User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 75

784:

In light of this, it is especially unhelpful, as you did, to make the following comments: "... Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense ...". These are just broad allegations of severe personal misconduct on the part of several editors, two of which are in no way concerned by the AE request at issue. These allegations are unsupported by any useful evidence. They would have been inappropriate in any forum, not just AE. That's because you don't resolve disagreements by flinging broad accusations at one another in community fora. You resolve disagreements by working through the dispute resolution process in direct contact with the editors involved, focusing on the substantial disagreements (about hyphens and dashes, for instance) rather than on any personal conflicts emerging from them. That's what the Committee's reminder is about, and what I ask you to keep in mind in the future.

1031:. The result is that basically anyone with admin bits can block me willy-nilly for engaging in virtually any MOS or AT thread (or RM, or AN/ANI/AE, or other discussion that mentions any style or title matter), if it even slightly irritates anyone for any reason, because "I've already been warned". It's an error, it's unjust, and it's having the direct effect of topic-banning me from both MOS and AT without there actually being a community consensus that I should be topic banned, since I'll hardly dare to discuss anything in such forums if I'm instantly subject to blocking by anyone with a hare up their butt about some style nitpick, or having some kind of personal bone to pick with me, which is actually a quite large stockpile of PoV-pushing editors (several of them admins who got the bits back when RfA was a cakewalk). You've handed every PoV-pusher on the system a gag to use on me, and you're directly censoring my participation (it's called the " 906:, though this got lost in the shuffle and those additional topic bans didn't actually get implemented). That the original disputations, weeks and month ago, involving these editors and landing them at AN in the first place had something to do with article titles and the manual of style is completely irrelevant; it could have been over biographical sources or cat breeds. Stylistic/titling disagreements have nothing whatsoever to do with the behavioral issues being addressed at AN and then at AE, by me and others. My post also raised concerns about inappropriate admin involvement against Noetica by SarekOfVulcan (conflict of interest, and misapplication of admin rules as restricting non-admins). Also not a style/titles matter. ( 198:, has not indicated any plans to respond as of this writing, but also believes the warning to be a blatant mistake. I have notified all three other recipients and Sandstein of the discussion here in hopes of centralizing it. The "you can now be blocked without further notice by anyone with a hare up their butt" warning we received was based on misinterpretations and missing facts and background information, was unjust, and is invalid. I'm not going to stand for being treated like a wikicriminal this way. I've devoted unbelievable amounts of productive, intelligent and good-faith time and effort to this project, and I'll be damned if I'll be lynched for it. — 780:

enforcement response. This means that allegations about misconduct by people not party to the request at issue (as subject or, at most, as filer) are unhelpful to begin with. For instance, the AE request did not concern the conduct of SarekOfVulcan. Therefore, criticizing that editor's conduct in the AE thread serves no useful purpose at all. If you have a problem with it, you should discuss it directly with SarekOfVulcan, or in an appropriate discussion forum, or file a separate AE request if you believe that SarekOfVulcan's conduct is so problematic as to warrant enforcement action.

3919:

so flagrantly and repeatedly violate a topic ban and pretty much just get away with it over and over again. And principally by way of making personal attacks in dispute resolution forums that are topped with warnings to not engage in personal attacks. And doing so in MOS/AT-related debates, for which discretionary sanctions exist that call for blocks on anyone engaging in personal attacks. Etc. I'm being keel-hauled simply for daring to bring someone to AE, while no rules seem to actually be brought effectively to bear on LittleBenW at all, except for little wrist-slaps. —

