Misplaced Pages

User talk:Blackmane

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmericanDad86 (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 17 June 2013 (→Confused). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:26, 17 June 2013 by AmericanDad86 (talk | contribs) (→Confused)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
Welcome!

Hello, Blackmane, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Can you please explain why my ANI filing was closed as a content dispute when, IMO, I did everything possible to make it clear that my concerns were regarding an editor's conduct (i.e. their personal attacks directed towards me) rather than the underlying issues regarding the article? I would be happy to open a WP:DRN case per your recommendation, but I don't see how I have the grounds to do so since the content-related issues at Talk:American Dad! appear to be being handled okay; the issue, as I noted at ANI, is User:AmericanDad86's blatant failures to AGF and incivility despite having been blocked for exactly this type of conduct previously. Their conduct towards me is, IMO, disruptive and inappropriate for that page, and is making it very difficult for me to engage in the discussion. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Doniago (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed it based on the lack of admin input over the several days that your ANI filing was open, the only one being Kudpung who made a recommendation that the dispute be taken to DRN. Generally, ANI posts that last for more than 3 days with little admin input are usually just left to flounder until it is archived, or the behaviour of the participants in the ANI causes the admins to step in.
That being said, yes, the discussion got heated on the talk page and there was some ABF and incivility, but rather than fight the symptoms of the heated debate I made the move to close the ANI and direct you to DRN with the aim of dealing with the cause, I hope I read Kudpung's intention correctly there. If DRN can provide a compromise, then perhaps it can be resolved to the satisfaction of both yourself and AmericanDad86. Admins tend to be very leary of civility blocks where there is no obvious pattern or history of chronic misbehaviour and the heated debate on the talk page definitely did not rise to the level of disruption that would normally lead to a block. You've been around WP as an editor much longer than I have so I won't patronise you on how the politics tend to work here. I hope that clarified things for you, but please feel free to drop another message if you have anything else. Blackmane (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I view the level of ABF and incivility there as being rather more severe than you seem to think it is, but I conceed that I'm biased as well, given that I've been the principal target. I wish you had noted in your closure that the lack of input was a factor, as AD86 has now used the closure in their continuing attacks towards me on the Talk page. They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down. At this point I don't feel I can even participate in the discussion because all I seem to do is invite more vitriol from them, and I don't feel anyone should be exposed to that, whether or not it's directed at them.
Given that AD86 was blocked previously for this sort of behavior, I don't really understand your claim that there isn't a history of misbehavior.
I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred.
Anyway, thanks for your time and advice, and I welcome any further guidance you can offer. Oh, and FWIW I've got this page on my watchlist, so no need to let me know if/when you reply, though I do appreciate that you informed me! Doniago (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, I should have been more explicit in my NAC and I totalyl understand your frustration. One of the problems with ANI is that the sheer volume of postings there (approaching 800 archives!) mean that the admins who do frequent it (and there are quite a few) really would like very specific examples of the behaviour. Linking to just a talk page discussion requires an admin to plow through the entire discussion and when it gets as wordy as AD86 became, it really is a case of TLDR.
I really recommend DRN and not just for show. ANI really is the last place to go rather than the first and if you've proactively engaged in dispute resolution, whether it be through DRN, 3O, Wikiproject assistance, etc and nothing changes then you can't be faulted for going to ANI. If throughout all this, AD86 consistently maintains their intransigence the admins can and will act decisively, but they must have evidence. The only counsel I can suggest is patience, maintain your cool, stick to the point on discussion and if they're emboldened to act out more, then eventually they'll be dealt with. Blackmane (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that.
I guess I didn't feel it was a case of TLDR as I thought their behavior was readily observable and clear-cut, but...not without some effort...I can see how others might view it differently.
I'll look into DRN, though I'm already half-expecting them to, ironically, recommend ANI. Thank you for your willingness to discuss this and acknowledging that it may not have been handled as well as it could have been to this point. Doniago (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a mere non-admin gnome so what I say is not binding on any other editor, but if it will clarify things and hopefully defuse the situation I'd be happy to drop a comment on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding. There was a time when I thought they could be encouraged to WP:CHILLOUT, but after the battering I've been taking, AGF for me has kind of flown out the window.

