124.106.139.19 (talk) |
|||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
::::If you're innocent, you'll be fine. If you're guilty, you'll be dealt with. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
::::If you're innocent, you'll be fine. If you're guilty, you'll be dealt with. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::FWIW, the "the IP is a sock of Spacecowboy420" thing was flying around for weeks, with several users insisting that an SPI be opened. Claiming that by doing so, essentially under duress because nothing was being done about it otherwise, I was being "impolite" is a bit disingenuous. And the IP did admit to illegitimate socking (logging out in order evade scrutiny, having already created an account to continue an edit war without disclosing that they were the same person, and trolling other editors into opening an SPI while waiting until immediately after this is done to disclose the actual name of their account) but nothing has thusfar been done about it beyond an admin thanking the IP for this "disclosure", closing the SPI with no action, and changing a section title on his talk page without replying to message. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::::FWIW, the "the IP is a sock of Spacecowboy420" thing was flying around for weeks, with several users insisting that an SPI be opened. Claiming that by doing so, essentially under duress because nothing was being done about it otherwise, I was being "impolite" is a bit disingenuous. And the IP did admit to illegitimate socking (logging out in order evade scrutiny, having already created an account to continue an edit war without disclosing that they were the same person, and trolling other editors into opening an SPI while waiting until immediately after this is done to disclose the actual name of their account) but nothing has thusfar been done about it beyond an admin thanking the IP for this "disclosure", closing the SPI with no action, and changing a section title on his talk page without replying to message. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
Just leave it. No one was "trolling other editors into opening an SPI" and no I haven't admitted to any form of sock puppetry. I know you enjoy the drama and attention (seeing how often you are on ANI confirms this) but don't drag me into it. Let's get this RFC done with and let me edit articles that you're not editing. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/124.106.139.19|124.106.139.19]] ([[User talk:124.106.139.19|talk]]) 07:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Sigh == |
== Sigh == |
Revision as of 07:04, 15 April 2018
Archives |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
"Shōwa Emperor"
I've been doing some copyediting at Manchukuo (it's at "On this day..." today), and I keep running across "Shōwa Emperor". I seem to remember you talking about this stuff before—he wouldn't be the "Shōwa Emperor" until after he's dead. How should he be referred to in English, then? Obviously not 天皇陛下, but ... "Hirohito"? Not how it would be done in Japanese, but seems to be common in English writing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: In that context, I would say "the [E/e]mperor" is clear enough in most cases, except that Manchukuo also had an emperor. Since the title of our article is what it is, I would say calling him that is fine for other articles on en.wiki, and I'm pretty sure the majority of English-language RSes on the topic do the same anyway. Way back in he mid-2000s I think I recall being involved in an RM at the article on the emperor himself, which was never going to go anywhere worthwhile as he's probably the only figure in Japanese history to whom WP:COMMONNAME actually applies. Anyway, you're right that "the Shōwa Emperor" is silly in that context as the whole thing took place within the Shōwa era. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you're saying go with "Hirohito"? Or how about "the Japanese Emperor"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say go with "Hirohito". Most readers are familiar with the name, and while "the Japanese emperor" might be more 丁寧, (i) it's still kinda ambiguous to readers who do not know when he was crowned, (ii) it feels kinda like "othering" "the Japanese", even though they are fairly central to the topic of that article, and (iii) avoiding use of the emperor's name on English Wikipedia isn't really possible, so there's no point being euphemistic.
- On an unrelated note: when going to check if the article included any background information on Japanese colonial adventures in the Meiji and Taishō periods (for point (i) above), I noticed that the "Background" section is nearly all about etymology and usage of the name "Manchuria" (as opposed to "Manchukuo") and the first two paragraphs of "Origins" is really what most articles would call "Background". It's not really a copyediting issue, but I just thought it interesting.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I might be misremembering, but I thought there was some issue with calling him "Emperor Hirohito", and just calling him "Hirohito" perhaps doesn't put him in the proper context.
