:::: So, it occurs to me that we can make a case for the board being needed and useful. And I'd like the fact that we might be able to police it better than ANI, where every 12-yo Tom Dick and Harry can weigh in with uninformed commentary. We'd just move off-topic nonsense to talk, as we do at FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: So, it occurs to me that we can make a case for the board being needed and useful. And I'd like the fact that we might be able to police it better than ANI, where every 12-yo Tom Dick and Harry can weigh in with uninformed commentary. We'd just move off-topic nonsense to talk, as we do at FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::*Mmmmmm, I am thinking about what you say - it does seem very FA and FAR centred - good content extends far beyond that these days - I am far from being the only content editor who has turned away from it and created my own standards. What was the name of a proposed committee some time ago - I was asked to be on it, and all hell broke loose and the idea fell through before it got off the ground - even after I said I would resign - can anyone remember? I can't. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::*Mmmmmm, I am thinking about what you say - it does seem very FA and FAR centred - good content extends far beyond that these days - I am far from being the only content editor who has turned away from it and created my own standards. What was the name of a proposed committee some time ago - I was asked to be on it, and all hell broke loose and the idea fell through before it got off the ground - even after I said I would resign - can anyone remember? I can't. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
::::* I can't remember the name either-- the Kirill proposal that led to his resignation, that I was also asked to be on. It was utterly ridiculous that it led to such a kerfuffle, and I seem to remember that Mattisse fed those flames (I could be wrong). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:18, 19 October 2010
It seems that the only way for me not to get blocked here is for me not to post, which is what I'll be doing for as far into the future as I'm able to see right now. Perhaps in a week, a month, or whatever, I'll once again be able to face the systemic problems of abusive administrators that wikipedia refuses to deal with, more optimistically and resiliantly than I can now. Then again, perhaps not.
Please say what you mean about me having railroaded the Pound FAC process. I opposed the nomination because it wasn't ready for FA, either in terms of MoS-compliance, which I care less about, or in terms of writing and substance, which matters a lot. I didn't only oppose; I've also been helping to fix it, and it's a lot better now than it was. Here's the version as nominated; and here's the current version. The nominator and I were in touch by e-mail, and I specifically asked whether the help was welcome, and was told it definitely was, and in no uncertain terms. Since then we've been exchanging e-mails about which sources to focus on, and which bits we should try to develop, so until your remark it seemed to me to be a constructive collaboration.
Just weighing in here quickly before I go to work. Yes, I have told SlimVirgin that the help was welcome. The problem with this page, in my mind, has always been content. Requests have been made to editors to have a look at the article with little to no response. What response has been given has been along the lines of copy-editing, but I've always felt the content was problematic and I'm happy to have SlimVirgin step up and help. She's correct in that the article was nominated prematurely which is why I've twice requested delisting. I should have ignored any suggestions to list, but didn't. Perhaps I shouldn't have had an off-wiki discussion during a FAC but I had personal issues I didn't really want to share with the entire world. I guess that's impossible in this world of Wikipedia, so here's the problem: during the summer I lost vision in my right eye but continued working on the page because I became interested in Pound. A little over two weeks ago I had surgery to restore vision - all good - but resulted in almost daily migraines. So now everyone knows. I cannot work on this page alone, and if someone wants to step up and help I'm fine. If the result of the FAC is good feedback and a better article, I'm happy. Sometimes taking a difficult page to FAC is what it takes to get reviews and good feedback. At this point my feeling is that if the page is archived that's fine, if not I'll continue to work on it. Either way it will improve and progress will be made. As for any history that exists between SlimVirgin and Malleus - I'd prefer it not be brought to this FAC. But this is Wikipedia and it's hard sometimes to control these things. I'm going to work now and won't have access to a computer or any electronic device for the rest of the day. Carry on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there's a line between collaborating and taking over that you sometimes seem to overstep. It's your opinion that the FAC was premature, not a fact, and at least one other reviewer doesn't agree with you that it's not ready now. Your determination seems to me just to have the FAC withdrawn, perhaps so that you yourself can bring it back later? MalleusFatuorum12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your ABF is amazing, Malleus. You think I want to have the FAC withdrawn so I can submit it myself? I don't know who you think you are that you can speak to people like that.
I've put a ton of work into trying to help with this, because it clearly wasn't ready for FAC, but it's a subject that's worth doing well. I hate opposing at FAC and only do it when it would feel dishonest not to, and if there's clear potential I prefer to help fix things and not leave the nominee hanging with an oppose to sort it out themselves.
But the point is that I don't think you should comment on other people's opposes at FAC. The whole point of FAC is to get lots of different views, unlike GA which is just one opinion. That variety can be lost if one reviewer is going to second-guess the others, and you do it a fair bit, though I've not seen people do it to you. So please, offer your own opinion about the articles, but not about other reviewers. No one should have to justify themselves to you, and you have no right to turn other people's desire to muck in and be helpful into some ulterior motive and toxic experience. SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me and I told you. It's got nothing to do with good or bad faith, notions that I think are intended to encourage the credulous to suspend their analytical abilities and to fall in step the crowd. Anyway, you've had your way, the FAC has been archived, so there's nothing more to say. MalleusFatuorum14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Please don't try and teach me how to suck eggs; I'm perectly well aware of how FAC and GAN work in practice and in theory, certainly at least as well informed as you are SV, so back off. MalleusFatuorum14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll try to have the last word here. I don't like conflict and am sorry this happened. As it happens, both of you have been very helpful and supportive, and for that I'm grateful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV and I disagree about a great many things, this has just been another one of them. It's all over now anyway and I wish you well with Ezra at your next attempt at the north face of FAC, assuming that there's going to be one of course. MalleusFatuorum19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to fail and I don't like to quit, so I expect there'll be another attempt. I think a little time away from that page and some work on other articles is what I need at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember it well (I was on time, no you were late ...). Sale was a tough gig, and it was the start of my fall from grace here on wikipedia, and I've never looked like recovering since. The moral of the story is ... well work it out for yourselves. MalleusFatuorum23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere really where my fundamental objections to the approach of reviewers like SV can be discussed, as