|This is a Wikipedia user discussion page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
|Talk to the Puppy
To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply.
If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
A beer for you!
||Cheers! Drmies (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Long time no see! Welcome back to the asylum. It's no longer possible to tell the inmates from the guards, you should be warned. MastCell Talk 01:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I resemble that remark, MastCell. Remember who's in charge now. Moi. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much! Yes, I saw you'd been brave? bold? preternaturally disinclined to guard what remains of your wits after lo these many years here? However one phrases it, I confess I supported you in your rise to power. I'm glad to see the payoff is beer, I can certainly use one. And MastCell, I am delighted beyond words to see you again. KillerChihuahua 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Voluntary" means what exactly?
I'm in the process of trying to work out something with Laser Brain. LB was the only admin who answered my request for more information. From my perspective, when Ed Johnson said "a voluntary offer sufficient to forestall a ban," it sounded like he was demanding that I agree to something before finding out what it was. I need some specifics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since it was Ed's suggestion, you might prefer to ask EdJohnston. I would be inclined to think it would mean you have to make a promise which in Ed's estimation would be sufficient to forestall a ban. For example, you might promise to not edit anything regarding quotes for three months, then limit yourself to one edit a day for a year. Or you might promise to confine yourself only to the talk page. You'd have to be open to discussion and working something ou that you will be able to stick to, and that Ed and the other AE admins find acceptable. KillerChihuahua 17:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- EdJ was the first person I asked. I did not get an answer.
- One edit a day for a specific period of time sounds feasible. Trying to work out something I'd be able to stick to is exactly what these posts on your and others' talk pages have been about. The problem is that I do not already know what you or Ed or anyone else thinks is acceptable. I know what I think is acceptable and it's pretty clear that it differs from your own standards. I can't read anyone's mind, and guessing hasn't worked out so well. That's why I'm asking.
- My big concern is the article space. I reasonably expect that if I'm not in the picture, SMcCandlish and the others will re-add the unsourced material and biased wording that I removed. If the topic ban is put in place, I would like specific instructions for what actions I am and am not allowed to perform, like commenting on the talk page or alerting other editors, should this happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Generally topic bans are broad - which means if you're wondering if it's covered, it almost certainly is. I once advised someone who was banned under WP:TROUBLES who was unclear on what he couldn't edit that if he saw an article about a bird which was listed under the Birds of Ireland category and he had a source that the bird was found throughout the UK that he should not change the category to Birds of the UK. That is broad interpretation. If there is any way at all that something might be considered covered, it is best to consider it covered. You will be informed whether talk pages are included. If it is not specified, ask the closing admin. KillerChihuahua 21:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- In response to what Darkfrog24 just posted up there, note the attitude that the editor is the Knight in Shining Armor defending the article from heathen hordes of nonbelievers. Actually, I've spent a small fortune this month on obtaining reliable sources (pretty much every non-trivial style guide in print that I didn't already have) specifically for improving WP's articles on the English language, most of which are a shambles (many don't even exist, as such, and just mostly-unsourced sections like Hyphens#Use in English that read like someone's personal essay). Meanwhile, DF24 relies on decades-obsolete material like the 14th ed. of the Chicago Manual of Style  [+ several other diffs I need to dig up] (even the current edition of which is not a reliable source on British styles, logical quotation, or other stylistic matters it denigrates and conflates, but does not define, like a zoology book that incorrectly confuses two plant species clearly distinguished in botanical literature), has a habit of refusing to acknowledge multi-editor disputes against DF24's PoV at the article in question , and deletes reputably published sources the editor disagrees with, over multiple objections, and replaces them with self-published ranty blog posts by those who agree with DF24's PoV . DF24's take on what would happen at articles like this is exactly the opposite of reality. The implication that I or Dick Lyon (who has been gone for most of a year until very recently) had anything to do with with unsourced material being added to the article, much less would add more of it is false and unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS (part of a string of them so long I've considered a separate ANI action to seek an interaction ban on CIVIL/NPA/AGF grounds). DF24 actually editwarred to delete the sourcing dispute tags I placed at that article , , without doing anything to resolve the disputes I identified (which are still extant). The primary reason that article in particular is in such a poor state is because the tendentiousness applied by DF24 to the entire topic area in September 2015 (diffed in detail here) was so intense and disruptive it effectively chased me and most other editors away from touching the matter for months. And most of that was on talk pages, so yes, they need to be covered by the TB. I've been sitting on my hands on the entire set of articles, waiting for this one editor's OWN / GREATWRONGS / BATTLEGROUND behavior to be reined in. I've very tentatively begun this source-based improvement work, in a different article on a different style matter yesterday , to test the waters.
Any TB applied to DF24 needs to include the mainspace, since that's the only place the PoV pushing and OR actually matter to the outside world, and even to most editors on the project as a whole. MOS wonks can argue until blue in the face on guideline and essay talk pages and it's just hot air. Embarrassingly poor articles that the British press mock us for in public  is real. Broad construal of the TB is necessary; as my diff-pile demonstrates, this quotation marks campaign is something DF24 has pursued for almost 7 years in every available forum, from MOS and its talk page, to various MOS-related supplementary pages, noticeboards, RfCs, user talk, and mainspace and its talk. I think the TB should cover the whole WP:ARBATC area, since the disruptive behavior is likely to simply shift from this stylistic pet-peeve to a different one, but I guess we'll see. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, dear. How fast do you type? I've read the first sentence so far and yes, I've noted that already (internally mentally) and alluded to the BG issues on WP:AE. I'm fairly confident in the wisdom of the AE admins. Please do be patient with us, thanks! KillerChihuahua 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Killer C, forgive me but I have to ask, you did look at the things he's citing right? Did you scroll up and see what what we were talking about in the thread? SmC has posted so many links that I can see why it might be tempting to skip that step, but a lot of what he's saying is either completely untrue or pulled so far out of context that it might as well be.