- There are lots of issues with the article (check out those
{{cn}}
s), but I don't have the background to fix them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)- Oh. Yeah, I guess that could be a concern. Maybe the first time he is mentioned in the article (assuming he was already emperor; I haven't checked) introduce him as "Emperor Hirohito" or "The Japanese emperor, Hirohito" or some such. I don't recall a specific instance in the past when this came up and you and I were involved; the closest I can remember is where our mutual "friend" kept insisting, even after the relevant passage in the article was already fixed, on passive-aggressively talking about how the Meiji era was named after it's emperor, Emperor Meiji, despite repeatedly being corrected, but that's really not the same problem at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really remember, but I don't think it came up in a dispute, but rather when you were bitching about the quality of an article (perhaps tangentially to a dispute?). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, I've introduced him as "Hirohito, the Japanese emperor", and then have him as "Hirohito" for the rest of the article. What would you recommend for (say) Meiji artcles? I don't think sources ever call him anything but Meiji. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- In the majority of cases, "the emperor" would be clear enough. I think English sources don't tend to refer to him by his given name, instead preferring to just treat "Meiji" as his name, even if it may be wrong, anachronistic or weird in places. (By contrast, no one uses simply "Shōwa" as though it were his name.) AFAIAC, writing "real history" as we are (and as, for example, Keene was when he wrote Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World) is different from writing historical fiction like The Last Samurai (which somewhat laughably has a character refer to "the divine emperor Meiji" while Meiji was still very much alive, and indeed sitting right there); in the latter case, characters should speak as they actually would have, but for us writing according to retrospective conventions probably shouldn't cause all that much hassle. The only real problems arise when editors insert anachronisms like "The Meiji era was named for Emperor Meiji and corresponds to Meiji's reign." into articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. That one goes beyond even simple "anachronoism"—the era doesn't even correspond with his reign. What would you name him, though, if you had to name him in 1867? Boshin War#Coups d'état has "In late 1866, however, first shogun Iemochi and then Emperor Kōmei died, respectively succeeded by Yoshinobu and Emperor Meiji." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was gonna check what Keene did, but would need to finally get around to spring cleaning to locate my copy, and yesterday was ... tiring. I would say "Kōmei's son Prince Mutsuhito"; "who would later be known as Emperor Meiji" would work after that if you feel it right, and only link the latter as it's the title of our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. That one goes beyond even simple "anachronoism"—the era doesn't even correspond with his reign. What would you name him, though, if you had to name him in 1867? Boshin War#Coups d'état has "In late 1866, however, first shogun Iemochi and then Emperor Kōmei died, respectively succeeded by Yoshinobu and Emperor Meiji." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- In the majority of cases, "the emperor" would be clear enough. I think English sources don't tend to refer to him by his given name, instead preferring to just treat "Meiji" as his name, even if it may be wrong, anachronistic or weird in places. (By contrast, no one uses simply "Shōwa" as though it were his name.) AFAIAC, writing "real history" as we are (and as, for example, Keene was when he wrote Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World) is different from writing historical fiction like The Last Samurai (which somewhat laughably has a character refer to "the divine emperor Meiji" while Meiji was still very much alive, and indeed sitting right there); in the latter case, characters should speak as they actually would have, but for us writing according to retrospective conventions probably shouldn't cause all that much hassle. The only real problems arise when editors insert anachronisms like "The Meiji era was named for Emperor Meiji and corresponds to Meiji's reign." into articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh. Yeah, I guess that could be a concern. Maybe the first time he is mentioned in the article (assuming he was already emperor; I haven't checked) introduce him as "Emperor Hirohito" or "The Japanese emperor, Hirohito" or some such. I don't recall a specific instance in the past when this came up and you and I were involved; the closest I can remember is where our mutual "friend" kept insisting, even after the relevant passage in the article was already fixed, on passive-aggressively talking about how the Meiji era was named after it's emperor, Emperor Meiji, despite repeatedly being corrected, but that's really not the same problem at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you're saying go with "Hirohito"? Or how about "the Japanese Emperor"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kakinomoto no Hitomaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Li He you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yu Wuling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhang Hu (poet)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhang Hu (poet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhou Bangyan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhou Bangyan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Han Wo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
More IDHT regarding COPYVIO
I had an edit conflict with Dream Focus (talk · contribs). I wrote a long response to a comment he made in reply to a plagiarism warning I placed on his talk page, but before I could post it he blanked the section. Posting it here and pinging him, and will allow a 24-hour window for reply before blanking (or maybe archiving). Normally I put "lost" edits like this one in my sandbox, but this one kinda needs to be read and acknowledged.
