User talk:The Rambling Man: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→The crux: Aha |
enough |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ambox|type=style|issue=This editor has been blocked for a month for his bad behaviour, yet nothing quite trumped being called a prick and being told "fuck you". Oh, and a "Holocaust denier" and an "anti-Semite". Well done Arbcom and their enablers.}} |
|||
{{ambox|type=style|issue=This talk page now gets more hits than most DYKs!}} |
|||
== [[WP:ANI]] == |
|||
A courtesy FYI, that I mentioned your name in a thread about the banned user Soft Skin. Just wondering where someone labeled you a Holocaust Denier (which I very much doubt you would be.) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:<small> lol I just bet TRM loves waking up to big new {{yellow|yellow}} messages entitled '''WP:ANI''' :D ;) — [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>''''' Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 15:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Yellow? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I answered your question at ANI Bugs. In short, ridiculously over-reacting editor upset at wikipedia's quality standards applying to all content (regardless of subject) takes absurd position. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 15:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::... and grossly and ignorantly insults two of Wikipedia's longest term editors by claiming their motives are akin to "Holocaust denial"... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 15:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've seen it now. And it IS grossly insulting. You have often opposed a main-page posting, not on merit of the subject, but on quality of the article, and that's totally appropriate. Anyone familiar with your work at ITN and the like should be well aware of that. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well quite, but frankly some opinions are so ridiculous they really do not merit a response. This was clearly in the obviously ridiculous and worth no time or attention area. Anyone who *genuinely* thinks that way should just not be engaged with. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Personal attack == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMain_Page%2FErrors&type=revision&diff=768640510&oldid=768639976 From an esteemed admin]. The same admin, I believe, who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&diff=next&oldid=762788101 called me a prick]? WOW!! All admins are equal, some are more equal than others. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 23:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm on it. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't stress it. Some admins can do whatever they like, some can't. Floq is in the former category, I was in the latter. It's not a big issue. I'm getting used to the one-rule/one-rule thing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 23:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, they can't. We all must adhere to the same rules we enforce. I've left the user a warning about [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well it's a repeat offence and nothing is done about it realistically. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 12:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, if it repeats, let me know. Otherwise, feel free to submit an ANI report for other admins to comment on. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks for the advice but it'll have no impact at all, particularly in this case. The "admins" will simply divert any case onto my former cases, and will probably be heralded for their saintliness. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}You say "admins"—are you not an admin, too? That's a rather cynical view. I would hope any case is considered according to its merits (on the strength of its evidence). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Nope, you missed all the drama. I'm a ''former admin'' who never called another editor or admin a prick and never told another editor or admin to fuck off. The view is absolutely 100% bang on the money. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I missed a lot—I stand corrected. Well, ''I'', at least, try to approach any case according to its merits (on the strength of its evidence). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yep. It's ironic that editors are blocked without hesitation for telling someone to fuck off, yet admins are barely touched, even after the "prick" incident. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you're referring to MarnetteD, I was actually [[ User_talk:MarnetteD#For_the_record|in favour]] of an unblock there, and felt a warning was in order there, too. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[2017 Pakistan Super League Final]] == |
|||
Hi, do you think this could make potential nominee for ITN? Pakistan Super League is not as big as [[Indian Premier League]] which appeared on in [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2015#.5BPosted.5D_2015_Indian_Premier_League|2015 in the ITN]] but this one surely notable enough and recieved enormous press coverage from every part of the world throughout the tournament. Comments please. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it's a long shot. The first problem is the proponderence of non-cricket afficianados there, many of the regulars couldn't tell their "carry the bat" from their "stumped off a wide". Secondly, as you note, we have the IPL posted, and we pretty much automatically post the World Cup, so there'll be people saying "only 13 teams play this worldwide so it's only marginally more significant than American Football", for instance. If the article was dazzling, I'd be almost certain to support having said all that. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== March 2017 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision and for violating a prohibition applying to you as detailed in the response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=768801135#The_Rambling_Man this enforcement request], you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 month'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Sandstein|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
|||
:Thanks Sandstein, you clearly didn't have any agenda at all to make such a knee-jerk reaction without any commentary at all from anyone whatsoever. You're obviously the best man for the job. I'll carry on fixing up the garbage you people accept as encyclopedic, and I'll accept the fact that admins who call me a prick or tell me to fuck off go entirely un-sanctioned. Thanks again. Cheers Wikipedia and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::According to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited]], "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 22:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::How about considering only protecting it for a week while he takes the time to calm down? This way, at least, he'll be able to follow the appeal process in a week. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I think this block was a bit heavy-handed and protecting this talk page so RM can't respond is overkill. The only thing it may accomplish is to drive away a valuable editor. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Protecting so only admins can edit it? No, no. If [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] wanted to revoke TRM's talkpage access, then that's what he should have done. I've undone the protection of this page. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 23:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
::Thanks Bish, much appreciated! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Response=== |
|||
