User talk:Czoal

Hello

You've had an account for 15 days and you've made 58 edits. Please don't get into an argument without really good cause with an editor who's been here for over 10 years and has over 170 thousand edits. Believe me, I know the ropes, and I know what I'm doing. Thanks. BMK (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If you've been editing over 10 years, then you should know that an article refimprove template belongs at the top of an article, not in the references section. According to the history of the Sutro Baths article, that template was properly placed at the top of the article in March 2014. In March 2015, you inexplicably relocated it to the references section. As I explained in my most recent edit summary, MOS:LAYOUT says that article maintenance templates should be placed at the start of the article. I see that you've been blocked from editing mutliple times for edit warring, so I wouldn't want to see it happen again to you over a standard procedural issue like this. Please do not use my talk page to discuss this matter further; use the article's talk page instead. Czoal (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Result of the RfC regarding the proper location of the Refimprove template. Czoal (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And BMK really needs to drop this "I've been here longer and have tenure, so my opinion means more" act, per WP:VESTED (and WP:JERK for that matter). I've been here a decade too, but you don't see my waving that in people's faces as if it magically invalidates their ability to read policies/guidelines and apply common sense. What actually often happens is people got used to and remember the "good ol' days" of their preferred way that something worked around here, in 2008 or whatever, and act as if it still applies when consensus has in fact long since moved past their preferred way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You

Your first two edits to Wikipedia on September 11 carried these edit summaries:

• ‎"rewording, chrono order and subsections for censuses,"
• "Notable facts: add source/expand info/correct wikilink for Progressive. Remove trivial/unsourced tv show info/no known connection. Remove Cleveland Mag info/can re-add if sources added and years included."

Clearly, you are not a new user. What was your previous user account name? Is it banned or blocked at this time? BMK (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are? Although it is none of your damn business, I have never had an account before and I can probably count on two hands the number of edits I made as an IP editor over the past decade or so. And with those few edits, I was never sanctioned for anything. But, again, it's none of your business. It's very rich that a guy who was proven to be illicitly editing under mutliple accounts[1] and has history of blocks[2] would come on someone's account accuse to them of improper conduct. If you beleve I've done something wrong, then gather your evidence and report it to the proper people in charge. But do not ever come on my page to make unfounded accusations merely because your feelings have been hurt over a simple edit with which you disagree. I'll tell you this for the last time: stay off my talk page. Czoal (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And see WP:CLEANSTART. As a matter of policy, it's perfectly legitimate for users to return with new accounts, anyway, so the aptly-monickered Beyond My Ken had no basis to bring such and accusatory demand in the first place. If there's actual evidence that Czoal is evading a ban/block, there are processes for dealing with that; but absent any such evidence, we assume good faith.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit, SMcCandlish. Let the user declare for themselves that they're a WP:CLEANSTART account, don't presume it with no evidence whatsoever, especially since the editor says, explicitly, "I have never had an account before", which means that if evidence is found to connect them to another previous account, that can be used for a sockpuppetry investigation. BMK (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I'm not sure what part of "I have never had an account before and I can probably count on two hands the number of edits I made as an IP editor over the past decade or so. And with those few edits, I was never sanctioned for anything" you do not understand. I've been following Wikipedia for a long time, and reading and understanding guidelines and policies isn't rocket science. And SMcCandlish did not say that I had a cleanstart (which I never even heard of before now); it appears that he was simply making that point that if I had done that, it would be legitimate. In any case, you cannot go around accusing people of being a sockpuppet, or other wrong-doing, with no evidence! If you have evidence that I've done something wrong, then I'm sure there's a place where you can properly report that. So stop attacking me just because you are unhappy about the Refimprove template issue. And I've already asked you twice to stay off my talk page. Czoal (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Dear Czoal,

concerning your question in the helpdesk with concerns about end date of congressional terms [3]. Please stop all editing concerning this topic until the issue has been resolved. I have started a central discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#US Congressional term end dates. Please post your arguments there so people can discuss them. Please do not edit (concerning this topic) until this has been resolved. Any editing can cause edit wars on a dozen articles. A situation noone wants.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never made an edit in any articles regarding this topic, nor do I plan to. I simply raised a concern on the Help Desk since it affects a huge number of articles. Czoal (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw the bit about not changing "March 4" to "March 3" or vice-versa but my eyes must've glazed over and I missed the bit about not making changes to anything related. Thanks for pointing it out and I'm sorry if I came across as a bull in a china shop. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my closure