- SmC says that I remove solid sources and replace them with unreliable blogs just because I don't like the text they support. That's not true. I have never done that. The case he's citing? Here's the actual dif. with my edit summary: Notice where it says "removing contested Yagoda source." I took out Yagoda because I thought SmC was contesting it, based on his edit summary:  When he (very rudely) made it clear that that wasn't what he'd meant, I immediately said that I didn't mind if he just put the Yagoda source back. Then he accused me of "making things up" just because I'd misunderstood him. At no point did this involve changing one word of the paragraph's text. I replaced one source that supported the sentence with a different source that also supported the exact same sentence.
- That's the pattern. Everything he's telling you falls apart if you look closely. The first link is from 2009 when I was a relatively new editor. Both my understanding of this issue and my MO have developed a lot since then.
- He says I rely heavily on outdated sources. Also not true. I keep posting the link to Chicago 14 alongside other sources because there is a link to it. That passage of 14 is available online, and 15 and 16 are not. I've got a copy of 15, but only in print. I also have literally dozens of other sources, mainstream, high-quality, recent, with names like Oxford, Modern Language Association, Purdue OWL, university websites, professional journals, and SmC has seen me cite them.
- On a lighter note, I clicked your "BG" and ended up in Wikiproject Bulgaria. Figured that wasn't the target, but it was a nice moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll just refute one point and move on: The CYA maneuvers about the Yagoda article deletion and angry blog insertion are best addressed by quoting another editor who objected at the time: "Yes it technically serves the purpose of defining logical punctuation it's just not the sort of source that one would generally use in a neutral article. If you can't see this then I'm really not sure what else there is to say .... I do find the use of that particular source [the blog, not the Yagoda article] in this particular instance contrary to the spirit of creating a neutral encyclopedic article."  I'm unaware of the WP policy that makes it okay to replace a reputably published source with a self-published polemic as long as the content wasn't changed. I'm aware of WP:GAMING, however. DF24's habit of citing diffs of themself saying defensive things that match what they say now, as if saying it twice makes it true, also has the side effect of occluding the context, and making it seem like objections to their behavior are some personality dispute, not a WP:CORE matter. This is just one example in over half a decade of similar antics. And they've simply moved to other articles now, pushing the same US vs. UK nationalism basis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I replaced the source because I thought another editor had contested it, which Wikipedia policy does allow. 2) The source I added fit the WP:SPS expert criteria. 3) It was not used to say anything negative about British/logical style. The Nichol article is being used as a source for "logical punctuation is another word for British style." This is the same statement that the pro-British/logical Yagoda article was supporting. If anything, the fact that these two writers with opposite opinions of the system agree about the facts should give them more weight.
- I think SMC is referring to Full stop. I actually wouldn't mind at all if you checked this one out. I think it's a good example of the good work that I do in the article space.  The thread is short.
- As for multiple editors, yes. There's clearly a big difference between my understanding of the rules and other people's and I've got to work on that. But look at what Izno and Tony and GP are saying (mostly "Darkfrog talks about WP:LQ too much") and then look at what SmC is saying. There's a big difference. Right now, you guys are deciding whether to ban me from just the MoS or the MoS and the article space. SmC is making incorrect claims about what I've been doing in the article space.
- I know it's a lot of work but I think that anything SmC cites, you need to look at the whole thread or at least a couple of posts. Or at least pick just one whole thread in which we've both been involved, even if you don't look at any others. It looks like SmC and myself both believe that the other is taking things out of context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24
I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.
What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?
I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?
What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?
I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?
I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum. Some other editors expressed confusion on this point. I am not talking about how to deal with WP:LQ now. I fully understand that I'm not allowed to discuss or deal with the matter while topic-banned. But whether in six months or later than that, it will eventually be lifted. That particular question refers to when the ban is over, and input on the past if you have any. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You are banned from quotes. You cannot talk about quotes. You cannot answer questions about quotes - if directly asked, you must respond, "I'm sorry, I'm under AE sanctions and cannot respond to that question". You cannot allude to quotes, however obliquely. If User:RandomUser says something about quotes, you cannot say "RandomUser makes sense" or "RandomUser might want to learn more about the subject" or anything which remotely touches on giving any opinion whatsoever. You cannot "fix" quotes. You can use quotes if you are writing something in an article and quotes must be used, but if someone else "fixes" your quotes - no matter how horribly, indisputably wrongly they do so, you must leave their edit in place and not even ask someone else to look at the edit. Is this clear enough? In six months, if no one has warned you that you've trespassed on this sanction, you can go to AE and ask for sanctions to be lifted. If you want that to actually happen, you need to contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so that we know you haven't just been waiting in the wings to go back to the behavior which led to the sanctions. This is paramount. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, let me add one more thing - asking me about LQ or quotes, as you did above, is a violation of your ban and I would be well within my remit to take this back to AE or to implement further measures against you because you asked me. So stop that. KillerChihuahua 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Re: DF24's "What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule?" and your "waiting in the wings to go back to the behavior which led to the sanctions", see DF24 to Thryduulf on the same question: "I meant what to do about WP:LQ after the topic ban. I understand I'm not allowed to participate in discussions of this rule until the ban is over." . I'm skeptical the TB can ever be lifted, and won't be expanded. WP doesn't need someone to "oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule" and "do [something] about" it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- He has already been so advised by Guy. I assure you, SMcCandlish, this is not my first AE case nor is it the first for any of the other admins. There is no need for you to be concerned that we require your input or guidance. Should I have a question, I will ask. Otherwise, please drop this now. KillerChihuahua 02:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to imply otherwise, KC. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
The Signpost: 27 January 2016