| Revision as of 17:05, 23 February 2016 editDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,729 edits →If anything is unclear: One month in← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:06, 23 February 2016 edit undoDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,729 edits →If anything is unclearNext edit → | ||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
| :I have replied on your talk page. ] (]) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC) | :I have replied on your talk page. ] (]) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::One month in. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I've got two questions: Both the first and second contained a lot of qualitatively different accusations, and I'd like to know this: Which ones were given credence? I was accused of casting aspersions against another editor's mental health. That looked ridiculous on its face to me, but is that how you saw it? There was something about the conversation I had with Curly Turkey; I'm guessing it's that the topic ban covers more degrees of separation than I'd initially thought. I was accused of WP:OWN in the article space. I was accused of attempted proxying. I was accused of everything short of kicking puppies. Which of these claims did you consider merited and which did you exclude from consideration as unmerited? | ::One month in. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I've got two questions: Both the first and second complaints contained a lot of qualitatively different accusations, and I'd like to know this: Which ones were given credence? I was accused of casting aspersions against another editor's mental health. That looked ridiculous on its face to me, but is that how you saw it? There was something about the conversation I had with Curly Turkey; I'm guessing it's that the topic ban covers more degrees of separation than I'd initially thought. I was accused of WP:OWN in the article space. I was accused of attempted proxying. I was accused of everything short of kicking puppies. Which of these claims did you consider merited and which did you exclude from consideration as unmerited? | ||
| ::The next issue also concerns the second complaint, particularly the role of the questions I asked involved admins after the first complaint, such as "What's the right way to go about challenges to WP:LQ?" Initially, I'd thought that the topic ban was meant to be temporary, that I was expected to resume participation at WT:MoS, and this would be a good way to start developing a more Wiki-compliant MO. However, when I got such a dramatic response, I started to wonder if I'd misunderstood and it was meant to be permanent. But the other day, you stated at ] that my first impression was correct, that topic bans are ''not'' meant to be permanent. So where was the response to this question coming from? | ::The next issue also concerns the second complaint, particularly the role of the questions I asked involved admins after the first complaint, such as "What's the right way to go about challenges to WP:LQ?" Initially, I'd thought that the topic ban was meant to be temporary, that I was expected to resume participation at WT:MoS, and this would be a good way to start developing a more Wiki-compliant MO. However, when I got such a dramatic response, I started to wonder if I'd misunderstood and it was meant to be permanent. But the other day, you stated at ] that my first impression was correct, that topic bans are ''not'' meant to be permanent. So where was the response to this question coming from? | ||
| ::As always, my goal here is to spend the next eleven or however many months usefully. ] (]) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | ::As always, my goal here is to spend the next eleven or however many months usefully. ] (]) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:06, 23 February 2016
| Template:Archive box collapsible |
| Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 | ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||
I'd like to echo these thanks, as I think we are some of the only admins who set foot in RfD these days :P. Thanks for helping with the backlog, all the best. --Taelus (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Precious
thinking of options | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Misplaced Pages, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! For your well-thought, detailed, and infuriatingly reasonable close here. Well done once again. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | I use different email addresses for different purposes, so please read User:Thryduulf/Contact before sending me an email to ensure your message gets to the right place |
Signpost Arbitration interview request
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as an outgoing Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 19:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to email me the questions (see user:Thryduulf/Contact) and I'll take a look when I get time. Note that I've just returned from visiting relatives over the Christmas period so I have a large backlog of email to read, so I can't promise when I'll have time to respond. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe I sent you the questions to the right email. If not, let me know. GamerPro64 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Image Request
Hi there Thryduulf, I have posted an image request on the Commons link here. Since you are from London, I was hoping that you or any other Wikipedian from London could help me out. Please do have a look and let me know if you or any other Wikimedian can help out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do :) Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you!. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion vs WP:RM/TR
Regarding your revert, after reading Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests more closely, I believe {{db-move}} to be the proper forum on List of most massive stars, as it appears to meet Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 (I was going to post this on my original RfD, but it was closed too quickly). Please let me know if & how this isn't the case. Thanks. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly, I haven't actually looked to see whether the move is contentious or appropriate at all (e.g. if there has been a previous discussion about it). I just know that RfD is not the correct venue and was just removing the tag for that process so whomever deals with the move request isn't confused. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, excellent, thank you. It appears that I've jumped the gun a little. (there is a discussion here, btw) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
AE closure
- DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Thryduulf. Regarding this comment, it was actually User:Floquenbeam who did the block and not me. Could you fix the attribution? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I would have fixed it but Floq got there before I saw this message. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ethnocracy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethnocracy. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2015
| ||||||
Help decide the future of Wikimania
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.
