Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Naked 1RR is out, enforced BRD is back in

A while back I lightened the restrictions on this page from enforced BRD to just 1RR. This, due to consensus among admins that, as a general rule, we start with the basic restriction, and only if they prove inadequate add either the enforced BRD or the Consensus required enhancements. Anyway, I am getting the sense that 1RR is not really working out here, so I'm reintroducing enforced BRD. Now, in the case of violations —as for your various Arbitration enforcement requests— I recommend submitting these at AE, not at the more chaotic, threaded AN/I. El_C 00:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR Reminder

Connor Behan, please revert your most recent edit, as it violates the 1RR restriction on this page. --WMSR (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article? If you have an issue with all of them, that is the purpose of the AfD.

SashiRolls, can you suggest a wording for the AM Joy segment that avoids whatever problems you were hinting at earlier today? The fact that you can pull this on MSNBC and not be fired hasn't generated the 1,000 articles I might've hoped for. But it clearly generated a notable backlash that fits in nicely with the paragraph that already covers the Warren-Sanders dispute. Connor Behan (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't. That source (and also Common Dreams) really shouldn't be anywhere in the article. I will say that the facts presented are WP:UNDUE, as the purpose of this article is not to list and dissect every time Sanders received negative coverage. Including content from op-eds, even if attributed, is problematic, because they are more likely to point out negative coverage as opposed to neutral or positive coverage. --WMSR (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you "can't [sic]" explain why my source is not sufficient, then it should go back. Grammar aside, I am clearly not trying to add every piece of negative coverage. But I am trying to add this one because (1) Sanders took the rare step of demanding an apology regarding it, (2) it's sourced to an author already used in this article, (3) it fits the topic of a paragraph we already have and (4) any reasonable person can see that it's blatantly dishonest... the kind of stuff you find on RT. Your claim that we shouldn't use WP:BIASED sources is not the usual standard. For many contentious topics, the most reliable sources are also biased. We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view. Connor Behan (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't was in response to your question (can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article?). As I stated in my answer, the reason I can't justify its inclusion there is because I can't justify it anywhere in this article. It is true that WP:BIASED states, Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, but this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case here. You said yourself that We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view, yet every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV. --WMSR (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the point of view defending the media is barely represented here outside the academic sources. Sources that could help change this are a Washington Post article which calls Bernie's critique bogus and a Guardian article which asks if it's Trumpian. Are there other sources along these lines that have been pushed out? The disputes that appear most active right now focus on a Clinton Super PAC which has little to do with the topic of media bias or lack thereof. Connor Behan (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Connor Behan, I admire your desire to compromise, but the answer to the issue of putting too much weight on opinion from one side is not to add more opinion from the other side. That would create an argument to moderation, which we should absolutely avoid. We should be relying on facts, not opinions, in this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts that are most heavily discussed in opinionated sources. And in this case, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do require us to balance one side with the other. Tired proseline like "X said Sanders was right, Y said Sanders was wrong" would not help the article but there are a lot of things that would.

• Joy Reid interviewing a guest who claimed she could "read" Sanders" is a fact.
• Sanders being asked about wealth inequality at least five times in 2016 and then ignoring or forgetting about this is a fact.
• Sanders referring to a political journalist as a "gossip columnist" early in his career is a fact.
• Sanders still using Amazon platforms despite his criticism of Bezos and his holdings is a fact.

