User talk:The Rambling Man: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 9 March 2017

9 March

Stephen - queue 4 - " can be demolished" is not suitable in tone, the article doesn't use this phrasing. In fact, the article puts it much better: "The larvae from a single egg cluster can destroy a whole cabbage or cauliflower plant". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devoured. Rewording involved too much repetition. Step hen

Stephen - queue 4 - "in Aurora, Colorado was" comma needed after Colorado. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find this one? Step hen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it's now in queue 2, with a comma... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was a duplicate, removed less than an hour ago... But The ed17 left the approved set (queue 4) one hook down. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I made others aware of at the time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was stating a fact. And trying to fix the problem left behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen - queue 5 - "Pangolins are believed to be the world's most trafficked mammal" in the article. The hook has lost the "believed to be".... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added, but no idea how to pull a hook. Step hen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there are a number of unreferened paragraphs in that article, it's reasonable to pull it as containing too much unverifiable information (i.e. it could easily be tagged with {{ref improve}}). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen - queue 5 - " whom he was coincidentally seated near on a flight" I can't access the source, but is this meant to imply that the good impression and his selection came as a result of the seating arrangements rather than Almon's performance in the trials? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRM that this bit of information is dubious in a living person bio, implying as it does that there was some impropriety in his draft procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may need to be reported at ERRORS or at WT:DYK as Stephen isn't comfortable pulling the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled it and turned queue 5 back into prep 5, as I don't have the time to find another hook at the moment, and this lets anyone, not just an admin do it. Harrias ^talk 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do something in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - queue 5 - Tofu Curtain there's a dab link (Hipster) in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - "that biologist Nessa Carey" should be "the biologist" to avoid false title. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - "that Snugburys, a UK ice cream " we don't say that, "a British ice cream...." is BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - I was going to suggest linking Non-League football (which appears to be capitalised in our encyclopedia and not in the hook or target article), but it's unreferenced. In any case I'd link FA Cup as most non-Brits would not know what this national competition was all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth please let Maile66 that we had this discussion and it was fixed 12 hours before their complaint. Please let them know that I had the same complaint as they did, and we both resolved it 12 hours ago. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - Snugbury hook again, strictly it's not "straw and steel" it's steel-reinforced straw, and as such the hook and caption need to be clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - it's definitely worth considering linking North Rhodesia or Rhodesia here as most of our readers will not know where it is/was. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - "are a husband-and-wife pair?" what's wrong with "are husband and wife" or "are married"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done both. I could link Northern Rhodesia as well but perhaps that would be overlinking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 saying " there is absolutely nothing in the article or hook that tells you this is a UK match" is absolutely incorrect. It states clearly that it's an FA Cup match in both. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 Very well but it had been fixed before your initial complaint, as a result of the conversation here between me and Cwmhiraerth. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender no, that's not true at all. I don't suffer fools gladly, but I also don't like the fact that an admin has been completely let off for calling me a prick, and an asshole and tell me "fuck you". I never resorted to those absolute and overt personal attacks. I had also attempted to place many of those comments initially raised into some kind of context, but all I'm hearing back from some quarters is that I'm wrong. Oddly I'm hearing in some numbers that I'm not wrong. But that's the nature of the subjective Arbcom sanction. I've never said that admins are "admins are 100% of the problem", diff for that direct quote please. In fact, as we have so few admins, they are very seldom the problem, but when they are part of the problem, fellow admins shouldn't be ignoring it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are proving what you were attempting to refute: " ... TRM keeps harping ad nauseum on "it's them not me" and "admins are 100% of the problem" [NOTE: an obvious figure of speech, not a quote], despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility". You cannot refrain from sniping at admins, and you cannot refrain from blaming others. Please re-read WP:NOTTHEM. If you have a possibly sanctionable complaint about another editor(s), take it to an appropriate noticeboard or their talk page (when you are unblocked). At this point I think you are starting to alienate even those who are or were or might have been in favor of unblocking or reducing the block. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clever. Attack a guy (repeatedly, endlessly, and then when he defends himself tell him he's to blame for 'harping on ad nauseam'. How about leaving him alone and then see how much he's harping? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never attacked TRM (much less "repeatedly, endlessly"), and if you do not think this opening sally today [1] was perpetuating the behavior ad nauseum despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility, then that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clever and unfortunate. Softlavender is well aware of the personal attacks directed towards me yet continues to do absolutely nothing. I suggest you stop making up quotes of mine, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made up quotes of yours (and when I do actually quote somebody, I always supply diffs unless my reply is directly below their statement). I am not interested taking actions that you need to take but which you avoid taking in favor of blaming others. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that there are several people who are happy to allow, even enable, certain individuals to make numerous personal attacks without addressing them. That you feel the need for me to take action in this regard is testimony to the bureaucracy that these kinds of situations inevitably devolve into instead of actively taking real and responsible action. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for the actions of others. I have never enabled anybody (with the possible exception of one senior editor who was reported at ANI, but when my apparent enabling was pointed out to me I abruptly stopped). People are responsible for their own actions. If you feel strongly about the behavior of others, it is your responsibility to address that, in an appropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're an admin. You should take appropriate action against people who personally attack normal editors, part of admin responsibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, at the risk of stepping on toes, but Softlavender is not an admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, then they have no responsibility whatsoever to do anything about these personal attacks. My error, apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, TRM. Yet even if I were an admin, the responsibility for your own grievances lies with you. Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have to agree to disagree. Admins are responsible for protecting others from egregious personal attacks, especially from other admins. This "in the club" thing is too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 "I don't think the root cause of this issue is the remedy being ambiguous or unclear", me neither, it's not the "root cause" by any means, but trying to solve a problem by applying a messy, subjective, woolly filter on top is by far from ideal. I did state this way back, that one man's "belittling"/"bullying" is another man's "whatever", and as such, the sanction was always open to interpretation/abuse. Nothing doing. Anyway, just wanted to let you know this isn't news, it's olds. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 " It looks like he's keen on the idea of clarifying the restriction because he thinks it's being abused rather than because he doesn't understand it." sorry, I always understood it and I always knew it was nonsense. Please don't ever think I didn't understand it. What I didn't understand was why so many learned individuals ("Arbcom") thought the wording of it was appropriate. I always thought it could be interpreted entirely subjectively, i.e. it wasn't objective. Whether it was "abused" or not is a different discussion entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Race

