User talk:Darkfrog24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Invitation[edit]

Faravahar-Gold.svg

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DR/N[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you.

Canvassing[edit]

I see your canvassing. If you do not remove those messages, I will take you to AN/I. RGloucester 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester:
1) Why do you think this is canvassing? Read WP:Canvassing. I have no reason to think that people who frequent Wikipedia's noticeboards are any more or less likely to support the creation of a new board than anyone else. I do have reason to think that they will know firsthand whether the opponents' concerns about drama and forum shopping are merited or not.
2) Why are you objecting to promotion of awareness of your proposal, which you have seen that I support?
3) On the off-chance that you did remember and are messaging me because you're being extra-careful that everything about your proposal is above-board and rule-compliant, is it that you think my message is not neutral enough? I am willing to hear any constructive criticism that you might have and would consider any reasonable changes. Here's a rule of thumb: If you cover up my name and only look at the text I added to those talk pages, can you tell what side I'm on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is selective canvassing. You chose to canvas noticeboards with regular participants, as it is likely that those who have engaged frequently with such noticeboards will support their use. None of the pages you put notifications on are directly related to the proposal. That's clear canvassing. I've seen you do this before, and I see that other users have raised similar concerns. If you will not remove the notices, AN/I it is. I never consent to underhanded tactics or general politicking. RGloucester 00:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester:
What are you talking about? Doing what before? What users? Before this, the only comments I've had on my publicization of RfCs have been "good job" and "thanks." EDIT: Now that I recall my opponent in one debate did object to my "canvassing" by promoting an RfC on the exact kind of talk page where I'd met him, so I consider his complaints unfounded.
It seems we have a legitimate difference of opinion about what is and is not canvassing. This sounds like an appropriate issue for a third opinion. I have requested one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I have an idea. If your concern is that you think this is canvassing, then why don't we just also promote this proposal somewhere else too, like WT:FORUMSHOPPING or something? I've temporarily withdrawn my request for a third opinion but I will reinstate it if you think we can't work this out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You must promise never to canvass again. The RfC was already advertised at the appropriate place. The other notifications were clearly selective, and had no relevance to actual proposal. I repeat: do not canvas again. Do not post advertisements for RfCs in places where they don't belong. If an RfC is on a page, and that page is tagged by Wikiprojects, you can notify only the projects that have tagged the page (and you must notify all or none). If it is on an MoS matter, it is acceptable to place a notice at the main MoS page. If it is a matter that is encylopaedia-wide, like this RfC, it should only be advertised in the centralised discussion box. RGloucester 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I'm not canvassing now. 2) Demanding promises from me is inappropriate. 3) WP:CANVASSING is actually a lot looser than what you've laid out here; no we are not limited to promoting RfCs and proposals only at places that have tagged the page. I've promoted RfCs far more widely than this before and I got "thank you" for my efforts. I think you might be reading too much into things. 4) I've restored my request for a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: The first item listed under "appropriate notification" is, verbatim, "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." Noticeboards are directly related to noticeboards, so WT:RSN is an appropriate place to publicize the proposed creation of a noticeboard directly modeled off of RSN. Do you see where I'm coming from now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Noticeboards are most definitely "NOT" related to this proposal. I will filing an AN/I request by the time the day is through. RGloucester 13:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's premature. If you don't want to wait for the 3O we could ask about this at WT:CANVASSING. I'm confident the regulars there could put your mind at ease. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No, we can't. Behaviour issues are dealt with at AN/I, and since you are content to run around to various outlets to forumshop to inappropriate venues for "help", that doesn't really ensure me about your behaviour. RGloucester 14:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
RG, you think that my posts violate under WP:CANVASSING and I don't. We have both read the policy and are interpreting it differently. The thing to do next is consult consensus and find out which of us is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what an AN/I is for. If my grievances are proven right at AN/I, you'll receive admonishment for your behaviour. RGloucester 14:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I clearly can't change your mind. But AN/I is premature. 3O isn't forumshopping. It's one of Wikipedia's official ways of resolving conflicts of this kind. You don't have to take my word for it: If you ask at the 3O or AN/I talk pages, they'll tell you the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"3O" is only for content disputes, which this isn't. Your request was already removed. The fact that you even issued a 3O request demonstrates the problem. RGloucester 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there certainly is a problem, but the problem is that we disagree about how to interpret policy. Consulting consensus to determine which one of us is correct is the solution.
I don't think I've been clear enough: If my posts are found to violate the consensus interpretation of WP:CANVASSING then I'll remove them, but I'm confident that they do not. I've now asked about this as WT:CANVASSING. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Is something else going on here, RG? Do you just not like that someone else took it upon themselves to publicize a proposal that you filed? I'll grant it's unusual but it's not actually against the rules. You're allowed to feel however you feel about it but I honestly figure that most people would take it as a compliment and sign of support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Corruption, whether in favour of my proposal or against it, is not something that I ever tolerate. I am as pure of heart as a lily. RGloucester 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you're being very inappropriate. "Corruption"? That's not civil. Wikipedia's policies not only permit the promotion of proposals and RfCs on related talk pages; they encourage it. If you don't want to take the lesson from me, you don't have to: ask around, ask the admins, look for precedents, but if you want me to remove my posts, it's on you to make the case for why I should. Don't give orders; you have no right to. Don't swag in like you own the place; you don't. Actually read the rules before you accuse other people of breaking them:
If you look under WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, it lists not one but four appropriate places. "Central location" isn't "the appropriate place"; it's one of four appropriate places, listed below "talk pages of articles, projects and collaborations directly related to the proposal." You covered the second option and I covered part of the first.
And for context, I had been planning to publicize this proposal still further on a few more relevant pages, maybe hit up the feedback request list a bit. I like to stagger the work a bit. I've paused so that we could have our discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RG, if this is still bothering you, you could always ask about it at the WP:administrator's noticeboard. They'll tell you that my actions are consistent with the consensus on appropriate notification and that your concerns are not necessary. Considering that one of the objections to the proposal is that MoS regulars like drama too much, double-checking the rules before bringing an official complaint against another editor might be a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not canvassing as long as the messages weren't promoting one side over the other. It's routine to notify talk pages likely to have various people on multiple sides of an issue.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you placed a notification of a discussion at User talk:RGloucester. Special:Contributions/RGloucester shows that he/she has an indefinite block. So do not expect him/her to contribute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, @Toddy1:. I notified everyone involved in that discussion and did not check anyone's block status. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't miss my reply (it got buried)[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.
 I posted a reply to your recent message on the MOS talk page; but it kind of got buried among other messages.  You may have to hunt for it.  (It begins "My gut feeling........".)
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol[edit]

This edit summary made me laugh :) Cheers. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to amuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A Technical Question[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.  I see that the Gender Identity RfCs' closing dates have been extended.  Please understand I have absolutely no objection to this; but I am curious about something.  I'd always thought that the normal way to extend the run of an RfC was to simply manually change the first date stamp (normally the date stamp generated  by the first "~~~~" signature) to a later date:  
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
"RfC may be extended beyond 30 days by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date."

But in this case, a much more complex technique seems to have been used:
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1447259585}}
{{rfc|bio|style|policy|rfcid=A89D3CD}}

Does this technique have any advantages over the simpler one? And if it does, I'd like to learn how it works.  Could you explain it to me (or even just provide a  link to where I could learn it)?  Thanks.  I appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't extend the RfC date; I extended the archive date. There is a slight difference.
The RfC tags will disappear on schedule, after 30 days. The threads just won't go into the archive right away. The purpose of this is that I have requested formal closure of both threads, but this can take time. I don't want the threads archived until after an admin has had a chance to read and close them. But as to whether the RfCs need to stay active past the usual 30-day period, I don't see why they would. Of course, people can still comment if they want to, and it will still count, but the threads won't still appear on lists of active RfCs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, I personally prefer not to retroactively change dates. All these concerns we've seen about rewriting history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Darkfrog24.
 Thank you for clarifying that for me.  I think I understand now: the RfCs' normal running time of 30 days is not affected; it's how long they remain unarchived afterward that's affected.
 I do understand what you mean about not liking to retroactively change dates.  I was quite surprised when I first read in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" that an editor may extend an RfC's running time by going back and altering that first date stamp.  It almost sounds kind of sneaky.  But apparently it's not only allowed but, under certain circumstances, an appropriate procedure.
 Anyway all this does lead me to a couple more questions:
  • When an RfC has its "{{rfc}}" template automatically removed after 30 days, under normal circumstances, how long until it is automatically archived?
  • If an RfC has had its template automatically removed, and the participants have not declared consensus, and the RfC has not yet been archived, and no uninvolved editor has performed a formal closure; under those circumstances is it appropriate for editors to continue casting "!votes" and posting opinions and having discussions?  Or does the removal of the "{{rfc}}" template basically close it to further comments, etc.?
I really appreciate your help and advice.  (In the six months I've been learning how Wikipedia works, I would say about 80‑90 percent of what I've learned has been from asking experienced editors questions.)  Thanks again for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the archive settings for that particular page.
Yes, people can continue to post in the thread even if the RfC tag has expired, though if the conversation is still active, they're allowed to put the tag back. Our two threads appear to have wound down naturally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.
 I see that not only have the RfCs on gender identifiction had their time run out , but a request has been made for formal closure by an administrator.  Based on your past experience, how long might it take for an uninvolved administrator to accept?
 Also I sort of have a list (not a real list; just a mental one) of experienced editors I turn to for help and advice when I'm confused or have a question.  Would it be OK if I add you to the "list"?
Richard27182 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I made the request for formal closure last week. It is not at all unusual for it to take more than two weeks for someone to respond, especially if the answer looks complicated. (Also, there are lots of requests for closure that do not specify closure by admin, and anyone is allowed to come and close them, so if you want to get a fix for Wikidrama or Wikiprocedure without getting involved with it, go on and close someone else's discussion (just maybe sandbox your first draft).)
I would be incredibly flattered, but I think you may have overestimated my knowledge base. Until this VPP discussion, I didn't know how to prevent thread archiving, and I messed it up when I tried it! [1] [2] [3] [4] Francis S and PaleAqua had to fix it for us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I suppose it's possible I may have slightly overestimated your knowledge base, but I'm sure you know tons more about Wikipedia than I do.  (I've only been editing for six months).  I look forward to your future assistance in certain areas where I may be needing help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
And I'd be delighted to provide it. I love meddling in other people's business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports[edit]

I'm hoping not to scrape open a scab here, but I have to suggest that it's questionably appropriate for one of the most active editors at MoS to cast WP:KETTLE aspersions about it being "based on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique" that one is here to do something about. That sounds an awful lot like an accusation of mass bad faith, topped off with a battlegrounding pledge, which are not permitted in MOS talk per discretionary sanctions rules about which you were recently given a {{Ds/alert}} and administrative warning, while I got even worse. Some of us have strong feelings about these matters, but we're going to have to restrain the impulse to negatively characterize other editors and their motivations. It has become clear that certain admins appear to be actively seeking to punish people for raising their voices too sharply in MoS/AT discussions, and it casts an expression-chilling pall over the entire WP:ARBATC scope when it is targeted in this way. I'm making a strong effort to avoid doing things like that myself, henceforth, and hope you will as well. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on some things, but I've found it constructive in the past (with Noetica several years ago, and more recently with Montanabw on livestock topics) to propose a mutual, explicit truce on hostile wording, and to seek ways and topics on which to collaborate. (To that end, I'm open to similar concerns being raised directly on my talk page, and will endeavor to accept them at face value.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I noted and appreciate the sourcing kudos. I also self-reverted some LQ-related murmuring on my part. While I don't agree with your position on it, have done a huge sourcing run on this matter the results of which I haven't even arranged and done anything with yet, and was a bit miffed that after the Sept. dispute and warning you're still pursuing that matter, including into this /Supports page, I needn't inject my own views on that at every opportunity, since it can seem like picking a fight. We'll hash it out at some point, but it should be over what the sources say, not what our views are or why we hold them. :-) Other debates may be looming, like what to do about breed names. Coxhead and several others are convinced they should be lower-cased except where they contain a proper name; most of the pet/livestock regulars feel the opposite (and some have tended toward BATTLEGROUND/OWN on the matter); meanwhile I've settled into a firmly neutral position on it, because there are interesting arguments on both sides, and sources are divided. There's a thread on it at WT:MOSCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Wait, is this about my comment "MOS:SUPPORTS proves that the MoS isn't entirely based on arbitrary whims made up by a clique"? SmC, the MoS regulars have been accused of being a clique. It's in the archive. I was pointing out that MOS:SUPPORTS refutes this accusation.
If it's about my comment that parts of the MoS are whims, well that's just true. WP:LQ is based on whims and arbitrary personal preferences. I know this because it directly contradicts established sources and because no non-arbitrary reason to have it there exists. I know you don't believe this but you know that I do. This isn't new business.
As for truces on hostile wording, I think it's a good idea, but remember that "hostile" does not mean "anything that SmC personally doesn't like." You have a history of conflating the two. Case in point: Remember when I asked you to stop complaining about my referring to British style punctuation as "British"? I showed you sources proving that that's just the predominant name of the practice, that I'm not making it up just to mess with you, and you don't seem to have accepted that. The flip side of that is that you like to call American style "typesetters" even though, among other issues, it frames the practice as more old-fashioned than it really is, but I put up with it because I know what you mean and because they're just your own, signed talk page posts. Call it a "painter" if that feels natural to you—it's rare but it's not as if you made it up—but don't insist that I stop saying "mountain lion."
As for your LQ sourcing, whenever you feel like posting them, I'll take a look. No one can say you don't do the work. If by "still pursuing the matter," it would help if you said exactly what you're talking about. We've known each other long enough that I'll explain my reasoning to you if you wish, but I'm not going to sit here and guess at what I might have done to disturb you.
On the Supports page, I added sources that describe British style. They prove that you guys didn't make it up out of whole cloth. That doesn't undermine WP:LQ; it supports it. It's not like I added sources proving that British style is incorrect in American English, and you know that I have access to many.
As long as you don't think "the admins are watching, so let's try to get along" means "Darkfrog, let me have my way all the time," then this can work. I'd be delighted, in fact. I get that you think you're right about a lot of these things, but you're going to have to accept that I disagree with you and take my views in stride the way I've taken yours in stride. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.  I just wanted to check with you what the current status is concerning the two MOS gender identity RfC's.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: Status is that formal closure has been requested, and the ball is in the admins' court. It's not unusual for it to take more than a week to get a response. It is unusual for it to take more than a month, but given the importance and level of complexity of the two threads, I'm not at all surprised. I've extended the DNAU for another stretch. You can keep yourself updated by checking on the closure request thread at WP:ANRFC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that these two RfC's have a very high level of importance and complexity, and as such, they deserve formal closure by an actual administrator.  However if no administrator comes forward to accept that responsibility, does there eventually come a time when you would consider asking any experienced uninvolved editor to do the close?  (The RfC's will serve no purpose if they never get evaluated and closed.)  Please don't take this the wrong way; it's just a suggestion.  And not even that really; more of a simple, honest, and sincere question.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You're at perfect liberty to make that suggestion yourself. Don't overestimate my authority. All I did was start the request thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  Thank you for clarifying that. But since you are the one who started the thread, I feel you would be the most appropriate person to make such a decision. I would only intervene and formally suggest accepting closure by a non-administrator if it ever gets to the point where it is clear that no administrator will ever accept that responsibility. And we're certainly not at that point yet.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this is such a controversial point, I happen to think an admin would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression that I'm about to request closure by any uninvolved editor: I'm not.  I agree with you completely that something this important should be formally closed by an actual administrator.  But I also feel (and hope you would agree) that having it formally closed by a non-admistrator would be better than having it remain forever unclosed.  Also, if it remains unclosed long enough (I'm not talking weeks but rather months), then many would see the whole discussion as "stale" and no longer necessarily reflecting the current opinion of editors.  I'm not suggesting setting any particular deadline at this time; but I do think we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that the year will end with the RfC still unclosed.  If it comes to that, then I do believe it would be time to consider alternatives to formal closure by an administrator.  (Again I'm sorry if my previous message was misleading.)
Richard27182 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's the impression I had. Go ahead and say this in the closure thread if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gender identity in the MoS". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Gender identity in the MoS, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wishing you all the best . . .[edit]