There's also some statement about him pranking CBS and AP which I had trouble parsing. If the AfD results in "keep" again, I think this is the best direction for this article to take. From the history I've seen, there have been relatively few attempts to improve the neutrality of this article through additions rather than deletions. Connor Behan (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

All of your points are true, but very little of that has to do with media coverage of Sanders. The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media, nor is it about his criticisms of Amazon. Turning the article into a WP:COATRACK won't really help either. If the Reid incident wasn't notable enough to be covered anywhere besides opinionated sources, I would argue that it's not notable enough to be covered here either. --WMSR (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You say, "The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media..." So you are saying that the article should not cover his responces? Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Because this article should not be a WP:COATRACK. It is, at least nominally, about how the media covers Sanders. Nothing more. A sentence about his responses may be appropriate if his response to specific media coverage was notable, but that should not be the focus of the article. The example above does not satisfy that criterion. --WMSR (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an essay and not a very good one at that. There is no good reason to not include Sanders' replies to what has been written about him if it has a RS. Gandydancer (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That essay is widely cited on this project, and itself cites policy. Regardless, WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, also apply here. --WMSR (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Should AWilley's 24hr BRD disciplinary doodad be installed on the TP?

Comment -- I wasn't asked.  :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply -- You're welcome to comment anyway, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't care too much: It tends to keep pages shorter, but is as open to abuse as all rules (as a general rule, it makes tag-team inclusion difficult, but facilitates tag-team deletion). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The 24hr BRD rule was suggested for the article, not the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For it to be valid it is supposed to be included in the TP header. The mass revert Snoog effected was a revert of a lede change that has stood ever since with two or three modifications (one responding to his one legitimate (and quickly fixed) concern about "political handicapping"). Reverting any change to the lede allowing the title to be in the first line would have been possible with this BRD. Rewriting (substantially to respond to specific complaints) is a legitimate reaction to a reversion on a 24h BRD page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --WMSR (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:American politics AE. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest renaming this thread to be more clear then? --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure! Suggest away... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please answer SashiRolls question. It's completely legitimate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

CNN/DNC

Any suggestions as to how we should write up the confirmed information about Donna Brazile leaking CNN townhall questions to the Clinton campaign but not to the Sanders campaign in March 2016?

[1],[2], [3] etc. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This was not a media action. It was a DNC action. She was also a contributor to CNN and was terminated when this was discovered. She now is a Fox contributor. This is not relevant to media coverage of Sanders. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the misclick, I did not mean to revert your comment, I meant to reply. I wonder why you think that it would be "nothingburgerish" for CNN to be employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? This should be added to a section on DNC control over media debates and townhalls, IMO. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)She did not "only" release debate questions. She was a panelist, as she is now on Fox. She did not do this at the behest of CNN. She did it in her role at the DNC. And shame on her. But, CNN fired her when they found out. To suggest CNN purposely employed someone to release debate questions is devoid of evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Strawman alert: I did not say CNN purposely employed someone to release debate (sic) questions. I said that CNN employed a DNC operative (who apparently was sent questions by Roland Martin [4]). Again, structural bias... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually you did. I wonder why you think that it is normal that CNN is employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? But you edited it out while I was responding. As for "structural bias", that belongs elsewhere as any such bias was in the DNC, not the media. There is no evidence that CNN played any role in this entire affair. O3000 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Obj, don't be tendentious. The two turquoise claims in the two preceding comments are not at all the same. Mine says it is pretty dumb for CNN to be hiring such people in the first place, not that they did so in order to send her stuff. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As I alluded to in my Delete vote, a great deal of discussion of the Bernie Blackout, remember that is what this article was supposed to be about, entails the bubble of corporatists these journalists are surrounded by at places like CNN and anywhere in Washington DC. The opinions of these theoretically well meaning journalists are easily swayed by the barrage of people with an agenda. It is an unconscious reflex from that environment to assume, Bernie can't win so lets move on to who else will replace him. And that is what is conveyed in their coverage. The perpetrators behind this message might have malisciious intent, Brazille included in that, but front line journalists, possibly even the management who hired Brazille, might not even be aware of the inherent bias of their decisions and words. Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sashi, I made my point. I see no reason to continue discussion with you since you are now falsely claiming I'm being "tendentious". Not unlike your recent accusation that I was tag-teaming you and you reverted my defense to the accusation. You need to learn to discuss instead of lashing out when you can't find a good response. O3000 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You really need to read FOC instead of continually violating it and then using it against others. Have a good debate. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been an extremely difficult article to get to know and since reading what Trackinfo says here and at the delete article I am gradually beginning to understand why. As best as I can understand Objective seems to be correct here about Brazille, though I so often feel like I'm sitting in on the impeachment debate, which I've had going on in the background (and is making me feel sick...). Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm glad I could bring some clarity for you, others have thanked me too. This subject, from the Democratic side, is part of a big picture problem that pre-shadowed the corruption of Trump. Operatives favorable to the results do not want the stain of their complicity included in history. Many progressives believe Bernie would have won, an article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie would have won about it was deleted by this crowd. The Bernie blackout . . . media bias reflected in the "before" version of this article, the admitted DNC corruption to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), actual election tampering and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of Superdelegates robbed voters of a populist candidate and instead forced in an un-popular candidate that was almost as corrupt and un-popular as the Republican's candidate. It caused Voter apathy which essentially is what elected Trump in the first place. Whether any of you agree with or are willing to admit to understanding this, millions of people have this opinion. They feel robbed by the DNC establishment in 2016 and expect an encore, already in progress in 2020. Wikipedia's failure to cover this subject fairly, the seizure of this article, deletion of others, propaganda insertion into others. And if these operatives are not able to delete the articles, they are inserting slime to discredit the subjects and the new media figures who have been and are reporting these stories. They are all related. Its a big problem for wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As O3000 said, this has nothing to do with media coverage of Sanders and, as such, should not be included here. If it is not there already, perhaps it would fit better in 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums or Donna Brazile. --WMSR (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Donna Brazile incident is outside of the scope of this article. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

