User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 106

= September 2015 =

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women

 * Probably mostly outside my editing range, but it jogs my memory to update articles like Pan Xiaoting and other women cue sports player articles from Asia, some of which probably haven't had much attention in several years. I guess most of them are not Asian-American, though, aside from Jeanette Lee (pool player), which I already was updating a bit the other day.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for your comments here. Very decent of you and I appreciate that you took a solid and neutral look at the situation, then called it as you saw it. Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NP. I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the user got indeffed. Kind of a sub-optimal result, but the overall pattern seems unconstructive enough that I guess it's a reasonable enough response. Would have rather seem a community close with the probable topic and interaction bans. An indef like this, especially given that the user has socked before, almost certainly means they'll just create another account and be even more recalcitrant. If the account is effectively "dead", there's no incentive not to just restart, while if the account is just a bit restricted, there's an incentive to get in better graces and keep the account going. Oh well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Fall

 * Hi, I'm just bobbing over to let you know I wasn't best pleased at the way you phrased your edit on The Fall's series page. The original reason you gave for deleting the detail on sexuality was fair and well worded "rm. sex-focused irrelevancy; rm. WP:PEACOCK wording; merged non sequitur into previous sentence", but after I reverted due to the fact that Gibson's sexuality plays a pivotal role ("Gibson's sexuality plays a pivotal role in the series in not only defining her character (see Reed Smith, Jim Burns) but defining her relationship with Spector (see DS Anderson) and pushing foward corruption storyline (DS Olson)") you stated "Then say so, so there's a reason to not think this is Gillian Anderson fanwankery. Putting back the other copyedit, too. WP doesn't describe people as "extremely" anything, fictional or not. This is not your blog."


 * My main issue arises with the confrontational attitude connoted in "then say so," as I had stated this to be a fact, and any fan of the series would know this to be true. "Gillian Anderson fanwankery" is either poorly phrased or incredibly offensive, but either way I didn't like that it was used in a message directed at myself. Thirdly, you used the word "very" but deleted "extremely", a small edit but why is the first better than the second? Finally, "this is not your blog"? I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year and have contributed a great deal. I am aware this is not a blog and I do not like being condescended to in this manner. It's all well and good to sweep into a page you've never edited before and critisise the wording, but please do so respectfully. Maybe start a discussion? Thanks for your time. --Unframboise (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Offending you wasn't my goal, getting the point across that WP has standards that article is not adhering to was the gist. WP is not written like other things, but like an encyclopedia.  Let's turn this around, though: I wasn't pleased by the way you clumsily reverted everything I'd done instead of just reinserted the material you thought was important (and in a way that took account of the concern I'd raised). I was concerned by your seeming unwillingness to consider why a non-sequiturial comment about her character's sexuality, with no explanation for why we'd say something like that, is grossly inappropriate. If you felt that "the original reason [I] gave ... was fair and well worded", there was no rationale for mass-reverting all of it. It comes across as "point-making" and territorial.  See WP:Revert only when necessary, and you'll have some idea why ham-fisted reverts lead to chiding reactions.  But I wasn't chiding you as much as you seem to think. "Then say so" means, i.e. "make this clear to the reader, who is not reading your mind". Edit summaries are about the content of the page being edited, and are not intended as a personal messaging system (if someone is using it that way, they usually include the username of whom they're addressing, and if they keep at it, they'll be asked to take it to the talk page, per WP:REVTALK. I've cited rationales for why the text needs to change in multiple ways, and you have not countered them, only complained about my perceived tone. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement for what a low level of utility such an argument has. How long you've been editing here isn't relevant, other than one year is not generally enough to absorb everything. See WP:WORDSTOWATCH, WP:PEACOCK, WP:TONE, WP:BIAS, WP:GENDERGAP, WP:NPOV, etc. These pages are all important, but take some work to absorb. It is neither encyclopedic nor even neutral writing to use not one but two gushing superlatives like "extremely" in the same sentence. Even "very" is kind of pushing it, but it at least doesn't read like blogspeak.  