Merry Christmas, Darkfrog, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You too @Dirtlawyer1:. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style talk page[edit]

I appreciate your eloquent and well-rendered comments at the Manual of style talk page. Before you registered those comments, I felt out-gunned a million-to-one and that other editors were viewing me as crazy to bring up the topic of commas and quotation marks (on a "settled" topic). You have made me feel less crazy, particularly in light of your command of the subject, which is far greater than mine. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:LQ has a long history of controversy. The others told the truth when they said it's been talked about a lot but they failed to mention that that's because it is the single most frequently challenged part of the MoS. At least once a year, someone shows up and points out that it doesn't match U.S. English rules. It's a lot easier to try to bully challengers into shutting up than it is to repeat the same arguments ...and sit through the explanation of why those arguments don't hold water. (Example: Tony1 cited a science style guide, and you pointed out that it's not for the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia.)
You see, lots of computer programmers like British style because computers treat words and punctuation as literal strings (the human visual system doesn't). That means a lot of early Wikipedians really really preferred British style because it's what they were used to from work. This rule got stuck in the MoS early and it's hard as heck to get it out again. The last time we had an RfC, one of the editors wrote such a biased text that it was hard to tell what we were talking about.
If you choose to start an RfC, you'll have my support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How would I be able to do that? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The instructions are at WP:RFC. However, I have to warn you, these things can get really nasty. There's no rule saying you have to stick around for the whole thing, but it can get pretty bad. You might also want to look at MOS:REGISTER before deciding whether or not you think it's a good idea to file one. Under "inside or outside," it has a list of a lot of previous discussions. Some of them are RfCs and some are not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
In the last week I had to fend off a rabid deletionist who was singling out and targeting articles I'd written--luckily that individual has had no success at it--but it has been stressful. If venturing into that Rfc would be like jumping into a snake pit, then maybe I should wait until the clouds clear--I could take that issue up at a later time. I desperately need peace of mind right now to be able to work on articles without a lot of drama. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: But hey, on a lighter note, I write a lot about a lot of 60s music--much of it obscure garage bands, so that may be of some interest. Of course, everybody has their own tastes--I don't know if the music of that that era is your cup of tea, but if you like that period, then you'd love to read some of the articles I've worked on. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
1) There's no time limit on improving Wikipedia. 2) No one owes it their blood pressure. Ah, band articles! So many song titles! So much urge to tuck those commas inside the quotation marks just a little bit... Heh. One of my first experiences on Wikipedia was correcting punctuation in that exact way. And it was my first run-in with WP:LQ. Back then, I didn't even know the Brits had their own system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
When they did the GA review for the Garage rock article (it recently went GA!), they canged the commas at the top to be in "Wiki" style, but after the first couple of sections, just left all of the commas "tucked" the way we had them--even the British editors were "tucking" the little commas--proof that even in Britain you can do it both ways! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Maybe it is just a matter or aesthetics, but I think the little "tucked" commas look better! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Me too but in my experience people prefer the look of whatever system they're more used to.
Even featured articles routine ignore WP:LQ. The only real effect of this rule is to annoy people who want to use correct American punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, if we take you and you alone out of the equation, LQ is rarely challenged by anyone, and when they're informed why WP uses it, they get it and drop the matter. When a single editor campaigns incessantly on the same issue for 6.5 years, I don't think it's everyone else at WT:MOS who's being "bullies", but that additional attack has been noted. So has this "grooming" of new editors with false information like "featured articles routine[ly] ignore WP:LQ". A ratio of only 24 out of 303 featured articles using typesetters' or what you call "American" quotation style (versus 221 for logical quotation, and 54 mixed) is nothing like a "routine"; compliance with LQ is the routine part.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't started a thread challenging WP:LQ in years. The last time I brought up LQ at all without someone else challenging it first was when I suggested that we might have an incorrect comma in the wording and that we should fix it. I don't campaign incessantly. I cease all the time. But when you guys circle around someone with some sense and claim that there's no support in the sources for what they believe, you're darn right I'm going to reply with some links so that they don't have to think that they're crazy or being a pest or breaking the rules. They're not.
Like I explained to you at WT:MoS, the fact that only 60-odd percent of even featured articles use British style means that changing the rule would not disrupt Wikipedia's operations.
Don't post here again unless you have something new to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think your edits since these comments qualify as "incessant". Moving your argument to various obscure subpages that you control, hammering on it excessively, trying to set the stage for an ENGVAR-like challenge to the currently recommended style, is obnoxious in the extreme. Just let it go. The current scheme works well, and is most appropriate for a world-wide encyclopedia. Your American exceptionalist approach just mucks things up. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your selective removal of SMcC's correction of your lies here is also staggering. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Dicklyon, if you feel that you are being "hammered" when someone supplies sources that show that the terminology that you're inserting into Wikipedia's pages is wrong, then you are on the wrong site. If you think someone's lying just because they don't agree with you, and the sources that I've provided prove that I'm not lying they you need a very large adjustment.
I'll repeat your own words to you: Back off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard[edit]

An issue in which you are involved has been raised at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

AE[edit]

Please see this thread at the arbitration enforcement page. RGloucester 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a proposal in the AE discussion that mentions your name. Can you make a voluntary offer that is enough to convince the admins this battle won't continue? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
RG is overreacting, EdJohnston, to put it kindly. Dicklyon and I continued working while this thread was going on and the text has been stable for days. It's done.
Now for another matter. From what you posted on the thread, it seems you have a problem with me in some way. If I'm wrong about that, fine, no action required. If not, the thing to do next is to be specific about what you think I did and then listen to my response. I'm saying this because SMcCandlish does have a problem with me, and if all you do is read his screeds, you're not going to get an accurate picture. He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. He doesn't believe me when I offer to work with him; he doesn't hold back with the invective; he accuses me of cherry-picking even when I quote sources that he brought to the table. Even though I've shown him sources that support my position, and I was not kidding any of the times that I told him, "but if you have better sources that prove these wrong, please do show them," he still accuses me of making things up. I don't know what else to do with him.
Any response to his accusations would have to be almost as long as his post itself, and I've noticed a too-long-didn't-read problem with that. And, frankly, I'd also have to say some things that aren't very flattering about another editor, and I'd rather not do that unless it's specifically necessary. So just tell me what exactly you think is wrong, and we'll deal with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with you at all, only with particular behavior patterns you engage in when it comes to style disputes (more than one, but especially this quotation marks thing). The problem here is a recurrent one with you: Apparent unwillingness (I don't believe it's inability) to distinguish between criticism of behavioral, logical, and sourcing problems on the one hand, and some kind of personal vendetta on the other. "I don't agree with your tactics and approach to this matter" is not equivalent to "I don't like you".

After almost 7 years, no, I'm not going to waste hours or days yet again providing you the same source citations you always ignore (plus lots of new ones!). Any sourcing work I do on style and usage matters will be done to improve our mainspace articles on these topics (where any further PoV and OR can be addressed as WP:CORE content disputes by noticeboards that will not touch purely-MoS disputes). NB: Yes, it is still cherry-picking and OR if you take what you like from a source, contort it to seem to mean what it doesn't actually say, and ignore the rest of it. No, it is not a "screed" to provide 200+ diffs of evidence (just the tip of the iceberg; I skipped about 5 intervening years of similar disruption on the same topic, and almost 7 years of similar disruption on other WP:ARBATC-scope topics).

You keep psychologically projecting this "He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL" stuff, which is transparently hypocritical. All you are doing in uncivilly casting bad-faith personal aspersions on my motivations for getting in the way of you getting your way. Meanwhile, I've never even theorized about your motivations. I honestly have no idea why this punctuation matter is something you won't let go of, or why so many other style matters are. I don't care at all whether you agree with me, and refuting your arguments is a dispute against those arguments, not a personality problem I have with you. Again, you as a person are distinct from the reasoning and behaviors you present to the project. For all I know, we'd get along famously in some other context. What I do care about is abuse of WP and its policies to pursue (for unknown motivations) a personal agenda at the expense of the project, the community and the individuals who make it up. You had multiple opportunities, from EdJohnston and others, at this AE to get why your patterns have been disruptive, but you "mooned the jury" and basically made a TB inevitable, then sealed the deal with a bunch of canvassing and more IDHT, like continuing to cast unsupported personal aspersions in a venue the primary purpose of which is imposing sanctions on people who cast such aspersions. If I'd long wanted that kind of TB result, I would have pursued an ArbCom action against you years ago. The main reason I had all this evidence piled up was I've written that RFARB several times, and decided not to file it, giving you further assumption of good faith that you'd come around. But you just don't. This latest "MOS:SUPPORTS" thing, back-to-back with more editwarring at Quotation marks in English, and labeling everyone who disagrees with you at WT:MOS to be a bunch of "bullies" is just too much.

Take your year off this topic. Everyone will be glad to have you back if you return with an attitude something like [a more concise version of]: "I see that I should live with WP having a house style I don't personally prefer, just as I would not try to impose my own on Nature if I submitted an article to that journal. I will henceforth work collaboratively to have MoS be stable and serve the encyclopedia's needs as determined by consensus, while resisting temptation to try to reshape it to suit my subjective preferences. I understand that WP guidelines are based on internal consensus, which does not always agree with the most common external approaches to everything, that WP:POLICY is distinct from mainspace, and that consensus is something to work within, not against. It is more important that WP have a 'playbook' we agree on and do the work under than that everyone be 100% satisfied with every line item in the playbook, repeated argumentation over which is a waste of editorial time and patience." A WP:STANDARDOFFER post along these lines would undoubtedly succeed, including with my and others' support. PS: I actually recommend a near-total break from WP for a year. I've done it, and it was very useful, both off-WP and on, and I take 1-3 months breaks periodically for a refresh. If you instead use this time to shift your anti-consensus disruption to some other pet peeve, I think we all know what the result will be, since it will demonstrate a WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE problem that can't be ignored any longer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

