User talk:Engleham

VISITORS: Please read first

Most users here tend to delete the more "colourful" threads from their Talk pages, treating them like social media profiles: massaging them to present their most attractive face. In that regard, I try an exercise a light hand, as the most interesting threads are usually the darker ones, and I've occasionally enjoyed reading such on other Talk pages. The drawback of deleting the dull editorial maintenance threads, and retaining the few emotive ones, is that the Talk page gradually resembles Stalingrad, and its owner possibly a total ratbag. Like most people, I'm not entirely thrilled with a few comments I've posted over the years on Wikipedia, but mostly I wouldn't take back a word. Although I might wish to phrase them better! So, please bear in mind, should you dip in, that this is mostly the gritty stuff. I'm not a rigid editor, and don't play a hall monitor. My only significant bugbears appear to be: page deleters who blank stuff or put it up for proposal without making an effort to research or improve the article; editors or admins who may collaborate for their own purposes – rather than for the right ones; those who engage in WP:CRUSH, and the excessively anal. The reasonably anal are a vital resource! Although I do think calling all of us dweebs is rather harsh. Enjoy.

Walt Whitman

Hey, great addition to Walt Whitman regarding his "code" for Peter Doyle. Could you do me a favor, however? Could you format the footnote the same way as the other references? Standardized references are required for this article to maintain its good article status. Specifically, it needs an ISBN number, place of publication, and basically look like footnote number 119. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am sending this kitten principally to wind you up, because having read your trenchant contributions to various talk pages I feel sure the project could benefit further from your ire. And if not the project, then lovers of bold opinion everywhere. Exok (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Schock Shock

(The media was discussing a politicians sexuality, which had suddenly become relevant due to his voting record. Despite widespread media coverage of the issue, there was no way that even the simple fact that it had become a media issue was going to be allowed in his article.)

First of all, Salvio dear, four is not 'many' except in dick inches. Secondly, the 'nugget of neutrally worded wisdom' (please don't try wit, it doesn't become you) was my ORIGINAL post. My REVISED edit following Mr Czarkoff's wise advice, with authoritative references, posted at 04:55, 5 September 2012‎, is pasted below. Go back, as I suggested earlier, but clearly no one bothers, and read the Schock talk page. This was deleted by one 'PCock' as "completely inappropriate" but of course is highly relevant given its all-media prominence and the subject's voting record. My revert of this is what resulted in the block. So the block was wrong. No one has had the basic decency to admit this. [User:Engleham|Engleham]] (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)}}

MaxSem: "So you mean that you're still intendind to reinsert this text once unblocked?" Good question MaxSem. If the cabal of blockers ever see fit to act morally, I shall probably take it to the BLPN to get a binding(?) judgement, given the entries of politicians are policed around-the-clock by their staff, Schock's are clearly only interested in puffery. I've stated why I concur with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff's opinion on Schock's Talk page, which addressed the always difficult challenge of gossip vs relevance. The sexual preferences of elected representatives should be utterly irrelevant to their CV. However, Schock is casting votes in Congress to remove legal rights from thousands of his fellow citizens because of their sexual preferences. Following a series of incidents which suggest he may be acting duplicitously and hypocritically, his own sexual preference has therefore become a matter of public scrutiny. In other words, it's become a moral issue. Schock has, I believe three times, publicly denied he is homosexual. The fact that he himself is repeatedly publicly addressing the issue, makes it worthy of entry, just as, for example, Pope Paul VI's public denial of his homosexuality following Peyrefitti's outing. And lastly of course, there is the issue of it being widely publicly discussed. The most recent Huffington Post story drew almost two and half thousand comments. I did laugh at the poster who wrote: "when I clicked on the photos of Rep Shock it set off my gaydar so loud all the dogs in the neighborhood started barking." However, it is a most serious issue, so the previous comments apply.

Now, to round off: from one Hasteur on the Dispute Resolution Board: "your colorful metaphors and pejorative phrases are getting really tiresome."

You know what's *genuinely* tiresome Hasteur? Those like yourself who won't face up to their mistakes, and instead, when called to account, resort to any degree of dissembling and bullying. Has Salvio, for example, admitted his original block was wrongly applied for the original reason given? 'course not. Has anyone since? 'course not.

Mattinbg: "I am probably wasting my time here but here is some advice." Let me get this right: you, who are prepared to support an editor who is guilty of persistently and ignorantly deleting the work of others and who does not provide the slightest editorial support when doing so, are tendering *advice*? The irony is killing. At least you had the grace to admit on your Talk Page that what I wrote "appears to be a scarily accurate description of me".

None of what I've written has been pejorative. Sadly, it's been reportage. Engleham (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you claim everyone but you is responsible for the situation occurring prior to your block. I say this again. Shape up and start working within the policies, guidelines, consensus of the community or it is likely that your tenure here is going to be short. I offered you advice based on the hearsay and conjecture you've repeatedly inserted into the article. We do not insert speculation into articles that are Biographies of Living Persons. Your entire thesis in editing Aaron Schock is that based on a picture taken at a gathering in which he wore a unique outfit and that he is voting against gay rights is a hypocritical position. Salvio's block for edit warring after you came off a previous block and having your edits reverted for policy based reasons is actually quite valid. That multiple other admins have looked at the block and your numerous unblock requests is an implicit endorsement of the reason for the block. Hasteur (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"or it is likely that your tenure here is going to be short." Congratulations. This chestnut of lower middle class powerspeak spiked such a laugh I actually snorted some wine through my left nostril. "We do not insert speculation into articles that are Biographies of Living Persons." However, when an issue regarding a Living Person is continually raised in the broader media, it can become beautifully relevant. "Your entire thesis in editing Aaron Schock is that based on a picture taken at a gathering in which he wore a unique outfit" Now you're assuming. Nothing could be less accurate. "Salvio's block for edit warring after you came off a previous block and having your edits reverted for policy based reasons is actually quite valid." Given that the edit prior to the block was completely rewritten in good faith with authoritative references, the block was utterly, completely, totally unjustifiable. But as I said before, administratively on Wikipedia it's breathtakingly easy to justify anything, including bullying administration. One doesn't have to be sly: just resentful, moderate, and very very keen. "That multiple other admins have looked at the block and your numerous unblock requests is an implicit endorsement of the reason for the block." All I see, dear powerspeaking luv, is a few aging prefects who wouldn't admit error even if there was a fuck in it for them. Engleham (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(Editorial note: The sharpness was because I didn't believe, and still don't believe, certain parties acted in 'good faith'.)

Joh Bjelke-Petersen

Hi there, your addition to the Bjelke-Petersen article is interesting, but it lacks a date. Based on where you inserted it, I'm guessing Huan Fraser's outburst came in September or October 1987. Would you be able to add a date if those sources state it? I'm also a bit puzzled by why Fraser, whose appointment to the ministry took place in 1989 according to his Wikipedia article, was in a Cabinet meeting in 1987. BlackCab (TALK) 22:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No specific date is given in the sources. See All Fall Down specifically. You can read the specific pages on Google Books by IDing it and then doing a word search for 'bloody big payout' Engleham (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It was a party meeting, not a special Cabinet meeting as you wrote. BlackCab (TALK) 06:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi, Engleham. I notice that you have a personal attack toward George Ho on your userpage and on Talk:Full Service (book). I must ask you to please remove it immediately, as it runs counter to Wikipedia culture. If you don't, I will refrain from removing it on my own, as I am one of his mentors, but I will be forced to take the issue to the administrator noticeboard. I truly mean that to sound like a kind request rather than a threat, but I figured it would be better to be upfront rather than dance around the bush. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre It's not a personal attack: it's a simple statement of fact that he himself has posted. Which I reposted to him to explain to him why I will no longer be engaging with him: one just goes round in circles --- he supposedly doesn't comprehend replies, and then posts tangential replies and demands. His history shows the same passive aggressive behavioural pattern. While I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt a year ago, I'm now absolutely certain it is done deliberately -- the classic trolling behaviour of someone who gets their rocks off from the continued attention of others. However, it's all pathologically veiled with all the deviousness of those whose personal reward systems are fed by such, and of course, supposed to be excused because of the diagnosis of autism he alleges. I now don't buy it for a moment, but you can see looking at his history how many have been taken in. I've drawn a line, closed the door. And made explicitly clear why, with links to his original confession. Which again, I now believe was simply another tactic on his behalf to claim more attention, and sidestep sanction, when he'd been cornered for his behaviour. I could have posted he was X or X which I'm sure would have secretly thrilled him: but, this being Wikipedia, I simply supplied the properly cited dry fact. I see from your talk page he's tried to engage you on this: again, by the same 'why little me?', 'I simply don't understand' faux-humble tactics, which I'm sure has worked throughout his life for him, but the real agenda is simply to get more fire power. Suggest you would be better off mentoring someone who would genuinely benefit from it. Thanks. Engleham (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre To clarify further: what autism there may or may not be I believe is passively-agressively employed to get what he wants. I don't believe he's interested in improving the pathology: it works for him! Engleham (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Putin rfc