I think the block was over the top. I think the talkpage protection was '''way''' over the top. I think some of the evidence was ropey and out of context at best, downright irrelevant at worst. The discussion at AN is evidence that several members of the community agree with that. The block should be re-assessed in that light. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]. I'm not too worried about being immediately unblocked, it appears that this unfortunate event has cast something of a shadow of Sandstein's behaviour as an admin, along with those who enabled me to be told to "fuck off" and be called a "prick". But I am slightly perplexed that Sandstein could have taken the time to read each and every comment produced in {{U|The ed17}}'s illustrious report, within the context of each of the discussions and to understand the background to each and every one of them. I'm also perplexed by this continual cry of "insult" or "belittling" when an admin is simply free to tell me to "fuck off" and call me a "prick", or other editors are allowed, nay enabled, to call me a Holocaust denier (don't worry TRM, it's so ridiculous we can just ignore it! etc etc). The block is punitive, not in keeping with the escalation suggested by Arbcom in the first place (remember, the first block, by departed {{U|Mike V}} was actually ''incorrect'' in every way, including his accusations of me being a liar), so in essence and in totality, this is a first-time offence, and taking time to go over these diffs (if the blocking admin had done so) would have revealed a richer picture. Now I don't want, and never did want, Floq to be sanctioned, admonished or whatever for telling me to fuck off or calling me a prick, but I did expect a more level playing field. Sandstein has clearly decided against that and is applying his letter of his interpretation of the law. That I wasn't even given a chance myself to respond to The ed17's initial report it somewhat staggering, but to then bring action against the admin who kindly allowed me to use my talk page again (after Sandstein had, once again, used one rule for his fellow admin, and another for me) is shocking. By responding here in this manner, I'm agreeing to abide by the bureaucracy that exists in these circumstances, but I 100% guarantee that we will, once again, see the hawks spiralling overhead, most of whom I've had precisely zero interaction with since the Arbcom case. The lynching will re-commence, but that's what Sandstein and Arbcom demands. I don't look forward to it, all I've been doing for the last few months is trying to preserve the integrity of the main page, and that's left me being called an anti-Semite and a prick. Thanks. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
:Thanks {{U|Coffee}} for copying that over. I suspect we've just signed Wikipedia up for yet another few megabytes of vitriol, he-said-she-said, all editors are equal, some are more equal than others, "oh, that? misclick m'lud", etc etc. But at least it'll be on record. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Coffee}} hate to be a bind, but I'm going to spend all my valuable time this evening and tomorrow analysing the links that resulted in Sandstein's 40-minute decision making to block me for a month. He's clearly going have done all this background checking, but I guess I need to lay it on the line for some people. If you'd be so kind, would you mind copying over the analyses as they appear. No rush, of course, these things will go on forever, particularly while Sandstein and the circling hawks dig ever deeper to get be banned, so whenever's convenient for you. Thanks for your help. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::No issue at all, just ping me when you need it done. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I came here due to an active unblock request that could not be acted on at this time because it has been copied over to [[WP:AE]] and discussion is ongoing over there. There is no point in having other admins non-review the same request over and over again. I had made certain to note in both my comment and in the edit summary that "declining" this request was merely procedural. If that's not to your liking, there are other ways to turn it inactive while it does not need to be (and ''cannot'' be) reviewed here. Maybe you prefer what I did now. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Whatever, I was told I personally needed to start a request. The message needs to be straightened out. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::What prompted the "Holocaust denier" comment? [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 00:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Read Quattro's first para below. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 07:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Work== |
|||
===5 March=== |
|||
*{{U|Howcheng}}, [[Casimir Pulaski Day]] is still looking way too under-referenced for the main page, suggest it's pulled. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Fuebaey}} the Edi Fitzroy bio is ok, but the discog needs proper referencing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|The ed17}}, [[David Rubinger]] is better, but the reference dates need to be made consistent. Once that's done, feel free to strike my oppose. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Floquenbeam}} I wasn't that bothered by the prick or the fuck off comment. I am bothered that it's the sort of thing I put up with for nearly a decade and held no weight with the Arbcom eagles, but that's another matter. Glad you had a good night out after the event anyway. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===6 March=== |
|||
*Any objections to putting ''[[MS Herald of Free Enterprise]]'' on the main page for today once all the unsourced and {{tlx|fact}} tags are resolved? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, it was all over the radio today as well, I remember it well. Looks in reasonable condition right now, a couple of unsourced paras. Access dates could use coherent formatting, and of course the hyphens should be replaced with dashes in pages ranges etc, but I guess no-one will care about that for the forseeable future! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===7 March=== |
|||
*{{U|Howcheng}}, it's worth expanding the "USA for Africa" acronym because it's misleading to think it means "United States of America". It also links to the same article as We Are the World so I'm convinced the link is really needed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{U|Howcheng}}, you seem to have overlooked this. It's important we don't mislead the readers..... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*::Caught this one this morning. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}}, prep 3, Graham-White's name is spelt incorrectly. It should also be "the British..." to avoid false titles, and for clarity "his biplane" should be added after "landed" because othewise the fact he landed an '''aeroplane''' on a street could be easily missed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Done. Maybe we should redirect [[WP:ERRORS]] to your talkpage for a month... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I could create [[WP:ERRORS2]] (didn't somebody redirect [[WP:ANI2]] to Drmies' talk at one point?) but I suspect the hard-of-humour will complain. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Although I was out today so didn't respond, feel free to ping me if you notice problems with promoted hooks. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yeah, will do {{U|Cwmhiraeth}}, although I suspect it won't be long before this avenue of quality of control is silenced permanently. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Ritchie333}} a favour, prep 3, "The Light that Failed", the article contains multiple instances of un-italicised book titles, could you remedy that if you have time? Thanks. The reference also says "four versions", not "at least four versions", so if we believe the Rudyard Kipling Society to be RS, we should tweak the hook for accuracy. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Done (I think) [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cheers dude. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}}, "over 200 years later" pedant call, even the article correctly says "more than 200 years". The "over 200 years" is from the plaque and is used correctly. And while it's a photo, you've got to seriously question whether "torontoplaques.com" is a [[WP:RS]]. Where's the evidence for that? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} article has " N-oxalyl-diaminopropionic acid", hook has "N-oxalyldiaminopropionic acid" yet both redirect to "Oxalyldiaminopropionic acid". At the very least I would use the same nomenclature for the acid in the hook and in the article. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Gerda Arendt}} "harmonies including chromaticism and enharmonic. [6]" get rid of that space before the ref! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: Done, thank you. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} why is it "of the Supreme Court of Arizona" when the article infobox and our own article on the subject is "Arizona Supreme Court"? I see no logic in deliberately redirecting it. Split the refs per 30em and fix the dashes too if you can while you're there! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} "that the Cão de Gado Transmontano is a giant livestock guardian dog defending flocks from the Iberian wolf?" not sure about the tense here, would suggest "defending" is replaced with "which is used to defend". And maybe even clarify it's sheep, but that's not essential. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}}, " on Peanut Island, Florida was " comma needed after Florida, and that's such a rare and unusual sounding location, there's no real reason not to link it. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} " Sir Winston Churchill's proposal" no need for the honorific, which in any case looks awkward juxtaposed against the linked name. Once again, the article could use its refs being split per 30em and dashes being fixed if you have the chance. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} " contains a total of 45 race tracks and 32 ship models?" in almost every case known to humanity, "a total of" is just fluff and adds nothing. That applies here... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I stop editing for the evening at about 21.00 and by the time I saw these points, the prep set had already moved to the queue. I will take action on the points that relate to the articles, however. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::With regard to dashes, perhaps you could show me how you would change "(April 21, 1866 – March 24, 1947)", if this is the kind of dash you are referring to? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::That dash usage is just fine. It's when you see spaced hyphens, e.g. in the refs of [[Operation Jupiter (Norway)|Operation Jupiter]], multiple examples of page ranges such as " pp. 74-75" which should be " pp. 74–75". The unnecessary honorific is still in the blurb, that should go to ERRORS. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{U|Cwmhiraeth}} that's particularly the case as he wasn't Sir Winston Churchill at the time of Operation Jupiter, so it makes no sense. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, I will deal with those. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There's also the "defending" grammar fail in the dog hook. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{U|Stephen}} sorry to be a royal pain, there are a couple of other issues in that set, see above (dog grammar, deliberate redirect, fluff). Thanks to you and {{U|Cwmhiraeth}} for your help. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Got them all I think. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Super thanks. Couple in the following section that are up on the main page right now.... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===8 March=== |
|||
*{{U|Gerda Arendt}}, in [[Erna Ellmenreich]] you could add [[:Category:People from Merano]]. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: done, thank you, - although she seems to have been born there, no more, - sources are few, any help welcome. I plan to fill the red link for the opera today. [[Kurt Moll]] died, his article was in terrible shape, is a bit more solid after I added composers and operas, and sources, - again: help wanted. Instead, we spend our time on noticeboards? Not me, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: We have now at least a stub on [[An allem ist Hütchen schuld!|the opera]] ("Always blame ..." - good title, no?) that was a red link. There's an estimated ten times as much in German, but will have to wait for a merciful soul. You didn't say that [[Mörder, Hoffnung der Frauen]] should not be linked to from the Main page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%B6rder,_Hoffnung_der_Frauen&oldid=768102629 as it is] (one reference which is a dead link) but I heard you anyway ;) - going to do something about it. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Howcheng}} - [[Egyptian revolution of 1919]] blurb and article says " arrested Saad Zaghloul and two others, exiling them to Malta." but the source says "The British authorities, alarmed, exiled Zaghloul and other activists to Malta, arresting him on 8 March 1919." So no mention of "two" in the source, and only Zaghloul was arrested per that specific source. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Howcheng}} - [[Nelson's Pillar]] was actually "severely damaged by explosives", not destroyed. The article goes on to say it was finally destroyed by the Irish Army. Also, the caption "before it was destroyed" is somewhat nugatory given the pillar is clearly visible in the image... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Stephen}} - The Light that Failed is now a redirect on the main page in DYK... minor but annoying. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*:Also, [[Bonnie Burnard]] (in recent deaths) is still marked as a stub, which it abundantly is not! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*::Both fixed. [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 11:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Fuebaey}} - the compilation album which is currently unreferenced can be referenced to AllMusic [http://www.allmusic.com/artist/edi-fitzroy-mn0000184500/discography/compilations here]. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 11:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== WP:AN == |
|||
There is a discussion about me currently ongoing at AN! I might be interested in contributing there. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 12:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I suggest you concentrate on writing an appeal. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I was simply noting the irony that there's a lengthy discussion going on there yet no-one bothered to let me know. It's funny how quickly people can be forgotten. As for appeal, I've written a response to the block above. It's nonsense, and Sandstein knows it, but he's gone all-in and won't retract. It's happened before, it'll happen again. The community seem to be finding in my favour at this time, but it won't be long before the gloves are off and the hawks come circling. Wikipedia can lose this editor but it can't lose the damage this debacle (yet another Arbcom mess) is doing to the project. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 12:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::And the hawks arrive! Having had nothing whatsoever to do with them for months, and thousands and thousands of edits, they're back! Little wonder this place is failing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I apologize for failing to notify you. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I noticed the discussion, but think the best thing to do is - as I recommended before - [[User talk:Dreadstar#Ignore...?|ignore ignore ignore]]. I didn't appeal to arbcom, I know others who don't appeal, as a matter of pride. Enjoy some time with your kids and be back when this is over. - Wikipedia should not lose ''this editor''. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
