User talk:Eric Corbett

"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: [1] that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

RfA?

Hey, it seems you have potential. Also, Beeblebrox is much better than me and I only just bested Bbb23. This is a fun tool to run, though it'd be more fun if it added expletives. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*LOL* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If insults are needed, check out this: User:Darwinbish/insultspout

Hey, me too! 966 .... Tools don't take account of desires, though. Pesky (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

How fast can somebody earn a score of 666? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use this for closing AFD and other discussions, to properly weight the value of the arguments. And I bested you all scoring over 1200 without the benefit of any "user rights" points, which alone is enough to cast doubt as to the utility of the tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have 1279... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

1339 for me. Sandy's score ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Darn Ealdgyth! Jimbo has 488. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• But is that a testament for or against it's accuracy? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say for, I don't believe Jimbo would become an administrator under the current system. Ryan Vesey 15:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• I wonder how Jimbo really would do at RFA... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• He has enough groupies that I'm sure he would do fine. He also has enough nemesi (and the usual contrarians) to insure it would be a record setting event for drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• For every season... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to wish you good luck and say that I will see you after your block. I'm not a fan of April Fool's jokes around here, and in no way do I condone such activity, but I have to admit it would be interesting (sociologically speaking) to see what would happen if he put himself up on any regular day of the week. My gut says it would a very bipolar event, but ending in a sickening love fest, so I'm not inclined to take action to find out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not going to do it... probably. There's enough acrimony at RFA right now, we don't need to create new ill-will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think my block count of -330 has at least temporarily made the prospect of RfA #3 even less likely than it was before. I'd resolved to wait until our Sun became a red giant, but now it looks like I'll have to wait until the heat death of the universe. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Take heart, Your Grace ;P Ideas are being mooted (OK, mainly by me, but someone better than I is considering it, too) to do some housekeeping work spring-cleaning a few block logs to separate the just from the unjust. There's very little use that I personally (and I suspect you, too) would actually make of being awarded The Most Noble Order of the Nadmin. If someone ever succeeded in forcing Nadminship upon me, the most I'd ever be likely to do would be to use the delete button for blatant copyvios, or possibly use it to edit through protection. I'm trustworthy on those ones, but I have no interest whatsoever in blocking people, closing XfDs, or all the multitudinous other chores at which Nadmins are supposed to excel. If you had the bit (OK, I know you don't want it!), what would you do with it? Pesky (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Same as you probably, very little. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Are you going to comment on the 5 day extension proposal for nominating DYKs to avoid a nominating rush?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because basically I couldn't care less. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then bugger off from editing the article and kicking up a stink about DYKs and plagiarism then. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I shall continue to do as I please, whether or not that meets with your approval. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You seemed to care enough to complain about it on the talk page and extensively pick holes in the article which would have been avoidable if the duration to write it had been longer and it had been fully copyedited. The fact you imply you don't care less tells me that you like having things to moan about and belittling the work of others. Then when somebody raises a concern about one of your articles you start looking for the sympathy vote here complaining about how much work you put into the article and how dare anybody complain about it. You're one of the most hypocritical editors on here Malleus, always moaning, and then one somebody tries to solve what you clearly think is a problem you say you couldn't careless. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up Blofeld, show everyone what an arsehole you are. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The facts of the matter are very clear, even though you choose to ignore them. In the discussion about including GAs on the main page LauraHale made the rather bold claim that DYKs were more rigorously reviewed than GAs. I challenged that assertion by looking yesterday at the current crop of main page DYKs with a view to demonstrating why they fell short of the GA criteria. The mosque was an egregiously poor example, which out of the kindness of my heart I helped to fix up a bit, for no thanks whatsoever. I have absolutely no interest in DYK, which I think is a joke; my only intention was to refute the ridiculous assertion made by LauraHale, as I do very much care about GA. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time."

And this subsection started so beautifully....

"We both know there is good and bad in everyone...."

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Its because you know I'm right. Every week or two you intentionally get involved in a "conflict" which results in you being warned and you either get blocked or warned which sparks off a new spate of moaning and conversation about how terrible you are treated. You then threaten to leave wikipedia or imply you are "going outside" to get your "friends" here to massage your ego and tell you "You're wonderful Malleus. It would be so awful for you to leave us Malleus, you are our best editor." I've seen you repeat this process dozens of times on here, you insult somebody, get blocked and so the drama ensures, Malleus at the centre of the attention. Jimbo, the foundation, everybody knows what you're like Malleus and its only for the fact you've put in some great work on here that you haven't been banned from the website and are tolerated. I may be an asshole but at least I'm honest asshole and am one of the few people who has the balls to say what everybody else thinks. No doubts people will jump tp your defence here but I'm sick of your attitude Malleus. If you make a point of complaining about the state of an article you could at least show an interest in trying to prevent that sort of thing from happening. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if you didn't post here again Blofeld, as you're simply making a fool of yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Your attitude seriously needs to improve Malleus. I had barely touched the Hassan article and agreed 100% with your concerns. It was caused purely by a nomination rush and I propose to extend the DYK nomination period to allow editors to try to produce better quality articles and you say you couldn't care less. If you couldn't care less about DYK stop complaining about how dreadful it is and accusing editors of plagiarism and focus on GA then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld, go blow somewhere else. I'm simply not interested in your brain farts. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's bad enough that the actor who played the angel in The Green Mile died. Don't you remember the angel's pathos and suffering at how people are mean to each other?

What's going on today? It's like the RfA nonsense has infected the central nervous systems of a lot of normally sane editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits as always are appreciated Malleus, and you know I respect you as an editor and at times as a person for what you sometimes stand for. But at times I find you and your negative attitude impossible. I simply don't know how you can make that many edits to an article and take the time to complain about it yet seem unwilling to do anything to prevent it from happening again. You are frequently complaining about the quality of DYK. Maybe you are convinced anything to do with DYK is a joke I don't know and that was your justification for your response but your response given the time you have spent on the article seems a little hypocritical.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and I will not discuss this further with you until you drop all these unwarranted personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you of all people just brand the WP:NPA/civil card? Goodness me, that must surely raise a few giggles. Well, that settles it then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what it is you think gives you the right to come here and make all of these insulting and nonsensical allegations, but whatever it is I suggest that you stop drinking it at once. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DR Blofeld, I don;t know much of you, but this seems a little unlike you? Could I suggest changing your current beverage for a lervely cup of 'Shroom Tea and an accompanying Shroom Omelette? The crop down here in the lervely Forest has been a real bumper one this year ;P

Malleus, I can totally see where you're coming from with that DYK/GA stuff, and I can totally understand why you edited where you did. It's not from an interest in DYKs, it's just from that overwhelming compulsion to clean the damned stuff up ... In Real Life, I find my ability simply to read something in print, without trying to hit an edit button and polish it up, has significantly diminished! Everything I read, I'm reading with half an eye on how it should be copy-edited, lol! Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard#RfA 2

Hi Malleus. I mentioned you at User talk:Cunard#RfA 2 regarding two edits I made to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ and its talk page. Those two edits have been contested on my talk page, and I would be grateful to hear your thoughts about the matter. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but my thoughts on the matter are exactly as you describe them. I think the ArbCom restriction is an absolute disgrace, clearly intended to stifle the expression of unpopular opinions, which is what's happening to you now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your ArbCom restriction was crafted because you offended too many editors in your RfA opposes. If any discussion between you and another RfA participant is moved to the talk page, I recommend that other editors move it back, as I did in this case. Preventing you from having honest discussions is deplorable. I'll have to be wary about the same happening to myself because it's clear that someone must be punished for their friend's failed RfA. Cunard (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed very clear. Keepscases has already paid the price and now obviously the "baying mob" are looking for another victim, you. Kudpung is determined by hook or by crook to eliminate all oppose votes at RfA, to make it a friendlier place, that's the bottom line. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keepscases should never have been blocked, and Drmies has rectified that injustice. Several of the supporters engaged in similar conduct, but of course they are above reproach because they did not oppose the candidate. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've mentioned you on Jimbo's page in a discussion related to this RfA. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind". You people just don't get it, do you. If you're not respectful to me then you have no right to expect me to be respectful to you, and sure as Hell I won't be. If you want me to be nice to you, then start by playing nice yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I'm going to risk sticking my neck out and making an enemy of everyone! The ArbCom restirction was Ceaușescu-esque in the extreme. Very worrying – the thin end of a particularly nasty wedge. On the other hand, I'm going to stick up for Kudpung here, just to remove what I perceive as a misunderstanding / misrepresentation. Kudpung doesn't want to remove oppose !votes, he just wants to remove unwarranted nastiness from them. Personally, I applaud the idea of removing unwarranted, hurtfuly-meant nastiness from a lot of places in here, but I can also see the massive difficulty which we, as a community, face in defining what it genuine nastiness, and what is just coarseness or a culturally-different way of making a point. Malleus, dear heart, you have my permission to call me a stubborn, naïve, overly-optimistic, Pollyanna-like, parblind old cow. I will still send hugs your way. Pesky (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi. What was your rationnale for reverting my edit on this page. I thought it was uncontroversial. The phrase "but not official recognition of their political status" seems to me to be POV, in that it assumes that they were, or should have been considered to be, political prisoners. The very slight re-phrasing removed that implication and seems to me more neutral. Jay-W (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your alternative – "but not official recognition of political status" – is a barbarism. Everyone has a political status; you, me, everyone, and to deny that displays a POV. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case your argument is with the original phrase "political status" and not the change I made. Jay-W (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me what my argument is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well if you want to make your objections clear and be constructive then please do so, but I'm not going to get drawn into some pointless argument with you. Jay-W (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you ought not to have started one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've realised now there's no hope of any intelligent discussion with you. If you decide you want to make a useful contribution you can follow this discussion on the article talk page.Jay-W (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have hope of an intelligent discussion with anyone? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)19:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem incapable of understanding what you've already been told; perhaps you don't understand the term "barbarism" when applied to sentence structure? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A sentence structure cannot be barbaric. And you are not being constructive. Jay-W (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing this non-discussion. Please use the article talk page. Jay-W (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The American Mathematical Society's "Guide for authors of mathematical papers" had this Piranianism: "The barbarism called the dangling participle has become more common but not less loathsome." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You must be mistaken; Jay-W knows better, or at least he thinks he does. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I must have been mistaken in thinking Piranian was thanked in Steven Krantz's recent AMS guide to writing, when it must have been in fact Jay-W. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Abuwtiyuw

Apologies, I pasted the translated de tag into the article instead of the talk page by accident. Hope there isn't any major edit conflict. It's clearly based on a de wiki translation (even the etymology section has its own tiny paragraph at the end) and the author didn't credit them. I've notified the writer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, everything's fine. I've restored the Discovery section you merged with Background, because what I want to see is some background on dog funerals/burials/mummification in Ancient Egypt. It's not at all clear to me, for instance, whether Abuwtiyuw was remarkable because he was buried ceremonially, or because his funeral ceremony was so elaborate. But that's for the nominator to sort out; the sources are there to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and also the date is unclear as the Boston Museum started reporting on it in 1933. I think the 1936 is actually the publication date, I might be wrong though. The nominator says he is "discouraged" at the moment. I'll try to look into it but I couldn't find much in google books beyond the snippets and a lot of sources for some reason have errors when you click them. JSTOR only has two articles, one the article used and another which I believe is some sort of copy of the other. it has occurred to me though that different spelling might pick up more, the German name for instance..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been able to check out the December 1936 PDF the article relies so heavily on (for some reason it was unavailable earlier), and it says the tablet was discovered "last winter", so could be either 1935 or 1936. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