Please allow more time for discussion and consensus on wp:rfc prior to closure, better also to allow an administrator with experience to close , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham. I do not understand your logic. If you closed the RfC on article talk page (and I do not really mind your closure), why start a thread about the same at WP:BLPNB? Should not it be removed at BLPNB now? My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. I posted on the BLPNB page when I opened the Rfc to draw it to bring it further attention. Is it standard practice to remove such a post on a Noticeboard when an Rfc is closed? Engleham (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that no one responded to your post so far, you can simply self-revert if you think the discussion on BLP is no longer needed. People usually post something on BLPNB only if they think there is a BLP violation. You should also remember about WP:Forum shopping. All unnecessary discussions should be avoided as a waste of other people's time and a possible WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes.I can't recall seeing those mentioned in the how to do an Rfc, which suggests that if you want draw further interest, consider posting on a Noticeboard. If they indeed aren't perhaps you could weave them in. Engleham (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that making multiple postings as you did was in fact WP:Forum shopping and therefore advise you to self-revert. But this is entirely up to you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. No, I loath shopping. Especially clothes shopping. Have self-reverted the BLPNB post. Can't recall where the other was. Thanks! Engleham (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

RPA

Despite being told not to, he stalks my edits. Coincidence? Only if I came down in the last shower. What a sobering moral tale: even if Time has shortchanged them, some people will continue to piss it away. Engleham (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate content on your user page

I agree with Hillbillyholiday's revert. No individual editors are mentioned by name. I make no comment on Engleham's other edits or interactions, but as far as the user page is concerned, it's valid criticism (even if I don't agree with most of it). Willondon (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, no editors are personally named. I found the slight against Napoleon somewhat insulting, but that's not covered under WP:NPA or WP:BLP. I don't much care for the tone, either, but I believe the criticism is within the bounds of what a user should be able keep on their user page. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

If it don't nourish, it do encourage. To one who has the courage not to sanitize his/her/its talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sfarney Thank you darling. Even aside from its hugely amusing antecedents, one should never take Wikipedia too seriously. Engleham (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Holt Help

User:EauZenCashHaveIt I'll throw you a bone for Holt. Why? Because Collect wasted my time at Talk:Gary_Cooper with the same tactic - wear the user down until they give up. There's an article for it: WP:CRUSH

The article and its Talk page may give you some clues, or you may just may want to provide more irrefutable citations, such as:

1. "He was with four others - one was Marjorie Gillespie, his secret lover. According to Holt's wife, Dame Zara, she wasn't the only one."She was one of the queue formed on the right. It went on all the time," Dame Zara would say years later. She said he had lovers in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Hong Kong as well as Portsea. But as with US president John Kennedy, nothing was ever said. It was a different time." Citation: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663679090.html

2. Dame Zara Bate: "He was having affairs everywhere. He made a big thing of never having a guard anywhere near him. I know why. He should have had a guard with him" Iain Gillespie: "Were you aware of his relationship with Marjorie Gillespie"? Dame Zara: "Very aware" http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/the-harold-holt-mystery/clip3/

3. You might also want to include this one: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/belief-growing-holt-killed-himself/2007/11/13/1194766672025.html

Why is the inclusion important? Because if he had not eschewed guards because of his affairs, he may not have drowned.

So the new entry could be something such as:

Along with three others with him the beach was his mistress of the time, Marjorie Gillespie. (Ref: Silvester, John Out Of His Depth: The PM who believed his own publicity, The Age 23 August 2003 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663679090.html) (Ref: Frame, Tom The Life and Death of Harold, Allen & Unwin 2005, Introduction & pp176-177) According to Dame Zara: "He was having affairs everywhere. He made a big thing of never having a guard anywhere near him. I know why. He should have a guard with him." (Ref: Gillespie, Iain The Harold Holt Mystery, 1985, National Film & Sound Archive. http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/the-harold-holt-mystery/clip3/)

This isn't the whole story. He was bisexual. Toorak/Bellevue Hill knew, and biographers aware, but haven't been able to get anyone to go on the record. Unlikely to come out now unless spook files released: given it made him a blackmail risk in those years it may have been noted. Only slight allusions have been published. e.g.Holt, who before his marriage to Zara had led a somewhat fast life among the gay and drug set with whom he holidayed in Bingil Bay in far north Queensland, had picked a worldly woman and none in their social milieu was much troubled by extramarital meanderings.http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/going-off-men-20121128-2ae8b.html (They bought the shack in Bingle after they were married, but he may have also gone there before.) However, unless more information is released it's obviously unsupportable. You don't owe me, but don't hassle me. Engleham (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

John Saul

Simply add any further available in-depth sources overall, any amount if acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister Even though Wikipedia is dying by the month, like a tapestry worker in a ghost town, it will be my quiet focus. What other priorities could there be? Engleham (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cooper

Not worth trying to insert it. Cooper is a conservative poster boy; they won't let anything besmirch his memory. I faced a similar battle with Collect when I tried to insert reasonably well-sourced details about Matt Drudge (details you can now find at Sourcewatch). As a conservative commentator, his personal life had to be whitewashed, no matter what. It's just not worth the hassle to try to insert facts about people that a certain element don't want to hear, so save yourself the heartache. BTW, you should attach an email address to your profile so other editors can contact you. Ratel (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ratel Thanks for the sharing, which I fully appreciate. I have opened another RfC on Coopers Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Cooper), so would appreciate it if you think my sentences should be included, to add Include And yes, I understand the email issue. Clearly a vast amount of collaborative fuckwittery goes on behind the scenes. Onwards and upwards. Engleham (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC

I note you wish to stress that the movies had Cooper wear girlish make-up. Note that make-up was needed because of the color sensitivity of b/w film. Kindly revert. Collect (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

[[User:Collect| Mate: I spent three years at University undertaking Cinema Studies. Credit me with a little understanding. It included viewing all of Sternbergs films frame by fucking frame, and we were lectured about his eroticisation and feminisation of Gary Cooper in Morocco till our ears burnt. Reading the Brown citation, which goes deep into the early 'pretty boy' image that Cooper had - and how it dramatically changed by the mid-30s, just brought to the fore that there are holes in the article you could drive a truck through. There was no mention of this early somewhat effete screen persona for one thing - which is needed, otherwise one would think the later Everyman/Rugged Cowboy act had been there from the beginning. Here's a direct link to the second citation. It expressly mentions Coopers makeup and other factors which were part of the glamorising of him that was later pulled back: https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/3061/3020 I'm more than happy for you to reword what I wrote -- provided you respect the information in the sources I've added, or can provide other sources for the same topic. Engleham (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A comment I was about to make at the just hatted RFA talk page discussion

