I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD. It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes being displayed by some administrators leave a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away from the project in the face of unchecked administrator abuse.
The project currently has 35 members. A warm welcome to our newest members: ARBAY, Coldmachine and Floorhugger.
Cheshire's current divisions
Preparation for the local government changes in April is ongoing. You are invited to join the WP:2009ENGLAND taskforce to coordinate the necessary changes to articles, categories, maps, infoboxes etc across articles on England. Within Cheshire, the articles for the new unitary authorities Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester have already been created and need expansion.
The Cheshire Portal has been converted to use random selections. There are currently 8 selected articles, 8 selected biographies, 8 selected pictures, 13 sets of four DYKs (52 in total) & 6 quotations. The topics box has also been reformatted & expanded, to highlight more Cheshire content.
Espresso Addict has proposed aiming to bring the portal up to Featured Portal status in 2009. Current standards for featured portals suggest having 15–20 items in each section. The main content that needs to be developed is biographies, preferably of GA class or above and with a reasonable quality free image. Lots of well-known people have associations with Cheshire, including the Victorian novelist Elizabeth Gaskell, Nelson's mistress Emma Hamilton & mountaineer George Mallory; a list of suggested biographies for project members to develop is here.
The Cheshire Project Collaboration for the next few months is Crewe. In this time, we aim to expand it beyond its current start-class, perhaps taking it to WP:GAC.
This is the first edition of the Cheshire newsletter, which aims to inform members about what is happening across the project and to facilitate cooperation between people to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Cheshire. To help with this, a questionnaire is attached about how you see the Cheshire WikiProject developing over 2009. Finally, if you want to edit the next edition of this newsletter, please volunteer!
Delivered on 19 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Ainsworth
I was able to find only one current biography and one turn of the century biography. Our dear boy, although more famous than Dickens 150 years ago, is basically ignored today. That is great news if you want to publish something real on him (we could chat about -that- sometime later). However, it might cause a strain when writing a Wiki page. Two sources is more than enough for a nice biography but it is still a shame and lacks variety. I found perhaps half a dozen references to various works and to him in some general books on Victorian literature, which can fill in some gaps. My obligations will be nil in 2 weeks, so I can start putting together everything on a subpage so we can go over what is there. I definitely think a paper could be easily written on how his historical romances compare to Scott or how he deals with Manchester in comparison to Gaskell among other topics if you want to pursue something outside for publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any kind of "Ainsworth" house? When I go through the biography I can hunt down addresses for you to take pictures of (hoping the buildings still exist). I do know that works including those on Dickens discuss Ainsworth, so we can always use them to piece it together, but it looks like we are stuck with a structure of two biographies, and only one that we can really "trust" academically. I've been in worse situations. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any Ainsworth house, but there might be a blue plaque somewhere, I'll check. Don't know why I didn't think of doing that before. I'll be happy to take pictures of whatever will help to tell his story. We may eventually stumble at FA, but surely we can at least do the man justice with a well-rounded GA? --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have more than enough for an FA and possible 4 or 5 scholarly articles (perhaps a book or two). The thing is, I don't have enough for a -Johnson- size FA, let alone for what Milton would look like. It just wont be as satisfying compared to the fame and respect that he had during his time. The man was greater than Dickens and yet snubbed by history. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put together a substantial biography on subspace, then put together notes about books. If you can work on some plot summaries, we can think about how to work out a major set for DYK and publish a bunch of well written pages together and move some towards FA level. It should be fun. Also, since Ainsworth scholarship is so light, we really should think about publishing our own work, then having someone else add what we say to Wikipedia. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His action novels? The first one I'll be reading is The Lancashire Witches, the only one that's never been out of print; I'm a bit surprised there isn't already an article on that. Quite a few of his novels are in Manchester Library's catalogue, so I'll make a start there. I take it that one of the books you've already got is Ellis's William Harrison Ainsworth and his friends? --MalleusFatuorum21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say -actual- novels but I obviously didn't pay attention to anything my fingers decided to type. I have Ellis's book, which would be good for you to have in comparison. I have two others, including the uber expensive The Life and Works of the Lancashire Novelist William Harrison Ainsworth by Stephen Carver. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I've used the word "gobsmacked" a few times recently, but I really was gobsmacked this morning when I idley thought of moving the list of Ainsworth's works into a "List of ..." article. Right there, staring me in the face, was the claim that Ainsworth wrote The Admirable Crichton. --MalleusFatuorum01:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite strange. By the way, I have first editions/early editions of 4 of his novels plus first collected editions (Vol 1-6) of the Ainsworth Magazine. I will upload some of the images. What I am thinking is to work on the biography, then have in subspage 6-8 different novel pages and maybe a page on his style. That way, we can have a large DYK with some well written pages. We will have to think of a unifying theme (or, we can just have his most "popular" novels listed and mention that he was bigger than Dickens at one time, which would get people interested). After the DYK phase, the rest would be easy. I'll put something together in terms of biography and notes on various books by mid-next week. This is going to be fun. Its about time Manchester literature received its due. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK has become political, as of late. It never was, but... My new strategy is to keep things in subspace until I get approval. That way, I wont have to worry about time constraints. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ottava Rima/Ainsworth biography. I'm slowly starting. I'm going to put all of the biography stuff there. Then we can talk about what is split to the early life, possible pages for some of his other family members (there is a bit out there). After I put together this, I will put together a page on his literary career, his novel style, his reputation, the Ainsworth's Magazine, and a few other things. Then we can figure out how much is summarized on the main page, what information is needed where, and we can work out the individual novels. I'm going to keep it on subpage until we get things mostly worked out. That way, we can move it to mainspace in chunks, have it go through DYK, and get Ainsworth promoted. He was ignored by history for writing historical romance, for being from Manchester, etc etc. We can make sure to return him back to his proper position and overcome the politics. Also, I have a few ideas for some articles that we can write along with possibly writing some introductions to some of his works and propose to get some of the novels republished (there are 4 that really should be). What a better way to give back to your community than by resurrecting Mr Manchester himself? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if we move that to subspace for a few days? If not, that is fine. I'm going to add some of his other stuff shortly based on what I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I wanted to show you the size - User:Malleus Fatuorum/Ainsworth list of works. Thats just from the tiny collections and not all of the works and essays. I think that we could do a "list of novels" and have short summaries. Then have a "list of short stories" and a "list of essays". By using the bottom format, we could create a nice little set of pages that could be put up for Featured List. Would this be a good way to go? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I will hunt you down some good images of Ainsworth. I also found some locations for his homes over the years to send you out and see if you can take pictures of. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ainsworth is undoubtedly a worthy subject, but I have to confess that my motivation to make any further contributions to wikipedia is at an all-time low. I guess we all go through phases like that from time to time though. --MalleusFatuorum22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if you stay at Wiki or not, I will drag you into working on articles with me (real literary publication types of articles). I need your understanding of Manchester to help. If I have to get you through email, I will. I definitely want to examine how his childhood in the "romantic" time of Manchester affected many of his early great novels, including Rookwood. He was at the spot. Since it would partly deal with the narration in trying to impart an emotional feeling of the scene, I would need some first hand knowledge. That, at least, will be what I will force you to do no matter what. If you refuse, I will dig up some dirt on you and blackmail you. :) It will be fun. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday! It was the project's second birthday on 24 February, so thank you to everyone who's helped improve and Greater Manchester related article, not just our members, your work is very much appreciated. The last month has been very successful, with lots activity:
Nico Ditch stretches from Ashton-under-Lyne to Stretford and according to legend was dug in a single night to defend against the Danes.
Cine City in 2004
The Cine City, Withington, was the third cinema to open in Britain and when it closed in 2001 it was the third longest running cinema in England. It was opened in 1912, and demolished in 2008.
