking it in light of the context you now have, and follow through on whatever you say.
 * I would read and re-read what Flyer wrote here and think about it, and respond to what she said there.
 * and i would reflect on whether correcting anti-male bias is part of what I am working on here, in awareness of the conflict that Gamergate has unleashed on WP. That is the context in which you are operating, in those articles.  People who regularly work on them are very aware of the context and will probably assume you are too. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * also... are you sure that some person is actually following you around deploying a bot?  It may be the action of the bot itself (bots patrol WP and fix things, like missing signatures or messed up brackets, and either fix them or send notices, all without anyone targeting them).  there are also some editors here obsessed with things like formatting refs... that is literally all they ever do.  maybe it is someone like that?Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh my! How horrible thing to have happened to Flyer! No wonder I got jumped all over. I will not expect you to read my editing history, but I really do not have any experience with controversial articles. Now I see that sometimes the controversy is created not by friendly disagreements but by people who have agendas and programs. Ick is the right word. I still will avoid all of those articles that I have listed above, out of respect for Flyer and the other horrible experiences she must have gone through.  .... and if anyone needs to follow me around to see if I am making good faith edits and embarking upon correcting and anti-male bias on Wikipedia, they would soon fall asleep from boredom. Happy editing and again thank you for helping me to understand the background to what just happened to me.


 * You know, I don't know if this will help or not but I am willing to share some personal information about myself that can be easily confirmed just so that flyer or anyone else can determine that I really am who I say I am. See my user page I'll post a little more personal information there. Anyone should be able to figure out who I am from that.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 05:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh my! How horrible thing to have happened to Flyer! No wonder I got jumped all over. I will not expect you to read my editing history, but I really do not have any experience with controversial articles. Now I see that sometimes the controversy is created not by friendly disagreements but by people who have agendas and programs. Ick is the right word. I still will avoid all of those articles that I have listed above, out of respect for Flyer and the other horrible experiences she must have gone through.  .... and if anyone needs to follow me around to see if I am making good faith edits and embarking upon correcting and anti-male bias on Wikipedia, they would soon fall asleep from boredom. Happy editing and again thank you for helping me to understand the background to what just happened to me.


 * You know, I don't know if this will help or not but I am willing to share some personal information about myself that can be easily confirmed just so that flyer or anyone else can determine that I really am who I say I am. See my user page I'll post a little more personal information there. Anyone should be able to figure out who I am from that.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 05:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * the doubled response is kind of weird. i don't think you should share details about yourself.  on the one hand that stuff is easily faked, and on the other, if what you would say is true, a) revealing personal information is discouraged in WP (because icky things happen here) and b) it really doesn't matter... what matters is what you actually end up doing here in WP.  this place is profoundly existentialist, philosophy-wise -- what matters is what you do, not who you are. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you went ahead and added that information. i strongly urge you to delete it and ask an admin to revdel it.  Like I said in the context of gamergate no one will believe it because those people lied all the time, and it is not good for you.  Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be aware,, that just as any editor is entitled to edit anonymously, so too is any adult editor entitled to disclose their real world identity. I do so. also does so. Several current and former members of ArbCom do so. Many productive editors and administrators do do. There is nothing wrong in any way with adult, well-informed editors disclosing their real world identity. Though I would oppose making it mandatory, I think that there are many benefits to doing so. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * of course people are free to do whatever they want here!  I don't know where it is now, but I know there is some policy or guideline or essay that warns users to post personal information only with consideration and this does not seem to be a wise context in which to make the decision.  but of course we are all free to do it. thanks for emphasizing that. Jytdog (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You honestly think this leading to this is not following me? I know that you don't honestly think that. What, you got upset about this? If you don't want me stating stuff like that, then stop taking interest in articles and subject areas that I specifically edit. While many people get WP:STiki, that you recently got WP:STiki only seems like a further mimic of my editing style. You haven't listened to, or truly digested, a thing that Jytdog stated above, or what I stated to you above or at Jytdog's talk page. For example, above you stated, "Oh my! How horrible thing to have happened to Flyer!" This is despite the fact that I already pointed you to a notable WP:Hounding case focusing on me. If you were truly trying to stay out of my way, you would not have gone to the Child grooming article. I suppose now you are suddenly interested in child sexual abuse topics? These days, do you never try to edit things you are actually well-educated on? Or do you merely copy others? Never mind. I stand by all of what I stated about you; I don't and will never trust you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)