I hope that I will have the self control to make only a single comment here. It seems clear to me that the closing bureaucrat will discount Engleham's oppose, and that in the end, it will have no effect on the outcome. And yes, his comments are a bit rude and disrespectful toward poor AustralianRupert, though I suspect that he will survive just fine. The kerfuffle motivated me to read Engleham's user page and talk page, and the experience was both irritating and perversely enjoyable and maybe a bit enlightening. It seems to me that Engleham is not a troll, though some of the behavior comes off as trollish. I see the editor as a dissident, a thoughtful provocateur, and an iconoclast in the tradition of H. L. Mencken, who is trying to shake established Wikipedians out of their ingrained normal modes of thinking. Engleham's style is the opposite of my own, but I found reading their observations a good use of my time, not a waste. No one need pay attention. After all, newspapers have other pages, radios have off switches, and The Internet has a search box that will take you to billions of other pages if the page in front of your nose offends you. Let us not overreact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. You know how much I respect you. I think what you are saying makes sense, and I appreciate it. The "no one need pay attention" part, not so much. Engleham, I'm sorry I trouted you. I joke around a lot, but for heaven's sake, there is a time and place for such things. Please, just do your best to consider things. RfA is no fun, and really a lousy place to joke or, well, make such comments. And please do consider the time usage of volunteers. If you love Wikipedia, surely you want us to be spending our time building this thing, and not responding to things the community obviously would see as inappropriate. You're obviously smart, and I am guessing very sensitive. And you are probably a nice person in real life and would be bags of fun. I just hope you understand why I am communicating with you. It is not to tell you off or be a heavy. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Cullen328"Let us not overreact." But look at the joy it brings. Although when there's so many mini-masterpieces of spin requiring desperate editorial attention (like this corker I came across the other day: Bongbong Marcos), one wishes some perspective amongst the lumpen could be be brought to bear. User:Anna Frodesiak "I joke around a lot" Oh, I know. You are the mantrap warrior temptress my mother warned me against. "and I am guessing very sensitive." Of course. All we serial killers are. Engleham (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, your rationale for the oppose !vote makes sense to me though the !vote itself doesn't. I agree that a 100% support on anything is not ideal because it reduces variance and, as any student of Darwin knows, that is a recipe for death by extinction. However, an oppose just to ensure that the support does not stay at 100% is pointless because it doesn't really change the variance reducing equation. Just a thought. Perhaps successful RfAs should have an upper threshold as well - no less than 65% and no greater than 90% :) --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:RegentsPark I don't know what it means, but it's making me so HARD! :-) Engleham (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jef and Paul Award for Excellence in Shopping Centers

		Jef and Paul Award for Excellence in Shopping Centers
		Congratulations! You have just won the Jef and Paul Award for Excellence in Shopping Centers. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

.

User:The Quixotic Potato Yet I still feel strangely hollow. Engleham (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I recommend looking at this picture until you feel better. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:The Quixotic Potato Oh much better. As a disinterested Third Party, would you consider this RfC has reached consensus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Full_Service_(book)#Proposed_merge_with_Scotty_Bowers Engleham (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are very few things I am not interested in. I would guess that keeping that RfC open is in your advantage, because I would guess that more Keep votes are coming. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comments at RfA

I'm writing to follow up on your comments concerning a pending RfA. Although good-faith participation in RfA on any side is always welcome, I was not alone in finding the nature of your comments on this one to be deeply problematic, to the point that your oppose !vote could not be considered a legitimate contribution. Overnight, a couple of people suggested to me that I might have overreacted, and as a result, I have just reread the last couple of days' discussion with an open mind. Unfortunately, that rereading only confirmed my original opinion.

To be clear, the issue is not that you opposed a candidate, or even that you opposed a candidate for thin reasons, or opposed a strong candidate who enjoyed otherwise unanimous support. It is that you opposed the candidate for no meaningful reason, which cannot be considered a useful manner of participation.

As you may or may not be aware, the community has spent significant time in recent years introspecting on reasons for the decline in the number of editors seeking adminship. Those reasons are many and varied, but it has often been suggested that one of them is the hostile and negative environment that some prospective candidates perceive as permeating the RfA process. To some extent that is inevitable, as part of the process is subjecting oneself to fellow editors' evaluation of one's Wikipedia tenure, including all of one's actual or perceived mistakes and shortcomings. When legitimate faults in a candidate are found and reported, so be it. But there is no reason to introduce artificial negativity into the process, by opposing a candidate simply for the very purpose of opposing him.

Perhaps even more troubling, you then explained the grounds for your opposition, such as they were, with a series of metaphors relating to violent death. In a single repellent phrase you compared some of your fellow editors both to Nazi leaders and to mass-murdering maniacs ("kommandants manning the Kool-Aid table"—for anyone who might not recognize it, the latter reference is to Jonestown). Your other death-related references varied from disturbing ("bodies rotting somewhere", "the dingo did it" (linked to Death of Azaria Chamberlain)) to bizarre ("all those who died here at my hands", "all we serial killers").

When editors questioned your !vote and comments both on the RfA talkpage and your usertalk page, your responses were also replete with gratuitous sexual references ("Hold on, let me get the lube", "I don't know what it means, but it's making me so HARD! :-)") and inappropriate personal comments ("You need a hug, but I'd be worried about damaging the scar tissue"; "You are the mantrap warrior temptress my mother warned me against"). This type of sexualized references and innuendo used to bait fellow editors is unacceptable user conduct (compare, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Two kinds of pork) and can be grounds for sanctions.

At this point I suppose I cannot be sure whether you were intentionally disrupting the process ("trolling") as I originally suspected, or were pursuing a philosophical campaign against what you perceived as excessive consensus, or were trying to be funny, or some combination of the three. Whichever one or more of these is the case, I believe that your commentary was seriously harmful and disruptive. I strongly advise you not to do this sort of thing again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Ira! Such a lovely old fashioned name. I have to confess, I blithely skimmed your post at first as I normally do, and initially thought it to be a teasing parody - the sex and death paragraph was particularly mirth-provoking – and not only to myself. A subsequent more careful reading revealed the sentiments appeared to be genuine, and I then thought it must be some 'triggered' PC millennial, akin to Yale's famous hollering hellhag. But then I clicked your editor page which revealed your identity. What can one say? Gobsmacked. I thought the first requirement of a lawyer was a sense of proportion.

You write:"a couple of people suggested to me that I might have overreacted".

Do please be grateful to them for planting the seed of doubt. More of this A Type New York good jewishboy overthinking and anxiety, and you'll be in the coronary ward nursing your new stent. And from your mother down, I'm sure I'm not the only one to tell you this. Ironically, last night I came across this old article which you've no doubt seen (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing?page=2), which suggests paranoia runs riot in Wikipedia's ruling circles. I fear your post will do nothing to lessen that suggestion. If what the Brit tabloids fetchingly term "a sunshine holiday" can be afforded, I strongly urge it.

Now, to the gist of what you wrote: " I cannot be sure whether you were intentionally disrupting the process ("trolling") as I originally suspected, or were pursuing a philosophical campaign against what you perceived as excessive consensus, or were trying to be funny, or some combination of the three."

My intention, I thought, was perfectly plain to those of common sense. In a cascade of what seemed fully deserved praise for the candidate, it was meant - with wry levity - to point out that flawless Rupert, being human, cannot be completely flawless, and thereby provoke some mention of possible drawbacks, however minor, that require improvement, or at least flagging. After all, this was the time to do it. As the most basic professional hiring review would do.

However, professionalism isn't Wikipedia's strongest point. And some of its very weakest are editorial and administrative bullying, dissembling, and arbitrary interpretations of policy which, as someone once wittily wrote (https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1834998&cid=33991066) "can mean as much a turd sandwich". The seemingly endless spool of nonsensical pushback and casual bullying which followed my vote was a perfect demonstration of the first of these failings.

The candidate, like my good self, is supposedly Australian: a blunt speaking nationality with a rugged "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" humour, an appreciation of irony, and a low tolerance of bullshit. Wondrously, my opposing vote had created the perfect test tube storm to highlight his admin skills and personality. Perhaps he wished not to interfere with the voting process, but as the later opposing votes rightly pointed out "a few well chosen words" informing the hysterical and confused that the point and joke were got, could have defused the schoolgirl silliness. (And in the unlikely event he didn't get them, then that's the depressing thought of one more obtuse admin brought to the party.) The fact that the opposing votes are also now struck provides visible indictment of Wikipedia's alarmingly juvenile inability to accept and process contrarian opinion. It should be an embarrassment. But sadly, won't be. And now, with this too-lengthy, but frightfully gracious reply to a tedious matter that shouldn't even be an issue, I find I've bored even myself. Onwards and upwards. Engleham (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I now note Rupert's reply that he wouldn't have struck the comment, which shows him to be a wiser man, and better defender of free speech than some of his supporters, including some administrators! So it goes Engleham (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad You see Ira: in response to a very thoughtful post, more puerile bullying, including a ridiculous accusation of antisemitism. As a decade-old good-faith editor, the bullying is not heartening to see, and I would point to it as a reason for the decline in good editors. I believe when @Jimbo Wales: referred to Wikipedia as 'broken', overweening excessive political correctness, and more importantly, the refusal to countenance contrarian opinion, was part of what he was referring to. Reflective individuals, as AustralianRupert appears to be, are sorely needed as admins; admins with a trigger-sensitive and warring mentality such as on show here, less so; and individuals such as The_Quixotic_Potato who respect difference (I was particularly impressed by his measured and astute comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/AustralianRupert#Discussion_of_Engleham.27s_oppose_vote) should, to provide reflective balance, be put forward as admins with the greatest haste.) However, we move on.

