User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

• Manchester Mark 1 promoted to FA 28 September 2010
• Manchester computers promoted to GA 23 September 2010
• Trafford Park promoted to FA 9 September 2010
• Hyde F.C. failed at GAN 5 September 2010
• Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted to FA 7 August 2010
• Manchester United F.C. promoted to FA 27 July 2010
• 1910 London to Manchester air race promoted to FA 1 June 2010
• 1996 Manchester bombing promoted to GA 17 March 2010
• Chadderton promoted to FA 2 February 2010
• Rochdale Town Hall promoted to GA 26 January 2010

Buildings and architecture of Bath - help with GAN comments

Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can, but probably not until tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had a minute could you take a look at the latest criticisms re grammar at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1 and offer any edits or comments re: "The lede as currently written is awkwardly written and difficult to parse. It's too long and there are too many commas, most of which are grammatically incorrect.", "The third sentence is also awkward and tortured and seems to be missing a verb, unless the article is claiming that the buildings themselves were sentient and actively "formed" the streets.", "There are numerous basic spelling and grammatical errors in the body of the article. For example, "however" is misused in the very first sentence of the body. The word doesn't mean "but"; it means "on the other hand". It's a common mistake in UK English but it's still a mistake." etc.— Rod ^talk 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum North

Hello there. I'm sure you're busy, but was wondering if you'd be interested in GA reviewing Imperial War Museum North? I think it's come along a fair bit in the last six weeks or so. Best regards. --IxK85 (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to yeah. I've seen you doing some great work on it over the last few weeks. Let me know when you've nominated it at WP:GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Duly nominated. Look forward to your comments. --IxK85 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be right along. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, just a line to say cheers for taking the time - much appreciated. --IxK85 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility blocks again

Any proposed wording I can add to User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as it is. I don't think anyone takes my views on civility or civility blocks seriously anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus; feel free to copyedit that page if you see any of my ... ummmm ... usual :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, feel free to correct any of my typos anywhere you encounter them (which is just about everywhere, except on pr/aring :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your improvement of my inadequate writing during multiple copyedits of Overman Committee. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Did yer like that?

I'm about to nominate Fred Dibnah at GAN (the waiting list is long enough for me to tidy up the last few bits), and wondered if you wouldn't mind having a quick read and telling me your thoughts? Parrot of Doom 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I can't imagine you'll have too much trouble at GAN with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my main concern really is the amount of text that's sourced from the Hall book. I use Amazon a lot to buy books for £0.05, I'll see if they have any more Fred books I can nab. What do you think about the bit at the end, where his estate is valued? Bad taste? I'm not sure its relevant unless I include the stuff about his last wife being cut out of his will, and since nobody but Fred knows (or maybe he wasn't thinking straight) about that, I can't see it ever being included. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always on the lookout for cheap books at Amazon as well. Can hardly remember the last time I paid for a new one. I don't see a problem with giving the value of his estate; it's even given in his ODNB entry, which you could also use as a source for his mother's maiden name of Travis, which I notice is currently commented out as uncited. It's probably in the wrong place though, better as the closing sentence of the Death section I think. I don't see a problem with the reliance on Hall either; it's not as if any of this stuff is contentious. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Buttock Mail

This article seems kind of fun and might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up. Any suggestions for suitable images? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How did the terms buttocks go from referring to a prostitute to another name for a person's backside? Is there a connection to bullocks? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the OED it was the other way round. Buttock was first recorded in the modern sense in 1300, but it wasn't used to describe a prostitute until 1673. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with bollocks, which is a relatively recent word, dating from 1940. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Most disapointing sir! Bollocks is far far older - at least fourteenth century and likely older. Even Wikipedia is reasonably up on the history and etymology of the word! Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's bollock, not bollocks. At least according to the OED anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're blocked for being to clever Mr. MF! Seriously, I didn't realise the singluar was a different word stem. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mal, do you have any good sources on the origins of pissing contests and ego battles? A new article I started is under fire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Three hours after you started the article it's up for deletion. Classic! A good place to start would be the OED. Do you have access to the online version? Seems to be a surprisingly modern term, dating from 1943. The slang dictionary would also be worth a look, for starters. There's also an entry in the Canadian English Dictionary. Should be pretty easy to save this article I think; I'll help if you like. Needs a picture though. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha great minds think alike, I was about to add a photorequest to the talk page. :) How do I access the OED online? You're welcome to help of course, but if it's not a subject that interests you, no worries. I was curious about the terminology and was surprised that it wasn't included. I did notice that previous versions were deleted via the old "not a dictionary" trope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're a member of a subscribing public library, then just type in your library card number here. Personally I'd dump the "big ego" stuff and concentrate on "pissing contest". There's no obvious connection between the two terms, and attempting to make one will inevitable draw citicism of OR. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. One never knows (or at least I never do) how these things will evolve once they're launched. Should battle of egos be its own article then? I think so. Although they do seem closely related to me. What about beating one's chest, strutting one's stuff, peacocking, etc. I thought it could cover the subject somewhat broadly. Is there an overarching descriptor? I will have to ponder this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely separate out battle of egos. You're inevitably going to be charged with OR for making a link between it and pissing contest. You'd probably be surprised how much can be said just about the historical usage of pissing contest. It may never be a big article, but it could well become a comprehensive one. None of the other terms you mention derive from a schoolboy game, which is a theme that the article obviously needs to explore. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not "sweat" the deletion discussion. I have faith. ;) And if an article on that particular a notable and intersting topic is deleted (which I think is highly unlikely) it will live happily in my userspace until such time as common sense makes its triumphant return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloween 2009

