User talk:AndyTheGrump

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

Can you tell me how to get?

It's a good street. Thank you for cutting through bs and caring. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:51, 8 April 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. Please help translate to other languages.

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... 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 Wikipedia: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 [1] 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 CommunityNotesContributor (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. ~~ 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)