- Your already rev-delled edits today (quoted here and here) were clearly word-for-word copies, with only a few words switched around.
- 2017-10-02 You could have changed the source's
apartment buildings, which he owned and managed with his mother, who lives in Florida
[1] to read something like "He co-administered several apartment buildings with his Florida-based mother", but instead used the close paraphrase (with almost all the same words)owned and managed some apartment buildings, with his mother, who lives in Florida
- 2017-09-16 Source had
Police dashcam video and surveillance footage shows Mr Smith reversed his car into the police vehicle twice during his attempt to drive off.
[2] Your text wasDashcam video from their police car recorded Smith reversed his car into the their vehicle twice, before driving off.
You arguably did paraphrase sufficiently, but you forgot to change the verb form (you should have changed "reversed" to "reversing"), clearly indicating you copy-pasted the text and then edited in the Wikipedia text-editing box rather than rewriting it from scratch. Actually the rest of your text is all very close to the source's wording, so "arguably paraphrased sufficiently" only applies to the sentence I quoted here.
- You need to recognize that that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and stop doing it. Simply saying you didn't do it to begin with is definitely insufficient. And the above are just the first two random pieces of substantial prose I could find on a brief scan of your contribs; have you written any long articles which cited sources in English and didn't include a significant volume of closely paraphrased text?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Are you really sure you don't want to reply to the above, acknowledge that you have been violating copyright policy, apologize, and promise to do better going forward? I'll give you some more time -- until a couple of hours after your next edit, I guess.
- I've done a bit of sleuthing, and noticed that in 2012 you closely paraphrased text from abcnews.go.com,[3] then when the text was caught and fixed you acknowledged it,[4] but you have basically continued doing the same thing up to when you wrote the Mottainai Grandma article two days ago. In September 2013 you removed a copy-paste tag on an article claiming that no justification had been offered and that the text was not copy-pasted, then few days later someone came along and removed a significant amount of copyvio text.[5] In December 2013 you defended some very close paraphrasing on another article.[6] Your Immigration Street article from 2015 was almost entirely plagiarized until I fixed it today.[7]
- Your having once lectured someone else on what you called "word for word" copy-paste jobs makes it easy enough to assume good faith on your part, specifically that you assumed moving words around was enough and that the only thing that was forbidden was content that was longer than, say, ten words, and was from-start-to-finish identical to the source. So, assuming good faith, you have misunderstood our copyright policy and have continued to do so for at least the last six years. Good-faith misunderstandings can be -- and frequently are -- forgiven by the community (I will not name the recent example I'm thinking of, mind), but you need to recognize the problem, apologize for the disruption your edits have caused, and demonstrate a willingness to improve. You also need to stop dismissing these concerns by saying things like
I have not copied word for word text at all.