4578: 5208: 1136:, it was about disruptive user behavior patterns, as was the RFC/U about Apteva that preceded it (more homework you have not read). Apteva then ran to AE to try to disrupt it and "ask yet another parent", and me and a few others said "no, this is more noise – this user has a long history of making trouble like this and refusing to get the point; don't listen", and we have a consensus to topic ban and block him at WP:AN to prove it. Yet you've turned like a rabid wolf on those of us who have not just tried, but 2681:, etc., case, then a noticeboard may be the only way to go. It just doesn't help to use the project (or MOS, etc.) talk page to make it be about this editor or that editor. AN/I is necessarily about specific editing behaviors, and hopefully in a way that separates them from the content or style issue under discussion elsewhere. I get caught up in this kind of stuff too (see a bit above on my talk page, where someone warned me administratively about personalizing a dispute when I was in fact at the 1084:, community topic ban requests, or arbitration enforcement requests) with respect to the editors you believe are severely misbehaving. What you should however not do – and this is what my warning was about – is just to vent your anger in whatever forum a related issue may be discussed in, no matter how justified that anger is (and I recognize that it may well be). Such venting has no chance of promoting the successful resolution of interpersonal conflicts; rather, it tends to inflame them further. 902:, that this happened, and blocked both of this users accounts, for sockpuppetry in energy articles as well as his style-related editwarring), including his filing a ridiculous AE request just to get back at Noetica for criticizing him). I also mentioned the Wikid77 & LittleBenW tag-teaming for a specific reason, detailed below (the community also agrees that this abusive editing happened, after I and other presented lots of evidence, and there was a consensus to block both users for it 1184:, should undo it, and should recuse yourself from further involvement in this one unless and until you do get up to speed on it. I would say the same thing to you even if you were an Arbitrator. Even if you were Jimbo. You cannot make rational decisions that affect other people without possessing enough facts to understand what is actually going on. Refusing to obtain them means you are asserting an actual right to make irrational and bad decisions that harm other people. — 31: 4068: 4455: 2139: 2866: 1323: 788:

through the dispute resolution process. But as I said their conduct is not within the scope of an AE request that is not about them. Whether any of these people are administrators is of course immaterial with regard to the dispute resolution or AE process, except in that I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors.

4521: 4439: 4310: 4256: 4199: 3665: 3123: 2998: 2460: 2327: 2103: 1395: 894:(Nor to those of most if not all of the others you just issued the same warning to for what they said at ARBATC). It was not about any style or article titles matter, and thus is not subject to those sanctions, even when broadly construed. It was about the disruptive editing behavior patterns of Apteva a.k.a. Delph234 (the community agrees, at both 1016:", as you suggest, would have been a massive step backwards! It's as if you said "Argh, not these damned style people again; let's just issue ARBATC warnings and shut them all up!", but the Apteva-related issues moved past style matters into addressing abusive and disruptive behavior patterns, several weeks ago (arguably months ago, actually). 4167: 4010: 3880: 3814: 3598: 3478: 3421: 3361: 3292: 3225: 2916: 2803: 2749: 2575: 2517: 2286: 1904: 1850: 1751: 1693: 1614: 1475: 1282: 1228: 161: 1124:– in a near vacuum of salient facts and information – that you'll happily see anywhere from one to four productive editors quit the project. I repeat that you simply do not properly understand the context of the posts in question, and here you are essentially refusing to contemplate even attempting to do so. There 1074:

I regret that you feel that way, and let me assure you that I do not assume that you are acting in bad faith or with deleterious intent - rather, the contrary. However, the length and intensity of your arguments in this thread alone indicate that the Arbitration Committee's reminder to step back from

924:

Just for the record, I mentioned Wikid77 and LittleBenW by name simply for accuracy; to suggested that Apteva was acting alone and being solely responsible for the disruptiveness would be an unfair misstatement of fact (as well as an aggrandizement of disruptive behavior, as if Apteva is some kind of

779:

is not a general purpose dispute resolution noticeboard. Its purpose is not to resolve any ongoing, underlying disputes. That is the province of the normal dispute resolution process. AE is there for one purpose only: to help admins decide whether the specific edits that have been reported warrant an

660:

case wasn't helpful, it was easy to see that it was just the product of frustration and not serious; this isn't any kind of actual criticism, but a request for forgiveness. My mention of Wikid77 and LittleBenW is supported by already-cited proof of tag-teaming, which a consensus of respondents in the

336:

applies to admins in particular, not random editors, that he seems unclear that his statements and actions in this matter are not comparable to Noetica's, and that he's been so heavily involved administratively in something he's also been so heavily involved in as a stakeholding editor. Anyway, this

3521:

What theatre people choose to call it is not necessarily relevant; if the official name according to the city or state of New York is spelled "Theater", that's the end of the story. If there is no official name, but a preponderance of general (i.e. not theatrical-specific) reliable sources that are

943:

argument. My post stated my position that Apteva was filing a nonsense, frivolous AE request, that SarekOfVulcan was out of line, and that Noetica could be forgiven for overreacting a bit because Apteva (with Wikid77 and LittleBenW) has been frustrating him and many other MOS/AT regulars, including

783:

Particularly, the Arbitration Committee's reminder I linked to above reads: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus".