it's endemic, not confined to FAC. SV is however an administrator and therefore outranks me, so my only recourse is not do any more reviews. It's no big deal though, as I know what makes a decent article even if others don't. MalleusFatuorum00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two points to make about this and then I hope we can put it to rest. In my view your argument would hold greater weight if six of the seven reviewers / commenters on the FAC page supported and only one opposed. As it happens, one opposed, one supported and the others commented. So in this case I think consensus is clear - one reviewer felt the article was FA ready, one not, and the rest sat on the fence. My second point goes to the difficulty of core topic articles. As it happens, Ezra Pound is a core biography, but it's just really difficult for a single editor to take on a large topic like this. While I was working on the page, I followed the various threads about why editors avoid core topics, thinking that I'm quite the idiot to attempt to overwrite/rewrite a big subject. So, in essence it's basically true that the big articles are near-to-impossible to finish. As it happens I'd like to see more of them upgraded and improved because I have students who go to Wikipedia for information and they don't go to find out about single episode television shows (not that I'm putting down single episode television shows!). At any rate I've learned from this experience, I'm a little burned out and need to regroup before deciding how to go forward. I posted on SlimVirgin's page that I'd like to see the article gain Good Article status, and I might pursue that in the next few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your argument would hold more weight if the FAC had been allowed to run its course. Consensus is established at the end of the process, not at arbitrary points within it. MalleusFatuorum11:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I asked for the process to be stopped. So I'm a petulant child. Shall we have a fight about it or just drop it? If we fight you'll beat me to a pulp - though I might find myself getting really angry and I don't want to do that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point in continuing with this? You claimed that there was a consensus and I simply pointed out that that wasn't true as the FAC wan't allowed to run to completion. No doubt you and SV will in the fullness of time be able to produce the version that SV wants to write, but to be honest I'm past caring. MalleusFatuorum12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really guys, it isn't worth getting worked up over. You've all done a tremendous amount of work to improve an important article, so who cares if it wouldn't currently pass as an FA? I've worked on a few articles where, at the end, I've thought "bloody hell that's a good article". Then a few months later I look at it and notice all kinds of issues I previously hadn't. What I tend to ask myself is, "can I find a better, more reliable online biography on Joe Bloggs than the one I've helped write here?" If your answer to that is no, then you can consider your efforts a success. And at the end, you've all probably learned a lot about someone whom, until recently, you knew little or nothing. Parrotof Doom12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, much as I hate to reignite an old flame, I was gone for the last week, just catching up now. Since what I saw the last time, revitsing, I think were were dead right on this one. Railroading. I think the cmt, "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone", was intended to neutaralise youself and myself, and notice the irony of how SV has disregarded her own advice and been heavily editing since. To be straightforward and frank, TK is too nice for tactics like this, and my strong impression is that there is pressure happening in back channels. I get the strong sence TK is vey upset at the way she is being talked to, offline. She has gone cold on a page she was very heavily invested in just a week ago. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of SV's "And I think this work needs to be done by you alone" and the reality of her effectively forcing her own view on the article hasn't escaped me. MalleusFatuorum12:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sure you can appreciate the fustration of investing so much in a page, months and months of reading, notes, adding, tweaking, more reading, more adding, and on such a massively difficult subject, and then well, railroading, and attack. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. I've had a fair few negative experiences at FAC, but I've never had the article wrestled from me. Thats a different thing to having the shit kicked out of you. A beating I can handel, loss of control I cant. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd unwatched this page so hadn't seen these comments until SlimVirgin's accusation that I criticised her off-wiki. Yes, Malleus she asked that I respond to the railroading comment. I did find it unhelpful when the FAC was still open. I find these speculation unhelpful as well. I want to be very clear that it's speculation - I haven't shared any e-mail with anyone. I thought I didn't do wiki-drama. Apparently I do. But I won't in the future, because I won't be here to.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about any off-wiki discussion of this article, and nor do I want to. SlimVirgin asked me a question and I gave her an answer. That she doesn't like my answer is no concern of mine, I stand by what I said. MalleusFatuorum13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My email is not disabled, although it was for a while a month or two ago. I will simply say that I think you made a mistake in discussing this article's "improvements" by email with one other editor, as that gave a clear sign that nobody else's input was either welcomed or valued. Nothing good can come from continuing with this discussion, as the facts are plain to see, but as you say, it's water under the bridge now. I will be on the lookout for similar bridges in the future, and I will be avoiding them. MalleusFatuorum23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I turned my back on the article, not on you. I hope after a break you can come back reinvigorated, whether or not you ever go back to Mr Pound. MalleusFatuorum14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAR begging
Hi Malleus! There are a couple of FARs that could use your opinion, if you would like to give it:
I've commented on the World Science Festival, but I'll need to think about Selena. That looks like rather an ill-tempered review, and I've had about enough of those for a while. MalleusFatuorum14:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent events surrounding this FAR and a couple of others have persuaded me that FAR has become too dispiriting to invest any effort in. I'm not even sure I'd bother if one of my own FAs was dragged off there, much less something that another editor probably wrote years ago. MalleusFatuorum14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alsager
Hello. I am not spamming, I am simply adding a useful information to the page and adding the source of the information I contribute. Could you please let me know what makes you think I am spamming? I am simply following Wikipedia's rules to include the source of the information I enter into the system.
I am really not spamming. Seriously. A friend of mine added this info with her account and when it was removed, I added it with my account to see if this was an issue with her account being relatively new. Feel free to remove the links / brand names if you think I am spamming but I don't believe it is fair not to include the source of the information you enter into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahomuris (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emrahomuris, the link you are adding is a commercial website, and as such can be considered spam. Also, extensive information on housing prices, such as you are adding, is not something that should be located on WP. Please see city articles listed at WP:GA and WP:FA - none of them have information like this included. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big thank you!
