User talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/November

Girls are Boy Scouts?

I noticed you added some info on the Boy Scouts page dealing with Girls being Boy Scouts. Can you please site where you got that from, As the name is Boy scout. ~Stelercus 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article and the references it already has? Many Scout Associations (including the British one, in which I am a Group Scout Leader) are open to both boys and girls. The article is unfortunately titled "Boy Scout" owing to the US-centric bias of some of the contributors who exercise control over it. As I recall, you can read more about the naming difficulty on the article's talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: 3 hours. Find a more civil way to express your disagreement. [1] Thatcher 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you support this travesty of an electoral process? Or is it simply that you have no working knowledge of English idiom? Whatever, I have no confidence in your abilities. Please in future use a proper block template that includes the instructions to request unblock (your failure to do so indicates an unacceptable level of arrogance). DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext contains all the necessary instructions. And, there is a significant difference between "You are incompetent and should resign" and "You are incompetent and should be shot." Although the latter is certainly not to be taken seriously (under most circumstances) and can be classified as a form of rhetorical excess, such rhetorical excess is nevertheless unacceptable. If it helps, imagine that you and all your encylopedia-editing colleagues are sitting around a conference table in an office building, discussing encyclopedia policies, and that you all know each other's real identities. Don't write anything on site that you would not say in person to a work colleague. (And no, don't try to tell me that you routinely tell people at your own workplace that they should be shot over policy disagreements, because you know you don't.) Thatcher 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not routinely - but I do make comments on the lines of "anyone that incompetent/stupid/etc should be shot" from time to time, and you would appear to be the first person I have ever encountered who took objection to it - most people smile wrily and nod. Now, why didn't you ask me to rephrase? DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't an online version of "smile wrily and nod". Most people who learn how to converse in online environments get this point and learn to use language that doesn't require body language to defuse tension. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was forgetting to assume that many admins lack the social skills and linguistic knowledge necessary for normal conversation, a mistake I do make from time to time. Again I ask - why was I not asked to rephrase - or is that a courtesy not extended to proles anymore? Had anyone asked me to I would - but no-one did, and Thatcher cannot or will not answer. He's not fit to be an admin, and I'd say that to his face with bells on. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No warning, no proper template

Ain't admins wonderful? DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's a "block and run" too - absolutely classic. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DuncanHill/Archives/2009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A supporter of a corrupt electoral procedure blocked me for criticising it, no warning, no proper block template, just trying to silence a critic.

Decline reason:

Dude, threatening to shoot somebody isn't 'criticism.' It's a threat of physical violence. I'm not familiar with your history on Wikipedia, but I'm assuming you have a record of useful contributions that led to this block being so short. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DuncanHill/Archives/2009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is a lie to say that I threatened to shoot anyone. I used an idiomatic English expression, that I mistakenly assumed would be understood as the expression of extreme frustration and contempt that it was intended as.

Decline reason:

Irregardless, and above and beyond the below discussion, it was in poor taste and judgement and not conducive to civil discussion among collaborating editors. It's a three-hour block for God's sake ... I think you'd have a bit more credibility making your complaint if you went and did something else, then came back after it expired and took this up at AN/I or whatever forum you feel would be appropriate. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When you say, "it is a lie," you are calling me a liar. But your words clearly say, in English, that you think the person should be shot. I invite you to apologize for accusing me of lying. It is not my lie if you say something you do not fully mean. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that I threatened to shoot someone. I did not, and you cannot point to any edit in which I did so. I used an idiomatic British-English expression, that I would have gladly explained had anyone bothered to ask - and would have gladly rephrased if anyone had asked me to. Instead, an admin who supports the corrupt process in question blocked, ran, and then you accused me of doing something which I had not done. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Kibitzing by a non-admin: I note that User:Rebecca said something quite similar a few days ago at an AFD: [2]. I'm definitely not a fan of inflammatory language, but I find the block a bit harsh. I'm an American, and I think DuncanHill is British, and I don't know anyone else's nationality, so I can't speak to cultural differences being a factor, but I can confirm that at least in my area and social sphere, "taken out and shot" is an idiom, with no implication of actually doing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  Addendum: In other words, I wish he hadn't said it because it dialed up the aggression in that discussion another notch, but I really don't think you can say it was a threat of violence. Worthy perhaps of a note on this talk page asking for a dialing back, but not a block. IMHO, of course. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you Floquenbeam - as I said above, i would have rephrased if anyone had bothered to ask. Thatcher decided not to bother, and to deny me the opportunity of changing my wording. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• To Daniel Case - so the bestway to deal with a bad block is not to request unblock? Maybe you should consider your own credibility. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