Any time you use a word like "extremely" in a WP article and it's not in a direct, cited quotation, you are making a mistake.  It really is a serious focus, tone, and approach problem to drop in commentary about the sexuality of an actress or her character without there being a very clear reason for it (clear to the reader, and comporting with core content policies; frankly, an objection can be made to the sexuality comment on WP:NOR grounds, since it represents your own personal analysis. If reliable sources tell us that her sexuality is central to the character and the show, then we should cite them saying so, in a section about critical analysis of the show.  See also WP:VESTED: You have absolutely zero more control over any article than any other editor. You do not get magical "first class citizen" editorial rights at an article simply by having gotten there first.  Finally, if I express a concern that sexuality-related comments about Anderson are going to be taken as fanwanky, but you decide to interpret that as a personal insult about you, I'm not sure what to tell you other than: a) not my intent, and b) you own your own emotions.  I'm not responsible for you mistaking commentary on edits with commentary on editors. I have no idea what your personal views on Anderson or the character are (I can't read your mind eitehr), I only know what such a passage will look like to readers, especially women. The #1 complaint about Wikipedia over the last 5-8 years has been a "bro" editing culture that is somewhere between hostile and indifferent to female editors and readers, and unduly focused on objectification of women.  This is not a concern I brought here, its a concern that numerous reliable sources in the real world tell us about WP's public relations problems. I'm actually highly skeptical of most "political correction" ideas, so if even I'm concerned about WP being broadly perceived as sexist, there is something real to be concerned about there, and to edit to avoid.  Ultimately, is it more important that the article be good, or that everyone else's edit summaries show you some kind of deference that you feel you're owed because of your massive year of tenure and your proprietary feelings toward taht article?


 * I didn't "clumsily" do anything, I reverted everything you edited because your edits used the word "very" twice in the same paragraph which didn't read well, you moved a superlative to the opening sentence which again was a problem, and you removed information about a character's sexual comfort that was not "non-sequitur" but instead incredibly relevant to the article. Stella Gibson's sexual comfort (she states "man fucks woman, that's fine, but woman fucks man, that makes you uncomfortable"; "maleness is a sort of birth defect"; "I fuck you, I fuck Spector"; "don't use the word 'innocent', what if a prostitute is killed next, she is no less innocent"; unbuttons her blouse on TV to provoke a serial killer, etc.) moves not only the A and B plots forward, but her relationship with her fellow cast members. It is just as relevant to the description as the fact she works for the police, and just as relevant to the plot. It's not grossly inappropriate in the slightest, and maybe if you think it is you should re-evaluate your sensitivity on the subject. Your original reason was "fair and well worded", but nonetheless wrong. Anyone can word an argument well, but if it's wrong it will be reverted.
 * You also stated I came "across as "point-making" and territorial", well the same could be said for you describing other editors work as "fanwankery," to be honest. You stated I should "make this clear to the reader, who is not reading your mind", but the reader doesn't have to read my mind to understand the show. It's there in technicolor, 12 hours worth, in fact, on BBC, Netflix and RTE.
 * "It really is a serious focus, tone, and approach problem to drop in commentary about the sexuality of an actress or her character without there being a very clear reason for it (clear to the reader, and comporting with core content policies; frankly, an objection can be made to the sexuality comment on WP:NOR grounds, since it represents your own personal analysis." See the quotes above the 12 hours of brooding sexuality as a plot device. Try watching the show before you edit the content describing it, it will help you see relevance. Also there were no "sexuality-related comments about Anderson", they were about Gibson. See previous point. "unduly focused on objectification of women", quite the opposite, the series utilises sexuality in order to show women as powerful, influential people. Stella is comfortable with her sexuality and femininity because she is a feminist, and your reversions are frankly a discredit to the fantastic amount of work put in by Cubitt, Anderson, and their team in order to ensure a strong female protagonist exists on TV today.