3918:

Noted, and I will drop the matter. But I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. It's undead, and keeps rising again and again. Heh. I DID ignore him at AE, for two days, but after two more administrative warnings at AE, LittleBenW still kept at it. Enough is enough. I've frankly never seen anyone

3825:

I am sorry I only just clued in on the AE thing. I left comment there saying I don't think anyone can be sanctioned because the original RfC close wasn't clear regarding leads, which is where aggravation continues. I wasn't particularly impressed by the foreigners comment but those kind of comments

3501:

to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of

1650:

Fine by me. All you're doing is demonstrating that you have some kind of personal vendetta against me and are engaging in a tag-team harassment effort. I have a right like any other editor in good standing to raise problems with a candidate's behavior patterns at RFA; the fact that those patterns –

1179:

PS: Whatever your strengths as an editor and an admin, your lack of knowledge of this extended RFCU/AN/AE case, which is only related to ARBATC in the very tenuous way in that that now-blocked disruptor at the center of it all liked to pick fights about hyphens, compounded by your abject refusal to

456:

against Noetica by Apteva, just for Noetica having dared to file an entirely legitimate AN report against Apteva (one which successfully resulted in a block against Apteva, I might remind you, with the overwhelming majority of respondents supporting a block, and a majority also supporting blocks of

1087:

With this, I believe I have adequately explained the reasons for my warning. Of course, if you do believe the warning materially affects your ability to participate in topic-related discussions, which I do not think is the case, you are free to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee, although I do

5240:

is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your

3965:

He's angry with me for ANI'ing him on diacritics in the first place (Dec. 2012), which could explain why he shoehorned himself into my AE request with regard to User:Fyunck(click), but that doesn't explain the other party's ANI case that he got involved in shortly before that ongoing AE. I don't

3546:

Actually that isn't accurate at all. It isn't the city that makes that call for our policies, its the establishments or theatres. So, if Broadway.com (the collective theatres) state the spelling as "re" that should have more weight and I don't even see that mentioned in the discussion. Also, your

3327:

get blocked (for long), as I don't believe that lengthy blocks are at all constructive with users like him (i.e. productive editors who exhibit one recurrent problem); they tend to either drive the editor away forever, or lead to recalcitrant sockpuppeteering. I hope enough "you need to knock if

978:

that I was randomly and broadly casting aspersions, just to be an ass or something, instead of doing homework to find out if I was. I'm a very long-term, productive, rationalist editor here, and think I deserve enough credit and benefit of the doubt to not be assumed-by-default to be a rampaging

728:

to do so. I.e., you are directly chilling my expression and participation in basic WP procedure, in an entirely out-of-process way, without consensus to do so, and based on nothing but a string of misinterpretations of everything from ArbCom sanctions to the messages and debate at issue, with the

1704:

Read Hersfold's comment again. I think you didn't fully understand the sentence containing the word "silly". Concentrate on the following sentence. Once you have understood the purpose of the "silly" sentence, read the last three sentences of Hersfold's comment. Once you have done that, read the

1079:

does apply to the situation you find yourself in, and that the warning is therefore appropriate. My advice is to either withdraw from these personal conflicts and focus on the discussion about the substance of the dispute, to the extent such a discussion may still be ongoing, or alternatively to

612:

about the style matters he editwars and forumshops over incessantly, but this would still not excuse his pattern of grossly abusive and disruptive behavior, which is what he was taken to WP:AN about; the ends do no justify the means. Apteva's counterclaim against Noetica, which consensus did not

5264:

If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your

5213:

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by

1108:

For one thing, your assuming and asserting that I was making "broad allegations...with evidence", when a few minutes of looking would have shown that I was in fact referring to specific, proven facts of Apteva-and-crew's dirsuptive editing, for which consensus had already arrived at remedies at

787:

I would like to emphasize that I have no opinion about, and frankly at this time no interest in, whether the various people you criticized have in fact engaged in any misconduct. They may well have, and if so, that should be addressed in proper form (i.e., with evidence, no broad allegations!)

