User talk:AndyTheGrump

See User:AndyTheGrump. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
...for this. I was going to say something similar, but you beat me to it. Frigging Wankel-nuts. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What we really need is a video if someone starting a rotary, to go at the top of the article. A bit unconventional, but it should at least get the point across to the 'it's a radial' crowd. As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless... Wink.png AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Conduct
I have seen some of your edit histories along with what you have currently said to me. Why are you so rude to Wikipedia editors? Your language is completely uncalled for and not acceptable here on Wikipedia. I may have to report you if you keep up your actions. Antny08 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so. But read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I read it. I will write on WP:ANI, thanks. Antny08 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Antny08 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Civility in contentious topics
You're aware that BLPs are a contentious topic, so I'm going to skip the template on that. One of the things that comes with editing WP:CTOPs is a directive to follow editorial and behavioural best practice. I know there is a lot of sub-par and completely unacceptable editing around BLPs, and I appreciate your steadfast defense of BLPs, but the incivility needs to stop. You're more than capable of communicating without calling other editors idiots, or any of the other legion lapses in civility you've had. There's obviously a discussion at ANI right now, but separate from that I'm giving you a warning that further incivility in any contentious topic you're aware of is likely to result in sanctions. I'm going to log this warning under BLP, because that is where I've seen the most lapses in civility.

You're doing important work and I appreciate it, but you need to keep in mind civility is a pillar as much as any of the others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A question: does Wikipedia's policy on civility also extend to comments made by contributors about the subjects of biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but WP:BLP covers derogatory remarks about BLPs. You can definitely report any violations of that. I agree that often slips by, although I try to do what I can on that front too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It might then be advisable to point this out to some of the participants in the various discussions that took place before the Tate DYK was posted. And to DYK discussions more generally. Along with a link to WP:RGW. I'm clearly not in the best mood to think objectively about this right now, but having done a little looking into the matter, I am of the opinion that there may be sufficient evidence that some contributors see DYK as a legitimate venue for RGW-point-scoring (see e.g. this comment just as an example) to justify sanctions, a change of policy (a simple ban on DYKs concerning living persons would do a great deal to avoid such problems), or possibly an ArbCom case. Yes, I blew my top, and objectively it wasn't the optimum way to deal with the specifics of the case, but this has been an issue for many many years, and nothing ever seems to be learned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I had the bandwidth to patrol yet another area it probably wouldn't be DYK, but I do understand there are problems with it. I'm sure your don't need me to tell you this, and I'm not trying to be an asshole, but the best time to try and affect change isn't when you're ripshit about some problem.
 * I think the avoiding BLP at DYK idea is decent, and if you propose something about that it could get some traction. Also, while my watchlist is already far too large to keep an eye on DYK feel free to let me know if there's any sketchy BLP stuff going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. Many thanks. And yes, I know I'm not at my best when fuming. Especially when it coincides with chronic insomnia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will support a no-BLP-at-DYK proposal! I'll be watching for it. Zanahary (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to say, there were numerous things wrong with that DYK beyond the hook. Firstly, criticism over how "positive" (ie neutral) the original hooks were on the DYK talk page, but nothing on the template page or talk page there, so as nominee I was completely unaware. I got an apology for this lack of transparency, before a full-blown discussion occurred without a single user pinging me about it — as if it didn't concern me, which was obviously pretty insulting, especially since users were directly making accusations about the intentions behind the neutrally hooked DYK. The hook then went through after what appeared to be a lack of consensus and mere quietness from the DYK talk page, followed by an alternative hook proposed on the template page. I could go on, but I left the conversation after that as never felt part of the clique that runs DYKs, nor ever want to be after that experience. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The way DYK discussions tend to be scattered over multiple pages is distinctly sub-optimal, and were anyone to suggest that it is done this way in order to make it harder for outsiders to participate, I'd find it hard to argue. And yes, it is absolutely clear that the final result came about not through consensus, but through exhaustion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest a solution, Andy. DYK has tried to find one. Valereee (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If DYK is incapable of fixing its own problems, I see no reason why it should expect others - particularly those who don't consider it an asset to Wikipedia - to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @CommunityNotesContributor, I'm sorry you didn't get pinged. DYK process is unfortunately not easy to follow, and it's not ideal. Valereee (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When discussions regarding a DYK nomination surface on the DYK talk page, then all that needs to happen is for someone to post a comment on that template to notify any users who it may concern, not necessarily even pinging a nominee. Not only is this easy and straightforward, but should be a basic requirement/guideline in order to be transparent and for an open discussion (with nominee and any other concerned contributors to that article). The problem is this appears to be the norm, given the number of users engaged in that conversation and not a single one bothered to reference this on the template page. I've never seen anything else like it on WP. Nominees could then better defend themselves from distasteful bad faith attacks behind a nominees back, such as accusations of running a PR campaign for Tate, due to a neutral hook. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the norm (see how most of the sections at WT:DYK that start with "Queue" or "Prep set" begin with pings to concerned users), but the bad-faith insinuations most definitely should not be. My apologies to you for not pushing back on it harder than I did. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 You're reply didn't go unnoticed and it was appreciated. You seemingly were the only person who saw an issue with that comment, and not sure there's much else you could have said as you summarised your criticism well in a concise manner. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's best practices there. Unfortunately some editors don't understand best practices. There are a lot of new users here. Valereee (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about an introduction to the talk page beyond "This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed." to include something like "When discussing particular nominations, please reference the discussion on the template talk page and ping the nominee". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I might butt in (this is my talk page, after all), might I suggest that discussions regarding how DYK could make its decision-making process more transparent, and how it could avoid making 'bad-faith insinuations' about its participants apparently behind their backs, might be better conducted somewhere where the regular DYKers might see them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @CommunityNotesContributor, I've made a suggestion at WT:DYK that we require it. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

Reference desk
[automatic translation] Hello, why has my question been removed, please? 37.174.32.228 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It was clearly not the sort of question that an encyclopaedia reference desk could answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  06:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I you feel like having an opinion
. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Silliness at Talk:Illuminati
Are we allowed to semi-protect talk pages (to block non-registered, IP editors)? At this point, that seems to be the only way to stop all these “how to join” posts. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I protected it for a couple weeks and watchlisted it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought about maybe suggesting a notice at the top of the talk page, but given that these individuals clearly aren't reading the article, I doubt they'd read that either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop vanadalising
@AndyTheGrump please stop vandalising draft articles that are not in mainspace. If you continue to make destructive edits I will be reporting you to ANI. You also purposely collapsed my source assessment table on the talk page of SurrealDB in order to attempt to prevent reviewers from seeing it.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, so please act like it. Mr vili  talk  15:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * . Wikipedia is not your personal blog, and nor is a platform for you to promote your imaginary countries, with their imaginary 'laws', universities (no doubt selling imaginary diplomas), and all the other bullshit you seem so intent on flogging here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Never have I ever promoted such a thing - I don't want to have to escalate this further so if my act of contributing to wikipedia really bothers and frustrates you, please stop engaging with me and articles I am involved in, and leave it to more mature and experienced editors to deal with it because clearly you are too emotional and heated. This is the last warning I will leave before I create an extensive list of all of our toxic interactions and report it to ANI Mr vili   talk  18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What part of '' are you having trouble understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion involving you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr vili  talk  20:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yay! Boomerang time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Whatever. If Wikipedia prefers to let people use Wikipedia article space to promote their own books about imaginary countries, who am I to argue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been through enough of these to know that they're cruising to an indef. Fuck off, you crooked little grifter isn't doing anything except drawing attention away from where it's needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Drawing attention to where it's needed invariably results in a circling of wagons, followed by everyone sticking their fingers in their ears and complaining about hearing loss. Wikipedia is structurally incapable of dealing with any but the most overt COI issues. This is not accidental. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Simply as a preemptive cautionary note and not in response to any current edit: be very careful not to skate close to WP:OUTING and if you wish to share off-wiki evidence for COI just email arbcom. Getting into trouble over this for an already blocked editor would be just about the stupidest most inadvisable thing to do! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I believe arbcom has been/will soon be emailed regarding this (not by me), and given that you seem to likewise know the details, I shouldn't need to get involved any further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist case request declined