 * "Ultimately, is it more important that the article be good, or that everyone else's edit summaries show you some kind of deference that you feel you're owed because of your massive year of tenure and your proprietary feelings toward that article?" That was a rude and unnecessary condescending attack, and I don't appreciate your sarcasm. My desire is for the article to be good, which is why I reverted your "hamfisted" and unnecessary PC edits that contradict everything the series is about. --Unframboise (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT, with regard to a single thing I wrote. . The average reader has not, unlike you, memorized all kinds of dialogue from this show that could explain to them why the observation about the character's sexuality might be pertinent. If you think that the fact that people could in theory go watch 12 hours' worth of a TV show, and thereby maybe understand what you're trying to write about it, means you don't have to write about TV shows here in way that does not presume people have already watched them, then you need to read MOS:FICT and related pages, and refrain from editing fiction-related articles until you have done so. It's rather disturbing that you have not figured out the basics of Wikipedia writing about fiction yet when about 95% of your edits are to TV-related articles. No one has to watch the show to know that the then-extant writing about it was not adequately encyclopedic, i.e. for those who have not watched the show and may never watch it, but still need it adequately described, which is  people who will ever come to that article.  This is not a blog for fans of the show, it's an encyclopedia the primary purpose of which is to inform people about topics they don't yet know anything about. "unduly focused on objectification of women" refers to public perception of, not the content of the external TV show. How are these two unconnected things even being confused here?  And no, WP:POINT and WP:OWN  be said of me being critical of particular edits, which you'd know if you'd read those pages. And I already explained to you why there's a crucial difference between criticizing content and criticizing editors, but you seem not to notice anything you don't want to. You've stated that the content in the article is "your work"; it is not. The instant you save it, it is Wikipedia's, and it may be "mercilessly edited", a basic principle here. Criticism is not "an attack". Besides, not being impressed that you've been around for a year, nor by what you've absorbed in that time, is not even a criticism, much less an attack. How I feel about your presentation of your "credentials" as if they're some kind of rank or tenure is intrinsic to me; you have no say in it, and it's not an objective fact or a claim of one, it's just me not being impressed. I actually find it hilarious, given these post by you in response to someone else trying to "pull rank" with :    (notice in the second one how you also tell another editor "watch your language" after just lecturing  about being "PC", and that after I already explained that I don't do PC, and my concerns are based on reader utility, and published criticism of Wikipedia. The very fact that you make this a "PC" issue – usually a dead-giveaway of a "bro-ditor" made me look into your recent past a bit, and sure enough, you were very recently blocked for derrogating a female editor as a "chick" and "honey", and otherwise being a creep.). "The pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind. It's not my business whether you appreciate sarcasm or not (though you use it enough you clearly do, as long as its not used toward you), and it's not my job to make you feel good about incautious editing followed by histrionic responses to criticism of the edits and to blanket reverting of attempts to improve the material.  If you'd simply accept constructive criticism of the content as such, and focus on the article content, instead of trying to extract contrition from others for imagined slights (i.e, trying to turn it into WP:DRAMA, a pattern repeated at User talk:Musdan77, and elsewhere, leading to your block), you'd have a much better and more constructive time here. Since you like to excessively quote in talk page discussions, I'll quote you back at yourself: "Respect is earned, not given."  Also, from your posts at User talk:Glacialfrost: "I just speak out when I feel I need to."  So do others, and you're not in a position to vent at them about it while hiding behind the same "do as I please" attitude. Look, the current version  – in which other editors have run with the improvements I made and improved them further – resolves the issues I had with that part of the text, and preserves the "comfortable with her sexuality" stuff you want to preserve, with the clarification of why it might actually be relevant and isn't just prurient material begging for deletion. My, and now others', having improved it, despite your I-refuse-to-understand-and-will-just-complain-about-tone filibustering efforts, actually makes it not only more useful content but  in the article (which does not belong to you and which anyone may edit).  So, no more dispute, it looks like. Good day.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)  PS: I actually missed something in your earlier post, because you bury everything in length quotations. You referred to "my reversions" being a discredit to the cast and crew of the show. But it was you reverting; I was adding explanatory material for our readers. No edit of mine or yours affects the reputation of the show's personnel; this is the second time you've confused on-wiki editing with off-wiki matters, in the same thread. I don't know what's behind such cognitive dissonance, but it seems to relate strongly to the refusal to understand that what you know internally about the characters and the show directs how the show should be written about here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I could write a lengthy reply explaining all the reasons I believe you to be wrong, but I don't have the time nor the energy. I think the fact you have taken to character assassination, name-calling ("bro-ditor"), and looking through my post history is proof enough that you know your argument has no basis. You're obviously now more concerned with my character than the content of Wikipedia, so I presume you can no longer debate content and I will accept this as a concession on your part. I'm happy we could "compromise". --Unframboise (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the charge of name-calling, since it's self-evidently false. I said that a particular pattern was symptomatic of bro-ditor behavior. This was a signal for you to consider whether your behavior leads to such an impression and whether you ought to change the behavior pattern. Your recent block for related issues was a signal to do likewise, but you seem to not understand this, so I think everyone but you already knows how this arc of yours will eventually end. It's perfectly normal to look through recent editorial history to try to figure out what's going on with another editor, and that's not "character assassination".  You can presume whatever you like and fantasize an imaginary WP:WIN if you want to, but it's pretty silly to come here and explicitly refuse to rebut anything (i.e., to come here and concede) and then declare the other party to be conceding or compromising. But whatever; if it gets you off my talk page and back to doing constructive things, fine. You came here to vent about me, remember? As I said before, the issues with the article have been resolved, so, no more dispute (us being mutually disagreeable isn't a dispute to resolve – there's no Wikipedia matter behind it, it's just opinion and temperament, which should become moot simply by cessation of interaction).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. I think it deserves a response. Firstly, I'm aware nobody can read my mind, and it's not about memorising dialogue, literally (as in not figuratively, without exaggeration), the entire series is grounded in Stella's sexuality. The entire series. It would be like saying not everyone who has watched The Muppets is aware that Kermit is a frog. You wouldn't have to watch the whole twelve hours to understand, a scene should suffice. If you haven't this much knowledge of the show, then, in my opinion, it's not your place to be editing the article or policing the content, because you don't know what's relevant.