1935 I'd go with, I also saw 1935 in another snippet.. I've picked something up under the other spelling which the Germans use but damned server went funny on me as I was about to save. I'll try again shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave that as another thing for the nominator, or you, to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

p.207 photograph by Boston Museum is dated 18 October 1935, date of discovery. I'll ask Gerda to translate the snippets it picks up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to do whatever you think is best. I'm not fond of the way you've re-merged the Background and Discovery sections, as it's not at all clear what this is now the background to. As I said, what I want to see there is a background to the Ancient Egyptian practice of holding funeral services for dogs. But I'll suspend judgement until you've finished. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance in regards to that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope he can help, as I wouldn't be prepared to list the article as it stands. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I could see that it would fail, especially with one source, and the idea of a mummified dog fascinates me. Ancient Egypt is one of my major interests but rarely get the chance to work on something of quality towards it. Thanks, I see what you meant now, I hadn't thought of the background being about the burial customs, so its back. I don't want to overcook it though as it is about the dog, I suppose if extensive info could be found an article on Funerary customs of animals in Ancient Egypt could be started. I'll just cap it off now and then see what Aymatth can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth has finished I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for making those needed minor edits too. Great topic. had to save that one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Some great work done there I think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at this, and thought the use of "spolium, spolia" looks a bit odd to me:

• I haven't come across "spolium", though it might be in use and I just haven't seen it; but, in the second paragraph of the lead, "[The inscribed tablet] was apparently part of the spolium incorporated into the structure" doesn't work, since "spolium" is singular, and such items found together would collectively be "spolia". So, if there were more than one re-used item in the structure, I'd routinely write "It was apparently among spolia incorporated into the structure". If it was the only re-used item, I suppose one might say "It was apparently a spolium incorporated into the structure"; but, as I say, I don't know that "spolium" (singular) is found in modern English. If not, perhaps just avoid using the word!
• In the first paragraph of the section "Discovery", it seems to me that "The tablet was apparently re-used in about 2280 BC in the spolia of a different grave" attributes "spolia" to the wrong grave (and "spolia" are by nature things re-used): here, "spolia" are the spoils of (an) earlier grave(s), so something like "The tablet was apparently among spolia used to build another grave in about 2280 BC" would be better. Spolia are only found in the later grave because someone nicked 'em from (an) earlier one(s), to which they really belong. HTH. Nortonius (talk)

  Thanks. That seems to make sense, so I've made the changes you suggest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  No problem Malleus – glad you agree! Looks much better now, to me anyway... It's been a long day, but my tired brain insisted on making me squeeze that out before bed! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

New Worlds FAC question

Truthkeeper just posted a support at the FAC, and included some comments, one of which is about the lead. Since you worked on it, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion. My reflex would be to merge the short first para with the second, and move the second sentence further down, to place it in chronological order, but Jim's support seems to have been conditional on three paras in the lead so I don't really want to do that. Can you take a look? Perhaps the lead could expand slightly, to allow that merge but still have three paras? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've jiggled a few things around, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it; thanks. I'll post at the FAC and see if Truthkeeper's OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And I see you've already done that too. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Stanislaw Zolkiewski

Re [2] - let me know if I'm stepping on any toes and causing unnecessary edit conflicts.  Volunteer Marek  21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You carry on. As I've said in the GA review I think the article needs a bit of reorganisation, so let me know when you're done and I'll pick up the review again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Haldraper (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivil remarks

Please don't tell other editors to "fuck off" [3] Nobody Ent 10:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Imagine my complete lack of surprise when I found that you'd posted a similarly silly message on J3Mrs's talk page, but not the talk page of Stevo1000, who was the user who started all that drama in the first place. Are you bored or something? Parrot of Doom 10:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me not to tell other editors to fuck off when they deserve it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody Ent, while I appreciate your intentions are (probably) good, have you ever considered doing any article improvement work? A look at your last 500 edits doesn't seem to reveal any such work at all. You might even find that those of us who actually write the content would have more respect for your pronouncements on civility and the like if you were to do this. Failing this, you should not be surprised if content editors politely ignore your comments, like a fart on a bus. Incidentally, "incivil" is not a word. --John (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of escalating self-referentialism, I don't see how the chiding " have you ever considered doing any article improvement work" is working toward a resolution. I agree with the first part of the statement (good intentions) but I'm not really following why a call for more civility is only valid if it comes from content creators.
• I support the content of Parrot of Doom, who correctly observed that the instigator wasn't addressed (now has been). It is too easy to see a particular word, jump on it as uncivil, and fail to look closer for the more egregious lack of civility.
• I wish MF recognized the knee-jerkedness of many editors (generally speaking, not directed at NE) and modified his use of language. While "wish" often means "request", that is not the case here. The community doesn't have the clean hands to make such a request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (I now see that there was an intent to notify the instigator contemporaneously, but the wrong editor was identified. Sounds like a classic British comedy, except for the lack of humor, unless falsely accusing someone of incivility is self-refernetial enough to qualify as humor.)

  Wish all you like, ain't gonna happen. If "the community" behaved itself then I would have no reason to tell ignorant and rude transgressors to fuck off from where they're unwelcome. Let's try to remember what sparked this incident shall we, and maybe wonder why Nobody Ent sat idly by while another editor was being serially abused for upholding Wikipedia's copyright policy? Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand, that's why I tried to emphasize that it wasn't a request. I do see what sparked this, and agree it could have been handled much better. Frankly, your response was remarkably measured given the baiting.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to clarify your first bullet point SPhilbrick. Criticising others' behaviour is always a risky area to get into, and it works best (by which I mean it is more likely to effect a change in the person's behaviour) where there is mutual respect. I do not claim to speak for Malleus but I imagine he may share my mild contempt for sanctimonious pen-pushers like Nobody Ent who regularly lecture others, hang out at the noticeboards, but never apparently contribute anything of value towards the work we are doing here. I recognise we all have our different strengths and areas of expertise but there is a point at which you have to wonder why someone with no wish to write wants to spend their time working on an online encyclopaedia. You certainly have to wonder what he thought it would achieve writing his ungrammatical little "warning" here of all places. --John (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to correct you slightly there John, my contempt is off the scale. Some people talk of an admin/non-admin divide, but more and more I've come to understand that's a false dichotomy. The real divide here is between content creators and those whose only interest is in policing the behaviour of others; whether or not those self-appointed policemen are administrators is irrelevant, although I expect that many of those who aren't aspire to those lofty heights. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We are largely on the same page (I think). (As well as being on the wrong page; if MF objects, I'll take this elsewhere:) I fully agree with the point about mutual respect. It is virtually impossible to accept criticism form editors you do not respect. However, I mildly disagree that one has to do content creation to earn respect. I think all editors should try, if only for the "walk in my shoes" reason, but, for example, if someone is skilled at creating templates, yet struggles with prose, by all means, stick to templates. Does that mean they are prohibited from having opinions and expressing them, with respect to civility issues? I do agree that Nobody Ent handled this situation far less than optimally, I disagree that Nobody Ent, in general, deserves contempt, even if mild.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense if this were a template creation project, but last time I looked its aim was to write an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have no respect. Whoever he is he came to my page to make false accusations. He should mind his own business and stop stirring up drama.J3Mrs (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The incident reminds me of one of my favourite jokes of all time, which I'll shorten, as it can go forever. A kid goes to the circus, where's there's a clown act. Part way through one of the clowns turns directly to the kid and asks him:

"Are you the front end of an ass?"

"No" says the kid.

"Are you the back end of an ass?"

Again the kid replies "No".

"Then you must be no end of an ass" says the clown, to thunderous applause.

The humiliating exchange makes a deep impression on the kid, who resolves to study logic, philosophy, disputation, and anything else that might help him to get the better of the clown. But despite all his efforts every year when the circus returns the story repeats itself. Many years later the kid has grown up and become a professor of logic at a prestigious university. He decides to go back to his home town next time the circus returns and face the clown for a final showdown. Sure enough the clown spots him again and asks his usual question:

"Are you the front end of an ass?"

"Fuck off clown" came the reply.

And that just about sums up my attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Kowtow.jpg

Kiefer.Wolfowitz genuflects---nay, verily kow-tows.

• Nice one. It's an interesting point in the perennial meta-debate about "civility"; how should we respond when someone's behaviour or communication (more usually the combination of the two) evokes real contempt? In real life, I almost always try to just ignore it "like a fart on a bus", but every tenth time or so, I think it is ok to say "fuck off clown" instead. Am I way out of line with Wikipedia's standards? --John (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so. But the community will have a billion different takes on it so you can pick one that suits, I guess. Intothatdarkness 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

One challenge is that there are so many editors, from so many backgrounds, that it is difficult to pint down the Wikipedia standard on this issue. I daresay there are literally thousands who agree, that in certain circumstances, "fuck off clown" is perfectly acceptable. I'll bet there are thousands of others who would counsel against ever using the phrase. And probably a fair number (myself among them), who agree it is warranted in some cases, but worry that many will use it when not warranted, and despairing of writing a set of rules defining when to and when not to, understand that it is easier to say, don't do that. Does MF know when to say it? Almost certainly. Does Randy form Boise? Probably not. So write me a coherent rule that allows MF to do it, but Randy gets a block. (As an aside. I worried I would regret joining this discussion, but the joke alone was worth it. More seriously, I'm fascinated by MF's nuance regarding the divide—not admin versus non-admin, but self-appointed policemen.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

People have often claimed that I've got some kind of anti-admin agenda, but that's very far from the truth, just a shorthand way of saying I don't really understand what MF is saying, or I don't want to hear it. As for rules, there can be no rules to sanction comments taken out of context. To give one extreme example, it would be a criminal offence for me to order that someone be taken outside and hanged if that comment were not made at the conclusion of a murder trial in which I was the judge. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• In full disclosure, I was greatly unimpressed with how Nobody Ent handled my requests here and here; if someone is to act as a metapedian, they should at least be held to high standards. To have someone who acts as a self-appointed guardian of our standards, without adding value otherwise, but who flippantly refers to their own cynical disclaimer when asked to correct an error, does tend to evoke contempt in me. --John (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We have a lot of editors here who think they're the Guardian of something. I can take "support RfA per my [wikilink here] requirements" if it's someone who's been here since before Twinkle was invented, but every NPPer apparently must have a set of rules. And every other editor seems to want to weigh in on AN; it's bad enough already that ANI is flooded by wanna-be admins who chime in to confirm what's already clear in hopes of having their productive comments noted at the next RfA. I am less bothered these days by NE's comments (they have made some useful ones) than I was a year ago, but that's in part because I am no longer interesting in tracing discussions through edit histories.