regulatory capture / category:criticism of journalism

At the end of the month, Sanders' campaign manager (Faiz Shakir) was invited to CNN's Reliable Sources to talk with Brian Stelter about media bias. Shakir criticized debates and talking head spots on networks like CNN being interspersed with pharmaceutical industry commercials. When asked what issues the campaign wanted to discuss more than the daily dissection of Trump's tweets, Shakir spoke of regulatory capture.

References

(MrX deleted the above here, in one of his three reverts to this article in the last 12h). I am surprised by the brash nature of this act. Some say being brash is being bold, though, I suppose. In which case, if all of their edits were "bold" revisions, this removal of the category "criticism of journalism" is accompanied by some rule-breaking. I am filing a report at the appropriate venue.

Here, let's focus on content. Should the two sentences above be included on the page? (h/t to the person who made me aware of this en.wp page incidentally) Are they due or undue?

Should this page be in the category "criticism of journalism"?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a coach complaining about the referees or press. And please stop interspersing your comments about editors with demands that others FOC. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, because this is a primary partisan source, which is exactly what this article does not need more of. And good on you for filing a report in the proper place. This is not the proper place to complain about other users' conduct, as you have repeatedly pointed out here. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You are still not learning. Stop talking about other editors. As it is you have ownership issues with this article as evidenced on this talk page and your need to respond to every comment in the RfD. And no comment from Sanders' Campaign should be used. It's simple, they are a biased source. Slywriter (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me that your point of view is that the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page should not contain any actual media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign. I feel so much wiser now! Nobody has answered the question about whether the "Category: Criticism of Journalism" should be included. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you make one edit without being snide? No, it doesn't belong. It's someone whining about the press not giving them enough coverage. Just like a coach whining that the refs aren't fair. O3000 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You said that already. Could you tell me explain why the category "Criticism of journalism" was removed, please? Do you agree with that removal? I see that both Reliable Sources (the source cited above) and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner are in that category. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's like playing the ref in the hope that they will rule in your favor next time. Like a football player that fakes a serious foul. An extremely common tactic. It doesn't mean anything coming from the supposed aggrieved as everyone does it. As for other entries, that's WP:OTHERCONTENT. I don't have an opinion on whether they belong. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I weaned myself from watching or participating in competitive sports years ago, Obj. I do not think competitive games are the way that we should be modeling our thinking on the writing of this encyclopedic entry. What we have above is a CNN program, whose stated goal is to analyze US media, asking Faiz Shakir what the media should be asking him but is not. His answer, replaced here, is admittedly a bit of mise-en-abyme: ask not about the Trumpeter's tweets, but about those tasked with enforcing the rules. It is fascinating how that "criticism of journalism" category page is riddled with folks from Comedy Central. If I could put on my slavophile "we don't need no stinking articles" mask for just a moment I would tell: it's also all about US.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The content does not belong because it is primarily sourced, it is the non-noteworthy opinion of the subject's proxy, and it lacks independent analysis. Obviously this content is WP:UNDUE absent sufficient third party coverage. - MrX 🖋 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source (@ = 1:45) already in the "sources cited" section of the en.wp entry providing independent analysis, suggesting that that opinion expressed was not quite as non-noteworthy as you state. Unless Grim / The Intercept work for Sanders, which I've not seen alleged yet. Reminder: obviously means "in my opinion". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@ = 1:45, he claims that big pharma is basically controlling coverage and one example of a drug ad is given as evidence. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: basically means "which I am going to summarize as follows:". It is a sentence adverb so it can be placed anywhere in the sentence.