As I occasionally write for a number of publications, this incident provides, along with the experiences of others, enlightening material for a timely article (not an attack piece, but a thoughtful reflection couched in my usual larky tone) on the state of Wikipedia today. May I have your written permission here to quote parts of your post? If not, I'll have to précis it. While I'm generally across most external commentary on Wikipedia, although I don't expect it, if you graciously wish to assist me Edward by pointing to any commentary on the challenges currently facing Wikipedia that would help in framing the article, or comment on these from your own insider perspective, I would welcome it.

I won't even bother wasting my time appealing a block instituted because of a civil reply to your question. The fact the reply itself was labelled disruptive and the block applied by an un-neutral party, merely mirrors some of the less than admirable injustices I've seen applied to other editors here for the most arbitrary of reasons. If disruptive is arguing calmly and logically, a reasonable man can only take pride in being found guilty by such an imitation of People's Court (Germany) mentality. Engleham (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo referred to RfA as broken, not Wikipedia. You've edited here 10 years without reading the license for release directly above the "Save page" button? Why would you need permission to quote someone? Tiderolls 12:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls As recent cases remind, copyright is a minefield. Requesting when possible written approval as a backup, is both good policy, and simply polite. At least, that's my view. Re: the Wales quote – you're right. Although it's regularly attributed to him, Mr Google informs that it came from co-founder Larry_Sanger#Citizendium. Engleham (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Engleham, Tide rolls is correct that you don't need my permission to quote from anything I've written on Wikipedia. However, to the extent you are requesting my permission, you have it, subject only to my request that you provide me with a link to or copy of whatever you wind up writing.

Beyond that, I appreciate your desire to be "simply polite" to me. If you had been reasonably polite in some other places, things might have played out very differently. When people perceived an RfA comment that you have now explained you made with good intentions as problematic, it would have been polite not to call them the "kommandants manning the Kool-aid table." (Your statement above that your goal was to introduce the standards of a "professional hiring review" into the process with these sorts of comments is beyond ironic.) And when I took the time to write a lengthy note to you expressing my own concerns, it would have been polite not to mention (your assumptions about) my mother and my religion in your response.

I suppose I can now see what you were trying to do in the RfA. But it was not appropriate and not worth doing. The "oppose" section in a request for adminship is for discussing editors' reasons for opposing the candidate's adminship. If there are no known grounds for opposing, it is not necessary to post to the oppose section on a theory of "Wikipedia abhors a vacuum." The RfA pages are perceived as all too often a negative, toxic environment. If we have a candidate who is passing unanimously, and who is receiving what you yourself describe as "a cascade of ... fully deserved praise," this is a good thing that does not require gratuitous sullying. There is a reason that an RfA page does not include a memento mori section along with the "supports" and "neutrals" and "opposes."

However well-intentioned you might have been when you made your first comment, based upon the reaction you should have realized that the point was not coming across and dropped it. It did not help that you continued in the same vein until even I, one of the most flexible and lenient administrators around, and many others, thought your participation was verging on trolling. When I realize that a point I am making is not being understood, I either drop it or I explain it; it doesn't help to simply shout it louder.

(Beyond that, recall that when Caesar's herald repeatedly whispered "Remember, thou art mortal!" to the returning hero Marcus Vindictus, the latter understandably responded with a curt, "oh, blow it out your ass!" Of course, an RfA candidate is hardly in a place to make that response.)

All that said, it was never my intent to have you blocked, and I did not foresee or want that as an outcome of our discussion, although by your response you didn't do yourself many favors. Blocking of good-faith, if flawed, contributors is very much a last resort in my eyes, and I would rather see you editing productively in the article space again than either brooding on this page or leaving Wikipedia altogether, whether voluntarily or otherwise. We do have some expectations here about how our editors treat each other, which you may call "political correctness" but which I call being "simply polite." If you tell me you will make an effort to meet those expectations, I might surprise you by asking for a review of your block status. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Thank you Ira for you lovely reflective reply. Just one point: "If you had been reasonably polite in some other places, things might have played out very differently....not doubled down again...I don't simply shout it louder" . I have to say, I just re-read those posts and it seems to me nothing could further from shouting. I believe they're polite, witty, and thought-provoking. Someone asks the handful of complainers: "Why do people care if someone votes oppose for any reason?" and seeking to turn a mirror on the silliness I write: "No, threats of bullying and suppression are good! One quietly lodges a vote to bring a note of philosophical reflection to the proceedings, and fabulously, it flushes out the humourless kommandants manning the Kool-Aid table."

Now, as its own article Drinking_the_Kool-Aid states, this has become a mere figure of speech, that can be employed both ironically or humorously – which I did. Further posts follow, with Quixy rightly stating "Engleham is using humor to make a point." I then posted: "Thank you for removal of the strike....Never liked them. Or any censorship. I'm afraid I didn't get the memo that cynics are not permitted to vote. If one disagrees with the stated reasons for a vote, you can always comfort yourself yourself by pretending it was made – like so many decisions by administrators I've read over the years – arbitrarily. But one still has to swallow them. :-) Yes, Quixy, 100% approval is never good news, including for the candidate."

That seems polite, a fair observation, and good advice, to me. Finally, Anna F posts: "Honestly Engleham, are you enjoying the 13,432 characters that have landed here as a result of your oppose?" And I replied "Well, I'm marvelling at it." Because I frankly didn't expect any such response, and joked, "Anna darling, let's not kid ourselves: no one posting on this page has a life. I'm guessing some haven't had such enjoyment in months. Maybe years!" To which she replied: "You didn't answer the question" , to which I further joked "Hold on, let me get the lube." This may have tickled her because we subsequently had a fun exchange on my Talk page.

Now, I know some people don't 'get' me, and often find Australian humour coarse at the best of times, but although I'm light years from being a Princess Di-group hug person, I can't find anything there to take offence at, nor at the over-stressed legaleagle and jewish mother joke. Perhaps allowances need to be made on Wikipedia for cultural differences, and also larky personalities who lack the PC filters recent decades have mandated in certain quarters. So the accusations by some of intentional trolling and meanness, where others rightfully see a desire to be thoughtfully provocative with good humoured teasing, merely go over my head.

Orwell's prophesy of group condemnation for thoughtcrime didn't eventuate when 1984 rolled round. However, as we both well know, today it has become entrenched. One needs to resist it, and champion the burrs in the very thick woolliness. However, I do also think allowances need to be made for admins who are faced daily with carving the jelly of high nonsense dished up by newbies, hysterics, non-English speakers, and POV pushers, and then, in the next instant, are faced with someone like myself. No wonder there are short fuses. I'm provoked to this observation after just reading the unintentionally hilarious Talk page of an indefinitely banned non-English speaker who had driven the admins dealing with him to the brink of gibbering murder. I think unrecognised admin burnout is a serious issue worth raising. One wonders how mellow, for example, marvellous virginal Rupert will be a year from now. Will he have become a hardened ban whore in army boots? We've seen worse transitions. ;-)

