User talk:EditorSocialIssues

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who want to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, such as your edits to the article Long COVID; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the group's talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some help!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens behind the scenes and through the editing policy. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best, and thank you for your help! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to National Coalition for Men. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Marincyclist (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is inaccurate for reasons stated earlier and should be removed. Wikipedia has permitted the removal of criticism from other pages and protected those pages from changes; enforcing a different set of rules for the NCFM page is a double standard. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is considered a reliable source. Criticism is allowed on wikipedia pages provided it is integrated into the article in such a way that it does not violate NPOV. The better approach is to work to integrate this content into the article, rather than deleting it. Marincyclist (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate criticism is permitted on Wikipedia pages. Inaccurate criticism from biased, unreliable sources is not permitted. The previous content misrepresented NCFM's record and Mission Statement, which are verifiable by anyone who chooses to review this information. In addition, the Southern Poverty Law Center's bias has been criticized by senior U.S. officials, yet the SPLC wiki page does not display such criticism and the page is protected from edits. Publishing inaccurate criticism of NCFM while preventing the publication of any criticism of SPLC on Wikipedia constitutes a double standard. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the SPLC is considered a reliable source. The better approach is to keep the SPLC sourced content and add other perspectives (if reliably sourced). Marincyclist (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Marincyclist (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not provided any compelling justification for the retention of the inaccurate and defamatory content previously published, or the double standard previously identified. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, Wikipedia considers the SPLC to be a reliable source. Therefore, its usage as a source on Wikipedia is appropriate. If you have other information from reliable sources, you can add that to the article. The better approach here is to work to integrate the criticism into the body of the article, rather than deleting it entirely. After all, Wikipedia is not censored, and criticism is allowed provided it does not violate NPOV. Marincyclist (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinions are not compelling justification, and SPLC's reliability has been widely criticized by the FBI, Congress, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Washington Post, and other prominent institutions (selected sources pasted below). As I stated before, the originally posted criticism was inaccurate and its language is easily disproven by a cursory review of NCFM's history and Mission Statement. You are attempting to defend inaccurate content. If you believe the originally posted criticism of NCFM was in fact accurate, provide the sources that form the basis of your judgments, as I have.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-probes-southern-poverty-law-centers-influence-over-federal-employees%EF%BF%BC/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-cuts-ties-with-civil-rights-group-southern-poverty-law-center-2025-10-03/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312/

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5485427-splc-billion-dollar-endowment/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/ EditorSocialIssues (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the language from the original critical section does not NOT match by the language of the SPLC source cited. The author of that section failed to accurately represent both NCFM and the SPLC source quoted. Thus, the content is erroneous and defamatory. Retaining it would lend the inaccurate content credence, and reduce Wikipedia's reliability.

If you cannot demonstrate how the original critical content is supported by the source cited, this inaccurate content should be removed. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some of that language came from a related page on the SPLC website that was not directly linked. I've added a second citation to that specific page, and cleaned up the wording of the body to better reflect what the source says. I also changed the name of the section from 'Criticism' to 'View of the SPLC', which I think is more neutral. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision remains problematic and is not neutral. It contains (and accepts at face value) false, inaccurate content that defames NCFM, which I cannot now correct because your intervention has resulted in me being blocked from editing. The SPLC's attacks against NCFM and other organizations should not automatically be treated as credible in this article, because they are so often unsupported by the available evidence.

Federal judges and other authorities share these concerns and have reached similar conclusions. From a report by Congress: "In 2019, a federal judge concluded that the SPLC’s ‘hate group’ label does not ‘depend upon objective data or evidence’ and described the designation as ‘an entirely subjective inquiry.’" https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-probes-southern-poverty-law-centers-influence-over-federal-employees%EF%BF%BC/ The FBI added, "Their so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence. That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership.”

Accurate criticism from reliable sources can be included in Wikipedia articles. Inaccurate, defamatory content should not be included, in accordance with Wikipedia editing guidelines.