    In general, yes, I'll take commentary from editors who've accomplished something, but some whippersnapper, like in the ban plump Jack discussion, not so much. I'm probably getting old. Speaking of old: I've been trying to help out closing old RfCs. That's a thankless job, and that's where we need some admins, not in fighting vandals. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Thank you Drmies for that statesmanlike comment. I must keep a look out for these useful comments you say you have seen NE make. --John (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

      Me too. Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

      [4] Nobody Ent 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that was one. :) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm. looks more like sweeping the dirt under the carpet to me. Why was Haldraker not sanctioned for that AN/I report alleging tag-teaming? Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• What do you classify as sanctions? They were criticized by Bish for the comment, which I would consider a mild sanction. Nobody Ent 19:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• What was the hurry to make a non-admin close? What was the benefit to Wikipedia in your doing so? Why do you spend so much of your time hanging around AN/I? If you are going to perform so many admin-like tasks, why not hold yourself to admin-like standards of accountability? --John (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Saga (comic book)

Thanks for your GA suggestions and corrections. I have responded on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll take another look later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Coral Island

I've reviewed Coral Island here and left some very minor nit-picks before passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be right along. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

...r...sfn...

Sorry, I'm just too ignorant. (Plus I'm a little sleepy, haha.) I thought I was doing it correctly; thanks for cleaning it up. Hey, whenever you move on to your next project, you'll see that you have to do some cleanup there as well... Drmies (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about having to do a bit of janitorial work, even though "the community" has resolutely chosen not to provide me with a mop, or even a small dishcloth. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You can always just roll me back. Hey, what I'm currently reading really needs some quality improvement on Wikipedia: Under the Volcano. I'll leave the island be--I think we've gotten as much out of it as we can; more work would require bringing in a chunk of books and a broader discussion of modern readings of the Victorian age, since that's where the coverage is at these days. It's kind of a shame that I couldn't find more on the publishing history: I'm sure it's there in some monograph or other and I may still look for that later. Nice working with you again, sir: I'm throwing in the towel for the night. Please give my regards to Mrs. Malleus. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr Malleus (she hates being called Mrs, I think that was her primary motivation for undertaking her PhD) is upstairs sleeping the sleep of the dead. We've done more than enough with the island, time to move on. As I said, I was never aiming for FA, just good enough. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded actually of a question her PhD supervisor asked me just before her viva. "How will you feel when she has a PhD and you don't?" I was a bit gobsmacked at first, so all I could say was that I'd be as pleased as Punch. But I've never felt any differently, as I've always had a thing for clever women. :-) Especially if they're tall, blonde, and it's love at first sight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm still (technically) married to someone tall, blonde, good-looking, with a PhD and ... and an interesting personality. And fifth of the WAGs with PhDs.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I hardly know what to say, except that counselling won't come cheap. Malleus Fatuorum 06:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"And I only am escaped alone to tell thee." Wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. "Experience, though noon auctoritee" and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought the NHS took care of that? Ha, here I am, white, middle-class, middle-aged, with a fucking Ph.D., a tenured professor, and my shoulder is fucked up--but I can't afford the co-payments for physical therapy. God bless America. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You should handle it the patriotic American way--taking lots and lots of OxyContin. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that the substance released when one stimulates the nipples for 7 minutes? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

lol, there actually have been cases of drug addicts accidentally stealing Oxytocin from pharmacies after misreading the label... Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it helps with mules delivering heroin in condoms?

I forgot my Elmore Leonard and Justified: Hillbilly Heroin. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And in news just in from upside-down land...--Shirt58 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Administrator GiantSnowman's allegation of paranoia, and ANI

There has been editing warring at today's RfA over a personal attack against you. There is a discussion at ANI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Bury the rag deep in your face, now is the time for your tears. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All opposition at RfA must be crushed, whatever the price. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It really should not have been so hard to write, "I wrote poorly when I ascribed a psychiatric condition to MF, and I should have corrected it, especially when it was brought to my attention. Restoring it was inappropriate because of the appearance of a personal attack, which I regret, not having intended it."

Again, another lost opportunity for RfA reformers and administrators to show principle and even-handed enforcement of civility and NPA.

However ANI, apart from the apologetics for attacks on you, had its reasonable moments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we up to one ANI report a day this week? Surely the assholes must soon get the message. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting stat for those who blindly claim that I'm a malign influence at RfA. Apparently my vote agrees with the outcome 71% of the time,[5] not far behind the saintly Newyorkbrad's 73%.[6] Unlike Newyorkbrad though I do have the courage to vote oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That tool shows me at 68%, although I'm actually at 83%, half supports, the rest split between oppose and neutrals (which are just opposes wrapped in moral support). It even showed I opposed myself. I obviously don't want to get rid of opposing votes, but I would by lying if I didn't say I think there needs to be more formality and structure. If done properly, it would only reduce the drama. I do get tired of the overly threaded comments where it quickly gets off topic, something you have seen happen to plenty of your comments. Obviously I don't want to get rid of opposing since I do it half the time, but I still want to see some changes. I just hope you don't think everyone that wants change has nefarious motives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, quite the reverse in fact. I want to see change myself, radical change, but I've given up hope of ever seeing it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm at 80.6% with the herd, despite having the courage to be neutral sometimes, and oppose 22.7%. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not conducive to radical change I've discovered. Large, comprehensive changes will simply never happen. But I am active at chipping away at that problem, and many others, with an end goal in mind. The current system is drama filled and political enough that it is surely scaring off good content creators from running. Even small steps to improve the system would be better than none. No different than writing a good article, it takes a lot of small steps and fine tuning along the way. But you have to be willing to take incremental steps and let others warm up to the idea of change. I can tell that you (Malleus) and I aren't afraid of radical change, but most humans are, in all things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Baah. (Is that what an English-speaking sheep says?) (Or: I'm remarkably good!) Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent not only closed the discussion just when it was getting interesting (i.e., the administrator was being criticized) but he also censored "by administrator GiantSnowman" from the header. I don't recall white-washing names from ANI reports occuring for non-administrators.

Giano commented some months ago about the quick-closings of any discussion of administrator misbehavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer - drop this. MF clearly doesn't give a damn, why are you so concerned? The AN discussion, both of us were informed we could have behaved better - you are creating drama (again) for no reason. "Administrator misbehavior" refers to mis-use of tools - something I didn't do. Yes I was criticised, but then so were you - if anything, you've come off worse than me. Move on. I have. GiantSnowman 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's mandatory for commentators to blame both sides, but the truth is that you were the one who behaved badly, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Drop the insolent tone, tough guy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Le sigh. I was (quite clearly) directing my comments at Kiefer. GiantSnowman 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sfn Harvard notes with multiple authors

How do you get the sfn harvard notes to highlight the books for multiple authors in Cnapan Hotel?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done the first one for you as an example. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, problem solved, gracias.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are still a few other problems with the citations though, so I'll take another look. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah ref=harv was missing on the last one, the others I think are OK now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite; Balmer, Raphael & Raphael 2004, listed in the Bibliography, isn't used as a citation, so that's throwing up a harv error as well. You need to either delete it or move it to further reading. (Or of course use it as a source and cite it.) Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PS. I'm not following this at all: "The hotel has been run by the Lloyds and Coopers since 1984; Judith Cooper and her daughter are the chief chefs. Who are the Lloyds? The infobox says the establishment is owned by Michael and Judith Cooper. And apart from the awkwardness of "chief chefs", my understanding is that chefs generally manage kitchens, they don't actually do much, if any, of the cooking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong objections to sfn notes at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Grimaldi/archive1. "Not user friendly" apparently. Of course normal referencing so is...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "idiotic" springs immediately to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with my ce edits, feel free to directly revert

I don't believe in reporting 3RR for ce edits (or most other edits), and I typically would let a revert by you stand on an article where I am not the major contributor. A lot of this is subjective. I am not quite sure what you were fixing for that "Phillips" reference in The Coral Island; the net effect was to revert one of my not-so-interesting ce edits. Churn and change (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're rabitting on about with vague threats of 3RR, but whatever it is go do it somewhere else. I do not expect to hear any more from you, either here or elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding AutomaticStrikeout's RfA

Malleus, following this edit, I looked into AutomaticStrikeout's RfA. I see you've made a total of 23 edits to the RfA, which is 10 more that even the candidate (link for ease). As I believe a number of these edits have been verging on disruption, I believe you have made your point on the candidate and I believe it is fairly clear from the comments that they are unlikely to pass, but rather get good feedback, I am enacting this remedy. Please do not participate further in this RfA. Should you believe I am involved in this case as I have already voted neutral on the RfA or for any other reason, I am willing to have this decision reviewed. Worm^TT(talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And I believe I don't give a damn what you believe, or for your veiled threats and stupid sanction. Now run along and play somewhere else. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. Malleus has not edited there since 8:30, apart from stopping the move of the discussion to the talk page, in which he could not participate of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No doubt it makes him feel powerful and important though, which is obviously the point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that, given his recent efforts at fairness in this RfA and its ANI discussion, WTT/David thought that you would be unusually receptive to his input. However, I think a private email suggesting not wrestling hogs---because pigs like to get dirty---would have been more effective.

Given that this RfA has been over for some time (in practice) and given the fact that the "paranoia" personal attack stood for half a day without complaint (and with apologetics at ANI), it really was not a good message.

Better that everybody chill out and do something more important, like pray for Obama. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not having anything further to say about the candidate I had no intention of posting there again. But now that WTT's said that I can't .... Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the irony of this situation has sunk into GiantSnowman yet? Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Consider the example of Ruth Norman and When Prophecy Fails. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the RfA has now been closed. WTT's ban saved the day! Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

About that RfA talkpages ban

I've requested clarification on or an amendment of the arbcom remedy here. -— Isarra ༆ 23:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The ban was always a crappy and ill-considered idea, but good luck to you in your quest to have me topic banned from all RfAs as well. Shall I simply start voting like so many of the supporters do? "Support. Why not?", and then leave? I realise that any hint of dissent must be stamped out here in this best of all possible worlds, but don't you think it's getting just a teeny weeny bit ridiculous? Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Or that ban could be removed entirely; that'd work just as well. Some discussion is less relevant than other discussion, is all, and really doesn't belong on the page itself, so having a restriction forcing to be there is silly to say the least. -— Isarra ༆ 02:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm disgusted by the way discussion of your request is shaping up, but it was quite predictable. As was the stupidity of the original topic ban. Still, someone has to be punished, and I guess it's going to be me again. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, although your particular approach to responses isn't likely to make most folks any more sympathetic to your general position. -— Isarra ༆ 04:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I give a shit. I know what's going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a rectal thermometer to tell which way the wind blows. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for an opinion

Malleus, I would like to ask for your opinion on a simple topic—no real work involved for you. I'm merely looking for your best advice.