Current nominations: As of the completion of this newsletter, there are no GA nominations, but Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and Buckton Castle are at FAC. The articles detail the world's first stored-program computer, and the best preserved castle in Greater Manchester. There's a good chance that one or more of these interesting articles could be promoted, so please keep an eye on them in case there's any way you can help!
Charles White (physician) and Worsley featured in the DYK section of the front page last month (actually, Worsley featured in January but was missed out of the last newsletter!). For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
The project's cleanup listing has been updated with stats from 24 February 2009. As of 8 October 2008, 447 (26.5%) of 1689 our articles needed a clean-up, this has risen slightly to 455 out of 1809 (25.2%). This is encouraging as the proportion has gone down, and indicates the standard of the project's articles are steadily improving. While the high-profile successes of GAs and FAs are important, the project's aim is to improve all GM-related articles.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Sister projects
In an attempt to encourage communication between related wikiprojects, or to at least raise awareness, this section is dedicated to the important goings on of WP:Merseyside and WP:Cheshire, our sister projects and the only other user groups dedicated to improving articles in North West England.
WP:CHES – After a period of low activity, the project has picked up recently, with initiatives (such as beginning a newsletter and sending a questionnaire to its member) to encourage greater participation from its members. This has paid dividends with two GAs being promoted in February and greater activity in general.
WP:MERSEY – After being set-up in September 2008, the project is experiencing a period of lowish activity. While the project has a handful of FAs and GAs, most of its articles are unassessed; assessing requires no familiarity with a subject, so any help WP:GM members can lend would be greatly appreciated.
Other news
There is a meet-up scheduled for 14 March in Manchester for anyone interested. It is not organised by WP:GM and is open to all wikipedians. More details can be found here.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
After a flurry of activity in January, progress on the Salford article has slowed, but it is steadily progressing towards a good standard. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
The project compared
The Greater Manchester WikiProject is one of the leading UK-based groups. Some other projects are no as lucky as we are in the numbers of active enthusiastic users. Below are some statistics of the other leading UK projects and some geographically close to Greater Manchester.
There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 17 members inactive since 1 September 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in February:
Majorly is an experienced editor who has recently decided to join WP:GM, and has been working hard on Cheadle Hulme. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Thanks for the review. I'll do some of the easier copyediting, but I doubt there are enough active contributors to address all your points within a week. Are you just picking an article out of a to-do list, or do you have some interest in Forth or programming languages? --IanOsgood (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article came from this list. Although I flatter myself that I'm pretty much up to speed with programming languages and computer software in general, I'm afraid that I have no particular interest in Forth. I think there's a great deal that needs to be done to the article, and what is likely to be the most difficult task is adding citations and reliable sources. I was tempted to delist the article as I too think addressing everything that needs to be done is a big job that is unlikely to be able to be done any time soon. What do think? Is there any point in keeping the review open? The article can always be resubmitted to GAN as soon as the work is finished anyway. --MalleusFatuorum18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding maintenance templates to specific sections with your remaining concerns, and let it stew for a month or two before revisiting the article? (Or does adding such a template automatically delist the article?) Another idea is to find some of the more active editors from the page history and notify them of the review on their talk pages. Or maybe find another couple active editors with more programming language expertise to help out. Also, I presume you are referencing the style guide? --IanOsgood (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed my concerns and drawn attention to a few of the sections that need to be cited in the review, along with the other issues I believe need to be addressed. If you or anyone else wants to add tags to the article then please feel free to do so. All articles listed as GA must meet the good article criteria, no matter what any project-specific guidelines may say. Of the seven examples listed as good articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Programming_languages#Style_guide only two are actually still listed and one was never listed. Those guidelines merely constitute advice as to content though, which is the third of the GA criteria. Every article must meet all six.
With the best will in the world, I am not going to embark on a search for editors to save every article which is in danger of being delisted. I have notified the project that tagged the article and I would hope that any interested editors would have this article on their watch lists and so would be aware of its reassessment. I will revisit the article in seven days and decide on its GA listing then. --MalleusFatuorum20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not thinking I'm all bent out of shape are you? I was having fun. Later in the day I get a bit looser with manners. In the morning I'll be all embarrassed...
