User talk:Eric Corbett

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

1740 Batavia massacre

Hi Malleus, it looks like (for better or for worse) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chrisye/archive1 will close within a week. I was thinking of putting 1740 Batavia massacre (an A-class article) through FAC next, but the prose could probably using a little polishing. Last time user Dank opposed due to prose issues. I'd appreciate if you could look at the article and let me know if anything is unclear for someone unversed in Indonesian history, as well as put it in accordance with British English standards (I'm not a native BrE speaker, but CaE). If you could help that would be greatly appreciated! Also, thanks for the help with Chrisye Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're a real glutton for punishment. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh geez, just saw the below thread. Well, hope you don't quit for good... seems several editors rely on you to ensure they don't rape and pillage the Queen's English Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Malleus, this comment is almost exactly what your admonishment in the Civility Enforcement case was telling you not to do. Edit warring to keep it there is doubly bad. You're blocked for 72 hours. You know that was a personal attack, and we've had an entire Arbcom case whose cause was mostly your personal attacks, so you know this wasn't right. If you had just left the removal, I might not have blocked you, but at this point, I feel it is necessary. Courcelles 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That really is the final straw, and thoroughly dishonest of you to leave the personal attack to which I was responding. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No request from User:Ianmacm to remove it, no request from anyone else to remove it? Just a 72 hour block over a couple of reverts. Wow. Pedro :  Chat  18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a request to remove it.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So I just noticed from the ANI threrad, and was coming here to ammend my comments. My mistake. Pedro :  Chat  18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I expected this kind of thing to happen after administrators were emboldened by the ArbCom case, so it's now obviously time for Malleus to hang up his boots. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That would, IMO, be a great loss. But I can also understand and appreciate your reasons for hanging up the boots.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not a good idea, Courcelles. My take on the situation is that Malleus was bated into this exchange by a user who supported a topic ban of MF and proceeded to impugn his motives and make snide remarks like "There are 3+ million others where your universally admired talent and wit are most welcome." MF has had a great red target painted on his back now—he posts strong opinions, as any of us are entitled to, and admins sit around with their fingers over the block button waiting for some doofus to show up and stir the pot until Malleus makes a comment. Unfair, and unwarranted. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Two broad points, I blocked after noticing the request for removal had been removed from this page, and the edit warring as continuing. Second, Mal, I voted against site banning you in that case. I think you're a very useful contributor to this project, whose positive contributions outweigh the occasional personal attack. If I had to cast that vote again, I'd vote the same way. But this particular incident was a good illustration of what you were admonished nt to do, and having declined to remove it, and edit warring to keep it in, a block was, in my opinion, necessary. Courcelles 18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh ffs... WP really does give me the creeps sometimes. No wonder I (mostly) stick to editing "bullshit" articles no-one wants to read. Nortonius (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bad block. After the ArbCom case Malleus is expected to take abuse and yet not be baited, but if he reacts to it he gets blocked? Great respect for you Courcelles and all that, but this was not a fair or even-handed action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Laser Brain and Boing, but completely fair and warranted. Could you, perhaps, show me the part of WP:NPA where it says "Give back twice as good as you get?" No, you cannot, because the policy clearly states that editors are not to respond to personal attacks in kind, and being "baited" is never a valid excuse. In a first-week newbie, such a gaffe is understandable. In a six-year editor with over a hundred thousand edits, it isn't. Especially given the recent admonishment, either MF is incapable of understanding the civility rules or he just doesn't care to follow them. To quote from a famous sporting incident, "The time for probation or leniency is past. Whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority in the games does not matter. It is a type of conduct which cannot be tolerated by any player - star or otherwise." There's some parallel to that here. Ravenswing 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is ... if you block someone for responding to baiting badly, shouldn't you also ... do something about the bad behavior of baiting? Being a jerk but never quite going over the edge of a personal attack is just about as bad as responding to baiting, quite honestly. What's good for the goose... is good for the gander. If we want to improve civility, we need to police baiting also .. it's just as incivil in my book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a "bollocks" to your "au contraire": sports have laws, WP has "policy" which the playground makes up and implements as it goes along. To quote the Bard of Billericay, "You can go to hell with your 'Well well well oh oh!'" Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What a terrible block. Courcelles, what were you thinking? Did you even see what he was responding to? And you left that, without blocking the editor? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep Ealdgyth, that's exactly my point. If a child complains that a dog bit him, and you learn that the child had been poking the dog with a stick, do you beat the dog? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan defends being the one to report Malleus at ANI on the grounds that his tantrums are OK because he withdraws their intemperate opinions when asked. Whereas Malleus, as in this instance, stands by his own opinions without trying to worm his way out of trouble. I can respect a man who shows strength of character. Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was blocked before I even reported him. I am irrelevant in this situation. I rather not get involved here, but as you have mentioned me, IMO - I stand by my insult is not something that deserves respect. Youreallycan 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you see one can always avoid a baiting charge by claiming to be misunderstood, ill, new, and so on. Something like "I didn't really mean to wind up and kick you in the nuts. I lost control of my foot. It was a muscle spasm. I'm not responsible for that action. But if you kick me back, you're in trouble." Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