SmC, does Wikipedia have a word for when you accuse others of the thing that you yourself are doing? Maybe you think you don't have a problem with me but you clearly do.
You accuse me of ignoring sources, when you refuse to acknowledge the ones I've shown you. (You've also accused me of doing this immediately after I made a post discussing sources that you'd mentioned by name.) [5] [6][7] [8]
You call me a liar and delusional and say that I'm making things up. I call you uncivil because you are not even trying to get along. I have used euphemism after euphemism to describe what you do.
You accuse me of OR even when I have provided sources that explicitly state the things that I am saying. It's one thing to not agree with me, but OR is out of line in these cases. And you keep insisting that your conclusions are not only right but so right that anyone who disagrees but me a troublemaker even though you don't source them.
You insist that I use your preferred terminology even when I can show that the terminology that I use is more common.
You refactor other people's posts but complain when they do it.[9]
Any time that anyone mistakes your meaning by so much as a hair, you accuse them of lying or deliberately misrepresenting you, but you have zero qualms about doing that with other people's posts. When someone asks you questions, you're fine with answering just the ones you want to, but you complain when other people do that."I note that you dodged virtually everything I said" You need a pretty big attitude adjustment.
Basically, you need to learn how to accept that other people don't agree with you. The thread started by Garagepunk66 was pretty much over before you recharged it with your big diva act. When you are that confrontational, don't complain when people confront you.
It's possible that you just have a big problem with AGF. When I typed out the contents of those sources you'd named and asked you questions about them, did you think that was an act? It wasn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone else wants to read this, so I'll box it, since people may have AE-related business to deal with here in the next day or so.
The above rehash is easily refuted, point-by-point, as usual:
Right back to the IDHT / "proof by assertion" route. This seems to be only debate tactic you have. 'Someone disagreed with me? Just say they're wrong and restate exactly what I said last time.' This has a lot to do with why things are going the way they are. Your set of diffs relating to the "Let's line up the sources on British/logical" thread are not actually "proof" of what you say they are but quite the opposite (this habit also has a lot to do with why you're being TBed.) What they actually show is you providing and misinterpreting a set of cherry-picked sources, excluding all those that aren't convenient for you, and me observing this is the case and that it's more circular reasoning on your part. That is nothing at all like your claim that "You accuse me of ignoring sources, when you refuse to acknowledge the ones I've shown you." I rely on the very same sources among many others that you avoid; I simply take t hem at what they say without trying to contort them into supporting a fantasy. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between "Doesn't agree with my interpretation and use of sources" and "ignores sources". Meanwhile, you actually ignore sources. An enormous percentage of the volume of these debates if you repeatedly asserting that no sources have ever been provided in opposition to your viewpoint and demanding them over and over again, after they've already been provided for years, and people telling you are they are not falling for this bait and will not enable this disruptive behavior by re-re-re-resourcing everything for you on-demand, in discussions which are not WP:CORE matters to begin with. The OR you deny or can't see yourself engaging in? This is really, really simple: LQ is the "do not change any punctuation inside quotations" style. BQ is a range of styles, in which punctuation may be changed inside quotations to suit the sense of the quoting (not quoted) sentence. You can argue and handwave and OR your heart out for another 7 years, and nothing will ever change the fact that the British style guides (the sources actually reliable about British style), from Oxford/Hart, to Guardian, to Telegraph, to Economist, and more, do not define a style that is consistent with each other, or even faintly compatible with logical quotation, and we have The Guardian's own editor telling us we got it wrong on this point. You even see him say so and then you repeatedly say he isn't saying so. This is not a rational response to a source, it's OR in furtherance of wishful thinking. The only "sourcing" you have is the fact that some American style guides and blog writers and such confuse and conflate the two styles, i.e. fail to distinguish between them. That's not sourcing that they are the same style, it's just poor-quality sources on the issue in question, like a cookbook that cannot tell the difference between oregano and Mexican oregano (similar name, not even in the same genus). Even 10,000 crappy cookbooks that think they're the same herb will never in a million years make them the same species. We've been over this 100 times already, and you've never even addressed much less disproven this flaw in your argument, you just ignore the objection, wait a few beats, and start right back with the same argument you used last time. I hope you see now that this tactic is a total failure and that using it to battleground here will not be productive.

The rest of your points above can be dispensed with quickly in series. Dick_lyon called you a liar (and retracted it); I've never done so, though you frequently imply that I am one, and that everyone at MoS who disagrees with you is. I don't think you're a liar. For all I know, you believe every word you say, or are convinced that winning on this matter is of more importance than any other concern, or that you're just very, very confused about it (too confused to understand the correct explanation of these quotation styles and the sources about them), or being so emotional on this issue that it interferes with your ability to view much of anything about it objectively, or this is a pedagogical, even ideological matter of faith for you, or any of several other issues, maybe more than one at once, and none of them require outright dishonesty or bad faith (or delusion, another term I've never to my recollection used toward you, and you provide no diff). WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded strongly discourages me from offering my personal theory of what's going on in your head, and I agree with that guidance; none of us are psychic and we should not be trying to mind-read. Observing that an argument presented is irrational does not equate to questioning the other's sanity or ethics. None of us are Spock, and we all do and say illogical things sometimes. We've already been over some of what your OR is and you just ignore all of that too. The basic part of it is you can't prove a negative the way you keep trying to. No amount of American sources that fail to observe the distinction between LQ and the various forms of BQ can ever trump the very sources that define all those styles not defining the same style. But there are many other OR problems in what you present. I don't need to re-argue them with you, which will be about as effective as arguing with my cat or the floor. There's no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone who cannot or will not follow the reasoning. I do not care what terminology you use. I care that our articles, guidelines and related pages, which do not belong to you, are not misleading; and if you use misleading, confusing, incorrect terminology in debates that may be important to other editors or affect content or policy, I will correct it, as anyone else would with any other editor. Your quest to make this personal is a waste of time. Refactoring: Apples and oranges. I refactor to make discussions easier to follow and more likely to proceed constructively. You and SV refactored me in ways that controlled the debates in question to favor your own position and minimize mine. (Next time I see someone do that to an RfC, I'll simply take the matter directly to ANI, which will shut down that disruption with out ado.) Your diff of me objecting to people only addressing the points they feel like, doesn't support your accusation that I only address the points I feel like, which is self-evidently nonsense. People's typical complaint with me is my post length, which is caused be me almost always attempting to address every single point they raised, exactly as I'm doing with you now. So your accusation is auto-self-disproving. Objecting to straw-man arguments, as I frequently do, is not accusing people of lying; engagement in logical fallacies is a reasoning problem, not an honesty problem. I have no problem with people disagreeing; you do. I have not engaged in a 7-year campaign to get my way at all costs; you have. See psychological projection. Next, Garagepunk66 has not confronted me in any way; his responses to me in talk (off your talk page) have been entirely reasonable, and he appreciated my input. You're just fantasizing/confabulating again. This is a "gaslighting" pattern with you that I've not heretofore done much to diff, but I'm going to start, since I strongly suspect that it will come up again and that the current noticeboard action will not be the last.

The funny thing is, even if your misperception were all actually correct, and LQ was entirely British, and none of the American style guides, organizations, and publishers that use it existed, and all British quotation was consistent and was identical with LQ (none of which is true), it wouldn't matter anyway. Consensus is consensus, and ten years of WP agreeing to use LQ is what it is. Style is arbitrary and has to come from somewhere; various of MoS's "rules" are American and various of them are British, and no one turns this into a holy war. Except one editor on one point they won't let go of until administratively forced to do so.

Even your diffs are a waste of time, as they don't support the claims you make, only the innocuous background behind the claims, which have no support at all but your own imagination. Using CYA language like "It's possible that ..." doesn't make a personal attack less of a personal attack. See WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Repeatedly casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS] by accusing me of WP:AGF problems without evidence (that's three times in one day, including inside AE itself, and after asked to stop) is a pattern of AGF/CIVIL/NPA-problematic verbal abuse itself, that WP:ANI will act on independently of your ongoing AE case. Given the numerous times over the last 4 months that you've been politely asked to stop engaging in this particular hostile, dispute-personalizing behavior, this will the the last such request. People can disagree about rationales, sources, and editing behavior patterns without imputing mental problems and nefarious motives to other editors, but you appear unwilling to comply with WP's behavioral guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't read most of this. Here's what stood out to me.
"Cherry picked"? Let's let Google Books do the picking: "American" + "quotation mark" [10] Out of the first five, four say some version of "American is this and British is that" and the other one doesn't discuss the matter. "British" + "quotation mark" [11] gives us roughly the same. "Typesetter" + "quotation mark" [12] gets us #1 a mention of actual typesetters (not relevant), #2 a source that uses the term to mean "curly quotes," #3—5 inclusive, more references to typesetters (not relevant).
The idea that "logical" does X and "British" does Y is your opinion. Some of the sources say that "logical" is placement by position [13] and others say that it's placement by grammatical sense [14]. Still others use the term "logical" descriptively but don't specify anything else. The Chicago Manual of Style uses the term "British" for both rationales. This is not OR, at least not on my part.
"Diffs that don't support the claims"? I added "Use caution when challenging this rule" and you claimed I was trying to encourage people to challenge it. You are really making me wonder what is wrong with you. I mean, are you annoyed that you got yourself boomeranged last year? I would be too but it's not like I did that to you. You did it to yourself.
You need a mirror, you need a serious attitude adjustment, and you need to stop posting here. I'm going to give you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve and assume that you actually don't understand what you're doing wrong. It's time for you stay away from me. I am sick of trying to be nice to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, rats. I'd written up a "let's try a different approach" and "put it all on the table" or "full disclosure on my thinking and why we're disagreeing" thing, with an explicit eye to dispute reduction, which I think would have been appropriate as an alternative to just buggering off, but the TB dropped before I could post it. I've moved it to User talk:SMcCandlish/LQ open letter to Darkfrog24, and while you can't yet respond to it here, maybe it will provide cogitation material (and I'm always open to an e-mail discussion). Anyway, I don't have any problem staying away, if that's what you want, unless something comes up that seems like it "must" be posted here. I guess with the ping system, that's hardly ever.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quotation marks in English may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Please do be careful not to give editors the impression that you are canvassing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I notified people in two rounds. The second is more straightforward: You will notice that I notified all the participants in the conversation that Dicklyon mentioned, including the ones who do not agree with me, excepting only those who were already participating or who had already been pinged. Izno and Giraffedata sided with Dicklyon and SmC in that conversation, and Peter agreed with neither of us. Per neutrality rules, I left them the same message that I left Slim. Regarding the first, please note this: [15] (Archive link: [16]) I asked whether I was allowed to call witnesses at the AN noticeboard. When I say that I got no answer, I mean my request was closed with no answer. The pages on AE and discretionary say nothing about this issue and time was ticking, so I made my best guess. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My name[edit]

It may save you typing trouble if you refer to me as KC or the puppy or Puppy - I answer to all. You can also refer to me as KillerChihuahua, or KillerC. I'd prefer you not use KillerChi or Killer Chi. Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I do appreciate it. :-) KillerChihuahua 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. At least something in this whole mess was easy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted. You may use quotes and quotation marks, and edit pages that include them, subject to normal editing rules (e.g. regarding edit warring). This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after it is placed.

You have been sanctioned per the Arbitration Enforcement thread involving you

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the questions you asked on my talk page:

Regarding the longstanding MoS rule, you just have to accept that consensus is not with you and you need to move on, even if you disagree with it. Do not bring it up anywhere, and do not contribute to discussions about it brought up by others - doing so would be a breach of your topic ban and could see you blocked. The reason you have been topic banned is that you have not learned to let it go or to drop the stick.
The offers of a voluntary restriction all missed the point, SMcCandlish explained it well - the problem is not excessive reverting so 1RR would not solve the problem. One comment a day would very likely lead to you making a comment every single day, this would not be dropping the subject. You have had your say, very, very, very extensively. Everybody has heard your arguments, but they are not convinced by them. At this point your continued participation is disruptive to the topic area. The only voluntary restriction that would have been accepted would have been one where you promised to stay away from the subject completely.
What you can do over the next six months is demonstrate that you can constructively contribute to completely unrelated areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour (edit warring, excessive repetitive discussion, etc) that you have exhibited in relation to quotation styles. I very strongly recommend that you unwatch the pages related to quotation marks and quotation styles and ignore any changes you see to them otherwise.
Your topic ban does cover everything to do with quotation marks and quotation styles anywhere on Wikipedia - articles space, talk pages, MoS and other project space pages, templates, user talk pages, categories, etc. Everything.
No you are not allowed to notify someone about changes to the articles, as that would be discussing quotation marks or quotation styles and in breach of your topic ban. I repeat my earlier advice to just unwatch all the pages and stay completely away from the subject for at least six months. If people see your actions as testing the edges of your topic ban then they are less likely to accept any appeal (which will not be decided by me, btw) than if you have stayed completely clear. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Slight misunderstanding: I wasn't talking about discussing WP:LQ during the topic ban. I meant afterward. Whether the first appeal is successful or not, it will be lifted sooner or later, and I'd like your input on how to handle the matter then. You clearly don't see my support-but-don't-initiate policy as sufficient for a non-banned Wikieditor, so what would you see as sufficient? WP:LQ tends to be independently challenged once or twice a year.
SMcCandlish was not honest with you. By this I mean that he would say try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction" when the line I actually added to the FAQ was Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction. Almost everything he said was like that. I have to guess that he was betting that if he made his posts long enough no one would bother to look at what he was saying thoroughly.
Regarding voluntary restriction, why didn't you just say that that was what you had in mind? This is not a rhetorical question: Was that a test of some kind?
recommend that you unwatch I did that as soon as I was notified of your post this morning. We're on the same page there.
I believe that Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space. I think this is closely consistent with what you mean by editing without disruption or excessive talk page activity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no intent to perpetuate any further dispute on this matter; I'm just responding to what I'm being challenged on/accused of, and will move on (I'm not watchlisting this talk page, and never have). I'm also hoping that DF24 and I can collaborate constructively on this issue when they can return it to and have had time to formulate a distinctly different editorial approach to the topic, that satisfies WP:STANDARDOFFER. To get to the points: The MOS FAQ exists to answer frequently asked questions about MOS, not to plant WP:BEANS up people's noses about issuing challenges to WP guidelines and making sure they gear up tough for them. This faux-warning style, which comes across as a "Do you have what it takes to win this badass combat game!?" challenge – closely mirrors the interaction with the new editor further up this page, paraphrasable as 'I'll support if you if you RfC this. There're all a bunch of bullies and you and I are right. Here's where the RfC instructions are. You'll need to be tough and resolute, though; this isn't for wimps.' It's transparent reverse psychology that will appeal immediately to newcomers used to "Internet debate" and unfamiliar with our behavioral policies and guidelines. I firmly stick by calling it out for what it is. Next, I'm counting on people looking at what I'm saying (and diffing) in detail, or I wouldn't bother writing it all so precisely. It's noteworthy that not a single person appears to have bought any of DF24's "that's not really what happened, that's not really what I meant, SMcCandlish is lying to you" antics. The difference between my sometimes lengthy posts and DF's own text walls is that mine are responsive and on-point, not distracting handwaves and circular restatement of what's already been refuted. Finally, Full stop and its talk page are rife with DF24's same nationalism-based campaigning, and multiple editors' negative reaction to it. I absolutely agree with DF24's self-assessment that "Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space." It simply doesn't lead to the conclusion that immediately followed that statement, and I predict that the TB will be extended if DF24 doesn't avoid all of these style, usage and punctuation topics, because the temptation to engage in the same behavior will be very high. But, I guess that's not my business/problem. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: But that wasn't what you said about me, was it, SmC? You said I was out for "satisfaction" and trying to get people to rally and challenge WP:LQ. That's not true and you have more than enough information to know it.
Yes, please do scroll up on this page and look at what I actually said to Garagepunk66 about whether he should run an RfC. Yes please do look at Full stop. And if you like you can pick any of SmC's claims about me at random. I'll show you how it falls apart. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically, DF24 should not be discussing quotation marks anywhere on Wikipedia, including on DF24's own user talk. So I'd recommend people stop leaving them messages that mention Full stop and other such pages. Also I recommend that DF24 not respond to editors who have opposed them in the quotation mark debate, unless there is a brand new topic that needs attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I have already asked SmC to stop posting on this talk page. However, since he is responding to some negative things that I've said about him, I'd see an exception as reasonable. But yes, he did behave dishonestly. It's possible that his perception of this matter is so skewed that he doesn't realize how much he's twisted things, but that's as much benefit of the doubt as I'm willing to give this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This needs to be the end of this. Darkfrog24, you are actually still trying to continue the dispute, in violation of your topic ban. SMcCandlish is probably responding because you impugned his character across multiple talk pages under the guise of clarifying the terms of your topic ban. If you make any further posts referring to the subject of your topic ban or to the dispute, you may receive a block per the terms of your ban. --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No guise. I'm quite serious, both in my requests for information and advice and in what I have to say about SMcCandlish. He characterized neutral and anti-disruptive posts as disruptive and made false claims about both my motives and activities. He's flat-out called me a liar. If impugning people's character is an issue, the solution has to go both ways. He has said things about me that are not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one feel that one has pretty much carte blanche to reply on their own talk page to anything posted there, so Laser Brain, don't be threatening to interpret these as ban violations. Her words hang her well enough without help. Now I will drop the interaction with DF, and advise SMcCandlish to do the same. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration enforcement request involving you[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkfrog24.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles? - where is it?[edit]