I'd like to point you to WP:NACD where it says "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." You opined in that discussion and thus are not supposed to re-open it. I did not opine there, so I can close it. I suggest you re-instate my closure. If you disagree with my closure, take it to WP:AN and request a review. I did indeed participate in previous discussions, and I think it is beneficial to all (especially new editors) to show the outcome of previous discussions and what current consensus is. If you want to question/re-evaluate the current consensus you need to propose changes to the existing consensus, and take it as a basis for a new debate. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that only applies if it was properly closed, which of course it was not. Not even close. First, you are an editor that has a clear, active history in this debate, which has been going on for many years, and you are clearly a strong proponent on one side of the issue. Second, one cannot close an RfC that has been opened for just one day! So, no, you most certainly cannot close it. And if you cannot close it, then anyone can reopen it. If you want to participate in the RfC, go ahead. But you cannot close it. I suggest you read WP:RFC for the proper procedures. Czoal (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On further review, you cited a completely inapplicable guideline. WP:NACD is a provision within the guidelines about the deletion process involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media. It has nothing to do with closing an RfC or similar discussions. So your quote above about not reopening a closure is about deletions. Nice try, though. Czoal (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quote about another RfC from someone who has been editing since 2005 and happens to be a highly respected administrator: "It would be best if the consensus established by this RfC were clear and solid, if possible. Anyone who might be interested should have a chance to comment and express any relevant views. There is no deadline here. The standard RfC duration is 30 days, and I would suggest letting this run for at least 2 weeks. Thus editors who may have been on vacation, edit only on particular days of the week, or just don't log in every day, have a chance to see and comment." The Rfc he was talking about had been open for several days and was a complete blowout at that point; about 15 strong proponents on one side of the issue and 2 on the other. Czoal (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Let's see then how it goes. Kraxler (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone at all can object to non-admin closures, and in fact about the only time they're objected to is by someone involved in the discussion. It's more common to have the closure reviewed, but it's also standard operating procedure to just revert a NAC when the closer is obviously engaging in a supervote, as appears to be the case here. A closer who has previously been deeply involved in the issue is not a neutral party just because they sit out the RfC and then pop in at the end to close it the way they would have !voted. That's just a form of WP:GAMING, or looks like it if it wasn't intentional. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself after reviewing a discussion "do I care enough that I would have !voted in this?" If the answer is "no", then proceed. If they answer is "yes" and you're closing it against how you would have !voted, proceed (or !vote yourself, and walk away). If "yes" and you'd close it the way you'd like to see it end, instead !vote yourself, and walk away. I also walk away if the decision is not very clear-cut and my close would not maintain the current status quo, since that would be likely to generate a challenge of the closure; better to let an admin do it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well stated, SMcCandlish. Thank you. Czoal (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RE User:SMcCandlish - The issue started at the Help desk, so I thought someone needed help, especially after seeing that the asker was a new account. Then somebody opened an RfC without the proper format being observed. I closed both threads, linking to previous discussions, so that the help seeker could get a clearer picture of what was going on. I expected afterwards a new discussion to be opened in a proper venue, to discuss a specific point, as required by WP:RfC. I wanted to be helpful. But apparently this new account was not interested in help. Now I know. So, let's discuss, by all means, anything, anywhere, with or without a purpose. There are many time-sinks here, we'll survive another one. Kraxler (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler, you really need to get over this; the RfC is long underway, at the appropriate venue, and you are the only one complaining about it. More importantly, you completely disregarded SMcCandlish's very valid points. All you're doing is attempting to rationalize your highly inappropriate actions. And for the record, the "help seeker" at the help desk was not a new account; he's been editing for six years. The RfC was very appropriate since the editor was not asking about any particular article, but rather about a piece of content in a large group of articles. Therefore, a WikiProject talk page was an excellent choice of venue. And you really should stop saying that certain processes are "required" when they clearly are not. WP:RFC says "it always helps" to first discuss a matter on the related talk page. It does not, in any way, say it's required. More to the point, the "related" talk page is the WikiProject page that was chosen since the issue involved numerous articles. In any case, this is all just a red herring. And if you feel this matter a time-sink, no one if forcing you to participate. Czoal (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not trying to get involved in the dispute, just offering an (admittedly unsolicited) third opinion on why an RfC close like that might not go over well, and an opinion that the reversion of that sort of close isn't out-of-band. It doesn't require some accusation of bad faith or anything, to revert an NAC, just a disagreement that it was a proper close in one or more respects. I wouldn't take it too personally (nor does it need to be made personal by the other side. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you.