		The Halloween 2009 Limited Edition Barnstar
		For your work on the Manchester Mummy article, which was featured on this year's Halloween themed main page and contributed a lot to its success. Keep up the good work :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

I took the liberty of improving the image for this article. There's a closer shot here if you have the space for it. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the improvised appearance of File:SSEM Manchester museum close up.jpg. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting the naked ebay kettle man in the CRT :D Parrot of Doom 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Brady

I haven't watched it, but apparently this is quite good. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool Town Hall

I've had a go at expanding this article and wonder if it's anywhere near suitable for submission as a GAC. If you have time, would you have a look at it and advise? And if it is fit enough, maybe a little copyediting too; it's been surprisingly difficult to make a lucid article from the sources. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats +

If I'm reading the article traffic pages correctly the Manchester Mummy article was viewed by about 84,000 folks over the last 2 days. Thanks for your work, congratulations, and the above barnstar is well deserved! I checked for vandalism 4-5 times during the night and noticed that there wasn't very much and that it was being handled pretty well.

I noticed a minor disagreement today on the article between you and User:Piledhigheranddeeper and, without taking sides, will note that Piled is a very good editor in general.

Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Piled and I probably need to discuss the issue of safety coffins on the article's talk page, but I'll take some persuading that a development almost 40 years after Hannah Beswick was embalmed is relevant to her story. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great stuff. You have definitely topped anything I've produced in terms of hits. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed a certain lane of gropeage then :) Parrot of Doom 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but I didn't produce that one either. :P I think I also applauded the popularity back then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

PoD and I are just populists, we pander to the lowest common denominator; prostitution, serial murderers, witches, and right-wing politicians a speciality. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

J3Mrs again I'm afraid

Hi Malleus, You were very helpful with the Tyldesley article and as I now have crammed just about everything I know into Leigh, Atherton and Astley, the townships that made up the old Leigh Parish, I wondered if you would be so kind as to cast your eye over them for me. I think I'd do the GA thing again if you thought any of them close enough. I think I am sufficiently recovered to try it again, (famous last words) No rush, it was just a thought. Cheers --J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a first look through Leigh and let a few notes on your talk page. I'll take a look at the other two over the next day or so. I was wondering, since Leigh is pretty well known locally for the cat and dog's home, whether or not that ought to be included. It's been the subject of several investigations for illegally putting down retired greyhounds if I recall correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea about the cat & dog's home ???? By the way I nominated it. Not the cat & dog's home. I think Astley & Atherton needs some pics, so a visit might be necessary--J3Mrs (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

The cat and dog's home has been in the press repeatedly over that greyhound issue. There was even a Sunday Times expose.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I, and fingerpuppet, have addressed most of the issues you so kindly listed, and once again thanks. The cats and dogs thing, where on earth would I put it? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In the economy section, as they seemed to make quite a bit of money from their scam? </joke> More seriously, what about the Landmarks section? I'm not necessarily saying you need to include anything about the animal sanctuary at all, I'll leave that for you to decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would only stir up the railway station brigade, oh and the Wigan doing down brigade, and the live in Lancashire brigade so I'm not going down that route :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page

[2]--Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Beeblebrox and the ANI report

I have made the point on ANI that calling established editors trolls is not civil and not an appropriate way to comment on a dispute.

However - that point made - your behavior on Beeblebrox' talk page was atrocious.

We expect that editors will treat each other with respect. Wikipedia as a project fails when people are abusive and rude. It degrades the quality of conversation for everyone involved, does not help solve any problems in any way, and drives people away from the project. It's not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

Please consider this a formal warning against future provocative or uncivil behavior.

We count on editors being adults and treating each other that way. Our policies expect and demand it. Please respect Beeblebrox and other editors as human beings and treat them as such.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think any repetition of edits like this would be a good idea. Please don't do any more stuff like this, as I know you are a good content editor. Why not get on with editing content? Anyway, just a friendly warning, as I probably wouldn't block you myself, but somebody else inevitably will. Then we will have even more drama, all of which takes away time from volunteers... Just please don't, ok? --John (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find that very patronising. I do not find it acceptable for anyone to alter any posting of mine, much less abusively as Beeblebrox did, and then edit war to keep the abusive version, especially an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, the rules for User Talk pages appear to be a bit different from those for "public" Talk pages (on articles, guidelines, Wikiprojects, etc.) As far as I can see, the User gets the last word on his/her Talk page - unless you can make of charge of some sort of misconduct at the User Talk page stick. If you can't, you'd be making yourself liable to charges of misconduct.