I noticed you deleted my request for a WP:Third Opinion on the Active Disagreement "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles?" - but you didn't actually leave a Third Opinion, simply deleted the Active Disagreement and supporting cites.

Do you intend to enter a Third Opinion? loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: I entered it several minutes ago. Here it is: [17] Is it on the wrong page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I was looking in the wrong place, I guess - WP:Third Opinion. Thinking about it, I don't see any guidance as to where the Third Opinion should appear, so your choice was as reasonable as any. Thanks for your opinion, and I appreciate your work toward helping us improve wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The 3O is customarily placed on the talk page indicated by the person who places the request. You're welcome. It took a but of rundown. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This replaces the topic ban issued previously, and may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016).

You have been sanctioned Per Arbitration Enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Answers to clarifications requested on my talk page: I am inferring that the previous stipulation that the topic ban does not cover editing under normal rules is still in effect. Is this correct? This would mean that I may, for example, correct a miscapitalized word, replace the generic he or remove an unnecessary "that" and write an edit summary per normal rules but that I may not explain or discuss any such change on the talk page. You may edit in all areas that are unrelated to the manual of style. For example you may correct capitalisations, fix typos, replace "he" with "they" (if appropriate to the situation, obviously), etc on articles that are not related to the manual of style. For example you may do these things on the megabat article but not on the singular they article.

I am inferring that the topic ban does cover issues not related to quotation marks such as the MoS's rules on the generic he and the MoS's rules on gender identity. Is this correct? This topic ban covers issues related to all manual of style topics, not just quotation marks.

I am inferring that the topic ban does not cover articles not covering issues not related to quotation marks, such as articles on the generic he or articles on gender identity. This topic ban covers articles related to all manual of style topics, including but not limited to quotation marks.

If I am working on an article such as Caster Semenya, am I permitted to discuss gender identity and to what extent? You are permitted to discuss gender identity, and any other topic, as long as it is not related to the manual of style.

I am inferring that the essay on WP:LQ that I have been working on for a few years has to wait until after the topic ban is over. Is that correct? Yes.

I am inferring that I am not banned from discussions of other users' behaviour, such as the one I had with Curly Turkey about SMcCandlish. Is this correct? You may discuss other users behaviour as long as the behaviour being discussed is unrelated to the manual of style. For example, you may not discuss another users opinions of MoS topics, nor their editing on MoS pages or topics. There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them.

I do not believe that the duration of the topic ban should have been extended and I do not follow your reasoning on this. I'd like it if you explained. The duration of the topic ban remains the same - indefinite. The time before you may appeal was lengthened for the reasons given in the AE thread, i.e. you completely missed the point of why the topic ban was placed and the extended time before appeal is indented to encourage you to actually move on from MoS related topics completely.

I'd also like it if you said that you had read my rebuttal of SMcCandlish's accusations. I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm saying that I'd feel better if you affirmed that you had. I read everything in the AE thread.

What can I do over the next twelve months to give you the confidence that I can be allowed back to work? Stay completely away from all manual of style related topics (the phrasing of this questions shows you still haven't done this). Don't attempt to skirt the edge of your ban, or see how close you can get without breaking it. Demonstrate that you are able to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour that got you topic banned here - crusading, not dropping the stick, battleground approaches, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Took a few days to think over your answers. The biggest one is this: You keep saying that I missed the point. From your perspective, what did I miss? I have several guesses, but guessing at other people's thought processes is hit or miss.
You say that the topic ban allows me to discuss gender identity. Are you aware of this passage in the manual of style, MOS:IDENTITY? That's why I brought it up specifically. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You can discuss the gender identity of a person, in terms of what they identify as, but not how gender identity should be represented. You should not though be looking for edge cases or to find the exact boundary of where the topic ban is (it's almost impossible to frame a restriction without grey areas, and context can matter) you should be staying completely away from it so there is no question.
I'm not sure I can explain how you missed the point any differently to how it has already been explained in the discussion, but I will keep thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I appreciate that. One way to do this would be to say exactly when you think it was explained: by which person, in which post, with which words. The admins involved were extremely taciturn. Do you mean someone else?
From a strictly practical standpoint, I can't avoid the edges if I don't know where they are. Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban did not cover asking involved admins for constructive criticism, but under yours it did. Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban covered the entire MoS, but under EdJohnston's it did not. I cannot read anyone's mind. However, I do plan on hanging out on AE to work on my FAQ draft. Perhaps a pattern will emerge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bones (season 11)[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24, first, please forgive me for coming to your talk page and deviating from the discussion on the noticeboard, but some of my comments were getting lost in the mess, some just wanted to clarify my points here. Regarding DISQUS, people do not go to www.disqus.com and type on the website, that just doesn't happen. People go to the actual website and comment on the page, and the collection of comments are stored on the DISQUS site. So in essence they function as comments, not a forum. Let me briefly explain the difference between the two in my view: (capitalization isn't being rude, it's just pointing out the important parts).

In a forum, the discussions and comments THEMSELVES ARE THE CONTENT. The entire point of a forum is to talk and discuss various topics, so the discussion is the purpose to go to a forum. A comment section greatly differs from this because they THEMSELVES ARE NOT THE CONTENT. Comments are IN RESPONSE to an article or informational piece of which IS THE CONTENT. The comments on the DISQUS page are IN RESPONSE to an informational article and the person providing information found in the comments IS THE SAME person who wrote the initial information in the original article. This bring me to my point that these comments actually function AS AN EXTENSION to the article, and not a stand alone entity.

I understand that is may be difficult for some editors or even some readers to understand this concept (as evidenced by the noticeboard), but that's just how it works. When I originally put the Disqus URL in the page as a source, it was for convenience. At that time, TV Media Insights still existed, but since the information that was being cited was in the comments below the article, I thought it would be more convenient to have the link go straight to where the information was, rather than trying to have the readers struggle to find it on their own.

If the website still existed, this would be a simple matter of using a different URL, but the simple fact that the website is gone, presents a challenge. DISQUS is unique in that even though the website where the comments were originally hosted is gone, the comments themselves are still available. The only alternative to using the DISQUS link as the URL is to find cached versions of all of the links, but that is next to impossible to do. I will try to find as many as I can, as that seems to be the only way to resolve this situation.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is anything j can clarify. Thank you again for your time. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you felt like your voice was drowned out so you came somewhere quieter instead of screaming? I think we're good on that. If you're concerned about capitalization, you can use italics by leaving two apostrophes ''like this'' on either side of the word.
It can be very annoying when people call a source a forum when it's not. I get that DISQUS is not a forum. The source in question, however, is a comment and not an article. Wikipedia does have a separate policy for comments under WP:NEWSBLOG. It says "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources," which I personally interpret as covering comments and replies. Now if the comment is left by the author that might be another matter. It is my understanding that SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as the author of the article in question, Douglas Pucci, and that this fact is not in doubt. The way I see it, if this author meets Wikipedia's expert criteria, then he's usable per common sense.
Your choice of convenience link seems entirely apt.
The issues that have to be addressed are whether Pucci is himself a reliable source. If he is, then I personally don't see why we can't use information that he provided in a comment, but the issue does seem to be in the gray.
Remember, I don't get to decide this issue, at least not by myself. This isn't formal mediation or anything and I'm not an admin. I'm just one Wikieditor who lucked out on a content dispute and got familiar with the RS rules. Right now, I'm not sure which way I'd cast my support in an RfC on whether Pucci is reliable and my own best solution to this would be to just find a less controversial source. Rswallis10, do you think that if you took the time and energy that you're using at RSN and invested it in searching for other sources, that anything would turn up or do you believe you have exhausted all other possibilities? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I found some information that suggests that the SotB figures may not be accurate. While the issue is verifiability, not truth, if we have reason to believe they're not true, then finding out which side of the line Pucci is on may not be worth our time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you tell me what info you've found that shows his figures are not accurate? He's been quoted on TV by the Numbers, The Futon Critic, and is a regular contributor to AwfulAnnouncing.com as well as the station Y100.1. All of his numbers match up with the numbers on other reliable sources such as TVBTN, but he answers reader requests, which TVBTN does not. Another site, ShowBuzzDaily, also answers reader requests in the comments (but those comments are not DISQUS, so there has never been a reliability issue). A big part of getting Nielsen information is trust; we have to trust that we are getting reliable information since we ourselves do not possess the data. Only a select few have privy to that information, and that is something we have to understand. There is no reason for people like Douglas Pucci, (or Mitch Metcalf at ShowBuzzDaily, or Rick Porter at TVBTN, or Rick Kissell at Variety, or even Joe Adalian at Vulture) to make up the information. They are simply reporting the information they have, because they are passionate about ratings.
Believe me, I'm searching and searching to try to find another source for the numbers. I think the main reason they were requested to begin with is simply because they couldn't be found elsewhere. I firmly believe (and I thought that we all believed) that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, so I thought the issue here was the fact that they came from DISQUS, not the fact that they came from Douglas. If the issue is with DISQUS, then there is a fix for that: I am trying to find cached versions of all of the pages that the ratings were on because those still contain the comments on the actual page. If the issue is with Douglas himself, then there really isn't much I can do for that. TVBTN is the only site that regularly posts Live +7 data, so I'm quite certain that there is no other place the data can be found, but I will keep looking through press releases, and on other sites.
If you look here, you will see a list of all shows that I've found viewership information for, and I've spent hours/days/weeks/months trying to fill in some of the blanks, so I will continue to keep looking. This is mainly what I do on Wikipedia, and I've leaned quite a lot about ratings over the past 2 years, so when someone like AussieLegend brings forth a claim of using an unreliable source, I take that very seriously. Someone once told me that I would never be able to find any of the ratings for the second season of Dexter and I ended up finding 10/12 of them (& I'm still actively searching for the other 2). If I find any other sources, I will replace them on the Bones page, but I'm fairly certain it's a long shot. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you've certainly done your due diligence. I posted the info that I found to the RSN thread so that Aussie could see it as well. Basically, I found other sub-RS that reported numbers different from those reported by SotBronx. Even an expert can make a mistake, but if he did, then whether or not he is an expert is moot in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I left my refutation on the main noticeboard page. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Habits (Tove Lo song)[edit]

Can you check any unreliable sources (WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES) 123.136.106.174 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@123.136.106.174: The customary thing to do is to begin a discussion of these matters on the article's talk page so that other people who've worked on it may learn of your concerns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

AE regarding naming the original filer and principal complainant[edit]

