Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 6 March 2017

This editor has been blocked for a month for his bad behaviour, yet nothing quite trumped being called a prick and being told "fuck you". Oh, and a "Holocaust denier" and an "anti-Semite". Well done Arbcom and their enablers.

WP:ANI

A courtesy FYI, that I mentioned your name in a thread about the banned user Soft Skin. Just wondering where someone labeled you a Holocaust Denier (which I very much doubt you would be.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

lol I just bet TRM loves waking up to big new yellow messages entitled WP:ANI :D ;) — O Fortuna! 15:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yellow? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I answered your question at ANI Bugs. In short, ridiculously over-reacting editor upset at wikipedia's quality standards applying to all content (regardless of subject) takes absurd position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

... and grossly and ignorantly insults two of Misplaced Pages's longest term editors by claiming their motives are akin to "Holocaust denial"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it now. And it IS grossly insulting. You have often opposed a main-page posting, not on merit of the subject, but on quality of the article, and that's totally appropriate. Anyone familiar with your work at ITN and the like should be well aware of that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well quite, but frankly some opinions are so ridiculous they really do not merit a response. This was clearly in the obviously ridiculous and worth no time or attention area. Anyone who *genuinely* thinks that way should just not be engaged with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack

From an esteemed admin. The same admin, I believe, who called me a prick? WOW!! All admins are equal, some are more equal than others. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 23:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't stress it. Some admins can do whatever they like, some can't. Floq is in the former category, I was in the latter. It's not a big issue. I'm getting used to the one-rule/one-rule thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, they can't. We all must adhere to the same rules we enforce. I've left the user a warning about personal attacks. El_C 00:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's a repeat offence and nothing is done about it realistically. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it repeats, let me know. Otherwise, feel free to submit an ANI report for other admins to comment on. El_C 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but it'll have no impact at all, particularly in this case. The "admins" will simply divert any case onto my former cases, and will probably be heralded for their saintliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You say "admins"—are you not an admin, too? That's a rather cynical view. I would hope any case is considered according to its merits (on the strength of its evidence). El_C 18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you missed all the drama. I'm a former admin who never called another editor or admin a prick and never told another editor or admin to fuck off. The view is absolutely 100% bang on the money. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed a lot—I stand corrected. Well, I, at least, try to approach any case according to its merits (on the strength of its evidence). El_C 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. It's ironic that editors are blocked without hesitation for telling someone to fuck off, yet admins are barely touched, even after the "prick" incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to MarnetteD, I was actually in favour of an unblock there, and felt a warning was in order there, too. El_C 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Pakistan Super League Final

Hi, do you think this could make potential nominee for ITN? Pakistan Super League is not as big as Indian Premier League which appeared on in 2015 in the ITN but this one surely notable enough and recieved enormous press coverage from every part of the world throughout the tournament. Comments please. --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a long shot. The first problem is the proponderence of non-cricket afficianados there, many of the regulars couldn't tell their "carry the bat" from their "stumped off a wide". Secondly, as you note, we have the IPL posted, and we pretty much automatically post the World Cup, so there'll be people saying "only 13 teams play this worldwide so it's only marginally more significant than American Football", for instance. If the article was dazzling, I'd be almost certain to support having said all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein  21:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Thanks Sandstein, you clearly didn't have any agenda at all to make such a knee-jerk reaction without any commentary at all from anyone whatsoever. You're obviously the best man for the job. I'll carry on fixing up the garbage you people accept as encyclopedic, and I'll accept the fact that admins who call me a prick or tell me to fuck off go entirely un-sanctioned. Thanks again. Cheers Misplaced Pages and all those I worked with, it was awesome while it lasted. The shit admins won! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited, "the enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block." I note that in your comment above you continue to engage in prohibited conduct, namely, referring to others as "shit admins". Consequently, your talk page is fully protected for the duration of the block.  Sandstein  22:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How about considering only protecting it for a week while he takes the time to calm down? This way, at least, he'll be able to follow the appeal process in a week. El_C 22:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this block was a bit heavy-handed and protecting this talk page so RM can't respond is overkill. The only thing it may accomplish is to drive away a valuable editor. Jonathunder (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Protecting so only admins can edit it? No, no. If Sandstein wanted to revoke TRM's talkpage access, then that's what he should have done. I've undone the protection of this page. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Bish, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Response