Of course the same rules make it possible for you to copy diffs or the actual words at your own Talk page. Since your Talk page is one of the better known ones, your point of view will be noted. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules, just open season on anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Beeblebrox's behaviour was appalling, but I'm the one all the admins come to warn. Pathetic. For anyone who doesn't know, this is what I was objecting to. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think that Georgewilliamherbert is talking out of his arse. The truly "atrocious" behaviour was in Beeblebrox deliberately and abusively altering my posting. He's entitled to remove it from his own talk page, I agree, but not to alter it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice cup of tea, Malleus. If you think Beeblebrox is distorting your words, report your intepretation calmy and concisely on your own Talk, with diffs and add then post a note to Beeblebrox, including one diff that summarises the post on your Talk - and then drop it. Tactically I think you'll at least break even. --Philcha (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got no further interest in Beeblebrox or what Georgewilliamherbert or anyone else thinks. The facts of the matter are plain enough for anyone to see. That so many appear so willing to call my behaviour "atrocious" while ignoring the at least as "atrocious" behaviour of an administrator speaks volumes; no need for me to say anything else on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Karanacs did the decent thing, for which I thank her. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see you being harassed by these abusive and bullying admins Malleus. Clearly these are desperate characters trying to defend the indefensible. Refactoring another editor's comments to change what they said is obviously totally inappropriate. That anyone, let alone an admin, would try to defend that kind of misconduct is deeply troubling. That these individuals are choosing to take the side of an admin who repeatedly made edits to preserve a dishonest change that mirespresented what you said is shocking. I guess it's no more disgusting than the defenses being made for disruptive and incompetent admins who find it appropriate to make a point of their drug abuse. The disruption and damage they're doing should be stopped. But it seems that many of the most uncivil and brutish thugs are at the controls of this project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • They are what they are, hardly worth bothering with, nothing can be changed here now. What I find even more irritating though is the simple-minded credulity evidenced by comments like this, so reminiscent of flies circling a lump of bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I had seen a couple threads there full of trolling and drama mongering. Of course the trolls and drama mongers there are shouting and pointing their fingers at the whistle blowers and scape goats who dare expose admin incompetence and misbehavior. I guess it's just more of the same. Oh well. I hope you have a good week otherwise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty disgusting behaviour. I don't want such people having any kind of power on this project. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Too late. They already have it and there's no way they're going to give it up with a fight. Which all their friends and supporters will attempt to characterise as needless "drama". It's a corrupt system that without any checks and balances well suits corrupt individuals. --Malleus Fatuorum

I stand by my statement, and ask what constructive purpose this edit summary had? Soxwon (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What other explanation do you offer for Beeblebrox's repeated attempts to alter my posting? Ignorance? Malevolence? Stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you mean this statement? Since when was correcting an obvious error the action of a troll? It shocks me to see people defend such idiocy as that demonstrated by Beeblebrox. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@Malleus Your coy attitude fails to amuse, you know damn well the comment served no purpose other than to antagonize.

@Parrot of Doom Yes, this edit is obviously fixing a wrong and not stirring up trouble... Soxwon (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What I know damn well is that you have turned up here simply to goad me into making a comment that will give one of your chums an excuse to block me for incivility, pretty much the definition of trolling. I have to tell you though that it won't work, as I don't have even the slightest interest in anything else you have to say and will blank any further comments you make here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know Malleus pretty well from chatting to him for some months now, and I think you're flattering yourself with those comments. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And, in other news...

Thanks for your pre-FAC help, and your support, on the Nuffield buildings FAC, which has been closed today as "promote". Your generous use of your limited time to help me, and many others, improve our articles through copy-editing and reviewing at GAN and FAC is fantastic. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that is good news. Well done and well deserved. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith assumption

Just so we are clear, I think that this is a disgraceful example of bad faith, and a bit of a fucking cheek, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read what I said again, with a dictionary if necessary, without missing out any of the words. Quite frankly I think that you ought to be looking very closely into why it is you're so intent on having an article written by someone you call your "agent provocateur" deleted. I understand though that the truth can often hurt, so I forgive you for your disgraceful outburst. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know CoM wrote the article, and it really doesn't matter whether he did or not. I am not the type to engage in that sort of petty drama, though it now appears that you are. I've had quite enough of your bad faith, your baseless insinuations and your mischaracterizations. I now see that you are basically acting as one of the antagonist's henchmen, rather than doing what is best for Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have accused you of nothing, but by your apparent outrage I'd say that you have accused yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't directly accuse me - that is true. But you suggested, twice, that my !vote (and subsequent comments) were based on who created the article. That is a clear assumption of bad faith. Then you had the audacity to suggest I remove myself from the discussion on the basis of your bad faith suggestion. Whether or not your insinuation was implicit or explicit, it was still inappropriate for an AfD discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

From those links, it's clear Malleus suggested others could question your motives, I don't see him saying he does. Unless you can read minds? Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to ignore it as being completely without merit. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could edit the OED. I'd change the hyperlink for irony to point to this discussion. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people still wouldn't get, they can only see what they want to see. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