When things like this happen, I'm ashamed to be part of this community. Anthony is perfectly capable of looking after himself, and I very much doubt he would want this attack on Malleus. Blocks like these, sanctioned by this silly system, are the worst form of personal attack, lack of civility, and lack of basic sanity. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to opine on this block (I have a very clear stance on the subject being discussed, it's easy enough to find if you like), but I will say that you could do without the buzzword-laden lines above. Instead of talking about "blocks like these... are the worst form of personal attack" and raging against "the system" (whatever that is, I certainly don't know of one), could we keep it to the specific problem that's in front of us here and now? We're not going to revolutionize "the system" on this page, that's a discussion for somewhere else; all that can be done here is to resolve the specific problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The block is fine. It's definitely not assuming good faith to comment on someone's brain function and/or existence. It really doesn't matter what precipitated it. These types of comments generally limit people's contributions to the main pages they are attached to and can cause them to leave wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny...I tend to be more turned off by the unchallenged baiting behavior. But I guess everyone has their own limits and triggers. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The solution is to reverse this bad block. One of the things that I hoped might come out of the ArbCom case was a bit more support for Malleus when he's being baited by others, but sadly things seem to be continuing in the same old one-sided way. Someone hits him, he hits back, he gets blocked - and that is wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the block is reversed doesn't really matter any more. This is exactly what I expected the ultimate outcome of that recent ArbCom show trial to be: as Laser Brain says, to paint a big red target on my back. Anyone can say anything they like about or to me, but I get blocked if I reply in kind. To address Eqazcion's dishonesty below (why am I not surprised to see that he considers this a good block?), Courcelle only warned Anthonycole (and hardly "sternly") after he'd been prodded to do so, which is completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's why baiting continues and (to quote Equazcoin) "generally does go unrecognized too often." It's too easy to evade any charge of baiting, and those with passive-aggressive behaviors are usually very good at it (and are equally good at the "What? Me? I'm just misunderstood" defense, IMO). Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, though not with any implication that the response is then unworthy of sanctions merely because it was the result of baiting. The nature of baiting is that it is intended to provoke a punishable response, and while that action in itself should be admonished more often than it currently is, Malleus tends to take such bait rather gladly as an excuse to provide said punishable response, when it is anything but. Both actions need to be admonished separately, and have in this case (despite the warning to Anthony coming in late, which was regrettable as Courcelles did acknowledge, though that shouldn't negate the quality of the block). Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no. Wikipedia does not do punishment, only prevention - at least, that's the way we're supposed to work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I could do a search/replace but the content of my comment would still stand. Given the user history involved here, the action/sanction/preventative measure/etc was preventative. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:43, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The block is good, IMO, and I think Ravenswing's description above pretty well sums it up. Addressing the baiting is also important though, and I think baiting generally does go unrecognized too often. The complaints above that the baiting warranted just as much of a block are still a little off though: Had both users' histories been comparable, a block for both sides would've been warranted. As it stands Anthonyhcole‎ has been given a stern warning, which I think is more or less a proportionate response given his relative lack of experience and past warnings regarding civility issues (at least as far as I'm aware) as compared to Malleus'. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:51, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• Rubbish block, in my opinion. I was going to ask if you wanted to help me take another neglected article on a polarising figure in British politics to a better state. Oh well, it'll have to wait. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Courcelles can help? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "this comment is almost exactly what your admonishment in the Civility Enforcement case was telling you not to do." Really? And what about "Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective." I don't see any evidence of Courcelles trying to do anything to sort out this little spat before hitting the block button. Richerman (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wish another solution could have been found here. I've noticed how hard Malleus has been working to not antagonize people, to be more friendly with folks, and to avoid situations like this. I could almost sense a change of some sort after the case and the meetup he attended - and I thought it was great. Sure, I've seen him get blocked for much flimsier reasons, but I would have preferred to see discussion rather than blocking. At least there's a time limit on the block - but I won't be surprised if this pushes Malleus further away from our project; and I think that would be a HUGE loss to Wikipedia. It always saddens me when someone comes in and baits another editor into a terse response - then walks away without getting the same results handed to them in turn. Sure, it's not nice when someone questions the gray-matter available to an editor - but really, how pleasant is to to get called a "brat" who should go play in another sandbox? I just wish there were consistent standards applied to one and all throughout the entire project, but I imagine that is simply a pipe-dream. Malleus, I hope you have great weather there to enjoy a weekend in real life. As always - best, — Ched :  ?  