How about just stating the obvious, "... that John de Breton was Bishop of Hereford from 1269 to 1275?" No one said DYK had to be interesting, I once got Leon Johnson (a pretty unremarkable West Indian cricketer) past DYK with the hook "... that Leon Johnson, a West Indian cricketer, captained the West Indies team at the 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup?", and – no offence to him – he doesn't sound as interesting as a medieval bishop. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my kind of article. I'm always astonished when I see reviewers ask for hauntings to be taken out. Bung 'em in, I say! Perhaps we could collaborate on a witch trial one day? There's also the plague in Manchester which I'm toying with, but then Hanah Beswick deserves her shot at FA .... so much to do. lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the hauntings, including them is an exercise in neutrality but it should be done; I half expected more people to complain about the Warwick Castle article for mentioning them. A witch trial would be very interesting! It was good to watch the Pendle witch trials article develop. So much to do? I know the feeling, I'm eyeing up a list of castles in Cheshire for WP:CHES based on castles in Greater Manchester, plus Wigan needs work, and so does Salford... Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --MalleusFatuorum23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the page, I have not seen anything that can be considered a personal attack. If you have a complaint, take it to Wikiquette. If not, then you are basically acting in a non civil manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've been dragged through WQA a couple of times that I can remember, but I'd never bother to do it to anyone else. It's just a pathetic waste of time; "Mummy, Mummy, Malleus was rude to me." Live with it bitch. --MalleusFatuorum23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Malleus, you keep forgetting - that is why Wikiquette was created. People have the chance to air out their grievances and then they are sent on their way back to working on the pedia. If someone has that much time to really be bothered then chances are they aren't working on the encyclopedia and are probably not contributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus a number of people have been saying you were trolling and being incivil on that page. I suggest you back away from it in case something bad happens (No I don't think you were being incivil, but look what happened A Nobody; people, including admins, are constantly atttacking and humiliating him and accusing him of acting in bad faith).--Pattont/c23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance we could get everyone involved in the ANI thread blocked for disrupting wikipedia? I need Malleus' help on the Sale article and they've kiboshed that. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they haven't. This is entirely Malleus's choice. He can either start acting co-operatively with other editors and treating them with a bit of respect, or continue down the path he's going, which is leading nowhere good. He cannot keep making such outrageous comments without expecting consequences. Majorlytalk00:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I never have problems with Malleus. We work quite co-operatively and even have differences of opinion. I've never felt disrespected either. Of course, your milage may vary. All I can do is point out that MY experience has been good. Ealdgyth - Talk00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had many nice conversations with him, which is why it is such a shame that he has to resort to personal attacks and uncivil behaviour so often. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you this then, how would you feel if someone came to your talk page and just put in a link to WP:NPA without trying to discuss why they felt that something was a personal attack? Wouldn't that put your back up just a little bit? I'm not saying that necessarily it's the best choice to get rude, but I myself would find the begining of this conversation a bit rude too. If I felt that someone was making personal attacks at me (or someone else) and I felt strongly enough to discuss it with them, I would probably find it more helpful to discussion and a good outcome to explain why I felt that way rather than "upping the ante" by a title and link note with no other discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it could have been done better. But the point is, Malleus knows he's violating it, and seemingly doesn't care at all. This is by far not the first time this has happened with him. Majorlytalk00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just ignore it this time, Malleus ... it is what it is, we need the real contributors like you, and we all should really learn to laugh at these admin shenanigans and not even take the bait. Aren't these blocks always from admins who don't contribute content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admin shenanigans? Did you see what Malleus said? The block was well deserved. If one makes personal attacks, one should accept the consequences with grace. Majorlytalk00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block has been reinstated; the unblock was an incipient wheel war and out of process. Discussion with the blocking admin, I'll remind everyone, is