User talk:2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:6188:B7B9:44C0:8C29

~Sigh~

El C, There’s only one thing “sad” about this, and it’s the closed mind approach to a problem in WP. I began editing in 2006 as an IP, and although I had an account for much of the time (60 FAs, 35(ish) featured lists, 15-20 FPs and an unknown number of GAs), but when someone with that editing history has real issues that have driven them (and others) away fro the project, it’s a very, very questionable approach for someone who purports to be an administrator ignore those problems by brushing the problems under the carpet by deleting them with such disdain. I should have known better, but it was a heartfelt thanks for advising Arndt not to post where it has been requested she not edit - and I’ve made that request several times. SchroCat 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:6188:B7B9:44C0:8C29 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

SchroCat, I don't think I dare to plunge into the depths of this rabbit hole. But I'll maybe dip my toe in the shallow end with a couple of points. First, the reason for my reiteration, is that Gerda, as much as she's my friend, still displayed the sort of attitude (a second time) that basically said: hopefully, I'll be able to contain myself from thanking him next time he does something awesome. Which I was, like, again: no, no, no, that will come across as passive-aggressive and will bring about inevitable discord. So, hopefully, that re-emphasis will do the trick this time, for good, and the less said about that, the better. Anyway, for my part, I'm hoping to not get in the middle of that as much as is humanly possible (and yet here I am: paradox), for several reasons, some more obvious than others.

Now, I can't speak for Wugapodes, but beyond maybe guessing that they didn't wish to host that extra tension on their talk page, I think they were more pointedly saying: either you do the IP thing (i.e. not this), or you use a registered account and then comment on process stuff (the latter of which I realize you have no interest in pursuing at this time). Because, having the contributions and user talk pages float from one IP to another does get confusing and cumbersome, and not easy to keep up with. So, probably not the best approach for dealing with fraught matters.

I guess I'll finish by saying that, myself, I just can't relate to any and all of the endless infobox disputes. I never add IBs to articles I author. For example, when I created Shin Shalom a few weeks ago (which reminds me I should really get to de-stubbing), an IB didn't even cross my mind (not even for an iota of a second). But if someone were to add one for it, that'd be totally fine with me. Which is to say, meh. Just couldn't care less. For me, these disputes share many traits with a lot of the MOS disputes, which is to say: much ado abut nothing. Oh well. So, if there's something to hope for, from my end at least, it is for you and others like you to one day be able to armour yourselves against the, erm, quasi-trivial (yes, I realize there may be shades of irony there, but still) and get back to writing amazing content, unperturbed by any of that. What can I say? I'm a dreamer. Best wishes, El_C 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

El C, wow... the person who wrote this is an admin? Of all the tone deaf and inappropriate remarks I’ve seen from Admins, this is well in the mix. If this is his usual standard, I expect to see him at ArbCom at some point! 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:6188:B7B9:44C0:8C29 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A good admin, even, I've observed just 2 days ago (diff), but indeed it's too bad that the conversation between you two went off the rails like that. If I were to guess, I'd say they probably didn't appreciate your tone on their talk page in a section that until then was otherwise friendly and cheerful.

Significantly, they also appear to have been operating under the misapprehension that you're an indefinitely blocked user (not sure why) who, therefore, was taking too many liberties about bringing up past disputes, at length. I, of course, had known that your retirement (or whatever we call it now; abandonment of the SchroCat account) was voluntary, not compulsory — to the best of my recollection, you scrambled your pw, presumably to the point of total irrecoverability (email-wise, etc.). But maybe not...?

Anyway, regardless, I hope my hope (I hope my hope?) in the final paragraph above ("armour") ripples, if not today, someday. El_C 04:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

”friendly and cheerful”? Please re-read “My personal case with this particular editor is different and too long for here. I declared him Precious eight years ago (before I even knew what an infobox is), and said so on his talk - as I routinely do -, and he took it as grave-dancing and reverted. I thanked him for the TFA - as I do every day, routinely - and he replied "not wanted" when reverting. That even was an article with an infobox. neither friendly nor cheerful. Arndt’s obsession (and I use the word carefully and correctly here) with infoboxes is damaging to WP and has driven several editors away from the project or caused them to reduce their output. I didn’t want her ‘tainted award’ (quite often given to infobox participants, or those who have stirred dramah in relation to IBs), and pretty much every visit to my talk page was banging on about bloody IBs, which is why I banned her from posting there several years ago. (I have said it often enough elsewhere, but I hate talking about IBs, which is why seeing Arndt posting her poison on numerous pages every time there is a RfC brought by one of the IB warriors is such a drag. She claims she never discusses them, but we all know that’s a straight lie: she can’t stop discussing them! It really is an obsession, and I do hope she recognises the damage she’s done to other editors (and therefore the project) at some point in the future.

