Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 9 September 2017 (→"Gaslighting" retraction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Invitation

WikiProject Zoroastrianism We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call

DR/N

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Kurowski discussion

@K.e.coffman: Thank you for notifying me of the RS discussion, but I am not at the moment at liberty to respond for reasons not related to the Kurowski issue. Good luck with your GA article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Same. Trying to get this disciplinary issue cleared up. Good luck with the article. Hopefully, I'll be at liberty to comment in a day or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that the issue is still on-going; hope it gets cleared up! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Darkfrog24. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Caution

Hi Darkfrog, I support your efforts to get unblocked through the ARCA system, and I've even spoken out on your behalf that you should have some avenue of getting another chance. However, you have gone quite far across the line of what's allowed under the terms of your temporary unblock. You made your statement at ARCA, but now you are carrying on correspondence here with a number of editors and have even made a personal attack with your "liar with a grudge" statement. I recommend that you promptly retract and archive your correspondence here and limit your interactions with other editors to email. If you continue down this path, you are likely to have your talk page access revoked. --Laser brain (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't so much as a "Don't do it again" from you or anyone when he called me that and worse. If you want proof that he's a liar, I'll show you proof. The only retraction necessary is "he's either a liar or not competent to distinguish truth from falsehood."

To the best of my knowledge, what I do and do not say on my talk page has nothing to do with whether I'm blocked, unblocked for ARCA or regular unblocked. Being topic-banned from a specific subject does not mean that I'm not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the process by which it was enacted. Or is this guy wrong? Would be great if WP:TBAN itself weighed in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm just offering a piece of friendly advice that carrying on your dispute with McCandlish here while you're actively trying to get unblocked/unbanned is unlikely to lead anywhere good. You are, of course, free to ignore me and keep doing whatever you want. --Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And I'm just pointing out that when everything from friendly advice to thundering condemnation is delivered solely to me, I find myself asking what the heck's going on. Go ahead and tell him to clean up his act. It would be rude of me to hog it all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and here's where I'm coming from. Months ago, you defended his right to be pissed off by saying that I'd just "impugned his integrity" by using the expression "not being honest." But here you are scolding me for being pissed off when he called me a gaslighter and a nutcase and a liar and did so at great length. Do you see how I might think you're not being impartial when you act that way? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Breach of unblock conditions

You were unblocked to participate at ARCA not to post elsewhere. Please stop or the reblock will happen sooner than you might like. Thanks. Spartaz 07:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I thought J. Wales' talk page was within bounds because of that "users may also appeal to Wales" thing, but I'll take your word on the matter. The request for a translator's been made and maybe someone will show up to help us work this out.

I hope you're enjoying your semi-retirement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your request on JW's talk page

• "Would someone fluent in both Admin and Very Literal please come translate?"

I'll say up front, I'm not interested in debate, or a re-hearing of what you feel your greivances are. Arbcom would appear to be assessing your situation at the moment. But in reading everything, I'm going to go out on a limb of WP:AGF because I think (and please forgive me if I am incorrect) this very possibly could simply be a massive set of miscommunications, combined with what appears to be that you are used to communicating with concrete language. And so to others this is being seen as wikilawyering.

So, let me try to help make a few things clear:

1.) You were unblocked for the sole purpose to allow you to appeal this block. Do not edit anywhere but this talk page and ARCA. If you edit anywhere else, you risk losing this opportunity for an unblock and you will likely be re-blocked indefinitely.

2.) Regardless if arbcom institutes an interaction ban between you and SMcCandlish, you, as an editor, have the ability to self impose one upon yourself, by not interacting with them.

3.) My understanding, based upon reading what each of you said, is that, how SMcCandlish meant to use the word gaslighting, is apparently not how you understood it. This type of misunderstanding of what a word is intended to mean, is not uncommon on Misplaced Pages. This is a typewritten environment, after all. If in doubt, assume the best, and if still in doubt, ask for clarification. This is always better than becoming upset over a perceived slight. And if you feel you have been maligned, there are places to report that, to bring other eyes upon it, as well. (The appropriate location can vary based upon the issue.)

4.) A topic ban is intended to reduce disruption. If you are asked to avoid a topic, then do not type on Misplaced Pages concerning that topic. Period. Avoid everything that arbcom tells you to avoid. Otherwise you will face further sanction. (I'm not going to try to re-clarify your topic ban, that's up to arbcom to clarify if they deem so necessary.)