,[8]its not a copyvio
,[9]its in the reference
,[10] etc. - Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. [11] You added in something not in the reference. The police said "far-right groups" no one saying "conservative anti-immigrant" but you. And many at that time said don't just quote people directly, but write out what they said in the way I have done there. There no violations there. There are no word for word copy of text at all. anyway, kindly stop bothering me with your petty nonsense. Dream Focus 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: "far-right" usually covers "conservative anti-immigrant", and in that case it is obvious that that is what was meant. It's a judgement call, but what you had done in copying the sources' exact words was completely unacceptable. Do you not acknowledge this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- You mention this.[12] You stated "Removed unattributed quotation" when you erased something I put back, you not searching the referenced text to find it I assume. It is relevant information to have, and its in the article now. There is only so many ways to rewrite that information. Dream Focus 15:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Yu Wuling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yu Wuling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhang Hu (poet)
The article Zhang Hu (poet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zhang Hu (poet) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhou Bangyan
The article Zhou Bangyan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zhou Bangyan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Han Wo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Han Wo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Yup!... They auto-vote "keep" in AFDs...Well-said:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
- @Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you!
- Weird commonality time: the last time you and I interacted also involved me cleaning up copyvio work and the editor responsible accusing me of "hounding" them when I was actually going out of my way to keep them from getting blocked. It's a small world after all... or history repeats itself... or something.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate how you made the rest of us aware of the problem, as well as the way that you have stood up for me in the recent discussions. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the cause of the problem. See, there's been a recent jump in the number of really dubious postings to that list, and in the activity level of one of the project's apparently more "tendentious" editors, and this hike coincided with my noticing the problem and bringing it up on VPM. It seems likely that they would not be causing as much disruption as they currently are if they weren't trying to prove they were still relevant in response to comments like this and this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate how you made the rest of us aware of the problem, as well as the way that you have stood up for me in the recent discussions. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Li He you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Li He for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro
The article Kakinomoto no Hitomaro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kakinomoto no Hitomaro for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
ANI
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on WP:ANI. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. If you can't get along with me, then I suggest you not reply to me at all. I have known Jack Sebastian a lot longer than I have known you. If you continue to assume bad faith, attempt to initiate further conflict between us, or make futher corrupt threats, I will have no choice but to go straight to the Arbitration Committee with everything going back to January 2017. If your goal is to bait me into an argument with you to convince Drmies to help drive me out of the discussion, note that I will not be taking said bait. This is your one and only warning. DarkKnight2149 01:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Please assume good faith yourself. I told you to strike or blank your reference to AlexTheWhovian as Jack Sebastian would be unable to respond to it without running the risk of getting blocked. You responded by initially striking it, then going on to invoke Alex's name two more times. My initial response to you made it quite clear that I was assuming you made a good-faith mistake and were not aware of the ban, but by repeatedly invoking it as you have been doing you have made my original good-faith assumption untenable. You have now brought it up three times, and made it near-impossible for Jack to defend himself without skirting the ban. The simple fact, which I suspect you are not even aware of having apparently not read the discusson, is that the IBAN was mutual, and voluntary, so presenting it as a precedent for a one-way sanction on Jack was way out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149—pretty remarkable that you'd issue threats at Hijiri and accuse him of WP:Gaming the system while telling him he should "assume good faith". Things didn't go well last time you took on a pile of editors at ANI, and there are continued concerns with the fact that you still proclaim yourself the wronged party over that stuff. If you launch another such drahmah, people are much less likely show you sympathy or patience this time around. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just saw "I still have evidence on you collated from the last incident and it's pretty damning (along with the four other users that assisted you)". We'll be seeing you dig your own grave, because you'll obviously not stop without getting your revenge against the community. I don't know who these four alleged "cronies" are, but those who voted for the TBAN should be aware of what's going on here and at WP:ANI#User:Jack Sebastian: @Jbhunley, Twitbookspacetube, Softlavender, Adamfinmo, and Mr rnddude:. This is appparently the drahmah that never ends. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That warning extends to you too, Curly. And the "pack" is the main reason you succeeded in your disruption and WP:GAMING. There isn't going to be a repeat of last time or more arguing. I've been collating evidence against the four of you for the past year, and you have continued your disruption even in discussions that I haven't even touched. Continue and this is all going straight to the Arbitration Committee. It's as simple as that. They already blocked Twitbookspacetube for continuing the exact behaviour that I warned everyone about at ANI. I doubt ArbCom will be too pleased with what you have been doing either. I've said my piece. It all depends on you. DarkKnight2149 06:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- And while you are canvassing editors, I was actually referring specifically to Twitbook, Drmies, @Softlavender:, Hijiri, and you. Think very carefully about your next actions if you don't want me to file the lengthy ArbCom report against you. DarkKnight2149 06:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Canvassing", as in "pinging the people you're threatening behind their backs"? You just open a little
ANI threadARBCOM report on that one, cupcake. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)- I just told you who I was talking about, and the users you canvassed aren't it. And the ArbCom report depends 100% on you. By continuing to try (and fail) to initiate a fight with me, am I to assume that I should go ahead and file it? DarkKnight2149 06:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're going to do whatever the flying fuck you want, and it'll have nothing to do with what any of us say or do. I'm just looking forward to watching you go around in circles trying to convince people I've "canvassed" anyone (or any of your other conspiracy theories) and clutching to that for the rest of your time on earth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- My filing of the report depends solely on whether or not you continue your disruption. And should you force me to file the report, it would be a near diff-by-diff breakdown of all the events and disruption that transpired from before, during, and after the January 2017 incident. I won't be leaving anything out, so it would be very difficult for you to lie your way out of that one. If you think I'm going into this blind, you are mistaken. Even now, you are exhibiting your trademark smug incivility. That's all I have to say to you here. Continue your disruption or don't. The decision is yours. Ideally, it won't happen at all. DarkKnight2149 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- So, you mean a list of the diffs that led to your TBAN? Go ahead. I'm eagerly waiting to find out what "disruption" you think I'm causing here, and what evidence you have that I'm in bed with Softlavender, Twitbook, and Drmies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- My filing of the report depends solely on whether or not you continue your disruption. And should you force me to file the report, it would be a near diff-by-diff breakdown of all the events and disruption that transpired from before, during, and after the January 2017 incident. I won't be leaving anything out, so it would be very difficult for you to lie your way out of that one. If you think I'm going into this blind, you are mistaken. Even now, you are exhibiting your trademark smug incivility. That's all I have to say to you here. Continue your disruption or don't. The decision is yours. Ideally, it won't happen at all. DarkKnight2149 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're going to do whatever the flying fuck you want, and it'll have nothing to do with what any of us say or do. I'm just looking forward to watching you go around in circles trying to convince people I've "canvassed" anyone (or any of your other conspiracy theories) and clutching to that for the rest of your time on earth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just told you who I was talking about, and the users you canvassed aren't it. And the ArbCom report depends 100% on you. By continuing to try (and fail) to initiate a fight with me, am I to assume that I should go ahead and file it? DarkKnight2149 06:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Canvassing", as in "pinging the people you're threatening behind their backs"? You just open a little