Malleus, you are saving my ass over on the SWT page. Thank you for your help and generous support. I am really trying to improve the content of the page, but I'm not great at the code stuff--I am a writer, but not a computer person, and I get confused. Right this minute we're working together on the page, which is terrific. I just wanted to say a more personal thanks. And by the way, I agree with your banner message here at the top of your talk page. It's hard for me to edit on Wiki, and I don't feel very welcome often. But I'm going to try to hang in there and get done stuff that matters to me. I hope you'll do the same, because we need you--I need you. --TEHodson00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important article, and it deserves some attention. Sadly though it looks like only you and I have stepped up to the plate so far. I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't get involved, but well, you know. MalleusFatuorum00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, had decided not to go back after all the fuss, but then I imagined school children reading the article and I just cringed. I will keep at it until I either burn out or get attacked again. Where are you? I'm on the west coast, USA. --TEHodson03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know where you are (I have excellent eyesight). You are in the North of England, Manchester area, I imagine. It's funny, but I ran into The Parrot of Doom once, when he dissed me (mildly) on another witch trial page. He made me laugh, actually, and when I went to his talk page to check him out, I saw you there. So you see, we must be related. --TEHodson05:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just came on and discovered that the user who has been driving us nuts on the SWT page has been blocked due to harrassment of others. This is my first taste of Wiki drama--I didn't report him, but I guess other users had had enough. Anyway, now maybe we can get some work done. Oh, and tell the Doom Parrot I said, Hi. You gotta love a guy whose talk page introductory note essentially says, "Don't fuck me about or I'll eat your children." --TEHodson02:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion on WP:TFAR about Grace Sherwood. It caused me to take a look at the above article which, unsurprisingly, is as shit as they come. Do you fancy taking it on at some point, as we did with Gunpowder Plot? If only to eliminate the largely irrelevant Trick or Treat section. Parrotof Doom09:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a go at it if you like, but probably best not to start until after this year's Halloween. Looks like it needs a lot of TLC though. MalleusFatuorum11:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't co-nom you with Jersey Act? Not your usual "I didn't do much" but any plans for other articles to go up at FAC of yours? (I just ignore your modesty ... you do a lot and I wish there was more I could do to praise/support/etc you). And if you want to wordsmith a bit more and remove more "act"s, I'm good with that. We can't get away from titling the article that (It's pretty much the "common name" but there is no reason to not make it clear in the text that it was not a "real" act. Ealdgyth - Talk14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I see you have done a lot of work on Simon Byrne today. Thanks for that - I appreciate it. I won't be joining in the FARC fun myself - the instigator is already spoiling for a fight and I've been there too many times and have too many T shirts to prove it. I see my goal at Wikipedia these days as raising dull old stubs to half decent pages - rather than spending ages arguing ascendingly pedantic points over already half decent pages with those too lazy or too stupid to insert the latest requirement and whim themselves. It's always a complete mystery to me that with so many truly dreadful pages to chose from, people who consider themselves intelligent choose to spend years of their lives trawling Wikipedia' finest in order to nit-pick rather than doing something useful and constructive. Very sad. Giacomo 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have got myself involved in a few of these FAR/GARs recently, partly because I think it's often lazy to nominate an article for review instead of making an effort to fix it up to meet whatever the current requirements are. I feel much the same about the disfiguring tags too often inserted into articles, when a few moment's work could resolve the issue. I've been battling with the Salem witch trials today as well though, so I haven't spent as much time on Simon as I might otherwise have done. I've yet to do a proper search of what sources are available to fill in the citation gaps being complained about, but I'm not one to give up without a fight. A bit like Simon himself really I suppose. I know where you're coming from in raising stubs to something better, and I often do the same myself; it's a lot less hassle, but the grey goo still needs to be kept at bay as well. MalleusFatuorum19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know, there are worse ways of keeping the grey goo at bay than taking a beautiful Autumn day off work to take clandestine interior shots with mobile phone concealed in a guide book [1] - and feel one has scored a victory over the retired and sensible looking establishment figures who patrol such places - it's just far more rewarding than banging one's head aganst a brick wall here in order to score a short-lived victory over an unworthy opponent. Giacomo 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Simon Byrne's FAR isn't a fight with the nominator for me, it's a fight to do enough to the article so as to avoid the next phase, which surely can't be all that hard? MalleusFatuorum19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are right because in my experience, once de-listed these people forget all about a page as they scurry off to seek out the next victim. Leaving the old former FA a muddled mess of half fixes and views and if the original authors whose work and integrity has been rubbished don't fix it up then it declines further. Quite how that is supposed to help the project, I have never understood. Giacomo 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Once the spotlight is switched off the article tends to abandoned to its fate, and that doesn't really help anything. Hence it's worth fighting for at FAR/GAR. MalleusFatuorum21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent (well not so recent anymore, since it's been going on for quite a while now) trend to use FAR to bludgeon certain editors is a concern. With so many truly troubled old FAs out there, I fail to understand Cirt's noms, and wish s/he would find another place to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand Cirt's nominations perfectly well, as does Giano judging by his comment below. What I take great objection to is Cirt's failure to raise any issues on an article's talk page before waltzing straight off to FAR and putting everyone's back up with his mean-spirited behaviour. I suppose that's another block on its way now, but I'm well past caring about that. MalleusFatuorum15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my capacity as an admin I have reviewed this and recent comments, and find them not worthy of block or censure. I saw the ANI thread about MF. I don't plan to comment further. Carry on. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really, a courtesy call from me to you. I don't know that you will necessarily want to wade into this conversation, but I was reviewing open unblock requests and found that at User talk:Protector of Wiki our relationship or lack thereof has somehow become at least the partial focus of PoW's unblock request and nobody bothered to tell either of us. It seems he wishes to paint himself as your disciple. I'll just leave it that, you can see it for yourself . Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. What an extraordinary discussion; how on Earth did I get dragged into that unblock request? I'm not particularly happy to see so many familiar faces trotting out their distaste for me over a matter that's got absolutely nothing to do with me, but I'm sure you'll understand that I've got no intention of taking part in that discussion, and probably neither should you. On balance though I'd probably be inclined to endorse your "I would feel compelled to oppose unblocking someone who adopted Malleus as their role model". MalleusFatuorum14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I saddled up my kangaroo and rode down to the University of Woop-Woop Library, there was something of a dearth of information about this particular newspaper. GNews and Gscholar aren't much use to me, as my computer is powered by a trio of trained bandicoots running around a treadmill, and my modem is an out-of-date surly wombat. Just wondering if you could improve on it a little?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) PS: Last time I added a message on User:Reginald Scot's talkpage, he said, "Me and MF? Sound. We're mates, just tell him Reggie said to call."[reply]
Ah! I'll see if I can maybe dig something up before the vultures descend again. Just out of interest, why is someone on the other side of the planet interested in the Rochdale Observer? MalleusFatuorum14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, could I ask a favour? I've opposed the FAC of Old St. Paul's Cathedral, here, and I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether my oppose is reasonable. Some of the points I raise are marginal or subject to interpretation; my main concern is finding so much to say so near the top of the article. If someone were to oppose a FAC of yours with the comments I've made, would you feel that was fair? Mike Christie(talk)13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's always going to be "miffing" to get an oppose, but I don't see anything unfair in your comments. There does seem to have been a subtle change in the sense of what some of the sources say and the interpretation in the article– your very valid comment about the "series of storms" caught my eye in particular. It also struck me that nothing you raised seemed to be particularly difficult to fix, so if it was my nomination I'd just fix it, look for other places where the same issues may have been introduced, and fix them as well. MalleusFatuorum15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the second opinion; I thought I was being fair but it's always helpful to hear someone else's take. I agree that it doesn't seem that hard to fix. I was tempted to go and edit the article myself and fix some of the issues, but I don't want to treat FAC as a place to find articles to work on -- I think FAC works better if the conveyor belt moves reasonably quickly. Thanks again -- Mike Christie(talk)16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...And speaking of Manchester...