5.) To be clear: This is all merely my opinion as an uninvolved admin, and of course whatever arbcom says trumps anything I've said here. I've written all of this in the hope of helping you to become a positively contributing editor, instead of being indefinitely blocked.

What you do now, is up to you.

With all that in mind, is the following text something you can agree to?

a.) I fully accept and agree to the imposed restrictions (including topic bans) that arbcom has already applied to me, and fully intend to follow those restrictions until released from them by arbcom.

b.) Because at least part of the topic involves the manual of style (MOS), the breadth of which appears to be unclear to me, would arbcom please succinctly and concretely show some examples of what "broadly construed" may mean in my case? I understand that arbcom obviously cannot show me every possible example, and I understand that the topic ban would not be limited to only these examples, but that this will help me be more clear of my footing when editing and discussing.

c.) I agree to either a one-sided or mutual interaction ban with SMcCandlish (at arbcom's discretion), and even if arbcom does not impose such an interaction ban, I am willing to self impose one, and ask SMcCandlish to please respect this. I understand that this means I will not engage in discussion with SMcCandlish in any way on any page.

I hope this helps. - jc37 00:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jc37: Thank you for responding to my request and please accept my personal gratitude for your good faith.

1) I have already been informed not to comment further on Wales' talk page, or else I would have thanked CaJames2 for his help and told the others that further discussion was not necessary for my sake. I think CaJames probably has it right and I've asked the Committee to confirm that what he's stipulated is indeed what they want from me.

2) I think that's a good idea. I've also been deleting the posts he's made to my userspace. He was told by the AE admins to leave me alone but probably needs to be told again.

3) I agree that it's a good idea to ask for clarification. That's why I did. I asked "do you really think I tried to gaslight anyone?" with a link to gaslighting. More than once. Of the admin who, to all appearances, acted on the accusation, and to a member of ArbCom. They did not answer me, and it's been eating me alive for ten months. This is less about SMcCandlish saying something extreme and more about other people believing it and officially endorsing it by meting out punishment.

4) Again, I did. I keep getting re-sanctioned for talking about things other than the MoS, except on one occasion when I offered exonerating evidence to the enforcing admin (which looks like it's allowed per WP:BANEX). (I am not topic banned from anything but the MoS and style issues.)

a) I already said yes to the Committee this three or four times. That's why I think this is a communication issue. Either I'm saying it wrong or there's some additional thing that they want me to do. Again, I think CaJames might have got it and have copied his comment to ARCA.

b) This is the only suggestion of yours that I think is a bad idea. Drmies specifically told me that asking about how topic bans work would not be tolerated. I've asked for similar clarifications before, proposed additions to the text of WP:TBAN based on the abovementioned trial and error, and things like this only seem to make people angry. The biggest issue is that I want to know whether talking about the topic ban itself even if the banned topic is not being discussed is tantamount to violating it. There seems to be at least some difference of opinion on this matter.

c) I actually think Robert hit this one on the head. We could do with something as mild as "Don't talk about anything either party did before this date, December 2016, for the next three years." As for mutual interaction bans, I said back in February that I'd be willing to do one, and that stands. Mostly, I want to still be allowed to do something like this. (A diff-by-diff analysis of an accusation SMcCandlish made about another user about a conversation that I had witnessed.) At the time, it didn't even occur to me that SMcCandlish might have been trying to do anything fishy. I just thought he was mistaken. I think if someone had done this for me back in January, we wouldn't be having all these proceedings.

I would say "remain a positively contributing editor," but thank you. I think I know what you mean.

I hope it helps too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal declined

Hi Darkfrog - since the motion to decline your appeal has passed, I've reblocked your account. As described in the motion, you'll be eligible to appeal after the one-year anniversary of your original AE block. Please do carefully consider the advice you've received regarding the best approach for future appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I always have. I did notice something, though. You said that the only thing that I am supposed to infer from a sanction is that at least one of my actions was considered disruptive and that I should not make any assumptions about which one. But then you also seem to think that I am supposed to know which of my actions were considered disruptive without being told. This places me in an impossible position. If nothing else, the committee should state clearly which of my actions are considered non-Wiki-compliant so that I can work on them and so that the committee won't have to deal with a defense against charges that they don't care about in the firs place. You can always change your minds later. There's not much wrong with that so long as everyone acknowledges that it's happened.