Anyhow, DRN case opened here. I didn't list you as an involved user, but would welcome your feedback if/when it becomes pertinent. Thanks again for your help to this point, and for clarifying your decision to close the ANI filing. Doniago (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Matter regarding Doniago

You posted this in this discussion at the American Dad! talk page. By your own edit, you admitted that Doniago never did what he has been repeatedly told to do by numerous editors. And he hasn't. He was initially told to treat this matter as a content dispute by numerous individuals and never did. The edit you replied to in which I describe his behavior as "whining" and "bickering" with everyone because he isn't getting his way comes only after aaaaaaaaaall of the disobedience and harassment he has engaged in. He's been on the talk pages of NUMEROUS editors asking them to defend him. You are just among one of many editors who Doniago has asked to defend him, such as shown here , here , here , etc., etc., etc., etc. Several editors have ignored and/or dismissed him, but I see that you've appeased his nagging requests, which are shown on your talk page above: here , here , here , and here .
By Doniago's own admission above, he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at your user talk page: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here ).
Thusly, I am not the only person Doniago has pulled these antics with in which he misuses the Administrative Noticeboards during a content disputes. Moreover, in the user's harassing behavior of going from person to person, trying to create strife between myself and them and bellyaching of how his feelings got hurt from "incivility," he has hypocritically been making a series of obnoxious comments and lies, such as the following on your user talk page: I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding (as shown here ); and They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down (as shown here ). This last comment he made was a lie because as you will see in the following link, I was never even apart of the discussion at the Administrative Noticeboards: . Again, I've largely ignored this user's antics. It's mainly been other editors reprimanding him to stop making it more than a content dispute and dismissing him as he tries to get them to defend him. I've actually had little involvement with Doniago as far as this content dispute goes. It has mainly been him bouncing around from person to person and venue to venue in an effort to get me blocked or get support in getting me blocked. In the process, he has been repeatedly ordered to stop treating the matter as anything more than a content dispute, but has been persistently disobeying these orders from several editors. As shown in the above, he's also going around lying now to accomplish his aims, claiming that I've had more involvement than I have and that I've been told to calm down on Administrative Noticeboards in discussions I wasn't even involved in. The user is a liar and a troublemaker and is upset that he isn't getting his way. I've handled him best by ignoring his shenanigans.
Also, Doniago, made this request of you on your user talk page: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." (as shown here )
Quite frankly, such a request to violate the use of an article talk page is entirely out of line. Article talk pages are intended to discuss edits to the article, not to explain ANI filings or make Doniago look good. The only reason it has gotten off track as far as it has is because Doniago changed the subject and started making threats that he was going to Administrative Noticeboards during the middle of a content dispute (as shown here ) Since then, there has been little discussion relating to the actual editing dispute he started. (Mind you, the editing dispute is based upon Doniago's wrongful reversion of his, even as told to him by an administrator here ). The discussion has been off topic ever since his threats to go to the Admin Noticeboards and deliberated attempts to get others to defend him.
Moreover, the editor has opened this matter up in multiple forums now, including here at the Family Guy talk page , here at the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style talk page , the Administrative Noticeboards as shown above, Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution here , the existing discussion over at the American Dad talk page, Help page individuals, etc. Despite this, he's actually participated very little in actual talking out the content dispute. In fact, he's had no involvement in the debate over at that HE opened up. Rather, he's just been bouncing around from venue to venue opening up the matter and whining that he's been viciously attacked by myself. As Kww told him from the get go, he was wrong and had no business removing a stable edit.
Moreover, if the editor is so antagonized, aggressed, and threatened by myself, why is he shown at my talk page earlier today making this edit following a compliment I received from User:Willondon (as shown here ). Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"
If Doniago feels so antagonized and threatened by myself, tell him to stay off my talk page with the instigating after I receive compliments from other editors. His behavior is nothing more than belligerent, disobedient, and harassing and I have every right to label it as such.
Up to this point, I've done little to actually resist or even acknowledge this user as far as this matter goes. Other than the few comments I've made at the American Dad! talk page, I've not had any dealings with this user. I'd hardly call it a dispute because I'm not paying attention to the user beyond my comments at the American Dad! talk page. It's mainly been him off at numerous pages of editors asking them to defend him and whining and bickering with them if they don't. He's done it at the Administrative Noticeboards, the help page, different admins, different editors, etc., etc., etc., etc. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

American! Pie

Thank you very much for discussing the ANI closure with me, and even more for being willing to step into the discussion at Talk:American Dad!. I very much appreciate your assistance through all of this. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)