Who ever thought that the Manchester Police twitter feed would make headlines on this side of the pond? Seems there is at least one thing that Canada and Britain have in common...terrible use of emergency services... Risker (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a bit reluctant for the same reason I was reluctant when Tarrare was suggested; although these people are all long-dead (and quite possibly apocryphal) there are plenty of real people with similar conditions. While I'm sure every real-life conjoined twin has long since got over the fact that people stare and point, there seems something a bit mean-spirited about playing what are effectively articles about disabilities for laughs. If it were suggested for TFA, I'd want to run it by the WP:DISABILITY people first to gauge their opinion on how offensive people are likely to consider it. (If it runs anywhere, I'd rather it be Easter. I can guarantee it would get vandalised to hell and back, though.) – iridescent20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One jumps out at me: "... that conjoined twins Mary and Eliza Chulkhurst argued frequently and often came to blows?" What a nightmare that scenario conjures up! MalleusFatuorum21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit reluctant to go with anything that treats them as definitely genuine; the story reeks of bullshit to me. When Bondeson talks about it being impossible to dismiss, he's talking about the medical possibility; it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that any woman in 12th-century Kent would own 20 acres of land, let alone non-Norman conjoined twins. (I'd have thought they'd be more likely either to be killed and exorcised as demons—an 1100 birth would have had them born at around the time William II died, and after all that "comet of 1066" business the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't welcome anything that looked like a portent of doom—or else they'd have been shipped off to be exhibited in Normandy.) – iridescent21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no doubt that the story is bullshit, but then so is DYK most of the time. :-) Whether they were real or not is impossible to know, and doesn't seem all that important to me now, nearly a thousand years later. MalleusFatuorum21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit or not, I've nominated the article at DYK, staying away from issues raised above. My personal opinion is that the evidence points towards 1500-34 being their lifespan, which nicely removes them away from Billy the Frog and superstitions about comets. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end. It doesn't cover blatantly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT denial that someone else saw it as a personal attack and continuing to insist that they couldn't reasonably have done so.
Good faith and your sincere belief that the civility rules are way too harsh covers the original comment. But when you reject anyone else's having taken offense as illegitimate, you're disavowing responsibility for the effects that you have on others. And that is abusive. You are responsible for those effects, even if you feel that you're within your rights to make biting commentary and use naughty words. When they offend people, their taking offense is as legitimate a reaction as your sincere belief that the civility rules are too harsh. When you belittle them or ridicule them for complaining, it delegitimizes your original stance.
I believe you that you had no intent to abuse Cirt originally; you did so in responding as you did. You don't have to agree with people who complain about your comments, nor do you have to meekly abide by every "Oh, he used a naughty word!" complaint.
Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend. "I didn't mean that as a personal attack" and not questioning their motives would be a perfectly neutral and non-escalating position to take that doesn't delegitimize your feelings about the civility policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked—the comment did not merit a block, and I can't see how disagreeing over whether Cirt saw it as a personal attack is blockworthy behavior. Ucucha01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find a balance point that doesn't involve dehumanizing those you offend raises an interesting point wrt Cirt's approach to FAR-- an apt description. I do wish s/he would find another place to work, as FAR has become so demoralized, no longer a fun place to work to restore articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The length of the rope you get to hang yourself with covers having made the original comment without reaching its end." Can somebody explain what that means? Is it English? Richerman (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Malleus is "hanging himself" with the rope of making incivil comments; if he reaches the end of the rope, he will merit a block by Georgewilliamherbert. His comment to Cirt did not take him to the end of the rope, but his later comments at ANI did. Ucucha01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uchucha correctly interpreted it. My apologies for it not being sufficiently clear and self-evident. Obtuse language in warnings or blocks is certainly not helpful, which I will keep in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you blocked Malleus. This is exactly why I refused to have anything to do with Cirt and his FARC. As far as I'm concerned he is trolling troublemaker and should not be alowed with tem kilometres of anything written by Bishonen or myself. It's a disruptive waste of time trying to bring the page up to scratch as no matter what you do he will keep going on and on. Thanks for trying with the page anyway. Just leave it alone and I hope all others follow my advice also. Allow Cirt "improve" the encyclopedia as he and his friends see fit. Giacomo 09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, this is my view [2] Let those so determined and worried, fix the pages up themselves or shut up. At the end of the day, if the "writing editors" refuse to have anything to do with their pages, they begin to look rather silly and pointless don't they? Giacomo 10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up, Malleus. Just ignore the small-minded peope and their slavishly biased admin corps. Go about your business and remember you do have a lot of supporters; don't let the small number of biased civility police and their howling slavish mob get to you. You're one of the few editors that improves Wikipedia, and frankly I admire your bluntness. It's rather refreshing. Skinny87 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Little Chickadee
1940 movie, W.C. Fields and Mae West. At one point West's character, Flora Belle Lee, is on trial. Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?" Flora Belle: "I'm trying to hide it."
