User talk:Ceoil/Archive 19

Archive of trouble; but note that, prago, no em sorry, pedri, no-wait: Pedro - came of out this very well indeed. Thanks Pedro and sorry for the typos. Coiels sláinte 23:36, 31 Ochkcbar 2008 (UTC)

Re: Telling Wesley to ignore 3RR warnings:
Is a bad idea. Do you want to see him blocked? Don't go starting trouble, sweetheart. It's just not worth it from your perspective. Scarian Call me Pat!  18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have we ever had any communication at all ever? Judging from your block log you're quite popular with all the admins! Little sugar dumpling! Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If that witless shit the best you are capable of; have fun with it. Baiting in such a obvious way is the mark of an inexperienced and clueless troll. Ceoil  sláinte 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Call me a troll again and I will block you. Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise for the perceived "baiting". It was a good faith 3RR warning to Wesley (See this). If someone you had never had any contact with asked someone else to ignore you, right when it's imperative not to be ignored, it's not going to make you feel good, is it? I do apologise for swearing and losing my temper etc. For the record, I had heard absolutely nothing about the fiasco with the previous block and was not rubbing it in or anything like that at all. I do hope you accept my apology, friend. Scarian Call me Pat!  20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pedro : Chat  20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I dont buy it. "I had heard absolutely nothing about the fiasco with the previous block and was not rubbing it in or anything like that at all". Only a fool would accept that; ahem you did say,  Judging from your block log you're quite popular with all the admins! Little sugar dumpling! Dont treat me like a child that can be sated with sugar and empty words after a deliberate baiting and a muscle orientated block warning. There is not a hint of sincerity or regret in the above. Please. Ceoil  sláinte 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "I do hope you accept my apology, friend", well if that isn;t salt on an open wound I dont know what is. How is this person an admin? Ceoil  sláinte 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, honestly, I never heard about it at all; I don't frequent ANI. All I did was check your block log as I would do any user I am having a dispute with. As for my apology, I meant it honestly and with the utmost sincerity. I wouldn't be an adult if I couldn't apologise like one, which I have done. I understand that I am not without impunity and the ANI discussion helped me calm down. Ceoil, by believing my apology to be insincere you are showing signs of extreme bad faith. I have apologised, what else do you want? Why can't you just accept that I have apologised honestly and move on? It's not like you were without fault in our disagreement also. Can we just forget about this like the adults we are? Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, about "friend", I often refer to people as "friend" or "buddy", I mean it just as much as its connotation implies. :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop already. Your bullshit is not welcome here. I'm no fool, and if you think that kind of explination is enough, well pity you.  Ceoil  sláinte 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's being nice to you, dude. You're getting into incivility and beating the dead hose. ''' Sui get [[Special:Contributions/Suigetsu|su ]]'''
 * If you think he's being nice to me you are seriuosly naieve and taking asf to its depressing letter of the law. Its a civility code; it doesnt mean we have to ignore facts. Your right of course about beating a dead horse; no matter how many times this happens admins will always close in to protect each other; which is fine but to protect they will blame; which is were the likes of me comes it to it, with six or seven blocks now, and little matter how daming the evidence in my defence. And here you are to enflame and bait. Nice. Ceoil  sláinte 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil, you have email from me. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. Ceoil  sláinte 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy
Nah - You can call me what you like! Seriously - can't we ask Pat (Scarian) if we can all work on this together without an ANI blood fest? I know it hurts, I think Scarian's made some bad "threats" and I think you made some bad responses. It happens, it's no big deal. I read the whole block thing the other day as it happens so I'm aquainted with that. Let's all take it of ANI and thrash it though? Please? Pedro : Chat  20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Look guys, I really apologise by User:WifeOfPedro needs assistance and RL is (marginally!) more important - I'll drop a note to Pat and make a couple more edits but may not be around for several hours after. Pedro : Chat  20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your block log