 * "It's rather disturbing that you have not figured out the basics of Wikipedia writing about fiction yet when about 95% of your edits are to TV-related articles." It's rather disturbing that you feel the need to once again descend into barely veiled personal attacks.
 * "for those who have not watched the show and may never watch it, but still need it adequately described," which is why Stella's sexuality is so pertinent to the article. Without this information, one will not understand the concept on which the series is based. You're starting to argue my point here, not your own.
 * "it's an encyclopedia the primary purpose of which is to inform people about topics they don't yet know anything about." See above.
 * "unduly focused on objectification of women" refers to public perception of, not the content of the external TV show." The series is grounded in Stella's sexuality. I don't know how many more times I can write that before you understand. The article needs to include this information. Honestly, are you not understanding this?
 * "WP:POINT and WP:OWN be said of me being critical of particular edits," when criticism descends into attack they very much can be. "there's a crucial difference between criticizing content and criticizing editors," may I refer you to your comment, left on The Fall edit history, directed at a first time editor of that page who was enforcing your edit: "Those who presume to lecture others on grammar and on proofreading should follow their own advice. LOL". Let's not even begin to talk about the use of loaded lexis such as 'presume' to imply little or no knowledge, that's just outright rude.
 * "not being impressed that you've been around for a year, nor by what you've absorbed in that time, is not even a criticism, much less an attack." no, the manner in which you phrase your thoughts is when they become confrontational. You can't tell me what I should be offended by. Only I can do that, and I'm informing you that, in this instance, I was offended, and I felt your conduct unbecoming.
 * "How I feel about your presentation of your "credentials" as if they're some kind of rank" I only mentioned by "credentials" in response to your implication that I didn't understand what I was doing, I wasn't pulling rank, you're welcome to edit The Fall anytime, just do it constructively. Don't sweep in and remove valuable content because you are offended by it. Especially a fleeting reference to a key plot point on sexuality.
 * "The very fact that you make this a "PC" issue – usually a dead-giveaway of a "bro-ditor"" you made it a PC issue when you brought up the phrase Political Correctness and applied it to this discussion, noting that it was un-PC to include key plot information. Excuse you.
 * ""I just speak out when I feel I need to." So do others, and you're not in a position to vent at them about it while hiding behind the same "do as I please" attitude." I don't have a do as I please attitude, I merely value the importance of accurate content. You're welcome to speak out, but speaking out doesn't automatically make you right. Alas, speaking out does not automatically make anyone right, and as for this content issue, you are dead wrong.
 * "isn't just prurient material begging for deletion." It never was. It's funny, I think that in the three years since the show began production you are the only person to raise issue with having a strong, comfortable, female character described in such a way.
 * "derrogating a female editor as a "chick" and "honey", and otherwise being a creep." Chick and honey are basic, non-gender-specific forms of address that in this case offended an editor. I admitted I was in the wrong and resolved this issue with the editor in question. This is irrelevant to the content based issue presented here.