Please see WP:AE#Darkfrog24. RGloucester 14:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Nothing in the topic ban notice or in the answers to questions that I asked about the topic ban's terms states, suggests or implies that I am not allowed to say who filed the complaint against me when informing other editors that I am under a topic ban. I provided a user with this notice [18] in response to a ping in which he "found it odd" that I hadn't participated in an MoS-related discussion [19]. The only part of my post that I thought even might be covered by the ban was an aside about the other participants in the filing, which I immediately self-reverted ("immediately" here means "in under one minute").[20] While I am willing to refrain from identifying the filers in the future, it seems really odd to me that this would be against the rules in the first place. Doing so seemed natural, obvious, relevant and nonproblematic. I would like clear confirmation. After the complaint was filed, all three uninvolved editors who commented thought it was completely unfounded and vexatious [21][22][23] and the involved editor was neutral, preferring to focus on the deletion discussion [24] This pronounced difference between the findings of uninvolved editors and admins has left me confused about the continual habit of the admins to not assume reasonable good faith in my case. I notice that other individuals who are accused of violating their bans because of similar misunderstandings are given a clarification, asked not to do it again, and sent on their way without a block or a change in the terms of their ban.[25] I am surprised that no such request was made of me. I have repeatedly demonstrated my good faith by proactively asking questions about the terms and goals of the ban and by acting on what recommendations I was given (specifically admin Liz's instructions to search for another part of Wikipedia and continue to contribute). I find the fact that one of the editors took this as in an indication of bad faith troubling [26], particularly since I am expressly instructed to ask such questions in the topic ban notice [27]. Clearly, there is some kind of disconnect muddying the waters. I have spent the weeks since the ban was imposed avoiding the Manual of Style (even more carefully than I was required to at the time, as I later learned [28]; this shows that while I have mistaken the boundaries of the topic ban, I have mistaken them in both directions) and actively contributing to other parts of Wikipedia, such as WP:RSN, Third Opinion, Kasaragod, and Robb Stark. Regardless of whether this appeal is accepted, the AE process needs some kind of FAQ. I am not the only person who has had trouble with vague instructions. I am currently drafting one as part of a multi-month project, but at this early stage it is more useful as a record of what I have learned about AE since January. An expert on AE matters would be better. Thank you for your consideration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The appropriate and obvious response was to state, as other admins have noted, "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you..." or to ignore the comment entirely. Instead you took the opportunity to breach the boundaries of your topic ban. Unblock requests aren't an appropriate place to float new policy language or to advocate for changes to process, this is a good example of a tendentious unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Except it would be best to not mention me, too. I am not under any topic ban, and nobody has asked me to not contribute to such discussions of style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: I don't understand what you mean by "this is not an unblock request." I read the guide to appealing blocks, and it seems to be in order. What did I miss? You're not saying that I should re-file in a different format or venue, are you?
I assure you that the idea that I am not allowed to say who filed the topic ban was not at all obvious to me. The AE thread was also closed much earlier than I've seen other threads close. I was expecting another admin to show up and contradict the others or for someone to make a request of me the way they've made requests of other editors. As for ignoring the comment entirely, I've been told that I have to inform people who ask that I'm under a topic ban. I'll see if I can find you the link to the diff.
I am guessing that your "float new policy language" comment refers to the FAQ suggestion, that it solely concerns venue and that it does not have bearing on your decision to decline the block. Is this correct?
Dicklyon, it is my understanding that you are indeed under a ban, a voluntary one. I said "I am not confident that Dicklyon is either" and not "and Dicklyon isn't either" because the specifics of what you are and aren't allowed to do are not my immediate business. The point of posting the link was for SmokeyJoe to see that for himself. However, if you don't want me to talk about you at all, that's certainly reasonable. You're more than capable of giving your own alerts.
Also, I have to wonder: Why are you here? You said you were going to avoid interacting with me. I'm not mad, but I'm a little surprised you even found out about this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Unblock requests should be short and to the point, addressing the behavior that led to the block. Instead, this is an argument for an FAQ and an obfuscation of an attempt to discuss MoS without (in your view) discussing MoS. Since it is primarily a digression into more lengthy litigation of the kind that was on display at AE, it is declined. Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Thank you for your prompt response. I thought that offering a solution that would prevent problems like this from re-curring was a good idea. So I should re-file with something that looks more like this? I am willing to refrain from identifying the filers in the future. I did not offer to do so in the AE thread because it closed before the subject could be raised and before I could confirm that naming my accuser is in actually against the rules.
One correction, though, at some point, one of the admins told me that I have to tell people who ask me to participate that I am under a topic ban. I can try to find you the diff if you think it's relevant. If that is the case, then no I wasn't allowed to ignore the ping.
I would also like any constructive criticism you have on finding out what I'm not allowed to do. Guessing is not working well. I've watchlisted the AE page so that I can observe any patterns, but it will take months for me to discern any patterns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not convinced that you or any other editor are obligated to respond to anything. However, "I can't respond as you may wish because I'm under a current sanction" is always a good choice when there is any doubt. Short answer on what you can do is ... go write some content on a topic that interests you. MoS is pretty broad, you'll want to avoid discussions on GA and FA content, for instance, except on a strictly content-related (as opposed to style) basis. This is supposed to be fun, you seem to be falling down the rabbithole of bureaucracy-wrangling. Far too often we end up in passionate arguments about things like "The Beatles/"the Beatles." Let's have fun helping people understand things that they want to know about. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Acroterion: That's actually pretty close to what I've already been doing. Like I said in the unblock request, I hit 3O and RSN, in part to demonstrate that I can be trusted in contentious situations but also because they cover a wide range of topics and I might come across something that might interest me. No luck so far but it's not even been a month. I've participated in part of WP:TELEVISION in previous years, but for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia, I don't expect to have access to the source material this year. I realize this might be hard for most people to believe, but the history of punctuation is interesting to me.
It's interesting that you say to avoid GA and FA, because one of the admins in the initial complaint expressly suggested that I work on that.[29] Although, that was before the ban was modified.
I wouldn't say I've fallen into bureaucracy as fallen victim to it. I think part of the reason these complaints keep getting filed is because I do not know what is expected of me. That's why one of the projects I'm working on for the duration of the ban is a FAQ. I don't want anyone else to get stuck like this.
But gotta get this block taken care of first. I don't want to waste anyone's time with an unblock request that isn't properly formatted. Do you think this version is all right?
I believe I should be unblocked because 1) I am willing to refrain from identifying filers in future alerts; 2) I was never given any indication, direct or indirect, that I was not allowed to identify filers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Found it. It was admin Killer Chuhuahua: "if directly asked, you must respond, 'I'm sorry, I'm under AE sanctions and cannot respond to that question'" Note that KC says "must respond," not "may respond." No comment on naming or not naming the accuser or posting a link to the AE thread. Here's the thread.[30] Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
While I've got you here, I understand that it's against the rules to bait or mock a topicbanned editor, but where does telling lies about me come in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-filing unblock request, incorporating Acroterion's comments on structure and content. As things stand, I do not plan to make a third request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I understand that the admins consider it a violation of my topic ban for me to tell anyone who filed the original complaint against me while said topic ban is in force. I am willing to refrain from identifying my accuser in any future alerts. However, I would like it on record that I did not know that I was not allowed to include this information and was extremely surprised to find that the anyone felt otherwise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you are asked to do something that would breach your topic ban you do not have to respond, but if you do you must not breach your topic ban while doing so. You chose to include comment about other users opinions and/or editing regarding the Mos despite, as noted by Laser brain below you were explicitly told that discussing other users' in relation to MoS would breach your topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

  • I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of why you were blocked, and as such, this unblock notice doesn't address the behavior at all. You've repeatedly claimed that you were merely "identifying your accuser" and that is a plainly misleading statement. You were attempting to draw attention to the identity of the accuser(s) (and their positions) for the purpose of editorializing on the issue and making your opinions known on both the filing and filers. You were blocked because you had already been repeatedly and clearly warning not to engage in this behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Point of fact, Laser brain, no I was never told about this, not repeatedly, not once. I was told not to talk about the MoS, not not to talk about the topic ban.
I think it would be more constructive if instead of continually saying that I missed the point, you guys would be more responsive in talking about what the point is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You can claim ignorance all day long, but the diffs are out there for everyone to see. Here Thryduulf wrote to you "For example, you may not discuss another users opinions of MoS topics, nor their editing on MoS pages or topics." Here you wrote "Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will." You were warned, and you did it anyway. Now you're blocked. You will see additional blocks of increasing length if you continue to violate your topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
LB, you are coming too close to calling me a liar, and that is not proper of you.
"RG filed a complaint against me" and "note the identity of the filer" are not a discussion of a user's opinion of the MoS, and it is not obvious that you or anyone would think that they were.
As for "degree to which others agree and disagree," I reverted that the same minute, and even then, it was only because I thought it might come close. Even then, they're talking about the complaint and not the MoS itself. I was deliberately trying to avoid skirting the ban.
The thing that you did not say was that "talking about the topic ban is equivalent to talking about the banned topic." That is what I didn't know. For you to claim I violated the ban is one thing, but it is not right for you to claim that I already knew your highly specific definition of violation. Do you understand now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm, no. I'm merely illustrating that your claim of not having been warned is without merit, and that you are not accurately describing your action as "identifying the filer". I've observed throughout this process that you have continued the behavior that got you into hot water to begin with: personalizing issues, fixating on "winning", and endlessly litigating issues until the people around you get frustrated. You've asked in several places (including my Talk page) for feedback on how you can improve and how you should behave during your topic ban. If you'd like my frank feedback, I'd suggest that you rethink your approach to conflict here. Better yet, stay away from conflict. WP:3O and WP:RSN would not be my first choice of venues to drift into after getting topic banned after conflicts in another area. I'm not sure why you can't just find a quiet corner to edit in and be at peace for a few months. But, feel free to ignore my feedback and advice. --Laser brain (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Laser brain, we are clearly not thinking of things the same way. When you say "focus on winning," what do you mean? What action did I perform that you see this way? What action do you see as "personalizing issues"?
As for finding a quiet corner to edit, 3O and RSN have been going well so far. My goal here is to prove that I can handle conflicts well. But then admins are the people I'm trying to impress, so your take on that is relevant. As for being at peace, it is very hard to be at peace when I'm topic banned in large part because someone lied about me and is continuing to say things that aren't true about me in forums in which I'm not allowed to respond. And I don't use the word "lie" without proof.
I was asked to participate in this discussion and under the impression that I was not allowed to leave SmokeyJoe hanging. In fact, both the second and third complaints were about cases in which someone else pinged me and asked for my input and I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to give it. I'm actually still not clear about what was wrong in the second complaint.
While I've got you here, while I've been blocked I've been writing up an essay that I'd been meaning to write for a while. It describes a dispute resolution technique that I came up with at WT:MOS, but I've also used it in other places. I'm inferring that I'm going to have to confirm that it has been sufficiently de-MOS-ified before posting it to my userspace. What would be the process for that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Only your own edits were taken into account during your AE cases. You are not topic banned because someone allegedly lied about you or because of anything else anyone did. That's probably the most off-base remark I've seen you make during this period and it shows a focus on others' behavior instead of your own. You're topic banned (and now blocked) because of what you did. Regarding your essay, I'd say that if you even have to ask whether it's "sufficiently de-MOS-ified" it's probably something you should not considering posting anywhere. --Laser brain (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, a good rule of thumb is that if you have to ask whether something would breach your topic ban then it more than likely does. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Even if you don't think the things SmC said about me affected your decision, they definitely affected what I did and didn't write in my defense, and that almost certainly affected the decision. When SmC posted those links about me, each one was accompanied by a malicious and false description that would have colored the conclusions drawn about those diffs by at least some of the admins. "Use judgement if you are considering challenging this rule; consult previous discussions to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction" is an innocuous edit, but someone who's just been primed with "She's trying to 'challenge' the MoS and get 'satisfaction'" might not think so. As for out-and-out lies (by which I mean things that couldn't be considered honest mistakes by any stretch of AGF), for just one example, he claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the dispute" but left out the fact that I'd replaced what I'd believed to be a contested source and the fact that he and I had discussed it on the talk page. That's not even the only problem.
For some perspective: Before SmCandlish chimed in, Guy was talking about three months. After, I've got twelve months to appeal and the scope was expanded. That's how much I think he affected things. SmC's lies weren't the only thing in play—I can go into more detail if you want—but they are a huge problem.
In its current form, this essay doesn't mention the MoS or MoS issues at all. The best example of this technique wasn't on WT:MoS; it was elsewhere. Remember, I didn't think there was anything wrong with indicating that RG was the one who filed the complaint against me, to the point where I left that information in when reverting content that I considered merely close to borderline. I'm asking that someone check it even though I do think it's within bounds. I am being extra cautious because regular erring on the side of caution didn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I think, at most, you might tell me to remove a line or two. The core of the essay isn't about MoS issues. It's just a technique I came up with.
It just occurred to me this moment: I am allowed to draft that FAQ I brought up on the talk page, right? AE itself isn't covered is it? Not rhetorical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I admit, I watch out of sort of sordid amusement; Shadenfreude perhaps. It really is pretty common, almost typical, for blocked or banned users to try to analyze and criticize the system that blocked them, as that's easier than understanding their own behavior that got them into trouble with that system. See User:Brews_ohare#Suggestions for a sad example. Do what I did when I was indef blocked: forget about it for a few months. Come back much later and try to do something different. Mainly, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon, you'll understand if I don't consider you unbiased. After all, now you don't have me around to insist that you find sources for the content you want to add. As for dropping the stick, I was working on something else, I was asked to participate, I did exactly what I was told to do and got blocked for something that I could not have known was not allowed because the issue never came up despite my wide-ranging and proactive efforts to find out what is and is not expected of me—and four previously uninvolved editors agreed, with three of them saying that the complaint was so ridiculous that the filer should have been sanctioned. You'll forgive me if I don't think inadequate self-reflection is the problem here.
Going to the admins to find out what I could do differently was the first thing I did. It really didn't go over well.
While we're doing not entirely unfriendly heads-ups, if you haven't read the AE thread that led to this block, you should. If you don't want me to include you in any future alerts, fine, that's a reasonable request, but your name did come up there. There are a few things you should drop yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

VWS essay draft[edit]

Like I said, I'm pretty sure I removed anything having to do with the MoS, and there wasn't much to begin with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Vote with sources, for dispute resolution
For the role of voting on Wikipedia see, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

{{supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia: Dispute resolution techniques]]}}

{{essay}} {{Wikipedia how to}}

Although most RfCs allow Wikieditors to run polls and list supporting and opposing votes, Wikipedia is not intended to be a democracy. Consensus is not supposed to be established using the number of editors who favor each option but using the facts available in published, reliable sources, the policies cited, and the logical arguments presented. However, sometimes a large number of editors favor one side of an argument even though it may not be supportable and other times the conversation becomes repetitive and no one can tell who said what any more. While many Wikipedians are willing to change their minds if given a good reason, long discussions can make those reasons hard to see.