not optional. Barring a workable compromise, then bringing the dispute for discussion towards consensus to a suitable forum is next. — Coren(talk)00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I neither endorse nor object to the block; I have reinstated the block strictly as a measure to put a swift end to wheel warring. You are free to appeal the block in all of the usual manners. — Coren(talk)00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you don't come back, which would be a tremendous shame, at least editors won't be insulted by your namecalling and insulting comments when you disagree with them. Just stop with the uncivil behaviour, it's so simple. Majorlytalk00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before, and I'll say it again: You're a great article writer. I'm sad to see you leave. But tone it down, its not like you haven't said this before. Best. Synergy00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think that I give a shit what you or anyone else thinks here in this shit-hole? I'm done with wikipedia, let the kiddies do what they will with it. --MalleusFatuorum01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Yes, I do, otherwise you wouldn't still be responding. Equazcion•✗/C •01:13, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well if you're still fuming, then perhaps your decision to leave won't stick once you've calmed down. I have to say I'm baffled as to how you could possibly see your actions as appropriate, but then, I suppose people are who they are. Equazcion•✗/C •01:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
It's not my intention to rub it in. I was actually trying to illicit a constructive response from you, perhaps an analysis of what happened in your eyes. But I won't respond here again if that's what you want. Equazcion•✗/C •01:30, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Well, Malleus. I thought everyone should calm down a bit before I write this here. Malleus, I think you are well aware that I do like you and admire your article work. Many other users do that as well and this seems to be the reason why they want to apply double standards. However, completely regardless of how many FA/GA one does write, whether they are an admin, bureaucrat or arbitrator, —as Durova worded it here— “no one has a license to be rude”. It's always important to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, the other users are humans as well and therefore it's important to stay civil in order to work in a pleasant atmosphere together — of course, you can disagree with others. But after all that's not a reason, let alone a justification, for becoming rude towards them. I hope you'll realise that this block is not intended to be any kind of punishment, — however, there's a need to protect others from personal insults. I feel confident that you will realise all these points with the benefit of hindsight — at least I really do hope you will. Finally, I honestly would be truly saddened if you decided to leave — I hope you'll reconsider this decision. Meanwhile, I wish you all the very best. — Aitias//discussion14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh. The block is clearly punitive, and it is completely outside of the blocking policy. I am not some naughty child who needs to be put in the naughty-corner. Whatever this block was intended to achieve I know what it will achieve, and so I think do you. --MalleusFatuorum15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you think best...
I'm sorry to see you go, but certainly don't stick around if you're not happy. If you do return, you know that I'll always be happy to see you. *I* find my interactions with you to be quite civil, but of course, i'm too busy working on articles and at FAC and GAN to do much with the policy, etc. After all, it's an encyclopedia we're working on, right? Ealdgyth - Talk01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Ealdgyth. You're an amazing contributor, and I hate to see you go. The encyclopedia is the worse for your leaving, and it's too bad that so many people confuse outspoken-ness with personal attacks. Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly we need you Malleus. People have ignored my commentary that the project is falling into chaos, but no onw will listen. Please. Give us another try when the block is over. Ceranthor01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Malleus, try to have a nice glass of wine and laugh at the latest drama fest; things were just too quiet on Wiki, y'know? Don't feed it any further; it's supposed to be fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was fun, once, but that stopped when the circling vultures started demanding that I recant, and admit to the wickedness of my ways. I'm not going to change, and neither are they. So, as there are lots more of them than me, I think my time here is finally at an end. To be honest I didn't expect to last as long as I did anyway. :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could consider that the work is done, but the fun has begun :) No, the admin dramafests will not ever change; how you view them can though. First trick: dramatically reduce your watchlist, put your head in the sand, and don't even make yourself aware of the normal goings-on. There are good people in the areas we frequent: ignore the rest. It works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a