 * Good day, --Unframboise (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, clearly other users are noticing you taking unnecessary issue with harmless content, as noted in the post below. Maybe you should take a break from editing for a while, a breather is never a bad thing. --Unframboise (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is disputing whether Stella's sexuality is central to the show. How can you just not get it, after 5+ explanations? The only issues raised with the statement in question are a) that it had no explanatory context for the reader (now resolved, unless you've gone and reverted that too), and b) it wasn't necessarily clear why it was WP:DUE weight . This has been raised on the article's talk page, as you requested yourself, and I've left it to the regular editors of that article to discuss it, since you make such a big point of me being a stranger to that article. So why are you back here to discuss it in two forums at once?
 * Actually read WP:NPA. Raising concerns about editorial behavior patterns, reasoning, and approaches is not an attack.
 * You clearly don't understand enough of the points to know who is arguing whose, frankly.
 * I don't know how many more times it can be explained to you that what you know/believe to be true about the show in your own head does not affect how we write about the show for readers unfamiliar with it. FFS.
 * You still clearly have no actually read and understood WP:POINT, WP:OWN, or WP:NPA. The more you keep trying to WP:WIN by rekindling the argument, the clearer you make it that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 * On that note, you have no business name-calling (to use your term) me "confrontational" when you're expending this much energy coming to my talk page to be confrontational. I cite WP:KETTLE in your general direction again.
 * Why are you lecturing at me to edit the article constructively and to not remove the passage in question, when almost two days ago myself and others clarified the passage so that its relevance was clear, and there's even a talk page thread at the article open about it's relevance. I cite cognitive dissonance again. I don't think you understand how irrational you are coming across right now. It's like I bumped into you on a street corner, we resolved the incident then, yet a day and half later you've shown up at my doorstep at midnight to re-start an argument about whether I bumped into you on a street corner. I now see why "creepy" was used in your block notice.
 * No, I don't excuse you. I didn't "make it a PC issue", I said I'm wary about anything that smacks of PC, yet clarifying the relevance of the mention in the char. descr. was a good idea so people don't mistake it for some kind of PC problem. then declared it a PC matter.  Simple analogy: I say "This brown cake is not chocolate but someone might think it is"; you respond "I don't want that cake, because I hate chocolate".  Does not compute!
 * If I were "dead wrong" about the content issue, other editors would not have retained and improved the edit I made, but they did. So much for that. Oh wait! Are you talking about whether Stella's sexuality might be relevant at all? How could you possibly still be talking about that when everyone but you has already moved beyond that point a day or two ago?  Either way, your comment makes no sense.
 * "It never was" prurient. You're again exhibiting severe comprehension difficulties. I said "clarification of why it might actually be relevant and isn't just prurient material begging for deletion"; for at least the third time: This is not about whether there might be a legitimate reason to include something about the character's sexuality, it's about whether it's written in manner that avoids giving the impression is a prurient irrelevancy. How frequently an issue is raised about a specific sentence in WP has nothing to do with the issue's validity, it only tells you how many people are reading the page. These kinds of reasoning failures are why I said earlier that this would probably be a waste of time. Logic and you are mixing like oil and water.
 * "Chick" is not a non-gender-specific term of address. That's probably the most irrational thing I've ever seen anyone say on WP.
 * You know nothing about the dispute below, and it does not relate in any way to this discussion (it's about another editors 6-year-long campaign to change something, against consensus, at a guideline page).
 * Now, please stop making a fool of yourself on my talk page. This is a waste of both our time, and this is an argument you are clearly ill-equipped for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading into things--reason?