You also seem surprised that I am angry about the way I have been treated. I reiterate: This didn't happen ten months ago. It has been happening for ten months, and you have told me that I must endure at least three more of daily and very public humiliation. Healing comes after the knife is removed, not before. If you want me to forgive something, acknowledge that thing and ask me to.

While we are talking of advice, I hope that your decision to block me does not mean that you will not address the problem regarding the lack of clear guidelines for dealing with extremely long complaints. That would be best for everyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, why take this back to ArbCom? You guys clearly don't like being put on the spot, and you're the one who said that standard practice would be to use the regular unblock system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Grand jury stage

@DeltaQuad: preapproved as something half legitimate

1) It is inappropriate for you to say that my appeal was not legitimate. 2) Other than that, though, I wouldn't mind an official preapproval stage so long as anything dismissed is dismissed without prejudice. This entire process has left me feeling like I need a lawyer (talking about Misplaced Pages's internal rules; this is not a legal threat). Half this problem is that I didn't know any of the AE etiquette back in January. An on-Wiki lawyer would have been able to tell me what the heck a voluntary ban was, whether I was allowed to ask for more time, that "1RR" doesn't mean "one talk page post per day," and what ArbCom does and does not consider a serious procedural problem. If you guys want to set up some kind of grand jury stage in which experienced editors advise the accused regarding what's expected of them, I think that would be fantastic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

@Miniapolis: Please remove the gendered pronoun from the official listing of the case against me at the administrators' noticeboard. I don't mind either "he" or "she" when people are just talking, but they do not belong in official documents. I decided a long time ago that I would disclose my gender if it were ever relevant, but it never has been. Thank you.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why it's "disruptive relitigation" if I'm appealing exactly when I have been told and exactly to whom I have been told. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You've disclosed in previous conversations that your gender was female. It doesn't matter, but I imagine that no one is inclined to refer to you as 'it'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I used "it" last time she objected to a gendered pronoun, and that didn't get met with acceptance either. I tried to phrase my remarks such that "it" referred to the account, which seemed like it might be OK, not no. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, done. @Jack Sebastian and Dicklyon: I can't imagine why you'd go out of your way to complain on a blocked editor's talk page when they ask that we use their preferred pronouns, but it's inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To a busy clerk at a time of year when there's plenty going on IRL, it's a bit annoying since it's easy enough to tweak in one's preferences; for years I went by "they", until I decided it was time to stand up and be counted. All the best, Miniapolis 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well Mini I'd gladly have fixed it myself, but all things considered I'll just say I hope your December goes well. Though for the record I'll add that Dicklyon stopped using "it" at me immediately after I told him I thought it was rude. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Right; and I wasn't complaining, just giving some background on the difficulty of choosing a pronoun for you, esp. for one like me who can't stand to use "they" for singular. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't much care for it either, really. But I have to echo Opabinia on this one: What the heck are you doing here? You really shouldn't be watchlisting this page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This page will stay on my watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's Wikistalking and generally creepy and you should stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for AEFAQ answers

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for the ping and good luck with the FAQ. Just remember that I haven't been able to update it since February, and I've picked up a few more things since then. I'll be glad to help out once my block is over. You might also want to check the talk page for the original draft. It's a source list in a way. "I got this answer when admin Liz said this. I got that answer when User Hijiri was punished for that," with links provided. If your version is flagged as a duplicate, go ahead and work on the one in my userspace. Any user who has not been told to stay away from me is welcome there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I stole the entire thing, with attribution to you, by pasting a copy to my own userspace, just in case for whatever reason you were to request misc delete here. When I saw you were indeffed I figured you had vamoosed forever. There's talk of AE imprvement efforts elsehwere too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Zero intention of vamoosing. Work from whichever page you prefer. Will answer any questions you might have for me here. Will contribute when sancitons lifted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Public record

I'm posting this here because there seems to be some confusion about whether I quit Misplaced Pages on my own. I did not and have no intention of doing so. The ubiquity of Misplaced Pages in the modern Internet makes that pretty much impossible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The text of my last appeal is here on Meta-Wiki.