No, you know very well that's not what I mean. "Opening a dialogue" by roundly attacking someone - and I'll point out again, without a shred of evidence for any of the accusations - is always going to end unproductively. Black Kite 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean; we just don't agree that voicing an objection to the actions of an administrator is the equivalent of "roundly attacking". Sadly too many here see any and all disagreement as harassment to be eliminated at all costs, a very unhealthy state of affairs. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always a point in between, though. There's a big difference between "You're wrong about this, and I think your actions have been unfair" and "You're an arrogant disruptive drama-mongering admin who should be blocked". To be honest, the latter is actually less likely to gain you any traction - I know I would just have ignored it. Black Kite 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We're probably struggling to agree. My general view is a Machiavellian one, that the rational person ought to act in the way most likely to achieve the desired outcome. When faced with intransigence though, as in this case, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. Also in general, I think things would go a lot more smoothly here if more people didn't take such comments so personally, and go running off to WQA or AN/I whenever someone upsets them. That's just part and parcel of everday life, sticks and stones. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with the last bit to an extent. Of course, that's partly because WP:CIV is a dense block of text that says nothing useful, and takes its time over it. And WP:NPA is even worse. Black Kite 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with that too. Contrary to popular opinion I'd be very much in favour of a clear and unambiguous NPA policy that was applied consistently, to both regular editors and administrators. I do though think that the present civility policy is a ridiculous and childish waste of space that shelters some of the worst of the abusive administrators, allowing them to block unpopular characters on the flimsiest of pretexts. Like using the word "sycophantic", for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit much ...

... when I have to post my own block notices.

01:14, 5 November 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=324002285)

Sloppy admining I call it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of action that brings civility blocks into disrepute. Durova³⁵⁷ 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they ever in repute? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking someone for 24 hours after having countless civility warnings for saying another editor has "shit for brains" brings civility blocks into disrepute? It is one thing hearing that sort of thing from the peanut gallery, but hearing it from someones whose work as an admin I respected is a bit disappointing. Our editors do not deserve to be abused and preventing such abuse is exactly why the community made civility a policy. Chillum 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically he said several people have shit for brains. Doesn't make civility blocks any more appropriate though. They're still stupid. Lara 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably then you'll be rushing off now to warn or block for "abusive drama-mongers"? Parrot of Doom 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'll get back with you tomorrow sometime about Longchamp... (gaze up) Good thing I got sick, huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a wikipedia for adults somewhere? I think I may have to go looking for it, 'cos I think this one stinks. --Malleus Fatuorum

Well, you could always join the Simple English Wikipedia. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop collecting chocolates, and make you and Ottava pay for my next visit to color my hair! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 4. I cursed over the last one. Hate that shit. Anyway, I edit conflicted with you to make basically the same post. Unprofessional to say the least, not to mention it is a pretty lame block as the comment wasn't really a personal attack and it sure as hell wasn't harassment. It's not even as if you were speaking untruths. Lara 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

People walked into my cube at exactly the wrong moment, for five minutes of important conversation. Not predictable ahead of time, or I'd have waited a b it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn co-workers, interrupting your wiki-time. You should complain to your boss about their insolence. Ask for a raise while you're at it. Lara 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, waiting a bit is not appropriate. Blocks are preventative after all and clearly things were getting way out of hand here and action was necessary immediately to protect the wiki. Lara 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right Lara; the project was clearly in imminent danger, I had to be brought back into line. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have been blocked. Bad dog! - is that better? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec * 4) For goodness sake Malleus, you can be so... exasperating. I'm more or less aware of your views about WP:CIVIL which i to some degree share, but you do appear to hate putting down the stick, and you are pretty formidable when you're waving it. Which seems, I don't know, kind of often. You are such a great editor, a source of amusing if at times terse commentary and an asset to WP. But if you want to be handed a special mop, why keep whacking people on the head with the one you've got, fully charged with dirty water? I'm all set for a support, but I just don't get why you can't resist the impulse to keep typing, when someone on the other end of it might not share your sense of humour! BTW this is not a comment on whether the block is/was appropriate. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused about Malleus' actual desires when it comes to adminship. Lara 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Sperm young Nicklin.jpg

Have a whale of a time.

I have no desires when it comes to adminship in truth, and certainly none to do with the self-aggrandizing glory that so many seem to feel goes with the job. My major motivation was the imminent trialling of flagged revisions, nothing else. I've got absolutely no interest in waving my willy around blocking other editors for using naughty words or arguing unpopular cases, for instance. So sue me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is a "willy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

here, but be warned, not safe for workplace consumption Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You sure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