I think the block was over the top. I think the talkpage protection was way over the top. I think some of the evidence was ropey and out of context at best, downright irrelevant at worst. The discussion at AN is evidence that several members of the community agree with that. The block should be re-assessed in that light. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. I'm not too worried about being immediately unblocked, it appears that this unfortunate event has cast something of a shadow of Sandstein's behaviour as an admin, along with those who enabled me to be told to "fuck off" and be called a "prick". But I am slightly perplexed that Sandstein could have taken the time to read each and every comment produced in The ed17's illustrious report, within the context of each of the discussions and to understand the background to each and every one of them. I'm also perplexed by this continual cry of "insult" or "belittling" when an admin is simply free to tell me to "fuck off" and call me a "prick", or other editors are allowed, nay enabled, to call me a Holocaust denier (don't worry TRM, it's so ridiculous we can just ignore it! etc etc). The block is punitive, not in keeping with the escalation suggested by Arbcom in the first place (remember, the first block, by departed Mike V was actually incorrect in every way, including his accusations of me being a liar), so in essence and in totality, this is a first-time offence, and taking time to go over these diffs (if the blocking admin had done so) would have revealed a richer picture. Now I don't want, and never did want, Floq to be sanctioned, admonished or whatever for telling me to fuck off or calling me a prick, but I did expect a more level playing field. Sandstein has clearly decided against that and is applying his letter of his interpretation of the law. That I wasn't even given a chance myself to respond to The ed17's initial report it somewhat staggering, but to then bring action against the admin who kindly allowed me to use my talk page again (after Sandstein had, once again, used one rule for his fellow admin, and another for me) is shocking. By responding here in this manner, I'm agreeing to abide by the bureaucracy that exists in these circumstances, but I 100% guarantee that we will, once again, see the hawks spiralling overhead, most of whom I've had precisely zero interaction with since the Arbcom case. The lynching will re-commence, but that's what Sandstein and Arbcom demands. I don't look forward to it, all I've been doing for the last few months is trying to preserve the integrity of the main page, and that's left me being called an anti-Semite and a prick. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)}}

Thanks Coffee for copying that over. I suspect we've just signed Misplaced Pages up for yet another few megabytes of vitriol, he-said-she-said, all editors are equal, some are more equal than others, "oh, that? misclick m'lud", etc etc. But at least it'll be on record. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee hate to be a bind, but I'm going to spend all my valuable time this evening and tomorrow analysing the links that resulted in Sandstein's 40-minute decision making to block me for a month. He's clearly going have done all this background checking, but I guess I need to lay it on the line for some people. If you'd be so kind, would you mind copying over the analyses as they appear. No rush, of course, these things will go on forever, particularly while Sandstein and the circling hawks dig ever deeper to get be banned, so whenever's convenient for you. Thanks for your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No issue at all, just ping me when you need it done. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I came here due to an active unblock request that could not be acted on at this time because it has been copied over to WP:AE and discussion is ongoing over there. There is no point in having other admins non-review the same request over and over again. I had made certain to note in both my comment and in the edit summary that "declining" this request was merely procedural. If that's not to your liking, there are other ways to turn it inactive while it does not need to be (and cannot be) reviewed here. Maybe you prefer what I did now. Huon (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Work