One way to address refocus contentious discussions in a constructive and non-confrontational manner is to line up reliable sources quantitatively to show how many support each view.

Method[edit]

Start a new sub-thread with a clear title, like "Voting with sources" or "Source breakdown," and explain the process.

A lot of good arguments have been presented that Harry Houdini was the first person to fly an airplane in Australia but a number of others support Colin Defries, and the discussion has begun to go in circles. I think we could benefit from building a source list to show how many RS support each position.
We could start with people adding the sources that they've used to support the arguments they've already made. Please place them in the list with the most important or most reliable sources on top (even if that means putting your New York Times source in between someone else's History of Flight in Australia and PlaneBlogger Forums, etc.)

Create further sub-threads for each principal position. Be clear and neutral. You will not convince anyone to change their mind if they do not feel that their positions are being presented accurately. Hashtags (#) create a numbered list, making the sources easier to count. It may also help to start the list for the opposing discussion yourself, ideally by adding a source already cited in the existing discussion.

Sources that support Harry Houdini

  1. Monash University [31]
  2. Smithsonian [32]

Sources that support Colin Defries

  1. Aircraft by Harry Cobby (1938)

Sources that support other first flyers

  1. Sydney Morning Herald, names Fred Custance

Treat entries in these lists the way you would treat headers under WP:TPO. Do not sign the posts; do not consider them to belong to any one particular editor. Allow other editors to modify them when appropriate. Do not place any limit on the number of sources that can be added by each participant; it's not about how many people there are. Don't over-curate the list. Let the other editors place things as they like. This is as much about sharing control as it is about proving a point.

Decide whether to include sub-reliable sources, such as blogs, based on the needs of your specific discussion. Sometimes a source that would not be sufficient for use the article space can still provide useful perspective in talk page discussions.

Applications, advantages and disadvantages[edit]

This technique is relatively non-confrontational. By focusing on list-building rather than on refuting arguments one by one, editors direct their energy at a shared project rather than at each other. Undecided editors can participate without joining either camp. This technique works best with yes/no and either/or questions that do not have any middle ground, but it can also be used to address issues of undue weight and balance.

Sometimes this exercise reveals previously unnoticed distinctions. For example, all professional-audience sources may give one answer while all general-audience sources give another. There may be divisions along national lines or by publication date. ("All the sources published after the episode aired name the special guest actor and the ones published ahead of time don't. Maybe they were worried about spoilers.") Assumed or expected patterns may fail to appear. ("I thought only Americans would support Houdini, but there are a lot of Australian universities on this list.")

Voting with sources can also prevent the discussion from being reopened unnecessarily. It's one thing to tell a challenger "We established consensus on this last year" but far better to say "We established consensus on this and we found that reliable sources supported the current version 2:1. Here's a thread where you can see for yourself." If the challenger does decide to go through with a new discussion or RfC, he or she is more likely to show up with strong sources to support the proposal. If a significant number of new sources have been published since the last discussion, reexamination is probably a good idea anyway.

Articles in which this technique has contributed to resolution[edit]

Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

There's still some formatting and phrasing to modify, maybe switch out Houdini for another example or else look up the actual names of the other candidates, dress it up with a few images, etc. Now here's why I want your input: The acutal-use examples. Of course I didn't mention any of the times I've used this technique at WT:MoS, but the single clearest case was Theater District, Manhattan, which would be placed right above "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken," formatted identically. The ambiguity is this: The terms of the topic ban do not mention WP:TITLE but the link to the original ArbCom decision that placed the MoS under discretionary sanctions does. Last week, I wouldn't have blinked at including this link in the essay, but it's become clear that we process these matters differently. @Thryduulf: Where does this link fit in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadesarchaea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Credited accusations leading to the topic ban[edit]

Sorry for the length of time it's taken for me to get back to you regarding the questions you left on my talk page, my life has been busier than expected over the past few days.

Regarding the complaints that were the most significant, I don't keep it all in in mind, but from rereading the following stand out as being supported by the provided evidence - battleground editing, refusing to drop the stick, editwarring, "making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants", "This campaign against MOS consensus has been going on for 6.5 years", "DF24 jumps in with the pattern of pumping up discontent", "It's an impermissible behavioral problem to spend years pushing a point of view about the matter, tendentiously against consensus, across both projectspace and mainspace.", "[your response] doesn't address the problem, in my opinion. It looks like they are planning to keep on beating the dead horse forever on the topic of logical quotes.". And that is just from the first discussion - many of these individually would result in a topic ban being justified. Basically everything was evaluated if evidence was given for the claim, and if the evidence presented backed up the claim then it was taken into consideration.
Regarding your second question, asking anything about the subject of a topic ban other than a clarification about it's scope is a violation. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, topic bans apply to everything related to the topic on every page on Wikipedia. They last until they expire or are successfully appealed. The way to successfully demonstrate compliance with a topic ban is to leave the subject alone entirely without attempting to find the edges. If after your first ban you had stayed completely away from quotation styles then you could have, in the following six months, demonstrated that you have the ability to work with other editors on other MoS topics in a collaborative and constructive manner. However you didn't, you chose to continue talking about quotation marks, asking how to resume the battle that got you topic banned, etc.
Topic bans last as long as they need to. The goal is to remove someone from a topic area where they are actively harming the encyclopaedia and/or preventing others from improving it. If that means the topic ban has to last permanently so be it, but we always hope that it doesn't have to. However the onus is on the topic banned person to demonstrate that it is no longer needed and that if it is lifted they will not go right back to doing whatever it was that got them topic banned in the first place.
I have been on Wikipedia over 11 years and I've never seen anyone need so much clarification of a topic ban and still fail to understand it. I am not sure that asking further questions of me will be productive as I have about run out of ways to explain the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I'm glad I asked because this isn't the answer I was expecting. If I'm going to be topic-banned, it should be for things that actually happened. There are a few factual clarifications that you need to see.
I did not make bogus claims: If one of the problems here is that you think the ENGVAR issue is my own invention, we can clear that up easily: The overwhelming majority of sources from both sides of the puddle agree that American style is part of American English and British style is part of British English. They're not low-quality sources either (though most of those concur). We're talking Oxford Dictionaries, Webster's New World Punctuation, Chicago Manual of Style versions 14, 15, and 16 and online, Columbia Journalism Review and guides for many kinds of specialists, including scientists and lawyers. I could literally cite dozens more. That's not even counting the American and British style guides that don't give names for either system but clearly fall along American and British lines. In the years I've been at WT:MoS, no one has ever brought in a reliable source that said flat-out "This isn't really American and that isn't really British" the way that these sources say that they are. The idea that American style is not really American is the fringe view. The way I see it, if anyone wants to disagree with the conclusion I've drawn, that's one thing, but the assertion that I'm somehow making all this up isn't valid.
I am not campaigning in the article space: The way I see it, I'm not campaigning at all, but it's easiest to prove for the article space. You see my position on quotation marks in the article space because the sources support it. For further evidence that I am not campaigning, look not only at what I've done but at what I haven't done: I don't remove terminology that hurts my position from articles. I don't like that "logical" is also a name for British style, but it's verifiable and common enough, so I didn't remove it [33], even before I knew what WP:BIASED was. Same for the descriptions of national crossover and exceptions [34] [35]. I've even found additional sources for these facts [36]. Both original research noticeboard and the findings of a small RfC have found in favor of keeping the "American" and "British" terminology and excluding the claim that they're misnomers. Short version: I'm not the one pushing POV in the article space; I'm the one who's been stopping it. You may notice who the other person in these two disputes is.
SMcCandlish is not reliable on this matter: It looks like you're copying SMcCandlish verbatim on these issues, and you shouldn't. Not only is he probably very annoyed that I stopped him from putting his opinions in the article, but he's repeatedly taken it as a personal insult that I don't agree with him, to the point of ranting at me for using the terms "British" and "American" in my own, signed talk page posts. I've repeatedly told him that I'll look at any source he wants to show me, but all he does is repeat his opinion at me over and over. When I show him sources, it just seems to make him angry. He's probably still mad for last September when he got himself boomeranged [37]. He also might be upset about last summer when I asked him if he was all right, but that's speculation on my part. Everything he said about me should be disregarded. I'll assume that you did look at the actual diffs, but he handed you a dirty lens.
I am not the one who keeps bringing up WP:LQ: Most of the rest of these claims are more subjective, so I'll keep it short: I haven't started a thread against WP:LQ in years. People who don't know me or each other keep doing it on their own—because this rule is inconsistent with what they've learned in school and seen in RS. Then I bring in sources and evidence to support. The way I see it, breaking or unduly undermining WP:LQ is against the rules, but I haven't been doing either of those things. I guess what I'm saying that because opposition to WP:LQ is common and topic bans are not, there must be a Wikipedia-compliant way of opposing WP:LQ and it would be acceptable for me to return to WT:MoS so long as I kept to that MO.
So what you're saying is that you expanded the scope because asking questions about how to deal with WP:LQ in the future is a topic ban violation, even if I'm asking involved admins? Am I correct in thinking that you did disregard SmC's claims of casting aspersions?
As to why I need this much clarification, I figured that asking questions about what to do would be interpreted as a sign of good faith. I really don't know why you thought the opposite. The way I see it, I did stay completely away from quotation styles. I didn't talk about quotation marks; I talked about a person, and the things I said to Curly would have been no different if SmC had been topic-banned for sourcing or harassment. I did consider saying, "SMcCandlish, do you think that you are a quotation mark?" The way I see it, you said "Stay out of the park and don't even touch the fence" and then I got sanctioned for walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street from the park. I can only speculate about why other people haven't asked you this many questions, but for my case, the fact that I was accused of twenty different things at once and that no one proactively stated which ones were given credence left me very much in the dark. Did other people have such a wide variety of accusations made against them in one complaint?
Patterns: I have been watching AE, and I have noticed something. Accused users tend to see the administrative process as separate from the rest of Wikipedia. For example, Hijiri thought it would be okay to report Catflap for violating a topic ban because AE itself is not the same kind of page as articles and talk pages. Hijiri's punishment is that he or she cannot affect the content of that page or speak his or her mind on this issue, and reporting someone doesn't affect it or express Hijiri's opinion. I was seeing the talk pages of involved admins the same way, a separate space. From what's been posted at talk:BANEX, people also tend to assume that their own user pages and sandboxes are out of bounds of the ban. That was one of the first things I asked you about, whether the WP:LQ essay that I have in my sandbox is off-limits.
Edit warring: What I am seeing here is the claim of edit warring. I have a higher tolerance to conflict than a lot of people, and if someone bothers me I tend to talk to them about it. Per MOS:SUPPORTS, I just didn't see what Dicklyon and I were doing as an edit war because we weren't just reverting back and forth but rather changing each new version of the text in ways that we thought the other would find more palatable and because this was taking place alongside talk page discussions. If that's against the rules then I can certainly spend the next eleven months developing and practicing alternatives. Were there any other cases of edit warring that you considered relevant? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got time to read all this in detail now, but from a quick read it looks very like you are discussing quotation styles and your opinion of them and of sources regarding them - if so then you are breaching your topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You will find that I have spoken of quotation marks strictly within the context of the enforcing admin's interpretation of the accusations made against me. I asked you exactly what I did that inspired you to issue the ban, and you cited two things, arguably more than two, that I didn't actually do. Then I provided proof. I'm confident that this is within the spirit and letter of the rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree and believe it violates both the letter and the spirit, so I have initiated a request for enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkfrog24. This will obviously be decided by other administrators not me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