Consider the net effects of hiding it every so often. PhGustaf (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a diff to the alleged infraction please. Wasn't the immediate prior block due to the "lazy" comment? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes all you can do is laugh, Malleus. Unfortunately, I'm not as effective at producing that effect as Moni is, and although she seems to have telepathic abilities (I didn't ping her), our resident comic is under the weather. I'm sorry about your dark mood-- the whole situation is just pathetic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one incident too many for me. Unless I see someone swinging from a tree because of the events over the last day or so I don't think I'll be helping out here again. MalleusFatuorum18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, we seem to be having a "lets put Malleus's edits under the microscope and kick him day" because that is always far easier than looking for the wisdom and unsettling truth in what he actually says in his greater message. Only a fool would think it serves any purpose to block for this [4] and only a school of seals applaud it. So why is this the case - that's the important question and no, it's not rhetorical and furthemore, English is not my first language so must allowancies be made for that? Giacomo 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a day that's been just around the corner for some time now, but the hyenas have finally gathered their courage for what they think could be the final attack. Who knows, maybe there are enough dishonest editors here on wikipedia to let them get away with it; I suspect that there, as most of the decent ones steer well clear of the drama boards where these gangs of admins congegrate. MalleusFatuorum18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a sinus infection and I've been sleeping all day after coughing all night. Now my voice is gone, but not Bonnie Tyler or Demi Moore stripped, just...aw, she's really gross stay away from her kind of gone. I'm way out of it and everything seems surreal to me. I can't make any sense out of the block or that list Sandy just linked to. All of you seem to be wearing purple elephant costumes. Is that what I'm supposed to do too? I don't want to. I don't understand why Malleus was blocked the first time nor the second. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, screw it, I have no desire to wait and see who reverses this block while I listen to people complain about how corrupt I am. Reversed myself. Have fun. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were corrupt, just that I don't understand what's going on. Why did you block him in the first place? Or the second place, as it were? --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for heaven's sake - cut the self pity. (not you Moni). Hopefully Malleus has learnt a valuable lesson (I told him so) leave FAR and FARC, in fact all Wikipedia pages to those who enjoy such antics - just write and let the non-writing administrative staff have it entirely their own way. Giacomo 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but there's a deeper issue, which is that I will not be treated like a child, to be stuck in the naughty corner. That is, at least to me, completely unacceptable. MalleusFatuorum18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Malleus, all of Wikipedia's finest editors are forced to live in the naughty corner. Would you know anyone elsewhere. Rather like going to Heaven, it's all very well, but would one like the people. Giacomo 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that over the last day or so, since this storm in a teacup erupted. Despite what some have embedded in their wooden skulls I actually have a great deal of respect for quite a few administrators, although admittedly not into the high hundreds, and almost without exception they're the ones who actually write stuff. There's something rotten in the State of Denmark. MalleusFatuorum19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was on Glee the other day. Even though I woke up like 45 minutes ago, it's slow going for things making sense. That makes none and surely I would be mocked mercilessly for providing song lyrics (preferably ABBA or something similarly sublime) as a reason for making a block. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... I've also been wondering whether this is some kind of a record. An editor blocked twice during an FAC for which they are a co-nominator/nominator? MalleusFatuorum19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.. whereas you on the other hand need no encouragement at all to keep prodding and poking. Please go away and try to pick on someone your own size next time, another admin let's say. Let's see how brave you are then; I'm just easy meat. MalleusFatuorum19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That time has passed; there are still no heads on spikes, and I'm no longer prepared to work in an environment where I'm treated like a naughty child. MalleusFatuorum22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an attorney who works juvenile court, I don't even treat naughty children like naughty children, so let your heart be at peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Malleus' point is valid. Content editors are often treated like children and admonished for not following such and such rule or policy. This was the case here. Malleus was correct about where to place a citation, and he was actually improving an article - for that he gets blocked. I think we should organize a content editor strike and just hang around talk pages and chat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly cut down on the FAC nominations, which would mean you would have more time to—have more time to—OK, it's a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus was just caught up in a bad faith nomination by Cirt; Malleus's "crime" was that he failed to appreciate that no matter what he did to the page, Cirt would continue criticising and demanding. It was supposed to be me that lost my cool and be banned - there the trap failed but caught Malleus instead, but no Admin was bright enough/wanted to see that. GWH should loose his tools for causing all this trouble. Giacomo 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't going to succeed unless you let them, so stop wearing your heart on your sleeve. John's misread of your intent, motivations and post is apparent to anyone who can read. Try to consider this hopefully a good heads up for admins to stop their childish squabbling at AN/I and start paying attention, and maybe even a chance for FAR to begin to turn around, because the trend there needs to be reversed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you are prostituting yourself by labouring in the WP salt mine?
So you are probably paid in some Wikipedia-only currency, like kobo or stotinki?
How do the rest of us get paid for enduring the physical and mental abuse? Varlaam (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (on Phobos)[reply]
Just great. I try to launch a Newlywed-type game to see who knows me best (guess the 11 out of 20), and I'm pre-empted by Martian sex workers. I guess I'll go badger Moni's TPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, let's see, Sandy or Martian sex workers ... Sandy or Martian sex workers ... how are you on those leather harness things?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone calling out "Hey, Martian sex worker" is something I would totally dream. Or maybe it was me calling that out in the dream. Because the rest of that 8-hour mystery is trying to figure out why I would want to know who the Martian is and how hookers on Mars might be able to stay financially afloat. What kind of clientele do they have? Or maybe I want to know why someone is mistaking me either for a Martian or a hooker. In any case, it's a dream I would wake from completely exhausted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the categories at the bottom of my user page. Someone (I forget who) thought it would be amusing to add some after I made a comment to the effect that if X was true then I was a Chinese whore from Mars. Which I'm not btw, well, not Chinese anyway. MalleusFatuorum20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I have been an anonymous admirer of your work for some time, and thought now would be a good time to express my gratitude and admiration for what you do. I have been chewing on the "Andrew Sledd" biography for some time, and have spent considerable time and effort finding good sources for the content. It is currently rated as a GA, and I would be grateful for your suggestions to improve it in whatever wiki forum you think is most appropriate. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that wikipedia and I, or at least wikipedia's police force and I, do not at the moment see eye to eye, so I can't help. Why not ask one of the administrators? MalleusFatuorum23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A project written by educated adults policed by school kids cannot possibly succeed. Something fundamental needs to change to here, and until it does you can count me out. MalleusFatuorum23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, it is not news that this place isn't run properly. You've known that for ages. Hang with Ealdgyth for a while or something, she will keep you out of trouble! ;) Anyway, these guys don't have that much power. While you don't need to do things that produce tension with those guys, even if you do ... well ... the blocks aren't even sticking these days. You'd essentially be giving them victory when they are nowhere near it. Stick with it! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Agree. Malleus, there are massive problems on Wiki, but you are one of the editors who puts highly visible content on the mainpage. The remaining 99% of the Wiki isn't something any of us should lose sleep over, and you certainly shouldn't let that remaining 99% influence your decisions! It has always been true that 1% of Wiki articles are worth reading-- why worry yourself about the rest out there? If other editors who put up Wiki's best work had a problem with you, I might see it differently. You are known by the company you keep, and you keep company with the editors who are putting forward Wiki's best work. Avoid the lowest common denominator effect! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with Malleus. He was improving an article - he made many edits, but his efforts were denigrated. When he - OMG! - used a bad word he was blocked! Either this project is about writing and writers are allowed to write, or it's not about writing and instead about pushing personal agendas. I think it's become about pushing personal agendas and has ceased to be about writing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that John should start the RfC that he's obviously so determined to have. Who knows, it may even teach him a lesson that he otherwise seems to be incapable of learning. On the other hand it may expose wikipedia's governance as the dishonest sham that it is. Who can tell. MalleusFatuorum00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I have only the vaguest of vague notions what the heck is going on here, but I beg you not to desert the ship. In my brief time here, I've seen some extraordinary rudeness and a great deal of smug superiority, all in users who seem to get away with it no matter how insulting, and ultimately discouraging to others, their behavior becomes. I am surprised you got blocked and chastistied; I hadn't realized sarcasm was a criminal offense here. I confess to having been both exasperated and sarcastic on occasion. Should I be worried? The admins seem to be a bit, shall we say, humorless? I do hope you will come by the Salem Witch Trials page next week (how apropos) to see the progress I'm hoping to have made by then, and tell me what you think (including criticising as necessary). You have been only kind and helpful to me (I hope this doesn't shock the Administrators too much), and I am grateful for the support you've shown. Take care. --TEHodson02:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Malleus - do not allow these ridiculously naive, small town Admins another victory. We have seen their attitude drive off too many of the better editors already - we can't afford to lose any more. Giacomo 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not write, help others to write, or review another article here unless and until I see a clear understanding from the admin corps that they must treat non-admins with respect, not as naughty children to be punished with blocks, but I'm not holding my breath. Until then I shall continue to point out the hypocrisy of wikipedia's governance wherever I see it until the admin hyenas and their followers finally have their way and I'm banned, like so many others before me. MalleusFatuorum22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest I don't think that many really care about what's going on here, so I doubt it. All I know is that I do, and this is all that I can do. MalleusFatuorum22:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was naive. Giano, who's been around a lot longer than me, had it exactly right. This wasn't about the article, it was about targetting specific editors. I have it in my my mind to call a General Strike of content editors at the village pump, but I'm sure that the prissy GWH would only block me again if I did. MalleusFatuorum23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what would happen, I'd end up blocked again, but that's never stopped me yet. Let me think about it, and if you have any thoughts please share them. MalleusFatuorum23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A strike is a nice idea Malleus, but do you think any of them even notice or read your work here? This diff concerning my last block a few months ago might amuse you - it was made by one our esteemed Arbs - the ignorance of what goes on on the shop floor is quite staggering. [5]. No, withholding your labour towards content will not bother them one little jot - the only thing that bothers them is pointing out the their gross stupidity and ignorance. Giacomo 23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, let me sleep on it. That is not a bad idea at all - not a bad idea at all. Trouble is they would stop you co-ordinating it here and I don't like secret/private mailing lists, but something has got to be done, I agree. These people have had plenty of chances to change - suggestions of little comitteees to look into it (which is what they will offfer) are too late now - I think we have to get a bit militant now and get rid of the worst of them. The question is how. Giacomo 23:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They could try and stop it, but that would make them look even worse than they currently do. Anyway, sleep on it and see what you think tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum23:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine to talk about whatever you want on a talkpage. After all look at the discussions I've been having with Sandy recently. I think this is a good idea. There are very few good content editors, and if the quality content drops off, well then ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure my insane posts open me up to criticism and jabs, but WTH-- I figure it's "part of my job" to watch out for FAC reviewers and FA writers being abused of, so too bad if I use talk pages for trying to cheer them along until "the muse strikes" or motivation returns again. I embarass myself, but the worst part is that Moni always shows up my drab sense of humor :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here long enough to know that admins make up their own rules and ignore them when they find them inconvenient, and so have you. I really do think that we need to do this, because something has to change here. Either the admins chase all of us writers away, or we chase all the bad admins away. I see no no other alternatives here. MalleusFatuorum23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far more than the number of incompetent administrators who've left, which is neglible. User:Ottava Rima springs immediately to mind; a sometimes difficult editor who did far more for wikipedia's literature articles than the clowns who banned him could ever imagine. MalleusFatuorum00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here we approach a gray area. Along with User:Ottava Rima, User:Mattisse was a massive content and review contributor who could be disruptive. Both editors bore grudges and made life difficult for other Wikipedians, including other content contributors. Both editors are now banned. Content contribution is not per se an excuse for disruptive behaviour, and dismissing those who carefully deliberated and imposed these bans as "clowns" does no service towards improving the encyclopedia or conditions for future content contributors. Geometry guy00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear gray to you, but it doesn't to me. I don't want to get into yet another argument with an administrator though, so I'll leave you to believe whatever you like. MalleusFatuorum00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How sad. Good luck with your content strike/plan to quit WP/or any future endeavours you undertake. I wish you well and hope one day you won't see things in such black-and-white terms (admin/non-admin) and will look back on such cynicism and bitterness with a wry smile. Geometry guy00:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been off digging around a bit. I think it would be more useful to know of people who just quietly left - as I almost did a few days ago. I'm fairly fed up, to the point that I won't edit, and I can't imagine I'm the first to have felt that way. I was an inch away from being out the door. I wouldn't just look at the high profile editors who have been banned, but those who contributed and are now gone, for whatever reason. If that makes any sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones who leave quietly nobody notices; you should leave kicking and screaming. I havent looked, but it might be instructive to look at WP:WBFAN and investigate why so many of them no longer contribute. MalleusFatuorum01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Truthkeeper88's question, there is indeed Ottava Rima (I too found him difficult, but there is no denying he wrote) and User:Geogre. It's Geogre's which I think was the most awful driving off; a deliberate and calculated act of spite by Arbs playing to the peanut gallery who vote for them. He (like Bishonen) write some of the most thorough and intelectual