Your block log is obviously full of half-truths and has been causing you some trouble lately. To help rectify this, I've placed a small corrective note there stating that none of the previous sanctions against you were warranted, and that all of them were overturned by the community. Hopefully this will mean that you'll never have to put up with another admin looking at what you do here only superficially and getting the mistaken impression that you're some sort of troublemaker - and if we're lucky, also stop the vicious cycle of you getting blocked over and over again... just because you've been blocked before. :/ Let me know if you need anything else. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a very nice gesture and hugely appreciated east718. For what its worth, I hold no hard feelings against the earlier blocking admins; in fact to a man they turned out to be all good guys. I dont see any conspiracy, but I do think the culture on an/i is to protect and minimise, and that can be harsh on the recieving end. Its a natrural reaction of course, we all know each other, but as I say it can be harsh to take it on the chin. I was advised by T Knott to let this go for tonight, and thats advice I'll take, and eill do. But again, that was a swell thing of you to do. Ceoil  sláinte 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And I was left with no choice to weigh in, although I twice asked for time, simply because I was trying to meet a midnight bot deadline. Well, anyway, thank you so much to East718, even though I wish I could have had a chance to explain to some admins how it feels to be judged based on a faulty block log, and to please stop being so insensitive to how that feels to a regular editor.  They fuel Ceoil's hurt, and further enrage, every time this happens by refusing to understand what it feels like on this side of the fence.  They forget the power they have with that block button.  This is one of the reasons that I choose to remain on this side of the fence:  I don't want to ever forget how vulnerable one feels when attacked by a group of "we admins watching you".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I specifficaly asked that it be left open. So i'll reopen. Ceoil  sláinte 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am disapointed that you guys think so little of those with the administrative technical abilities. I think maybe I will rectify part of your issues with us "big bad admins" who are "on one side of the fence". It's a shame that your faith in human nature has become so tainted by this website that you can only lump all in to one mould. Pedro : Chat  23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. If you honestly think every admin on this website is biased, corrupt, evil and closes ranks you can get rid of this one with just one additional signature. Pedro : Chat  23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro, to be fair I observed much earlier that I rescpect both you and wisardman, so dont play that card or the observation will become moote. Ceoil  sláinte 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ceoil, it's a but unfair I agree - I'm trying to make the point that this admin v. non admin thing is so wrong and I really hate it. I'm not trying to be pointy, I'm just frustrated that "admin abuse" seems to be directed at all admins every sodding time. Apologies. Pedro : Chat  00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Pedro: to a good and fair admin, it also feels awful to be lumped, just as it feels awful to be lumped with trolls vandals and socks because one has a block log. I will try to be more sensitive whenever I refer to admin abuse.  Now please remove my name from that list: I cannot ever imagine an issue with you.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tis done, at your express desire (although to be honest your intimation I am doing the wrong thing would put you in as much stead as any editor on that list Sandy) Pedro : Chat  00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to lump, Pedro; it's certainly not true of everyone (I'm not even sure it's true of most). But it's true often enough that it continues to come up, so something should be said to raise awareness.  Each time this happens, it has become worse because of insensitive responses to how it feels to have a block log like that.  The equivalent to me is the following:  every time I hit the archive button on a FAC, to "fail" someone's FAC, I still get that feeling.  The day I can press that "fail" button easily is the day I need to stop doing the job. Too many of the ANI responses indicate that too many admins don't understand how it feels to have a block log (unfairly) like Ceoil's.  I would never request removal of your rights, Pedro; I've seen nothing from you to warrant that.  Please do remove me from that list, as I have no issue with you whatsoever.  Like Ceoil, I also have no issue with the past admins who blocked him.  My concern is the insensitivity that comes up on AN/I threads when something like this occurs.  