00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• He was baited by being called a "brat" in this case, and there doesn't appear to be any question about that. And his response was not nearly along the lines of what the ArbCom case was about (the dreaded "c" word) - it was more of a "traditional" Malleus response when he is challenged. Pretty tame, actually. If Malleus said something like that to me (and he has in the past, and vice-versa), I would not consider it a personal attack to be reported, or a statement to be removed by another editor; but rather something to be brushed off and ignored at the worst. Now, if I had said something designed to bait him and elicit a negative response from him, I would naturally have to expect... a negative response from him. I speak from experience ;> No one likes their comments being removed, I think, and that seems to me to be the reason he kept reinserting it, though edit warring could be construed. Meh. It's not a personal attack worthy of a three-day block, and it could even be reduced to "time served". With all due respect to Courcelles (and I do respect them). Jus' me opinion. Doc talk 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• yea Doc, I agree. While I have a lot of respect for Courcelles, the more I look at the situation and the history of the other editor - the more I think this block was a mistake. I think when two people disagree like that, you either let them hash it out, go their separate ways, or intervene equally on both sides. To block Mal, and simply give AC a "don't do that again" warning I think is not right. — Ched :  ?  03:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• We're not children. Blocking people for this kind of bollocks is....well, bollocks tbh. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Spot on PoD, all it does is encourage "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and righteous indignation from the busybody faction. Blocking should be for vandals.J3Mrs (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You're exactly right J3Mrs. It's about time we abjured the block button for editors who have demonstrated their commitment to our encyclopedia, as anything other than a very last resort. I've seen this project slide downhill in the four years that I've edited, and most of that descent has been through loss of good contributors because of attitudes that don't accept adults need to be treated as adults. If Courcelles has somehow concluded that the best way of dealing with an exchange of insults is to make one of the participants sit in the naughty corner for 3 days, he has even less grasp of human psychology that I originally thought - and we're now trusting him to make decisions at our last resort of dispute resolution. We found out years ago that such treatment didn't yield the desired results with children, so what chance with an intelligent 60-odd year old? Malleus has sufficient life experience and project experience to understand if someone should suggest he backs away from responding to an insult. But instead of talking and making time for him, we get instant escalation by someone else brusquely removing his comment. Why? How does that ever help? Malleus, I hope you don't decide to walk away from a project that is (despite it all) still worthwhile, and from those of us who want to work to make the environment here less toxic. I still hope I'll be able to buy you a beer at the next meetup. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you, too, Ralph. Jack Merridew 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked! It is an Easter miracle. Hallelujah on YouTube GFHandel ♬  22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And the admin involved has posted saying he will be requesting his admin rights removed [2] after doing so. Which was exactly the wheel warring arbcom advised admins not to do. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL: "Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring"). When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Steve's action was not wheel-warring. That policy is the accepted meaning of the term on Wikipedia, and either EW needs to read the definition or ArbCom does. I'll just remind folks that ArbCom fiat does not make policy, the community does. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the admin involved needs to read it as it was him who said it was wheel warring in the diff provided. Anyway this will probably end up back at Arbcom one way or another. It's a never ending cycle Malleus is stuck in rather unfortunately. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything admins tell you :D --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I screwed that up somewhat. If it wasn't wheel-warring in practice, it was at least in spirit. Steve ^T • C 23:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone with their finger on the trigger thinks to reinstate the block, I'll only say that it wasn't my intention to escalate the issue. I've stated my reasons here, and I hope you read them before taking any action. It may be a petty ideological point, but screw it; it was worth making anyway. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up