Are you okay? You've been reading a lot more problem into posts than is actually there for weeks, both with me and with Curly. Did something happen? Not offended if you delete this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine. What's happened is my patience with tendentious editing, civil-PoV, and slow-editwarring patterns has finally reached a limit. No one who is doing problematic things thinks they are. One cannot self-assess whether one's behaviors are problematic, since it's others who perceive the problems. One who will not listen to others when they raise objections about the problems one is causing, is doomed to keep causing problems until people's tolerance for the behavior pattern runs out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scanian dialect
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scanian dialect. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic-ban
For edit-warring on WP:MOS and several other pages related to your fight with User:Darkfrog24 over quotation styles, together with your pattern of long-winded, aggressive filibustering on the related talk page and noticeboard threads, including incivility and personal attacks and displaying at least as much "IDHT" as the behaviour of the other party you complained of, I am imposing a topic-ban from WP:MOS and related discussions on you for a period of two months. This is done under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions rules for the MOS topic area, and in light of the previous sanctions and warnings you received in that context (quote from a DS ruling in 2013: "SMcCandlish is prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about other participants; strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor, particularly with regard to WP:NPA and WP:CIV; and encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length"). For the avoidance of doubt, under the "widely construed" rule, the edit-war in article space at Quotation marks in English is included in this sanction. I would have imposed a similar sanction on the other party, except that I can't find evidence the necessary "alerts" have been given to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to whine about receiving a temporary topic ban as onerous, and I concede some of these points, but this action is questionable to me for multiple reasons, and raises some concerns about the future of the affected pages, and for dealing with any future disputes, as well as what I can and can't legitimately do in the interim. I'm not asking just to be a pain in the butt or to debate you, but because your reasoning behind the admonitions, and the decision, are unclear to me, and a remedy doesn't remedy anything, really, if the one it's applied to doesn't understand it.


 * The "and related discussions" clause is vague. Would you please narrow it apply to a) WP:MOS (including subpages and talk pages thereof, but not including drafting/sandboxing), and b) participating in MOS-focused [or directly MoS-related, whatever wording] discussions (not inclusive of mutually agreed user-talk, or threads that incidentally touch on MoS, or noticeboard threads)? If not: Does the topic ban extend to any of the following, and if so, would you please explicitly limit the scope to permit the ones you don't think are intended to be within the scope? (color coded: green = I expect to be able to, red = I think the ban probably covers this, grey = no idea, but don't think the ban should cover it):
 * A. WP:AT-related discussions? ARBATC covers AT as well as MOS, but AT is unrelated to this dispute.
 * B. Mentioning MoS, or quotation style, in other contexts? E.g. citing MoS in an edit summary or an RM or merge discussion, using diffs that happen to be from an MoS page, quoting MoS in a rationale, mentioning quotation marks fixes in edit summary, etc.
 * C. Talking about MoS in user talk? It would be hard to approach DF24 in a conciliatory way if we were not able to discuss MOS and the quotation style dispute in detail. Ironically, I was actually working on a draft of that before you issued this TB. [sigh].
 * D. Discussions that touch on style, but not in MoS's context? A case that's already come up is whether or not I can respond to what was just posted at Wikipedia talk:How to make dashes, with the observation that WP:SUMMARY applies to articles, not essays. Two other examples are threads in which I've been participating at Help talk:CS1 and Mediawiki:Common.css; none (that I can recall) are directly about MoS, but both pages involve "style" in some sense (citation formatting, and CSS).
 * F. Being able to raise concerns or make comments at noticeboards relating to changes or behavior at MOS or the article, as a reading bystander? This present one-way remedy is fairly likely to result in something that will require it, and there are plenty of issues that could arise from elsewhere. I feel like I would have little choice but to never participate in any AN* discussions until the ban is over, since if MoS is involved in any dispute there, and I don't notice, I might be found in violation simply for having said something in the thread.
 * G. Being able to state that I'm not permitted to discussion MoS-related matters, if people ask me MoS-related things, or a discussion turns MoS-ish, and I have to exit it?
 * H. Working on other punctuation (including quotation marks) matters in other articles.
 * I. Talking in user talk about matters that coincidentally involve MoS but which are about something else. E.g., 1) I need to give EEng an apology and clarification regarding a poorly worded comment in this thread that gave offense and came across as disagreement when it was actually agreement, but I seem to be forbidden to do so by the overbreadth of the TB. Similarly, 2) I promised a citation to someone here (and was thanked for ordering the source – i.e., the editor is waiting on it) and would like to provide it to them, off of WT:MOS.
 * I need to make one of those now, and I gnome so much I'm liable to make such an edit without even noticing between now and November.
 * My operating assumption under WP:IAR, and under WP:AGF about the intended scope of the ban being reasonable, is that the items in green are definitely permissible, whether you answer or not. The grey-area item E is something I can do in a text editor anyway, so prohibiting me from doing it on-wiki where I get the syntax highlighting and preview would appear to serve no purpose but to impede actual encyclopedia work, so I'd be tempted to invoke IAR in that case as well. Grey-area item J just might happen without me even noticing, and I would not want to be pilloried for it.