5249:

The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed,

876:

matters themselves in ways that trigger the sanctions contemplated by ARBATC, which I did not do, at either AE or AN. Frankly, trying to stretch ARBATC's sanctions to cover posts about ARBATC and how it should be enforced, not just the content & presentation disputes ARBATC is intended to

648:

I have to wonder how much the fact that I criticized an admin's judgement in my quoted post, above, weighed in your decision to issue this inappropriate warning to me. I have to think that it is the principal reason you did so, and will show why. My comments about Apteva's editing pattern were

345:. That said, of all the "wiki-sins" one could commit in this extended brouhaha, that seems to be the least of all. I take it as a simple expression of frustration, and of bewilderment that Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's 548:

to be vindictive. The consensus was in favor of sanctions against Apteva already (note also that I had already demonstrated in the original AN report, with piles of diffs and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Apteva was tendentious, forum-shopping, tag-teaming, and disruptive on this issue).

574:

My comments did in fact serve a "useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable" (namely pointing out that they are not, and that the process being applied had COI and other problems). Noting which parties are doing what in a dispute is not "personalizing

1154:

How many editors have to quit before you'll actually do an hour of background reading and reconsider what you're doing? At this point, you appear to be willfully refusing to find out the facts and see whether your decision makes sense in light of them. You are not the Pope and there is no

832:. Either you already knew what filings I was really referring to, or you did not know of the Noetica vs. Apteva filing at AN, and that missing information badly affected your understanding of the Apteva vs. Noetica filing at AE. There is also the related SarekOfVulcan vs. Apteva AE filing 1026:

It is based entirely on nothing but those misinterpretations and your clear assumption of bad faith on my part. I've already proven I was not acting in bad faith. As it stands, you've issued a "you can be blocked without further notice" warning against me for something I clearly

709:, WP:AN, WP:AN/I or similar noticeboard discussion, in which any MOS-related issue happens to be involved, and in which I necessarily identify any other editor; and similarly threatened should I ever criticize another admin's judgement in such a forum. Only one other party at 280:, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 3845:

Right. If it had just been a "too many foreigners" comment, I would probably not have noticed, but it was part of a longer, larger pattern, that has included a "there are too many foreigners, and the Swedish ones in particular are <insert various unprovable accusations:

944:

me, to the point of breaking. This is not personal attack, it simply summarizes exactly what the community has said in its consensus findings at AN and the earlier Apteva AE, and is not an ARBATC matter, as it isn't raising any style or titling arguments of any kind.

289:. Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the 2622:

to deny we had any obligation to explain things in common English to non-experts; disrupted a vote; and edited my comments. Your points in the abstract copied exactly points made by me and ignored by that user and yet I was the one being personally chided by

1659:

can be used to censor RFA. Such an idea is illogical, since RfAs are named and are about reviewing the personal behavior of candidate, and thus are already personalized, by definition; raising issues about behavior of the candidate is not "personalizing". —

504:

filing had both a clear conflict of interest in the filing and its background issues, and also did not appear to understand the difference in applicability between admins and non-admins of an important guideline, but was attempting to hold the subject of the

4779: 4646: 4350: 3038: 2364: 3148:

is supposed to add a discreet royal crown above admin signatures. I haven't tried it to see if it works, since I am no longer interested in editing (outside of the matter that triggered my resignation), but since you seem to think you can still work in

729:

result if not the outright goal of hampering my ability to continue doing some of what I do best here, which is help prevent random pet peeves of fanatical editwarriors from getting enshrined in, and/or threatening the stability of, our Manual of Style.