5 March

• Howcheng, Casimir Pulaski Day is still looking way too under-referenced for the main page, suggest it's pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Fuebaey the Edi Fitzroy bio is ok, but the discog needs proper referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• The ed17, David Rubinger is better, but the reference dates need to be made consistent. Once that's done, feel free to strike my oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam I wasn't that bothered by the prick or the fuck off comment. I am bothered that it's the sort of thing I put up with for nearly a decade and held no weight with the Arbcom eagles, but that's another matter. Glad you had a good night out after the event anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

6 March

• Any objections to putting MS Herald of Free Enterprise on the main page for today once all the unsourced and {{fact}} tags are resolved? Ritchie333 16:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was all over the radio today as well, I remember it well. Looks in reasonable condition right now, a couple of unsourced paras. Access dates could use coherent formatting, and of course the hyphens should be replaced with dashes in pages ranges etc, but I guess no-one will care about that for the forseeable future! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

7 March

• Howcheng, it's worth expanding the "USA for Africa" acronym because it's misleading to think it means "United States of America". It also links to the same article as We Are the World so I'm convinced the link is really needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth, prep 3, Graham-White's name is spelt incorrectly. It should also be "the British..." to avoid false titles, and for clarity "his biplane" should be added after "landed" because othewise the fact he landed an aeroplane on a street could be easily missed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Maybe we should redirect WP:ERRORS to your talkpage for a month... WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I could create WP:ERRORS2 (didn't somebody redirect WP:ANI2 to Drmies' talk at one point?) but I suspect the hard-of-humour will complain. Ritchie333 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Although I was out today so didn't respond, feel free to ping me if you notice problems with promoted hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, will do Cwmhiraeth, although I suspect it won't be long before this avenue of quality of control is silenced permanently. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 a favour, prep 3, "The Light that Failed", the article contains multiple instances of un-italicised book titles, could you remedy that if you have time? Thanks. The reference also says "four versions", not "at least four versions", so if we believe the Rudyard Kipling Society to be RS, we should tweak the hook for accuracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done (I think) Ritchie333 17:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN

There is a discussion about me currently ongoing at AN! I might be interested in contributing there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you concentrate on writing an appeal. El_C 12:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I was simply noting the irony that there's a lengthy discussion going on there yet no-one bothered to let me know. It's funny how quickly people can be forgotten. As for appeal, I've written a response to the block above. It's nonsense, and Sandstein knows it, but he's gone all-in and won't retract. It's happened before, it'll happen again. The community seem to be finding in my favour at this time, but it won't be long before the gloves are off and the hawks come circling. Misplaced Pages can lose this editor but it can't lose the damage this debacle (yet another Arbcom mess) is doing to the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And the hawks arrive! Having had nothing whatsoever to do with them for months, and thousands and thousands of edits, they're back! Little wonder this place is failing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to notify you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion, but think the best thing to do is - as I recommended before - ignore ignore ignore. I didn't appeal to arbcom, I know others who don't appeal, as a matter of pride. Enjoy some time with your kids and be back when this is over. - Misplaced Pages should not lose this editor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I linked to your appeal on AN here. El_C 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt is wise, but on this we differ. If I were to advise you, I would recommend you take an hour to draft a more substantive appeal. One that explains your interpretation of the timeline; which shows at what point things began to go astray. I don't think it's a waste of your time, to more comprehensively articulate your position. El_C 14:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC

I spent as long on that draft as Sandstein did blocking me for a month and protecting my talk page. Right now that's what I have. Try working out how you'd feel if the adminship here allowed you to be a called a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a prick and then be told to "fuck off" with 100% complete and utter impunity? Then everyone's jumping on the baiting bandwagon. I'm sure there are people able to dissect the diffs and explain exactly what each was in context, WJBScribe has already done so with one, frankly laughable, near-offensive claim. The appeal is lodged, now the concerns of the community with Sandstein and Floq's behaviour will need to be heard. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not wise, just experienced AE. - I appealed (successfully) for someone else, and am glad that I did, because he was also to proud for what was explained to me as the needed self-abasement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My friend, I totally agree with Gerda on this: ignore ignore ignore. Please follow her advice. Enjoy the forced break! Keep safe. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Strange, I don't see where Rambling Man said any of those things, if anything it seems other people have drawn up conclusions with little to no fact and that some users have punished Rambling Man for miss-understanding him. Govvy (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, per this, do you really believe that? I've been around this block a few times, and have been called a cunt, a prick, a motherfucker. Whatever. But it's always been from stupid users who are invariably blocked. Not regular editors, nor admins. The talk page block was purely punitive, to push me 100% away. Any other interpretation, I'm afraid, is naive in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats going on?