I applied for Highbeam access here, so could someone please remove my application. Same goes for my JSTOR application here.

Also, I have an open GA review for South Stoneham House, so if someone would take that over it would be good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam & JSTOR applications removed per request. Nobody Ent 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus. Could I suggest that you take a breather and not do anything precipitate in the heat of today's events? Your editing and insight are an inspiration to many, and WP will be rendered a poorer (and more difficult) place by your absence. In a few weeks, today's events will seem dim (as already the recent arbcom stuff does); and while I'm not suggesting you'll laugh at them, I am suggesting that they will have faded to obscurity—especially when dwarfed by the many other wonderful editing activities that I know you enjoy performing. When I feel overwhelmed by WP events, I rejuvenate by retiring to a quite corner and working on articles that I know were the reason I was drawn to WP. Far be it for me to suggest anything along those lines (and at the risk of obvious and gratuitous plugging), but there are pretty much any number of Handelian articles that would benefit from your skilful assistance. Of course, once you've made a clean spot in those parts, the paucity of quality in the other parts will be all the more obvious—but at least a standard will be set that will be a joy to others to follow. Best wishes and here's hoping for your continued involvement at WP. GFHandel ♬  00:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@GFHandel: I've been expecting this kind of thing ever since the ArbCom case ended. And now it's happened it's the end for Malleus unless Courcelles falls on his sword ... which is of course just about as likely as the Sun failing to rise tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is that you take a little time before the end. In a couple of weeks I'm certain that you'll see rays of light peaking out from the gloom. GFHandel ♬  01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't. I knew this would happen, and I won't be posting here again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Giano is very knowledgeable in architecture related articles. Would you like me to ask him to have a look? — Ched :  ?  00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since early February. Nev1 (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think he might be willing to take a look if I emailed him? I've seen some of his work, but don't recall ever really interacting with him directly. I know he and Malleus have chatted a time or two, that's why I thought he might consider it. — Ched :  ?  00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just let it go and not pull in Giano. Either Malleus comes back or he doesn't; time will tell. As someone who's suffered greatly from baiting in the past months, but hasn't responded, all this block does is show that baiting is sanctioned and that editors who are baited should suck it up. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The note Giano left on his talk page suggests he wouldn't be inclined to come back. I suppose there's no harm in asking though. Nev1 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

C'mon Malleus, don't take this so seriously. Go treat yourself to something you deserve and shrug off the crap. It's your contributions that will endure here, not the crap. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, crap. I hope you reconsider, Malleus. :( LadyofShalott 02:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia would be absolutely the right thing to do for your sanity and self-respect. If you stay here the game of "let's poke Malleus" will just continue.

It's not like things are all that great in the project anyway. Arbcom values unctuous dissimulation over honesty and is dominated by personality politics, as those in a position to know will confirm. The WMF won't be satisfied until that fellow Arnie down at the pub can write an article about how to rebuild a carburettor to run on goat urine without being annoyed by editors trying to enforce those silly guidelines and standards. And on and on. So cut your losses and move on with life. I wish you well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes... if you believe, like Iridescent seems to, that the bureaucratic system here wields ultimate power, then psychologically you'll box yourself into a corner like the one he described. On Wikipedia, content editors have built a world where apparatchik-types have moved in and try to take over. We need a few skilled bureaucrats, but we don't need lots of unskilled apparatchiks. These could be removed to the net benefit of Wikipedia, except that for every apparatchik removed, there are ten more apparatchik-types stumbling over themselves to replace them. Including 12-year olds. Still, over time the ineptitude of the Wikipedia bureaucracy will all but vanish from the memory of the world, while the contributions of Malleus and kindred editors will endure. The small number of proper content contributors still willing to work here matters. There are no replacements waiting in the wings for editors like Malleus. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Aldous Huxley who said that you only need 20% of the people to change an organization. If 20% of admins and users decided to make significant changes to Wikipedia, they would, inevitably, occur. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Geez Malleus, you shouldn't up and quit. Sh*t happens, and sometimes the people we put on pedestals (such as yourself) end up the target of rocks thrown by those left on the ground (or under it, in certain cases). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

exegisti monumentum aere perennius, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, but I suggest carpe cervisiam fits Malleus better. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope Epipelagic will forgive the slight paraphrasing, but I thought this nailed the truth so well it deserved to be on a statue or something:

“Over time the ineptitude of the Wikipedia bureaucracy will all but vanish from the memory of the world, while the contributions of Malleus and kindred editors will endure. There are no replacements waiting in the wings for editors like Malleus.” –Epipelagic

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?...

Otherwise known as ... wish you weren't leaving, but totally understand. Thought you'd like to see this, so you know that at least something awaits you if you return ...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, the work you do here is gob-smacking, but that one and the Middle Ages is gob-smackingly gob-smacking. I see that I'm unblocked now, but it's too late as far as I'm concerned. Unless I see some heads on spikes I won't be contributing here again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please excuse me while I barge onto your talkpage...

Though I understand completely why you might feel the need to leave having recently left an unaffiliated project under similar circumstances myself, I must say, this is a shame. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have found many of your comments in discussions to be highly amusing, as you have a tendency to get to the point in an often very tactless manner whilst still getting there so much more effectively than more civil folks... I'm not really going anywhere with this, but... but while I don't disagree that some action was in order and that perhaps a departure (at least for a time) may indeed be for the best, you're lovely and horrible and... and I'll miss you. *hugs Malleus* — Isarra ༆ 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I forgot, you hate barnstars--this kitten is sure to keep you away... Hey, hope to see you again. Maybe I'll come look you up in the UK someday. I noticed you helped an IP out with getting articles up in mainspace: that's precisely why we need people like you, people who can write, who know WP, and who aren't assholes.

Drmies (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Second the feeling. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a head on a pike, but but hopefully its close to what you wanted.

Please come back

Someone just gave up their adminship for you. I think that warrants you coming back. You are one of a greatest content contributors and we don't want to lose you. I know we haven't had the best interactions in the past, so you should know that, this coming from me, means I really do care. Silverseren^C 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to respond to what Steve's done, which is quite extraordinarily principled; I hope I would have had the integrity to do the same. The fact is though that while arseholes like Courcelles are in charge here I have no further interest in the project. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's rubbish Malleus. What makes you think Courcelles is "in charge". He's only in charge of a block tool which he doesn't seem to know how to use wisely. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The day I can block Courcelles is maybe the day I'll start to think about taking that comment seriously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the core issue, the great smelly underbelly of Wikipedia. Inappropriate people, in their hundreds, have been given rights to block the able adult content editors, treating them like children and on the same level as vandals. It is demeaning to be a content editor now. You and Anthony can't even banter without some vulgar busybody intervention. The huge number of entrenched admins now means they block any attempt to roll back, or even discuss, the absurd powers they wield. And now the wrong admin has fallen on his sword. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sitting here watching a pair of chaffinches trying to get through my window, banging their little beaks against the glass. Must be a bit like the way you feel, from their point of view (damned annoying from mine...). All the other birds just get on with their lives - even the long-tailed tits who tried it a couple of years ago. Unlike these daft chaffinches, you've got intelligence. A lot of the time, I disagree with you (and you probably disagree with me), but I think you are needed - both for disagreement and content. I'd create more articles if I could think of things to write about - as it is I 'contribute' content by rescuing things from tags and/or stirring people up into sorting them, and negatively by removing dross. Go if you feel you must - I don't know all the ins and outs, but I'm surprised and disappointed. Peridon (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter

You decide, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe in predestination?

Well, this whole incident was foreordained about 2 months ago when Arbcom issued its findings in the civility case. I for one am not surprised at the actions leading up to the block, the block, or the subsequent responses.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, if you were banned from commenting on the main forums and in turn admins were banned from blocking you and banned from coming here to scold you, would you think that a reasonable compromise? I also find a lot of the things some people say on forums such as ANI and the village pump highly irritating which is why I generally tend to avoid them. One cannot completely edit wikipedia without coming across people we consider complete assholes but there's certainly ways in which we can adapt to minimize the wikidrama. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that! (I just tried to minimize, not so successful though), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a retired tag at the top of the page, discussions on various corners of Wikipedia, and it's Easter. Let's just let it go and leave the man alone. If he decides to return, he should return without anyone suggesting he needs a leash imo. And, Malleus, thanks for all your help and best to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)