4654: 4637: 4378: 4358: 4341: 3062: 2400: 2376: 836:, but it isn't crucial to what's being discussed here, other than it further demonstrates that I am not making broad, unsubstantiated accusations against Apteva, but summarizing facts about Apteva's behavior that consensus has already arrived at, at 4825: 4791: 2818:. I'm not sure what sources you are looking at, but I've never even heard of CoS attacking Psychoanalysis specifically (rather psychiatry generally). Pick a top tier science journal, look for an article describing the status of Psychoanalysis. 4468:

for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found

3048: 680:

filing have anything at all to do with style, the MoS, or the ArbCom case you are citing as justification for warning and thereby threatening me with a block. My comments with regard to SofV were 100% about, and about nothing but,

5233: 5266: 5237: 5229: 5221: 1140:

in reining in a grossly disruptive editor (actually a three-editor tag-team). You're like a judge who would hang the cops who caught a murderer instead of punishing the killer, just because you don't like something they said.

2946:

Meh. The way this is going, I'll probably have to file a real RFARB. I've been avoiding it because it's a time-consumptive, stressy, excessively legalistic pain, but this back-and-forth-to-AE stuff is too, at this point. —

311:

I dispute the applicability of your warning and the accuracy of your characterization of my edit at the cited discussion, and your interpretation of the discussion itself, as well as the ArbCom discretionary sanctions you are

5269:. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. 265:. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " 2893:

I haven't proposed any specific action because I don't know what could work. Maybe a ban from commenting on WP:BIRD wikiproject, its editors, and any past or future action made by them? That's the only thing I can think of.

4474: 2384: 418: 290: 266: 4799: 3307:

about the issue. I've left a very clear message on his talkpage now, though. Any more infractions will be met with a lengthy block, and I will be watching. Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks,

845:

The fact that you're refusing to even address most of what I wrote probably explains why your response misses the point in several crucial ways. It's also symptomatic of your involvement more generally. In particular,

3244:, and have at least once asked a canvassee not to respond to a canvass - I fear LittleBenW may not be able to discern the difference. I have to go out now for 5 hours, but thank you again for letting me know. Cheers. 979:

nutter. I was in fact referring to proven, settled matters for which warnings, topic bans and now blocks had already been issued (I think the blocks may have come after my post; I misremember). Your statement that "

3895:

if you haven't already done so. Pick a different topic for a bit and let the emotion levels die down some, it will make editing much more enjoyable for you. I'm sure others will keep and eye on the other things. —

4662: 4366: 5281:

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit

3029: 2396: 2372: 4470: 4463: 2219: 2208: 3240:, some of whom I recognise as being in favour of treating foreigners' names as we treat Charlotte Brontë, but I can assure you that I have always erred on the side of caution with the bigger principle of not 1021:

Again, I ask that you realize that you have misinterpreted my and some others' posts, the AE/AN filings themselves, the situation and its history more broadly, and the applicability of the ARBATC sanctions.

2889:

and I was going to ask you to strike out that part. But then I realized that you had several other comments over the last days. This sort of repeated sniping at people poisons the atmosphere in talk pages.

4787: 4688: 2225: 2202: 2192: 885:

to warp the intent and meaning of ARBATC to simply shut up people you just don't want to listen to. If that was not your intent, then please consider, seriously, that this is precisely what it looks like.

665:

my comments about admin SarekOfVulcan for you to use as the basis for this warning! The problem here, though, is that nothing I said with regard to SofV's clear conflict of interest in the outcome of the

2477: 2451: 716:

suggested you make this sort of ArbCom-related warning, against me or anyone else who commented there, and did not provide reasons, just a "me too", so your action to do so is essentially unilateral and

386:

serv no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and...also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s).