Black Kite don't worry, I won't be able to update the article so it won't run this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-imposed conversation limit suggestion

Hello all. How's about this: I'll place a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement. That response will be neither "belittling" nor "bullying" but will inform the editor that I will not be continuing with the disagreement. I believe that wording and its interpretation is still highly subjective and any such commons need context, but that didn't seem necessarily the way the enforcement was conducted. However, a limitation on my interactions with editors with whom I may be in disagreement seems a good place to start. It's my pledge that a lot of the scenarios which were brought up will not occur again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, maybe you could direct those admins at the AE page who think I'm adamantly adamant that nothing will change when I recommence editing to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good compromise, I'm pretty sure none of those diffs cited by The ed17 are first responses so it should really curtail anything that way inclined. And then we'll need to take a look at the personal attacks on me which have gone completely unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you don't harp on about the proposal ad nauseam, or you'll be blocked for 6 months. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the bit where they say "obviously not a quote" when it's "obviously a quote" because "it's in quote marks". There aren't even any supporting diffs. If the shoe was on the foot, it'd be struck or the jury would be told to "not take it into account" as unverifiable. Never mind. Let's see how much good faith can be applied to my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLauba I don't really understand the logic there. I'll get unblocked at some point and if I don't try this, then I'll get reblocked at some point thereafter. I guess the point is whether it reduces the block length or not, it's worth a go. I'd sooner sit out the whole block than be prevented from working on reducing the errors that go to the main page, so no, I don't want a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is not on the table anyway, as it would require another run at ARCA, it was more of me musing whether removing you from a high stakes / high stress environment for a while would provide a way forward. I understand that you are passionate about the quality of the main page, but I'm not currently seeing a good solution that will not bring you back to AE within weeks of your unblock. I was actually considering reversing my vote for reducing the block length since yesterday. I'd be delighted to get reassurances that this would be wrong on my part. That being said, I understand you owe me nothing, and my one voice won't sway the current consensus anyway. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my most recent 20 or 30 thousand contributions have been focused on keeping errors off the main page. That's what I do. If I eventually do it so badly that I am banned from Wikipedia, I'll only have myself to blame. Of course you're entitled to change your mind, you don't need to explain that to me. I can see how the trend is heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion at User talk:Sandstein#What would it take?. I'd like your feedback as to whether or not that would be something you'd be willing to go for. Clarifying what "insulting or belittling" means would seem to help you better understand what you can and can not do (something that many of the admins commenting correctly identify as a problem), and making it less vague would have the added bonus of cutting down on the vagueness being abusively used as a weapon against you. If it works on a voluntary basis, ARCA might be willing to formalize it. What say you? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification/rewording would good; Sandstein admitted that he took no context into account when making the one-month block based on those diffs. There's a stark difference, even in admins here, in the interpretation of those diffs: they vary from "well a one-month block is well deserved" to "nothing to see here" which demonstrates that the initial sanction was very poorly worded. I would certainly be interested in investigating that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But actually, this is all in vain if User:Sandstein's chilling threat that anyone changing the block duration would be subject to sanctions. I'm confused, perhaps the blocking admin would be able to expand on why it was a month, why he hasn't responded to others (per ADMINACCT) and why anyone modifying the block duration would be subject to their own set of sanctions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's threat is an empty one, and I ignored it. AE sanctions that are overturned out of process are subject to sanctions. However, right now we're following the exact process laid out. Even if Sandstein declines to overturn, it can still be done by consensus of uninvolved admins. And that does not necessarily require unanimity. By my count, there are currently 9 uninvolved admins who endorsed shortening the block with no other conditions, and 6 who wanted to keep it at one month. One of those six has already said they would be agreeable to either your proposal or mine. Of course numbers are not everything, as you well know from your time as an admin, but I do think we're moving in the right direction towards solving the root cause of the trouble you've been having (rather than just this latest iteration of it). Most of the others who wanted to keep it cited your lack of understanding what was not acceptable, so clarifying it should go a long way towards demonstrating to them that the block is no longer necessary. On another note, the way you politely disagreed with Softlavender just now is exactly the right way to do so, and I'm encouraged by that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Look how the mighty have fallen. Once an admin, now a disgraced and blocked editor. How does it feel to be brought down a peg, hmm? 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:73 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It feels pretty crap, but not for the reasons you've posted. I couldn't care less about being an admin or a 'crat. Being "brought down a peg", well that comes with the territory. It's fine, things like this remind me of cop shows where a really successful and good-looking cop ends up wrongly imprisoned, surrounded by his former foe. Regardless of their intimidation tactics, he wins out. As for "how the might have fallen", nice literature glance, but I'd hardly consider admins to be "mighty", something of the opposite in reality. I do appreciate your comments, it's no surprise that you're hiding by an anonymous IP, but thanks for everything you've done to improve Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry to undo, Ealdgyth but you called it "grave-dancing", not sure you know something I don't know. This is simply an aggressive, aggrieved banned user who I've had to deal with for the last 10 years. If you're directing me to a grave somewhere, please let me know. I won't be hopping into it quite yet, too much to do, too many people to discuss! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to this

