User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/December

Things are getting bad

Not only did I actually do some content work today, but I'm nominating a candidate for RFA who is basically only an article writer, and appears to be over the age of majority. You're just getting into my thought process now ....... and changing it for the better! Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Resistance is futile". :-) Seriously though, I do firmly believe that the only reason anyone ought to be here is to do article work, not to play whackamole with vandals. And I have long been of the opinion that many of those under the age of majority just want whatever kudos pre-teens and teenagers get from being able to say on their school applications that they're a wikipedia administrator. I've supported the odd specialist at RfA in the past, but basically I don't trust anyone who hasn't been through the shit of a heated content dispute, or an acrimonious GA/FA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh - yeah resistance is futile! You might quite like my latest nom - no whack a mole, no pontificating at AFD and no pushing around at ANI. Just an editor who needs the tools to move stuff over redirects. Refreshing, to say the least...! Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep me posted. If they don't pass, I have a keyboard to bash my face into. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - No AIV, no patrolling, no ANI - doomed from the outset :) Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like SandyGeorgia to me. Has she accepted an RfA nomination at last? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alas, no. But you can check my contribs for the chap. I dare not mention it for fear of the dreaded WP:CANVASS Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see who it is. I might pop in to slap a support : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

← Before I add my support to this RfA, to avoid any accusations of canvassing, I want to make it clear that I first became aware of it a few days ago, after I replied to a posting on Pedro's talk page, where it was not explicitly mentioned.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what, due to my general weekend inactivity (wife, children, beer etc.) I'd forgotten you might actually be aware of it as well - Doh! Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, I need to stay on top of things a little more. I saw that Pedro was going to nom a person today, but wasn't saying who, so I went in search of... and was shocked to realize that the RfA was all but over... I think I need to go home and go to bed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from you-know-where

My earlier comment at the GAN improvement project about whether we should ever point people to RfA if they started feeling a need for some sort of "official" position was a terrible idea. I figured that out after I posted it, as I said later. I think that may have given the impression that I think that RfA is all flowers and sweetness and wouldn't distract from other jobs. (That might easily have made it look like I was "up to something", and colored some recent comments you made elsewhere.) I was really looking to head off in another direction entirely, but didn't get any feedback and never got there: I'm wondering if more people would be willing to say when they like or dislike the work of copyeditors. It's a legitimate complaint that some copyeditors are "self-appointed" (I hear the word a lot at WT:MOS), and the way to solve that is for people to weigh in more often on the quality of work. We could even keep these reviews somewhere. I wouldn't want to get too brutal about it ... it doesn't need to evolve into "RfA for copyeditors" ... but then, you never know what direction things will evolve once they get started. That was where my head was at with talking about RfA at that time. I talked with Balloonman because I know he specializes in looking for people with talent in "content", and I wanted him to alert me when he ran across people who can copyedit. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Our conversation at WT:WikiProject_Featured_articles#Kicking around some ideas about copyediting may also be of interest. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiastic efforts to get more people involved in copyediting, something that can very often make or break an article at GAN and especially at FAC. However, my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... well, no need to go there right now. My main objection to what I've seen has always been the quid pro quo nature of some of your suggestions. "If I copyedit your article then I want credit as one of the major contributors", or "A history of copyediting will give you an easier passage at RfA". I understand that you may feel that I've caricatured your initiatives, and perhaps I have, but it's a shorthand way of making my point succinctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a caricature, but if you stay tuned, I think those concerns will ebb away over time. I'm starting to find myself. And I will stop saying "Copyediting builds strong bones and drives the women wild" when I am not feeling the lack of copyeditors so sharply; we will get there, soon I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope I will still be here to see it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fill in the Blank

Man, I want to start a competition to see who can fill in the blank from MF's statement above: my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... What are the possible reasons that we can come up with to fill in the blank?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what was going to be in the blank, but I'll offer a prize for the best suggestion; I promise not to be un/incivil to the winner for a whole month. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... being forced to become 'an incompetent, malicious, vindictive and dishonest administrator'... At least they can't make me turn back the years and become 12 again too...-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... endless helpings of fish, chips, and mushy peas, all washed down with gallons of Dandelion and Burdock offered to me by the United Teddy Bears Picnic Division of "How to write an encykli enemat ensighklo (no hang on, I've got it and I can spell it real good, man - gr8 in fact, dude) "How to write a big book of facts about computer games and Powerrangers" whilst the polemical drums of rigour beat futilely in the distance. You are Colin Macfarquhar, and I claim my five pounds!  DDStretch  (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be some mistake; I voted support for an admin candidate at RfA? Seriously though, I wish you the best of luck in your new role. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reporting this account as having been compromised. Block coming forthwith. لennavecia 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor

Hi, I'm working on a FAC when I saw yours. I want to help you, not make it hard for you so I'll make comments here and not on the FAC. The opponents of my article say the introduction is too short and the references need fixing. Your article needs the same if you use their standards. Good luck. I'll vote for yours soon. Chergles (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd like to claim the article as my own, but I was just the messenger who made the nomination. Which article is yours, so that I can compare notes? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 777, the second from the top of the FAC list. Chergles (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Which links are broken? Nev1 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked yet, but it might be the date format in the notes that Chergles is referring to. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no broken links. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for because this account has clearly been compromised as seen here and here. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. لennavecia 04:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your humor. But this message still caused me to check edits and block log. Ruslik (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only had very limited contact with Malleus. Based on that experience, I'd support unblock if he normally acts the way he acts in front of me.Chergles (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've checked the last few edits and they are ok with me. I'm sorry that you've been blocked. I know from personal experience how painful it is, particularly if you have been wrongly blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eric Corbett/Archives/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I only have limited contact with Malleus but he is ok. I also checked his recent edits and they are ok. Based on that, an indefinite block is not right. If he did something that I don't know about, let me know and I'll try to talk with him and see if we can all come to an understanding. Chergles (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

just to remove from cat— Jac16888 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your very kind Chergles, and I appreciate your support. I wasn't blocked though, this was Jennaveccia's idea of a joke. Understandable really, given that I rarely support any candidates at the bear pit that is RfA, much less two concurrently. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I see that you aren't blocked. The joke is on me! Chergles (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll give Jennaveccia a severe talking to on your behalf. ;-) I'm very touched that you supported me all the same, so thanks for the thought. I hope I can count on you when I really am blocked again. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

/me faints. I saw your talk page in Category:Requests for unblock, and I was like "what"? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've never requested an unblock, and I never will – hopefully I'll never need to. But if you ever do see me in that category and it's not another one of Jenna's jokes, then a block because my account has become compromised would be in order, 'cos it won't be me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a naughty, naughty bitch. Malleus, when do I get my tongue lashing? لennavecia 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about giving you a "severe talking to", I only said that for comedic effect. I think everyone knows that I have the utmost respect for all administrators, and never act with anything other than due deference when in their exalted presence. Admittedly the deference that I think is due does vary considerably from case to case. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cue Shankbone image – iridescent 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So... wait. I'm not getting a tongue-lashing? :/ All that for nothing. >_> لennavecia 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You can have some cookies if you'd like? – iridescent 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one admin hanging around with his/her blockhammer just waiting for an opportunity to pounce, who may not be able to tell the difference between a bit of banter and a personal attack. Dut-dut-dah! Perhaps you've heard that I'm to be blocked from taking any further part in the GA project, and not allowed to do any more GA Sweeps? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What?! Are you fucking with me? If not, links and details! لennavecia 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The threats ranged acrosss several pages. Here's one example.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) O, please. Give me a break. Gimmetrow has no authority whatsoever to remove you from GA sweeps, much less the GA project, and if he should try, watch the fallout. What a joke. You know better than that, MF. Get back to work. :) لennavecia 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he likes me really: "People like MF should be made admins ...". :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. ;) لennavecia 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally have real life nightmares that I sign onto Wiki, see the dreaded, orange, "you have message" sign, click it and find I'm blocked forever. Should I be worried that Wiki has now entered into my nightmares? Also who's idea was it to make the message sign orange? It gives me butterflies whenever I see it. — Realist² 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I like seeing that orange bar. I always assume that someone wants to thank me for something when I see it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I always assume the exact opposite. I don't know why. Oh well. — Realist² 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note Whoever unblocked you should be partially flayed, before being burned alive for abusive wheel-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Le sigh. If only my talk page block notices were so equally fantastical. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had my share of blocks Ottava ... I was going to say fair share, but well, no names, no pack drill. Anyway, you've got two girls looking out for you now, you're sorted. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, no one looks out for me. :) I'm a primal force of nature. I am raw truth. Like the sun, I give life and I burn. You can't help me. You can't hurt me. You can only stand in awe.... and possibly block me. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't block anyone, and probably wouldn't even if I could. So I'll just stand in awe. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh bugger. I've just seen this. What on earth are you doing in that slough of despond Ottava? Get out of there as fast as you can. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

lmao. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Robin Starveling

Thanks for your help. Was there anything else you thought needed work, or was that about it? Wrad (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of places where I didn't think it was clear what was actually being said, but that may be at least in part down to my unfamiliarity with the play – I don't think I've either read it or seen it except occasionally on TV since I was at school. If you like, I'll leave a few comments on the talk page and you can do with them as you will. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops

You accidentally deleted G-Guy's oppose over at Erick. I'd give links and crap but I've got to go write a bunch of thank-you notes :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I? I'll take a look now and fix it if I did. BTW, no need to send me a thankyou note. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help...

I withdrew my involvement with a GAN review because I had edited the article to much, and conveyed this to the editor. (He was going to nominate it again, but I guess he did not.) Anyway, I forgot to remove the "on hold" notice on the talk page. Do you know how to fix this, while preserving the review in the article history? The page in question is Talk:Rocko's Modern Life. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to proceed is to close the review as not listed, and it can be nominated at GAN again whenever the editor's ready. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to do that without losing the GA1 review. I looked at the article and the editor has not been working on it at all, so I failed it as a way to close it out. I wrote on the review that he could renominate it. How do you close it as "not listed" without losing the GA review? (I don't really understand those templates nor what happens to GA reviews if the bot doesn't do the right thing.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably misunderstanding what's bothering you, but I've just updated the article history to reflect your now closed review, and everything looks fine to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was bothering me was foolishness. I have trouble understanding it myself! Thanks for fixing it. I noticed what you did and perhaps I can duplicate that myself if such an issue arises again. (Why don't you run for Arbcom next time?) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Me at Arbcom? Not a chance. Well, not as a member of Arbcom anyway. I couldn't even get through an RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? Arbcom voters are a somewhat different group. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bullying

At User talk:Mike Christie#Interesting argument, you say, "whether julian could be bullied into working on other articles". Explain to me how I'm being a "bully". We live in different countries, so maybe I don't understand, but that's a fairly negative term where I come from. It implies all 3 of: selecting a weak target, hurting them, and deriving pleasure from it. Was that your meaning? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty much my meaning, yes. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What, no swirlies? Or do they not have those in England? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all out of swirlies. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

You are strongly discouraged from commenting on other editors in this fashion.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to get real. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Is it not itself a personal attack to claim falsely that another editor made a personal attack? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 December 2008

Holy Shit! Tznkai is an admin! And you have been Strongly Discouraged! Flee! Flee for your lives! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa---ah--ah--ah! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, don't be too mean to Tznkai. He's not that bad of a guy. Plus, he's banned people who had far more friends than Malleus and didn't care about all the flak then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Is it at the whim of any pasing administrator bearing a grudge?" is obviously critical, but not at all uncivil. No mention of anyone's ancestry. No physiologically improbable suggestions. No exclamations that would invoke the wrath of YWH. All clean and above the waist. So the point is, pointed criticism is no longer allowed? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is allowed. Friday (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see no personal attacks in that diff, nor do I see any criticism... – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia) I do see two adults endlessly whacking each other over the head, to the detriment of all involved, including innocent bystanders, including the encyclopedia, including the community, etc. I don't see a reason for an admin to adminnishly imply adminnish action of a blocking sort, with powerful adminnish words like "Strongly Discouraged" and links to NPA. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What I see is yet another self-important administrator in the hope that someone, someday, may be impressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that was a personal attack. :P Malleus, why don't we start a Wikiproject and just run A class reviews? They are higher ranked than GA, and they can't say we are wrong or remove us from them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a process now for A class reviews as well.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, we will just have to create our own talk page boxes with our own assessment. You can mark it "approved by Malleus Fatuorum" if you think its a good page. :) Also, since we would be coordinators of the project, we could always run A class and close it ourselves without any problem, seeing as how I wouldn't complain if you had a conflict. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AN3

Seeing as no one else has, and I seem to have failed to do so. Just wanting to make you aware of this thread. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I take no interest in the happenings at ANI. Gimmetrow continues to behave badly, but because he is an administrator it is me who gets warned for some imaginary wikicrime. So I'm really past caring what you do. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Okay, just wanted to make you aware of the thread. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't AN/I. He reported you for one post edit warring. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. Edit warring it is then. Obviously guilty as charged 'cos I'm not the admin. Curiously, I was poised to make another 3RR report against Gimmetrow for his repeated removal of what he chooses to call a personal attack. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, if he would have continued to edit war he would have been blocked and same thing would have gone for yourself. Also, please note that you were never blocked, and while I do think your edits where a bit on the disruptive side, it is not because you are a non-admin. Tiptoety ^talk 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The "disruption" was the creation of this vexatious AN report, and the continual false allegations of personal attacks. But I have nothing more to say on this matter, at least nothing that wouldn't earn me a (for once) deserved block. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, it is probably better if you let me lodge the "false allegation" thing. I tend to have more of a reputation for it, and, besides the Milton work (which is this weekend), I can handle being blocked for a while the self-fulfilling prophecy works its way to that point. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a generous offer Ottava, but I want you to be blocked even less that I want to be blocked myself. Working on topics like Milton (and dare I mention dear old Sam Johnson) is far more important than making a fuss about the actions of one out of control administrator. Besides, I wasn't intending to pursue the matter anyway, as I don't believe there's a fair and open-minded forum where it can be done, so nothing would come of it except the usual whitewash. I know that Gimmetrow has acted disgracefully and has distorted his version of events to avoid having to admit that he has behaved outrageously, but that's just par for the course here on wikipedia. Water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But Malleus, you forget (or maybe you didn't know), I am a Wikiversity member who deals with ethics, along with being an ethicist in real life. I mean, I live and die by ethical dilemma. I'm a hard core traditionalist and I believe greatly in the system, so I can handle such things that most others cannot. Plus, I've dealt with some of the hardest issues from the other side of the administration power structure. Hell, Moulton still sees me as the devil for my role in his being blocked. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity? I've never looked at that. Is it good? Regardless, I don't want you blocked, or even running the risk of a block, because of something that I'm alleged to have done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of so many cabals, I don't know what the result of anything would be. I've chit chat with Cary Bass, that must mean something. :P Regardless, Wikiversity is fun. You create pages based on "learning projects", i.e. trying to analyze a topic, discuss things in a more intellectual progressive based, i.e. you build something over time. I normally mop over there, but I've been meaning to hold readings courses. I want something fun that can be linked to various pages at Wikipedia that are Wiki based, but deal more with individuals than scholars. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. The shit you get into. Can you possibly drop a couple links to what started this dispute? All I got from the sweeps talk page is a linkless timeline. I looked over the article, the GAR and the links on this page... hope I didn't miss any. I read something about what I assume was a quick-fail for instability or edit warring. I'm about to go to bed, but if you've got the time and desire to give me this info, it'd be much appreciated. If not, can you do it anyway? :/ لennavecia 07:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It started here after Gimmetrow refused to accept that Brenda Song had been failed at GAN (not by me) and removed the record of the failed review from the article history. If you follow the history from the link you'll see that Gimmetrow was edit warring not just with me but also with another editor, as a result of which I made a 3RR report and he was blocked for 8 hours.[4] He started the same game again only a few days ago, hence the recent unpleasantness.[5] During the course of the disagreement Gimmetrow issued various vague threats of blocks and warnings, which he refused to elaborate when I asked him, blanked all the messages I posted to his talk page and forbade me from posting on his talk page again, culminating in me calling him "just another admin fucktard then" in one edit summary. That's it in a nutshell. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I understand that some sensitive souls may consider an edit summary of "just another admin fucktard then" as in some way uncivil. I view it as fair comment in the circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand this behaviour of Gimmetrow's, a generally rational and helpful editor in my experience. The article probably would be a GA by now if the natural course of events had been allowed to occur. (No appeal via another editor to Jbmurray, no GAR; just a renomination to GAN, which Gimmetrow did, until the renomination was derailed, and not by you.) I guess we all have our irrational buttons. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I find the sequence of events to be incomprehensible, not least of all being accused by Gimmetrow of having a conflict of interest over an article I've never even read, much less edited. I guess we can only hope that this was a one-off aberration, never to be repeated. Had Gimmetrow just dealt with the initial failed GAN like every other editor is expected to, instead of trying to chuck his weight around, I have no doubt that the article would by now be a GA, as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Please have a look and let me know your thoughts. User:Tony1/AdminWatch#Specific_policy_requirements. Tony (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across that yesterday and had a read through. It looks good to me. I particularly like the inline citations to the relevant policy sections, which is a really good idea. Oh, and the proper spelling of "behaviour", of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general comment on AdminWatch, I think it's potentially an important leveller. Regular editors accumulate block logs, too often because an administrator has acted out of process, but even though the block may be swiftly reverted the logged entry remains for the remainder of that editor's stay at wikipedia. Administrators, on the other hand, are allowed to slash and burn wherever the fancy takes them without there being any equivalent record of their misdemeanours that can be easily referred to when they make one mistake too many and it becomes necesary to request that they be desysopped. I wish your initiative well. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this went anywhere, but that being said, there is an area that I think is ripe with abuse that has virtually no oversight that you haven't even broached on. The area I see the most abuse and potential for long term harm is CSD. Too many CSD'ers/Admin CSD'ers are too trigger happy with the delete button and will delete articles without giving them a chance. This chases away the next Tony/Ling.Nut/Malleus---oh wait, is that a bad thing? ;-) No, back to being serious, I think CSD'ers do more long term undetected damage to wikipedia than most people realize. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife was an admin, I would have never stuck around after my first two articles were speedily deleted---WHILE I was editing them! Even as an experienced editor, I've had more than my fair share of first drafts deleted (when I forget to write them in my user space.) I suspect that if I reviewed the work of 20 CSD'ers, 19 would have significant issues. If I revewed the work of 20 CSD Admins, 18 would have significant issues. I would love to see a process for monitoring CSD'ers/admin CSD'ers. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think this won't go anywhere, then I don't think you know Tony very well. But time will tell. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal

Hi, I'm willing to concede your point in the GA/1 about in-line citations in the WP:Lead, but I'll continue to argue for the time being the other point.Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not saying that I don't agree that some of the info in the lead ought to be in the article – in fact I do. I was just clarifying what the guidelines actually say. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, and I have no experience of the process, is that this is a FA-class article so I don't wish to prolong the GAR process. The point about being the first proper canal (with foot note to say that the Sankey Brook also has a claim) is now contentious and I've seen the strong arguments elsewhere in WP, with no citations provided. I now have a copy of: Blair, John (Edr) (2007). Waterways and Canal-Building in Medieval England (Medieval History and Archaeology series). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921715-1. There are other canals that have strong medieval claims for being regarded as the first artificial inland waterway in England. So, its not a straight fight between the Bridgewater and the Sankey; and nor should it go into the Lead and/or the body of the article without adequate WP:verification.Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I think you're a very conscientous GA reviewer, and a model that many would struggle to emulate. For excellent reviewers like yourself, the difference between GA and FA is fast disappearing. My own view is that GA cuts a little slack in some less important areas that FA would not allow. Whatever, keep doing what you're doing. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain its quite at FA-class yet - there are some small sections that require expansion, and personally I feel the Bridgewater Trustees section is too large in relation to the rest of the article. The article has stalled a little at the moment, as I've been working on other articles (M&B railway, and Radcliffe are two), and Peter Vardy (the other main contributor) I presume is busy on other things.

As for it being the first 'true' canal, I believe the claim is that the Bridgewater is the first waterway wholly manmade which does not follow the course of any other waterway. The wording could easily be changed however to "first canal of the industrial age", with an addendum to reflect the fact that its construction pretty much kick-started the industrial revolution in Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think it's quite ready for the FAC microscope either. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See, Chapter 7 by James Bond in Blair (2007), we'll put a claim in for Exeter Ship Canal and/or Glastonbury Canal. :-) Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn

I'm kicking myself, maybe not as hard as I used to, that I didn't let you explore ideas at your own pace and in your own way about whether comments directed at people who have just failed RfA make their lives happier or sadder. Damn. I am so clumsy sometimes. My proposal is to promote what I see as some very good directions at WT:RFA. If we can make the process less bruising (as it occasionally is), then perhaps everyone will be a little less tense, and feel a little less of a need to step in and "fix" things, which doesn't always help, no matter who's doing the fixing.

My plan is to try to stay focused on one thing at a time. I don't think I have anything to say that will be helpful in recent threads at WT:FAC. I think people have said some interesting things about RFA recently; I'm going to follow up on that and see if consensus that has eluded us is finally ready to happen on a few points. After that, I'm going to downshift considerably, leave the big questions of the day alone, and see if I can help nurture the community of people who want to learn and apply AP Stylebook and Chicago; that's probably where I could do the most good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with MF, RfA (like most WP) is a dinosaur... not the fastest thing to change. Sometimes it is better, as MF so aptly put it, just to bend over and pucker up...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's say the same thing with less darkness, because WP is no different than the rest of life in this respect. In any successful enterprise (and WP is certainly that), there are people with phenomenal amounts of clue, and other people who can basically get it, and other people who lack context and sensitivity; they just repeat the kinds of things they hear other people saying. If the plan is to give up on every process that has some clueless people in it, then not only will we not fix anything in WP, we won't do very well in life, either. I see solid progress in the conversations recently and especially today at RFA; I think we can make some small changes that will lead to fewer bruising RFAs, and if even one person is benefitted by that, then it's worth doing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has got to where it is despite its obvious flaws. Whether good faith editors will continue to contribute in the face of those increasingly obvious flaws is a quite different question. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. About earlier: I was angry because I saw you handing someone who was stressed an easy answer to explain it all away, and sometimes that's the wrong thing to do; sometimes they need to find their own answers at their own pace. You're a kind, generous, and tough person, Malleus, and I'm very glad you're here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator, someone who ought not to act on their emotions or in anger. Someone who also ought not to make arbitary judgements about how other editors may feel – take a look at the section below. I voted against your promotion because I did not believe that you had the judgement necessary to be an administrator, and sadly you have proved me correct even sooner than I had expected. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I called you an ass

I thought it was only fair to let you know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're as entitled to your opinion as I hope am I to mine. But regardless: ".. my calling him that [an ass] isn't going to have him running to the corner crying for his mama." You got that right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the context of the conversation, I'm sure it probably brought a smile/chuckle ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey pal

LOL @ your first comment on my talk page. You seem like a cool guy. Let me know if you need help with anything. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a lost case Eastlaw, save yourself; don't believe a word I say. Just feel the [wikipedia] force. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you take on a project??

There are two users, currently both with a week-long block for edit warring over an article Che Guevara (photo), although the blocking admin is vacillating, suggesting an RFC which I know is useless. One of the editors, User:Redthoreau, I tangled with a while ago and ultimately ended up nominating the article in question for FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. The other editor User:Damiens.rf I don't know, but his current complain is that 61 quotations in an article is too many.

The blocking admin User talk:EdJohnston wants to handle the situation constructively but does not know how. I suggested to him that someone like you, an experienced editor might be willing to be a neutral editor between the two, focused on article quality.[6]

I suggested you (and perhaps also User talk:Geometry guy) to direct the warring editors to concentrate on article quality. My experience in the past with User:Redthoreau is that he does rather well when a "father figure" type takes an interest. Some of his obnoxiousness, I believe, is due to youthful aggression and ignorance. I think he would respond positively to someone whose goal was to produce a quality article. As he dominates all things Guevara, the only way to improve the Guevara articles on Wikipedia is to move Redthoreau over onto the side of the forces of good.