English lit pages on the site. Like Malleus, Geogre objected to be humiliated like a naughty child. Ironically, he and Rima did not like each other either, but their combined absence has left the English Lit department rather emprty. Bishonen holding the fort alone. Yet our masters did not once stop and think is the English literature department important? No, I doubt they even know what it is. They really need to wise up and see just how intelectuals behave in their university common rooms - squabbles over philosophy and ownership of the last biscuit are commonplace. If you want a great intelectual, you have to accept that - not humiliate them like a child - or they leave. This is the ignorance we are up against here and why non-writing 14 year olds towing the party line are given greater respect and positions of power than those writing the project. Giacomo 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My speciality is American lit, not English, but that area seems fairly under-represented here. I wonder how many people care that school kids and college students really do turn to Wikipedia - if not to plagiarize, then as a stepping stone to decent sources. My recent foray into improving a lit article ended in shambles and proves to me that content is secondary to control and perhaps agenda. Either that changes or I leave. In the meantime, I don't edit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Malleus Fatuorum, I wanted to express my apologies to you, if you thought that my use of the word "lazy" in this comment at FAR [6] was meant to be applied to you. It was not. That was not my intention. I have stricken that part of my comment [7]. I am sorry. I will try not to use the word "lazy" in comments on Wikipedia discussion-pages in the future - as you are correct that such a word could be taken the wrong way. Once again, I am sorry that my comment was misconstrued in such a fashion. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<stern Mother Bear voice on> Knock it off, Malleus, and get back in the saddle. The damage is *not* done. You may have lost the battle, and those unjust blocks on your record must be painful, but you won the war-- I like to think that because of this incident, more people are finally aware of your concerns about double standards wrt civility and admins, and perhaps this incident was helpful in that respect. (I do not intend for my analogy to further BATTLEGROUND on Wiki, but it seems the most appropriate analogy for the situation.) Must I put on my humor hat to find a way to cheer you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's not going to happen. You also know my story of how long I had to wait for justice to be done when I was attacked years ago on Wiki. Patience, cricket. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This state of affairs is is not just an attack, it is an attack by an entire culture of naivity and medioctrity. A culture that is sanctioned and positively encouraged by certain members of the Arbcom and above - nothing is going to change in the near future, if at all because it is caused by character trait in people who join this project with the sole intention of becoming Admins rather than those who join with the intention of writing - with a few rare exceptions the two types do not seem to manifest themselves in the same person - and Wikipedia deliberatly gives all the power to one group and none to the other - it's how thse people keep themselves on top. It's a fucking awful system that allows the like of GWH to descend from Olympus issue unjust blocks on a whim, fuck off back to Olymous and leave the workers to mop up the mess - without even a hint of public criticism of his actions from those on high - the workers here are treated worse than rubbish. Giacomo 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but because this was such a painful incident for MF, he is not seeing the forest for the trees (my battle analogy). I suggest that the vantage point of time will show this incident to be a turning point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus has been a bullied victim - that is not in doubt, but there are two sorts of victim, those who accept it and those who do not. Malleus belongs in the latter category, one can only be kicked so many times and then it's time to start kicking back and giving the bullies a bloody good battering, the Cirts and GWHs of this project have had it their own way for far too long - it's time it was their noses that were bloodied and they received back a little of the treatment that they are so keen to dish out. Giacomo 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, patience is the wiser course, but then I'm a pollyanna-- YMMV. It is utterly true that, if you kick back on Wiki, the system advantages the admins, and punishes the content contributors, and your actions will not fare well with the arbs. It is true that all editors are not equal on Wiki, and that is one of many reasons I have never wanted to be an admin-- I want to be one of the common folk who must follow the rules. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well, as far as our superiors are concerned the peasants have always been revolting. And it's time the peasants rolled out a few tumbril - and I know who ought to be top of the passenger list. Giacomo 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't doubt that John has already managed to once again misunderstand what's being said and has come up with yet another of his increasingly fantastic misinterpretations. MalleusFatuorum18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think hes that thick. He is that obstinant. He should take out a patent on the grand auld baiting technique. But its all part of the fun, for him. God knows hes been years hammering out the same old tune, and is tired and old enough for PD. In my kinder moments I think we all have a reason. But I have doubt myself too every so often. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that he's repeatedly demonstrated himself to be on the lower end of the thickness scale, but of course I'm not a demi-god like he is, so one of us could be wrong. And of course only one of us likely to be blocked for stating the truth. MalleusFatuorum02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do it but many others do. The official line is that deleting something from your talk page shows that you've read it, and is allowed by whatever laughably passes for rules here on wikipedia. Personally I just think it's rude and petty, but what do I know. MalleusFatuorum18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are (armwave) a million regular contributors to Wikipedia, many or perhaps most of them not very good. If the best thousand of them run off to a concealed valley in Colorado, the project as a whole will not notice, and the thousand will be denied the enjoyment that spurred them to contribute in the first place. PhGustaf (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Malleus, I have slept on this. I don't think a strike would work. Strikes can only succeed if something desirable or necessary is witheld. Here, serious, quality content is deemed to be neither. Even if the strike held and were to be commented on in the press, even the appaling Wikipedia PR machine would have no trouble pointing out that 2 million pages a day on computer games and mastubatory objects were still being churned out by 14 year olds in Boisse. The way to obtain a result is by threatening something they hold dear, and that is their power. We have the Arb elections coming up in a few weeks and several places up for grabs - and there are Admin elections daily; I think we need to make all of these about content - who knows - we might from this moment onwards suddenly see the 1000s of Admins and Arbs frantically scrabbling to write long serious pages - or even reading content and knowing who writes what. No the Arb elections are the best and most public way to handle this. We could even put up a candidate! Giacomo 08:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt they would, but I have been called a troll before. We need to strike where it hurts most and that is their power games - we should start playing them too. Let the Arb elections be about dedication to improving the value of the encyclopedia not about vainglorious titles and strutting about like robo-cop. Giacomo 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's anything new in this idea, Giano. I can't recall any time that Karanacs, I or both of us put forward a content contributor at RFA who didn't pass with resoundingly high success. And for two years, I've been putting up an ArbVote page that values content contributors over clerks or squabbling children at AN/I, and most of those I endorsed passed. How about writing a guideline or essay page on the topic to see where it goes? Malleus's recent set of blocks provide a good example. Also, the real problem with ArbCom elections is getting those who truly understand content contributions to run-- Slp1 is my best candidate, but she refuses to subject herself, same for MastCell. Perhaps another approach to this is to find some excellent content contributors with proven responsibility in admin decisions and convince them to run. I suggest badgering Slp1 and MastCell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) Well, my point is that content contributors are valued at RFA, and have no problem getting through. Perhaps I should resurrect my list of excellent and conscientous editors who refuse to subject themselves to RFA so we can all badger them :) Problem is, there's an admin shortage, and we should fill that gap with adults who understand why we're here. Elcobbola, Ealdgyth, Colin, Kablammo ... etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both as for RFA and for other things as well: to use my favorite FA subject's favorite quote, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the next few lines, which don't get quoted as much: " Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength." Words to live by.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) My favourite quote is one I use on patriots who question others' loyalty, for not being patriotic enough; "My honour is loyalty".Ning-ning (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, incidentally, that content contributors have little trouble with RfA, I've found that when people bring personal grudges or totally unfounded accusations against such a candidate, they get laughed at by the supporters. I've asked Brianboulton to consider running, he is not willing. Besides, what is this with the sudden effort to corrupt perfectly honorable content contributors by putting them through RfA? Won't they inevitably turn to the Dark Side and start blocking Malleus?--Wehwalt (talk)