The Anachronist case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 21:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Micronation infobox RfC
It wasn't at all clear to me that the closer intended their close to mean "symbols can be included in the infobox on a case-by-case basis, sometimes", which is illogical (what would it even mean for the option of "on a case-by-case basis" to itself only be available on a case-by-case basis?), was not an option in the RfC, and was not even argued in the RfC. There was very clear consensus that symbols should never be in infoboxes, full stop, and if the closer is now claiming that they ever can be then maybe a close review is in order. I almost raised it at the time as being a BADNAC due to the closer being wildly inexperienced and issuing irrelevant and supervotey additional pronouncements, but was hopeful the close's recognizing overwhelming support for option B would preempt wikilawyering on at least that aspect... Thoughts? JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the infobox RfC close was less than optimal, but I doubt that asking for a close review at this late stage would get far. As for the RfC at Talk:Principality of Sealand, I think I've made my point well enough already: it is badly worded, and seems to be asking contributors to !vote with no consideration for requirements regarding sourcing etc. The only 'symbol' that has been discussed at all is the flag (for which some minimal sourcing at least exists, though none of it says much), and yet people are asked whether to permit 'symbols', which could mean almost anything. In the event that this hopelessly-vague proposal gets accepted, I will certainly ask for a review, since an RfC for a single article cannot overrule core policy, making such a decision null and void. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Flags of Micronations
I reverted the addition of one bit of vandalism without noticing I was bringing back another bit. I'll pay more attention next time.:) Donald Albury 19:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've done worse myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating NPA, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. 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:. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2024 (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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

For the benefit of participants at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish, yes, of course I'm aware of CT/BLP. And of WP:BLP policy in general, under which I reverted the IP's blatant violations of said policy. The revert that led to said IP accusing me of 'shilling' for some Youtuber I'd never even head of before I became aware of the violations. I assume SFR blocked me under the 'decorum' section of CT/BLP, which is probably valid, though if I was being picky I might question as to whether unsolicited advice actually constitutes a 'personal attack'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dont agree with the block, but its is not the worst thing that's ever happened. Lending support to your overall approach; we need a hundred of you. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If there were a hundred of me, I suspect that at least 60 of them would spend most of their time arguing with each other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, you seem pretty clear eyed as to why you are here. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that his contributions are very valuable. We're generally of the same mind when it comes to BLP issues. Just has to stop calling people morons, imbeciles, or anything else like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to make the unsolicited observation that you are more valuable to this project than, by my estimate, >90% of the editors who commented in that ANI report, and for what it is worth that includes me and the administrator who blocked you. And if that makes me an imbecile, please refer to me in the future as MISTER Imbecile. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Though to be honest I'm not sure I'm actually here to be 'valuable to the project' as such. I like to think that my major priority is to be valuable to the projects readers, along with at least some of the human subjects that Wikipedia writes about. Many of whom either deserve a whole lot better than what Wikipedia serves up, or would be better left unbiographised (Doesn't seem to be a word. It should be). And beyond that, I ascribe to the principle that knowledge is a good thing to have, and that assisting people to come by it without charging them for it is likewise good, though in practice actual learning takes more effort than the passive 'read it and you have it' ethos of this place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A grumpy baby gopher tortoise for you!
Hello, AndyTheGrump, has given you a grumpy baby gopher tortoise! Seeing your username crossed out makes me sad. I always appreciated your efforts and am not sure what people expect from someone who advertises as grumpy. Hope to see you around again soon. Folly Mox (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)