 * Can you show me "making bad faith assumptions" about DF23? I've repeatedly disavowed that I assume bad faith on that editor's part, only a prioritization issue over-focused pursuit of personal priorities against those arrived at by consensus, which doesn't require bad faith, just stubbornness. Just because I was found to have done something a long time ago doesn't mean I'm doing it here again. This appears to me to be a demonstrably false accusation. [By which I mean "mistaken and disprovable" not "motivated by an intent to deceive", lest I be accused of it again.] I would appreciate if that particular claim were redacted.
 * What parts of those two diffs you cited contravert WP:NPA? And are you aware that I self-reverted some of the first one ? Do you believe that I cannot prove any of the assertions in those two diffs (or any others for that matter) that you characterize as WP:CIVIL or NPA violations? If I take the time to do this, will this help shorten the TB length? WP:SPADE exists for a reason, and we should be in a position to be be fearful of offering any criticism without putting it falsely, annoyingly sugary language.
 * Where have I commented on Darkfrog24 as a contributor, rather than on the edits, the reasoning provided for them, the logic of the arguments presented, the observable editing pattern, and their own statements about their "beliefs" which they bring up, using that word, frequently? A noticeboard about editwarring behavior is necessarily about behavior. It's possible that I slipped up in this regard, but I was trying hard to avoid doing so. Aside from being argumentative and loquacious, my behavior has actually greatly changed since 2012, and I don't think this has been taken into account, especially given the number of personal attacks and bad faith accusations I was subjected to myself.
 * How could DF24 need a personal alert when all MoS regulars (DF24 is in the top 10) are well aware of ARBATC, because of the ACDS banner atop WT:MOS? The whole point of the banners is to auto-alert all participants at the talk page in question. Surely you can apply to DF24 the same remedy I received, on that basis. If it's not clear, please find out. I'm not sure I'd even be allowed to ask ArbCom, since your topic-ban has an unclear scope.
 * Do you not think that this one-sided restriction is very likely to embolden more disruptive behavior from others? It sends a clear message about how to game this system like a pro. This is like breaking up a schoolyard fight over a lunch box, and handing it to the one who stole it, in front of the entire student body (if I may mock the seriousness of the underlying issue). The one-sidedness of it also appears to conflict with WP:ACDS, in being disproportionate.
 * Don't you think your interpretation of the DS rules encourages another type of gaming, in the form of pre-emptively delivering ARBATC (or whatever case) alerts to everyone who ever edits or posts at MOS (or whatever)? I would never be that POINTy, but I'm sure you can see what the concern is. (I recently received an aggressive notice of this sort myself, that appears to violate the alert instructions that you must verify that such an alert is needed.) The ACDS talk page banners appear to have been created specifically to forestall that kind of thing. Your action would seem to invalidate their reason for existing. I would have to object to being a singled-out casualty in any efforts to get ArbCom to change its bureaucratic approach to ACDS, which I agree should be changed. [No implication of intent to use me this way, but I'm sure you can see how hard it would be not to feel like a sacrifice / cannon-fodder.]
 * Unless I'm missing something about policy, it doesn't require ACDS and its alerts anyway, in order to arrive at a narrow topic ban at a noticeboard, so ACDS would seem to be one of rationales to apply in this case, or is something wrong with that take?
 * On looking back over that ANEW thread, it appears you explicitly declined to actually examine the evidence I presented to determine if the report had merit. This seems procedurally wrong to me. You closed the ANEW thread without doing anything ANEWy, and applied DS tangentially and severably, for reasons that don't relate to ANEW's concerns much. Wouldn't the correct thing to do be to leave the ANEW thread open and note that while you TB'd me under ACDS for civility reasons in the middle of it, the case has not been examined and should be, by another admin who will review the merits of the report? This is how AE has handled things in the past, for example: party X raises a complaint against Y at ANI, Y complains to AE of statements in the ANI by X; ANI sanctions Y for the problems in the original report, while AE sanctions X for the behavior at AE that Y reported, regardless of the outcome at ANI. (I know it for a fact, because I've been party X in this exact situation; I appealed on the basis that the ANI result against Y proved I was in the right, and I lost.)