Naraht (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! (Insert happy emoji face here.) I'm glad you found what you were looking for. Czoal (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

AP

Hi Czoal, I appreciate you taking the time to watchlist American Pharoah and help out. But don't remove the updates; some are dated, but we remove them later. I have done this one other articles that are updated in live time. Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIARY, we do not update encylopedia articles "in live time". And we do not add content with the intent of removing it later. There are also other problems with the content, which warrant its removal. Anyway, there's a thread on the article's talk page. Please discuss it there. Thanks. Czoal (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, for someone who has allegedly only been here for a month and a half, you sure think you have quite the grip of policy. I am going to suggest you reread WP:CLEANSTART because if that's what you are trying to do, you aren't making a lot of friends here so far. Remember: " a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may be identified and seen as trying to evade scrutiny." Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just what I expected. A personal attack and baseless allegation from a guy whose feelings got hurt because the ridiculous content he added to an article got rejected. Instead of spouting whiny excuses and ignoring policy, accept the fact that you are simply wrong sometimes. Now go fuck yourself you arrogant son of a bitch away. Do not return to this page again. Czoal (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, we all know that, despite your claims to the contrary above to Beyond My Ken (BMK), you are not a WP:Newbie. And the only WP:Personal attack I see in this section is yours against Montanabw, who is female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of illicity editng to "evade scrutiny" is an attack, moron. In any case, I don't recall this incident involving you, but it is commendable of you to stand up for your girlfriend.[4]. Now take your whining interference elsewhere and do not return to this page. Czoal (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, whether the suggestion that you are a returning editor is an attack or not, and whether it is false or true, phrases such as "Now go fuck yourself you arrogant son of a bitch" and "moron" are at the least violations of WP:CIVIL and arguably personal attacks themselves. Please cease such behavior, and the combative attitude that it emphasizes. You can reject the allegation that you are a returning user if you so choose, without making such attacks. Note that user talk pages are public, and uninvolved editors will often respond to comments on such pages. particularly comments that seem to be attacks, nor is this in any way improper. DES ^(talk) 06:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, I have no problem with someone coming to my talk page initially, but if I they are rude or make baseless allegations, I have every right to ask them not to post on here again. And AN/I notices do not get posted on article talk pages, so please address that issue with those editors. I apologize for the FU SOB comment to the one editor; it was unnecessary. But the moron comment was fine. Czoal (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you may request someone not to edit your user talk page, but that can and should be done politely, and is usually not needed. I have engaged in some fairly bitter disputes over the years here (in one of which I was compared to a concentration camp guard) and have not found the need to make such a request, as best as i can recall. "Moron" is not acceptable, although on its own it does not rise to the level of a blockable attack, in my view. I have mentioned the issue of posting the ANI link in the ANI thread itself. Such links are unusual, but by no means unheard of. DES ^(talk) 07:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

DES, you seem like a good guy but I honestly don't give a damn how you handle people being rude to you. If you want to be polite to someone who treats you like shit, be my guest. But don't lecture or expect others to do the same. This isn't nursery school. If someone compared me to a concentration camp guard, I would definitely tell them to go fuck themself. And no admin in his right mind would do anything about it. In fact, they would probably tell the editor to go fuck themself, too. Czoal (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Czoal. 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 Wikipedia 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)