User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42a

too many idiots.

February 2011

[template redacted] Rd232 ^talk 07:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(RH&E knows what a block template looks like, and how to appeal a sanction - and, regardless of my own views on templating regulars, having one here serves no good purpose and possibly the opposite. So I am replacing it with this note. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have reduced the block to 48 hours, largely at the request of Malleus (believe it or not). However, this isn't going to go away I'm afraid. At the very minimum, I have to tell you now to stay off his talkpage, and refrain from taking or threatening any administrative action towards him. If you don't, I'll have to reblock you myself. If you want to talk to me privately, please email me - I don't like to see things going down this way, and I'm sure it's not doing you any good. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this amendment intended to take effect from the time the block was originally imposed, or from its reduction? It isn't made clear, and my expectations are not being properly managed. Meanwhile, I see that vandalism persists and is not being dealt with in as timely a manner as usual. Rodhull andemu 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Rodhullandemu/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Despite the absence of response to above request, blocks should be sufficient only to prevent recurrence of problematic behaviour. When the two-week block was originally imposed, I had already disengaged from Malleus, and indicated the intention not to repeat the experience except in egregious circumstances. I'll just say that it is extremely frustrating to have to watch one's back so carefully in respect to one editor and his fanclub, however well-intentioned they may be, and that is why I took an issue to ANI (probably the wrong venue) even if only for fresh eyes to review. I tried to take a step back from being seen to hound Malleus, and, predictably, perhaps, it rebounded. Even if I'd reverted his move of Walter Raleigh, I would still have been seen as hounding, because of the history between us; however, in the middle of an edit-war, it should have been apparent that the naming of the article was contentious, and looking at its Talk page, it remains so. I sought only to apply normal editing conventions, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I advised an anon IP editor on more than one occasion of WP:3RR, but he neither ceased nor took it to the Talk page, as advised; and he was blocked for continuing. A registered account (on his second only edit here) then made the exact same edits, with the exact same edit summary, as the IP, and I blocked it for sock/meat puppetry. None of this, up till now, indicates an involvement by me as regards content, merely advice and sanctions regarding proper editing of this encyclopedia, in structural terms. Following that, I expressed an opinion on Talk:Walter Raleigh as to how the article should be titled, and the person named. That, I realise, disqualified me from taking any Admin action except in relation to obvious vandalism to that article. I'm not that stupid; I've been here too long to cross that line. As regards Malleus, he kindly suggested that my block was too long, and kudos to him for that. I'm perfectly prepared to avoid him in future, as I tried unsuccessfully to do yesterday. If I have any reservation, it is that if he edits an article on my watchlist in a way that seems unconstructive, where do I go? I cannot revert him without being accused of harrassment, apparently. Neither can I engage him in constructive debate, apparently. It seems that I have to leave it to others to review that, and although that may seem to be unacceptable, I have to live with it. For the benefit of editor relations, I'm prepared to let others deal with that. There are multiple backlogs here, and on Commons, and they need action. Perhaps I'll do that for a while. Additionally, the reasons given for my block were improperly vague, and lacking precision. Diffs are not that difficult to add to a block notice, and if I can do it, so can any other admin. The result is that I have no idea which of my edits here triggered the block, and therefore I cannot deal with them. That's just unjust, in the circumstances. Meanwhile, I note with some irony a thread on the Foundation mailing list entitled "Friendliness", directed to how we deal with new users; I have bent over backwards, even if metaphorically, to explain to new users how they could improve their editing skills, and this encyclopedia, unless of course they are nothing but vandals from Day 1. Such a principle should also apply to established editors, especially when they place themselves under pressure to the exclusion of themselves. Rodhull andemu 00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