I've been cleaning up the biographies of U.S. Olympic swimmers from the 1940s, '50s and '60s, slightly fewer than half of whom are women. Most of these women competed under their maiden names (before they were married), and those are the names by which they are most commonly known from their days of Olympic notability. Consequently, the maiden names are also typically the names used for the Wikipedia article titles. Virtually all of these women eventually married, some more than once, a small handful three or more times. Very few of them formally hyphenated their maiden and husbands' names.

My question is this: What is the best way to present the maiden and married names within the article? I have already added the married names to the persondata template for search purposes, but despite my experimentation, I have not been able to arrive at a formula for presenting the bolded married names in the lead, infobox or main body text which does not seem awkward. The MOS is not particularly helpful on point. Given your GA and FA background, I'm hoping you have some helpful advice to offer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the kind of article you're talking about? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Take a look at the linked women's articles in this template:

{{Footer USA Swimming 1964 Summer Olympics}}

Most of the articles are currently stubs or starts, and about a third of them are newly created. Several have more substance. All follow the same pattern of standardized infobox and sections. As the articles get fleshed out, more personal background is being added beyond the simple recounting of their Olympic and other international competition history. I believe this group from 1964 is a representative sample covering the other 300+ Olympic female swimmers spanning 1912–2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look, but probably not until tomorrow, as it's late here now. The first rule is that the article has the title that the subject is best known by. So if their fame is that they competed in the Olympics, then the article should have the name they competed under. If on the other hand one of them had subsequently won a Nobel Prize under her married name that would change things. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that. But how will you discover their (often multiple no doubt) married names, and what style they actually used at different points? Of the template you linked to, only Terri Stickles has a marriage noted. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, most of the married names (probably two thirds) are available through the Olympic athlete profiles at Sports-Reference.com. Where I have independently confirmed the married names in news articles, alumni publications, media guides, etc., I have included them in the persondata templates. In most instances, however, we don't know how the subjects styled their names. For example, Terri Lee Stickles (maiden name) married a man with the surname of Strunck (second marriage). Did Stickles' new legal married name become

1. Terri Strunck;

2. Terri Lee Strunck;

3. Terri L. Strunck;

4. Terri S. Strunck;

5. Terri Stickles Strunck;

6. Terri Stickles-Strunck; or

7. Terri L. Stickles-Strunck?

And that list is not exhaustive; other variations are possible. Newspapers invariably hyphenate the last two names, and they are wrong in most cases (hyphenated married names are still the exception in the United States). I have found a handful of examples (e.g., Donna de Varona, Debbie Meyer) where the subject uses her maiden name for professional/public purposes, and uses her married name otherwise. Multiple marriages present a further complication. Stickles' first marriage was to an Olympic runner named Alvaro Mejia.

What I have done so far is to include the full maiden name in the lead, and to include the first name and married name(s) in the alternate name field of the persondata template. That way, at least the married names are searchable via most internet search engines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a decent editor as it is. God knows why you want to fuck with that and become an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same reason for a lot of us: partly the ability to be helpful, partly vanity, partly thirst for power. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I find that rather strange. For instance, just look at this talk page and see how helpful I am even to those who hate my guts and think I'm a narcissistic twat. And then look at the "power" I have when reviewing GA/FAs. As for vanity, well, least said soonest mended. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thirst for power, huh? That was worthy of a spit-take. For every "power" granted by the bit, it has come with the shackles of expectations and obligations. I guess it is all in how it is used. If someone wants the bit purely for power, it is a very bad trade off. As Malleus points out, he has more real "power" than I do in some ways. At least I'm a smoother talker. Oh, I split that article in twain[7], so they will be complimentary. Created some stubs as well. Might need to rename them before mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

McEwan's

Brilliant. And thanks for the review, its been one of the best I've had. I keep adding to all of my GA listed brewery articles: Boddingtons, John Smith's Brewery etc etc. On that point, could you direct me to the Edinburgh Jazz Festival reference? Finally, do you mind if I just delete the Chisholm factoid? Farrtj (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We aim to please at GAN. I've answered your questions on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Hi Malleus I can see from the article history that you've had some input on this article (which is TFA) in the past. I have some concerns about it that I've begun to raise at the article talk page. If you have any expertise on the questions, I'd be grateful for your input. On the broader issue, I do wonder about showcasing older FAs on Main Page, but I'll take that up on Raul's talk page to see if my idea has any currency (could be a PEREN) before floating it at a project talk page. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall ever doing any work on Sarah, but I'll take a look anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I didn't look too hard at diffs - you did some MOS compliance fixes, back in 2010. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Abuwtiyuw

See Tomcat has nommed this for FAC without telling anybody... Article is short for an FA but I can honestly say I think its about as good as it could be given the lack of wide coverage on it. I do know of similar length/obscure topics which have passed at a similar length previously but I'm not convinced.I think its premature, at least without a discussion...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment, that badly needs a pronunciation guide. When one has no idea how to pronounce what one is reading... Parrot of Doom 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The spelling actually looks Burmese.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression from the article that nobody knows how to pronounce Abuwtiyuw. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on German I'd say Abu-teehu.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly shorter than the typical FA, but as long as it's comprehensive that shouldn't be a problem. I always think it's a mistake though to rush from GAN to FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's the important thing, which it is. But I don't like rushing from GA to FA one bit. Anyway, I'll see how it pans out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

All we can do now is to keep an eye on the nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This may interest you

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-15/Op-ed --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Some good sensible ideas there, therefore obviously no chance of anything like that ever happening. I like the analogy of a switch from direct democracy to representative democracy. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Stanisław Żółkiewski/GA1

Missed the review. Replied and watchlisted now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I suspended the review because Volunteer Marek was doing some work on the article and we'd started to edit conflict. I'll get back to it later. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I addressed all of the issues you raised, and did a general copy edit. If I missed something let me know. Thanks for doing the review. Volunteer Marek  22:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I respect that, enough that I've been quite vocal about it. I agree that his activity was inappropriate, but there are shades of gray here. Perhaps I'm sympathetic to admin candidates that aren't exceptional at writing prose but have other talents. In no way do I think your vote should be invalidated, or that your concerns are petty, I just think that all admin candidates are going to have weaknesses, holes in their skills, and that is an easy one to fix. But obviously I respect your opinion, enough to engage. It was just my opinion that your wording was a bit stronger than the actual circumstances. It is plagiarism, but it wasn't malicious, and to me, intent (as demonstrated by the immediate use of the actual source) matters. I'm saddened that the next person seemed to take so much offense, since I was discounting the concern, only qualifying it.

Had I thought you wouldn't have felt comfortable engaging in a comment or two, I would not have replied and put you in that position. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to believe that the candidate didn't understand the seriousness of what he was doing by copy and pasting without in-text attribution, or even what plagiarism (as opposed to copyright) actually is, but neither of the articles the examples came from has yet been fixed. I'm not at all uncomfortable in engaging in a comment or two, but quite clearly if I do I'll simply find myself banned again. There are already moves afoot to have me banned from RfA altogether, as is obvious from the current ArbCom request, so no point in encouraging the baying masses. The bottom line for me though is that if administrators are going to be placed in authority over content creators then they ought to have some understanding of what it is that content creators actually do and have to put up with on a daily basis. This is after all a project to write an encyclopedia isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the principal of what you are saying. The reason I've tried to spend so much time on editing is to increase my skills at editing at the same time I increase my skills at catching sockpuppets and in mediating disputes. I'm not interested in being a one trick pony, or just a one dimensional admin here. Again, this is probably why I'm more tolerant of serious but innocent mistakes like his, as I am not under the illusion that I am a great author. If I can learn to be a better editor, surely he can. My big criteria is attitude. The kind of admin that won't be a drone or block for a simple issue of incivility. His editing problem is minor enough that it can be learned in an hour, but the demeanor is either in you, or it isn't. Disagreeing with you doesn't bother me in the least, we are two grown men, but I would hope you can understand my rationale, and maybe even consider it. I set the bar just as high as you do, but in different areas, areas that aren't easily learned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely comfortable with agreeing to disagree with you. Was it David Hume who said that "truth springs from argument among friends"? But I've never been much interested in what people say they will or won't do in the future, I want to have seen them either do it or not. And right now I haven't even seen a proper recognition from the candidate that there's a problem, and that he needs to clean it up. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As for saying what they will or won't do, you said the same thing at my RfA, but the last few months haven't been that bad, have they? ;) I even did the 3 months of CSD mentoring under Boing and DGG, even though it was completely unenforceable. I'm no better than he, so I am compelled to have a little faith. Sometimes it works out for the best, but only if you are willing to take reasonable risks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm nothing if not consistent. You've turned out just fine, but I've never been a great one for assuming anything. That so many are willing to assume good faith is what keeps conmen in business. Taking a "reasonable risk" at RfA only makes sense if there's a reasonable procedure in place to remove the bit, which there isn't, so the risk is too high. There's also the inherent immorality in potentially blocking someone for a "crime" that you've committed yourself (getting a few CSD taggings wrong, as in your case, was simply incompetence, not a "crime"), which is a fundamental flaw with much of Wikipedia's governance, not least with the ridiculous civility policy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, ArbCom needs a bloody good clear out. When are the next elections? Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to create an easier way to desysop with WP:RAS and Worm's RFC that surrounded all of that, but the community response was tepid at best. Many people talk about change, but disappear when given a chance to make change, something I've never really understood. As for the hesitation, I completely understand, I just think some new blood is a needed. I don't know him, so I'm not invested, but he seems like a nice enough fellow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

I'm thoroughly disgusted by what's going on at this kangaroo court, and I would urge any honest editors reading this page to offer an opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If a little kid calls you a "booger", do you get upset? Why do you care if Hersfold wonders whether you have the ability to collaborate? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it goes deeper than that. An arbitrator should be able to step back from his/her own prejudices and give an opinion based on reasoned arguments offered by other parties and be able to discount the spurious off-topic barrages not add to the overall pile in. J3Mrs (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Honest? Check. Reading this page? Check. You giving a rat's arse about my opinion? Eh... not so much. But here goes: you're pretty good at picking the horses, Malleus.[8] Just under 70% is very good. Say your little piece at the RfA's: and then back off of them. Less is more. Then no one can bitch at you for haranguing the candidates, from now on. Pretty simple, no? Good talk. Doc talk 10:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The tool is whack. It has me voting oppose at my own RFA. I think Malleus has a bit higher percentage than 70. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course if we do express an opinion, it's immediately dismissed as more babbling from the "puling masses" or a "predictable pile-on by Malleus' posse." Oddly (or not, given the dynamics of this place), the people who make those comments are rarely chastised for them. I'll just repeat something I said earlier...I find Malleus serves quite well as an asshole detector. Those who come roaring out of the woodwork to bait, poke, or prod to get a reaction often seem to show similar poor behavior elsewhere (although in a more passive-aggressive form, perhaps). I've learned who to avoid based on their responses to Malleus. You can be abrasive at times, but so what? I tend to be more offended by the holier-than-thou pronouncements I've seen from some of the civility police and admins around here. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

BK's retirement

Sadly, Black Kite seems to have retired.