I don’t think I’m the Adam you are looking for. —Adamfinmo (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Adamfinmo: it's irrelevant now, as it doesn't appear you're one of the "conspirators" DK is threatening, but you were indeed one of the supporters of the decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Proposal: Topic ban of User:Darkknight2149. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dear god that thread was a trainwreck. Either these discussions disappear, or, in all honesty the supreme court is the next port of call. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Noooooo Alex Shih (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: I couldn't agree more. I've given them their final warning (particularly Curly, the most outspokenly and persistently disruptive out of all of them; as recently as yesterday, he told another user to "Fuck off."). The next instance of disruption is the very moment I open an ArbCom request with no further comment to them. I've said all I'm going to say to say to Hijiri88 and Curly. If I file a report on one of them, I'm not leaving anything out, so I would also have to file one on all five of them (Curly, Hijiri, the not-surprisingly blocked Twitbookspacetube, Softlavender, and Drmies). I will be silently observing from the shadows, as this has gone on long enough. I certainly won't be taking the bait of whatever uncivil remark Curly has cooked up next in retaliation. DarkKnight2149 13:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Darkknight2149, a genuine question. How do you plan to "silently observing from the shadows" when you are going to be the person that files a case request? Alex Shih (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: Silently observing until more disruption takes place and a case request becomes necessary. Excellent question, though. Sorry if that came off a little too vague. Ideally, an ArbCom request won't be necessary, but seeing as Curly has continued his disruption for over a year later, I doubt he has any plans to quit. You should see some of the things he says to other users. He thinks he can get away with pretty much anything, and administrators seem unwilling to address his behaviour. ArbCom is the only option at this point. DarkKnight2149 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Darkknight2149, a genuine question. How do you plan to "silently observing from the shadows" when you are going to be the person that files a case request? Alex Shih (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: I couldn't agree more. I've given them their final warning (particularly Curly, the most outspokenly and persistently disruptive out of all of them; as recently as yesterday, he told another user to "Fuck off."). The next instance of disruption is the very moment I open an ArbCom request with no further comment to them. I've said all I'm going to say to say to Hijiri88 and Curly. If I file a report on one of them, I'm not leaving anything out, so I would also have to file one on all five of them (Curly, Hijiri, the not-surprisingly blocked Twitbookspacetube, Softlavender, and Drmies). I will be silently observing from the shadows, as this has gone on long enough. I certainly won't be taking the bait of whatever uncivil remark Curly has cooked up next in retaliation. DarkKnight2149 13:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Noooooo Alex Shih (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dear god that thread was a trainwreck. Either these discussions disappear, or, in all honesty the supreme court is the next port of call. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Darkknight, I have no idea why you are namedropping and pinging me. If you got something to say to me, say it to me. If you don't, don't ping me as if my name is some cussword or magic incantation. And I have something to do with Twitbook? I have no idea how that works, but I really don't care for the explanation--nor have I read this thread or the ANI thread. It's about comics/superheroes? Really? People write about that? Drmies (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, they do. Quisque pro omnibus. The best part of Wikipedia is that everyone gets to follow their joy, even dudes with a hard-on for old English poetry. Try not to judge.
- And please do not take that comment as an endorsement of the argument y'all have going on.As an outsider to 99% of that, I'd urge eveytone to put down the trouts, step away and going back to doing whatever made their freak flag fly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- No need to be a dick. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, you thought my comment was dickish? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think you should be talking about my penis (or assume I have one). That's it. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, from what i understand, both a penis or a clitoris can get hard. Secondarily, I am not particularliy interested in your sex organ arrangement (sorrynotsorry). Thirdly, having a "hard-on" for a particular topic or subject is an expression, not an observation of anatomical engorgement. Lastly, you were almost certainly acting like a dick by making fun o f people who work on comic book-related articles. Don't dish it out if you cannot take it in return. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: I think he was joking, though he'll probably correct me if I'm wrong. I've seen him use similar deadpan humour on his Talk Page. All I want to know is who do I have to ping to hire a private dick? DarkKnight2149 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, from what i understand, both a penis or a clitoris can get hard. Secondarily, I am not particularliy interested in your sex organ arrangement (sorrynotsorry). Thirdly, having a "hard-on" for a particular topic or subject is an expression, not an observation of anatomical engorgement. Lastly, you were almost certainly acting like a dick by making fun o f people who work on comic book-related articles. Don't dish it out if you cannot take it in return. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think you should be talking about my penis (or assume I have one). That's it. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, you thought my comment was dickish? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- No need to be a dick. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If this is about drama from 13 months ago then I am certainly not the Adam you are looking for. What I said then was based on the thread as it existed at the time. But if you all will indulge me I have some things to say. We all have several thousand edits to our names. At this point none of us need to be reminded of the AGF policies. We all understand how to deal with others in a collaborative environment. Secondly Darkknight2149, if you are going to "silently observe from the shadows" then you are certainly going to find something to be scandalized about. You can find naughty words in the dictionary, but to look them up just to complain to the publisher is kind of silly. If Curly and Hijiri88 bother you so much then don't go to their talk pages. My last point is that humans have evolved to use body language and posture as communication, in the absence of this sometimes stronger language is the best way to communicate the force of someone's message. Sometimes "fuck" is the best word. Anyone who is scandalized by some salty language should probably not spend too much time in internet discussion areas. Congruous to that literate and read adults should be able to understand when the words they use will be needlessly inflammatory. Friends ultimately we are all here because we are passionate about the project. We can spend kilobytes of text endlessly litigating minute or we can get back to business.--Adamfinmo (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't need to "find" anything. Curly Turkey has repeatedly partaken in blatantly disruptive behaviour for the past year, and probably well before. I already have all the evidence I need compiled. When it comes to blatant personal attacks, dishonesty, all five variations of WP:SANCTIONGAMING, WP:FACTIONing in adminstrative discussions, bullying other users to get your way in a discussion, hatting off people's comments simply because you don't like them and retaliating when they're rightfully removed, persistent incivility, massive leaps of bad faith against virtually anyone who opposes him in a discussion, and a whole laundry list of things that Curly Turkey continues to do, we are far passed the point of WP:AGF. And what I mean by "watching from the shadows" is that I am done arguing or replying to them. The moment they (especially Curly Turkey) partake in such disruption again in a blatant manner is the very moment I open an arbitration case against them. This has gone way out of hand for far too long. And after 13 months of him continuously doing the same thing, even in discussions that I'm not involved in (meaning you can hardly blame the "other guy" as Curly always does), I have collated tonnes of evidence, including statements from Curly himself contradicting his past lies. One of the users that Curly self-admittedly "grouped" with, Twitbookspacetube, continued for months the same behaviour I warned everyone about, nobody listened to me, and he is now currently permanently banned from Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that Curly Turkey learns from his example and starts treating Wikipedia as the collaborative environment that it is. DarkKnight2149 18:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, my days are numbered. Can you please open the ARBCOM report before I tell another troll to fuck off on my talk page? I want to see the evidence for: "One of the users that Curly self-admittedly "grouped" with, Twitbookspacetube"—and all the rest of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149 I'm not friend of Curly Turkey, but it seems to me that you claim you are "done replying" yet you keep replying. Please friend, shit or get off the pot. The rest of us have work to do. If you have seen something that requires oversight then please file your report. I certainly have nothing to worry about.--AdamF in MO (talk)
- @Adamfinmo: When was the last time I replied to anything Curly or Hijiri said? In fact, Curly was the last one to reply to me (which I will not be responding to). You should re-read this discussion before throwing down the gauntlet. And believe me, the moment that the next instance of disruption takes place is the moment it will be filed. I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything. You, Jack Sebastian, and Drmies all replied here on your own volition, and their discussion within this discussion is a separate animal entirely. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Could you just file the fucking report already? See—I said "fuck" for you and everything. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamfinmo: When was the last time I replied to anything Curly or Hijiri said? In fact, Curly was the last one to reply to me (which I will not be responding to). You should re-read this discussion before throwing down the gauntlet. And believe me, the moment that the next instance of disruption takes place is the moment it will be filed. I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything. You, Jack Sebastian, and Drmies all replied here on your own volition, and their discussion within this discussion is a separate animal entirely. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless by the hour, I think it's time for me to sign off. I have real work to attend to and articles to update. To summarise:
- My warning was clear and final. Next instance of blatant disruption = Instant ArbCom case request. There's nothing else that really needs to be said.
- Curly Turkey canvassed several users that voted against me from a false ANI report and continues to try and initiate an argument... But it's not working, so who cares? He'll even reply to this, but don't expect me to answer the door.