For what it's worth, I linked to your appeal on AN ''[[WP:AN#TRM_appeal|here.]]'' [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Gerda Arendt is wise, but on this we differ. If I were to advise you, I would recommend you take an hour to draft a more substantive appeal. One that explains your interpretation of the timeline; which shows at what point things began to go astray. I don't think it's a waste of your time, to more comprehensively articulate your position. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC |
|||
::I spent as long on that draft as Sandstein did blocking me for a month and protecting my talk page. Right now that's what I have. Try working out how you'd feel if the adminship here allowed you to be a called a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a prick and then be told to "fuck off" with 100% complete and utter impunity? Then everyone's jumping on the baiting bandwagon. I'm sure there are people able to dissect the diffs and explain exactly what each was in context, WJBScribe has already done so with one, frankly laughable, near-offensive claim. The appeal is lodged, now the concerns of the community with Sandstein and Floq's behaviour will need to be heard. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am not wise, just experienced AE. - I appealed (successfully) for someone else, and am glad that I did, because he was also to proud for what was explained to me as the needed [[User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2016#Self-abasement|self-abasement]]. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 16:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::My friend, I totally agree with {{U|Gerda Arendt|Gerda}} on this: ''ignore ignore ignore''. Please follow her advice. Enjoy the forced break! Keep safe. — <strong>[[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]]</strong> | [[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh]] | [[Special:Contributions/Gareth Griffith-Jones|Buzzard]] | 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Strange, I don't see where Rambling Man said any of those things, if anything it seems other people have drawn up conclusions with little to no fact and that some users have punished Rambling Man for miss-understanding him. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Hut 8.5}}, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=768961484&oldid=768960911 this], do you ''really'' believe that? I've been around this block a few times, and have been called a cunt, a prick, a motherfucker. Whatever. But it's always been from stupid users who are invariably blocked. Not regular editors, nor admins. The talk page block was purely punitive, to push me 100% away. Any other interpretation, I'm afraid, is naive ''in extremis''. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:User talk pages of high profile blocks often turn into slanging matches about the block that don't do anyone any good. I'm not saying that I would have protected it myself, but if Sandstein was trying to stop this becoming one of them then I can understand why he did it. That and the fact that [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited|the arbitration remedy specifically says it's allowed]]. And no, I don't think whether you continue to edit Wikipedia has much to do with whether other people are allowed to edit your talk page over the next few weeks, and if it was intended as an act of censorship then it wasn't a very good one. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::No, that's just completely naive. The rest of Wikipedia has become a battleground, e.g. AN, AE, User talk:Floq, User talk:Sandstein. It makes no difference at all whether my talk page was blocked or not. But he hasn't expressed any logical reasoning as to why he did it, other than to punitively prevent me from contributing to it, so it's his serious error. I don't follow your last sentence at all, but hey ho. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Poor old Floq certainly seems like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&curid=24389054&diff=768982337&oldid=768960048 victim] here, not me in any case. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Whats going on? == |
|||
Rambling Man, what on earth happened? I just saw you got blocked!! Dam man, what on earth did you do to piss people off that bad?? [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: He exists. [[User:Edmund Patrick|Edmund Patrick]] –<small> [[User talk:Edmund Patrick|'''confer''']]</small> 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course he exists, but that is not an explanation, is anything that response is err. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tpw}} {{reply|Govvy}} No, I think what {{u|Edmund Patrick}} meant is that TRM pisses people off, ''just by existing''. <small>Which in any case seems to mostly be a badge of honour on wiki *shrugs*</small> — [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>''''' Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Special Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Lots and lots of thanks for your efforts here to improve this wikipedia. Be happy don't worry. [[User:Govindaharihari|Govindaharihari]] ([[User talk:Govindaharihari|talk]]) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:Thanks Govindaharihari, that's very kind. Although hundreds of editors have thanked me over the last month or two, and of course that's not important to the current "situation", your barnstar is much appreciated. It's been a while! Cheers, [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Some analyses== |
|||
Let's take one of these, shall we, e.g.: |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=762619075#Featured_lists Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind.]" |
|||
Right, let's be honest folks, does that sound like insulting or belittling language? It was a statement of fact. The opposition was illogical ("Your opposition is founded in ill-logic"). I shrugged it off ("But never mind"). The OP had actually made some unfounded accusations e.g. "Its moot to constantly bring up the time" and then some personal attacks e.g. "This is why no one cartes ''(sic)'' what you say, and why you have no ground to stand on with your position". I suppose that meant "no one cares what I say", a bit like "fuck you" and why "people think you're a prick". {{fail}}. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=758157337 we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes]" |
|||
This is a sweet one. Brad came in, guns blazing, to the [[Sutter Brown]] ITNC discussion, ''after'' it had been posted. Now, ITNC ran a few very decent polls over how they select RDs, i.e. whether they need "super notability" (a cause for one of the hawks circling to focus on getting me banned) or whether even trees, animals etc could be listed. We observe community consensus, and the death of that dog simply fitted consensus. However, Brad came in saying he would take it to ANI (in my world, the equivalent of saying "it's my ball, and I'm leaving") to get it resolved in his favour. He was shot down by many, including admins. Anyway, the above comment came about when [[Granny (orca)]] was considered for ITN, and a number of editors, including admins, supported it. And some were sarcastic (humorously so) about the Sutter debacle. My full text, {{xt|To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like {{U|Newyorkbrad}} making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart.}} shows a comprehensive and skilled approach to why Brad was wrong, and why his "headmasterly approach" should not only be unwelcome, but discouraged. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Mid-session interval=== |
|||