Since the focus would just be this one article, and your job would be to render advice/judgement on article criteria, I think the job would not be unduly burdensome. Redthoreau had a past mentor-like relationship with User:Coppertwig and did very well when pointed in the right direction behaviourally. (Of course, you may not be quite the right model there!)

Would you consider taking on this project? It might be just up your alley. I figure that since Redthoreau is not going to go away, he may as well put all that energy into writing articles that don't have 61 quotations in them. How about it? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not for me. I wish those editors well, and if there's anything specific I can do to help then I will, but I should be nobody's mentor or role model. My views on the way that wikipedia is run are quite at odds with the mainstream, so my involvement would be likely to be more of a hinderance than a help. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I was kidding about the role model part! I think taking an article review role is the key. Not take sides or focus on anything other than what a GA would be, for example. I do not think Redthoreau thinks about article quality. He gets too caught up in having 61 quotes without thinking that there might be a better way to communicate information in an article. Besides, I think you underestimate how soothing you are when you are acting like an editor rather than ranting. (Sorry! I'm not immune from ranting either.) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't rant! I just make my point. Again, and again, and again, and ... Anyway, I replied on the talk page. If the editors really want help and are prepared to listen, then ... --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Redthoreau had agreed on his talk page to the suggestion by the admin "that we get some GA reviewers to see if the article has the right number of quotes, or too many. If we can get some reviewers to comment on that, are you willing to go by their advice? I.e. will you reduce the number of quotes if they say there are too many? I'll ask Damiens also. This would be instead of doing an RfC."

So would you? I can ask Jbmurray also. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be prepared to take part in an informal GA review if Jbmurray also agreed to take part. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can ask him, but I just looked at his talk page, and he has a real world class who are all trying to get their articles passed as GA with Awadewit. I will ask though. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevera is an important and potentially controversial article. Jbmurray is probably one of the best judges of that article. His is the opinion that I'd be looking for, not mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with Che Guevera. After I took it to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1, I let go of that and of everything related to Cuba. It is hopelessly controversial, like Fidel Castro, which was the first article I put a great deal of work into, just to have it trashed - in my stats it still comes out on top, I think. The issue here is only Che Guevara (photo). —Mattisse (Talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Redthoreau is being unreasonable, and the blocking admin is no longer willing to negotiate anything. Happy tomorrow (or today, or whatever it is in Manchester)! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the discussion, and I'm not certain I'd characterise Redthoreau's attitude as "unreasonable". Being asked to stay away from the article for two months was clearly a step too far for him though. Ah well, I suppose it means that everyone just has to serve out their blocks now. Shame. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The two months part was a new addition and negotiable. It was his saying that it was "his" article and his personal attacks on other editors and accusations of sockpuppetry that devolved the situation into the "same old same old" for me. The other editor User:Damiens.rf, poor guy, was willing to agree to any resolution involving neutral editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I think that there are a great many administrators who ought to be stripped of the ability to block other editors. It's a sanction that's threatened and applied far too frequently, and without much subtlety, against registered editors of long-standing. It's like a version of WP:OWN: "This is my encyclopedia, and you will not be allowed to edit again until you agree that I'm right, and bow down before me." I'm not naive enough to believe that anything's going to change any time soon though, or even ever, so I hope that both of these editors will be able to put this episode down to inevitable battle scars. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New question

Is there a mechanism where the two editors of Che Guevara (photo) can take the article to get some outside advice? Meanwhile a third editor, the one Redthoreau called a sock puppet (since retracted as proven impossible to be true), has put cleanup and quote farm on the article. This situation will just continue unabated after the week-long blocks end if nothing is done. Can no one step up to help the situation? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be done I don't think unless all the parties involved agree on a course of action that each would find at least acceptable. Other than waving the blockhammer around again anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is so very unfortunate! The problem is that it works to be aggressive and to dominate those editors who are newer and less equipped for nasty fighting. I have become ruder and uglier because of experience with editors like Redthoreau. It took me a couple of years to learn that all that being nice stuff was phony and that it is best to ignore it unless you want to be kicked around. Rodthoreau will continue to own those articles because wiki has no mechanism to stop such behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that wikpedia has a perfectly good mechanism to stop such behaviour, or would have if the civility police just butted out. Just look at the often acrimonious arguments that academics have with one another for instance. There needs to be some kind of reasonable rules of conduct, but they ought not to be written and enforced by 10-year-olds. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what your views are. However, what is the mechanism for stopping such behavior? You focus on a few mistakes by admins in confusing situations where they are outwitted by cunning editors who feel entitled. However, my experience is that the vast majority of aggressive editors win out over more conscientious and polite editors. Redthoreau have been blocked several times for a week, yet there is no sign this abates his editing aggressiveness and ownership of articles. And the admin even felt bad, originally, for doing that! The editor who brought Che Guevara to FA status won't even edit the article any more because of Redthoreau. In fact, that editor barely edits anymore on Wikipedia, and he/she was one of the best. In fact, two excellent editors were driven away by this incident. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe in the power of rational argument, even where that argument may sometimes appear to outsiders to be acrimonious. I do not generally condone name-calling, although I do believe it may sometimes be a necessary intensifier. I also believe that I'm in a minority of one here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of alienating you, I don't see your rational arguments nearly as often as I see you a grumpy person, alienating others either for the pleasure of being right or the pleasure of getting away with it. I hasten to say that I am no different, though not quite as over the edge as you are. I find being irritating way more effect than "rational arguments" that generally get no where in most editing disagreements. With the Redthoreau types, it is better to give up and let them have the article. (It is strange that you are so sensitive to the slings and arrows of others, but so ready to give them out yourself. But I definately appreciate your wonderful support when I am in one of those situations, and thank you so much for it!) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You or anyone else stating your opinion is never likely to alienate me; I believe that we're all entitled to our opinions, even me. However, I do have a very strong sense of fairness, of right and wrong; so when I see what I perceive to be abuses of authority I am not likely to bend over and pucker up, no matter what the price, no matter who is upset. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you put it in such terms? Do you think that is what I am doing if I realistically assess that I will only be frustrated in dealing with a certain article/editor and accept the limitations of the situation? (Are you a cowboy, Brit style, a Sir John Wayne?) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer certain what point you're trying to make Mattisse. What I am certain of though is that I'm no John Wayne. You must do whatever you think is right for you, as I try to do what I think is right for me. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, especially anonymous people on a web site, :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Merrie England

Don't mind the Ainsworthesque title. I just wanted to note that if everything finishes as planned, there will be about 32 more pages on the pedia dedicated to that bastard Milton. ; / So dear ol England will have another one of her insane literary people promoted again. The best part? All written in Colonial English. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Ainsworth, another article I've toyed with doing some work on. Look forward to seeing your Milton articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I have original editions of most of his books, including his magazine. :) Okay, I took a long enough break, time for the long haul (politics and then the final poetry!). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh gesh, if you leave, who am I going to get to convert my pages into English? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck

Wherever you land, if not here. I do most of my editing as an IP nowdays, I'd rather others know what city I'm in than have to deal with the associations that come with a log-in name with a reputation for "myspacing". Perhaps IP editing can soothe your chafed nerves? I've really enjoyed it, even when wrongly reverted and "warned" by a huggler now and then. Makes for good fun to go to someone's talkpage and tell them that they need to slow it down. Gotta love it when a NewPagePatroller has to eat crow a bit, you might enjoy it:-). I've written more quality work as an IP then "Keeper" ever will. Anyway, best of luck. Long live WikiSpeak -- Keeper ǀ 76 02:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

Malleus, good luck and best wishes, here and elsewhere. I hope you come back at some point and make more great contributions to the encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I echo Mike's comments. Best wishes, Malleus. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't go. Cheshire needs you (so do I). At least stay to help needy editors (and otherwise keep out of "trouble"). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus - I'm sad to see your note re leaving the 'WikiArena'. You've always been kind and helpful re my amateurish contributions! Will try to further improve 'Manchester Liners'. Hope you return after a rest. Best wishes RuthAS (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ice pack