In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.
With thanks,
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Levofloxacin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Levofloxacin. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Willing to listen
You say I don't understand the issue. I am willing to listen. We're clearly not on the same page. What does yours say? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thryduulf, can I just take a moment to say thanks for your hard work on the committee. I think you did a fine job, especially as the person who looked after the mailing lists. I was always impressed on how quickly I received an acknowledgement during the last year, and I think that was in no small part down to you. It's one of the small things that people don't notice that make a really big difference. Worm(talk) 14:41, 19 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 14:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- For ease of future reference, I will reply on your talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Loose end
Could you please close this NPOVN thread? It was simply round one of what became WP:AE#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24, and was mooted by that AE request's closure. No one has posted to it since 11 January. Restarting discussion there when one of the parties is topic banned would be useless, and MoS it outside the scope of a WP:CORE noticeboard to begin with. I asked ANRFC to close this a long time ago, but I see that they have a huge backlog. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 04:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not overly familiar with that noticeboard, but it looks like threads get automatically archived after 14 days of no activity and aren't generally actively closed. Doing so now looks like it will just delay the bot by a fortnight, without any benefit as nobody has touched it since the AE started. If you really want to close it though, then noting it as moot with a link to the AE thread would be fine for an NAC. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would, because that noticeboard thread still being open would effectively preclude WP:MFDing the polemic MOS:SUPPORTS page until it closes, and I said over a month ago I was going to MfD this (the NPOVN filing appears to have been an attempt to thwart that planned action). However, I was a party in the discussion, the 14 days is almost up anyway, and now that I think on it several more hours, I"m not certain I want to be the one who takes the MfD action, especially if someone else steps up to do it sometime soon-ish. So, no big deal. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Topic-ban violations
After all the administrative warnings to just walk away, Darkfrog24 seems to be instead engaging in attempted harassment by tagteam proxy, in trying to recruit another MOS/AT editor (who did not take the bait) to vexatiously go after me personally while DF24 cheerleads: "I'm going to be speaking very carefully because I'm the one under topic ban right now. ... If you want to vent and blow off steam and just talk about frustration with SmC, that's one thing. If you have something concrete enough for a formal complaint, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Some of this may be corroborating."
. DF24, as you know, blames me for the TB. This is surely a violation of the TB, broadly construed, in attempting to perpetuate and intensely personalize the very same dispute, seemingly just to get revenge (which sounds like a worse TB violation that many might be). The first quoted sentence looks to indicate that DF24 knows they're skirting the rim of the ban, only days after being informed how broad the scope really is and what the result would be if they did that .
This isn't even the only TB violation in the same post; there's a less vindictive but topically tied one: " topic ban of SMC had an expiration date of two months, and it was overturned on appeal.... I'm not really sure what the argument was. I'll see if I can find the thread."
, followed by the promised diffs of the overturn . The action in question was the (temporary) result of ...wait for it... my WP:ANEW request relating to DF24's logical quotation editwarring at both MOS and the article. DF24, incidentally, received a {{Ds/alert}} for WP:ARBATC and a warning (not overturned) as a result of that ANEW .
The third-party editor isn't even involved in the LQ debate and declared it tiresome, in the round in Sept. that resulted in my ANEW request. He's just a not exactly random AT/MOS editor – one to whom (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS talk page behavior) DF24 has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health (all of these post-date the Ds/alert, and one the TB): "we should all hope that he just ... figures himself out."
, and between the Ds/alert and the TB, showing this is a pattern (I only discovered these just now): , . This is in addition to the string of dishonesty allegations without evidence (only links to DF24's previous disagreements with me); accusations which actually increased after the TB , , , , etc.