TParis has taken a leave of absence, following an editor (not blocked) musing about his murder, aloud.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Losing BK is a blow, but you're wrong twice about TParis; he's back now, and the editor musing about his murder was blocked immediately, and is still blocked now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. He is not banned. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but banning is a silly social game we play here. It means little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Banning may well result in socking. However, to keep TParis, I would have banned the fellow, and dealt with the socks as apparent. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder (and only a reminder)

The back-and-forth at the request is dragging the whole thing off-topic from the original intent, which heats everyone up = Not A Good Thing^TM. My suggestion, as an AC Clerk, is to take a step back, relax, and use wordings that get your point across while being civil. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Penwhale, you only gave a reminder to Malleus, here, following up on a more finger-poking whine at the page.

Nobody cares what you think, because you haven't had the decency to admonish ArbComers from straying off topic.

Go away.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The request has never been on topic and still isn't. You need to be issuing your "friendly reminders" to the arbitrators, if you have the courage and integrity to do so. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I looked through your posts, and found that there were veiled threats.
  • What are you going to do to SirFozzie?
  • Regardless of what happened in the original RFA situation (which I have read and concluded that threaded conversation went on a bit more than I'm used to seeing), stuff like this is never good.
• You wouldn't curse at a grand jury (it's a bad comparison, I know, but bear with me) in a court case, so why would you ever make the above statement? Clerks were, in fact, instructed to remove your PA/baseless accusations; I merely prefer you to look at your comments again and tone them down a little.
• And yes - there are more than 1 Arbitrators trying to grasp the core of the issue. The back-and-forth comments, however, do not help, and I have already mentioned that to the whole AC. Please help me help you help everyone. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  I would indeed curse at a grand jury if it behaved in the way this ArbCom is behaving; only an obsequious coward wouldn't. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, but grand jury are only human, and who's to say whether they won't get affected by those words in their deliberations...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  Isn't there also a judge present with the grand jury? Whose job is partly to prevent the sort of abuse that we see so often from the arbitrators, as in this case? And to guide them in the law and due process? Which would alleviate the need for me to say anything to the grand jury? Where's the ArbCom equivalent of the judge? ArbCom's not a pseudo-legal process, it's a dunking. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I never said I was good with the whole legal system (I am not even a US Citizen at that...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

hurrumph

Hi Malleus! I'm wondering why it is that you get to put comments on Laura's talk page, as you did at that QPQ barnstarring, but mine are wiped out within minutes. Not fair. One looks to her, as vice president of WMAu, for leadership and examples of best-practice editing. This is what I went in search of, to be rebutted. :-( Tony (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Because us Poms are better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Because you reverted a user's talk page twice without reading their edit reasons?

If someone finds you "difficult" to deal with, or tolerate, then 'best-practice editing' is to direct you to a more-public page such as one where remarks may be handled by a wider audience. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Brian, are you still at Wikinews? Hope you're not offended I didn't take up your invitations at LinkedIn and Facebook. Tony (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I were looking for examples of leadership and best-practice editing Laura's talk page wouldn't be a venue that sprang immediately to mind, particularly as she's got a massive blind spot where DYK is concerned. What's WMAu? Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• WikiMedia Australia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, of course. Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a notification..

I have posted a motion regarding you at the Clarifications and Amendment discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Now let me guess what that might be ... nothing to do with the clarification requested I'll wager. Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Incredible, just incredible. This place has become a madhouse. I have no wish to hang around and give you and your colleagues the pleasure of ejecting me, so this is the end of the road for Malleus Fatuorum. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So much for staying on topic, SirFozzie.

You heap off-topic abuse on Malleus, and then move to ban him when he responds. You should resign, because you have been behaving despicably~, but consistently towards Malleus for months.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I will be curious to see who becomes the flavor of the month for this kind of thing should Malleus actually follow through this time and leave the project. Intothatdarkness 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, NYB has made some valid points, although I wish he would also note that the attackers of Malleus have not been a random sample, and that they need to take responsibility for their behavior too. Nobody imagines NYB behaving in such a two-faced manner.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not heap "off-topic" abuse on Malleus, Kiefer, I told him in the simplest terms to quit personally attacking others, which led to Malleus passionately defending his right to call other editors "dishonest fuckers" and twats. As I stated, sure he can do that, but there are consequences for these violations of Wikipedia policies. The ban motion is one of those consequences. SirFozzie (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie/Hersfold,

Let me help you with your lack of imagination. Read the RfA discussion and the ANI discussion where "editors" explained that there was no problem with labeling Malleus as paranoid, and then read your and your colleagues' discussions at ArbCom and here. Look in the mirror. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't put it better than Anthony did here. Sir Fozzie, I used to have a lot of respect for you, but this is now a new low in the disgrace that ArbCom has become. Malleus is worth twenty of you. You (plural) disgust me with your petty pencil-sharpening bureaucrat's wankery. --John (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments and I, too, am considering whether or not to jack it in. I won't be missed but I didn't sign up to watch a kangaroo court or arbs proposoing motions on subjects that were not referred to them by the community. I predict heightened aggravation at the next arbcom elections, even if this ridiculous motion is rescinded. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

+1, although from me it's purely symbolic at this stage. Fozzie, what has happened to you? I have no opinion on the case itself—I haven't followed the ins and outs, and I can certainly imagine it possible that Malleus's behaviour at RFA may have caused problems—but unilaterally inserting a motion into an Arbcom decision, which wasn't requested by any of the initial parties, in order to ban an editor with whom you have a well-documented and long-standing personal grudge? The Fozzie I remember would have been the first to condemn this; your motion is the kind of policy-over-common-sense chest-beating I'd expect from the Arbcom of 2005, not the Arbcom of 2012. – iridescent 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Iridescent, as I say below, I don't want to ban Malleus. But he's been given every opportunity to comply with Wikipedia's norms and policies to not call other people "dishonest twats" and the like. I've NEVER been for that right. I've been intemperate, sure. I've said plenty of bad things about people. But I've moderated my behavior when other people called me on it. I made an effort to work within Wikipedia's norms, proceedures and policies. Malleus has made no such effort. Instead, he's proud of his ability to refer to other people in such terms. If Malleus made an honest effort to dampen down the personal attacks, I'd fall over myself to drop the motion. I've made extraordinary efforts to NOT ban people (see the RF discussion, where I actively looked for a way to keep another long term editor around, when the easier thing would be to just say "To hell with it" and go with the ban that was ALREADY PASSING. I've gone the extra mile again below.. If Malleus would be willing to even TRY, I'd propose giving him extra leeway.. but he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and his response is to retire rather then to comply. Like Brad, I find this very sad, but if he's not willing to go to the effort of complying, then I'm sorry, this is how things need to be. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, you should read the exchange that lead to "dishonest twat" and you'll see that it was used in the right place at the right time. There is no reason to make nice to that sort of comment. You're banning Malleus for responding to a personal attack with an expletive? Which world do you live in. --regentspark (comment) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a motion to ban when you don't want to ban is an odd form of logic, regardless of your subsequent explanations. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not "how things need to be", SirFozzie. The one person who can stop this right now is the instigator, you. Otherwise you will be plunging Wikipedia into a chilling and destructive abyss. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Spot on, Epipelagic, Or, speaking as a Mancunian myself, "Too fucking right." ;) Sitush (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on QuiteUnusual's RfA

Could you edit your comment to remove the implication that I am accused of plagiarism? I think you have me confused with QuiteUnusual. I think you mistook what I was saying anyway, I think what Unusual did was copyright infringement on the non-public domain sources, I was rebutting Dennis Brown's assertion that it wasn't copyright infringement, but merely some kind of issue of editing style. I was asked about our exchange on my RfA and there's a fairly large expansion of my rationale there if you want to read it. Gigs (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am probably guilty of the same mistake. My apologies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, heh, your support comment makes more sense now. No problems. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. My cognition doesn't agree with lack of sleep and constant interruptions. I also blended together Arbcommers, with greater justification. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Same as KW, my apologies Gigs. I've struck my comment. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

One more time for the record...

Malleus, I don't want to ban you. Honestly, I don't. If you honestly say something like, "I disagree, but I will try to moderate my intemperate attacks in the future. I just ask for some leeway, as this will be difficult", then I'd rescind the ban motion right now. But you seem to believe that there's nothing wrong with the comments you've made, and that you have a right and duty to refer to people in such terms whenever you see fit. I disagree. The pillars of Wikipedia disagree. I am extending this olive branch one more time. You have options here. Try to moderate your behavior and continue the good work you've done here, or continue down this path, and we all know how this will end. SirFozzie (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie,

This is a start, but it does not deal with the incivility towards Malleus. The problem is that you all are ignoring the attacks, including "paranoia" and MONGO's obsessive hounding. Why does Malleus have to put up with this? Why don't you do anything?

But I think that if you consider your tone, your olive branch is not an olive branch. It is more of a birch branch to spank him.

Put yourself in his shoes.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments suggest that Malleus's sin is that he has voiced contempt for the uneven administration of civility and for the infantilization demanded by some. Administrators called him paranoid and got away with it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think any right-minded person would be offended by this post. I know what my reaction to it would be, if you'd made it on my talk page. Parrot of Doom 19:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, I disagree with a lot of people here on Wikipedia, but the proper response is not fighting fire with fire. In my first conflict on Wikipedia, I ran into a person who turned out to be one of the more active sockpuppet-using vandals on Wikipedia. During that discussion, I lost my temper, and told that person exactly what I thought of them, and I got called on it via the administrator who was trying to mediate that. They told me something that I've kept in the back of my mind ever since. "By lowering yourself to their level, you're doing what they want you to. They want you to fight at their level because they can't win on the merits. They want you to lose your temper so that the point you're trying to make is lost in the noise." I learned that lesson, and try my hardest to apply that every day in my roles as an editor, administrator and in the last 2.75 years as an Arbitrator. The correct response to such things isn't to go an eye for an eye, that just leaves everyone without depth perception. Being reasonable is even more important when other people are being unreasonable, because most times, onlookers can figure out who's got the right of any argument. Malleus's behavior (and his defense of his behavior) is exactly that. It allows OTHER people to seem reasonable and to point out Malleus's behavior, rather then the issue Malleus would like others to look at. And as I keep saying, I don't want to ban him. Malleus does a lot of good for the project. But he's gotta meet us halfway, you know? He's got to show that HE Can be the reasonable one in discussions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus responds well to kindness and responds in kind to attacks and fairly to unfairness. He and Dr. Blofeld had a blow up, but both made peace the next day, last week. He helped Lecen last week. Where were the administrators and ArbCommers defending him or helping to make peace at the recent RfAs? You guys never miss an opportunity to fail to demonstrate fairness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Malleus says "I recognize that some comments I make, while acceptable banter in Manchester can be seen as rudeness in some other places, and if anyone makes a reasonable request to avoid using a particular phrase I'll do so, provided there's a synonym that has the same meaning but won't cause the same offence".
2. Those who bait Malleus (as opposed to those who have legitimate disagreements with him) are warned not to interact with him in any way, unless unavoidable; if there is any dispute as to what constitutes "unavoidable" any admin can refer the matter to Arbcom who will issue an ad hoc ruling as to what constitutes "baiting". ("Admin" to act as a natural choke on the number of people referring disputes, rather than as some kind of super-status—any other arbitrary group would do just as well.) If Arbcom rule that the comments are baiting, the editor in question is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from further interaction. If Arbcom rule that the comments are legitimate, Malleus is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from any comment would could reasonably be considered rude.
3. If a given editor repeatedly posts comments which are ruled to be "baiting" (three in six months?) they are banned from any interaction with Malleus for as long as Malleus refrains from any interaction with them.