And that Ceoil was proven right in only a week: someone assumed things about him based on his block log, as is bound to happen if we don't find a way of dealing with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, it is possible to be attacked whether you're an admin or not? I've seen it happen. There's over 1600 admins here; they aren't all one big gang out to get you. They're also human; people make mistakes, people are dicks, etc. I can understand the perceived idea that it's "admins against non-admins" but that's not the case really. Yes, admins have a block button, but it doesn't mean they are all out there to block people they don't like. Most admins do a brilliant job, we should be thankful we have such hardworking editors. And Sandy, you do a brilliant job on FAC, which we should all be thankful for. Not everyone is a bad guy. I think we should get back to the encyclopedia; whether it's writing articles, or otherwise, we all do a good job here in some way. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But ye have the buttons, How do you, and we dont. And its becoming increasingly more common where the buttons are turned on us. And when we complain we are told to effectivaly, go away. I fully agee that most admins do a brilliant job, but some are bullies, and it would seem we dont have right to call them. Ceoil  sláinte 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * HDYTTO, have you followed Ceoil's contribs for the last week? Not only did he get back to work on articles, he went out of his way to extend olive branches and put all this to rest.  That it happened again, in only a week, means we need to pay attention.  I am sorry, but I do NOT want to lose Ceoil after losing Yannis. No one is saying everyone is bad, on any side of the fence, but admins have the power of the block and they should be sensitive to how it feels to be put in Ceoil's position.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't tend to follow people's edits other than my own. I'm pleased he let it rest. And admins have the power of the block, but it doesn't mean they're all out to get us. I gave Ceoil some advice privately about how to deal with this already, as I don't want to encourage further drama on the wiki. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, perhaps you could ask some future RFA candidates who intend to use the block button about how they would deal with a situation like this, and to ensure no one gets hurt if there's a next time (which I sincerely hope there isn't). Because you are right, there are far too many admins who will block first, ask questions later, and perhaps it needs hammering in. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I apparently still haven't expressed myself well. Everyone makes mistakes: what happened to Ceoil has been a series of mistakes.  I am concerned about the insensitivity shown after the mistakes, and no question on RfA will sort out insensitivity.  I know who the mature editors are, the sensitive and capable, and when I encounter them, I nominate them at RfA.  You can't teach maturity, and you can't assess it by piling on more questions at RfA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what exactly do you intend to do about it? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me How, but how do you do know that I did'nt try and mend broken fences. But you have given me good advice, and I'm inclined to listen to you, even if you dont seem to have sympathy or a grasp of the bigger picture. Thats fine; I see you as a good guy, and I know you have a lot of integrity. Meet Sandy: who has more integrity than most wrapped up. Pity ye have to fight when effectively ye are on the same side, just different perspectives. Ceoil  sláinte 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not fighting, just disagreeing :-) Though she has a lot more experience than I do, perhaps I ought to listen to her more! And btw, I do sympathise with you, even though I might not be as obvious in doing so as others. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Let it go. God sake. Ceoil  sláinte 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your words are dangerous and have the power to corrupt. Speaking of which, I'm finally going over to Ireland to spend those American dollars of mine. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I must say it's funny that almost all of the blocks you've received are due to the fact that people don't understand you're joking (I'm particularly thinking of the good-natured "incivility" on friends' talk pages). I don't care; you can say insulting things on my talk page all you want. I'll even put up a notice. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool about visiting Irl. If you decide to visit Cork be sure to give me a bell and I'll take you on the tear. Problem might be though that you woun't wont understand our thick Irish brouge; remember Tommy Tiernan, well we actually do talk like that, like!. Ceoil  sláinte 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My "Ceoil advisory" is now up. I suggest you tell your other Wiki-friends to do the same, or else I can expect you to get banned again in two months for calling someone a cunt while working on a painting Featured Article Candidate. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Consider this an apology for the perceived hostility that transpired at your thread today, both from me and other people. Pat's behavior was inexcusable, and I perfectly understand losing your cool as a result (it's not justified, but it's understandable). Please don't take this as sarcasm, either; it's a rare moment in which I'm being sincere.  Sui get  su 