This is what happens when two otherwise sane and at least marginally normal adults decline to let each other think the other one is the winner by walking away before real blood is drawn. Please do come back when your head stops hurting from banging it against a wall... and meanwhile, avoid walls... ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Malleus. Just out of curiosity, is there any event in particular which prompted this? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:Jennavecia/Notebook. لennavecia 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He is leaving because of one admin who vandalises and one self-important, bigwig editor who supported the vandal for personal reasons? Doesn't make sense! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Got diffs, Mattisse, so we can see who this "bigwig editor" is and where this "dumping on Malleus" that you allege is occurring, or are these your opinions, that will never be struck, even when shown inaccurate?[7] For my part, I offered months ago to nom Malleus at RfA if he would show he could put past differences behind him; at that time, he rejected my offer. Since then, I'm not sure you've been a particularly helpful influence, considering the dissemination of opinion presented as fact, accompanied with a good dose of personal attacks, that only muddies the water. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your name is not mentioned. Why are you so sensitive about some bigwig editor? I looked at the diffs you give above and they do not support your case. You don't like the first because I say nice things about Malleus and Gimmetrow? Because I said the GAR took longer than a simple GAN would have? (I am not allowed to have opinions?) The second diff I have never seen before but it supports what I said about Malleus being unfairly blamed. Please lay off me. And if you present diffs, please present relevant ones. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, your departure will be a big loss for the project. I hope you will reconsider. You should know that you have far more friends than adversaries here. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mattisse, as I'm sure you know, Malleus has issues with a lot of admins and there's been a lot of drama lately. He frequently talks about leaving, but never does. That's because, like all of us, he's addicted. And so while one may leave the crack house, sure that they're leaving all the ugly mess that is Wikipedia behind, the temptation is too great. Even if one does not return to feel that sweet poison pulse through their veins once more, they hit it up somewhere else (IP or sock editing) every now and again to ease the symptoms of withdrawal. But Malleus cannot leave, because I need him. Without his talk page and understanding for my expletive-ridden rants, I will have no where to turn and will surely be desysopped for snapping my shit. He can't carry that sort of guilt. لennavecia 15:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope Malleus takes a break and returns soon refreshed. Losing such a dedicated editor as him is bad enough, but if also one of our finest admins is in danger of being desysopped as a consequence, well, that's a double whammy I don't think Wikipedia can recover from... Geometry guy 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

just popped in to say that although I stand by everything I've said about Gimmetrow's behaviour, I fully realise that it has not been sufficiently bad in the eyes of his peers to warrant him being desysopped; little short of manslaughter appears to be sufficiently bad. If the playing field is ever levelled between admins and non-admins then I may reconsider my position. Until then, au revoir. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow may not be desysopped, but he is currently wikiemasculated, which means that he will have little influence over any actions. So don't worry about him doing anything against you. Just keep me informed of what is happening if anything gets out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hope you are right! But how is he wikiemasculated? You are so good at finding out info. Where did you find that out? (I have seen nothing but support for Gimmetrow.) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those evil cabal members. Why else would I act like a rude jerk all the time and push my views of the encyclopedia every chance I get? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find out about the "wikiemasculated" part? In an evil cabal, you are saying? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF is wikimasculated and where did you see this about Gimmetrow? لennavecia 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one clue; I guess I missed a lot, because I haven't seen any of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you not know that Gimmetrow was blocked for edit warring? Were you not around for any of the discussions, or the opposition against Gimmetrow's actions then or recently against Malleus? Perhaps I see more of this than you two because I am constantly kept up to date about Wikipolitics by constant emails of people sending me links to read. And Wikimasculation is my neologism - to remove power on Wikipedia by lack of community support. It means that if you perform an action that is somewhat controversial, it will probably be overturned quickly. I am a very staunch traditionalist and I believe strongly in the Wikipedia standards and policies. However, as such an individual, I have to keep an eye on those who abuse such policies and give the standards a bad name. I'm kept up to date on most controversial actions. I'm sure Gimmetrow could win back at least some of his credibility if he apologized to Malleus and backed off from him, especially backing off from trying to perform silly actions like declaring that he couldn't review GAs when he wouldn't have such an authority to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Ottava - ec with SandyGeorgia butting in above) Oh, I knew all that. In fact I (completely unintentionally) set the whole thing off by giving a review of the article in question, banging the bomb, so to speak.[8] I thought you were talking about something else. An 8 hour block, that SandyGeorgia railed incessantly against as totally unfair and for which she blames Malleus (to this day), can hardly be seen as a Wikimasculation, in my eyes. Rather, Malleus has suffered far more by having this issue constantly brought up and the blaming of him repeated.[9] —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Mattise, there comes a point where continued statements cross the line and become personal attacks if you continue to make them after the facts are pointed out to you. I suggest you reread the workshop proposals page of the Z ArbCom and the conclusions about continuing to say things after you become aware that they aren't true,[10] as you did when Dweller warned you about your personal attacks on Casliber. Diffs, please, if you have something to say that impugns the credibility of other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attack" (singular) that was a joke on my own talk page where Casliber had been harrassing me and was deemed to be unwarranted.[11] Please stick to the truth, if possible. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I looked at the diff you provided above and don't see how it applies to me, other than I unwittingly got tangled up in your disputes with admins ending up in ArbCom. My name is not mentioned in the diff. You will have to explain it to me! Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Proposed decision#Discussion by Arbitrators is not about me. I wasn't important enough. Perhaps you meant to give this one [12] to the AN/I thread where Dweller's warning was deemed unjustified. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I will feel free to butt in above SandyGeorgia, as she did above. Gimmetrow's article was failed at GA for good reasons. Gimmetrow vandalised the article history to remove the info that it had failed. Gimmetrow was eventually blocked for continuing this vandalisation,[13][14] for which Gimmetrow blamed Malleus because he reported a 3RR violation after the third vandalisation.[15][16] Gimmetrow renominated the article at GAN, perfectly appropriate behavior, then wanted a GAR.[17] SandyGeorgia, convinced that GAN is an idiotic process, ask thanked Jbmurray for "help".[18] He decideced that GAR was better. SanSandyGeorgia entered an inappropriate defense of Gimmetrow's article, which eventually even Jbmurray could not defend.[19][20] The GAR dragged on, as GARs do, since no one agreed the article should pass. The GAR was closed, the closing editor recommending the article be renominated to GAN (which should have been done originally and would have been a month earilier if SandyGeorgia had not interfered). And somehow Malleus is the villian in all this, according to SandyGeorgia. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mattisse, I had at a couple points asked for a GAR. Although my view on the GAR changed during the drama, it's not really fair to blame others for acting on my requests. Gimmetrow 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• You are right, Gimmetrow. Jbmurray acted honourably. I believe he did not know that a GAR would take far longer than a simple GAN. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is, oh, about the fourth time it has been pointed out to you that you are continuing to spread information that is not true.[21] [22] Diffs to the facts have been provided to you; you, on the other hand, have never provided diffs. At some point, that kind of behavior becomes a disruptive, personal attack. You seem quite determined to drive wedges between other editors and insert controversy into multiple processes. Diffs, please ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, I'll just use your diffs above, as they prove my point. Please stop dwelling on me. Regarding your lack of concern about "backchannel gossip" what are you doing rummaging around in my talk page archives, and suggesting to the admin who has threatened to block me that she take a look also?[23] You are free to look around my talk pagearchives for whatever it is you are looking for. But it does seem like you are trying to start trouble when you recommend that an admin do so. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(@ Ottava) Yes, I knew Gimme was blocked; I work with him closely on FAC and FAR closings and on articlehistory (just as I worked closely with you and Malleus on Johnson), and I have his talk page watchlisted (just as I have/had yours watchlisted), so I saw how quickly all of that occurred, with very little discussion. I used to watchlist Malleus's page, but I unwatched it when Mattisse began launching unsubstantiated attacks across many pages, (sample) so I missed anything that occurred here or on any other pages. I am aware of the untrue statements Mattisse has made about me throughout, and how her input may be escalating these disputes.[24] [25] [26] For me to get any work done on Wiki, I made a conscious decision to unwatch and ignore; now this has exploded and I believe it should be dealt with. And from your comments, it appears that there may be some pretty florid stuff going on backchannel, which wouldn't surprise me. You've made some allegations above about Gimme that are unbacked with diffs; I'm uninterested in backchannel gossip, because I've seen several false statements about me throughout all of this, so ... diffs, please, to back your statements about Gimmetrow. As for the significance of all of your e-mail and how much it reflects sentiment in the community, well, I have a pretty busy public talk page, and I'm not aware of any undercurrent against Gimmetrow. You might coin a new neologism; the one you used is very offensive, at least to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia, those diffs above are to my talkpage,[27][28] [29] except for one diff [30] to a comment you made, not me, in a GA review for an undisclosed reason. How is that "when Mattisse began launching unsubstantiated attacks across many pages", when one diff you give is your own post to a GA review and not anything I said, and the three others are to my talk page? Could this be your view of "unsubstantiated attacks across many pages"? At the most, all you can say is that I expressed my views to Jbmurray in response to his comments on my own talk page. You certainly are free not to "watch" my talkpage. The other page I am not sure why you were involved, since you do not do GA reviews. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A few things. Sandy, I was responding to Jenna, so, the further indent was unnecessary. Two, I don't care about Mattisse nor what Mattisse says or does, so I am not talking about any of that. Three, there is nothing going on back channels. As I stated before, I was emailed links. Not comments. Not deals. I was kept apprised of various issues that happen. Most of the time by third parties. I collect details and evidence. A lot of people do that. Malleus is an easy target for admin who want to use their authority to overstep their bounds. I'm obligated to defend him. As soon as Malleus stops being beneficial to the project, that may change. However, it looks like such a time is a long way off. My eye is on the project, not on individuals. Gimmetrow can still help the project without admin powers, and it would probably keep him from the occasional abuse that hinders the project. However, Malleus is clearly a threat to no one. Its not that hard for me to chose a side on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you have a collection of diffs: enlighten us, produce them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, my concern right now is protecting Malleus. My concern right now is not desysopping Gimmetrow or having him run out on a rail. Not only would such an action require more time than I can currently invest, it would be pointless at the moment. As long as Gimmetrow stays away from Malleus, there is no problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Think of it mathematically - add up the pros, the cons, and the time investment required. I don't care about feelings, emotions, or friendships. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a problem. It's beginning to appear that this entire dispute is being fueled and furthered by backchannel gossip, rumor and unsubstantiated allegations across many pages. I have seen some of the same at GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR, RFA, user talk pages, and editor reviews. If you're worried about protecting only one editor, you may be missing the bigger picture and the effect on many processes. Other than that, I think more neutral wording would be that both editors should avoid each other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please - what "backchannel gossip, rumour and unsubstantiated allegations across many pages" are you referring to? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded that this is why I unwatched this page months ago; in order to not continue to fuel the drama, I'm unwatching again. I've got work to do. I may continue to become aware of misstatements that Mattisse makes about me, fueling disputes and misunderstandings; folks will believe what they want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very below board, SandyGeorgia. Those diffs you supplied were a month after the fact, as GA editors bent over backwards to soothe your ruffled feathers. Please see User:Jennavecia/Notebook[31] (deleted now as Malleus is gone) for a bit of accuracy. Are you denying your role in the GAR?Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1 Your thanking Jbmurry for opening it?[32] Your so frequent expressions of destain for GA when you knew how important that was to Malleus? I am beginning to agree with Ottava Rima. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough already. Sandy is talking about your smack talk about her, not what Gimmetrow did in this basically resolved situation. And note that the GAR should have been opened, so regardless of who ended up doing it, it was the right decision. That said, I don't know you Mattisse. The only interaction I recall having with you, previous to the past week, was on this page. However, it has become clear that you dislike SandyGeorgia. That's fine and dandy, as this isn't a utopia of rainbows and butterflies, but your incessant underhanded comments, insults and smack talk which provide no evidence of anything need to cease. SandyGeorgia does a great deal of work improving this project and keeping the FAC process running smoothly, and your behavior is becoming disruptive. Comment on content, not contributors. If you have beef with Sandy, try mediation (and bring diffs), else let it go. لennavecia 05:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about SandyGeorgia's insistence that Malleus is escalating the problem and is at fault.[33] I do not see it this way as Malleus has done everything he could to avoid inflammation. None of her diffs show any bad behavior on my part, so she is able to "give the appearance" of my wrong doing without any proof. She makes assumptions that anything I say pertains to her personally.

