Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, it appears livelikemusic and Cebr1979 have made up after your responses to them. I am not an admin so I don't think I can 'close' the discussion. Badanagram (attempt) 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you feel that the discussion needs a "close", then feel free to add the template (I am not aware of any policy against non-admin closure assuming it's clear-cut). Personally I would rather have it archive naturally unless it is a contentious issue, there seems to be little harm in leaving it open for further opinion, so to speak. I find it unnecessary to add {{resolved}} to every thread. —Dark16:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'm confused by the message you left on my talk page and at ANI... Why was socking brought up? I only have one account.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is a precautionary warning. You are continuing your assumptions of bad faith and it is extremely disappointing. —Dark22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. It just seemed like you were onto something there and it I really want to stress that I only have one account. Anywho, it looks like the conversation is closed so I thank you for your time.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While I don't see any problem in removing templates from the above talk page per se, you did remove some written material as well (in the section started by LM2000, below the first and only template). --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Dark. I think you tried to support, but the ":" you entered means it won't show up in the total. Thanks for participating. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
No I was awaiting the answer given in question 8. Unfortunately I didn't think the answer was up to par. —Dark20:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Once again, assumptions are being made again against me. Is there any way you could make this just stop? I haven't been on Wikipedia is days, and I'm still being accused of things and meaning things that I'm not. livelikemusicmy talk page!16:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Potential violation again [2], assuming and stating things that I never have stated, and talking about users themselves and not their edits. Not trying to stir up trouble, just feel like potential biting may be going on, and that a potential interaction ban may need to take place at this point to see how that works out. I'm just over feeling like I'm doing all wrong; I feel like while I could be overreacting in this situation, that's why I'm coming to you, hoping for potential guidance (and support) in this, as we're bound to run into the same circles of editing, due to the interest of soap operas, but I've made my attempts to steer-clear from any potential incivility, however, I don't feel the same is being returned. livelikemusicmy talk page!00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, just don't interact with him and don't follow his edits etc. The link you provided does seem to be an improvement from past behaviour. If you strongly disagree with one of his edits, feel free to express what's wrong on the talk page, but in general if you don't feel strongly about it, ignoring him is probably a good idea. I don't see a need for a formal interaction ban. —Dark01:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
But that's the thing; a lot of the pages they do edit on are pages I also edit on, since they're soap-related. And I'm afraid to express or approach something with said-user, for fear of past situations happening, because it was an ugly situation that I don't feel like repeating. And I don't like feeling that way. livelikemusicmy talk page!01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
@DarkFalls: Once again, being accused of Wikihounding and down below, tattle-taling. simply by following pages on my Watchlist. Will you now allow for an interaction ban, or something? Please? It is getting out of hand at this point! All I am doing is following the formats of {{Infobox soap character}}, and I'm accusing of reverting their edits and Wikihounding them. It's making me want to quit Wikipedia because of how much I am hated by this one person. Another person does the same of me, and they receive nothing like the messages I am receiving. At this point, it's feeling constantly abusive, and I am over it. It is not fair in the slightest, I have been keeping my distance. The mere fact I have pages on my Watchlist makes me a Wikihounder now? That is pure accusation, and I'm over feeling bullied by said-user. livelikemusicmy talk page!17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's always bullying when it's someone else, isn't it? You were told to stop following my edits and, if you really felt strongly, then to take it to the talk page. You ignored both and continued on with your usual ways of just reverting. That's not an accusation, livelikemusic, that's a fact! You were told to stop something and you didn't. That's all I'm going to say. I won't be returning to this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I NEVER FOLLOWED YOUR EDITS! The pages were on my Watchlist, and I linked to the infobox as reasons for my changes, as I've edited on those pages prior, following other disruptive edits from other users! And you're Wikihounding me by following me to this conversation TWICE. I'm fucking done trying to just go about my business, when I'm being accused by another user of shit I am not doing. It's unfair and unjust, and pure bullying. livelikemusicmy talk page!17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I went to your contributions to see if you had responded to my suggestion about Amber Moore's infobox and saw this. You can talk to me about anything! In fact, that would be preferred (and I've told you that before)! It's the reverts with no explanations that are upsetting because then I'm confused and don't know why you reverted my edits. Even when I ask you about something (as I recently did on your talk page about Paige Larson), you just delete my question without answering creating more confusion! When I inquired about the soap opera infobox template you quoted, you ignored that too (I had to find out from someone else today). With you, Livelikemusic, it's always revert and ignore. Revert and ignore. Then, I find these tattle-tale posts saying you're scared of me but, I've tried having discussions with you (dating back to our very first encounter) and get ignored. Then, my edits get reverted again. When you do finally respond to me, I get these "policies" quoted and when I ask about them, you go back to ignoring! You do know more about editing than me, yes, but would it kill you to explain a revert or answer a question once in awhile? Confusion leads to frustration and frustration leads to anger. Arre 9 reverted something today and showed me where it said he was right and I dropped it and corrected my edit immediately. We never fought. It was completely civil the whole time.