Rambling Man, what on earth happened? I just saw you got blocked!! Dam man, what on earth did you do to piss people off that bad?? Govvy (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

He exists. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course he exists, but that is not an explanation, is anything that response is err. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Govvy: No, I think what Edmund Patrick meant is that TRM pisses people off, just by existing. Which in any case seems to mostly be a badge of honour on wiki *shrugs* — O Fortuna! 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Lots and lots of thanks for your efforts here to improve this wikipedia. Be happy don't worry. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Govindaharihari, that's very kind. Although hundreds of editors have thanked me over the last month or two, and of course that's not important to the current "situation", your barnstar is much appreciated. It's been a while! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Some analyses

Let's take one of these, shall we, e.g.:

• "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."

Right, let's be honest folks, does that sound like insulting or belittling language? It was a statement of fact. The opposition was illogical ("Your opposition is founded in ill-logic"). I shrugged it off ("But never mind"). The OP had actually made some unfounded accusations e.g. "Its moot to constantly bring up the time" and then some personal attacks e.g. "This is why no one cartes (sic) what you say, and why you have no ground to stand on with your position". I suppose that meant "no one cares what I say", a bit like "fuck you" and why "people think you're a prick". ✗ Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"

This is a sweet one. Brad came in, guns blazing, to the Sutter Brown ITNC discussion, after it had been posted. Now, ITNC ran a few very decent polls over how they select RDs, i.e. whether they need "super notability" (a cause for one of the hawks circling to focus on getting me banned) or whether even trees, animals etc could be listed. We observe community consensus, and the death of that dog simply fitted consensus. However, Brad came in saying he would take it to ANI (in my world, the equivalent of saying "it's my ball, and I'm leaving") to get it resolved in his favour. He was shot down by many, including admins. Anyway, the above comment came about when Granny (orca) was considered for ITN, and a number of editors, including admins, supported it. And some were sarcastic (humorously so) about the Sutter debacle. My full text, To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like Newyorkbrad making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart. shows a comprehensive and skilled approach to why Brad was wrong, and why his "headmasterly approach" should not only be unwelcome, but discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mid-session interval

Per Sandstein, "But what matters is not what I read, but what The Rambling Man wrote. The content of the comments as excerpted in the AE request are quite enough to establish multiple and serious violations of the arbitration sanction by themselves." of course that would be true if it was machine–machine interaction where context is irrelevant, where personalities don't exist, where playing fields are level. This misguided and obviously negligent approach to assessing issues is a serious problem. It's like saying you could post a diff of an edit summary saying "and then you killed your dog" and that should result in a month-long block. Of course, if the preceding discussion was "my dog was nearly dead", then it makes sense. Sandstein appears to be accepting that he didn't make any effort at all to actually take any of these comments/edit summaries in their context. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Analyses part deux

• "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally"