Wikipedia:Content removal#:~:text=such a template.-,Inaccurate information,use of such a template. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not truthfinders, we simply summarize content that we believe should belong in an article that is verifiable from reliable sources. Wikipedia editors have determined through consensus that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source. It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to include relevant & verifiable criticism made by a reliable source. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a Wikipedia editor, and that content does not belong for reasons I've already cited. My disagreement serves as additional proof that consensus is lacking. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a term of art on Wikipedia, EditorSocialIssues. It does not mean that everybody is in agreement or, for example, that your own singular disagreement means there's no consensus. If it did mean that, nothing could ever be done here. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Btw, please note, Marincyclist, that an actual explanatory warning about edit warring / 3RR should always be placed before you take a user to WP:ANEW. EditorSocialIssues is only 2 days old; how could they possibly know about the edit warring policy if nobody tells them? Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, @Bishonen. I realized that I should have added an explanation of the 3RR. I have not used WP:ANEW very much before. Marincyclist (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on this issue also did not exist before I became an editor. As shown in the resource that Marincyclist shared, Wikipedia editors as of 2025 judged "... the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC... The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis."

To reiterate my earlier point--even if SPLC were considered reliable, the criticisms of NCFM that were published remain inaccurate and unsupported by evidence--SPLC saying something is so does not make it so. I have provided extensive argumentation and sourcing explaining why the inclusion of that content is unwarranted. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:SPLC and the various discussions editors have had about this source in the past. If circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard. (See, WP:RSPIMPROVE) Thanks, 21:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Marincyclist (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so, and the source you provided also proves that consensus on its reliability does not exist. It states "... the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC... The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis." Even if SPLC were considered reliable, the criticisms of NCFM that were published remain inaccurate and unsupported by evidence--SPLC saying something is so does not make it so. I have provided extensive argumentation and sourcing explaining why the inclusion of that content is unwarranted. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPLC: The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I think this source is correctly used in the article, as it is considered generally reliable on this topic, and attribution is provided as the opinion of the SPLC and not fact. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already shared findings from the U.S. Congress, FBI, a federal judge, and others stating that SPLC's hate groups designations are unreliable and not based on objective data or evidence. Again, the previously printed SPLC criticisms do not reflect actual evidence. I have seen nothing to indicate that their statements are accurate. The burden of proof is on them, and their claims should not be accepted at face value. SPLC saying something is so does not automatically make it so, particularly in light of the widespread criticism of their approach from numerous other institutions I've cited. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSPIMPROVE. I'm going to disengage from this discussion, as I believe I have quoted the relevant policies and have said everything I can say. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a problem, as demonstrated by what both you and I have shared. The reliability of the source isn't the only issue; the ACCURACY of the published critical language is the bigger problem here. I have reviewed the relevant data extensively, and SPLC's criticism of NCFM simply does not hold water. It does not reflect the available evidence. Numerous other authorities that I've cited share similar concerns. Including that section would undermine Wikipedia's credibility, and we would all be better off with its removal. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia editors have also raised very serious concerns about SPLC's reliability when it comes to hate groups and explained why in much greater detail than I did (discussion link with extensive sourcing pasted below). Regardless, the aforementioned problems regarding the accuracy of the criticism remain.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 497#Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List EditorSocialIssues (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EditorSocialIssues reported by User:Marincyclist (Result: ). Thank you. Marincyclist (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 19:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Long COVID, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. See the pyramids at WP:MEDASSESS, and use sources that qualify for evidence strength near the top.

Also, review WP:REFNAME to learn how to recite a ref within an article. Zefr (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits used reliable sources including the National Institutes of Health, the scientific journal Nature, and Dr. Ziyad al Aly. All are widely recognized as reputable. If you dispute the reliability of any of these sources or the language used, please explain your reasoning and evidence. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1331502955 was your edit where you used an NIH newsletter (3x without applying REFNAME), another news report from the U of M, a Time news article, and a cohort study (low quality of evidence) from Nature Medicine. None of these sources meets MEDASSESS. Better to slow down and read WP:MEDRS thoroughly for choosing sources for your future editing of medical content. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some time getting used to the standards for medical sourcing on Wikipedia. The very short summary (more nuance at the MEDRS page linked above) is that we rely mostly on review papers and clinical guidelines published in the last 5 years. For long COVID, with how fast the landscape changes, 2 or 3 years might be even better. Primary sources are just one data point, so usually not the best source out there.

Another tip: your edits are more likely to stick if you make smaller changes and explain them. To me, your edit seemed to downplay the female prevalence of long COVID, but maybe there was a good reason for your edit. By making a big change in one go, it's more difficult for experienced editors to build upon your changes rather than reverting them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those revisions reflected the best and most recent data of which I am aware, and do not reflect the sources cited exclusively.

My concerns about the "Risk factors" and "Prevention" sections (which I attempted to correct) include:

It downplayed that anyone who becomes infected is vulnerable to developing long COVID.