That said, I stupidly tried to verify the claim, which is what led me to the original video in the first place, but of course there's no ads posted after video segments. One does feel there's a bit of cutting and splicing going on in that video... with that much, I agree. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate

I cleaned up content from the 2020 section about the January debate, as the last paragraph was just repeated assertions that CNN was being unfair. That point is still made, without rebuttal, but Gandydancer reverted my edit. My edit was in good faith and, at very least, moved that paragraph closer to compliance with WP:NPOV. My edit should be restored. --WMSR (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph is an awesome use of sources to create POV especially the use of a RS to claim relevance that Bernie supporters made a hashtag go "viral". Look forward to every "viral" hashtag getting it's own Wikipedia immortality. Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WMSR's changes were an improvement. That paragraph is unduly long. Both the "2016 primary campaign" and "2020 primary campaign" are written as blow-by-blow accounts of every minor and major event and controversy, and give far to much weight to coverage from the time. The goal should be a broad overview of events from secondary sources written after the fact. This is somewhat unavoidable in the 2020 section since it is a currently ongoing event, but Gandydancer's revert made the article worse. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. The wording "he said she said controversy" was changed to "Sanders allegedly told Warren" and then more than half of the section was removed and called a "clean up". Considering that this entire article is supposed to be about the media's treatment of Sanders, I see no reason to make everything as brief as possible. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything that I removed had already been stated in the paragraph. There is no reason to list every single pundit and columnist who took issue with Phillip's question. I also defined the nature controversy, which the article now fails to do. --WMSR (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of media coverage of Sanders over the years. There have been a half dozen debates just for this primary cycle, and there are going to be several more. If someone were to write a biography of Sanders after his death, or if an academic were to write an article about how the media affected the 2020 elections, how much space would they give to this particular incident? Of course, we have to guess, since that is necessarily making predictions about the future, but I'd say by any reasonable metric, we're giving way too much space to this single incident. We're covering it in an entirely one-sided way, and relying mainly on opinion pieces written shortly after the event took place. It really needs to be pruned down to comply with NPOV. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I thanked WMSR for the changes. Even though the result was at least as POV as the original text (probably more), I do think this should be much shorter, unless/until more in-depth analyses are published. I would probably chose the three best refs (Taibbi, Poynter, ...) that talk about the CNN manufactured controversy. (I didn't understand what grounds there were for deleting the Poynter Institute reference, however. Perhaps WMSR will explain why they chose to delete that particular reference.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no need to bludgeon the reader with different sources all saying the same thing. --WMSR (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The dispute over the debate should be covered, but it should be done so concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no support for my position so I will stand aside. However, I still don't like the change from "he said she said controversy" to "Sanders allegedly told Warren". Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the he-said she-said aspect is well-sourced to Taibbi citing CNN itself admitting that's what it was. It should not be deleted. I also think the Poynter ref should be kept (without the lambasting language). The Intercept article provides further analysis of a few other rhetorical tricks. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a review of literature. The source needs to back up whatever is in the article. --WMSR (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

