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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

”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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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