month off. Draw a picture of whoever you hate most and put it on a dartboard. Or do what I do, clean a horse stall (nothing makes the rest of the world look better than digging out horse crap). Ealdgyth - Talk02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite used to shoveling (animal) shit, although on a somewhat more modest scale than horses. And you're right, it's kind of back to basics. I've got some urgent RL stuff that I've neglected recently anyway, so it's probably all for the best that I'm prevented from wasting any more of my time here. --MalleusFatuorum02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ddstretch, I'd encourage you not to resign. From the attitudes of some of the people I've seen tonight, they won't care. It's a noble gesture, but you can do more good on the inside. Nev1 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good admins who aren't interested in climbing the greasy pole here at WP and who seriously contribute to the project are needed. You seem to fall into that category. Ill considered blocks by a certain admin have already claimed one scalp recently. Don't make it two, or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk up another win for the violent femmes. (NOTE: I use violent femmes as my preferred description of passive-aggressive, swishy, sneaky, vicious and cowardly editors, be they male, female or transgendered, homo-, hetero- or other-sexual, young or old. Wikipedia can be a disgusting place.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Malleus, I was asleep when this drama was unfolding and could not support you. The block was obviously bad because it was made in haste without considering all circumstances of the case. Some diffs provided to support your "incivility" were simply irrelevant, and many participants in that ANI thread seems to not have bothered to read them. I still hope that you will reconsider you decision to leave the project (possibly, after a wikiberak). Ruslik (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selfishly, I'd like you to stay around, not least to help me occasionally. Maybe you could satisfy your need for controversy (?????) elsewhere!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed all the action because it was Friday night and I was less than sober. "Don't edit drunk!" my brain says. "Don't edit high!" "Shut up!" I tell my brain, and feed it more intoxicants. Maybe next time I'll get on and try to read stuff and participate (well on my way to joining the ranks of the blocked). At any rate, this is my first post of the morning and I am reminded at once of two scenes in two Oscar-winning films: West Side Story and The Godfather, where Anita and Clemenza tell Maria and Michael that big fights have to happen in order to clear out all the bad blood. Then all the boys are horny and ready to make money again. Now I'm starting to think that Mario Puzo stoleThe Godfather from West Side Story. I'm going to put that in The Godfather article...
Worry not about spotless block logs, that at one time seemed like a high-performance vehicle tootling along on a crowded highway where so many editors drive carelessly. I appreciate your efforts here. I agree that people take offense way too easily and believe apologies are inalienable rights. They use their mock injury or tattered self-concepts as leverage in debates. If this is the system and this is the way it must be played, then ah well. Such the way it is in many societies. Sometimes you have to pay the cops in order to keep dancing.
Content and review would be sorrier without you. I hope to see you return.
You're absolutely right Moni, but I'm just no good at playing the game. It's not that I don't know the rules, it's that I don't agree with the rules. As George Bernard Shaw once said: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I am that "unreasonable man" in spades. It would be very easy to ignore all of the wikistupidity and dishonesty in the dark corners of the project, and I know that SandyG is quite right in what she suggests about purging my watchlist of those crazy places like RfA. That just wouldn't be me though, to ignore the self-satisfied, sanctimonious, institutionalised corruption endemic in those places. To me that would be like trying to build a house on a rubbish tip. --MalleusFatuorum15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't happen in RfA. It happened in a backroom by someone who agreed with Malleus but wanted to start a fight. It was classic baiting. Then we have a suspicious user filing the charges. Of course, it was all Wikiquette material. Three strikes against this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom
I have fully prepared and prepped an ArbCom case over Coren's reinstating your block. I have evidence showing lack of discussion, rash action, and declaring himself as an Arb and acting without the decision of the council to act as one. However, I will not do this unless you would want me to do this. This is about you, and this is about making sure that people don't abuse authority in regards to you. If you are not up to it, I will not proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that this will not be accepted, and that for filing a frivolous case, that you could be admonished for such actions. seicer | talk | contribs03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may even tell you to stick it up your arse. Just saying. It's a possibility. Equazcion•✗/C •03:59, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