Because this is personalized battlegrounding in contravention of WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, this is as much a discretionary sanctions matter as an AE topic-ban one. Given the attempt to recruit a AT/MOS editor, who is not an LQ foe, into a tagteam (an editor with whom I've had constructive interactions the last couple of days, including a ), and because DF24 has actually been remarkably productive in mainspace since the TB, without disruption there, I have to suggest that the appropriate response isn't the promised block (which might increase vengefulness upon return), but an ARBATC-wide TB, of longer min. duration (or at least MOS-wide, though the regular editorial pool on both mostly overlaps, and a large amount of AT discussion is also MOS discussion, and vice versa). This would remove any real ability of DF24 to involve more AT/MOS regulars about AT/MOS disputes with other AT/MOS regulars, yet keep the editor editing, and obviate any need for further action. DF24 needs to go meet some new people in a different room of the party. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you believe that Darkfrog is violating their topic ban and/or other discretionary sanctions then you should file a report at AE where both are handled. I wont get chance to even read your statement fully until tomorrow evening at the earliest. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh! Okay. I thought we were supposed to report it to the TB-issuing admin first. I spend so little time in the 'boards, I know little about the procedures. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Woodseats44 and probably User talk:Cobulator and probably User:DeFacto and apparently quite a lot of others
You may want to reconsider the lifting of the block on the above. Having been unblocked in February 2015, he has recommenced his campaign to add the tag 'Previous Denomination: Roman Catholic' to the infoboxes of a large number of pre-Reformation English and Welsh churches, e.g. Church of St. Nicholas, Grosmont, Church of St Cadoc, Raglan, Monmouthshire and many others. This is exactly the action he undertook at Lincoln Cathedral for which, after lengthy debate on the Talkpage, he was originally blocked. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- This was an action for the BASC rather than me individually. I don't recall the details of why we unblocked (and I no longer have access to the mailing list archives to check), but this belongs at ANI I think. I don't have time now to review their edits, but there is no barrier to a block being placed by any uninvolved administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- NB: I raised a similar concern with you about your unblocking of this editor a couple of months back: diff. You noted to the editor when you unblocked him that "please be advised that your contributions will be closely watched". Any help you can give would be gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have time at the moment to do anything more than advise you to note all this at ANI, I'm sorry. I have no objection to an admin reblocking iff what you allege is true, but I do not have the time to do the necessary reading. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all and I quite understand that the unblock was the action of a committee, rather than you personally. I'm not familiar with the ANI process but I'll look to take it forward through that route. That time has to be spent on dealing with this nonsense rather than on creating content is just such a pity. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Appreciate your advice. The ANI process has responded very promptly and blocked him indefinitely. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not a problem at all and I quite understand that the unblock was the action of a committee, rather than you personally. I'm not familiar with the ANI process but I'll look to take it forward through that route. That time has to be spent on dealing with this nonsense rather than on creating content is just such a pity. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have time at the moment to do anything more than advise you to note all this at ANI, I'm sorry. I have no objection to an admin reblocking iff what you allege is true, but I do not have the time to do the necessary reading. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- NB: I raised a similar concern with you about your unblocking of this editor a couple of months back: diff. You noted to the editor when you unblocked him that "please be advised that your contributions will be closely watched". Any help you can give would be gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Thanks for the Refugee link
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Clarification request archived
Hello Thryduulf, this is a message to inform you that a clarification request regarding the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) which you commented on or were a party to has been archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles with no action taken. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If anything is unclear
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.
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?
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.
If I am working on an article such as Caster Semenya, am I permitted to discuss gender identity and to what extent?
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?
I am inferring that I am not banned from discussions of other users' behavior, such as the one I had with Curly Turkey about SMcCandlish. Is this correct?
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.
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.
What can I do over the next twelve months to give you the confidence that I can be allowed back to work? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- One month in. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I've got two questions: Both the first and second complaints contained a lot of qualitatively different accusations, and I'd like to know this: Which ones were given credence? I was accused of casting aspersions against another editor's mental health. That looked ridiculous on its face to me, but is that how you saw it? There was something about the conversation I had with Curly Turkey; I'm guessing it's that the topic ban covers more degrees of separation than I'd initially thought. I was accused of WP:OWN in the article space. I was accused of attempted proxying. I was accused of everything short of kicking puppies. Which of these claims did you consider merited and which did you exclude from consideration as unmerited?
- The next issue also concerns the second complaint, particularly the role of the questions I asked involved admins after the first complaint, such as "What's the right way to go about challenges to WP:LQ?" Initially, I'd thought that the topic ban was meant to be temporary, that I was expected to resume participation at WT:MoS, and this would be a good way to start developing a more Wiki-compliant MO. However, when I got such a dramatic response, I started to wonder if I'd misunderstood and it was meant to be permanent. But the other day, you stated at BanEx that my first impression was correct, that topic bans are not meant to be permanent. So where was the response to this question coming from?
- As always, my goal here is to spend the next eleven or however many months usefully. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
Towards a New Wikimania results
Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2016
| ||||||
Wording question
Hi Thryduulf,
You appear to have skipped a critical word in "You are from the manual of style".
Could you comment at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations
In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)