Per Sandstein, "But what matters is not what I read, but what The Rambling Man wrote. The content of the comments as excerpted in the AE request are quite enough to establish multiple and serious violations of the arbitration sanction by themselves." of course that would be true if it was machine–machine interaction where context is irrelevant, where personalities don't exist, where playing fields are level. This misguided and obviously negligent approach to assessing issues is a '''serious problem'''. It's like saying you could post a diff of an edit summary saying "and then you killed your dog" and that should result in a month-long block. Of course, if the preceding discussion was "my dog was nearly dead", then it makes sense. Sandstein appears to be accepting that he didn't make any effort at all to actually take any of these comments/edit summaries in their context. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Analyses part deux== |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&oldid=756111566#Mike_V_.26c. Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally]" |
|||
This was preceded by a tempestuous (firm but fair) argument between me and Floq, but the comment preceding the one highlighted, went as follows: {{xt|I'm talking, once again, about being too involved. Your tone indicates you have a dog in the fight, so it'd be better for you to leave it to someone else, a bit like Mike should have done. I know it's all too easy to assume bad faith with me, but honestly, you made a premature closure, and that's all there is to it.}}. I had made a strident approach to stick it neutral, despite Floq previously asserting "perhaps keep your snide comments about others to the 45 pages they're already on" and "You criticizing my "tone" just broke my fancy new irony detector." Now both of those could be considered insulting or belittling, but it wasn't a major issue for either of us. It's a shame that this contextual ability to agree to disagree, or even disagree to agree, isn't taken into account. Moreover, after Floq's response, I added {{xt|Yes, hyperbolic. Reduce it down to pages you can actually document. Your emotional criticism is clear for all of us to see, including your premature closure allowing Mike V a free pass from further analysis there by concerned editors (and there are dozens, maybe even 45), but as you said already, I'm out of this meaningless debate. It's not productive, it's not improving Wikipedia, and my time is better spent elsewhere, and defending myself from rogue admins (who may also happen to be checkuser and oversight-enabled... curious.) }} which is perfectly reasonable, given the '''context''' of the discussion. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schwede66&oldid=762438683#Not_Facebook Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward.]" |
|||
First off, does anyone really behave the "threats" are "chilling"? I was hauled over the coals as a result of my apparent failure to meet ADMINACCT so it's perfectly reasonable to remind other such failures to comply with their duties as admins. My previous post in that thread was to request that the admin in question desisted from encouraging Wikipedians to use the encyclopedia as a chat group, to whit: {{xt|Perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT before making such threats. Please use your position to set an example, not to pander to the whims of those who use encyclopedia talk pages as a chat forum. }}. I had been (incorrectly) threatened with a 3RR violation. The remainder of that post, omitted in The Ed17's AE post, goes as follows: {{xt|I note you omitted that the reverts of my edits were a clearer violation of 3RR. Interesting. I also note that you acted unilaterally and against consensus when removing the link from what you and one other editor deemed to be a low quality article in a DYK hook. This was despite being requested to restore it and then being requested to make similar delinking edits in three subsequent sets. Which for some reason you refused to do. Perhaps you have your reasons but the behaviour is way below that expected of an admin. You are accountable and should respond when requested to do so. Your refusal to do so is a clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT. You should also remind others that talkpages are not chat forums, and to set an example yourself of encouraging such chat off project pages and, if absolutely necessary, onto talk pages. Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT.}} I believe that in context, what I said was perfectly acceptable. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Analyses Drei== |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=768701717#Today If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?]" |
|||
One of the biggies. This was in response to being told "Oh well" by Floq who had decided that an article going to the main page with masses of unreferenced claims was just fine in his opinion. I was curious why an admin would even bother to comment at ERRORS if their response was "Oh well" when confronted with evidence to support the fact that the article in question failed to meet the quality standards of the OTD project. His response, which The ed17 has failed to include, was "Fuck you". Not much more to add here. There's little pleasure to be gained in ensuring that the main page of Wikipedia remains error-free and at a high quality, but when admins start down this path to good faith error reports, we have a serious problem. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=768638225 Thanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing".] |
|||
So this mini-cut from a full response was a mirror to the initial comment. DYK routinely posts errors, poor tone, POV, etc to the main page. This one, about the nuclear football, was about to run on the main page as "the White House's long-time nuclear weapons boss" and yes, I was incredulous that it had been approved as such. In actuality, the editor to which the above response was directed was one of a handful in that project who actually seems concerned with what appears on the main page. He changed it appropriately, and I told him it was "1,000 times better" than the original. But I also added that "Sure, but no-one learns from it, yet again." because the last minute changes by admins etc at DYK are usually not flowed back into the project, to the reviewers or the promoting admins. The editor's response was "I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes" which seemed odd initially as I've done nothing by try to introduce improvements to DYK for years now. Clearly my comment wasn't a "dig", more a statement of fact that we still pick up the same issues, time and time and time again at the project. It was an odd turn of events as the preceding discussion had been reasonable and calm, yet the claim of me "soap-boxing" just because I'd suggested that nothing was learnt from it was hyperbolic. I mirrored the response, and in actuality the idea of trying to turn this into my problem rather than the project's problem is exactly what apologists do. I was disappointed that the fact of the matter was overlooked and this editor couldn't see that. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Request== |
|||
{{U|Coffee}}, please copy/paste the mid-session interval and parts deux und Drei over to AE when you can. Many thanks! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm probably not going to be able to do any more tonight, the 9-month-old is poorly and some things are more important than the anti-TRM campaign. In reality, if Sandstein, or others, are simply taking diffs on the edit summary or out of context, there's little point in continuing with this arduous background tasking. The die is cast. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:(She's asleep, blissfully so, just enough time to check the forthcoming DYKs!). [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Might as well do part Quattro too thanks! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I just realized your responses have already gone over the 500 word limit (currently 909 words, excluding signatures and headings). I'm willing to give you an exception of up to the current amount (as is allowed in my position as a reviewing administrator), but I can't go much further than that. If you can find a way to summarize all 4 parts into a less than (a rather generous) 950 word limit I would be willing to copy that revised statement over for you. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{U|Coffee}}, No it doesn't matter. Maybe you could put a link to here? It's absolutely impossible to explain the context of each of The ed17's claims of misbehaviour without the background, and since Sandstein closed the initial post within 40 minutes, he's since made it absolutely impossible to respond fairly. But that seemed to be deliberate. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 07:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{done}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=769046442&oldid=769040273] <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 07:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Quattro== |