- Mr rnddude seemingly agrees that ArbCom is a viable solution for a situation as messy with this one, and Adam attempted to throw down a gauntlet (despite claiming not wanting to be here), but he's getting what he wanted by me "getting off the pot", so again, there's nothing else to say on that front.
- There's also a side conversation about penises, or lack-thereof, but that's non-applicable.
- There was even an understandable hatting, that was only reverted because this is another user's Talk Page. I would encourage Hijiri88 to go through with it, but it's his decision.
I think that just about covers everything. Unless someone other than the accused five has anything to say to me that warrants a reply, or if someone decides to escalate the situation further (which would almost certainly result in immediate ArbCom), I see no reason to continue. Darkknight2149 out, DarkKnight2149 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your threats and "warnings" are useless, disruptive, pointless, and toothless and everyone but you recognizes this. But I do agree with you. Everyone can take your example and pick up their ball and go home. We all have work to do.--AdamF in MO (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be nice? But DK has declared he won't give up, even if he has to take the Cabal to "Jimbo Wells". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Your threats and "warnings" are useless, disruptive, pointless, and toothless and everyone but you recognizes this. But I do agree with you. Everyone can take your example and pick up their ball and go home. We all have work to do.--AdamF in MO (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought I heard that name before
Although I don't quote remember the details. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: Jagello (talk · contribs)'s contribs list is very short (as in, if ArbCom did what I really think they should and placed an I/P-style general EC restriction on all articles related to ancient Korea, he wouldn't be able to edit those articles), so just Ctrl+Fing it for Spacecowboy's name should bring it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. I remember now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hellraiser: Judgment
(Not sarcasm; this much is probably obvious, but this is put here in case there was any question) You are an editor who has been willing to question editing choices made by me in the past, such as at Halloween (2018 film) and Vulture (comics). It would be appreciated if you took a look at Hellraiser: Judgment and wrote a quick review on the Talk Page, if you have the time. I plan on nominating it for FA status and have the last several months ironing out the kinks, so such scrutiny would be productive and a fresh perspective could help the article. DarkKnight2149 00:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding...
...this[13], you shouldn't tip off a potential sock about his "tells". That's better discussed behind the scenes, with a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- but you should be nice enough to leave messages on the accused editors' talk pages when you make an sock report. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- That would be polite, but it's not required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did see that it isn't a requirement. What a sad world we live in, when politeness isn't given/required. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you're innocent, you'll be fine. If you're guilty, you'll be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, the "the IP is a sock of Spacecowboy420" thing was flying around for weeks, with several users insisting that an SPI be opened. Claiming that by doing so, essentially under duress because nothing was being done about it otherwise, I was being "impolite" is a bit disingenuous. And the IP did admit to illegitimate socking (logging out in order evade scrutiny, having already created an account to continue an edit war without disclosing that they were the same person, and trolling other editors into opening an SPI while waiting until immediately after this is done to disclose the actual name of their account) but nothing has thusfar been done about it beyond an admin thanking the IP for this "disclosure", closing the SPI with no action, and changing a section title on his talk page without replying to message. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you're innocent, you'll be fine. If you're guilty, you'll be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did see that it isn't a requirement. What a sad world we live in, when politeness isn't given/required. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Just leave it. No one was "trolling other editors into opening an SPI" and no I haven't admitted to any form of sock puppetry. I know you enjoy the drama and attention (seeing how often you are on ANI confirms this) but don't drag me into it. Let's get this RFC done with and let me edit articles that you're not editing. Thanks. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sigh
Your recent editing history at National Party (Ireland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Shinnerfeiner: Actually, the policy (WP:SYNTH, WP:BURDEN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO...) appears to all be on the side of my version, so characterizing what I was doing but not what you were doing as "edit-warring" seems like a bit of a misrepresentation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)