It did not recognize that long COVID encompasses a wide range of individual conditions, some of which are more likely to affect females, and some of which are more likely to affect males. Instead, the article reflects bias by simplistically stating over and over that females are at greater risk, while ignoring male victimhood.

It overstated the prevalence and likelihood of complete recovery from long COVID.

It lacked important detail in the Prevention section. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the talk page. There are a few recent top-quality reviews that are not yet included properly (e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39096925/). I plan to do a complete rewrite of the article in about a year's time, assuming there's good reviews coming out this year. But keen to hear how to improve the article while keeping it understandable to a broad audience.

(Sick at the moment, so might be slow to reply) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user also made a number of problematic edits on National Coalition for Men by removing content from reliable sources that were critical of the group. They were temporarily blocked and I attempted to work with them, but they immediately went back to making the same edits once unblocked. (See above discussion) Marincyclist (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Marincyclist (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User Marincyclist's accusation is projection. That user was in fact responsible for a number of problematic edits, which include citing widely discredited false claims, misrepresenting others' views, and removing a great deal of factual, non-controversial, and easily sourced/verifiable information from that entry that I corrected. Unable to refute the reasoning and evidence I outlined in my edits, this user is now attempting to discredit me with the comment above. This is highly unprofessional conduct. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EditorSocialIssues! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Marincyclist (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EditorSocialIssues reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: ). Thank you. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 16:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page block

EditorSocialIssues, you escaped an edit warring block on a technicality (= because you had not been warned about the 3RR), not because you were editing acceptably at National Coalition for Men, as surely my block told you. Now you have continued to remove the content you don't like, without ever setting foot on Talk:National Coalition for Men. That is certainly disruptive. Also, you have re-added unsourced content while adding a primary source, National Coalition for Men's own self-descriptions. That is not acceptable; Wikipedia goes by reliable, secondary sources. NCFM's own material, a primary source, may only be used if it is not unduly self-serving, and "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Also, it's not permitted to have whole big chunks of text based wholly on primary sources, as your recent additions do. You are a very new editor, at least you probably are, and I don't want to penalize you unduly or discourage you. However, it looks like you are too unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards, and too unwilling to listen to others, to be usefully editing a controversial article like National Coalition for Men. I have blocked you indefinitely from that article. Note that you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia, including to discuss and make suggestions on Talk:National Coalition for Men (where, again, you have never yet set foot, so it's high time). You can also request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 23:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I request reconsideration of this page block. I laid out my reasoning and evidence on this page, but was not clear until now that the right place to do this is Talk:National Coalition for Men.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was not aware of the appropriate location to discuss edits, but would like to post them there now that I know. EditorSocialIssues (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is an appropriate response to your disruptive edit warring. You are blocked only from the article, not its talk page, so in fact you do not need to be unblocked in order to start a discussion, which I must note you still have not done. I suggest that you consider a new appeal after you have participated in a productive discussion on the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 7 January 2026 (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.

Block extended sitewide

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

This includes WP:LOUTSOCK. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Wikipedia Editors' Bias, Violations of Neutral POV on National Coalition for Men Page

I was typing the response to Ivanvector's comment about additional links before my account was indefinitely blocked:

Such links would not be portrayed fairly in the content. Other Wikipedia editors here have already demonstrated extreme prejudice against the subject, collaborated to worsen the article's negative bias through selective additions and removals, and worked to discredit me.

For an additional example of editing bias here, see the Wikipedia editors' removals of large chunks of factual content about the organization's history citing the organization's records. Organizations themselves often have the best records of their own histories, and Wikipedia has many articles (House of Representatives, FBI, etc.) with large blocks of text that have cited primary sources or no citations at all for their history sections. Those articles have long been left alone. However, Wikipedia editors have judged primary sources unacceptable for this particular article about a men's organization, which fits the broader pattern of Wikipedia's excessively negative portrayals of men's rights issues. This is selective enforcement. The removals here also draw further attention to the additions of uniformly disparaging perspectives.

Any impartial observer can see that the article as edited reflects much greater negative bias that violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. If I am unblocked, I can attempt to rework the article to provide greater balance, and any problematic edits can be reverted. If I am not unblocked, a Wikipedia editor with substantive expertise on these issues who can be trusted to portray them in a neutral, balanced manner should handle them instead.

As is, the article is deeply unsatisfactory. If similar edits and portrayals of the issues are frequently applied to Wikipedia articles, it's likely to do serious damage to Wikipedia's credibility and reliability.