Really, it's not that hard to resolve these things without either blocks-all-round or Mattisse-style micro-mentoring plans. Fozzie, you're supposed to be the Arbitration Committee, not the Blocking Committee. Mogism (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly Mogism, if Malleus would meet us halfway and stop fighting fire with napalm, it's possible. If Malleus feels like other people are baiting him, the correct method isn't to call people by the objectionable terms he's used repeatedly in this and other discussion, but to ask an administrator to step in and mediate (or to deal with itself), we'd be done and dusted, but instead, he tells us that he'd be a coward if he DIDN'T refer to people by those terms... It may not seem like it, but I'm the moderate here. I don't want Malleus gone permanently.. there are those who want an indefinite ban, meaning Malleus would have to ASK to come back. I don't want that. I really don't. Even if this ban passes, and Malleus comes back in six months and shows that he's working on how he interacts with people he disagrees with, I'd be willing to give extra leeway if there are occasional (note: Occasional) slippages. I know full well how hard it is to rein in your temper when you want to tell another editor exactly what you think of them. But there has to be some give here. It's NOT right to call other editors the things Malleus has.. and he'd prefer to retire (and/or be banned) then to modify the way he deals with others. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie---And the "paranoia" personal attacks, and its acceptance at ANI (pre WTT)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Re to Fozzie and Kiefer - I'm trying to suggest a way where "everyone gets something", that hopefully resolves the problem but doesn't lose any writers, on either side, and doesn't take too much time to enforce. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, but at least you tried to come up with a solution rather than just picking one side of the dispute and blocking the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogism (talk • contribs)

Whether it's a six-month ban or indefinite makes absolutely no difference, as the example of Ottava showed. And anyone who seriously believes that in six months time I'd be going cap in hand to ArbCom to be allowed back really does need to have their bumps felt. Urgently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Medicine

At Wikimedia Medicine we'll be working with subject-matter experts, helping them write GA and FA quality medical articles, and then using Translators Without Borders to translate them into third world languages. We'll need high quality editors to work with the professors, coaching them in the Wiki way. I was wondering if you might be interested in helping out there once we're up and running. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but it doesn't really look like I'm going to be around for much longer. My advice to your professors would be to steer well clear of Wikipedia until a few fundamental things are sorted out, say by the middle of the next century at the current rate of progress. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The editing will probably be happening on Meta. They'll be WM:MED articles, not en.WP articles. If en. or de. or ethiopia. want to import them, that'll be up to them. I'll keep you posted here. We're months away yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, probably OK then. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got a bit on your plate right now - hopefully a ploughman's lunch - but I thought I might ask your opinion on something. WM:MED's mission is

To make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all people in the language of their choice.

Reliable. Presently on Wikipedia, though our med articles are often impressive, they are not reliable, because of the "anyone can edit" model. So we at WM:MED have set a goal that is incompatible with the current practice at Wikipedia.

The first model at WM:MED that I'll be proposing is scholarly peer review of our (WM:MED's) articles. That is: written by topic experts aided by Wikimedians, and then reviewed/revised by three independent topic experts, and experienced GA/FA reviewers. We publish (at WM:MED, in many languages) the finished, dated, locked article, and anyone - en.WP, de.WP, ethiopia.WP - can use it as they wish.

But I would like the top Google result (usually en.WP in English searches) to be reliable. I think "reliable" is something Wikipedia should and can achieve, at least for its medical content. I'd like to see a link, at the top of every Wikipedia med article (that has passed scholarly peer review) to the peer-reviewed version. Something like

This article was reviewed/updated by three independent topic experts on 20 October 2012. To read that version of the article, click here.

What do you think, and do you think it would ever fly at en.WP? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Thank you for a first oppose against a main stream, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't do him much good though. Perhaps I ought to have supported, then everyone who hates my guts might have voted to oppose the ban in the belief that they were in some way getting their own back on me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have the feeling he got what he wanted. In a Munich museum, I watched a film last Monday, artists Jean Tinguely and his wife Niki de Saint Phalle buying large pieces of everyday stuff in Las Vegas supermarkets and on junkyards, placing it in the desert and make it transform in carefully planned consecutive explosions, Study for an End of the World No. 2 (1962) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kow-tows. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malleus, fwiw, I'm only coming up to speed on this. Have been fighting my own battles in the past two days (ironically because of copyright issues) and haven't been keeping up. Just finished work across the ocean and find this! I missed the discussion to ban Jack too because I don't have the drama boards on watch - but even though it's fairly well known that he and I aren't ardent admirer's of each other - I didn't like seeing a community ban enacted so swiftly. My advice to you, and you can tell me to fuck off (I can take it!), is to sit tight, watch what the community has to say, and try very hard not to burn any bridges tonight. The night is still young in America and not even night on the other side of the world. This is going way way to fast in my view. Again take this for whatever it's worth. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice TK, I'll think on it. I'm completely bemused at how a simple request for clarification turned so quickly into yet another civility witch hunt. As far as I'm concerned there's only one explanation: Wikipedia's vendetta culture. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, as we've said in the past, writing is hard. This is easier and more fun than slogging in the trenches spitting out content. I think that's what it's all about. Editors forget why there here (if they ever knew in the first place) and when any kind of drama rears its head, it's so much easier to jump on that than actually do article work. I'm always impressed by how much you manage to do despite all the drama, and let's be honest, the drama is sometimes a way of blowing off steam while taking a break from the trenches. I only wish more people were in the trenches creating content for our readers. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. What I find ironic about this affair is that any honest person who compared what I've done in the last week or so to what those who want me banned have done would not be calling me a "net negative" to the project, yet one arbitrator has chosen to do so. Not good. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'll be brutally honest because I know you value honesty. I think I noticed that the same arb said a similar thing about Jack Merridew who was also very productive, but in a different fashion. But, and this is a big but. I was at the receiving end of a lot of shit from Jack for almost a year and frankly didn't like it. That doesn't mean I believe he should have been site banned, but I would have liked him to tone it down a bit. Some people are thin-skinned, some people like to pile on, some people are simply jealous. They don't want to hear the truth. They don't want it shoved into their faces. That's why you run into trouble. I'd suggest thinking about Brad's advice - my sense is that it's meant sincerely. We all know that you're a positive, but my advice to you would be to stop trying to fix RfA. I unwatched there years ago. It's a lost cause. Okay, off my soapbox. Suppertime for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brad's advice is meant sincerely, and I'm seriously considering what he's said. As for Jack, well, I didn't always get on with him myself, but I don't see that as any kind of reason to block someone, just because you don't like them. He ought to have stuck to his single account promise, but for whatever reason chose not to, so I guess the outcome was inevitable. As for RfA, I'm not allowed to try fixing it any more, so all I can do is to try and stem the rot by voting, which is apparently not allowed except if you're voting support. Enjoy your supper. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this out of process event, and have said as much. My opinion plus $2 will get you a cup of coffee, however. It does look like Brad is sincere and I'm glad to see it didn't turn into a clean sweep. You know how I feel about civility so I won't rehash it, but I do hope that you and Brad can find common ground and we can put this behind us and just move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus, I'll make a deal with you. You try to rein yourself in and when you want to vent please use my page to vent all you want. God knows I get enough trolling there, and I like you and would be happy to have you vent. You can dump all the bad language on me that you want, but keep it away from the people at RfA. Would you agree to this? All I care about is putting good content on the internet, and that's what you do best. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Adding: I have to log out. I've had a long day working, ate supper late, and am tired. Please consider my offer. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  I will, but the RfA thing was just a ruse. Some people don't like to see authority challenged. I thank you for your offer, and it reminds me that even though I'm often accused of scaring off good editors, especially scarce female resources such as yourself, it just never happens. The only editors I open fire on are arseholes, regardless of gender. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, but you're shooting yourself, well I was going to say in the foot, but in this case might be a little worse than that. Anyway, I'm off. Take care. I might send email at some point. Or you to me. It's finally enabled again, after a long time. I have relatives in Warrington, so the next time I'm over might meet in a pub or something? Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

New day, I wanted to add to the above, but can as well put it here: you pull a little trigger, use a four-letter word or stage an edit war on Civility: facts and contributions are ignored. What sort of "community" are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Laughing jokers off of ArbCom

It's bad enough that RfA dwellers miscite WP:Point because they are upset that somebody exhibits a counter-example to their falsehood, but AGK (at the latest lynching attempt)?

Shouldn't such incompetence result in immediate disqualification or a recall? (Apart from the obvious concerns about dishonesty, etc.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration motion

Malleus, I don't want to see you banned, nor do I want you to retire, although of course the latter is your choice.

But there are a lot of editors, obviously including several arbitrators, who are concerned at how you sometimes address fellow editors on-wiki. It's not any one comment or set of comments; it's a persistent thing, and even if this wasn't your intent, it has become repeatedly disruptive. You weren't just chosen at random to be the subject of the motion.

Anyone can lose his or her temper, in the heat of a content dispute or a noticeboard dispute or an RfA or whatever, and say something that shouldn't have been said. Anyone can even deliberately decide, once in a blue moon, that it is best to use unusually charged, pungent language. But the whole point of such language is to evince unusually great anger or hostility or frustration. What's the point of doing it every day?

The problem is not that you have called one or two people (I'm deliberately exaggerating this for effect) "sanctimonious dishonest hypocritical fucking cunty-twats." It's that it feels as if you regularly call people "sanctimonious dishonest hypocritical fucking cunty-twats", and that you think it's a good thing to call some people "sanctimonious dishonest hypocritical fucking cunty-twats", and that if you get into a controversy tomorrow you're as likely as not to call someone else a sanctimonious dishonest hypocritical fucking cunty-twat.

Of course the frustrating thing is that you'll do that right in the midst of helping a newcomer who's trying to figure out an editing problem, reviewing a few GA nominations, and putting in a couple of hours polishing your next FA.

I have worked with my fellow arbitrators for a long time, and I am confident they don't really want to ban you. (No one should ever want to ban anyone from contributing to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; bans are a last resort, though it's always a judgment call when it's necessary to employ that last resort, lest retaining one editor cost us five others.) I think what the arbitrators voting for the motion want, as the proposer has already said, is for you to say you'll make some effort to change your behavior. Not to become Caspar Milquetoast, and not to parrot some imaginary party line (as if we all agreed with each other about everything anyway), and not to change your views about who should or shouldn't become an administrator (although you're still wrong about "immigrated to" and Jeremy Lin).