With crabbiness like that, I can see why you might have been blocked. For that I might reconsider what I said to you in email (which, yes, I will post a little later). But anyway ... my point is that those of us who review (and, yes, usually reject) unblock requests have to deal with a lot of crap and a lot of whining. One thing that especially gets on our nerves is repeated requests within a short time. I can understand these from a user who might have been blocked for a month or indefinitely. But three hours is a microsecond compared to many Wikipedia blocks. There won't have been a lot of water under the bridge by the time it expires. There are lots of perhaps deserving users who would love to trade blocks with you if you feel you haven't been sufficiently hard done by. By only appealing once in that time frame, you keep more people possibly on your side for a complaint at AN/I(and remember that one possible outcome of such a review would be that while the admin in question might be found to have been too involved to make the block, the block would be found to have been justified by your conduct. I'm sure you're aware of this possibility.

Martin Luther King used to counsel his followers to do their time respectfully and with dignity, to show respect for the rule of law even while they questioned that law. It's civil' disobedience for more than one reason, after all. I exhort you to keep that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever - I've been accused of worse things than "crabbiness" by more powerful editors than you. For what it's worth I'll say it again - had anyone asked me to re-word my original comment, I would have done so. Thatcher, an editor in disagreement with me, chose not to ask me to reword, but instead to block. He also chose to use a non-standard block template, which did not include the instructions for requesting unblock. Another admin then accused me of saying something which I had not. You weigh in with the (to me) odd advice that the best thing to do about a bad block is to let it run. No-one can do anything about the block log, and Thatcher has too many powerful friends to make a complaint about him at ANI have any point. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'll add one thing - I can't take it to ANI at the moment as I am about to start Scouts. Thanks anyway for your input, not your fault Thatcher can't take criticism and blocks and runs. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See, all you do is create measly content...

...but Thatcher, well, he does this [3] (less then 11% of edits on actual articles), constant politicking. As a result he's got admin friends, you ain't got none cuz you were dumb enough to spend most of your time writing articles rather than kissing up to the right people. In other words Thatcher is not interested in writing an encyclopedia, just running it, once others have written it. So you're at the bottom of the pecking order. This means that Thatcher gets to insult your mother, but if you make obviously snarky hyperbolic statements in discussions then you will be blocked. The proper way to approach it is to grovel, self humiliate, ego stroke'em, and feed the hypocrisy which preserves this kind of arrangement here on Wikipedia.

I actually have no idea who you are or what the underlying dispute of this was. I just know that I've seen this kind of crap enough times.radek (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nail well and truly hit on head! Many thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Duncan has friends. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're all too nice to have a chance against the alliance of shits and incompetents who hold all the trump cards. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello DuncanHill

I keep seeing your work in what I have done in the Cornish articles: I see some radical changes here like the warning to new editors and some signs of maladministration. Luckily I have not been harassed and even in controversial areas have not been attacked by opposing parties. My work on the Mining in Cornwall and Devon article (as it now is) brought me back to mineralogy. One of the resources you had here was a long list of type localities in Cornwall which I used once (Botallackite). Maybe it can be put somewhere for me to consult again. You did once offer help with Oxford DNB articles but that would mean creating another email account which maybe I do not want to do. I put Sir John Maclean into the Triggshire article for the time being, that links up with what Alan Kent has written. The crossover project from Oxford DNB will get to him eventually I suppose. Best wishes--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Felix - I do think you're doing some good work. I've asked for User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities to be undeleted to help you. My offer of help with ODNB articles still stands, so if you ever want to take it up just ask. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)