Anyway, would I like the too-hasty ban removed? It would be nice. Will I be an always polite Princess Di Engleham? As I've shown above, I believe I am mostly polite, if blunt, even in the face of high silliness. However, like most editors and admins on Wikipedia, there are occasions - mostly when civil discussion fails in the face of obstructive foolishness, when I can be sharp or mocking. However, perhaps more importantly, I consider myself empathetic, as well as thoughtful, well meaning, challenging when necessary; editing high, low, and broad; and on occasion, researching and writing rather fascinating scholarly pieces, such as Alexander Meyrick Broadley. In other words Ira....whom I now feel has a better measure of me... a complete bloody blessing! ;-) Engleham (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "coarse humor" and the posts you've been making. So many of these comments, if made in nearly any workplace, would land you on the opposite side of a desk from a human resources staffer handling the harassment complaints. They are no more welcome here on Wikipedia than they would be in such a workplace, and why you'd think so is beyond me. I am far from expecting that The_ed17 will remove your block; in fact, I'm surprised that he did not make it indefinite. Tone it down, quit the sexual harassment, and maybe you'll edit successfully when you come off your block. But if you keep it up, or continue to fail to understand why the things you've said are both grossly offensive and completely unwelcome, not only will your return likely be short-lived, but you run the risk of making Wikipedia even more unwelcome than it already is for many. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ironic how we are informed on a regular basis that WP:NOT a workplace; but when it suits, 'you wouldn't do it at work' is wheeled out :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 05:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix @GorillaWarfare Exactly, Fortuna. And what kind of workplace? Many don't have HR. And a great many aren't located in the trigger-sensitive nurseryworlds of university campuses, startups, San Fran, etc. As a non-HR CEO once said to me: "We have a one sentence hiring policy: No bullshitters." One senses that this isn't exactly the desired paradigm amongst some at Wikipedia. And I'm afraid anyone - male or female - who employs the username GorillaWarfare, sets alarm bells ringing. It suggests issues. Certainly issues with sexual harassment. Because to imply anything of what I wrote constitutes sexual harassment is risible. And there's a red blooded woman standing right behind my shoulder as I type this, who really thinks the allegation takes the cake for ridiculousness. (The words "some young chicks are their own worst enemy" were heard, as was mention of hilariously immortal Nan Michiganwomyn of Datalounge.) I'm more accommodating, because part of my work has involved mentoring GenXs and Millennials, cutting through their too-confidant template assumptions, and introducing them to the strange new world of self-reflection. Still, it doesn't say much for the level of maturity that can be brought to ArbCom. (This WHY cri de coeur from a bewildered user is awfully amusing.) One would like to hope there's some well-rounded adults on it. Including, not just over 35, but over 40. That the idea of having minors on it was even entertained is beyond belief. Just as for the board of a large company, electing anyone to ArbCom who is under 30 - and thereby lacking the cumulative wealth of emotional maturity AND broad and deep life experience necessary for optimum judgements involving a vast spectrum of users, is undesirable, and it could be argued, irresponsible. More gruel for the article I suppose. So your post was useful in that respect. Engleham (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

@Gerda_Arendt Thank you Gerda, you honey Hun. You're a kind, and insightful woman. If only there were more of you! Engleham (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR

I've rewritten this text a couple of times. In earlier drafts I started with a lengthy explanation of my personal views on nazism/fascism/anti-semitism and sex, gender and sexual harrasment to ensure that no one would dare accuse me of being a nazi/fascist/anti-semite/misogynist/sexist pig/menist/gamergater etc. etc.

After thinking about it for a while I realized that I, as a quixotic idealist, feel that that shouldn't be necessary.

It should be obvious, even to those that disagree with me, that I have a brain and that I am not afraid to use it and that therefore I can not be a member of any of those groups. Unfortunately people do not know/understand that the same applies to you, and the humor you use goes a bit further than the humor I use (because I deliberately censor myself).

My userpage (NSFW) contains many quotes that can help others understand who I am as a person, for example "this machine kills fascists" and "war is hell", many of the people I've quoted are Jewish and/or have Jewish family members (as do I), I would describe myself as a feminist, my sister has written a book on gender studies and I always send her emails about unnecessarily gendered products and stuff like this and my father cannot work due to a chronic auto-immume disease so when I came back from school he was at home with a cup of tea while my mother shattered the glass ceiling. Oh, and I am Dutch, see the article the Netherlands in World War II.

If anyone dares to doubt any of that then I am willing to provide proof; but I will mock that person for being stupid.

I do like a lot of stuff that most people consider offensive. Heck, I even like some stuff that I consider offensive! My userpage contains the word "fuck" twelve times. Some of the comedians and rappers I listen to are (deliberately) extremely offensive. I am used to seeing and hearing and reading a lot of stuff I disagree with, because I disagree with many commonly held beliefs and because I read/watch/listen to a lot of offensive stuff. I've been listening to hiphop (among many other genres, I have an eclectic taste in music) for over 25 years now and I have all albums made by (a.o.) R.A. the Rugged Man, Immortal Technique and Vinnie Paz, and their rhymes contain many things I disagree with (e.g. stupid conspiracy theories, homophobia, transphobia, misogeny et cetera et cetera).

I like insult comedy, and I like some jokes that are based on stereotypes. I think people like Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr and Andy Kaufman (who was not a comedian but a performance artist) are very interesting and I laugh about stuff that would offend many others, for example Bill Hick's famous "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever"-speech where he says "Kill em all Adolf, all of them!" and asks God to make it rain for fourty days to "wash this human waste of flesh and bones off this planet".

Stewart Lee has a bit where he talks about Richard Hammond, and at the end he breaks the fourth wall and says: "I don’t really think Richard Hammond should die. What I was doing there, as everyone here in this room now understands, just in case there’s anyone from the Mail on Sunday watching this, is I was using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and the implied values of Top Gear to satirise the rhetoric and the implied values of Top Gear. And it is a shame to have to break character and explain that. But hopefully it will save you a long, tedious exchange of emails.". He is one of my favorite comedians.

Because of all this I think that I am in the perfect position to say: Engleham, you are smart enough to know that its a bad idea to make jokes here that can be misinterpreted when there are a bunch of admins looking for a stick to beat you with, and not everyone understands your humor. Jokingly referring to stereotypes about Jewish people and making jokes about sex is generally speaking a bad idea on Wikipedia.

Remember, free speech is a hypothetical concept, it does not exist on Wikipedia or on this planet.

I have defended you when you were unfairly accused of trolling, and now you are unfairly accused of anti-semitism and sexual harassment and I will try to defend you again, but in the future if you want to make a joke that crosses a certain line I strongly recommend emailing it to me or posting it elsewhere instead of posting it on Wikipedia.

I think the belief in one single universal truth is dangerous and stupid, and when other people interpret those jokes as anti-semitic or sexual harrasment then that is true to them, even if it is not your intention.

And of course being PC is also a good thing, despite what many people will tell you, because we are very slowly trying to escape from eons of racism and sexism.

There will always be an audience for offensive comedy, but this (you know, an encyclopedia) is not the place and now is not the time. There is of course no bright red line, but I can assure you that my userpage is already pretty close to it if there would be one. For example, the only reason I can get away with that MMA joke is because it is a joke about the widespread homophobia among MMA-fans instead of a joke about gay people.

You are obviously able to communicate without this kinda stuff. I agree that ideally we should live in a world where people do not get offended by what other people say. But people who like this kind of humor like myself are the minority here (and elsewhere).

Many of the best contributors to Wikipedia are on the autism spectrum. And of those who are not a great majority does not like this kinda stuff, so we'll have to adjust a bit.

I think you can easily do that. If you are not sure where the line is then you can email me (but I think you can figure that out) and this does not mean that you are not allowed to make those kinda jokes, only that this is a bad place for them; there are thousands of other websites that welcome them.

So, in conclusion, please tone it down a bit. I don't think people will understand that you've been falsely accused, but who cares, I do understand that. Block should not be punitive so if you say that you can tone it down a bit then it should be easy to get you unblocked. Let's move on. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. And please don't post an answer that contains a joke; email it to me instead! p.p.s. You can use all my talkpage contributions as if they were public domain, but I would of course appreciate a link to the article when it is finished.