 * On looking back over that ANEW thread, it appears you explicitly declined to actually examine the evidence I presented to determine if the report had merit. This seems procedurally wrong to me. You closed the ANEW thread without doing anything ANEWy, and applied DS tangentially and severably, for reasons that don't relate to ANEW's concerns much. Wouldn't the correct thing to do be to leave the ANEW thread open and note that while you TB'd me under ACDS for civility reasons in the middle of it, the case has not been examined and should be, by another admin who will review the merits of the report? This is how AE has handled things in the past, for example: party X raises a complaint against Y at ANI, Y complains to AE of statements in the ANI by X; ANI sanctions Y for the problems in the original report, while AE sanctions X for the behavior at AE that Y reported, regardless of the outcome at ANI. (I know it for a fact, because I've been party X in this exact situation; I appealed on the basis that the ANI result against Y proved I was in the right, and I lost.)


 * Whatever the intent, this has the effect of "punish more who ever posted more or more loudly" decision (which, if so, plays directly into the hands of civil-PoV gaming, and to the tactic of refusing to address refutation and just re-re-re-stating the same premise over and over again, generating additional refutations until the culprit can claim it's the refuter, the one with the sources and facts, who is being the problem, rather than the fact-denier and OR-spinner). I would like to work on the article in a sandbox in the interim. I've done an enormous amount of recent sourcing for it (only some of which I used in the MoS thread, and haven't used any of it for the article yet), and spent several hundred US dollars on acquiring sources with which to do so [in part; they'll also be useful for many other discussions and articles]. The article is so bad, The Guardian publicly criticized us for it, and it's actually gotten worse, not better, since then (markedly so).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm going to observe that I've asked repeatedly over two weeks for this TB to be clarified and narrowed, and have no received any response at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:India
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:India. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2015)
Hello, SMcCandlish. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:



Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: &bull;

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Please comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey. I just wanted to say thank you for your comments here without my askance. That was very kind of you and I was relieved to see an editor actually being neutral and not taking sides. Best regards, Pixarh (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I stay out of the dramaboards as much as is feasible, but like to inject balance when I can. PS: Sorry for the late reply; not sure why I didn't notice your note before.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

YMMV
Re. Special:Diff/680761745 - I don't recall having been reverted, but I've been called out on it on a few ocassions, like here. Our readers must've been thrilled to know about the merge proposal of Colorbox with Color box. Alakzi (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's lame, we (as a community) are doing it less and less, and if there was ever a consensus to bludgeon our readers with TfD notices, it was when most of our readers were also our editors. This is now one of the top-5 most used websites in the world by the general public. WP:CCC and all 'at.  Maybe someone will revert that change, but if they do we should probably have an RfC about this, and demonstrate that the consensus changed a long time ago.  I have not (intentionally) allowed a mainspace template's TfD notice to be transcluded in so long I can't remember, and people bitch about it all the time when others do it, especially to frequently used templates and inline ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idolatry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idolatry. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Service awards
In the main WP:Service awards page, I see that each level, even the senior ones, has in the right-hand box a note on the lines of "Incremental service award ribbons are also available, starting at 53,250 edits and 7 years 3 months of service." I presumed that for levels above Yeoman Editor those had been added recently, and that I should remove them as part of the clear-up after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons); but looking at the history, I am surprised to see that they have been there since 2010 or earlier. Was there some earlier version of these incremental awards that was abolished and re-invented by Alex?

Unless you see any reason to keep them, I think those notes for levels above Yeoman should go, anyway, since they ain't true now. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That solution sounds right. I'm not sure what the full history is. As far as I know, some incremental awards were added some while ago, to the lower-level awards only, as an incentive for new editors (mostly students). Then along came someone who added similar things to every single level (with numbers that conflict here and there), and this is what has been objected to, as unnecessary.  If you go back to 2010 or earlier, all bets are off, because people were just randomly messing with this stuff constantly; it was very unstable. What we had last year or so is probably a better guide.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not for the first time, I have been confused by a transclusion. That part of the page was transcluded from Service awards/Table where, indeed, those notes for the higher levels had been recently added. I have reverted, so they are gone. Sorry you've been troubled... JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No prollem!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Valiant Little Tailor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Valiant Little Tailor. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Iranian. 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) 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hijra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)
✅

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople DRV
Hello; I recently closed a discussion for the above category CFD here. A deletion review of the decision has been opened DRV here. I'm notifying you because you participated in the CFD. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ITSA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ITSA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ITSA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)