|||
*"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deborahjay&oldid=768234069#It.27s_best_to_ignore_The_Rambling_Man You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?] |
|||
So this starts with an editor claiming that one or two of us who actually care about quality of articles on the main page are somehow deliberately censoring it. It's happened before and since, e.g. [[Waitangi Day]] is a good example, and yet the complainant in question has since gone on to make a marvellous improvement to that article. However, the bad case, this one, revolved around being accused of "denying the existence" of The Holocaust (in bold, linked to the denial of the Holocaust article) simply as a result of asserting that the article in question wasn't up to standard. The accusation was levelled at another editor who went on to state that one set of his grandparents were actually Holocaust survivors. No apologies, no retraction, nothing. Anyway, an editor who regularly adds personal commentary at the ref desks appeared at the talk page of the accuser to claim I'm "apparently just here to cause trouble" which if anyone took any time at all to look at my contributions, hundreds per day, would realise that's simply in error. The editor who was subject to my comment above then appears, in his own words that it was me who "started that drama and actual harassment" and going on to chillingly threaten me with "you will be most certanly reported at ANI". My response, in two parts was (a) you don't know what you're talking about and (b) thanks for the threat which was, actually, weak. It was a statement of fact, once again, that with context and any idea of human interaction, stands up to scrutiny. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=762990257&oldid=762990049 Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."] |
|||
One massive and recurring issue at DYK is the inability of the project and some of their members to recall that they are responsible for placing articles onto the main page. This necessitates a certain level of professional writing, to the point where hooks should be neutral in tone, much like the rest of the encyclopedia. My original issue in this thread was the use of the phrasing that a political party "fell into oblivion due to its isolation from other left-wing groups" which sounded like something the ''Daily Mail'' would have written. Oddly I wasn't the originator of the complaint against the hook, but I added "Not to mention that "fell into oblivion" is hardly encyclopedic. But it's been reviewed, passed and promoted, so clearly three people think it's just fine. " which is 100% factually accurate. The response from one of the regular editors there was "I don't see that as a problem. Do you want them to "became oblivious"" which makes no sense at all. This particular editor had mangled a few hooks in the past, e.g. making "Rangers F.C." into "the Rangers", and I suggested that such nuanced linguistics should be left to someone who uses English as their primary language. The ed17's claim seems shot to bits anyway as this editor suggested that they had no reason to understand why I thought they weren't a native English speaker. I guess just the number of issues I'd seen from them mangling hooks had led me to believe they shouldn't do it. Hence my claim, the suggested replacement made no sense, and I thought they ought to leave it someone who would have known that. Factual. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==What I have or haven't done== |
|||
{{U|Peacemaker67}}, I've tried to place these comments into some context above, to demonstrate that interactions on Wikipedia are human-based and therefore need to be read with background. I know I can be direct, but as I have tried to explain above, for the majority of those comments I've looked into, I've seen nothing beyond mildly heated exchanges. Certainly nothing to warrant going from zero block to one-month block and talk page protection in 40 minutes. Sandstein barely gave moment's thought to the block and has since confirmed that he didn't read the context of any of the posts noted. That one of those came after I was told "fuck you" by an admin is astonishing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 09:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Previous block== |
|||
{{U|Black Kite}} please note the 3-day block was given out erroneously by Mike V. The log should reflect that. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 10:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{U|Laser brain}}, the only Arbcom-case related block on me was incorrectly applied by Mike V (who also accused me lying, more than once, before "disappearing"), and as the block log shows, it was overturned per consensus at AN. When commenting on such things, it's important that the facts are related, not some version of them that is incorrectly recalled. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Laser brain}}, thanks for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=769093732&oldid=769093581 that]. {{U|Black Kite}}, hopefully you're now aware of this? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Hut 8.5}} with regard to the Arbcom sanction, it ''is'' a first offence as the previous erroneous block by the long-departed Mike V was deemed inappropriate by the community. Just for your clarification. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I'm aware that it's the first time you've been blocked where the block hasn't been undone. That doesn't make it a first offence. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Contextually it's ''very'' important, but I understand that it's already irrelevant to many people contributing to this festival. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== What the == |
|||
What the. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) <small>Become [[User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values|old fashioned!]]</small> 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh, just another manic Sunday/Monday! The usual: hawks, spin, bad admins, etc. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 13:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:You can summarise it as: |
|||
::One admin with a grudge against me finds some diffs and presents them entirely ''ex context''. |
|||
::Another admin reads the headlines of the diffs and blocks me within an hour for a month. |
|||
::Said admin then protects my talk page to stop me editing altogether. |
|||
::Another admin undoes that protection some time later. |
|||
::I tried to present some context for some of the diffs, e.g. ones that came after I was told "fuck you", or was accused of denying the Holocaust, or told I wasn't able to "interact like a normal human being" but of course that takes more than the word limits at these bureaucratic dramafests allows. |
|||
::So more context for more than half of those diffs is provided above. I decided to stop there, chances are if you believe them to be so offensive, context won't help. It's maddening and something that Arbcom created with this completely subjective decision making on what and what is not considered "belittling" etc. Made even worse by an admin who admits to have not even considered the context of any of it. |
|||
:So, your typical Wikipedia dramaz. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Not a personal attack== |
|||