I got this message from Gorilla Warfare today:

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal, and our decision is to decline your appeal at this time. We are concerned both that you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place, and that as a result of this, you do not offer any indication of how you will conduct yourself differently so as to avoid further conflicts.

In six months, you may re-appeal, but we advise that at that time you explain what how you would behave if unblocked, what you have learned from being blocked, and that you have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months. As we have gone back and forth quite extensively on this appeal with both you and Robert, we will not be considering appeals lodged within the next six months; as such, you may not receive responses to any emails sent to the Arbitration Committee within that time period. Please also note that we will only consider appeals of your account from you; appeals and arguments on your behalf from others will not be considered.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare

And here is my response:

you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place

If this is the problem, the solution is extremely simple: Tell me.

I have to ask at this point: Do you know why I was blocked? Are you not telling me because you don't know?

I was assuming good faith by not mentioning this but is it "SMcCandlish is a special editor and you were blocked as a favor to him"? Is it "Whenever a Misplaced Pages editor is punished for anything, they must act as if they did it even if they did not; they must act as if AE admins never make mistakes"?

have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months

That is what I mean by "zero attempts at block evasion." I have never used sock puppets in my life. I also haven't edited Misplaced Pages while not logged in.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Formal request to ArbCom

I've given this several days of thought. This is not an appeal. It is a request for information so that I can spend my time working the problem.

@Casliber:@DGG:@Doug Weller:@Drmies:@Euryalus:@GorillaWarfare:@Keilana:@Kelapstick:@Kirill Lokshin:@Ks0stm:@Mkdw:@Newyorkbrad:@Opabinia regalis:

I am formally requesting an official statement of the charges. Tell me why I am blocked, plainly and with at least two diffs.

If you think someone already told me, point me to that with a diff and say "This is the official interpretation. We're endorsing it. We want you to work from this." If you change your mind at some point, come and tell me "We've changed our minds."

Last year, Opabinia told me that you guys aren't trying to trick me or screw me over or even talk in code, but I cannot think of even one reason why you'd say that knowing why I was blocked is important and then withhold that information. When someone objects to a problem and to that problem's solution, something else is going on. The solution to "you don't know why you were blocked" is so straightforward. Not telling me seems so strange to me that I think there must be some fact that we're not on the same page on. It makes me feel that you just want to keep me blocked and this is some kind of wild goose chase. I'd love to learn that that's just my imagination. I posted some very reasonable guesses in my appeal. Tell me what I got wrong and if I got anything right. Am I getting closer at least? Which parts of my work do you see as progress? For all I know, I got something right back in my first post to Thryduulf but stopped talking about it because no one acknowledged it.

We're in the unfortunate position of having to deal with alternative facts in world politics. It's within our power to get them out of Misplaced Pages's disciplinary system. Last year they held me down and hammered a metal sign into my head reading "lying, gaslighting piece of absolute filth." I'm not okay with that. I know you don't care for the minutiae but it's messed up that I was even accused of some of this stuff, let alone sanctioned in response.

I'm going to quote you from last year: "We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer." This is why the fact that you did not grant the appeal is not enough for me to tell by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The link in your block log provides you everything you need to know about your current block, whether you agree with it or not. The number of emails ArbCom has since received, at least since I have joined, have been exhaustive. You have continuously tried to re-litigate your case over and over, in multiple venues, to overturn your block. It is a problem outlined in the December 2016 motion and one that continues to persist. You have been made well aware of why you were blocked. It has been explained to you both on and off-wiki. You had an opportunity in November 2016, when the committee unblocked you to make a formal appeal. You filed a 4,000+ word ARCA and were given ample opportunity to make your case. This was immediately following a 2,600+ word ARCA appeal in April 2016 also regarding your block. You clearly disagree with the outcome but it does not entitle you to an endless appeal process.

The Arbitration Committee has made it clear when the next time an appeal will be heard. The fact that you are not getting it, intentionally or otherwise, factors into a part of the decision as a fundamental requirement for any unblock request. It has increasingly damaged your chances for a successful appeal outcome. You are welcome to continue to use your user talk page but continuing to use it to contest the grounds of your block, including requests for information, furthest contest of the appeal decision, or for appeals that fall before the timeline outlined to you, may result in your talk page access privileges being removed. Mkdw 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been explained to you both on and off-wiki. A diff would be helpful.