 * Thanks Suigetsu, dont worry about it, and I do know I wasn't fully justified and out of order. What East718 did to my block record resolves the whole thing in my mind; I though it was a really kind gesture, and was really appreciated. Ceoil  sláinte 16:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstood barbarianism
Reviewing your plight in the last day or so, I quite logically asked myself, "Which video can best sum up the persecuted, misunderstood feelings and brooding mood of my good Wiki friend Ceoil?" Of course, there was only one man best suited to step up to the challenge. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So Perfect! Good man! Ceoil  sláinte 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As you like
Fair enough! . Thankyou for the kind words in the edit summary. I was also rather frustrated last night. I'm sick of this "them and us" attitude between admins and non admins - and believe me there is fault on both sides. We loose to many good editors due to admin bullying and we loose to many good admins due to burn out from the relentless admin bashing that goes on. I wish people would read WP:DEAL and understand what it really means - being an admin is not something to boast about or lord over other people. It's simply a technical matter and affords no status or rank above those without the tools. The day I think otherwise is the day I need to get rid of the bit. Again, thanks and happy editing. Pedro : Chat  19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I've just noticed you've spelt my user name wrong twice now  Underneath the guidelines set out at Three typos of an admin's username please consider this a formal warning I will block you if you make a third mis-spelling. :) Pedro :  Chat  19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever suggested that all admins are bad. There are profound and deeply-rooted problems, however, with the culture of adminship on this project. There's no reason for you to take umbrage at that, Pedro. In fact, you taking offense on behalf of all admins, when in fact nobody was criticizing all admins or criticizing you, actually adds to the factionalism (although I understand this is not your intent). What's needed is for more admins to step up to the plate and say we need to clean house--for so many admins to say "I'm with the editors on this" that "the editors" and "the admins" aren't even meaningful groups. If you're interested in helping eliminate the "us vs. them" mentality there are several constructive steps that can be taken 1) help create a system where we can remove adminship as easily as rollback ie not necessarily for flagrant abuses, but even for relatively small ones (this helps keep the entire culture in check, just as it has with rollback) 2) if there's incivility and admin abuse, focus on the latter, as it's much more serious. Far far too often we point to an example of civility to say "everyone was in the wrong" and use it to whitewash that, in fact, admins routinely use their tools to gain the upper hand in content/social disputes. Incivility does not justify using the tools to jockey for social rank 3) work to further debundle the tools, so that instead of a binary toggle, adminship is more of a continuum 4) aggressively reproach admins who cross the line, or who act as though they're better than regular editors, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that no-one has ever said all admins are bad - or at least whilst they may not have said it they think it. There's plenty out there. Moving to constructive matters I couldn't agree more. I have already been vocal about further unbundling of the tools (within the constraints of what the devs can do) and I firmly believe adminship should be easy to remove - I believe my own recall requirements (see diff above) are about as open as you can get. I dislike incivility but I think I meet a cultural difference on to what incivilty is - I seem to be far less tolerant of swearing than our American cousins for example. Where there is admin abuse I can but try - regretfully some of the rudest and most abusive admins wield great "political power" on WP. That's not a cop out it's a statement of fact. Pedro : Chat  20:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay is certainly right about "we point to an example of civility to say everyone was in the wrong, but I dont think Pedro is the right audience for the argument. Ceoil  sláinte 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Pedro's a good guy. I'm mostly venting in general.  Fortunately we'll have a limited opportunity to address some of these problems soon.  In my opinion most of the problems are a direct result of the arbitration committee. The odd thing is they're not incompetent individually, but they are as a collective.  And unfortunately the lack of competence at the top trickles down.  But that's why I'm optimistic that 3-4 more smart arbs could turn the body back into a functioning unit again, and slap it, and much of the project, back around with regard to priorities. --JayHenry (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What if we re-focus on the specific AN/I thread in question for this incident? Particularly, some of the followup comments that were blatantly one-sided and unfair to Ceoil.  One constantly wonders where are the mature and wise admins in these AN/I discussions.  The conclusion lodged at the top of that thread (at AN/I) is unfair to Ceoil, and perceptions linger.  (I don't think we can fix ArbCom this December ... ) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the AN/I discussion you refer to was fair or even-handed either. I believe there's an Italian proverb something along the lines of "the fish rots from the head"? The effective "head" of this wikipedia fish are the administrators, and they are most certainly not being held to account for their behaviour and demeanour, and in fact hold others to higher standards of behaviour than they themselves exhibit. That's where the rot starts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple then. I run for Ardcom. Ha Ha Ha! Pedro : Chat  22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be comfortable with me seconding it? Ha Ha Ha.  Ceoil  sláinte 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh! - My friend - I do this to benefit my children, so that they can have a decent resource from which to find out information when they grow up. That's the start and finish of my interest in this website. I have neither time, inclination or desire to do anything but keep it tidy and help it grow. I have no desire whatsoever to engage in the politics of this place, unless it is to directly support that aim. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Misuderstanding
After reviewing the discussion on Sandy's page, your comments and the various diffs and JayHenry's input I accept I misunderstood your last response on my talk. I genuinely felt you were still calling my comments "cheap". I retract may statement that you may be more trouble than you're worth - that was poor form by me and most certainly not true. I'm pleased that you can see why I thought you were throwing all my support back in my face, and I appreciate your graciousness in having that understanding. I'm sure this catalogue of errors would never have occured had we been discussing this in real life, with tone and intonation that cannot be expressed on a website. If there is one thing we need on Wikipedia it's admins who will defend the content creators and who won't lash out (with or without using the tools). I let myself down in that regard. Again, my apologies. Pedro : Chat  09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * you were perfectly entitled to your view on thoes words which could have been so easily be seen as harsh, and I am obvously careless in my choice of language and tend to fly off the handle. Im going to sumbit to a civility parole, maybe that is about time. You though I was calling your remarks cheap, in all honesty, that is my problem, not yours. I genuinly think that nominating an admin of your choice to watch my ineractions and call my mistakes when they happen is a good idea at this stage. You owe me no apology. This was a bad misunderstanding, but my fault. Ceoil  sláinte 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The key thing here is the header on my talk page "steps forward". You seem to be pretty much universally recognised as one of our finest content creators. You are self evidently a huge asset to WP. But don't be suprised when people react really negatively to swearing and what seemed at the time a sudden total reversal in what had previously been a positive dialogue. That's what made me make the comment on you being more trouble than you are worth. It was wrong in this case, very much so, but sometimes I do think there are editors and admins who despite their huge positives are such a pain in other areas that the good is outwayed by the bad.
 * Civility is one of those difficult policies because everyone's idea of civility is different.
 * I think the message I've learnt here is that I need to be more aware of the difficulties content creators have. I don't think you need someone watching your back. I'd prefer that when you get frustrated or see what you think is abuse, bullying or tenditios editing you hit me up on my talk page and vent there. I would be genuinely pleased ot help in whatever way I can in order to save you the frustrations such as those of the last few days. I can't promise a magic wand but I can promise to do my best to be a sounding board. Pedro : Chat  13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A sounding board is excatly what I need. I accept that my temper and unfortunate way with words are a poor combination. Ceoil  sláinte 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that. If I'm aware of the situation and aware of an individuals temprament then I'm more able to work with them. I don't take that much offense to swearing and lashing out if I know it's born from frustration rather than genuine enemnity. If I can help at all please do ask and I will do my best. And if you just want a rant, I'm happy with that to. I'd prefer you did it to me than any other editor. Oh, and I learnt very early on as an admin (because I stupidly did it once) to make a point of not threatening the block buttons as a method of dispute resolution. Pedro :  Chat  13:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We all need our ranting zones, at least editors like me and I suspect Ceoil do anyway. I find Jennavecia's talk page a breath of fresh air when I want to let rip. Particularly as I know she'll give at least as good as she gets. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)