This is a formal warning for this comment. Even if the link had worked it did not meet the expectations that exist for a contentious topic and was itself aggressive. I don't think you've been formally introduced to how contentious topics work, so I will be giving you the official template designed to introduce that topic below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:What part of "my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge" met the core expectation of good faith? The fact that you have not left a simlar warning for DB indicates that you do not take good faith as seriously as faux-civility; which, incidentally—although I admit I fucked up the ping—was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive_45#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250225170400-Dronebogus-20250225170000 direct quotation], and, in the context of a demonstratable lack of good faith, perfectly reasonable, and indeed, accurate. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::Truthfully it was the entire comment including its aggressive start {{tqq|I am glad to prove you wrong, not that that's a particularly onerous exercise}}. The quote you made wasn't of Dronebogus but was of {{U|ScottishFinnishRadish}} who was responding to a good faith question from Dronebogus about their conduct and was offering direct feedback to that question. Context matters and you, as someone in conflict with Dronebogus, saying the same thing is very different than SFR offering it as feedback after being asked about it. My choosing to correct issues when I see them doesn't mean there aren't other issues and it doesn't mean that I have an obligation to police the entire topic area. As a volunteer I do work where I think I can add value, have an interest, and have availability; I expect this to be similar for most of us here and that volunteer ethos is something I really cherish about the Wikipedia community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Please reconsider. I respect you as one of our most reasonable admins, but using the volunteer ethos as an excuse for ignoring a provocation (the initial remark by Dronebogus) while rebuking the response is not good administration. Nobody is asking you {{tq|to police the entire topic area}}, but you should have looked at the context of Fortuna's edit before you issued the warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I have sympathy with any editor whose experiences with Dronebogus elicit such a blunt admission, since in my experience he sometimes lashes out. On the merits, Fortuna imperatrix mundi's comment was a foolish thing to tack on, almost on a par with DB's provocation, IMHO. I trust Barkeep49's judgement, so I defer to their BOLD. A warning of some kind is appropriate, even for an editor with 100K edits. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree that the warning for Fortuna was reasonable. But the lack of consistency is not acceptable, and when the lack of consistency is brought to the warning admin's attention, doubling-down on the grounds of volunteer ethos is even less acceptable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::@Lepricavark since there has already been some confusion about who has said what, can you quote the initial remark? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::: Isn't it in the first link, piped "this comment"? Actually, Talk:Satie displays several instances of less than superb "ethos", before and in the RfC. Let's just hope that it will not happen again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fortuna was replying to a comment in Dronebogus concluded by saying {{tq|my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge}}. As Fortuna pointed out above, that comment fails to assume good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not and do not find the two comments equivalent and acted accordingly. However, you're correct that something and nothing was not the correct outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sometimes, "probably won't budge" is a good thing. I hope that all of us cling stubbornly to our positions about whether copyvios are acceptable, whether unsourced articles are desirable, etc. More often, "probably won't budge" is a statement of fact; for example, one does not expect a POV pusher to change their POV, so you might as well save your (digital) breath because discussion won't change matters.
:::::::A few years ago, I saw an editor say something about the need to apply an appropriate amount of tact. (I can't find it right now.) The "probably won't budge" statement does not apply an appropriate amount of tact. However, the statement about it being easy to prove the interlocutor wrong goes beyond just being tactless. Therefore I am not surprised to see a concern raised here but not there.
:::::::To jump to my original thought: People do sometimes choose to provide advice where it seems more likely to be useful. Therefore, if two people post comments of dubious tactfulness or civility, and only one gets warned, that could mean that the two comments were not equivalent. (I have made the case for that above.) But it could also mean that the warner has decided that the un-contacted editor "probably won't benefit" from any advice, to adapt one of the disputed phrases. I don't think therefore that you should feel singled out inappropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll be transparent here in a way that some might think reflects poorly on me. I had no idea you had renamed. I saw a comment that was "not great but not on its own actionable" followed by an escalation that crossed the line from a user I didn't recognize and had no CT postings (because the filter hits don't come along with a user on a rename). So a "friendly word" with someone who I have no ideas about and who might have no idea of who I am didn't feel like it was going to be preventative. If I'd known who this was I would have indeed chosen a different tact as the best way of getting the outcome I'd hoped for. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