If the ArbCom would refuse to review it after seeing this diff that states "While not all of my colleagues may agree with my making this act in my capacity as an Arbitrator" after clearly stating that ArbCom did not give him permission to act as such, then they are contradicting the very foundation that they stand on. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood that statement. He also explicitly stated that his unblock was not made as an arbitrator but as an admin. Equazcion•✗/C •04:08, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
"When I have undone the unblock by DDStretch, I have done so as an administrator that happens to be an Arbitrator, but not in the name of the Committee. " Stated by Coren in his first sentence at WP:ANI#A brief statement. Equazcion•✗/C •04:11, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Unless you ignore what I have quoted, there is no possible way to see him as doing anything other than stating the above that he recognizes that he is doing such as a member of the ArbCom and that he is doing it without permission of ArbCom. ArbCom members should know not to violate admin related policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And would you be ignoring what I quoted as well? This statement seems more explicit than the one you quoted. Given the apparent contradiction, your quote seems to me a simple poor choice of words. You're welcome to try getting the arbcom case through if you like, but to repeat what others have already said, I don't believe there's any chance. Equazcion•✗/C •04:19, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Here are the arguments if you are curious. They are undeniable and are clear. I will wait until Malleus approves of this action before submitting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble over this Ottava, I really do appreciate your support, but I know full well that nothing would come of any ArbCom case. To be truthful I don't think Coren did anything particularly wrong anyway. The crowd was baying for my head and they had to be shown blood. Whoever it was did the first block—haven't bothered to check who that was, don't much care—might even have believed they were doing me a favour by issuing only a three-day block instead of indefinite, which as I would never bother wasting time in appealing would effectively have been a permanent block anyway. I am firmly of the view in any case that a significant number of editors have made it their mission to chase me away from wikipedia; I can see no other explanation for this ever-present desire to teach me a lesson, to humiliate me. I am no more sanguine about last night's events now than I was at the time. Whether I'll feel differently when the block expires or not time will tell. If I see a few heads on sticks in the meantime that may lighten my mood a little. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly who was calling for your head behind the scenes and they know exactly how I feel about them right now. There was no consensus to block you to begin with, or to reblock you. There was no respect for consensus at all. The community didn't want you blocked. Coren misrepresented himself as an Arbitrator. We have "Wheel" for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can guess who was behind it. Things have probably escalated out of control now though. What's next after a three-day block? A month? Indefinite? It's quite intolerable to be put under that kind of sword of Damocles, and I'm not sure I'm willing to be placed in that position. I'd get a damn sight more leeway as an IP editor. I really am thinking that Malleus's time here has come to an end. I'll have a few beers this evening instead of wasting time on those silly articles and see if I feel more optimistic once the ban expires. Thanks once again for your support, you've been a pal. Watch out for your own back though. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need you around in this project. If you aren't around, I wont be able to carry the burden of Ainsworth. He is way too massive for one person and there are things about Manchester that you will be able to pick up on more easily. I am gaining ground on this matter even if I do have to use up a lot of the goodwill and favors that Ive built over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime though, could I ask a favour of you Ottava, or of anyone else who happens to read this first? I signed up at WP:GAN to do a review of Millenium '73, which I obviously won't be able to do now. Can you please remove my "under review" tag? Thanks. --MalleusFatuorum17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I noticed that though you gave congratulations and closed the review page, you never formally closed the GA on the talk page and on WP:GAN. Just a friendly reminder in case you forgot or something. I would do it myself, but it would look rather funny to "pass" my own nomination. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk(talk)18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just noticed that (I did not read the rest of the talk page until after my request). A real shame—Malleus is always doing such a good work at writing articles GA reviews. Arsenikk(talk)19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with this witchunt? [2] Is that me? No, it fucking well isn't.