Just to tone it down a notch already. Or n notches, for some positive value of n. If you agree to do this, maybe I can open a thread in the Civility RfC to quantify n. (I vote for pi-squared-over-six, which is a very cool number. But I digress.)

The civility policy is actually very simple: Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. There's a good reason this is a policy, though it's obviously not the only policy there is. Do you think it should be a policy? Do you think you've made even a minimal effort to adhere to it? Are you willing to try?

I can readily imagine a Wikipedia in which Malleus Faturoum accomplishes everything he wants to, while softening the sharp edges and incendiary rhetoric that have brought things to where they are now. Can you? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post this, I know you're a busy person. Let me think about what you've said and get back to you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I had considered that your thoughtful comments might provide the basis for a mutually agreeable way forwards, until I saw the comments made by your fellow arbitrator Jclemens. I no longer think that anything I say will make any difference. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

JClemens is not Brad. He's not myself. He's one arb of 13 on this motion. I have told him on that thread that he's wrong, that you ARE a Wikipedian (even if we do go through with this), and that you've done a LOT for Wikipedia. I will say this, as I said above, I will withdraw the motion completely, no "zero tolerance", none of that stuff, if you meet us halfway. Just make an effort as Brad says. SirFozzie (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I saw Jclemens' comment, I responded to it in my statement on the arbitration page. Several other people have indicated that they also disagree with Jclemens' formulation, and I don't see anyone else rushing to embrace it. It's late and I need to call it a night now, but I hope you'll continue to think about the best way forward for everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have enough words to be excoriatingly brutal without ever using "fuck", "cunt", or "twat", but my impatience sometimes gets the better of me, just the way I'm wired. What else can I say? If you don't want me here then fine, but what is it exactly that you want me to promise not to do in the future? Tell the truth? Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• (e.c.) Malleus, consider me your friend. We go back a long way, even though I'm not often around the FAC forum and other venues where you commonly edit. I want to endorse exactly what SirFozzie posted (mmm, he's a talented arb, by which I mean he shows utter reasonableness and explains things very well. Jclemens, in my view, tends to be a bit hasty, but has other good attributes in his role—don't take what he says personally.)

  I want to appeal to you on the basis of two considerations. First, using aggressive obscenities damages the milieu by suggesting to other editors that it's fine; in a sense, there's a danger of normalising it over time. Second, I quaver at the reaction of many female editors, who are on the whole more likely to take private offence and as we already know favour more strongly than males a harmonious environment; we face a desperate problem in the 90–10 gender split.

  πIt's all about context; few people—women, newbies, even the most uppity, sexually repressed person—would fail to enjoy a good joke involving aggressive obscenities (preferably off-wiki, away from FoxNews's prying eyes). But that is not usually the context when you use them, or at least it's not clear that you mean no harm. This "just the way I'm wired" claim is fair on one level, but you're skilful and insightful enough, aren't you, to see that different linguistic registers require different wordings?

  I haven't read the arb-case text; but please consider making a pledge to avoid immoderate language. You're too valuable for us to lose, and you'd garner significant respect for making such a pledge. Maybe the arbs might be swayed by it, too. Please remember, also, that on a wiki, ANI and arbcom are not about truth or justice, but about keeping the game afloat. Tony (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  Tony said it so much better than I would have, word for word. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) We've agreed and disagreed in the past Tony, but I've never thought of you as anything other than a friend here, or at least not a sworn enemy. As for female editors swooning at the sight of an inappropriate word, that's not been my experience at all. There's a fair few female editors who post here, probably most of whom I've collaborated with on articles, and none them has complained about my language or attitude. So to be insulted in the way I was by Jclemens leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth. What kind of pledge would you like to see me make? "I promise in the future to be more respectful to obvious arseholes"? It would stick in my craw. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Malleus, it's both the feelings of those to whom the epithets are directed and the reactions of onlookers who don't comment. So you don't always know. It should be possible to get your point across without using negatives at all (something I haven't always achieved, but I do try). On a wiki, it's much more effective to level with someone you disagree with by using plain, clear, depersonalised wording; I've seen you do it, what's more. And it tends to minimise the risk that the discourse will spiral. A pledge would be to do nothing less than that, and would probably explicitly state that you'll completely avoid obscenities, profanities, sexual terms, and negative slang items that refer to people, unless those terms are themselves the subject of discussion to improve an article. Simple! Tony (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    The voting shows that it no longer makes any difference what you or I say or think. So it's ta-ta. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    • As of now the vote is still pending...Modernist (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No, not yet. SirFozzie struck his vote. Please consider my offer - if you have to use language that's considered inappropriate please use me as a foil instead and do it on my talk page. Limit it to a single page. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Malleus, as I've said, there's no reason for someone of your proven ability to stoop to making such attacks. You do things with content I can't. (I have 2 DYK's. That's about it.) There's got to be a way for someone with your ability to get across your disagreements without stooping to such attacks. As for the motion I've struck my vote so we can explore this discussion freely. All you have to do is say something like I said above. That you will try to moderate such behavior (you can even say "This will be difficult, so please grant me a bit of leeway" so people won't be looking to jump down your throat if you do occasionally slip, and my strike becomes an oppose, and I will work in my discussions with the arbs to prevent the motion from passing. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

        I had thought that Newyorkbrad's approach above was an attempt on behalf on the committee to reach some some kind of acceptable compromise. I now see that I was wrong, minds had already been made up. Malleus Fatuorum 04:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

        Malleus, please remember that the Arbitration Committee is made up of individuals; believe me, we have a hard enough time agreeing on simple things, let alone complex issues like this one, and we certainly don't all think in lock step, as should be plain to see on a pretty regular basis. Nothing passes until there has been an unchanged majority for at least 24 hours; keep in mind that several arbitrators voted before the above discussion was initiated by Newyorkbrad (and thus could reconsider), while others of us have elected to hold off on voting awaiting the outcome of this discussion. I do urge you to carefully consider what arbitrators, and many of your colleagues, have said here. Risker (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

        I see the same "ban him, he's a witch" names there as I've seen in other ArbCom proceedings, but I'm particularly disturbed that this case spiralled so quickly out of control from a simple request for clarification to the witch hunt it became. Malleus Fatuorum 05:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

        I too was rather surprised to see this move so quickly. It was just over 24 hours ago that you were being asked to be more temperate in your comments on the clarification page.

        It's the wee hours of the morning for you (heck, it's the wee hours of the morning for me and we're 5 time zones apart), and historically this has been the period where you've had the greatest challenges in maintaining decorum, so I don't want to press you for any responses now. I do urge you to give some thought to the postings of those whom you respect here (and hopefully the arbitrators who have posted here as well, if one or more of us don't fall into the first category), but more importantly, take care of the person behind the Malleus moniker first and get some rest. Risker (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, please listen to Tony. It is not that you must in the future "be more respectful to obvious arseholes". It is simply a matter of expressing yourself with "plain, clear, depersonalised wording" when you are in contention. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus: You don't know me. But I'd urge you not to bend one iota. Don't be an enabler. Make them confront the perversity of the system, their own inadequacy, and how it daily guarantees the failure of the ideals they claim to hold in high esteem. They need you as a beard for their far greater and more damaging, but less visible, failings.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to bend a little and sometimes you have to stand strong. In a sense, this spat isn't really about me at all, it's about Wikipedia, and the childish way it treats its contributors. Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You can do more from the inside than you can from the outside. I'll support your choices, and you're always welcome to talk to me via email too; but I'd rather see you bend a bit this time in order to keep from breaking. Just think of it as an exercise in creative writing - how to say what you think, without using the immediately understandable verbiage. You once said we had a responsibility to the younger generation - please don't give up. — ChedZILLA 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think I can Ched. There has to be some give and take. When have you ever seen me be rude to someone who wasn't insulting to me first? Christians may choose to turn the other cheek, but I say more fool them; that way you get whacked twice. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Brad, this would be sage advice if Wikipedia rewarded kindness and honesty, but it doesn't. If Wikipedia recognized when people de-escalate and treated them accordingly it would be sage advice, but it doesn't. My own experiences here have made that abundantly clear to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you and I don't see eye to eye all the time, but I have a great deal of respect for you. People often lump you together with trolls because your method of interacting with other uses veers too often into the less than stellar areas of insulting people's (perceived lack of) intelligence and calling people names. However while I wish that you would stop doing that, I've come to recongize that you're not a troll, but someone who is deeply intellectually honest and tells it how it is, you just happen to do so in a way that people view as inappropriate. That you've become the community punching bag, that you're viewed as the free target that people can poke at to get a rise out of, and that this feeds into a vicious cycle in which a person that's long been jaded becomes even more jaded, is a tragedy.

While I don't believe that a history of positive contributions should excuse a history of inappropriate behavior, I do believe that it is important to account for the distinction between your incivility and base trolling. In short, to be honest, I do believe that you've gone too far, too often, and that if it doesn't stop, you need to spend some time away from the project. I also believe that you are smart enough to be able to avoid continuing to fall into this trap. You've been wronged a number of times over the course of this project, however fighting to correct these issues is not a role you can play if you continue this confrontational and abrasive attitude. You've become the figurehead for incivility, and your voice doesn't carry the authority that's needed to successful point out the issues this process faces because of that. Too many people discard your thoughts because you're the one making them.

The solution then, is to give the faction that's after you nothing; cut the incivility down to zero, give them nothing to use against you. The less fodder you give your enemies, the weaker their arguments become, and the more obvious that at least some people are after you because you're you. If you leave, nothing changes. If you're banned, nothing changes. If you really want to improve the toxic culture of this project, to combat hypocrisy, vindictiveness, petty actions, give the people behind those petty actions nothing to work with and then watch with silent glee as they lose their positions of respect by trying to grind out something out of nothing. It's an endeavor I wish you luck in. In short, take NYB's offer.