2244: 4868: 4856: 4731: 4719: 2249: 541:

watchers that Apteva is being AN-reported for disruption, of such a magnitude that many editors are frustrated to the point of leaving, and suggested that Apteva is just filing counter-reports at

3259:

Oh, I understand, and I know you didn't do anything wrong. I just notified you because LittleBenW was tarring us both with the same brush, and you were mentioned in passing at the ANI filing. —

1128:. Apteva tried to make one, and failed to change consensus (again and again and again and again, for months, in every forum he could raise his pet peeve in) The AN case, which you evidently 4832: 4695: 4385: 3070: 2407: 2298: 3966:

know what to make of it, and I am effectively disallowed from guessing, per a warning in a prior AE request, against making any non-good-faith assumptions in style disputes. (Which is fine;

273: 242: 388:" There are several issues to address with regard to your warning and your expressed reasoning behind it. In summary, they are that you have clearly misinterpreted all of the following: 895: 833: 825: 821: 3891:

I won't go so far as to say "warning", but it might be a good idea to back away from the topic and LittleBen for a bit. I've blocked him for now, but I'd also suggest that you read

464:

counter-filing was simply lashing out at Noetica. Very few respondents to it found any merit of any kind in it, and even those that did found them insufficient to take admin action.

1625:, where SarekOfVulcan lost his harassing, frivolous case, shortly before being rebuked and nearly desysoped by ArbCom for similar abuses, then resigning adminship under a cloud. 903: 899: 829: 5126: 5114: 3047:

Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available

2666:

Re: #2 – I've greatly clarified at the broader MOS RFC that the exact formatting will vary depending on other rules like WP:COMMONNAME; see the new version that's up now.

4911: 4899: 2158: 2146: 5220:

The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet

1346:, please place the tag at the beginning. When you place it at the end, the tag never shows up on the page, making it more difficult for admins to handle your request. 4954: 4942: 1942: 2721:, but s/he doesn't seem to have deserved that mess. Anyway, thanks for the advice & I'll second the purple barnstar above. Don' let the b@stards get y'down. — 3168:

Thanks. I suppose I had better install that immediately, though I'll change it to blood red instead of blue, to serve as a suitable fire-and-brimstone warning. —

1938: 4969: 1966: 425:) itself (it's about pointless, angsty argumentation over style matters, not factual reportage of problem editors to WP:AN for action to restrain their abuses, 4216: 4190: 3303:

I considered whether or not to block him off the ANI report and decided a final warning was best, as he doesn't appear to realise that his ban extends to even

1008:

forumshopping it to the ends of the earth); by the time this went to AN and thence to AE all that was at issue any longer was editing behavior pattern issues.

860:

Your warning fails to make this distinction and this is the main reason, among several, why the warning is inappropriate and invalid. You're confusing posting

817: 277: 5236:. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the 4078:

Firstly, that's not what the template is for. Secondly, this sort of thing does not need to be tagged. If you don't want to fix it yourself, leave it alone.--

3236:

Hi, thanks for the courtesy note. I assume "I can provide evidence of his canvassing (of a mob to intimidate another user)" relates to e.g. the 11 editors at

1442:

You may want to consider adjusting your writing style in this and similar discussions. I would hate for you to be blocked for writing a word in all-caps; see

3632: 3328:

off" messages get through to him. I may have ANI'd him myself more than once, but it was to stop disruptive anti-MOS campaigning, not to get rid of him. —

1990: 1962: 1926: 5040: 5028: 3622: 1155:

presumption, even among those who look up to you, that you are magically infallible. You need to learn this, quickly, before you do any more damage. —

4595: 4569: 2014: 1986: 2597:

comments while actually responding to others'. I understand you seem quite busy and were probably sailing through, but do try to be careful about that.

3618: 2010: 5169: 5157: 124: 112: 168:

I resigned editing for a year over this admin's false accusations. While he and I (and the others accused) did not come to a personal resolution,

2062: 1705:

first of them ("Going back...") again and think about the implications. I think you don't have an interest in quoting Hersfold the way you did.