My beef with Sandy is the type of behavior she engages in on this page, escalating discussions. I am tired of it. Even Ottava Rima had to remind Sandy that this was not about me (see above). Malleus has given me and others permission to ventilate on his talk page. This discussion was originally about Malleus and Sandy turned it into one about herself.

What evidence did Sandy's diffs against me provide? An irrelevant diff to an Arbcom decision involving her and SlimVirgin which she blames me for in some peculiar way? A diff to a block threat from Dweller to me for a joke on my own talk page that was deemed not blockable on AN/I? A diff from Jbmurray's page from a discussion of mine with him? A diff re an article that I put up for GAR just after she told the editor the article was bound for FA?

Is it that I gave a diff to your own evidence-collection page on the incident with Malleus that provoked you to threaten to block me?[34]

Somehow, I don't think Malleus would approve of your censorship of his talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I should care? There's a difference between civility police and enforcement of NPA. No page is open for free attacks on others. لennavecia 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I hope you threatened her with a block also. None of her diffs show any bad behaviour on my part. Did you even bother to evaluate them? Merely because I refuse to kowtow to her way of thinking and because I have a different view of events than she does is not a reason to slam me by innuendo (phoney diffs purporting to show something) or for you to block me. Did you have a good look through my talk page archives as SandyGeorgia suggested to you? And please stop referring to my "ignorance" on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisee, I think you are being inflammatory and are using Malleus to attack others. I do not appreciate it at all. You already know my thoughts about you, but this should stress that point even more. It is one thing to defend Malleus against Gimmetrow, it is another thing to attack people like Sandy et al. Sandy has the right to defend Gimmetrow, and she can be as wrong or right on the matter as she wants. Regardless, I think you need to stop right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Block threat from Jennaveca

Jennavecia, thanks for threatening to block me for what I post here on the page of Malleus.[35] That really calms down the situation and leaves a great legacy for Malleus. A block threat from an admin about events on his talk page. I think you would know what his opinion would be about that! I'm sure that encourages him to return! How depressing for him, as block happy admins are the very issue driving him from Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd really prefer it if everyone just put the unfortunate Gimmetrow episode behind them. I've made my position quite clear on my interpretation of events, but it was becoming obvious how things were shaping up. Blaming Jennavecia, SandyG, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, isn't going to help anything or anyone. Most of all it won't help you, Mattisse, and it won't do anything to alter the environment which triggered my decision; it's already ancient history anyway, nobody cares. Hell, I don't even care much about it myself now. It's just symptomatic of the way this place is run, and as that won't be changed any time soon you have to either like it or lump it. For the moment at least I've simply decided to stay away from it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cookies sometimes help. Or gooey brownies with fudge icing. It's amazing how much better the world looks when your tummy is full from yummy treats. Enjoy your break, Malleus. Everyone deserves a vacation! Hope to see you back next year. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvnb

See this. I am thinking about putting up the matter on the talk page. However, if you disagree then I will not. I think the page would be better off with faster loadability than with a quick jump between the two closely linked sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

I'm not entirely sure what pushed you over the edge (my attention span isn't nearly tuned enough to sift through that thread above) - usually there's a precipitating event that finally leads to the decision to vacate the premises. Perhaps your patience has just eroded over the years. I'm not sure, however, what I am sure about is that your skin is thicker than most Wikipedians and your rogue attitude has always given the impression that you'd be remain unshaken. In other words, I don't get, and you should come back permanently. That's right. Get back here and keep irritating administrators. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to either your return, or your run under a different name---"UserX for Admin"---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch

This conflict spiralled more than it should have. I think MF and I know better than others what happened and we what we both did wrong. If anyone really wants to argue about who acted worse, please consider finding something more constructive to do. MF is welcome to post on my talk page if he wishes and avoids F-bombs. I hope MF doesn't take too long of a break. Gimmetrow 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

Malleus, I correct all the dead links on Brazil's article. It was hard to me as I am connected on a instable Wi-fi, but I think I did well. I don't know if the other users corrected the other issues that you explained, but I tried to correct the dead links. If you have some questions, please ask me. Leonardomio (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done for that. There was still one dead link when I checked earlier, but that's not such a worry. I'm afraid though that most of the other issues raised in the review have yet to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some new comments to the review, so I'll revisit in seven days to see what progress has been made. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More for you