It’s a shame Wugapodes doesn’t try much in the line of courtesy - or accuracy. I’ve seen normal editors blocked for less than that, but as he said himself in the Gerard ANI, sysops have to work much much harder to have any pushback when they preach one thing and do another. Plus ça change, I guess. - 213.205.194.38 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

SchroCat, I can appreciate how a lot of this looks from your perspective —though I disagree with some of your phrasing— and I'm not saying all of your assertions are invalid, it's just that, regardless, for myself, the quicker I get to duck from under all of this, the better. I may point out related problems or potential problems if and/or when I encounter them, but otherwise, I doubt I'll ever actively look for them (again, for reasons which are my own).

Still, I will note that, in my experience, few if any editors ("normal" or otherwise) get blocked over mere civility lapses (or even the odd non-egregious PA) —unless, perhaps, when accounted for as sustained and longstanding incivility on one's part, and even then it's a steep slope for the block button there, I find— otherwise, we'd probably have few volunteers left. Maybe, during my 2008-2016 hiatus, at times, that practice was a thing, but, regardless, I don't believe it is now.

All of us are flawed creatures and we all have our off-days, editors and admins alike. The pressures and tensions brought by the interactions of the day-by-day, or by organizational inertia, or by whatever, can be difficult on sysops, too. It takes an emotional toll, even when the uneven power dynamic is in one's favour. Beyond that, sometime, an example is representative of someone's modus operandi, sometime it's an exception to the rule. Honestly, I'm just not that familiar with Wugapodes, but with them, my sense (intuitively, for whatever that's worth) is that they're firmly in the latter category.

Finally, maybe a general point about "accuracy" by way of another woe-is-me-sysop whining. There are times when, as a sysop, one often is suddenly thrust into a situation where they need to parse a lot of material in a short amount of time, sometime with little background, then be expected to arrive at the correct determination (quickly). Or when one's own passing impression (longstanding or otherwise) of a case suffers from inaccuracies, of which they're obviously unaware at the time. Navigating the project can be turbulent for many different kind of users and/or user-roles, in various different ways.

Beyond all that, for myself at least, finding the balance between me, the RL individual, and me the Wikipedia volunteer (as a content editor, sysop, policy contributor, and so on), that is a constant struggle, which often takes some doing to correct. Along the way, there are different pitfalls that often lead to missteps. So, if I may quote Pope: To err is human, to forgive divine. //End tautology! El_C 13:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

SchroCat, I'll maybe further add that I felt at liberty to write all of that to you mostly because my recollection is that, though our paths crossed seldom, we usually got along fine through the years. Even if there was that one tiff shortly before you left, where in retrospect I realized that you've made some valid points which at the time I had overlooked (for whatever reason). Not sure I've ever cleared the air with you about that (I don't think so, but possibly...?), so now is probably as good a time as any. Also, I call it a tiff, but maybe it was more than that and my memory is failing me (likely). At any event, I offer my apologies to you for faltering then. El_C 15:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it may have been about another tainted award being given to one of the infobox warriors because they’d been disruptive for the fourth or fifth time, but whatever it was, it is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. Cheers 213.205.194.38 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sock notice

El C, on a separate point, this is a sock of Bofuses - same MO of adding spaces after section titles, messing round with punctuation etc. He goes through the listed TFAs to ‘improve’ them. 213.205.194.38 (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bagged and tagged (sell it to the butcher in the store?). El_C 12:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. - 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:6188:B7B9:44C0:8C29 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with an ongoing pattern of behaviour from a registered user

Hi El C, I hope you are keeping well. Could you intervene with the user Serial Number? He has on several occasions reverted changes I’ve made to my old FAs where they’ve been taken backwards by others. He’s now at it again on the Baker Street robbery, reverting with the rationale of wp:DENY. As you know, DENY is about not feeding the trolls. I am not under any censure or block and am free to make edits, so why he feels it appropriate to revert and insult at the same time, I do not know.