I am trying very very hard to figure out what action I performed that inspired you guys to make the decisions you did. It would help a lot if you could tell me what I was getting right and what I was getting wrong.

From what you say about relitigation, it sounds like I'm staying blocked because I'm appealing the block. I file appeals on my appeal dates. I don't bug ArbCom about this every day. On the flip side, though, I do get "'are you okay' is gaslighting if you say it" every day and "information from sources becomes lies if you quote it" thrown in my face every day, usually more than once. Is there something other than appealing that would get me unblocked, my name cleared or both, I'd love to hear about it. That's not sarcasm; I'm serious. Right now it's "appeal" or "spend the rest of your life with a sign reading 'gaslighting, lying $@#%' nailed to your head." Is there some third option that I don't know about? Because it sounds like that would be worth exploring.

They say I need to accept why I was blocked, but considering that gaslighting is a crime in some jurisdictions, it's possible I could face civil charges or even a criminal investigation if I did anything that could be interpreted as a confession. To use one of the AE admins' words, my integrity has been impugned to a degree far beyond acceptable.

I've been doing my best to obey the topic ban even though it's humiliating and based on false accusations, including studying AE cases to pick up on things that aren't written down at WP:TBAN. I want to spend the next six months showing ArbCom that unblocking me is the right thing to do. I would like it if you or they gave me the information I need to do that.

This whole mess has left me feeling like a need a lawyer (for our internal laws; this is not a legal threat) or at least a translator. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

link in your block log provides you everything you need to know about your current block

What I am getting out of your post is that ArbCom is wants me to use the post in that link you made to me and that I will not be penalized for disregarding other statements that may have been made to me that contradict or otherwise do not support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New study on evolution of whale size

@Dunkleosteus77: @Extrapolaris: @Fama Clamosa: I was checking Eurekalert and thought these new findings about the evolution of whale size (and the associated Royal Society paper) might do better as part of Misplaced Pages's coverage at Baleen whale. Interested? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems noteworthy enough to get at least a sentence, but make sure you cite the actual paper, not the news site   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I was pinging you to see if you wanted to use this source or study. I'd do it myself but I'm blocked and my next appeal isn't for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You can just write the summary here on the talk page underneath my comment, and if it checks out I'll add it on your behalf. I'd do it but I'm really busy for the next few weeks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's so nice of you, but I think it's probably a better idea for you to either write the text yourself or perhaps post the link to the Eurekalert article on the Baleen whale talk page. I'm pretty sure we're in the clear per WP:PROXYING because I've never worked on Baleen whale before and the spirit of the rule seems to be to prevent sanctioned editors from participating in the parts of Misplaced Pages in which their alleged misconduct took place, but I got blocked for making a post that I was more than pretty sure I was allowed to make. Best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Email

I need to thank you for your message. You made some valuable points, which are much appreciated. I will take note! -Sb2001 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks, and you may be interested in the recent thread on my talk page. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha! It's funny because "ding dong" doesn't always mean bell noises! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Gaslighting" retraction

I've given some thought to the following:

1. You'll likely appeal your ongoing indefinite block at some point.
2. I argued against you being blocked in the first place, even short-term.
3. Your previous appeals were self-torpedoed by (especially, but among other things) repeatedly seeking "justice" or "exoneration" from my characterization of some of your posts as gaslighting, and insistence on it seems to have possibly even had something to do with the block itself.

Thus, I unreservedly retract the "gaslighting" characterization. While I've explained repeatedly that I meant it in the current vernacular and loose sense, I can see in retrospect that some might only choose to interpret it in its original mid-century sense, with a more serious connotation. Thus, I apologize for any offense or distress caused by the use of the term, and hope that your presumably forthcoming appeal will avoid discussion of this, or any other dwelling on details of old threads about the Topic Area Which Shall Not Be Named. I think you're aware by now that unless your next appeal focuses entirely and solely on your moving forward productively in a completely different direction that the result will be the same, and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen – even the admins and arbs who imposed, extended, and upheld the blocks. In particular, I think your participation at the WP:NPOVN noticeboard was great work, as was a lot of your content editing outside the couple of topics that led you into heated dispute and sanctions. Good luck, and maybe we'll see you again soon. If not, sincere best wishes in whatever your off-site endeavors may be (or both, rather; it's not exactly an either/or).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)