{{U|Bishonen}} can I just clarify one thing, you believe that "fuck you" and "fuck you, asshole" are not personal attacks? I'd like it on record so if I see any IPs or normal users being blocked for just that, we can do something about it fast. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 14:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Your question doesn't make sense. I've never said ''asshole'' isn't a personal attack. Never ever. I said ''Fuck you'' isn't a personal attack. I confirm that that is what I believe. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
::{{U|Bishonen}} Ok, it makes complete sense, but it's in two parts. To clarify one last time, "fuck you" which he wrote on ERRORS _is not a personal attack_ while "fuck you, asshole" which he wrote in the edit summary _is_ a personal attack? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, sir. Is it clear now? Presumably your questions are coming from a reading of my post on Floquenbeam's page. I thought it was clear on there too. I don't think I'll answer any further nagging about it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
::::No, not a nag, simply a clarification. I have seen editors and IPs being blocked for saying "fuck you" and now I'm clearer that it's actually not considered to be a personal attack, I'll make sure those people incorrectly blocked for such are assisted. Thanks for your clarification. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 16:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Softlavender}} in fact, Floq's statements have been defended by Bishonen as not personal attacks. I've asked her to clarify that's what she really means. No, Floq has definitely not apologised, nor for calling me a prick or an asshole either. And nor has Deborahjay for claiming me to be a Holocast denier. I'm confused by this, all the effort going into reinterpreting my diffs, and yet none in going towards the affronts on me which are going 100% unaddressed. The ed17 said I couldn't communicate "like a normal human". You see, these things pile up, don't you know. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Quid pro quo == |
|||
Perhaps ArbCom should modify the relevant remedy to add that "''other editors are prohibited from insulting and/or belittling The Rambling Man''"? We don't have one way interaction bans, so by the same logic it doesn't make sense for people to be allowed to take pot shots with relative impunity... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|The ed17}}, are you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=769116857&oldid=769113802 joking]? This came straight after an admin had said "fuck you, asshole". My response simply asked the admin to do something he was more interested in rather than simply swear at me ("fuck you") and call me an "asshole", i.e. [[WP:NPA]]. How do your standards work here? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{U|331dot}} you may be interested in what was said to me before The ed17's example of '''me'' apparently belittling and bullying an abusive admin... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=768701717#Today Read it again]. Your "useless comments" comes before "fuck you." [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh yeah, that was in response to "Oh well" which was useless, right? So hence the suggestion. If you actually believe that to be bullying and or belittling, this a great example of why the Arbcom sanction is so badly written. Maybe it's an ENGVAR thing. The admin in question had already called me a prick, but that doesn't seem to have ruffled your bully/belittle meter at all. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::And by the way, it was also "fuck you, asshole". Per adminacct, why aren't you taking action there? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Seraphimblade}} no, I'm not claiming to have been baited. I'm stating that most of the diffs supplied are not problematic within context. Your entire post seems to be about me being rude or unpleasant while posting error reports. I'm not sure I even understand the basis for that. Never mind, I can see how this goes. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== The crux == |
|||
{{U|Coffee}}, not sure if you can do anything with this into the AE malaise, but here we are: |
|||
Ok, so it's come to this, {{U|The ed17}} in the AE request has now stated unequivocally that he thinks my comment "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?" is both "belittling" and "bullying". Now, this comment was in response to a perfectly reasonable (in my mind) errors report about a clearly substandard article. The admin in question responded to my request with "Oh well." which I still believe to this moment was "useless" and therefore my encouragement for him to go and do something else and probably leave this sort of things to others would be a good thing. The rest, of course, is history, with that admin saying "fuck you" and signing off the edit summary with "fuck you, asshole". Interesting, the complainant hasn't uttered a single grievance against an admin making such overt belittling, bullying and personal attacks on me. This is the crux of the problem. {{U|The ed17}} clearly has a very, very ''different'' threshold to me on what is considered bullying or belittling. Telling someone that their response is "useless" when it absolutely was of no use seems to me to fail in every sense to be belittling or bullying. Telling an editor "fuck you, asshole" seems to fall squarely into the bullying, belittling, personal attack territory. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|331dot}} puts it perfectly: {{xt| I am wondering if TRM is able to criticize another user's contribution without running afoul of the sanctions? Any criticism could be seen as belittling depending on the recipient.}}. 100% on the money. Especially when such innocuous comments as those considered The ed17 as "bullying" are confirmed by admins like Sandstein when making a decision in 40 minutes to block me for a month. And then block my talk page. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{U|Softlavender}} but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=769143228&oldid=769140508 was this "bullying" or "belittling"]? Really and honestly? I need to understand what the average tolerance of Wikipedian is. As Arbcom knew when passing their sanction, it's a spectrum, one man's "fuck you, asshole" is another man's "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?". I want really honest responses, if what The ed17 generally found as bullying or belittling or insulting to be generally true per the community (within the context of each discussion), then I will happily accept that I was in the wrong all of those times (despite my comprehensive explanations for around half of them at this point, and despite many other editors/admins telling us all that those comments didn't constitute anything that infringed the Arbcom ruling). I firmly believe that The ed17 may have been mistaken with many of his diffs as no context was considered, and Sandstein admitted to that when he took 40 minutes to block me for a month and then protect my talk page. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Floquenbeam isn't under any sanctions. His actions are irrelevant. You can control your own actions no matter what anyone else does; in fact they are the only actions you ''can'' control. It takes a certain amount of learning to stick to commenting on content only and never commenting on users, but once the decision is irrevocably made, it's actually quite easy. Don't use the word "you" or "your", don't mention other editors at all, ''completely ignore'' insults, if you have a comment on content or policy/guidelines make it and if not let it go. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 20:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::No you're right, I can just write "Everyone else thinks that's bullshit", right? Just as {{U|Floquenbeam}} has suggested there's some confusion in interpreting the difference between "This is why other people think you are an X" becomes "I am calling you an X in public". For Floq himself, see X=prick. So if I (or someone not under sanctions) wrote anywhere about Floq, "That's why other people think you're cock-sucking mother fucker", would that be allowed to stand? Or are we now in the realms of defining acceptable insults? We should be told. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 20:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|Softlavender}} - honestly, {{xt|Floquenbeam isn't under any sanctions. His actions are irrelevant. }} that's bullshit, when you say "fuck you asshole" to another editor, as an admin, that isn't irrelevant. Please, if you're going to comment, do so with some circumspection. We do not expect our admins to call editors pricks or say "fuck you asshole" to them. Or do you consider that to be acceptable as you're now saying it's irrelevant what he said in this context. How odd. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::It looks like I'll need to file another Arbcom clarification, i.e. is it okay for admins to call me/refer to me as "a prick" and call me an "asshole" while saying "fuck you", and then it _not_ be okay for me comment how I did at ERRORS. It's a trap, clearly, if admins can goad and bait those under sanction by swearing at them with absolute impunity, combined with editors like you saying their actions are "irrelevant". I find that to be utter disgraceful. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::TRM, I realize you're upset, but please cool it with the colourful examples and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Rambling_Man&type=revision&diff=769128308&oldid=769124490 edit summaries]. It just adds to the tension. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::El C is right. Seriously, there's at least 5 admins looking for an excuse to turn your talk page access off; don't make it easy for them. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No, that was just because it was only recently that I realised that admin Floquenbeam called me an asshole with his edit summary. I hadn't seen that. I don't know what colourful examples you're referring to, and I think the edit summaries are just fine, it's problematic when you have such a cadre of editors and admins backing up the "prick", "asshole", "fuck you" approach. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm referring to examples that depict incest and fellatio. Illustrating examples is not a free-for-all. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::"Or are we now in the realms of defining acceptable insults? We should be told." as I said already. So "prick" is fine, but "cunt" wouldn't be? This place is unbelievable sometimes. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: You've taken too many liberties illustrating that particular example, yes, and it's a bit much. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'm still confused. So it's okay to say "that's why people think you're prick"? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Now you're being tangential. And how many times have you already cited those examples? No need to illustrate potential new insults. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::What's tangential about trying to establish what is acceptable in Wikipedia terms? I'm being hanged, drawn and quartered for telling an admin that his response was "useless" yet he is being given a free pass for telling calling me an asshole. The prick thing is not tangential, nor new, the same admin used that precise terminology with me. I don't understand why you think it's illustrating "potential new insults" when it's actually real historical insults. This is watermark moment, Wikipedians need to decide whether telling someone "fuck you" is acceptable without a single sanction, they need to decide that repeated insults from an admin to a sanctioned user is acceptable. Nothing tangential about that I'm afraid. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The place to address Floquenbeam's conduct would have been a noticeboard or his talk page. It is never appropriate to respond in kind. Do not respond to insults or perceived slights; if they bother you, report them -- that's why we have those systems in place. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::{{U|Softlavender}} Please explain how I responded in kind? Did I call him a prick? Did I call him an asshole? Did say "fuck you"? No, I said {{xt|If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?}}. Hardly responding in kind, by any measure at all. Or am I wrong? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Your response was "Yet another magnificent admin contribution from someone who pretends to be interested. I'll add it to the list!" If you were following these guidelines and policies:<p>{{xt|Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content] {{xt|'''Comment [[WP:FOC|on content]], not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|on the contributor]]''': Keep the discussions focused upon the topic ..., rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices] {{xt|'''[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|No personal attacks]]''': A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable]<p> ... you would have either ignored his insult or reported it elsewhere instead of responding to it on the content-talk page. I realize right now you are upset about your block and indignant about the behavior of others which you perceive to be worse than yours, and that therefore you are unlikely to take what I am saying to heart. I'm hoping however at some point you may look back and perhaps take some of it in. I don't think I have (much) more time to contribute to this conversation. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Behaviour I "perceive" to be worse than mine? Saying "fuck you, asshole"? Calling someone a prick? Give me strength. It's notable that you, amongst many others, are passively accepting and encouraging this behaviour. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ec}} If you are commenting only on content rather than on editors, no one else's actions are relevant. If someone insults you, '''completely ignore it'''. If you want to report a user's actions to a noticeboard, or discuss their actions on their user talkpage, that's a different and entirely separate matter. On content pages, stick to content; on behavior pages, stick to behavior. That's why we have the separation: so that content can get created/corrected without the obstacle of interpersonal drama, and behavior can be addressed separately where it can be resolved. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 21:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{U|Softlavender}} did '''any of those who were subject to my comments report me to a noticeboard'''? Or did the complainant just magic up a bunch of issues? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You were reported to AE. It doesn't matter who does the reporting; it's the venue (noticeboard or usertalk rather than content talk) that is important. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 21:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was reported by an involved admin, and not by anyone who may have been "belittled" or "bullied". So far I've had zero complaints from anyone on that, other than from the involved admin. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It doesn't matter who does the reporting (nor their involvement status or sysop status); it's the venue (noticeboard or usertalk rather than content talk) that is important. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 21:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So not one single user has felt belittled or bullied but yet the involved admin who posted this complaint speaks for the silent masses. I get it. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I get it. Despite commenting only on the situation and edits that have been highlighted by The ed17, I can't ''really'' comment on them, or expand on them, or contextualise them, without me being switched off. I understand. Thanks all. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||