🐟 🎣 🍥

 Done 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comparing commentary by award-winning journalists, working for respected news sources, to Saturday morning cartoons? You're not serious.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck

The editor SashiRolls has edit-warred this inaccurate summary of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck into the lead:

• One book length study of the general election said that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the pre-primaries in 2015 was more or less consistent with his polling performance.

It's a study of the 2016 election, not just the general election. The book says that Sanders's media coverage exceeded his polling in 2015 (not that it was more or less consistent), but that it was strongly correlated over the course of the campaign. It's beyond me why an editor who does not have access to the book is edit-warring inaccurate descriptions of the book into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've read and reread significant parts of the book and this is not entirely accurate. While looking for the original data source (Crimson Hexagon / Brandwatch) to read about their methodology straight from the source (no luck), I learned that Brandwatch has contracts with various governments and even managed to get kicked off of FB (though they were reinstated a month later). Strange how there are no links to a published version of that study online. It was absolutely massive and entirely automated. As I said on the Bernie Sanders page, your "close correlation" (0.69) is pretty meaningless without saying whether Clinton's and Trump's were correlated to polls or not. (He does say Trump's was more closely correlated, for info.)-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My issue with this is that the lead is not for introducing novel content. The lead should summarize what is already in the article. Also "book length study" sounds awkward. - MrX 🖋 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when that is done the Vox article about it should be added back to make clear that it was a social media analysis which determined the sample of "most retweeted" outlets. (As I've long maintained, this page needs to talk about social media and alternative media to properly cover the subject it sets out to treat.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it should use RS, not "social media and alternative media". O3000 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BAIT. This type of deliberate misquoting is baiting behaviour. Obviously nobody is talking about sourcing the article to twitter. What is interesting is that ultimately, the Princelyton study is based on a Twitter analysis of the most retweeted articles. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw your accusation of WP:BAIT ("Disruptive, agenda-driven, or disturbed editors"). Try, just once, to respond in a collaborative manner O3000 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hm... I hadn't read the article recently (but am well aware of the concept and its general meaning). See also, "strawman" on this page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥}21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This type of deliberate misquoting is baiting behavior. I did no such thing. Redact this. And stop editing my edits. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this, but this is a blatant aspersion, goes directly against the principle of AGF, and could probably be used as evidence in an ANI case against you. If I were you, I would try to focus on the content of the article rather than attacking editors that you disagree with. Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)This user has never contributed to the entry and has only shown up here once after voting to strong delete the article and harassing me on my talk page. The essay on baiting behaviour says that those who bait "may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon". Both have happened repeatedly on this page.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Every editor is welcome to contribute to the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As amusing as this thread is, seems to come back to the same thing, one veteran editor thinks they own the article and it's talk page. That all edits must go through them. That all comments are subject to their review. That they have some right to call out editors and no one has a right to call out their actions. It's called WP:OWN and it's tiring. This article gets 500 views a day. Barely worth the time and energy others are putting in to try and keep it neutral. Slywriter (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

1. You don't own the article, 2. One warning on your talk page does not harassment make. Jdcomix (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Different day, same deflection. Rules apply to all. You don't decide who it does and doesn't apply to. Again see WP:OWN Slywriter (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

While I suppose it is possible that the F.O in F.O.C stands for "fraternal order", I wouldn't bet on it, as that would not be very inclusive. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

FOC? Really? You begin to lose credibility on that issue when nearly every single comment you have made on this talk page has been about other editors. --WMSR (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)