With all due respect, and Rodhullandemu's full knowledge of the purpose and process surrounding blocks and unblocks, I am declining this procedurally. First, the block was validly applied as the actions continued well after warnings not to. Second, the block was already reduced based on consensus in ANI. It would therefore take far longer than this block is going to last to discuss removing it completely. This is an unfortunate incident overall, let's not make it worse (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rod, you are blocked for 48hrs from when I kindly agreed to reduce it from 2 weeks - as you can perfectly well read in the block log. If another admin wants to lift the block, that is up to them, but this isn't going to go away unfortunately. You've promised twice before not to go after Malleus, and look, we're back for the third time. That's why you've been blocked - avoiding him would mean assuming he probably had a good reason (you know, the AGF thing), and waiting to see if anyone else commented - not dragging him to ANI with veiled accusations of vandalism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read a block log; I've blocked enough vandals in my time to be able to do that. But you didn't make it plain whether your block started from RD323's original block, or from your refactoring. An additional 9 hours may be neither here nor there in the circumstances, but I am entitled to know what you intended to achieve, and you don't make that plain. I note you repeat stuff I am already aware of, but if you read it carefully, as an Arbitrator should, I have never to my knowledge, accused MF of vandalism. I know the difference, and it's all in my unblock request, or can be ascertained by looking at the diffs. Meanwhile, while I cannot deal with vandalism, this project is losing a resource. See you in the Kash, perhaps. Rodhull andemu 00:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I'm gong down to the 24-hour Tesco for a bottle of wine. It's the only way I have any reasonable prospect of sleep right now. Some people just do not realise how difficult it is for others. Rodhull andemu 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry for your troubles I'm sure, but as you indicated above, there are other Wikimedia sites you can contribute to when blocked here. Rd232 ^talk 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually try to buy wine at this time in the morning? Benjamin von Gherkin (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your report to ANI was entirely inappropriate, the more so since the only link given was this, without mention of the article. This was a minor content dispute (in which you became a participant after some admin actions - dealing with a 3RR issue from a seeming newcomer, who when blocked got round to logging in [for which the block message BTW could have been rather softer and more helpful].) Given your previous history, your ANI report amounts to harassment. As for the "vandalism" issue, another editor noticed that at ANI when you spuriously introduced an issue of vandalism in relation to Malleus: "Mostly I try to keep articles within policies and guidelines. I've already taken MF's Talkpage off my watchlist, but if I see him vandalising, it's my job to deal with that. That's why we have admins. To cry "involved editor!" in such circumstances would be missing the point." In the circumstances, this contributes to the assessment of this being harassment; we do not speculate on highly experienced editors in good standing vandalising, and your initial remark could certainly be read as insinuating Malleus having a history of that. Finally, these comments of yours [1] [2] are not indicative of getting it and indicative of the need for a substantive block to try to finally get you to fully disengage from interacting with an editor whose mere passing across your field of vision seems to act like a red rag to a bull, scattering your judgement to the four winds. PS you repeat the vandalism issue (with a coded phrasing) with the remark in your unblock request "if he edits an article on my watchlist in a way that seems unconstructive, where do I go?" Rd232 ^talk 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, if the link to contribs became out of date, it's because I might have expected prompt action from other editors. Mea culpa on not giving a more permanent link, and I tried to post in the most neutral way possible. Again, my mistake. However, you should really review WP:HARRASS; it is not just the action, it is the intention, and my intention was to get uninvolved editors to review the history of that article, and I didn't revert him mostly because I would have been pilloried for doing so, and I sought outside counsel. Maybe ANI wasn't the best venue for that, but, and I have said this more than once: when, in the middle of an edit-war, MF unilaterally moved the page without consensus, that did not seem to me to be the best thing he could have done. He could at least have made an enquiry as to why it popped up on his watchlist. I would have done at least as much. Apart from that, as far as history is concerned, I'm not going to blow my own trumpet, as my record here should speak for itself. Sorry that I'm not part of the FA clique, but I am in no way ashamed of the work I've been able to achieve here. It may not meet your standards, but I stand by it, and proudly so. Rodhull andemu 02:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"if the link to contribs became out of date" - that is hardly the issue, and I'm amazed you don't see it. An ANI thread was simply inappropriate, but if you had merely posted a request for more people to get involved with the article, because of the involvement of an editor you're trying to stay away from, that would have been neutral. Of course it would still have been unnecessary, since other admins were clearly watching the page, and the wrong venue. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"FA clique" - this has nothing to do with that whatsoever, it's about your relationship with one other editor. (I'm not part of it either; I'm not sure I've ever even had the slightest involvement in FA stuff.) Nor could Malleus be described as a wikifriend of mine; we had a few exchanges about this and that, most of which resulted in me being pissed off at him. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PS you repeat the vandalism issue (with a coded phrasing) with the remark in your unblock request "if he edits an article on my watchlist in a way that seems unconstructive, where do I go?"; Nothing to do with vandalism; you need only to review to recent history of Clown for that. An editor changed "few" to "many", without a source, or vice-versa. I saw no source quantifying that, and changed it to "some", which at least is defensible with sources, although vague. MF reverted me, unsourced, and I tagged it {{cn}}. MF then added a source which I did not think supported his edit. I took it to his Talk page. Let's be perfectly clear here, MF has many Featured articles to his credit; he understands sourcing. But when I questioned that source, I was abused, and not for the first time. He could have pointed out how the citation supported his edit; but he didn't; he abused me. You tell me why I should tolerate that? Rodhullandemu 02:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with "unconstructive"? It's a content dispute turning unnecessarily unfriendly - they're sold by the metric ton. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone? Come on, this place has at least some intelligent people. Let's hear from them now. Rodhullandemu 03:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rod, perhaps it would be best for you to just take a breather. Try to calm down for a moment. Get some food or a drink, go for a walk, watch TV, talk to some friends.... Badgering for a reply from people is not a great idea. Why not just walk away from Wikipedia for the next two days and have fun elsewhere? Everyone needs a break on here ;) All the best,--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're assuming here that I have family, friends, or even anything. Mistake; my father died unexpectedly in 1970 in Liverpool during an unexpected complication in his surgery. At the same time, my mother was in hospital in Wallasey having a radical mastectomy. Meanwhile, I and my younger sister had to cope with all that, and manage a five-bedroom house with little or no support from anyone. Bottom line- unless you've had to cope with that, you are fucking lucky, so don't dare to tell me anything. Because I just will not believe you. Rodhullandemu 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry to hear that Rod. I see that you largely lack a family but surely you have friends or co-workers? Rather than complain, cuss, and spend the next 48 hours making yourself seem like a fool, why not just walk away? I know it may seem hard to do but it's not really. Take a load off, sit back, and watch TV, or do something else to entertain yourself. I know that you are rather old but if you have a job still you could just spend more time there or something. There is a world outside of Wikipedia and even if you lack any friends, or any family to call, everyday is a new chance to meet someone new and make a friend ;) All the best,--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walk away? I cannot do that, for this is all I have right now. My life has been geared to learning, and transmitting that learning outwards. Both my parents were teachers, and in their own way, inspired their students. I have failed to make that happen, even here, but that is because learning is perhaps not given the respect it is due. Rodhull andemu 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't saying "walk away", he was saying "take a breather". There's plenty of good TV and films, even if you don't want to explore other Wikimedia sites (you mentioned Commons yourself, and given your remark about your parents [snap! :)], maybe Wikiversity would be of interest). And of course there must be opportunities to get out and meet people where you live, via volunteering of some kind - that can be very rewarding and more social than the Wikipedia online volunteering (so would be a good complement, not substitute, to be clear). But basically, this a small issue which you keep blowing up out of proportion. Wikipedia is so enormous, you ought to be able to scarper elsewhere the minute Malleus' name appears on your screen - given that (as seems the case) you can't hold on to good judgement in such situations. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take me back fifty years, to my nana's roast beef and yorkshire puddings. If you weren't there, you haven't a clue how best it could be done. Simple though it may have been, the integration of the onion with the batter was perfect. Rodhull andemu 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an unblock reviewer, your request is too long and unstructured for me to usefully review. Assuming that the reviewer knows nothing abut the circumstances leading to this block, please state concisely and with diffs (a) what the problem with your edits was and (b) why it won't reoccur. See also WP:GAB. Sandstein 12:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, any block involving a longstanding regular, especially an admin, is likely unto inevitability to be convoluted and dramatic. I'm not implying you don't have the right to ask or to make any judgment, but in my solitary opinion, these situations might be better left to those who are already acquainted with the surrounding circumstances (assuming that is a sufficient number of people). Purely food for thought, though. Disregard my opinion if you see fit (I say as though you needed my permission). - Vianello (Talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia email

Hi Rodhullandemu:

This is to confirm that I have just sent you a Wikipedia email asking you to contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Roger ^talk 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too ill today; I can't get away from the thought that I would have been 58 next birthday. Maybe tomorrow. Rodhull andemu 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rodhullandemu/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Roger ^talk 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small word of support

Hi Rodhullandemu. Just a note to say that I've often seen you do great things on Wikipedia and I think you've been treated harshly here. I don't know the full details of the argument, but I do know that Sir Walter Raleigh is commonly spelled with an 'i', whether it was correct in his day or not. Certainly if I'd seen it moved I would have questioned that move (and probably laughed at the unnecessary pedantry that led to it!). Wikipedia is a strange place sometimes. I hope you return with your head held high. Stephenb (Talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]