It appears that you intend to persist in relitigating your block and discussing other editors despite numerous editors telling this is a vio and disruptive. If you are genuinely incapable of understanding the ban than you cannot be allowed to edit. If, as I suspect, this is some kind of performance art, I would be willing to unblock you in a couple if weeks if you confirm that this tiresome behavior will cease. You have been blocked before and know the drill. For the sake of clarity, this is an arbitration enforcement block. Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: It is not performance art.
I've come to think that it's not the ban itself that I don't understand. It's the people. The admins keep doing the opposite of what I expect them to do.
When I was first topic-banned, I went to the admins who made the decision and asked for constructive criticism and advice on how to make the best of things as a sign of good faith, to prove that I was interested and committed to working on whatever underlying issue inspired the ban. It was taken as bad faith instead.
When I found out that Thryduulf based part of his or her decision on something that I was able to prove wasn't real, I was expecting the reaction to that proof to be more like, "Oh! I see what you were talking about now. I still believe that complaints 27, 42 and 50 are valid but I now see that complaints 1 through 4 were not. Concentrate your efforts on issues 27, 42 and 50; disregard 1 through 4." What am I supposed to make of this?
When I just now cited the policy that I was following, I expected the next comment to be, "Oh, that's right. Darkfrog is allowed to do that. It says so right there." As we can see, you didn't react that way, and I don't know why not.
Laser brain and others, including yourself just now, have made it clear that they think that the fact that I don't understand what's going on is a problem. I was expecting, "Well at least Darkfrog24 is putting effort into figuring it out. That shows good faith." If this really is a problem, then why would my attempts to solve it upset you?
When you say "discussing other editors," what do you mean? The replies to Liz and the others or something else?
Here's one core issue that I've noticed about AE: People are expected to not only follow unwritten rules but to disregard written ones. You yourself have complained about expectations of telepathy. The 500-word limit is the most obvious of these, but I was also expressly told to ask questions if anything was unclear and that legitimate and necessary issues were an exception to the topic ban. That's three written rules that, at least according to the events of the past few weeks, aren't meant to be taken literally. That's a problem.
There is definitely something going on here that I'm not seeing, no question there. Is there something that people aren't saying? Maybe something that you think is too obvious to bother mentioning?
As to editing the encyclopedia, I've been doing that with no problems. I've written two new articles, helped out at RSN, resolved disputes at 3O, gnomed a couple of pages. The only times the topic ban has been an issue, other than yesterday, have been when someone else has pinged me to participate in a conversation. With Curly, I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to talk about people, and with Smokey, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to name my accuser. Neither of these issues were covered in the questions I asked, so I couldn't have known about them. That's a problem too. I'll say what I said earlier: I followed every rule that I found out about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The admins keep doing the opposite of what I expect them to do I think you have an explanation of your frustration right there. MULTIPLE admins are telling you the exact same thing and yet you have expectations that they will devote endless amounts of time to discussing every little edit of yours and what is and isn't permitted. Like I said, the time for discussing the imposition of the topic ban was when it was imposed upon you. Admins have taken the time to further answer your questions but they seem neverending. Admins are busy people, there is always a backlog of work for admins to do and I don't think you can expect an admin to walk you through your edit history (any more than they already have) and tell you what you did right and what you did wrong.
Bottom line, your demands for attention have tested the patience of the admins who've encountered you and they have said "No more". Until you agree--with no qualifications or questions--to abide by your topic ban, you will not be unblocked. That is, the burden isn't on the admins to explain things to you any more, the burden is on you now to persuade an admin that you can live and abide by your topic ban. And I think they will require some convincing you can do this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait a second, are you telling me that I just got blocked for asking questions?
If you're too busy, then why not just say "I'm too busy"? I kept telling Thryduulf that he could take his time, after all, there was minimum eleven months involved.
@Liz: We seem to have a disconnect here. I didn't want Thryduulf or you or anyone to go through my edit history and say what I did wrong. I want you to go through the accusation or even just your thought process. I'm surprised Thryduulf was as thorough as he was. I was expecting something like, "I thought you were battlegrounding but didn't care about anything else, so focus on that" or "I consider the events at MOS:SUPPORTS an edit war and X and Y on the talk page need to change." I realize the compliant is over 9000 words long and a lot of work to go through, but I'm not the one who made it that way. That's not an exaggeration, by the way. I copypasted it into Word unhatted. It clocks in at 18 pages, 1769 words in-thread + 8121 in the linked section, and that's just the first complaint. (And that's just its length, never mind its other problems.)
As for why I couldn't have responded at the time, a full-length response to that would take minimum 10K, probably closer to twice that. Even if I had known back then that I didn't need to wait for permission to post something like that at AE, it would have taken me days to write it. The process would have been over before it was ready. (I asked at AE if I was allowed to ask for time to compose a response; no answer.) That is why I kept asking you guys to say specifically what you were objecting to (three times, four if you count EdJ on usertalk), so that I could focus on just the parts you cared about. I didn't get that information until yesterday.
Let me give you an example: SmC accused me of casting aspersions against his mental health. I know that I didn't and the accusation looks ridiculous, but maybe it looks different to you. As for yesterday's conversation, I was actually pretty surprised to find out that Thryduulf gave the "bogus ENGVAR claim" accusation any credence. I'd put it in the "The admins probably don't mean this one" column because it seemed obvious to me that SmC was just giving his opinion. Thryduulf not only mistook it for fact but considered it important enough for it to be the first thing on his list. If I hadn't asked, I never would have found out.
Let me see if I can explain this another way: Have you ever worked in or read about marketing? They sit in the meeting and talk about what they think the customers want, but then the results of the market research come in and they find the customers don't care about the things they thought they would and do care about the things they thought they wouldn't. Even professionals who have spent years studying certain groups of people can't always predict how they'll think. You have to actually ask people what they want. Never trust a guess.
I have been doing my best to abide by the topic ban, but I can't read anyone's mind. It seemed obvious to me that answering Curly's question about SMcCandlish wasn't covered. After all, SMcCandlish isn't a quotation mark. It seemed obvious to me that I would be allowed to name my accuser and post a link to the discussion. After all, I'd been told I was required to. All I can say is what I've already said: I've followed every rule that I found out about. I've watchlisted WP:AE so that I can observe the process and look for patterns. This has produced some results. I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to report another user for violating the same ban and had in fact been considering doing so, but when I saw Hijiri warned for that, well, it saved us all some time. But learning by observation is not an instant process. I cannot promise you that I won't step on another unmarked mine. They're unmarked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
And now you are still relitigating, I suggest you cease or I'll turn off your talk page.
By the way, you were not blocked for asking questions. You were blocked because you appear incapable of understanding the topic ban. If you cannot parse what is allowed after all the explanations you have had than you will continue to infringe. I have never seen an editor so fixated in testing the edges of a ban and so unable to understand the concept of if in doubt don't post. If this is genuine then there is no hope that you will be able edit under the terms of the ban and it is disruptive if you are not banned. The only solution is to remove you until you can understand and comply with the ban. The reasoning cannot be made any clearer. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand and to get you to understand. How, other than talking to you, would I get that to happen? I have no mind-reading powers.
That's just it—I wasn't in doubt. I wasn't testing the edges. I thought I was well away from them. The complaints I'm getting are for things that looked like they were clearly not covered by the ban. "Don't talk about quotation marks." Okay, I didn't. I got another complaint anyway. Why would talking to the admins who issued the ban be covered? Why would telling someone who filed the ban against me be covered? These all came as surprises. That's why I didn't ask about them—I didn't know I needed to.
Same in this case. BANEX says flat-out that I'm allowed to address legitimate concerns in an appropriate forum. Why wouldn't "Wait a second, I didn't actually do one of the things that inspired the block" be a legitimate concern and why wouldn't talking to the enforcing admin be an appropriate forum? I'm serious. I want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearly we parse legitimate in a different way and there has to be an underlying presumption that a banned user is capable of understanding the terms of the ban and working within it without constantly relitigating the ban through asking questions about what it means. If you still do not understand then there is nothing more anyone can say that will help you get it and that leaves a presumption that you will never be able to independently function within its terms without asking an admin to check every edit. That's too time consuming to be tolerated - which is what has led to your block. I remain mystified how an otherwise literate and competent editor is unable to deal with this and this inevitably raises concerns about how genuine this problem is and my earlier comments about performance art. Perhaps it would help you to reflect that other editors seems able to get what the issue is and that the problem with understanding and parsing is sitting at your end. I'm honestly unable to think of any way I can explain matters more clearly to you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you do want a response to that.
For one, I haven't been asking about every edit. I've been editing almost entirely without trouble, in areas far from the MoS, since January. New articles Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like, renovating Robb Stark, helping out at RSN and 3O, gnoming some GoT material. Generally, I've been roaming Wikipedia looking for something that isn't style issues to do, with no violations. I trip over the topic ban only when topic bans and their surrounding etiquette are the subject of discussion. 1) Didn't know I wasn't supposed to ask involved admins about the underlying issue. 2) Knew that, when asked to participate in a MoS discussion, I was allowed to tell the asker that I was under a topic ban, but did not know I wasn't allowed to provide any details. 3) It really does look like BANEX allows me to talk to the enforcing admin about exactly this kind of issue.
You know the concept "degrees of separation"? Well it was obvious that I wasn't suppose to talk about quotation marks, but it wasn't obvious that I wasn't supposed to talk about a Wikiedtior [sep] who was dealing with administrative processes [sep] that originated at WP:LQ. Do you see it now?
The time I've spent watching WP:AE has left me with some ideas of why other editors aren't asking so many questions, though of course you would have to ask them to be sure: 1) I went into this extremely unfamiliar with AE procedures and etiquette. Example: I didn't know the 500 word rule wasn't real. When EdJ suggested a discretionary sanction, I asked "What do you have in mind?" not knowing that I was supposed to make them an offer and already know what kind of offer they wanted. 2) The complaints against other editors are clearer. I don't see anyone else dealing with 8000+ words of highly variegated accusations and left to wonder which ones were recognized as unmerited and which weren't. 3) The fact that the accuser outright lied in several parts of his statement, as in not-just-an-opinion, knew-it-wasn't-true-when-he-said-it, more-than-mischaracterization lied, and that that hasn't been acknowledged, definitely isn't helping. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
From all I read, Spartaz understands, you can be assured of that. So you trying to get Spartaz understand whatever is sheer presumptuousness. The kind of presumptuousness Wikipedia can do well without.
You don't understand: your failure to try to understand is what led to your block. Now live with it. You no longer need to try to understand. If you continue trying: that's your good right, but do so without bothering other Wikipedia editors. The only way you'll ever be allowed to return here is when you have shown to understand, and haven't annoyed too many people in the process. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Spartaz clearly thinks I was testing the block, and I wasn't, so no he does not understand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You were testing the block, please don't talk nonsense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Francis, I am telling you right now, I was not testing the block, and you're approaching uncivil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
So an editor who draws an AE is genuinely taken aback that it was for something that seemed legit according to the written rules, and so asks questions that amount to "what did I do wrong?" And the response they get amounts to "you know what you did wrong" which is clearly a load of bunk. And for some reason it annoys people when that editor continues to question that dismissive and unhelpful attitude, so they are accused of talking nonsense. Seems to me that there's a level of prejudicial though regarding anything to do with Darkfrog here that frankly is insulting and unworthy of an admin. No, she doesn't get it, because no one has really tried to help he get it because instead of collaborating to find a solution, it's just extend the block until Darkfrog shuts up. That's the true nonsense here. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Tell me, what was your excuse for not answering any question asked by Darkfrog? Not an admin? Neither am I... and have been answering many of Darkfrog's questions in the past. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Oknazevad. To be fair to Thryduulf, he did answer my question about what I did. It's just that the list included a bunch of things that I didn't actually do. And Francis, Oknazevad didn't answer any of my questions because I didn't ask him any. Not sure what you're going for there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Darkfrog24.  You probably remember me.  We worked on an RfC or two together.  And you are also one of the editors with whom I "celebrated" (on my talk page) my 1000th edit.  I'm sorry to see that you are currently blocked.  I've been following the situation for some time and it makes me sad because, as long as you're blocked, it's a loss to Wikipedia as well as to you personally.  I think I can understand how you feel that there were issues raised about you that need to be addressed; and also how you feel that there are questions you need to ask in order to clarify the details of the ban.  But, pragmatically speaking, it looks like the only way they're going to let you back in is if you can put all that aside and move ahead with things clearly not covered by the ban (and that don't require asking whether or not the ban applies).  Things like the Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like articles for example.  Please note that I'm neither siding with them nor siding with you.  I'm just expressing my opinion that you're a very talented editor and both you and Wikipedia will be better off with you once again editing.  But, rightly or wrongly, the only way that's going to happen is if you can stop looking back and look only ahead.  I hope to be able to edit with you again soon.  Best wishes.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say, Richard, but the way I see it, that's exactly what I was trying to do, but the problem won't be fixed unless I find out what it is and deal with it directly. If it turns out the problem wasn't real, then that should be acknowledged. Also, I realize it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but writing about punctuation is more interesting to me than writing about proteins. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Possible attitudes include:
  1. I have to find out (whatever the consequences)
  2. I'll try to find out (without annoying people too much)
Where the first attitude leads to is clear: it got you landed here. But more importantly: the attitude doesn't lead to "finding out" whatever...
Whether there's a law about it or not: annoying people is as real in Wikipedia as in whatever other setup of human interaction. Eventually people don't take too well to it, even after giving a lot of latitude (and you have geen given a lot of latitude in this sense). So I repeat the invitation (much more nicely put by Richard but essentially the same): when you feel compelled to find out, please do so without annoying people too much. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well Francis, if you actually read what I said to Thryduulf, you'll find I was exceedingly polite. When he expressed concerns about time, I told him to take as long as he needed. You're making assumptions about my motives that you shouldn't be making. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mention "being polite" did I? Polite people can be very annoying. You asked a truckload of polite questions. In return, you got a truckload of polite answers (including Thryduulf's). Then things still went belly-up. Your never-ending polite questions & other niceties had become a nuisance: more nuisance than net benefit for the encyclopedia. My post above addresses how that works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If they felt overwhelmed, they were at perfect liberty not to answer. I hate to break it to you but "being a nuisance" isn't a block-worthy offense around here. I didn't disrupt the encyclopedia in any way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Re. "If they felt overwhelmed, they were at perfect liberty not to answer" – they were also at perfect liberty to tell you, politely, that they felt overwhelmed. Which they did, multiple times, multiple people. You played WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which in extreme cases is something one can get blocked for.
Re. "... "being a nuisance" isn't a block-worthy offense... " – two posts above I said "Whether there's a law about it or not... (etc.)": as you see, I was very definite in what I was trying to communicate; Being a nuisance ultimately kicks in and can get you blocked. Afaics it did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Francis, at this point, the two of us are starting to talk in circles, and since you're really not directly affected by this in any way, I have to wonder why you're here. There was no IDIDNTHEARTHAT, just "I don't understand." Finding out that I got blocked at least partially for something I didn't do is more than enough reason to ask the questions that I asked and provide the proof that I provided. If in the future you should think of something new that you want to say, then consider posting here again, but I think we've come to "Have a nice day." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To make myself clear: I'd prefer to welcome you back as a well-behaving Wikipedia editor, also on style-related topics. Since your leaving some editors in these realms have become even more cocky than before... that is my stake in this: I liked the counter-balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say, Francis S. I haven't been watching WT:MoS much recently. Is something going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog, asking what's going on at WT:MoS is a violation of your topic ban. I ask that this exchange be terminated immediately, lest you risk losing the ability to post to your Talk page. @Francis Schonken: Your involvement here is not helping, and I ask that you disengage. --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski discussion[edit]

@K.e.coffman: Thank you for notifying me of the RS discussion, but I am not at the moment at liberty to respond for reasons not related to the Kurowski issue. Good luck with your GA article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Involvement[edit]

@Laser brain:

So you just didn't remember this, right? I found it in February. I know it was a long time ago, but it was cited in the complaint. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I have any recollection of why I considered myself involved in that discussion, or have any memory of interacting with you. I don't let things weigh me down that much over the years. I have to say I'm impressed that you've kept that same argument going since at least 2009, though. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
That event was included in the complaint against me. Damage done, but consider yourself reminded.
It's more like this argument keeps coming up, just like it did before I joined Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked for ARCA[edit]

Hi Darkfrog,

You have been unblocked so that you can file an appeal of arbitration enforcement actions at WP:ARCA, on the condition that you edit your talk page and the ARCA page only. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your consideration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24. The Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and archived to the case talk page, with a consensus among the arbitrators to decline any modification to your ban or block. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition – putting it here so that this isn't covered by the "For the Arbitration Committee" – a couple arbs have asked for you to be explained what you can and cannot do while topic banned. Here it is, as succinctly as I can. While you are topic banned "from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics", you can:

  • Edit most pages and normally, and
  • Use quotation marks and other stylistic tools without reference to the manual of style.