User:Sandstein is now effectively requesting I grovel or make some trite comment to appease him. I don't really know what to say. In my world, we make objectives that are achievable, and can be measured. I made a concrete proposal to limit my exposure to situations where my reactions may be contrary to some people's interpretation of the Arbcom sanctions. I say that because the sanctions are very much open to interpretation, and Sandstein himself admitted that he based his one-month ban on a cursory glance at the diffs provided, not at the context of the discussions. I did more than that, and looked at each discussion, distilled a theme and evolved a possible solution. Yet that's not enough. And in the meantime, Sandstein is threatening other admins with sanctions if they adjust my block period. I didn't know this kind of "uber-user" existed. In summary, I've made a suggestion as to how to best progress this, to benefit Wikipedia, and I await others' input. I suppose the other thing I could have done was to grit my teeth and say "yes, everything I've ever said was wrong and rude and belittling and bullying and I'm sorry", but that's nonsense too. At some point, we'll need a grown-up to actually look at this and make a decision on whether striving for a process-waving "sorry" is better than a practical suggestion to improve.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I forgot to mention, there's zero risk for Wikipedia here. Sandstein etc will happily indef block me should I put one foot out of their interpreted line, so I'm unclear what the problem is. I've made a practical suggestion to reduce conflict, I've heard plenty of hate directed to me, including the admin's "fuck you, asshole", etc, what now? Sandstein, tell me what you want to hear, and I'll type it out. If I don't abide by it, you get to indef me. Simple, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 :Sandstein's threat is an empty one, and I ignored it. AE sanctions that are overturned '''out of process''' are subject to sanctions. However, right now we're following the exact process laid out. Even if Sandstein declines to overturn, it can still be done by consensus of uninvolved admins. And that does not necessarily require unanimity. By my count, there are currently 9 uninvolved admins who endorsed shortening the block with no other conditions, and 6 who wanted to keep it at one month. One of those six has already said they would be agreeable to either your proposal or mine. Of course numbers are not everything, as you well know from your time as an admin, but I do think we're moving in the right direction towards solving the root cause of the trouble you've been having (rather than just this latest iteration of it). Most of the others who wanted to keep it cited your lack of understanding what was not acceptable, so clarifying it should go a long way towards demonstrating to them that the block is no longer necessary. <small>On another note, the way you politely disagreed with Softlavender just now is exactly the right way to do so, and I'm encouraged by that.</small> <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
+::Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again.  And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project!  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man#top|talk]]) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 == Wow ==