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Feeling Wikihounded, and I definitely feel like this time it IS intentional. I opened up a discussion here, and said-user never posted there until today after I made a final request of action, and I changed this page to this to represent what was discussed, and I'm being accused, once again, of undoing their edits. Their edit violates the manual of style, which was pointed out in the discussion on the infobox template. Editor from looking at the talk page history, has never edited at said-talk page, and now all of a sudden, things are changed on two pages that they just happened to make, and I'm accused of reverting their edit? I'm accused of following their edits, yet the Kelly Andrews page is simply on my WATCHLIST. Since when is using the "Watchlist" an act of following their posts? Something I've pointed out before and has been ignored and deflected. I'm tired of these accusations, and feeling like whenever I attempt to follow guidelines and policies I'm constantly told no, and get an attitude thrown at me. Surely a block or some kind of ban can be put into place officially. I never made a post directed at the user, yet the user continues to directly interact towards me. Stating: "Not start a conversation without me somewhere else" makes it sound like I have to involve him/her and him/her only; I started the discussion at the infobox page to create some kind of site-wide consensus, which is what Wikipedia runs on, no? And shows that MY edits are being watched and followed by this editor. Please, I'm begging you, this is getting out of hand. I've kept my sincerest distant from this user, and yet, I'm still getting a major uncivil vibe and attacks from said-user. I never intentionally set out to revert "their" edit, I simply was following the MOS of Wikipedia, not even looking nor caring who made said-edit. livelikemusicmy talk page!23:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please. I haven't done anything in weeks but, I'm wikihounding you? You haven't followed what you were told to do and simply bided your time. Your own post asked if it had been decided upon or closed and yet, you acted as though it was decided upon and closed before getting an answer (an answer, I might add, you still haven't gotten). You never mentioned the Summer Newman page being on your watchlist yet, know of my edit to that page? You've even directed others to go look at it. But... Who is following the other's edit history???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"not even looking nor caring who made said-edit"
Lol. But you've had a conversation going about THAT very edit for weeks now??? I'm not returning to this conversation. It's too laughable.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
@DarkFalls: Are you going to do anything, because now any edit I make is automatically reverting for going after "their" edit, which is ludicrous and once again, accusation, and I'm being attacked left and right at any page I edit at by this user. It's seriously making me consider leaving Wikipedia, which is the definition of Wikihounding when another editor makes another feel as if they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia anymore. I'm making edits that follow template guidelines and Wikipedia rules, and I'm being reverting for not "discussing" those changes? Do I have to open a fucking talk page every single time? That's ridiculous. If you don't feel you should do anything, as an Administrator, I'll go to another one who will take action, because now it's fucking harassment. Look at Kristen Blake, Ashley Abbott and now The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. No matter what I edit, it is REVERTED. How is THAT allowed? They're baiting me and it is unfair, and they continually talk towards ME when I do not talk towards them. Their edit on the request move is completely uncalled for, and is a personal attack talking about a discussion from two years prior, where a consensus was not reached. I merely was opening a discussion for a potential move, and even then I'm attacked? What am I doing wrong now? I feel like any edit I make is just going to be reverted, for the sake of "That's your only option" to discuss anything on a talk page, which sounds to me like any of my edits are simply being followed. livelikemusicmy talk page!16:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
You revert my edits which is something you have been told not to do anymore. Then, I remind you. Look at all those pages and see who reverted first. It's always you. "Do I have to open a fucking talk page every single time?" Well, first of all, you've never done it regarding one of my edits. Not even once. And it is something you were told to do.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I've been quite busy the past couple of days. I will take a look at recent events but from a cursory glance, it does appear that an interaction ban or indeed a topic ban will become necessary. —Dark14:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You userfied this without the attribution history. This is not permitted - I have therefore deleted the content. You are of course welcome to restore it properly by moving the history into your user area. Thanks. SpartazHumbug!16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
FYI: This edit of yours appears to have been deleted along with some other extraneous chars. [3] Line 988 or so. I notice that one of DMacks's edits was also fragmented which I am looking into. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
No closure was ever given to the iban proposal between myself and @Livelikemusic:. There was never any closure (as mentioned on that very thread: it's actually the last comment there). We would have had to have been each notified of the iban, and we never have been. As mentioned by a site admin (Dianna), an iban would also need to be publicly logged at the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions page, and none has been.