This is not the first instance of him reverting something that is obviously my action, and he has previously logged out to point out my edit to a more trigger-happy member of the admin cadre. I do not like being harassed by anyone, let alone someone who I have met in RL, helped in the past and never done anything to justify his actions. Could you please advise him to back off and not dick around with valid edits without justification? Many thanks - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 109.249.185.15 (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, SC. Doing alright, thanks for asking, hope all is well with you, as well. First thing first: Yes to Chicken Inn — about time chickens also have a place to hang out in London! Now that I got this out of my system, I'm happy to have a word with SN (and point them to this complaint, where maybe you two can re-meet and greet), but are you positive that they knew it was you? Anyway, sure, I'll drop them a note and hopefully this all can be resolved amicably. Kind regards, El_C 09:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Just for the record, Black Kite has not blocked me. That was a different user on the same IP range, but SN is doing his very best to smear me regardless of that. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, weird, I got the sense from SN's talk page of their esteem toward you (i.e. calling you "a gent") — colour me confused. El_C 14:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he's trying to play both sides. Certainly his comments on the main thread show no esteem at all - quite the reverse! I have no idea why he's taken against me. I've met him in RL, had a good laugh with him, helped with reviewing some of his articles and, when he stopped editing for a while, dropped him a note to see if he was OK. Why he's taken against me is a complete mystery! never mind.. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why he keeps trying to push the LTA point either. I've quoted an email I sent to Ritchie - he'll be able to confirm it's me (if he's still got the email thread in his sent items), and SN will have read the email I sent to him when he stopped editing for a month. I don't know why he's playing silly buggers, and it comes off rather badly on him. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm sure there's a way to authenticate your identity, like with prior email correspondence, or failing that, details concerning RL meetups. El_C 16:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sure this is SchroCat. As for the Baker Street reverts, as far as I can tell it's mostly template and formatting stuff, not content related, so it doesn't look vitally important. However, reverting back to a version that passed FAC is the revision that would get my vote, as it implies consensus behind it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, it certainly is me. (Lunch at the Parcel Yard with the large group of other WPedians was a long time), but you wore jeans and a black top, I seem to remember, and had just come from a demonstration somewhere in London, but about what I fail to remember! Ritchie, I am not an enemy of WP, and I am entitled to edit as an IP. Having people like SRO stalk me to either block me or !vote against me in discussions is tiresome; having SN revert on FAs I've worked on is equally boring and needs to stop. It's not a constructive use of anyone's time, let alone mine. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• And 24 hours later, Ritchie still hasn't struck off the "socking" comment (despite the clarification from BradV), Bbb23 hasn't given diffs of what constituted the "disruption" that led to the block and SN didn't answer any of the numerous questions. What's that line Shakespeare once wrote ... "Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water". It's a shame that is no more true than on WP, particularly when it means having to admit some element of their thinking was wrong - plus ça change, I guess! 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as Chaucer once said: “Whan a man quoth Shakespeare in an on-lyne werre o flambe, he hath the battel yloste befor it hath begonne.” Cheers, PlusSeine (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Funny you managed to find this nothingness of a page on your eighth edit ever, and managed to wikilink (with pipe) and sign all with no problem. I wonder who you are. I’m told Ritchie managed to flag this thread on Wikipediocracy (while still not managing to get back to strike the false reference to socking), so I guess that’s how you found your way here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4501:D861:7199:5408 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I just knew you were a humourous gent! I was just copyediting the page for my favorite film, Kind Hearts and Coronets, and I saw you had been having a bit of a spat in the page’s history. I thought to myself, What’s the matter with this 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:6188:B7B9:44C0:8C29 fellow? I should see if he’s all right and cheer him up if he isn’t! So I tried to deploy a bit of humour to lighten the mood. Don’t know if it worked though. People sometimes misunderstand tone online... Sorry if I don’t know how things work around here yet; I read the manual of style, but I still don’t know all the social niceties of Wikipedia. Maybe you could help me out there? Yours in friendship, PlusSeine (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

---