This was preceded by a tempestuous (firm but fair) argument between me and Floq, but the comment preceding the one highlighted, went as follows: I'm talking, once again, about being too involved. Your tone indicates you have a dog in the fight, so it'd be better for you to leave it to someone else, a bit like Mike should have done. I know it's all too easy to assume bad faith with me, but honestly, you made a premature closure, and that's all there is to it.. I had made a strident approach to stick it neutral, despite Floq previously asserting "perhaps keep your snide comments about others to the 45 pages they're already on" and "You criticizing my "tone" just broke my fancy new irony detector." Now both of those could be considered insulting or belittling, but it wasn't a major issue for either of us. It's a shame that this contextual ability to agree to disagree, or even disagree to agree, isn't taken into account. Moreover, after Floq's response, I added Yes, hyperbolic. Reduce it down to pages you can actually document. Your emotional criticism is clear for all of us to see, including your premature closure allowing Mike V a free pass from further analysis there by concerned editors (and there are dozens, maybe even 45), but as you said already, I'm out of this meaningless debate. It's not productive, it's not improving Misplaced Pages, and my time is better spent elsewhere, and defending myself from rogue admins (who may also happen to be checkuser and oversight-enabled... curious.) which is perfectly reasonable, given the context of the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."

First off, does anyone really behave the "threats" are "chilling"? I was hauled over the coals as a result of my apparent failure to meet ADMINACCT so it's perfectly reasonable to remind other such failures to comply with their duties as admins. My previous post in that thread was to request that the admin in question desisted from encouraging Wikipedians to use the encyclopedia as a chat group, to whit: Perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT before making such threats. Please use your position to set an example, not to pander to the whims of those who use encyclopedia talk pages as a chat forum. . I had been (incorrectly) threatened with a 3RR violation. The remainder of that post, omitted in The Ed17's AE post, goes as follows: I note you omitted that the reverts of my edits were a clearer violation of 3RR. Interesting. I also note that you acted unilaterally and against consensus when removing the link from what you and one other editor deemed to be a low quality article in a DYK hook. This was despite being requested to restore it and then being requested to make similar delinking edits in three subsequent sets. Which for some reason you refused to do. Perhaps you have your reasons but the behaviour is way below that expected of an admin. You are accountable and should respond when requested to do so. Your refusal to do so is a clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT. You should also remind others that talkpages are not chat forums, and to set an example yourself of encouraging such chat off project pages and, if absolutely necessary, onto talk pages. Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT. I believe that in context, what I said was perfectly acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Analyses Drei

• "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"

One of the biggies. This was in response to being told "Oh well" by Floq who had decided that an article going to the main page with masses of unreferenced claims was just fine in his opinion. I was curious why an admin would even bother to comment at ERRORS if their response was "Oh well" when confronted with evidence to support the fact that the article in question failed to meet the quality standards of the OTD project. His response, which The ed17 has failed to include, was "Fuck you". Not much more to add here. There's little pleasure to be gained in ensuring that the main page of Misplaced Pages remains error-free and at a high quality, but when admins start down this path to good faith error reports, we have a serious problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Thanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing".

So this mini-cut from a full response was a mirror to the initial comment. DYK routinely posts errors, poor tone, POV, etc to the main page. This one, about the nuclear football, was about to run on the main page as "the White House's long-time nuclear weapons boss" and yes, I was incredulous that it had been approved as such. In actuality, the editor to which the above response was directed was one of a handful in that project who actually seems concerned with what appears on the main page. He changed it appropriately, and I told him it was "1,000 times better" than the original. But I also added that "Sure, but no-one learns from it, yet again." because the last minute changes by admins etc at DYK are usually not flowed back into the project, to the reviewers or the promoting admins. The editor's response was "I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes" which seemed odd initially as I've done nothing by try to introduce improvements to DYK for years now. Clearly my comment wasn't a "dig", more a statement of fact that we still pick up the same issues, time and time and time again at the project. It was an odd turn of events as the preceding discussion had been reasonable and calm, yet the claim of me "soap-boxing" just because I'd suggested that nothing was learnt from it was hyperbolic. I mirrored the response, and in actuality the idea of trying to turn this into my problem rather than the project's problem is exactly what apologists do. I was disappointed that the fact of the matter was overlooked and this editor couldn't see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)