You cannot, in any edit on this Wikipedia:

  • Discuss any aspect of the Manual of Style on any page;
  • Edit the Wikipedia Manual of Style or any closely related page or talk page, whatsoever; or
  • Push or try to test the boundaries in any way.

Under WP:BANEX, you may also [r]evert[] obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons and [e]ngag[e] in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, such as asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban and appealing the ban. Let me or an administrator know if you have further questions. If any of this conflicts with anything an administrator has told you, please listen to them instead of me. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this @L235:, but this is what I've been doing since January. The problem is not that I haven't seen these rules but rather that not everyone is interpreting them the same way. For example, on February 28 (see above), I engaged in what appears to be textbook legitimate and necessary dispute resolution with the enforcing admin, but others see that differently.
I can promise to continue doing my best, and I can participate at AE to see if any patterns emerge. What I can't do is read minds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
My advice to you, if you're under a topic ban, is simply to stay as far away from any editing whatsoever in the area. This includes reverting vandalism and other things that are technically "allowed"; that way there's no potential for differing interpretations to cause you trouble. Staying away from the problem area entirely and making positive contributions elsewhere are also usually pluses when it comes time to review the topic ban. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
@Lankiveil: I agree and I appreciate your coming over here to help, but, again, that's what I've been doing since day one. I didn't touch the MoS, any of its subpages, or any articles related to punctuation or style at any point. I was blocked anyway. So I agree with the strategy, but I'm afraid there is indeed still potential for differing interpretations to cause trouble.
As for positive contributions elsewhere, how do 3O, RSN, ORN, gnoming, WP:COPYEDIT, Robb Stark and two new science articles sound? It's not that I don't agree with you. It's that I already tried it and it didn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am guessing from your edit summary that you think you are being subjected to undue punishment, Darkfrog24. Maybe you could explain to us all what you think you have done wrong, and what wrongs you think have been done to you. I think (for me at least) that the issue is that you are don't understand what people want you to change about your editing behavior, or you don't think that your editing behavior should be criticized. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Who's "us"? Does this matter concern you in some way that I don't see, Jack? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Us, as in the community, and of course this concerns the community. Is there a substantial reason why you didn't answer the opportunity to address the elephant int he room. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you specifically are not the community, Jack. If you want to know what happened, I can post you a link to my appeal. If the committee approves my request to archive the full-length rebuttal to the complaint that was made against me, I can point you to that. Otherwise, you have no further business here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are playing semantical games, DF24. I (and clearly, others) want to know what your thinking is, in clear and unfettered terms. I've read the gawd-awful long complaint and rebuttal, including links. The point that I am trying to distill for you here is that no one is sure if you actually think you did anything wrong, or that you do not understand what myself and others within the community think you can do to correct these perceived faults. Understanding your thinking can help everyone adjust how to approach a course in addressing it without block after block. It's a time suck, and one you can greatly reduce through explaining in no uncertain terms your views on it. It is a legitimate ask, and I am here because you have acted the same way in pages we have edited together. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, two years ago. You kept saying "everyone thinks so" when you really meant "I think so" a lot back then too. (Unless a whole bunch of people came to you and asked you to speak for them, in which case just point me to the conversation in which they did so.) Okay, I'll humor you. I am bad at figuring out what people are thinking but not saying. I assume not only good faith but also straightforwardness and complete information. For example, back then, you kept saying, over and over "This content isn't sourced well enough" so I'd go out and find more and better sources, and then you would get angry that I'd done that. Now if you had said, "I don't think this content is sourced well enough but I have no intention of tolerating it no matter how it is sourced because I also don't like it for other reasons," then things might have gone quite differently. You weren't exactly lying. I've got no reason to think you didn't also care about sources, and you did mention your general dislike for the content a time or two, but because you spent a lot of time talking about sources and only a little about other things, I believed that sources were your primary concern and focused my efforts there.
You'll recall that once Protonk pointed out that the real issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether or not the content improved the article, we held an RfC that addressed the matter directly, and the issue was resolved without further fuss.
I've often thought it would be great if there were a Protonk for this situation. There's a lot about this that doesn't add up, the way your actions and reactions didn't add up. There's probably something that people aren't saying. The biggest difference is that you were just one person and the admins are a group. So while your issue was, I infer, that you felt better about arguing your case from the concrete angle of WP:V and not from the much fuzzier angle of your subjective opinion, the issue with the admins might be something like etiquette or unwritten rules that they don't know not everyone knows about. And while I'd love to address this issue specifically rather than use our conflict as a metaphor, I also consider it possible that you're trying to trick me into violating the topic ban because you're still holding a grudge about not getting your way about a single-sentence content issue from 2014. While BANEX does state that I may engage in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution with the enforcing admin, that does not include you. If this isn't a trick, then go to AE or ArbCom and get special permission for us to discuss this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am in no way at all trying to trick you, nor is my question wine of the sour grapes that you say I have. Are you in fact banned from answering my question about what you think the AE's proposed prescription for rehabilitation is, and whether you think it is fair of them to ask it of you? I just thought you were banned from arguing MOS stuff on the relevant pages, but not on your own talk page.
I ask because I don't want to presume you are gaming the system, a la DE; like you said, its 2 years later. Just because I am seeing some of the same characteristics here doesn't mean they are. Thus offering you the opportunity to clarify matters without a lot of verbiage and semantics - which is what happens a lot with protracted discussions. I am not trying to trick or trap you. I am seeing people here trying to clarify matters, but I don't see your understanding of those clarifications. I am trying to help you, Darkfrog24. Sometimes help comes from where you least expect it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the beginning of this I was only banned from talking about quotation marks and I keep getting censured for talking about things that aren't quotation marks, and BANEX does say I'm allowed to talk about the banned topic under specific circumstances that don't include these, so I'm going to wild guess that yes I'm not allowed to answer your question. If you genuinely don't understand this about topic bans, I don't blame you. There's a lot of guesswork involved. For example, I've seen at AE that a lot of people think t-bans don't apply to their own user space (WP:TBAN doesn't say one way or the other), but they do.
Well let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that's true. I'm not allowed for you to help me. However, we can work on you. I see you're still doing the same things you were in 2014: I don't know what's keeping you from accepting that your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, but if you found a way past it, you might not feel the need to speak as though it were more than an opinion. For example, I don't think "the community" did ask you to come talk to me. I think you came on your own. The issue is that you don't seem to think that speaking in your own name is enough. But why wouldn't it be? Francis and Lankiveil didn't feel the need to claim authority past their own, and if you scroll up you'll see them express themselves with great confidence. I didn't treat either of them as if they weren't important just because they were individuals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IP making weird changes to user page[edit]

@Spartaz: @Thryduulf: @Lankiveil: @Kevin:

Some IP has been making weird changes to my user page[38] and either claiming to be me or being very confused about whose page is whose [39]. Not sure if it counts as "mocking or baiting a topic-banned editor" or just vandalism, but to whom do I talk about that? @217.115.127.45: Hey, anon 217. If you're just on the wrong page, knock it off. If you're messing with me, also please knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for impersonating you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Up to one year in duration"[edit]

@Spartaz: I recently found out that the maximum block allowable as an AE action is one year. You were very specific when you said that this block was an AE action, so it should be changed from indefinite to expiring no later than February 29, 2017. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
To be clearer because I realise the above response was rather terse. The arbitration committee has endorsed my actions so the block has been reviewed and accepted by a body that has no limits. Secondly, because the time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Actually, ArbCom does have limits. Only the community can issue community site bans, and this is a de facto site ban. ArbCom was dealing with a lot of material that day (the fact that I had a 1000 word limit to defend against a 10,000 word complaint definitely muddied the waters), and they might just not have noticed that you put the wrong time limit in. It would probably be best to ask them.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of hiding this from me or anything—you did mark it "arbitration" and it's not your fault that I didn't know the implications of that at the time—but this is really making me feel like I need a lawyer (I mean for Wikipedia's internal laws; this is not a legal threat). I keep getting sideswiped by rules that I've never heard of before. I'm not done looking, but I'm pretty sure the definition of "broadly construed" isn't written down anywhere. I've found nothing on the voluntary ban system.
Providing my enforcing admin with evidence that some of the allegations against me were false is not failure to drop the stick. It is an attempt to climb out from under the bus. I don't have to spend the rest of my life under the rear axle because the sound of my digging annoys people. Truth be told, I was entirely expecting Thryduulf to say "Oh. I guess those particular accusations aren't true then. Huh." That's pretty consistent with what I've since read about his history at ArbCom.
Per understanding topic bans, I came across this rule while I was reading old cases and going through old edits to see how the topic ban rules have been interpreted in the past. So far, I'm not finding anything that says providing exonerating evidence to the enforcing admin violates BANEX, and I've found a few cases similar to mine that closed with no action. Yes, I've read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if I'm not allowed to ask questions, what's left?
On that matter, you say you want me to understand the way you and the other AE admins are interpreting topic ban, but you don't want me to ask questions about how you guys interpret things. In my experience, when someone objects to a problem and to that problem's solution, then there is some other factor in play. It might be something that you think goes without saying but that I nonetheless don't know about. I was in a content dispute with this guy once. He kept saying "This is improperly sourced! We can't have it without better sources!" so I went out and found more sources. "NO!" he said "Not these!" (comments not drawn to scale). So I found more. And more. And he complained about tendentious editing. I didn't get it. I was addressing the problem he'd presented to me, so why was he so angry? Turns out, this guy also cared about sources; but he also had other concerns about the content that he wasn't as comfortable talking about. I'm inferring that he thought that if I never found approved sources, he wouldn't have to talk about them. It feels like something similar is going on here. If performing evil action Q is a problem, then why wouldn't you or Thryduulf or anyone be happy to find out that it didn't happen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • tl;dr. If you don't like the answer I gave you then email arbcom and ask them. I'm retired and don't want to be sucked back into this cesspit. Don't ping me again. Goodbye. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You may want to peruse Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log, where all sanctions are logged. You will see that indef blocks have been handed out plenty over the years. Whether that's at odds with the guidelines you quoted is a useful discussion, but probably not one for your Talk page. As Spartaz noted, you should email ArbCom and ask for their thoughts on the matter. I'm not dealing with you any further from an administrative capacity, but I do think you have positive contributions to offer this project and have gotten caught in somewhat of a vicious cycle. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I did send ArbCom a short email, but it seemed best to just ask Spartaz first.
I checked the AE archive before bringing this up. I hadn't noticed before, but AE admins issue blocks as both "administration action" and "normal action," which is allowed to be indefinite (but the unblock conditions are different). It seemed likely that a lot of those older blocks would have been normal blocks. Also, if some of these were AE indefs, it's possible that the admins in question just didn't know they weren't supposed to be doing it. Or it's like the 500-word limit and BANEX; the practical use of the rule has shifted away from its literal interpretation, in which case the thing to do would be to update the text of the rule so that it explicitly states that AE blocks can be indefinite.
That's very kind of you to say, LB. I think so too. I am committed to continuing to find a way to untangle this mess within Wikipedia's rules and etiquette. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you got the ping but I asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee whether blocks of more than a year are supported. The consensus of those replying (including Arbs and clerks) is that the first year is supported under DS but the remainder of the indef would be considered a normal admin action. It seems that you are still left with trying to get unblocked through normal channels, as it won't be automatically expiring any time. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did get the ping and have been watching the conversation. I am indeed under the impression that as of February 29 I would be allowed to take this through the usual unblock process if not already unblocked.
You guys should hold an RfC to change the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions so that it says this explicitly. There are probably at least a few blocked Wikipedians who don't know that they have the right to pursue this avenue, and it would head off anyone else asking questions like this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re your email[edit]

Hello Darkfrog

I have received your email, and in response to your question whether there is anything about your case that I am uncomfortable talking about on-wiki, the answer is "no".

Please though do not take this an invitation to involve me in discussions regarding your case on- or off-wiki. I have a limited amount of time for Wikipedia and I've already given you as much (if not more) of that as I am interested in doing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Then officially pass the baton and name someone else the enforcing admin of my topic ban. You're the one who enacted it, so you're the only one who's allowed to change it without an act of ArbCom or AE consensus. Since Spartaz is retired, I need the same for the block.
Consider not entertaining any more 10K complaints. They seem to be more work than you're interested in doing.
I was going to wait until I'd read more of ArbCom 2015, but since we're not likely to speak again... I was going through the archives to learn enough to meet the unblock conditions and I saw this, in which it looks like you're saying that POV pushing depends on what the sources say. Fourteen months is certainly long enough for a person to change his mind about something like this, but I was still surprised to see it. From my perspective, that's almost exactly what I showed you in February.
Goodbye and good luck, Thryduulf. What I've read of your user history really makes you seem like a decent and fair-minded guy. The idea that someone like that could think I would be so evil as to gaslight someone has been one of the worst parts of this. I hope we get on the same page one day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)