SG: this might help. Kablammo (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I imagined; why are you not "wagging" it, MF? (And don't answer with any weird websites, because I haven't yet installed virus protection on my reconfigured computer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reference to his "porn star proportions". >_> Lara 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm, "porn star proportions" aren't all they're cracked up to be: I hope MF isn't bragging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I bed to differ... >_> Hhaah. But, the reference is one of my own where I once stated that Malleus is a "dick of porn star proportions". I was pointing out that he would not take offense to that just as I wouldn't (haven't?) take offense to him calling me a bitch. Lara 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ah, yes, it all comes back to me now ... one of your finer posts :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lara continues to deny her obvious typo. Not "is", but "has". --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. (Don't blame me; Kablammo's link led me there. "Even Kablammo"!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec*4 - crikey it's hard to get a word in edgewise here!)I'm well aware of some of the discussion from Malleus on this, but I don't think RfA is a good vehicle for irony or making a point. I was happy for it to be played with a straight bat and to give the guy a mop. I'm all in favour of mops being wielded by people who maintain a high bar before intervening on grounds of incivility, I just wish a slightly better example could be set. However, I'm hopeful that he will stick to his principles and wield the mop as light-handedly as he wishes others would do, whatever intemperate remarks he might make sometimes as an editor (sorry about talking about you in the 3rd person on your talk page, Malleus, and yes I know, you will probably point out that you don't regard the remarks as "intemperate" on the grounds that they were carefully thought out :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think you get it. :/ Lara 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<shrugs> It wouldn't be the first time. Groucho Marx made a remark about not wanting to belong to a club that would have him as a member. When it comes to administration and politics, there's something to be said for the opposite approach—to only give the job to someone who doesn't want it. I thought Malleus fitted that bill, but perhaps his post below suggests excessive enthusiasm for being helpful, so perhaps not :-) On an unrelated point, and having pottered around WP for a few years, I have a hard time discerning coherent policy control by an "administrator corps" (Malleus, below), but yes, I agree, the dohickeys shouldn't all be parcelled up together. But that is quite another discussion. Have a pint for me Malleus, and see you back at 'work' tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty hard to upset Hamiltonstone, and even when I am it's soon forgotten as I've got a rotten memory for stuff like that. But I didn't mean at all to imply that I would be "making a point", simply that the introduction of flagged revisions places an extra burden on administrators that I felt I might be able to help with. That's all. That the position comes laden with an increasing number of dohickeys that even most administrators don't understand is an unfortunate feature of the mediawiki software's inflexibility, or perhaps more likely the reluctance of the administrator corps to delegate authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some things need to be said. Whether those who ought to be listening want to hear it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No Malleus, some things need to be heard. I'm pretty sure that, once someone believes they are being placed in the category of 'shit for brains', they may, just possibly, not continue listening. Just a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a final thought for you. Once I've decided that someone's got shit for brains then I don't much care what they think. If they subsequently prove that there's intelligent life between their ears then I'll do as I always do, take people as I find them. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

this was a clear violation of WP:NPA. You know better than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

I've lived long enough to know a great many things GWH, one of which is that the greater fool is the one who argues with a fool. So I will not argue with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be a valid experiment, Malleus. For the next two weeks you and I post at the same number of Wikipedia conversations about civility and admin abuses explaining why we think someone's reasoning is faulty. I say in my normal respectful way, "Your reasoning is flawed." You say "editors here have shit for brains". At the end, let's see how many opinions I have changed with my statements, and how many have been changed with yours.

My hypothesis: you'll have gotten blocked 5 more times and caused the equivalent of a 10-car pileup. Several editors involved in your discussions will have re-evaluated their stance and will have shifted to moderate or outright against a civility policy that suppresses criticism. My comments will go ignored by all.

A tragedy on many levels. --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people climb over walls, some people break through them, some people circumvent the walls, and some just complain about them being there. The thing is in all situations, the wall existed to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean I didn't accomplish anything with that little chat on your talk? No more breaking walls, Ottava ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If any walls are broken because of me, it is because other people in the discussion have picked me up and used my head as a battering ram. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. Ottava is getting deep. I think he's trying to impress. ;)

Moni's hypothesis is close to perfect. But swap "blocked 5 more times" with "hauled to ArbCom, skipping the requisite RFC." Lara 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting point Moni3. For instance, women in Britain didn't get the vote by asking nicely for it, they got it by getting in the faces of authority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So literal do I take nonviolence that I consider harming with words and issuing insults to be the same. In fact, I was so good at it in my youth that I am paying penance by refusing to do it now. Women got the vote by chaining themselves to lightposts and prime ministers' carriages. People with AIDS got attention from the government by pretending to die in the streets. What's the verbal equivalent of chaining myself to the prime minister's carriage without slaughtering the horses and slinging arrows at the passengers? In what way will someone who cares about words be heard? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I make a distinction that I hadn't really thought about before. In face to face conversation I can see your body language, and I can react to that, as you can to mine. In this written medium though I have to make clear to you in words what I might otherwise be able to suggest in a facial expression or tone of voice. Hence I make no excuses for phrases like "shit for brains". Those who care about words need to consider how those who only understand a smack in the face can be made to listen to the subtle nuances of what you're trying to say.