Yummm

It looks like the brownies might be working. Have some more...they put life in much better perspective :) Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ebb and Flow

I hope the lunar (not lunatic) influences of intellectual interest and creativity will exert their gravitational forces upon you so that the tidal forces turn from ebb to flow and you find yourself wanting to make contributions of some gravitas as a result.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Hi Malleus. I don't know if you are still reading this page or not, but I very much hope so. It was just to let you know that Sunderland Echo has been scheduled as TFA for Dec 22 - and I wanted to thank you very much indeed, once again, for all your help with it. It is my first TFA, so I'm pretty nervous, but I know that, without your help, it definitely wouldn't have ever reached the front. You are too valuable to go. Please come back soon.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Open reviews update

I've now posted the working group proposal to WT:GAN - your eyes (and input) on its progress would be most welcome. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Just seen the note at the top of the page :P Apologies for the spam, and I hope to see you back here soon. All the best for Christmas and the New Year ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete reality at my request - the double standard at work

The gratuitous attempt to harm another editor's RFA by Sandy! All this because I do not use email, and made an open post on a page that was no more sinister than Sandy's quid pro quo. [36], [37], [38]RFA - Wehwalt Of course, when Sandy uses her power to harm, that is O.K. A very double standard. Convince me otherwise. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre asking me for my opinion on any particular RfA, or even RfA itself. Just look at my own two failed RfAs to see why I hold the process in such low regard. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment was no a request for your opinion on the RFA, but on Sandy's gratuitous attempt to derail it and harm another editor just to try to put me in a bad light. I openly posted a question on a talk page, and refuse to deal in the plethora of underhanded emails others do, so they can remain seeminly saintly. My post was perfectly legitimate and innocent. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I misunderstood. My view in general is that the RfA process is so broken that a single well-timed oppose will more often than not sink it, particularly if that oppose comes from a well-respected editor. I have no opinion on this particular RfA though, other than to say that it is not in SandyG's power to derail any RfA, unless others choose to give her that power. Speaking even more generally, I very much doubt that SandyG's intention was to portray you in "a bad light". I don't always agree with SandyG myself, and she doesn't always agree with me, but I do still feel that she tries to act with the very best of intentions, often in the face of provocation that I may not be so able as she is to ignore.

There are battles that need to be fought, and there are battles that it's not worth fighting. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference, and I'm no better at doing that than anyone else. All I would urge you to consider is whether it may not be better for you to channel your undoubted talents where they will offer even greater benefit to the project while at the same time minimising your own stress. Short of a time machine, the past cannot be altered, and so there's little point in replaying the same old scripts. You've got much to offer, don't let what's happened affect what can happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If she would really stop watching my page and entering to things I am involved with, just to make negative remarks, I would be fine. (The same goes for her minions.) The example above is a typical one. She had no interest in that editor and whether he became an admin, until she saw a chance to put me in a bad light. It failed. Just like when she rummaged around in my archives, and sent links to an admin after you recent departure, suggesting that admin find something to get me on. I will sign of with her typical "comment and dewatch" or whatever she says, which really means she is going to watch more than ever! HOW ABOUT THIS? I drop any mention of her; you drop all your stuff badmouthing admins. To me, what you object to in admins is exactly what she is. So the trade off will be equal. (And it would probably be best for both of us.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many editors I have fallen out with, very likely far more than you. Truth to be told, I've always believed that fault can never be allocated 100% to one side or the other in any case, so I'm prepared to take my share of the blame for those misunderstandings. What I'm not prepared to do though is to turn them into some kind of witchhunt. It's a curious anomaly that some of those I now consider to be amongst my best wikifriends I first encounterd through disagreement. Disagreement is fine and healthy, it's how we deal with it that sometimes isn't. You're focusing on individuals; I'm focusing on the corporate body; I think that's a significant difference. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ONE individual. That is my only enemy. (Her minions can make my life unpleasant, but they don't seem to have the heart to go in for the kill.) I've had dust ups with others, but none (barring the now banned sockpuppets) are still my "enemies" and none have had such lazer-like tenacity and a memory like an elephant, and some sort of huge diff collection as Sandy. There is no other userpage I am not allowed to post on! She never forgets! I don't even know what originally ticked her off. One diff she recently put on your page went back to the Zeraph-Slim Virgin-SandyGeorgia Arbcom so I think it has something to do with that - even though I defended her at the time in the Arbcom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You have much to learn Grasshopper. ;-) If this ever went live I know exactly who would be leading the oppose charge, but I just try to forget that editor exists. We got off on the wrong foot, he bears grudges, I don't. C'est la vie. Let it go. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have much to learn, like how to store huge diff collections in safety so that others don't delete them! But still, why don't you give up on your obsession? If you do, I'll give up on mine. Blank-blank (no names now as someone will come along and delete--as they just did minutes ago to my talk page), but Blank-blank equals your one editor. It is harder to forget Blank-blank exists, as Blank-blank watches my talkpage, your talkpage, like a hawk. If one of the "comment and dewatch" edit summaries is actually true for a millisecond, then a minnon with do the watching for Blank-blank. So, it is the same situation as you, except Blank-blank insists on intruding and I have decided, after a year, not to be intimidated any more. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Will the same editor come and delete the links from your talkpage? Strange that they remain here but were deleted from mine. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've lost me again. I have no obsession, and I take every care to avoid my nemesis, as he does to avoid me. No big deal really, wikpedia is big enough for both of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are lucky that your nemesis leaves you alone and does not get others to do his dirty work. Oh well. Given my situation, the time I spent as a "victim" and not being obnoxious and fighting back was a very much worse time than now. My nemesis and friends remind me of gaggles of gossiping teenage girls. I never would have made a very good teenage girl. All that, poor me, I have the sniffles stuff. "Oh, no! I pray you get better!" That's why I'm on an oil rig. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to keep replaying old scripts, but it doesn't help you or anyone else. The past won't change, only you can change. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what you don't understand. I was nice in the beginning and that did not work at all. Get that person to stop watching my talkpage and following my contributions, would you? And interjecting anytime damage can be done? Would you do that? That way I could be left alone. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many things I don't understand. But one thing I do understand is that only you can stop replaying this script. Why not try engaging your nemesis in a polite, adult, conversation, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is your nemesis a monster? Just make the first move and see where it goes. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made moves previously and been rejected. Have received hostility in return. What do you suggest? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

← I suggest forgetting about what happened in the past, concentrate instead on what could happen in the future. This is a collaborative venture, so let's collaborate, not keep replaying old grudge matches that nobody else really cares about. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind. I see you are seeing the version you need to see. And you did get a lift from joining in the joyful group condemnation of me without bothering to look at her behavior. You really have no useful advice to offer me, except as you say so often, bend over and pucker up. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe whatever makes you happy, just don't pretend that it's also "the truth". Sure, I have no useful advice to offer to you, I'm all out of "useful advice". I nevertheless wish you well with your endeavours here on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your input at the current RFA for an editor with some 50 edits would be interesting. Not soliciting comments either way, but I'd be interested in your view point. As an aside, I'm likely to be very inactive for the next couple of weeks (kids+Christmas = no free time!) so I'll take this opportunity to wish you a "happy holiday" as our American cousins would say, and our family's best wishes to you and yours for a prosperous, happy and fulfilling New Year. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The very thought of RfA starts me slavering and howling at the moon. If I can muster up the courage I may take a look later. In the meantime, Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family Pedro. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A gift for Malleus from لennavecia.

