User talk:Moribundum

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Please sign your text in Talk. Do this by writing ~~~~ in other words 4 tildas. Otherwise the talk page is starting to look like a total mess. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The keys don't correspond the symbols in most cases for me. I have no idea where to find these symbols and usually there is an autosign function or if you click reply it also does it automatically Moribundum (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also can never find the hash symbol or the vertical pipe Moribundum (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing from a phone? If so, change keyboards to something that gives you all keys. If not, something is very wrong with your PC/Mac keyboard! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hi Moribundum! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Fecal incontinence several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Fecal incontinence, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This concerns your edit summary which claims: "This is ideologically motivated removal of content". Zenomonoz (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who do not respond on talk page. I made no personal attack.

Again, just writing something or posting a message does not make it true. Reality will not change if you deny it enough times Moribundum (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning for WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. Here you wrote "I looked at edit history... you have non neutral point of view and want to push a narrative that anal penetration has no correlation to incontinence", despite the fact I was the user who first incorporated coverage of anal sex on the article. And just to be clear, behavioural concerns do belong on your talk page, not topic pages. It it standard and expected practice to post these here. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning for personal attack? There have been zero personal attacks.

I could write things in green and put links to page, it doesn't make them true Moribundum (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that I have a "non neutral point of view" from my edit history is clearly WP:ADHOMINEM, and you've met WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE by calling my reversion "ideologically motivated ". I'm asking you to acknowledge this and apologise. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your accusation that I made an attack Moribundum (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the section on accusations of malice section, ad hominem or WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.

Do you stand by your claim that my revert was an "ideologically motivated removal of content" [1] and that I hold a "non neutral point of view and want to push a narrative that anal penetration has no correlation to incontinence" [2] after everything I have explained to you? Zenomonoz (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop leaving messages here

I can take anything you did or said and call it a personal attack, it doesn't make it true Moribundum (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Moribundum: incivility and problem editing reported by User:Zenomonoz. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 02:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just noting for any admin reviewing an unblock, I have declined to unblock but that is simply my opinion at this stage of the dispute and have no objection to another admin who may believe an unblock is merited. Star Mississippi 02:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unban request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moribundum (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Regarding the 1st reason "Repeat copyright violation"

I think this refers to an event in 2022 when I placed Rome diagnostic criteria on an article, believing it was a constructive addition. I did not know there was a rule against this, and debated the need for such a rule (such criteria almost universally published in papers, textbooks and websites without permission). I did not put the material back into the article, and have not had any copyright violation since that time in 2022. Therefore, "repeat copyright violation" is unsound reason for ban. Repeat copyright violation would be appropriate for an editor who was just copy pasting content into articles, which I don't do, obviously.

Regarding the 2nd reason, "sourcing issues"' ...and Mississippi's other vague comment "sourcing concerns" which they have refused to give more specific details 3 times. I am expected to read their mind. Anyway, I paste below my evidence that this is false, it's reproduced from a different forum but apparently that is not enough and it must be in this template too.

Examples of my edits:

Pudendal nerve entrapment - massive rework of article. Removal of some primary or unsuitable sources. Addition of many modern reliable sources. Removal of unsourced content.
Ventral rectopexy - wrote from scratch. Where is the sourcing issue? High quality, professional standard article.
Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome - rework of article. Significantly improved. Where is the sourcing issue?
Transanal irrigation - significant expansion of article. Sourcing problem?
Rectal stricture - wrote article from scratch.
Cul-de-sac hernia - from scratch
Obstructed defecation - massive expansion
Enterocele - significant expansion
Sigmoidocele
Implantable bulking agent- from scratch
Perianal injectable bulking agent- from scratch

These are medical articles and it can be seen that sources meet the MEDRS guideline. Note however that some non MEDRS sources may be included in articles in the "History" section. That is because historical details are not health claims.

Mississippi's comments may (or may not) refer to 2 events, but they repeatedly refuse to confirm this:

Incident on psyllium (see section "Review marked as unreliable" on talk) in Nov 2024 -- taken from edit history by malicious editor trawling for "dirt". To summarize, a belligerent and rude editor deleted my edits claiming that one of the sources was from a predatory journal. I highly suspect they didn't even read the source to check its quality. Well I searched for the journal in question in the lists of predatory journals that were supplied, and it was not in the lists. Then the editor in question changed justification to claim that the journal was on pubmed, but was not medline indexed. Other editors have since expressed opinion that the source would have been OK. I also asked my other edits were also deleted by that editor -- who later gave offhand and retrospective justification that they were "verbose" (they were not). It is highly questionable whether that source and my other content should have been removed, I just don't like arguing with rude people. I suggest that it is the other editor who should have had to answer for their behavior in that incident, not me. The only thing I did wrong was lose patience at the end and snap at them.
Incident on Pudendal nerve entrapment (see section "Heavy reliance on non-peer reviewed source" on talk). This event was again posted by the same editor who has been conducting a harassment campaign against me and who went through edit history trying to find "dirt" (as commented on by several other editors). An editor initially questioned whether a source was suitable. It seems almost immediately they withdrew their claim, saying they were not sure if it really was not peer reviewed or self published. The source therefore continues to be used in the article. I downloaded this book, and the quality seems high and completely conforming to the position in most of the other reliable sources on that topic. The other concern of that editor was that the source was cited many times. As I explained on talk, this is a feature of my editing. I place inline citation very densely in articles, but I never rely on only one source and all sources are reliable. This preserves the integrity of the article as future editors insert new content and new sources. If I write a paragraph that is supported by the same source, but only put 1 inline citation at the end of the paragraph, then when future editors add content in the middle of this paragraph, it is no longer clear what content is supported by what source. If I cite one source 20 times, there will usually be several other sources that I cited 20 times too.
even assuming that sources from the above incidents were unsuitable (1st probably would have been suitable, 2nd definitely suitable), those incidents represent a tiny fraction percentage of sources I used. 99.9% of the sources I use are not challenged by anyone, because they are fine.

Moribundum (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Copying and pasting various statements you made at AN/I is not a good way to get yourself unblocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Moribundum (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Moribundum (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Repeat copy vio -- 1 copy vio from 2022 which was before I knew of that guideline [3]. No repeat since. No intention to in future. * Sourcing issues -- use high quality sources (see for example list of articles I worked on a lot in recent years, pasted in previous appeal). MEDRS applied wherever medical claims are made (note: does not necessarily apply in "history" section of medical articles since historical info). I also responded to specific concerns regarding sourcing on articles psyllium and pudendal nerve entrapment in previous appeal. 1 error identified in pudendal nerve entrapment -- I found the correct source which should have been used to support that text at that point, but I can't fix that right now due to block. Human error, no malice intention (as can be seen by overwhelming majority of my sourcing). Generally, I hope it is clear I am a constructive editor and here to build the encyclopedia while advancing my own knowledge. I'm experienced with the main guidelines and I could edit articles safely without sanction. * Edit warring -- Regarding this past case, after my edit was reverted 1st time, I posted civil msg immediately on talk to start discussion instead of reverting [4]. First revert (as part of wider reorganization of causes section)[5] 25th Jan, 2nd revert [6] 26 Jan lack of engagement with my points on talk... raised concern about non neutral POV. 3rd revert [7] on 27 Jan. It may be that my talk page did not show the notification or I had a cached version of the page which didn't show latest version. That is the honest truth, when I wrote "no response on talk" and reverted I did it only after several hours of not seeing any reply. I am willing to acknowledge that maybe there was a reply but I didn't see it. Discussion was a little petty at points, but never involved insults, threats, or serious rudeness. * In future, should allow discussion to reach consensus before revert, and not make reverts in middle of discussion. Should not lose temper with difficult editor, but seek wider consensus. * Raising concern about non neutral point of view in future should be connected to edits rather than the editor... on talk first and if that is not resolving the issue then on noticeboard with diffs. * Second unban request - see above for more background if needed. * Disclosed old account at arb com as requested, conclusion: no sock puppetry.[8] * Attempting constructive interaction again here Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Anal_sex_section and here Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review Moribundum (talk) 10:25 am, 6 February 2025, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC−9)

Accept reason:

I am reducing your article space block to a block from Fecal incontinence. A little humility and brevity might serve you better going forward, just a thought. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moribundum (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raising concern about non neutral point of view in future should not be done on talk page but instead on notice board with evidence / diffs That is incorrect. You should only go to a noticeboard if talking it out on article talk fails. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to raise concern about non neutral point of view, since that automatically is considered as a personal attack according to latest guidelines Moribundum (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can mention a POV issue without calling editors POV. For example, you cannot say "User:Example is POV." or "Why should we listen to a conservative/liberal like User:Example?". You also can't accuse someone of being e.g. a troll without diffs to back it up (and even then I wouldn't recommend saying it to their face). However, you can say "This edit has a POV." or "User:Example is making changes that don't comply with NPOV." The key is to label the edits as POV, not the editor(s) that made them. QwertyForest (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand Moribundum (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was accused of being a troll with no evidence Moribundum (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]