I will point out, though, that if there was an iban currently between us (which there isn't but, if there was) the first violation would have been right here when Livelikemusic edited one of my edits just minutes after I made it.
After that, I informed him that there was no iban (for the reasons I have already noted) and, the next morning, Livelikemusic reverted one of my edits: you can see that one here.
As I said in the original conversation, I do support an iban between us but, as I also said, all our Ts need to be crossed and Is dotted because I'm not going to be fooling around with it. I wasn't surprised when the first comment I saw about it was, "Only thing I have concern about is the "undoing", but I guess it's something to tread lightly with caution." I won't accept him "treading lightly with caution" around reverting my edits. He either can't do them or any iban that may be put into effect in the future would be a wasted effort. I mean, reverts are exactly how this starts every single time.
If @Diannaa: (the admin who brought up the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions page in this conversation) is willing to take the matter on, I would even be willing to agree to an iban right here, right now (after we cross our Ts and dot our Is to be sure we're all 100% on the same page) without involving the ANI board at all (if that's possible, I don't know - maybe they have to be involved). At this point, I just feel like, if this is going to work, we need an admin who can start fresh.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
IBANs are not implemented by a single administrator, but are a community-placed sanction. Since the IBAN was never formally closed as enacted before the thread was archived, it is not in force. Since there's been two requests for an IBAN and neither was enacted, it looks to me like there is no consensus for an IBAN at this time. First request for IBAN (July 2014); second request for IBAN (August 2014). -- Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
The lack of community input into this issue is aggravating. There appears to be a solid consensus on this issue that an IBAN is necessary, but apparently people are too indifferent to do anything about it. As such, I do not agree that consensus has not emerged but then again my hands are tied. Obviously I, having proposed the original sanctions, cannot close the discussion as that would be a conflict of interest. —Dark11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes people undertake an informal voluntary interaction ban. There would be no official logging of the ban and no sanctions for violations. The two users would just be on their honor to uphold the ban as best they could by trying not to annoy the other user or interfere with their work. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
People need to commit to changing their behaviour, else the problem will continue indefinitely. Change is hard, but not impossible -- Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Possibly. If you feel that you can resolve this without an interaction ban, please feel free to try. All my attempts at doing so have failed. —Dark15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The dates that the two of you e-mail each other always seem to coincide with the dates of Livelikemusic having something to say about me. No accusation, just noting a friendly coincidence. I've noticed the same coincidence with Arre9 and Livelikemusic.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am curious why you felt this comment should be made, especially given your past interactions with Livelikemusic. Stop actively trying to bait others. Thanks. —Dark23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am curious what you are curious about??? I specifically said the dates are what made me notice. As for your accusation of me "baiting," that was never my intention. As I said, I was simply noting a "coincidence." A "friendly coincidence." A "coincidence" that I noticed because of my interactions with Livelikemusic... and your favouritism of him. No need for alarm. Just a "coincidence." A "coincidence" that may or may not happen again.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
"and your favouritism of him". How ironic of you to put forth a suggestion of impropriety on my part. It is very clear that everything I have said prior to this point has gone straight over your head, especially since you have continued to put forth bad faith accusations. Trying to reason with the unreasonable is a complete waste of my time and resources. I can only hope you will change your attitude before it is too late. —Dark08:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