User:The Quixotic Potato Thank you darling Quixy. And your suggestion goes for you too. It's enticingly easy to take the occasionally Alice In Wonderland levels of nonsense here seriously, and ignoring it (nothing is older than a Wikipedia rant of yesterday) is never bad advice. I've always presumed you were dutch, given their delicious contrarian humour. What nice things Gerda has written to you. You should consider nominating yourself as an admin. You're exactly what Wikipedia needs. And if you say: "But they don't want contrarian opinion!" - well, here's a story. Some years ago I was privately approached by a family friend to apply for one of the intelligence services. Not my thing, and astonished, I replied with similar words. "You're wrong" he said "You're exactly the type of thinker I recruit!" So think about it the admin thing. We've seen alot worse. ;-) Engleham (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda understands many things that some people will never learn. I don't have enough time to be an admin, and I would have to censor myself even more than I currently am! Dutch people are probably the rudest and bluntest people on this planet, especially those from Amsterdam. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Dutch people are probably the rudest and bluntest people on this planet, especially those from Amsterdam." Yes, as refreshing as a splash of cold water! ;-) Engleham (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Come visit, you'll like it. I mean, we have stroopwafels. Stupidity is offensive to me. But, eh, can you promise to tone it down a bit so that you can get unblocked sooner? I don't like seeing that red banner. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I do. But I prefer the mosterdsoep! Engleham (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We should probably invite @GorillaWarfare: and @Newyorkbrad: over to come have a look at our conversation; you have been making good contributions over the past decade and if you tone it down a bit like you promised then I look forward to seeing your contribs during the next decade (without any blocks)! Remember, what is respectful discourse to us may be perceived differently by different people, and their truth is also true. If you want to use some words that can be considered offensive (I do once in a while) then it is important to be careful who you direct them at. If you look at my userpage you will notice that the people who would feel offended are either extremely unlikable (e.g. homophobes and nazis), no one is gonna defend those, or in a priviledged position (e.g. the "smug, greedy, well-fed white people" in that George Carlin quote and Vladimir Putin), no one feels the need to defend those. And of course it helps that I am a smug, greedy, well-fed straight white male myself; very few people care when I insult a group I am a member of. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note; how do you know mosterdsoep? Have you visited NL, or do you know some Dutch Australians or something like that? I am suprised you even know it exists! Usually we give foreign guest some pickled herring (which they usually hate, and many don't like the idea of eating raw fish) and then some stroopwafels (which are becoming increasingly popular around the world because they are basically heaven in a cookie). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And then you give them some zoute drop and ruin the friendship. ;-) I must get on... Engleham (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an acquired taste! This conversation made me hungry, I'll go raid my fridge. Ciao ciao, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Striking_.21votes (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

talk Ta, Quixy. I couldn't be bothered reading more than a portion of it. And few things are more hypocritical than people who have banned one, speaking on one's behalf: " the transparently insincere oppose" Even though I told him I meant every word, @Newyorkbrad seems to have a problem with trust. But the whole discussion is beyond inane. Speaking of which. That grossly immature twenty-something students, who can espouse every Social Justice Warrior cliche in the book, can then actually get themselves on the ArbCom board if they're determined enough, shows a serious administrative failing. No one under 30 should be there, and an age bar should be voted into policy for the good of all -- including their stressed judgemental selves. Now THAT'S a policy discussion that should be started. Engleham (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

People still don't understand, I don't expect that they ever will, but there seems to be consensus that votes should not be stricken. Do you have an emailaddress I can use? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Maurice Talvande) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Maurice Talvande, Engleham!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for this - looks really interesting! I've found some good extra sources from Google Books and added them, and put in a picture of the island and his house from Wikimedia Commons too, and added some categories.

@Blythwood More juicy bits coming. Engleham (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

stop harassment please

I note you seem desirous of following my every edit and noticeboard post. Kindly stop. Collect (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Very rich coming from you -- as the record well shows, a bullying WP:CRUSH stalker par excellence of an uncounted number of good editors. Your current agenda to insert William Benemann's name into articles and add "law archivist", even after the validity of his credentials as an historian, was pointed out to you by myself and others [1] is both childish, and compromising to the articles themselves. You lost the argument. Grow up and move on. Engleham (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Collect Oh, I just noticed you've done the same to the Count d'Orsay article as well! It's also both sad and hilarious that you're confidently editing this article, yet your historical knowledge of him is so poor that you appear to think Benneman is the only scholar who has ever assumed an affair between d'Orsay and Blessington! Well, I'll fix the article and also save you public embarrassment. Engleham (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you are specifically stalking my edits. Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Collect You very well know I've had to address your stalking of my edits in the past. But let's look more recently, shall we? On the 17th, although you only made a handful of article edits, you directly and indirectly stalked me.

1. On 17 August I edited William Drummond Stewart adding the review citation of Benneman.

2. The same day you run across to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard taking issue with Benneman, slagging the suggestion that he's a reputable scholar. When that didn't work, you claimed your issue was that it constituted a single source. Someone else pointed out an additional source, which you dismissed. That's not enough for you. Because you can't win you...

3. Start incorporating mention of Benneman as a "law archivist" into the body of articles! First for the article on William North. Then that of Count d'Orsay. Your background knowledge of both topics is so poor, you think Benneman is the only scholar to suggest both individuals may have been bisexual. To repair your damage to the articles, I added a slew of pertinent new references and remove Benneman's name from the body of the text - and completely from the d'Orsay article as there are more pertinent sources. Incorporating scholar's names into the body of articles is never best practice unless they have dramatically changed the field of studies. And it has been abused for vanity purposes. It certainly shouldn't be employed to pursue a personal agenda, as you have been doing.

4. The day wasn't over. You chose to revert a quote on Frederick the Great's article I'd added just two weeks prior.

5. Having obviously looked at my edit log, from the hundreds of articles up for deletion, you THEN chose to vote opposing me on Frederick Blond, which I voted on only a hour or so before: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Blond]. And that's just in one 24 hour period when you're on a vindictive roll. As I've said before, you need to grow up. You clearly have a very strong bias against the incorporation of any suggestion of homosexuality/bisexuality into articles, when relevant, however many sources are supplied. And you have a very clear bias against myself – completely understandable, as I've shown you up, and your WP: CRUSH modus operandi repeatedly. And I know how much that infuriates you. Well, you need to get over it. I'm a very cautious editor with a loathing of supposition beyond what can be established by sources. And will delete anything that steps over that mark. e.g. with regard to William North - if you Google "steuben + "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship" + will" you'll find a slew of articles stating that this phrase was in Steuben's Will but edited out by an earlier biographer. A few articles even suggest the Will reads "like a love letter". I checked the 1930s biography, and the Will, and the claim is complete tosh. The phrase came from a biographical source which I identified and added, and inserted a note in the citations, which will hopefully quell this canard. And I've deleted other similar gay overclaims elsewhere in the past. However, there is a point where the amount of circumstantial evidence can sometimes tip to "beyond reasonable doubt". No one ever saw Oscar Wilde engage in homosexual acts, he denied it in a public court, and he was married with two children. Does that make him straight? I hate false history. Including gay history that makes false claims or exceptional ones that are not supported. But neither am I a friend of bigotry that seeks to distort history. There is a seachange going on in historical studies where previously suppressed material is being published, and existing material re-evaluated, and if it is relevant, then I will endeavour to incorporate it, after filtering it through the editorial lens. Engleham (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

EW Warning

@Collect Nice try at a wind-up. Well you know I consider any suggestions you offer to anyone regarding good behaviour, are completely and utterly farcical, given the record suggests you to be one of Wikipedia's most chronic, trivial and homophobic WP:CRUSH edit warriors and, --- need it be said once again --- seasoned stalker. Engleham (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

Kindly note posts thereat. Collect (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked you for one month per the discussion here. As you are probably aware, you can appeal this block per the usual unblock process. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 @Doc9871 Just a note to say thanks for your comments, and also to Ritchie for a judgement in the face of a mob which was measured, mature, and reflective. The individual protesting it is, like the original complainant, one of set of about five 'gentlemen of a certain age' (I presume retirees) who resist the inclusion of any material they don't approve of, however neutrally worded and supported it is by reliable resources. C'est la vie. Fortunately most of them are not interested in more academic subjects, or Wikipedia would have a real problem. One thing I note: the proposer of the community ban wrote: "if one is specifically asked to think hard about a comment, and one still stands by it, then I don't want that editor contributing." This I find an extraordinary thing to say: indicative of a harsh life-view, and a terrible linear black/white approach to people and Wikipedia management. I note their interest in Bayesian statistics, where such rigidity may work, but people are fragile things, and creative people especially are emotional people. How long would Steve Jobs last as an editor here? Wikipedia doesn't want to left with just a cabal of dull knitters, so except in the case of gross vandalism, my view is that the rope should be more elastic than it currently is, and while escalating in punishments, not jump from a few weeks to permanent, which seems to sometimes occur, but from 1 month to 3 to 6 to 9 to a year, etc., as per standard court sentencing, and which allows time for reflection. What administration outside of ISIS hands down Death so effortlessly? It smacks of "get out of our cubby house", rather than a measured and mature approach. Re: Marquess of Bristol - yes, an interesting subject. (See Rupert Everett's autobiography - a surprisingly good writer.) However perhaps more timely is the current Duke of Manchester, who is in the slammer again (Google), and whose Wiki article was deleted about a year ago after he complained about la publicité. Cheers. Engleham (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Both The Times and The Guardian assert he is the 13th Duke of Manchester and even call him Alexander Montagu-Manchester, so that's one element of the AfD wrapped up. I suspect Scriven's book will have enough details (though the main event there is on his father) along with a bunch of broadsheet pieces to make an article stick. The rather sad thing about the 7th Marquess of Bristol is one gets the impression he was the smartest out of all the upper-class maniacs discussed, but blew it all on cocaine and rent boys. What a waste. I can't find the source where a news reporter called on his half sister, Lady Victoria Hervey, only to be met with a response something like "bugger, I thought you were room service, I'm hungry". Plus ca change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333Yes, he's the real deal: father & grandfather also jailbirds. Ex-wife maintains blog [2], and current wife a fantasy one [3], although some of the trust docs posted are interesting. Engleham (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of close on WP:ANI, I have re-opened the community ban discussion at WP:ANI. Since you are now blocked, you cannot participate directly (from seeing your previous comments there, which really seemed to violate the First Law of Holes, this may not be a bad thing). However, if you wish to have a comment added to the discussion, you can place it here, using a {{helpme}} template, and someone will post it to the ANI thread. Note that comments containing personal attacks or incivility will not be posted for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Floquenbeam and again, @Ritchie333 @Doc9871 I would like to say on the re-opened thread:

I was endeavouring to get the behaviour of the complainant to stop. It is something of no little surprise to me that no one has commented on that fact, or whether the statements made were true, or possibly true. The other party's harassing behaviour has been beyond endurance. I stated firstly that they had been "S---g" i.e. relentlessly following my edits, even when repeatedly asked to stop. And I pasted upthread a review of their actions on this over a single 24 hour period to enable some perception of it. I stated that they had been civil POV pushing and "H----c" in their editing. Whatever personal views an editor holds I care not a whit. However, it is a different matter if in their editing their personal disapproval refuses to allow neutrally worded facts, supported by reliable sources. The other party has 10 previous bans, mostly for edit-warring. That suggests, does it not, that there may be truth in my statement they are civil POV pushing, and that they have generated a huge amount of frustration in other editors, not only myself - frustration that leads to frankness. As for the second statement, I don't know any euphemism to describe 'H---c' behaviour in editing - does anyone? Not conceding neutrally worded material backed by reliable sources, isn't just unfair, and compromising: it's enormously frustrating for any editor. There's lots of material most of us don't like on Wikipedia, but if its neutrally worded and backed by reliable sources, we don't touch it. To sum up: (a) I wrote what I did from deep conviction that it was true, and repeated bad behaviour (b) I wrote it in order for the behaviour to cease and (c) and I don't any other words to describe the behaviour. (I don't believe 'H----c' is uncivil when it describes the specific nature of the edits, and I'm only blanking it to ensure this is hopefully posted.) To install a lifetime ban for this seems extraordinarily unfair. It also seems to be sending a very wrong message: that YES, you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour on Wikipedia, provided you are very keen, very cunning, and ingenuously civil. And I believe most experienced editors here would at least privately concede that they are aware of this invidious loophole. Engleham (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment copied. [4] -- Begoon 03:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon Much appreciated! Engleham (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also updated to include alterations you made while I was posting. [5]. -- Begoon 03:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon Thanks for the update!. At the risk of seeming anal, may I impose upon you to add this:

One further thing: it should be noted that, a glance at the other party's blog log shows only the equivalent of hand slaps for their behaviour and, unlike mine, no escalation in their blocks whatsoever. In fact, theirs have actually gone backwards in length: "2 weeks, 1 week, 1 week, 48 hours, 1 week, 72 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 24 hours". [6] So obviously this supports to a degree the contention that you can get away with any amount of bad behaviour as long as it is civil -- just don't make the mistake, when you call it out, of stating it exactly for what it is! (Which also begs the question: if my review can be reopened, why not theirs as well?) My mistake has been never to lodge a complaint with ANI, but attempt to deal with incidents alone. If I'm given a reprieve, that's one mistake I won't make in future. Engleham (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - [7]. I may not be around for a while now, so if there's anything further it might be best to stick another {{Help me}} tag on it again, to get wider attention. -- Begoon 06:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon Thanks again! Engleham (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You may very well be a future benchmark case. I don't know if it's more disturbing that you're going to be banned because of mindless adherence to process; or that all future editors' rights are being severely curtailed right before our eyes. You can be CBANned for potential NOTHERE crimes that may or may not be committed. Minority Report-type stuff. Horrifying. And reality. Doc talk 10:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871 Yes, it is an intrinsically interesting case in underlining failures of process, and the fact that personality over-rides all in group judgements. (Larky personalities tend to get hammered in group environments compared to those who keep their heads down.) It also highlights the entirely arbitrary way sanctions are applied: some editors are sanctioned purely on a case-by-case base, while for others, incidents are accumulative and result in escalation of sanctions. Shurely shome mishtake. But I think it's a question worth asking, and which might improve the situation of others. While the project inspires respect, there are aspects of it that only inspire levity. And of course, that upsets more ordered personalities. But sanity requires a sense of perspective! Anyway, like most personal projects rather than groups ones, the historical study I'm currently researching and writing is much more satisfying and I don't have to answer to anyone. It will be fun to see if it ever becomes a Wikipedia citation that upsets the elderly! ;-) Engleham (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick "Madame Defarge to the white courtesy phone." Given the course of the ANI thread, it may prove helpful to explain on it why you chose to propose a CBAN over a lovely old block. (Is it: "Because I like statistics!") Or has there been personal reflection in the chapel since? Engleham (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You are to be made an example of! The smarminess of "Perhaps some time away and some introspection will persuade the editor to come back in the future with a more civil approach to editing" while requesting a CBAN is appalling, really. You're an alleged bigot, basically; and no one likes a bigot. Due process goes out the window when dealing with an alleged bigot. People are scoring points off of you. Fight bigotry! Yay! Doc talk 12:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871 Ta! But please: no more engagement with @Snow_Rise for your sake: I don't think it's Chelsea Handler. Jeeez-zuz. No wonder people like me are in trouble, and comedians don't want to tour campuses anymore. Engleham (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Truer words were never spoken. That is, ...spoken by a monster such as you! Wretched ghoul! Oh, won't someone spare us from your madness? Block this beast!! Ban this scourge!!! Doc talk 13:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: As my grandmother would say: wot a load of tosh! The wellspring of this particular incident -- calling someone out on actions they are actually engaging in by naming those actions - stalking, civil pov pushing, and homophobic editing, is something I consider completely acceptable. Yes, of course they may take offense because - golly gee - that type of individual generally doesn't like being fingered. But naming it for what it is - sure. And that's what's being reviewed - or rather, is supposed to be. Secondly, you paint me -- at exhaustive length -- as a deeply flawed human being, yet the complainant is merely described as having 'a checkered history'. Niiice. That's editorial balance for you. And, as I've noted, it's apparent I'm being judged cumulatively, whereas he has been judged on single incidents alone. Odd that. Actually, if this was being treated in a professional way, it would invalidate the entire process. As it is, it's just shaming. Thirdly, when a lawyer sends me a well-meaning, but what I consider to be a comically literal interpretation of some casual levity, but who appeared to be genuinely reaching out for understanding, replying in a comedic manner with a helpful and thought-out response, is a valid response. Indeed, I just re-read it, and think it's as witty, affectionate and thoughtful as the day I wrote it. As well as the long interaction which follows. Otherwise I wouldn't have kept it on my Talk page! And no: I don't think you should be an Admin either. Anymore than I would put myself up to be. I suspect you'd be wonderful on detail and process, but it's best performed by those with a broad life experience, an easy-going nature, a sense of proportion, and a sense of humour. Even if that can't be take-no-prisoners Oz humour! Engleham (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick "to openly state, more than once, that they will continue to break the rules?" That makes me seem like some mad rogue element! What I specifically wrote was: "I'm never going to apologise for naming homophobia IF, after making every possibly concession, and being civil, it appears transparently clear that this behaviour is driving and and distorting edits. Because there's no other word in the english language that describes it so it can it can discussed, and hopefully mediated. That's why we have this clumsy word!" The naming of the stalking or Civil POV pushing doesn't seem to have been such an issue. If you can suggest to me some way to describe homophobic editing so it can pointed out to the other party in a way that would be acceptable, I'm completely willing to adopt it. Providing it's as clear as the current word. Does that make sense? When you're trying to moderate an action one has to name it somehow. Get where I'm coming from? n.b. I don't object to homophobic editing if it's balanced and backed up by sources. It's the blind blocking of the other perspective I object to, even when heavily sourced. Engleham (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Thank you! Much appreciated. Engleham (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may: Say you didn't suspect the target of being a homophobe, but rather uninformed somehow. You felt they mistakenly added content that had some homophobic effect. How would you respond to them? Write it like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks darlin. I liked your essay on the Culture of Disrespect. Pertinent! ;-) You should float it at the Village Pump or wherever. As it has been put succinctly by many commentators in many climes, (e.g. here [8]), freedom of speech means nothing without 'the right to offend'. However, it's those four words which of course have become increasingly problematical. Engleham (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

