User talk:SchroCat

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now

Do not leave the ‎DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

ce (copy/edit)

May I please have a clue?--Brogo13 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it wasn't an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirations?

I think you meant 'aspersions'? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did - many thanks. A combination of my stupidity, mild dyslexia and the spell checker picking the wrong word! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly it seems that picking up on the misspelling is a good way to poke fun at people, regardless of something like dyslexia. Never mind. We shall soldier on regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's a wrong'un, ignore him. I do, but he just socks me instead. I ignore them too. Cassianto^Talk 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be cautious about anyone who doesn't realise that dyslexia is an anagram of daily sex. Tim riley talk 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol, would that be limited to hard back? Cassianto^Talk 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can't come up with a good way to use that, sadly. Best I have is: "Struggling to read, lady exits awkwardly without tea [8]" Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at the Fram PD talk page

I've removed your latest comment as a clerk action. You are welcome to comment on the case but you should keep your remarks civil. You are expected to act with decorum in arbspace at least as much as on the rest of the project. GoldenRing (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, Leave my comment alone please. You may not like it, but it is not an uncivil comment. You will be in breach of WP:3RR shortly. So stop now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be best to leave this, or take it somewhere else and point to a diff of what you said and see if you can get consensus to post what you are saying. Otherwise it (and some person hovering over a block button) will become a distraction. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly Carcharoth, I see GoldenRing is unable to see the difference between criticising an action (or set of actions) and what actually constitutes incivility. Plus ca change, unfortunatly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have extremely low expectations of anything being done correctly any more. I see that this "may be appealed to Arbcom"... I think I'd rather not - you never know where it will end up! - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest you appeal it, but I see what you mean. Have a think. If you want to appeal, I could write something (I have asked on bradv's talk page). Of course, appealing will mean more people see what you said, but is it that or the possibility that it might boomerang on you that you have concerns about (or maybe you don't trust that justice will be done)? Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me mull it over. I don't normally bother with appeals (I know when I've breached a technicality, as I have done here – in terms of edit warring with a clerk, something I did not initially know was a 'bright line' offence), and I haven't got anything too pressing on at the moment (aside from an article at FAC, one at PR and another in re-write stage)! Perhaps if GR had not removed the comment in the first place the resultant kerfuffle would not have happened. Anyway, that was to be my parting shot on the whole sad and sorry case. As I've said, the toxicity will just keep getting dragged on and on, but the opportunity to cauterise the wound passed some time ago. Many thanks for your offer though – it is much appreciated. - ~~SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)~~ updated - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These people have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Dissent must never be stifled, however unfavorable and unfounded it may be, unless that verges on sheer and gross abuse (which this was not, by a few many miles). Let's see how long do I and Mr.Ernie stay unblocked. ∯WBG^converse 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed that out to Gorilla Warfare on Bradv's talk page earlier, Winged Blades of Godric - surprisingly, I had no response. What we have here is a virtual dictatorship. Thank god we have the ability to switch them off at the plug socket. Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Ernie, Winged Blades of Godric, I appreciate the gesture very much, I really do. In the spirit of calm and peace, (as Carcharoth has asked for here) could you remove the comments, or, at least, not revert if one of the Clerks decides to double down on their poor decision-making process? I'd hate to see others get blocked for my actions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I will not revert, if that gets reverted by a clerk. Let's see, though :-) ∯WBG^converse 19:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just been taken out - yours and Mr Ernie's. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad the Brave has anyways removed the refactored version of it, devoid of any “incivility,” as an unassailable clerk action. I wonder if these clerks will remove the arbitrator aspersions from the pages in their zeal to civilize the case. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it's not ok with Bradv for Gavin to call an entire committee useless, it's ok for Bradv to call me a troll. Funny that. Cassianto^Talk 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two ex-arbitrators (in good standing) have publicly noted that almost all clerk-actions are at-least vetted by a single arbitrator and that using clerks is their heavily-preferred method of dealing with civility (and like) stuff, for otherwise they are often later accused of having a bias and all that.

Now, Brad certainly seems to be over-eager with the trigger and is a textbook adherent of policy (does he know Kirill?; they will make a good pair) *but* it's undeniable that arbitrators have a strong role to play in these removals. ∯WBG^converse 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes do it directly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked here that an unblock be considered, as it is likely the case will be closed today. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, Ched, That is very good of you to chip in and request it on my behalf. I am extremely grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s pretty funny how everything works here. GoldenRing, who barely has 700 edits to the main space, has the power to stop you from your article work. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
700? I think I've done 700 in main space since July (and that's not including article re-writes in my sandbox, either). Oh well, whatever floats their boat, I guess. I do prefer to see at least some effort to content building from admins tho - just so they know what it feels like to have some skin in the game. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various messages about content improvement

Tim riley, Many thanks for your very useful comments at the PR. I will deal with them at 6ish tomorrow evening. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see Nanny has sent you to bed without any supper for daring to question the infallibility of some Wikigauleiters or other. Silly boy! Tim riley talk 20:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thankfully I've been let off the naughty step now, so I'll be up to mischief again shortly enough, I'm sure. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, Many thanks for your comment at the FAC. It is much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, my pleasure. I hope, during this 48 hours, you are reflecting upon your recent behaviours and are considering...carrying on exactly how you have been. If not for the benefit of the failing project, then at the annoyance of the thoroughly incompetent, and hugely pompous Arbitration Committee and their sycophantic little helpers. Cassianto^Talk 08:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Little helpers"? They may be obese. Or do you refer merely to cerebral measurements? Tim riley talk 20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SQL, you may still be in the process of sorting the close, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision is showing 50 or so "Expression error"s in big red bold type. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, Yep, something has gone horribly wrong, working on it. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, as long as you've noticed it, that's all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally

Well, wrong as I do consider this situation, I do suppose that the temporary sandbox below does give some/one resolution to the great thought experiment. As offered before, I am also willing to speak to the blocking admin on your behalf. I strongly suspect that an unblock request would be granted - although I do understand your reluctance to "bow down" to any such behavior. Still - I'm sorry to see this, especially in light of the already tense and drama filled situation(s) as of late. Take care Schro - and do feel free to ping if you wish. — Ched (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched, thanks very much for your offer – it's very kind of you to step up too. I think it was an over-reaction to remove the comment in the first place, and if GR had not decided to remove it then the rest of the kerfuffle wouldn't have taken place. Hey-ho. Worse things happen at sea, and at least I have my little workaround below. If something urgent comes up then I'll certainly give you and Carcharoth a ping to intercede. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you following a conversation on the clerks' mailing list. As the case is now closed, we agreed this block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. I want to especially thank you for your comment asking others not to continue the edit war, and for your mature response to this block. – bradv🍁 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv. I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, can you please answer my last question to you on the PD talk page. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arb / Fram

I like your threads under that header, and try to follow your good example. I know I can come across as a disruptive warrior holding a grudge, but wonder if that is supported by evidence. I think the Fram case shows that you and I agree where it matters, regarding the fair treatment of people, and only disagree where it doesn't, such as the style of the top in articles. Can we take it from there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

Wikimania
We're building something great, but..
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
A Wikibrarian's story
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]