Well, that raises another interesting point-- even when good content contributors become admins, they are good precisely because they are unlikely to weigh in on the childish squabbles at ANI, since they are ... ummmm ... busy writing content! But I say we still need them in the admin corp, and in general, if more content contributors would weigh in more frequently at ANI (regardless of their admin status), we might see that useless three-ring circus turn around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, though they are unlikely to agree with each other, at least there will be more reasoned dialogue! But despite your choice of content contributors on ArbComm, and despite the recent decision which was quite good in my agreement, this year's ArbComm has done little to stop the brushfire wars sweeping through the wiki. Kinda of a dead loss, actually, the content contributors have not led to a better quality of decision on ArbComm, and they've been lost as content contributors, too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting jealous over the growing list of MF's cats. On ArbCom, I was surpised by the input in one case from one content contributor I endorsed, but not surprised by the input of one I didn't endorse. In general, it would help if we had more content contributors, and that has been my thrust at Arb elections, but getting more content contributors on arbcom doesn't guarantee good outcomes in those cases-- methinks there is one helluva lot of tussling backchannel among the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I understand that ArbComm must keep some things confidential, but they should release what discussions they can, perhaps after a period of time. And I'm tired of 8-0 votes. What ever happened to dissenting opinions?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being terribly curious about how they allowed one case to get so badly off-track, and hope they whichever arb drove that debacle was sufficiently embarassed backchannel at the end result. I know for dernsure we were all surprised at one SPI result (I recall spilling wine on my rug that night-- I should learn to drink properly if I'm going to drink now and then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sold that white rug; now when I need to celebrate or unwind, I bug Moni's TPS or engage in other vices, since drinking will apparently not be one of mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned a few new vices from my band friends. My brother did the same thing with a white rug from my father's house, I think they eventually got it out but they sold the rug when they renovated.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yerse, I usually am (said without a hint modesty), but that does not mean you have to leave - does it? I need some moral support here, and you help provide it - I refuse to be bossed about by a bunch of kids and power-crazed adolescents. The way to acheive that is get rid of them, not leave oneself. I know I have walked away a few times but I've always come back because I hate not winning - and I usually do, just sometimes it takes a little longer than I would like. I hope you feel the same way and come back some time soon. Giacomo 06:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the more you're blocked for nonsense and the longer that goes on without sanctions being applied to the blockers, the more sensible your argument appears. Fuck em. Parrotof Doom10:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un cœur d' homme; il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.
Ignore me. Sorry. Not been to this page for ages and just read some of the above. I feel for you Malleus. Have a break. Have a tit-tat - erm, I mean a rest. I will bother someone else for my copy-edit. Sorry to bother you. Stay cool --Senra (Talk) 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more...)
Yea, we made it! Rather than trying to keep up with the vandalism during TFA, I just do a diff on the before and after versions, keep the good, and chuck the bad. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slamming the stable door
The irony nver fails to amuse me, how clever Wikipedia is at slamming a stable door, after a horse has bolted [9]. The problem is that even then, they never secure that door properly, so as a consequence the new horses eventually bolts too. In a well run stable yard, doors would be properly maintained in a badly run yard it is botch and tie with string rather than buy new wood and some nails. Giacomo 07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm plagiarizing an idea someone else gave me, but ... admins have their noticeboard, crats have one, arbs have their place for discussion, but Wiki's most prolific content contributors do not. The community of editors who work to put top content on the mainpage are generally unaware when the FAs among the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" are being damaged-- either by POV pushers, style crusaders, trivia fans, or whatever. Why don't we start a content contributors noticeboard, and police it by removing all those childish admin squabbles to talk? It would give those who do know how to write content a place to address numerous issues that many admins aren't capable of or interested in addressing, 'crats won't take on because it's not their job, and arbs have been less than successful at addressing, partly because they don't do content disputes and partly because some of them just don't get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for now, it looks like Malleus' talk page may be the clearing house ... I do hope he appreciates that something has come of the debacle that affected him :) Some examples of how this board might be useful come to mind (based on ... ummmm ... recent events and other):
Image review-- there are very few knowledgeable image reviewers, and I'm sick and tired of having to ping them-- it would provide a clearing house for nominators once all else is cleared on the nom, where they can request an image review.
RSN deals with basic reliability, but FA writers familiar with the higher standards per 1c don't congregate there-- it would provide a place for FA-specific RS queries.
Many reviewers support FACs that do not have RS clearance-- it would provide a place to notify other reviewers that more feedback is needed. Ditto for independent review.
Style crusaders cause lots of problems on FAs (see RelHistBuff, infoboxes, color, date-delinking, changes in citation style, etc ad nauseum). The MOS talkpage is a nightmare, so we could use a clearing house, and it would help us all know when inexperienced editors are causing deterioration in an FA. Recent style changes in an FA come to mind-- by the time the FAR was over, it was a fait accompli that could have been avoided if more FA writers had been aware.
The recent query at WT:FAC about size on Shakespeare could have gone to this board.
So, it occurs to me that we can make a case for the board being needed and useful. And I'd like the fact that we might be able to police it better than ANI, where every 12-yo Tom Dick and Harry can weigh in with uninformed commentary. We'd just move off-topic nonsense to talk, as we do at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm, I am thinking about what you say - it does seem very FA and FAR centred - good content extends far beyond that these days - I am far from being the only content editor who has turned away from it and created my own standards. What was the name of a proposed committee some time ago - I was asked to be on it, and all hell broke loose and the idea fell through before it got off the ground - even after I said I would resign - can anyone remember? I can't. Giacomo 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the name either-- the Kirill proposal that led to his resignation, that I was also asked to be on. It was utterly ridiculous that it led to such a kerfuffle, and I seem to remember that Mattisse fed those flames (I could be wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