1109:

WP:AN, is, yes, a blatant assumption of my bad faith by you. Denying that violates basic logic. Your continuing to defend a warning/threat the

429:), which you have here misapplied (I have not in fact violated the provisions of that arb sanction, broad and discretionary though they may be). 3628: 3506:

are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! --

1922: 194:; I regret having criticized Noetica for taking that stance, as I now find myself contemplating it seriously as well. The fourth recipient, 5178: 5173:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5135: 5130:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5092: 5087:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5049: 5044:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5006: 5001:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4963: 4958:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4920: 4915:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4877: 4872:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4740: 4735:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4604: 4599:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4547: 4542:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4282: 4277:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4225: 4220:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4182: 4154: 4036: 4031:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3447: 3442:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2775: 2770:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2547: 2542:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2486: 2481:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2058: 1876: 1871:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1777: 1772:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1421: 1416:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1254: 1249:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 762:

Hi. I maintain the warning. While I can't reply to all of the above because of its length, here's my comment about the gist of your remarks:

133: 128:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5277:. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. 4273: 4247: 1121: 966:

already linked to. You are warning (and thereby block-threatening) me simply because you are unfamiliar with the overall debate and the

2538: 2508: 1915:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1245: 1219: 983:" is factually incorrect; you simply were not aware of the evidence and didn't bother to look or ask for it, but obviously should have. 970:. You've reacted, without full knowledge and information, to what you saw at AE, as if it existed in a vacuum. At any rate, you say " 5083: 5071: 4997: 4985: 234: 4973: 4142: 3984: 3933: 3861: 3787: 3749: 3711: 3575: 3536: 3342: 3273: 3182: 2961: 2847: 2703: 1828: 1729: 1674: 1591: 1567: 1535: 1373: 1198: 1169: 1052: 748: 367: 212: 5174: 5131: 5088: 5045: 5002: 4959: 4916: 4873: 4736: 4600: 4543: 4278: 4221: 4032: 3443: 3376:, with regard to live stage performances as opposed to movies. His example comes directly from a move request presently ongoing at 2815: 2771: 2766: 2740: 2543: 2482: 1872: 1773: 1417: 1412: 1386: 1250: 699:

Effectively censoring my legitimate participation by misapplying rules and process to make a threat under color of admin authority:

512:

filing accountable for not adhering to an admin-only rule. It was a salient and entirely appropriate comment about the process the

129: 1456: 937:

No one said AE is a general-purpose dispute resolution noticeboard, and none of us except Apteva were attempting to use it as one

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5164: 5121: 5078: 5035: 4992: 4949: 4906: 4863: 4726: 4590: 4533: 4268: 4211: 4022: 3433: 3373: 3138:

that is supposed to turn admin names blue, so you can know whose views to take into consideration. In addition, the instruction

2761: 2533: 2472: 2038: 1862: 1763: 1407: 1240: 119: 3490: 3377: 600:

to do with style intrinsically, but only user behavior; the background debate could just as easily have been about whether the

549:

Labeling Apteva's constantly spewing firehose of noise on this topic "farcical" and "disruptive", when one can and already has

3625:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 769:

filing. I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter. My warning relates to your comment at

2641:

in bad faith (or at least more committed to their view than established Wiki goals like consensus and helpfulness)? Is there

1919:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1298: 653:

filings, and already proven with evidence. My comments about Noetica were that while I agreed that his response to the bogus

3396:. A number of editors feel this move was mistaken, and argue that it ought to be reverted. Your input there may be helpful. 2034: 3827: 852:

you've actually missed the majority of the discussion, and have consequently misinterpreted just about everything about it.

1550: 5214:

experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

262: 4116:

without objection, and that is precisely what they are for. If you think they should use some base template other than

3964:

He's actually a good editor on several topics and even sometimes on style matters, other than diacritics. <shrug: -->

553:

it and consensus already agrees, is not "personalizing the debate", it's short-circuiting yet another Apteva attempt to

1506:

to free up the name. It is possible that these actions will cause some articles and redirects to need updates. Thanks,

869: 1867: 1841: 1916: 238: 2973: 5207: 3609:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3469: 638:

one you're castigating me about for no reason. It's as if you did not even read the original AN case, but only the

38: 415:(it's about forumshopping, tendentious disruption, soapbox advocacy and refusal to get the point, not about style) 4486:

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the

3438: 3412: 3759:

I assume you know what the "high road" refers to in the song? Not a penalty (yet) within the power of admins...

3493:

was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at

2302: 627: 254: 4538: 4512: 4072: 2630:

and there was a particular user continuing to behave as above, in the service of deleting explanatory material.