OK, I used a bad word, but I used it in response to a bad faith allegation. I get blocked for being rude, but you're quite free to accuse me of dishonesty without a similar sanction. --MalleusFatuorum00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its okay. It is being handled. Okay? Over 25 people have approached me to complain about the admin who blocked you and said they should be desysopped. Many people have said that Coren's actions were not good at all and an abuse of the title Arbitrator. The rest can be handled. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over 30 have contacted me, agreeing the block(s) were perfectly appropriate, in response to grossly uncivil behaviour. They have also mentioned Ottava should reconsider his crusade against admins who have done nothing wrong at all, but simply blocked someone who happened to be a friend of his. Majorlytalk02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, you accused Jimbo of bad faith and not knowing what he was talking about when it comes to WP:POINT. You have no grounds to even attempt to lecture anyone on anything right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your most gracious apology for accusing me of having posted as an IP in order to evade my undoubtedly well-deserved block. I think it ought to have been fairly clear to anyone though who that IP editor actually was. Certainly wasn't me. --MalleusFatuorum14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I for one was not “approached” or contacted by anyone, but I honestly deem your conspiracy theories utterly ridiculous, Ottava Rima. They are that ridiculous, it's simply incredible. Also, regarding your everywhere claims of desyoping me, just go ahead, please. However, I can promise you that definitely no one is going to desyop me for making a perfectly reasonable and justified block, that was even supported by consensus at AN/I. So I ask you to either stop your utterly laughable conspiracy theories and claims of desysoping or simply go ahead and desysop me and prove your conspiracy theories right. Do something, or simply be quiet. — Aitias//discussion12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories? Not once have I stated -you- were approached or acted with another. And justified block? You have a long history of interacting with Malleus on RfA. Your blocking him on an RfA related page was uncalled for by CoI. Regardless, the original warning was over one word, then "stick it up your ass" is another. Two. WP:CIVIL makes it clear that it must be egregious. If you think two comments are egregious, then you seriously need to put yourself up for reconfirmation and see if the community really supports you. We all know it wont, especially with four calls for you to do just this as an immediate reaction to your Point violation yesterday. Jimbo should have saved us the trouble by desysopping you and blocking you for a week for such outrageous disruptions of Wikipedia as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest is moot validation for alleging a "poor block" – practically everyone at RfA (and even most at GAN) have interacted with Malleus (on most some occasions, it hasn't made pleasant reading) so claiming that would leave very few admins who could, 'justifiably', block him. Caulde14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... practically everyone at RfA (and even most at GAN) have interacted with Malleus (on most occasions, it hasn't made pleasant reading)". I would be very interested to see what evidence you can produce to back up your claim that "most at GAN" have found my interactions with them to make unpleasant reading. --MalleusFatuorum14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I second that. Whatever the merits of Malleus' current block, Malleus is a highly respected reviewer and contributor to discussions at WP:GAN. We're not always on the same side in discussions (I think it's about 50/50), but I never have any doubt that Malleus' main concern is to improve the quality of articles and, pursuant to that, of editors. --Philcha (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the context of your presence, you are known throughtout many of the processes here; with some situations that have arisen making unpleasant reading - I didn't specifically say it was your comments that made it appear that way either; just to clear that point up. Caulde15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is well known throughout the article processes (FAC, GAN etc.) as a distinguished and highly-qualified reviewer (I think of him as that myself), however, there are at times some sticky situations where conflict has arisen as a result of, say for example, a nominee-article's nominator becoming frustrated or at RfA when people see his comments and become somewhat incensed to defend their own views through ad hominem attacks - it has happened. Even at the discussion on ANI that resulted in this block, there is evidence of where arguments have occured and given the number of them linked, I think it would be difficult indeed to find an admin or editor for that matter that hadn't been involved (and thus have a conflict of interest) with Malleus, therefore claiming a conflict of interest (on the part of Aitias) is moot. That is essentially what I was trying to say, my 'convoluted commenting disorder' just returned for a second there you see! Caulde15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little mystified as to the integrity of a system which allows administrators like Caulde to throw around mysterious and unsubstantiated allegations in an apparently gleeful rejoicing at the misfortune of another editor without even an eyebrow being raised. But then I'm mystified by a great deal that happens here. --MalleusFatuorum15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