{{od}You asked if I get where you are coming form. My guess is no, because while I think I do, I see no other conclusion other than that you are declaring that the community rules either do not apply to you, or that you don't care. That seems hard to believe, so let's consider a third possibility - you don't yet understand what rule you are violating. Or maybe some other options:

Here are some possibilities:

1. I am aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy and it says not to Make personal remarks about editors. but I don't care
2. I am aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy and it says not to Make personal remarks about editors. but it isn't personal if it is true
3. I am aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy and it says not to Make personal remarks about editors. but I invoke wp:IAR because this is more important than civility
4. I didn't know Wikipedia:Civility was a policy, based upon empirical evidence, it seems like an oft-ignored suggestion
5. I didn't know about Wikipedia:Civility
6. I am aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy but calling some homophobic is a personal remark
7. I am aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy, but when the other editor does thing I do not like, I don't have to follow it
8. Something else --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Like most WP policies, Civility is not something strictly defined, it's a guideline, as it can only be, as 'civility' is so broadly interpreted. A good definition is: as polite as a person needs to be in order to not be rude. And naturally, the boundaries of politeness and offence vary from person to person, as well as globally. Certainly they're much wider here in Australia, otherwise we wouldn't all call each other ----s. And you can see that loose consensus playing out across Wikipedia. I appreciate this may be difficult for you to accept given your proposal to suddenly turn a block into a communal ban is indicative of a life view where the lines are drawn hard – a recipe for misery. However, within those loose boundaries of civility, from time to time one sometimes has to flag negative behaviours and name them as such. There is no way, for example, ANI adheres to strict boundaries of civility. It can't by nature. And similarly, editors working one-to-one occasionally have to name bad behaviours in editing in order to seek their moderation. Which, again, one tries to do so within the loose bounds of civility. To sum up: don't try to suggest I've torn up a rule book. There is no rulebook. As Wikipedia policy page puts it: "no hard and fast rules". There are only broad principals. And I do my best, like most of us. The smarmy condescending schoolmarm pose you adopted here to try and suggest otherwise is indicative of your own personal struggle with civility, and understanding others. If you'd treated me respectfully, you might have received an even more considered reply than this one. On behalf of the others you engage with, I wish you good luck. Engleham (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I must say: as show trials go, the ethics and conduct of this one are disappointing even my low expectations. It certainly gives one a new respect for ISIS!

Could the following please be inserted on this thread. Thanks. [9]

"And it appears to me from just a random sampling of those interactions" The Beaton addition isn't mine; the Bowers edit removed a quote from The Independent which supported the subject in his claims: its sneaky erasure made him seem less reliable; his Kelly edit removed information cited with the two leading newspapers of Australia (the individual was Australian, but hey, what do they know), and the Holt one he actually lost to a host of other editors (see the Talk page thread: it's slightly shorter than the Bible).

"A personal attack" See my clarification to Sphilbrick upthread.

"where you repeatedly added what was nothing but rumours and wild speculations, sourced only to fringe books" Yes, because everyone knows that publishers like Viking, Doubleday, and McFarland & Company must not be reputable. And yes: the theories were very wild. I wasn't permitted to state even the name of the Cooper's closest friend, actor Anderson Lawler. I certainly won't make the mistake again of wasting my time editing Hollywood bios, when every source put up, not matter how authoritative, is rubbished by keepers of the flame. As another editor wrote on my page: "Cooper is a conservative poster boy….I faced a similar battle..It's just not worth the hassle to try to insert facts about people that a certain element don't want to hear, so save yourself the heartache." Engleham (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm marking as helped. However I'm going to decline the request because the discussion has already been closed. The archival says the discussion should not be modified or added to. I'd recommend you appeal using the usual methods WP:UNBLOCK UTRS or Appeal to the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - [10]. Cameron11598, the thread is not closed - it was re-opened, but Engleham used an old diff above, I assume you followed that. -- Begoon 02:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You assume correctly, good catch. Thanks @Begoon: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Engleham, I am sorry to say that I have closed the ANI discussion having seen a clear consensus for a community ban. Please see my close here. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy for details and for a route to an appeal. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I did not mean to recommend that Engleham be blocked indefinitely. I certainly see how that was deduced, and I should have explained it better. What I really meant to say was: an indefinite block if needed would be far more appropriate than a CBAN. A block of any length, really, as a ban is excessive and wrong. As the first oppose vote following 8 consecutive ban votes, I figured that offering an indef would be a little compromise that might be acceptable for consideration.

Ritchie333 really did nail it. It's a serious shame this happened. Meh. Cheers. Doc talk 08:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for your belated comments.

As I mentioned, I thought my response to your post on the OzRupert circus both funny and entirely appropriate given the fallout was like something out of Seinfeld. Anyway, we move on. Your recent comments show you to be also thoughtful and reflective. Do I think the ANI thread should be reopened? What I certainly think is that it raises issues, at least one of which could do with further discussion. That is: the application of sanctions. As I asked, how is it that one editor's sanctions can escalate in an accumulative manner in terms of the blocking periods, while another's, considered equally serious in terms of the number of blocks, do not? Consequently, this case is certainly open to criticism that the way sanctions were applied was unequal. Should Wikipedia have a more defined system of sanctions to assist admins, and so preclude claims of arbitrariness and the appearance of unprofessionalism?

Re: Homophobia in editing. I appreciated your astute comments on the issue. Not readily solvable I would suggest, although a serious problem on Wikipedia when, as I wrote, a few editors discount reliable sources from publishers like publishers like Viking and Doubleday, and civil POV push to discount them. Given these appear mostly editors of an advanced age, I suspect it will be merely a matter of waiting for them to die off. ;-) Unless of course, growing religious intolerance introduces a new generation of systemic bias!

Re: the complaint specifically. One editor wrote on the thread: "As a community, I believe we have stressed the importance of distinguishing between edits and editors.", and "The situation becomes a bit muddier if multiple edits occur. It becomes harder to separate the editors from the editor, but that's what we are supposed to do." Although it's against my nature, I followed such procedural disingenuousness up to a certain point on several occasions, but then snapped and called it out as homophobia, just as I'm sure recidivist racism eventually gets directly called out when it goes beyond the point of reasonable toleration. (And, as others have pointed out, ANI doesn't handle Civil POV cases well because they're so difficult to prove -- complainants tend to come across as stressed and troublesome, while defendants can appear calm and measured.) However, I now appreciate that unless Wikipedia specifically changes its policy and permits the honest calling out of editors on bad behaviour in situations of extremis, (that would be an interesting discussion), sticking with 'blame the edit, not the editor', however grating false, will be the only permissible behaviour - however occasionally distasteful a straitjacket I or anyone else may find it. So there is my explicit concession!

Anyway, if my situation here changes, that would be nice, and I think right and fair, even aside from the substantial academic contributions to the project I've made over a decade. I'm now engaged on a book project, so wouldn't be able to devote as much time for a while. Whatever the case, I have learnt that it is pointless to attempt to contribute to any classic era 'Hollywood' bio article! They are hovered over by aged fans more interested in image than truth -- to a degree that makes politicians' articles resemble models of laissez faire democracy. Most good editors who leave Wikipedia appear to do so because the personal rewards eventually get eroded by having to devote excessive time to negotiating with the lumpen and idiots. It's easier to make wins elsewhere. I've been reminded of that reality while working on this new project, but it would still be nice to think I could login and contribute from time to time. But I don't expect the concession. It had too much the characteristics of a mob vote. I liked this essay [11] by an editor. I certainly wouldn't object if anyone called me a c--t: indeed, some do affectionately! Engleham (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)