I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it's apparently popular somewhere. Enjoy. :) لennavecia 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like schnapps to me ... brings back memories of an exceedingly drunken tour around Vienna. Happy days! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

... or was it Munich? ... think it was Munich ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, either way, sounds like fun. In about 36 minutes, it will be my two year anniversary here on this project we love to hate, or is it hate to love? Whatevs... let's get toasty. XD لennavecia 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I'm a big believer in not feeding the fire at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See my last comment.[39] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just for anyone who thinks I might be going soft, although the time stamps show that I made my RfA comment 3 minutes after SandyG's posting here, at the time I hadn't read her message, and I didn't make the reply that I did because of it; I just happened to independently agree with her assessment. I'm still just as much of a bad-assed sob as I ever was. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. XD That is all. لennavecia 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Children in content review processes

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#NYC meet-up video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw it earlier, but I've been accused enough of being "ageist", for this year at least. I completely agree with what you've already said, and I don't think I could add anything constructive. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Chicken :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, chicken eh? I'll be right along. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

God, I'd have to just kick ass at that meeting. I sooo would not fit in! Haha --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty I could say, but on the principle that there are things which can be thought but which should probably not be spoken, I think I should keep schtumm. I entirely agree with what Sandy has written, though, with a few "extra bits" informed by my own professional experience which involved working very closely with child psychologists and child psychiatrists for over 20 years.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I spoke 'em. (But I never plan on a run at RfA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that maybe Americans have a different spin on this. Have you ever seen one of those American child beauty contests for instance? Makes my flesh creep, but each to their own I suppose. That a kid looks like an adult, dresses like an adult, or speaks like an adult, does not make that kid an adult. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, my clinical colleagues, if faced with such an articulate staged performance as that of the child would want to find out the degree and type of "coaching" for the talk that had happened, as otherwise, there would be little basis to know just what the child's capabilities were...  DDStretch  (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those of us who have an understanding of these issues are sadly in a minority. One staged performance is enough to satisfy the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Roll over Clever Hans as well! I think the various debunkers of parapsychology might have views on seating arrangements at the talk if they were of a certain type.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when I saw this. Absolutely right. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Specializing in the bases of good research methodology in the psychological sciences does have some use in these discussions, it seems, though most of it is really the result of common sense and critical thinking (though judging from some reactions, it may well have to be called "uncommon sense".)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a confession.... that kid is actually me! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna say anything. But you forced my hand with your patently false claims. In fact, I'm the kid in the video. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The kid in the video is a real person. Perhaps we shouldn't be poking fun at him? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are children in some way exempted from having fun poked at them? Why is that? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Because they are delicate and need to be protected and coddled. They must be told that they are the best all the time and spoiled in every possible way. You can't ever tell them no. That would be horrible. What kind of monster are you?!?!?! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

An "ageist" monster apparently, who believes that if children are going to play grownup games then they have to play by the same rules as the grownups. That includes having the piss taken out of you from time to time. Without running to your mummy complaining about "incivility". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what a "pisser" is and "taking a piss", but I've never heard of "having the piss taken out of you" before, and I am afraid as to what it might imply. :P But yeah, they don't run to mommy. They go and get help at 4chan, myspace, etc. I think Facebook destroyed itself when it when from having to be a college student to accepting anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, a bit of British English slang crept in there. "Having the piss taken out of you" just means having fun poked at you, nothing sinister. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Season's Greetings
		To many more vigorous good debates in the new year and a safe holiday season. Best. MBisanz talk 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's far too rare here on wikipedia to find editors who can distinguish between disagreements and "personal attacks". I thank you for being one of those who can. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Shows your approach to the big wigs definitely works! (Not that I am surprised as I see the familiar pattern.) You got an FA undeservedly. Have you the term "[deleted]" (fear of being honest here, as the lurkers are always lurking on your page) in the country in which you live? All the best. (Have lost all respect.) Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Three supports, no opposes at all, and only a few comments means that it shouldn't be promoted? Odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To be truthful, I'm not quite sure what you mean Mattisse. I'd guess the FA you're referring to is Scout Moor Wind Farm? I really had nothing to do with that before I was stupid enough to nominate it at User:Richerman's request. Following that, as a fellow member of the GM Project, I felt it only right to do what I could to try and help it through FAC.

I'm a little surprised at your reference to my attitude towards the "big wigs". I doubt that there's a single "big wig" I haven't expresssed my disagreement with, including SandyG, and even the God-like Raul. Lighten up. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently FAC determined that the article meets the FA criterion, so your claim of the article being promoted "undeservedly" leaves me slightly confused. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I may not watch your page anymore but I do watch the big wig's, out of self protection. So I see what you post there. It pays off to toe the line. I looked at the record of the FAC, and the way my comments were disregarded (not even considered) as you can see by looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm, The lack of following the standards seems very blatant. I would think you, given all your high standards, would be feeling at little creepy now. (Ugh!) Well, I will use this example in future FAC denials, should any occur with any more signs of support than this article received. I am no longer afraid of you people. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Apparently FAC determined that the article meets the FA criterion"? Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scout Moor Wind Farm! Even Tony had problems that were not addressed. So who decided to pass it? "FAC determined"? And how did that happen? What is wrong with this picture? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can say Mattisse is that I feel comfortable in my skin. I hope that one day you will also be able to come to terms with what you are, and what you want to to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No credibility, I'm afraid. Otherwise, you would not still be bewailing the the admin thing. Sorry, I don't buy it. And don't bother to answer, as this page is no longer on my watchlist. Just checked back this time, as I knew you have nothing else to do but respond. Sorry, but I have lost respect. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to know that you've lost respect? Please, keep it to yourself and try to avoid incivility. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse is entitled to state his/her opinion, which I don't consider to be uncivil in any case. I'd very likely be the last person waving the nonsensical incivility flag anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you made the shit list, Malleus. Sorry to see it. لennavecia 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gutted. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you've got those block-happy admins still patrolling your page, I see. Where is your usual rant? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks! Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there something I ought to be ranting about? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends what Santa gives you for Christmas I guess really :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, didn't you say you weren't watching this page anymore? Time to run along then, no?

Malleus, I hope you had a great Christmas. I'm just happy as hell it's over! لennavecia 04:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate Christmas. If it lasted for only one day it would be fine, but it goes on, and on, and on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mine sucked. Alone in a hotel, arguing with a car rental agency over the phone, eating cold spagetti-os from the can. I wasn't even spared the hell of Christmas shopping, as I spent a full, exhausting day doing that on the day before Christmas. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hotels are lonely enough places at the best of times. I'd hate to be stuck in one on my own at Xmas. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm sorry, Ling. And I thought my sore throat, grumpy-butt kids and failed fondue were bad times. Tip for next year: Shop online in October! لennavecia 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA response

I've responded to your inquiry on Suntag's RfA. I'm sure you'll disagree with my rationale, as I'm quite familiar with your RfA votes, but I do want you to know that I definitely appreciate the devil's advocate on Requests for Adminship. Being a dissenting voice is often hard, but someone needs to do it. Thanks for having the patience to do so. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with your response in general, but I just don't see any substantial experience anywhere with this particular candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Columbia Park, Torrance, California

Are you planning on bringing this to GAR? I've done some light copy editing to start, but I want to check with you first because I knew you had mentioned it at Sandy's talk page. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd obviously prefer to see the article improved so that it wouldn't be necessary to go to GAR. My main objection is to the quality of the prose, which doesn't meet the GA requirement IMO. For instance: "... the park received heavy usage in the 1990s that included with it hosting a shooting and two suicide attempts" in the lead isn't even grammatically correct. "Hosting a shooting" just sounds weird anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to fix it without tearing it apart. Seems there's no other way. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I butt in uninvited? Given that the issues were mentioned in the RFA, it may be that once he gets over the post-RFA indignation, the author will clear it up himself; in any event, it won't harm Wikipedia for the article to have a green dot for an extra couple of weeks, and GARing the article in the immediate aftermath of a particularly snappy RFA does seem to be the Wikipedia equivalent of kicking someone when they're down. – iridescent 22:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more ... but I must be leaving you now ... Happy New Year! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And me... as well. Finishing up around my daily patrol. Byee! ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

No bones about it.[40] If that's your view then you'll take pleasure in this post: I've been suggesting to my friends for weeks that a certain page might be just as well off salted. Nobody's wanted to do it, but if it's a chore you'd relish then by all means go ahead. I'd rather do without the drama (some of the nomination offers have been closer to nomination threats) and may be the last Wikipedian who truly doesn't believe it's any big deal. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been one to be shy of saying what I think Durova, but I'm also always more than happy to listen to those who disagree with me. I would never even consider salting that certain page, and I'd hope that nobody else would either. Making mistakes is part of our human condition; it ought not to condemn us as well. Happy New Year to you and your family. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you and yours as well. :) Durova^Charge! 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)