Anyways, feel free to take this as you wish. I've tried to be as honest and straightforward as I can be. I believe that this is the best advice I can give. What you do from here on out is up to you, and I suppose, ArbCom. Best of luck in your endeavors. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Malleus. I was away for a while and came back, kind of, a few months ago. Was looking forward to one of your reviews, which I can see may be about to be spectacularly derailed. I've expressed my view at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Like Risker commented above, I've noticed you're more likely to get cranky with the turkeys around here in the wee hours (your wee hours; they certainly ain't mine down under). I also thought Courcelles comment about "not perfection, just better" was pertinent. Maybe you should try sleeping after midnight? Not serious, but it would be fantastic if there was some way you could dial it down every now and then, because the reviews, camaraderie, and occasionally hilarious banter of your talk page enrich this community. I think some people want WP to operate like an office, in an environment of "professional volunteerism". I'm not sure that this captures all of the dimensions of a real community that is as big as WP's. It isn't realistic to "vote off the island" the people who are eccentric, cranky, don't quite fit in or whatever. If one does, the island gets boring and then people want to leave. You are someone that both makes the place tick and gives it character. But try and find some way out of this tight spot, for the rest of us if not for your own sake! OK, stopping rambling now. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about "some people want WP to operate like an office, in an environment of 'professional volunteerism'", though I'd say "many" instead of "some". What people don't "get", it seems to me, is that WP operates just like any other internet forum. Some have moderators, and, at WP, these are known as "admins"; but, like any internet forum, there's a whole spectrum of people contributing, and this includes our moderators. From saintly ciphers to pointless muckrakers we've got them all, and this doesn't surprise me one bit. As things are, the idea of WP as a "professional", collegiate project to create a comprehensive and reliable online encyclopedia, free at the point of use, strikes me as frankly preposterous, even laughable. For me, this came as something of a revelation through a few distasteful events, both witnessed and experienced personally, but actually it gives me some comfort as long as I choose to be involved here! I think that this would only change if the twattage were systemically addressed, and I don't see that happening any time soon: it seems to me that there's some kind of naively sanctimonious bollocks at the heart of this particular internet forum that gets in the way of its own stated aim. Either there should be strict enforcement of received rules of engagement (not lightly do I allude to battle, though such "rules" wouldn't fill me with much confidence were I a fighter!), or people should stop pretending this is anything other than a playground that gives us something to do. All this gormless finger-pointing, people forming gangs, others dressing up as prefects – the only thing it brings more forcefully to mind than a playground is Lord of the Flies. Nasty, but for the fact it's fiction. My 2p. Nortonius (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, I know you already figured this for yourself but if there are people who are out to get you (and I can see why you think that), then they are claiming the support both of the people who really are offended at your choice of epithet, and also of the larger number who are concerned about the effect this has on other people. Your own words are being used as a stick to beat you. But you're not Ozzie Osbourne (who seems to have been only left with the swear words, poor chap), or someone with only a few words in their vocabulary. You should be smart enough to outsmart them - cleaning up the taproom language will better highlight the legitimacy of your criticism. I don't know what tactic would work for you - I cuss a lot at the screen, others use milder epithets or the made up swear words from Porridge or Farscape, others avoid responding immediately (write it but leave it in preview for ten minutes), or leave it alone till later if they feel the ire rising, or craft a reply in another application, then write the clean version into the edit window. You can come and cuss at me if you like - I said right at the start (if you recall, a certain party accused me of being a cowgirl (??) for saying it) that I would always try to untangle the underlying complaint from the language it was expressed in. Whatever works for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, I don't watch Arbcom pages nor your talk page so I found this thread by chance. I'm not going to go find the Arb case or read it; I just wanted to say that I hope you figure out a way to make it work for you to stay here. The encyclopedia will miss your contributions, and I'll miss you personally if you disappear. I don't always agree with your approach, but it's clear to me you say what you say for straightforward and honest reasons, and I have a lot of respect for you as a result. Please think of a way to stay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Altough my comments at the RFA page were not directed at you, I'd like to apologize for them. They might be the breaking point of this motion and even when i don't like the way you express yourself to other users, I consider that banning you is not the best solution. If you answer this post with one of your usual comments, I will understand :) Anyways, I gave my two cents writing this message here. Hope this helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

Malleus, I wanted to let you know that I'm disgusted at the arbitration bollocks. There is a meet up in Machester today, if you would like to attend, I would love to buy you a pint. In fact, I would personally see to it that you glass (and that of your good lady should she wish to join us) never run dry. I am truly sorry for the state of this encyclopaedia. Worm^TT(talk) 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What I said above goes to you as well, and some precious others, - I am slow right now, even in thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for a few pints Malleus, they are deserved. Ceoil (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aye. I was going to miss this one because I'm not long out of hospital, but I may be changing my mind in the next hour or two. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fancy doing a meet up on the day of the TUC march- but I can't even make that due to a family commitments (x3). So they sent me to Coventry instead! The door is always open down here in Rochester- and fireworks and Lancashire Parkin here on Nov 5th. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge or not?

Hello,

do you think that Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings is too long for the main article or was the split a good idea? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat or whatever your name is, I think this is a very very inappropriate request at this time. Furthermore, what needs to be done is to really listen to good advice given to you during the peer review, on the talk page, during the two or three GA nominations. The peer review in particular had attention from a number of editors experienced in writing literature articles and content experts; yet instead, even now at this extremely inappropriate time, you're still shopping for opinions. That in my book is incivility. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding, furthermore, I think you should ask that question of one the people who has already put substantial time into reviewing the page. In the end, the issue is about how to present the best content to our readers, and whether you want to hear it or not, some issues remain unresolved at this time. But please leave Malleus alone. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of ArbCom members

I've proposed that ArbCom members be removed at the next election by a plurality.

I've further proposed the removal of JClemens, AGK, and Hersfeld, as soon as the votes are counted. This would limit the damage done by them in 2012. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why I'm voting to ban you

Hi Malleus. I see that four Committee members have reached out to you regarding this current situation. I note that none of the four, currently, are voting to ban you. But I am. I thought you might want to know why. We've never had a problem you and I, and I have a lot of respect for you - indeed, I recommend you to others when there is GA review or a bit of copy-editing to be done which requires a bit more than the average thought and skill. So I am not voting to ban you because I dislike you, nor because I think you are useless.

Wikipedia is not the community, it's the encyclopaedia - and that is what matters, and what comes first. But we need a community in order to discuss how to shape the encyclopaedia and move it forward. The community as well as providing a means of communication, planning and discussion on how to shape and move forward the encyclopaedia, also provides encouragement, advice, lessons, motivation, etc. A positive, supportive, encouraging, enabling, collaborative community can do wonders - and since being involved in Wikipedia I've been impressed and proud of how this community (one of the world's newest, taking advantage of all the lessons learned since mankind first formed societies) has formed its rules and guidelines. I think some our core rules and guidelines are models of how all societies could be run - Assume good faith, Consensus, etc. The sense that the community runs itself - there is no authority - we decide from within by consensus. We are a young community and are still growing. We still make mistakes and have much to learn. But we move forward with a positive intent - assuming good faith, and doing things by consensus. We are assailed from without by moaners and doubters, attacked by vandals, and are undermined from within by moaners and doubters, POV pushers, ego-trippers, bad eggs, and disruptive users. Yet we improve and go on.

So we have a community that has flaws, and has its attackers and doubters, but is at heart very sound, and is at heart the heart of Wikipedia. We are the community - you and I, and all the others who have commented on this page and on the ArbCom page: the good, the bad, the ugly, those you agree with, and those you disagree with. Whatever our status, and however you or I regard each other or any of the others, we all have roughly the same aim - to build and improve the encyclopaedia.

Now, when someone's conduct is such that they are destabilising the community, it causes me concern. When the community is concentrating on an individual's quarrels and attitudes rather than building the encyclopaedia, then that causes me concern. When an individual's language and attitude are hostile (for whatever reason) it causes me concern not just because it distracts the community from building the encyclopaedia, but because of the chilling effect that hostility has, not just on the person to whom it is used, but also on those listening in. There are many people who when they walk into a community, a club, a workplace, a school, a pub, a college or school, and they hear arguments, swearing and shouting, are disquieted. Regardless of the reasons for the argument, they will not be motivated, and they will not be encouraged. Just the fact of a loud argument is unsettling. When they see someone being belittled for a comment they may not even understand, they are worried if they same will happen to them. They are not emboldened to take part in discussions. They are scared off. They are discouraged. It's not just the swear words or the noise, it is the apparent disregard for the other person's dignity. When it is the person them-self who is at the receiving end of the hostility, this is especially discouraging. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes people in very good faith say silly things. Sometimes people are not as knowledgeable, as intelligent, as articulate, as tactful, as we would like. So be it. We need to look at the bigger picture, consider the impact of our own conduct, and see what we, who are better, more knowledgeable, more experienced, wiser and older, can do to assist them, and the wider audience.

Often when your name comes up in incidents, there are people, including yourself, who defend your inappropriate conduct and language (let's not pretend it is anything other than that) because you were baited or provoked or otherwise had good reason to be annoyed. You would not be alone in that. Sadly, a large number of Wikipedians have come upon moments that pushed their red mist button. I think this has been common to most (all?) societies, and probably has been throughout time. However, I guess we learn self-restraint, self-control, and we devise a set of rules to help back that up. In your case, you have possibly (I don't know, this is an assumption) not been encouraged to developed self-restraint or to abide by our community's rules, because you have been encouraged in your inappropriate conduct by the users who wish to support you - often well meaning, but perhaps focussing more on your individual contributions, and less on the wider impact. It may well be that you have been harshly treated, and a thorough examination of your Wikipedia history may show that abuse. However, what counts here and now with a motion on the table is that currently you appear to react inappropriately to very small provocation. And that your mode of communication is too often abrupt for some people.

So, I am voting to ban you because I don't want to see the Wikipedia community go down the road of accepting or excusing hostile conduct that discourages other users. I want people who come here to behave themselves, and to encourage others to behave themselves, and to encourage others to take part in building the project; and to take all aspects of their own behaviour into account when considering that encouragement. I don't expect people to be perfect, and I will take provocation into mitigation, as well as positive contributions; but I am concerned when someone's behaviour is not modified after warnings, and especially when under sanction.

I am keen to look at and consider other solutions than a ban, but until a viable solution is proposed, I will continue to support a ban, regardless of how much I respect your work and your dedication. If you can propose a solution yourself, I'll be more than happy to hear it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is such nonsense SilkTork. If you'd care to browse Malleus's talk page archives on a random basis, you will find hundreds of editors who will have nothing but thanks for the way Malleus has taken time out to help them improve the article(s) they care about. If you're worried about the community here, worry about those idiots who hang around at ANI and the effect they have on community stability, not the people who actually get stuck in and improve articles beyond recognition. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Arrant nonsense IMHO, this is tilting at windmills; also, I draw attention to my earlier comment – no offence, but I think your characterisation of the "community" is pie-in-the-sky. Lastly, if MF were actually site banned for any amount of time, for that same amount of time I for one would lose all inclination to contribute creatively here: I'd probably still revert vandalism, fix typos and so-on, but the potential FAC I have in mind could certainly go hang in the meantime. That's not a threat (or a promise!) – that would be silly – it's just how strongly I feel about this whole wrong-headed and nonsensical notion. Point is, my reaction would be partly out of disgust at something I can nonetheless live without, but also partly because, well, just guess which individual has helped me most in recent years at WP, and is the first person to whom I'd turn if in doubt over nominating an FAC...! Nortonius (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Sometimes people in very good faith say silly things." Er, yes. The whole of Silk Tork's comment above shows a triumph of well-meaning fluff over intelligence, insight or understanding. If this statement represents our community, I no longer identify with that community. A sad thing to say after nearly 7 years but there you have it. --John (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You must do whatever you can convince yourself and others is right SilkTork. For myself, I'm singularly unimpressed with what you've had to say. You and several others took it upon yourself to disrupt and divert a request for clarification into a witch hunt. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you clearly aren't. Disgraceful really. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Malleus. He edited and helped a article which he had no common interest (apart from his wife liking the programme) to get it to FA status, which is the proudest part of my Wikipedia "life". In my opinion you cannot find any other editor who represents the "community" of Wikipedia. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)