BTW, there's a very famous video of one suffragette, Emily Davison, who rushed out in front of a horse at the Epsom Derby and was killed. Sometimes you have to be prepared to be killed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful mentioning "body language," you're going to get Ottava all worked up. It is true, though, that we do lack the ability to use gestures. Lara 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem dying (which I assume in our metaphor-laden discussion is getting blocked) or using the middle finger. Wikipedia itself is a middle finger to spun media, which deserves more than a finger. I think revolution is awesome as long as it expresses an honest truth and works to improve lives. But I can't look at these gentle hurting editors who are trying so hard to be taken seriously, so fragile, and call them idiots or fucktards...you get my drift. I don't mind shoving people, telling them to stand up, do something right, and have some integrity, but this fragility deafens and weakens people. They're trying so hard to be legitimate that all they respond to is idiot and shit for brains. Legitimacy demands forced confidence, which demands they never reconsider a decision or a statement. They're so desperate for respect that they are unable to give it. They give you effectiveness while simultaneously chastising you. While if the same was said in a forthright respectful way, it would be lost. --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond Moni3. Of course you're right, we should each of us do what whatever we can to help those who deserve our help, and I truly believe that I've done that consistently during my stay here. Others may disagree, but I'm happy in my skin. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a courtesy, as I'm not sure anyone else has mentioned it in posts here: your block is the subject of a discussion here. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw some mention elsewhere of the discussion, but I'd advise any sensible admin to stay well clear of unblocking. Being blocked doesn't bother me in the slightest, just more evidence of the corruption that is endemic here. No need for decent admins to get involved. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to an unblock request is one of the administrators functions. I have been informed through various venues that responding without such is considered undesirable. I shall watchlist your talk page, and respond in a fashion that I believe to be in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. I wish you all the best in any and all that you do. — Ched :  ?  04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Infamy, infamy, they've all got in for me." This is nothing Ched, nothing to make a fuss about. Just a couple of admins getting their own back. Happens every day. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

Many years ago, an man with honest intentions entered Parliament and almost succeeded in bringing the change that was needed. Like all honest men, he failed. But happy Guy Fawkes Day! By the way, weren't you supposed to run for RfA today? I guess the whole 24 hour block puts a damper on that.

Ironic, no? :) You have been Guy Fawked! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention Guy Fawking around Moni.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, 27 November was the day. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I like my version of your statements more. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, Bonfire Night would have been a good choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you dork, I already linked that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's twice now you've called me a dork. I'll have to drag your sorry ass to AN/I if you don't stop abusing and harassing me ... ah wait, I'm not an administrator, so it's OK to abuse and harass me. Sorry, I was dreaming there for a while.</joke> --Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You dork, there's nothing sorry about my ass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but I can't remember where I hid my flash drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mal is always trying to get pics of girly bits... men. Lara 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you can't blame me for trying! --Malleus Fatuorum 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When I find my flash drive, you'll be the first to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it in your aforementioned ass? Oh! Cha ching! I'll be here all the week... --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I like to keep that place free. Last I remember, I hid the flash drive in my sock drawer, but that was before my September trip, and the memory falters. Best I can do for Malleus is the Hanky Panky page where I order my intimates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'll have to drag your sorry ass to AN/I if you don't stop abusing and harassing me" Don't you have to be -not- blocked to do that? Oh! Burn! *flees!!!!!!* Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get one of my undisclosed alternate accounts to do it if SandyG steps out of line again. Apparently secret alternate accounts are de rigeur amongst administrators these days. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally, I figured you would be the Edward Gibbon to my Samuel Johnson in The Club, but if you are going to go all Guy Fawkes I guess I would have to be Robert Catesby. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt a common bond with Machiavelli. Catesby was an incompetent fop. You can be my Prince. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Catesby was an incompetent fop." Yes, and...? Haven't you paid attention to anything I do around here. incompetent and foppish are two words that fit. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll block her with my undisclosed alternate admin account. >_> I gotta get to work first, though. Lara 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Work? Darn you, Lara ... I was looking for someone to tell me what's up on IRC tonight. One of these days, I should figure out where or what that place is. But I suspect the real action is on Skype these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

*Smiles* the real action is at my blog, actually. Today's post just went live. Although if you ever feel like trying Skype just email for my ID; would be glad to bring you in. It's a wonderful venue for media content collaboration: set Photoshop to full screen, discuss technicals in voice, and trade screen shots. Cheers, Durova³⁵⁷ 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty impressive Durova. From a personal point of view though I wonder what leads these block idiots to believe that once my time on the Stool of Repentance is served I'll gratefully agree to continue freely contributing to their broken project? Stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no virus protection yet on my reconfigured computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of a Stool of Repentance before. Now you've got me wondering what they looked like. An illustration of one of those in use would be something! Durova³⁵⁷ 05:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy - IRC is this way, but switch "wikiversity-en" for "wikipedia-en". By the way, my description above of what was happening on IRC was very apt. It was just me making an ass of myself, like always. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava, but I'm never going to any of those places; I have a special place in my heart for those who hold court off-Wiki :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets just say that I prefer to be abused by Wikipedians off Wiki instead of by them on Wiki, so, if they kept it all there that would be nice. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ah, if only they would :) Unfortunately, I've seen too many instances where off-Wiki coordination is clearly apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava: You could have just given her this link instead. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sumbuddy please translate: I can't go there because I haven't yet installed virus protection on my reconfigured computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We use to celebrate it when I was a Johnnie, but most people didn't get that it was mostly a counter joke in praise of Fawkes because we changed our name from the King's during the Revolutionary War. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you attended St. Johns in Santa Fe, I have been there a few times, if only to go to the mind-blowing bookstore. And Santa Fe rocks. Love that town. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Annapolis. I haven't left Maryland. My ancestors were the founders of this place and I don't think I could ever drag myself away. Santa Fe is supposed to be very nice though. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Having seen your previous discussions you probably won't care, but I feel an apology is owed for my poor behaviour in the above discussion. No excuses, just being a dickhead. Sorry. Soxwon (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I don't care. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of rejecting such an apology, you might instead learn that admitting an error does not always lessen a person but in fact may show the strength of a person. Thank you Soxwon for having the class to make this posting. Chillum 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I might. I might also ask you to fuck off, but of course I did neither. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't seek yet another protracted back and forth fruitless discussion with you. I just thought perhaps that if people's advice would not inspire you then a user's example might help. Apparently not, good day sir. Chillum 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillium - please don't provoke further conflict here on Malleus' talk page. That's not helping anything. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking him (not telling him) would arguably not be a personal attack, as it gives the recipient of that comment some options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying

... I might not always agree with you ... but you do impress the hell out of me at times Mal. I think you fuck up sometimes, but I will say outright that more often than not - you're right in what you say. Since you're not gonna get bent out of shape over things - I won't either. My best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  07:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Amen. The block stinks. I appreciate all your good work and collegial contributions to the encyclopedia. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if this is one of those blocks that are in reality retaliation for something else. Have you been rude or unkind to any other Admins recently? No, that can't be right - that sort of strange block would be out of character for Georgewilliamherbert, an Admin I have always found kind, curteous and thoughtful. Giano (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder how these admins who seem to so enjoy passing out "civility blocks" would fare if they had to be reconfirmed by a vote of 50%+1 every so often? They might be able to pass that threshold, but there's no way they'd gain adminship again if they had to leap over the 75-80% bar. I do regret that I missed all the fun that was had at the expense of this incredibly stu- um, I mean "astute", of course, block. And I think that both the one placing the block, and those lining up to support it are demonstrating very clearly how utterly malodorous is the tissue that currently constitutes their gray matter. UA 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just fine it rather strange and sad, that presumably grown men want to pass their time hunting down and punishing other presumably grown men saying naughty words. While other presumably grown men announce on site that they are breaking the law and slowly and very publicly killing themselves passes as perfectly normal behaviour. Funny old world. Giano (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. It's not the words, it's the aggression and intimidation behind them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What displays more "aggression and intimidation", implying that someone might have "shit for brains" or mashing the block button every time someone writes something you think is mean? UA 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Obscenities used to be called "fighting words", for good reason. And admins have a job to do, part of which is to keep aggressive, intimidating editors in check. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a wildly divergent view from my own of what the role of an admin should be. The block button should be saved for emergencies. This was not one. As for swears being "fighting words", my best friend (whom I've known since kindergarten) and I routinely swear at each other when we're arguing about politics. Only around (most) ladies do I curb my language in real life. Adults swear sometimes. They swear at and about each other sometimes. Blocking for that is ludicrous. UA 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs, I find being stalked by Admins analysing my every word in the hope of blocking me far more "aggressive" and "intimidating" than being told my brain is shit. Adults are quite able to deal with such situations, if they are so delicate then their whole life must be one arduous trial for them and thta is no one others fault than their own. A little agression and swearing is normal and healthy living a police state is not. Giano (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The worse thing to have while trying to update a page is to constantly have that yellow bar appear because an admin dropped a "warning" on your talk page. If you want to lose a train of thought or to have your work get derailed, that is the quickest way. Think of trying to write an essay with the cops knocking on your door every five minutes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Such is the plague of some of our top content contributors (noting the presence of Giano, Ottava and Malleus in this discussion :) Perhaps it's a male competitive jealousy thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• We need to start a block/ban/constantly warn campaign against Moni3 to instill true gender equality. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for gender equality, so shall I call everyone here motherfuckers to get a warning on my page? Because y'all be bullshit. --Moni3 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn. If your orange bar starts going off as often as Malleus's and Ottava's do, I'll never get any work done, and I'll just have to resign myself to grey hairs. And we all know it's the women who hold down the fort here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You all are under the mistaken impression that "freedom of speech" is a right on wikipedia. And that somehow you should be free of scrutiny so that you can do whatever you feel like doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that qualify as a personal attack, or is it exempt because it doesn't single out one person, just all of us? I'm a great fan, Baseball, but the lessened scrutiny and sanction for otherwise good editors-- specifically, females-- has ArbCom support. Don't shoot the messengers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Try peddling your hopelessly misguided home-spun philosophy on someone else's talk page. I'm embarrassed to see it disfiguring mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me where it says there is freedom of speech on wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Malleus is not trying to use Wikipedia to state that the Holocaust is a myth or flying saucers impregnated the Virgin Mary. He is criticizing the structure within Wikipedia, and it is up to the social structure on this site to either chuck him out with a site ban because his language is so over the top beyond the pale disruptive, disregard him as a loon, or change because there may be a nugget of truth to his criticisms. I haven't seen anyone claim anyone has the right to say anything s/he pleases. But it appears to me that there are a group of editors who agree with Malleus' points that admins do not hold themselves to the same standards they hold other users, and the civility policy is too ill-defined and strictly enforced for imagined slights. Criticism changes culture. Malleus' brand of criticism is being silenced by blocks and ANI reports. Criticism is allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I made that same argument on the ANI page - that there is inconsistent enforcement of the civility rules. And my confidence in the admin corps has been eroded by recent malfeasances. That, however, does not give Mal or anyone else a reasonable excuse to lower themselves to that level. OK, what other questions do you have? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't an inconsistency with the civility rules. To the contrary, there is a clear consistency. If Malleus, Giano, or myself makes a comment in response to someone being troublesome, we are blocked for "incivility". If those people berate, attack, and abuse us, they are not. That has always been the case and always will be the case. Thus, consistent. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Take the high road, and you'll have no trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to take the High Road, one meets all sort of commonplace dull people walking there. One has to have a little panache, be a litle different and a lot more exiting. High Road indeed, sounds like something in a London suburb. Giano (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your "high road" appears to involve not crticising anyone more powerful than yourself Baseball. That's cowardly and morally repugnant. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that since my posts lack the cussing or mentions of the word "stupid" in any kind of manner unlike some found in Malleus's posts yet the same results happen that the "high road" doesn't apply here. The judgment was determined before the evidence was ever presented. All someone has to do is file a complaint no matter how illegitimate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think you should make no changes to your approach and that things should somehow get better. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear who you're asking, but if it's me than I'd say it's working just fine, and I don't think that I should make any changes to my approach. YMMV of course, don't much care. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't mind being blocked from time to time, then there's no problem. Meanwhile, we're all trying to keep you entertained until the block expires. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a minor inconvenience, and inevitable given the execrable quality of administrators who rule the roost here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A "cost of doing business", basically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This debate feels like it is appropriately summarised by this link: [4] Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemon helmet for the win. Dr. Philcat. I have noticed, such as my perception is, that Malleus gets blocked less frequently and those willing to block him are fewer. His blocks are overturned as well and gradually editors are starting to see some sense in his protests. Apparently, per Dr. Philcat, it's working out slowly and steadily. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be like the guy who fell off a hundred-story building, and as he passed each floor, they yelled at him, "So far, you're OK." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be. Surprises me that I'm still here actually. Not because of daft blocks like GWH's but because I'm not usually so patient around so many idiotic and misbehaving children. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling fellow editors "idiots". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an idiot blocked you for calling an idiot an idiot? Sounds about right. Call them a toxic personality next time, that seems to be allowed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A wiseman (yes, -man-, so take that Moni and Sandy!) once said that rights were only rights as long as you fight for them. So yes, many here will fight for this right. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you sexist pig :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Three doofuses from Brooklyn once said "You gotta fight for your right to party." Now they're all icons and Zen, perfectly respectable. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those wisemen have taught me valuable lessons, such as watching out for crafty women. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just run that past me again? --Philcha (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, you sexist pig. (SandyGeorgia 16:30, 5 November 2009)
• And we all know it's the women who hold down the fort here. (SandyGeorgia 16:06, 5 November 2009)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAgPgZGDyg SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Sorry, the "shit for brains" bit was way across the line. I'd have blocked Jimbo for saying that about someone. Admin consensus can overrule, of course, but that's just not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)". That kind of empty rhetoric just makes me laugh. I don't recall the brave GWH blocking Jimbo when he claimed that certain editors were "toxic personalities". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, Jimbo didn't specify a target so it wasn't a personal attack. Only you, myself, and Giano get blocked for such things. There is clearly a clause in NPA allowing this exception. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irony has been too thick lately! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three doofuses from Brooklyn once said "You gotta fight for your right to party." Now they're all icons and Zen, perfectly respectable. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 .. I thought the link would lead somewhere else. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Turpin

Malleus if we can get back to some degree of normality, I wonder if you wouldn't mind keeping your eyes open for the transcripts of Turpin's trial, recorded by Thomas Kyll. It would make a valuable addition to the article, and allow me to move away from Sharpe's book a little. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That page needs moar Ainsworth!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be getting to that. He apparently has a lot to answer for, Black Bess indeed! If you have any material, please feel free to add. I've just started today, and am working through the trial and execution. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe after I finish the two FACs I have up right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lightweight. I have 1 FAC and 3 GANs. And the eejiots experienced editors pulling on the millstone that is Nick Griffin. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• There's a new (August 2009) book by Henry Downes Miles that looks like it might be worth trying to get hold of.[5] The Kyll book's available online here if you've got an Infotrac or Athens password. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I know a fella who can access Jstor (he helped a lot on Mary Toft and GC Lane), so maybe he can access it. I've emailed him. The Sharpe book is very good, and offers a full list of sources in the index. You can bet I'll be trawling the internet to see if any are online. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha! Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)