1934: 996:(at AN, at RFC/U, and in many other fora), apparently without you knowing about any of it. NB: There actually 2614:

done: hence the hour+ of typing as I tried to communicate the need for explanatory notes in the first place).

1768: 1742: 1147:

for the very disruption you say I'm being a bad-actor for mentioning as a reason to disregard his attempt at

3835: 3764: 3552: 3401: 3249: 3237: 3135: 1655:

anti-MOS introductory rants by the candidate! – involve MOS in disturbing ways does not magically mean that

1639: 5063: 3241: 2714:

1's fine, particularly given that the conversation's moved on from that forum anyway. Just pointing it out.

1181: 253:. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the 732:

Feel free to explain your rationale, clarify what your threat really means, or better yet just rescind it.

2634: 1009: 858:

Discussion about process that relates to discussion about content is not itself discussion about content.

258: 4136: 4125: 4027: 4001: 3978: 3927: 3855: 3781: 3743: 3705: 3569: 3530: 3336: 3267: 3176: 2955: 2899: 2841: 2697: 1958: 1822: 1723: 1668: 1585: 1561: 1529: 1367: 1192: 1163: 1046: 1032: 742: 361: 206: 47: 17: 3498: 3058: 2931:

if you don't give them diffs to look at. I agree that Sandstein should by no means have closed the AE.

2525: 1577:

All is well with this now, and the pages (all three relevant genera) are now disambiguated properly. —

405:

filing in question (it was Apteva lashing out to be vengeful, and had little-to-zero merit of any kind)

333: 5265:

nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of

1117:

claim of me making of broad allegations without evidence, simply defies all reason and is not tenable.

5308: 4840: 4703: 4422: 4103: 3313: 3103: 2722: 2650: 2440: 1706: 1511: 1452: 1350: 4079: 3494: 2674: 346: 172:

finally resolved the out-standing issue to enough of my satisfaction to drop the rest of the matter.

4178: 4158: 4095: 4083: 2823: 1982: 1306: 974:", and I had already provided it, in spades. But you hadn't see it, and more importantly made the 395:

address the issue at hand, was not a misuse of WP:AN, and was not a personalization of any dispute)

1656: 1148: 889: 882: 554: 422: 181: 3831: 3760: 3610: 3548: 3511: 3397: 3245: 2936: 4109: 3892: 2686: 1487: 1297:

list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated

1081: 962:

of severe personal misconduct, supported by solid evidence and by community consensus at the AN

912:

I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors.

453: 338: 250: 3943:

Yea, he does seem to be flipping the finger at the community pretty much any chance he gets. —

929:

strongly discourages for good reason). I do not feel I need to be threatened by you simply for

918:

Naming names for the sake of accuracy and truth is often necessary, to avoid false blame, not "

705:

by you with a punitive but illegitimate and undeserved block, should I ever participate in any

5188: 5145: 5102: 5059: 5016: 4930: 4887: 4750: 4614: 4557: 4292: 4235: 4046: 3648: 3457: 3205: 3158: 2981: 2785: 2557: 2496: 2299:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 8#Apparent conflict of guidelines

2086: 2006: 1886: 1787: 1431: 1264: 646:

Misapplying the ArbCom style-debate sanctions simply to protect a fellow admin from criticism:

605: 143: 4770: 4634: 4338: 3847:" post. Figured AE would actually do something about it, but I was very wrong about that. — 3026: 2355: 926: 342: 341:

farce. PS: I agree with the criticism that Noetica's "if you sanction me, I quit" smacks of

169: 5293: 5274: 5241:

name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

4131: 4119: 4058: 3973: 3922: 3850: 3776: 3738: 3700: 3564: 3525: 3503: 3331: 3262: 3171: 2950: 2895: 2836: 2692: 2205:: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. 1817: 1801: 1718: 1663: 1580: 1556: 1524: 1362: 1340: 1187: 1158: 1132:

have not bothered to read even though it is crucial to understanding what is happening, was

1041: 737: 356: 201: 195: 5250:

answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact

3967: 2607: 1294: 1076: 1001: 975: 246: 5304: 5163: