The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page.
Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel.
Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Member News
There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month:
Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself.
Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here.
Hey, not trying to be a bother, but if you're done with the CE, let me know? I think he's about ready for FAC, and just want to make sure you're done. Ealdgyth - Talk03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed one, the other one I think you misread the names in the sentences. The sentence says that Warren thinks that Walter or Geoffrey FitzPeter wrote the work, not Glanvill. So it's pretty clear to me that Chrimes does agree with Warren that Glanvill didn't write it. (grins) I did propose a better wording to rid the world of more probablys Ealdgyth - Talk19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, if I'd known that a simple barnstar would get such good service, I'd have given you ones long ago... wow! Thanks!
I'm like a dog with a bone once I get my teeth into something Ealdgyth. But feel free to revert anything you think changes the sense of what you were saying, I shan't be upset. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
A bit delayed, but calling people "wikilawyers" is a highly uncivil thing to do. Please take note of our policies requiring civility and no personal attacks. Given that you've recently been less than civil with ST47, resulting in him leaving the project, and then chose to attack me for warning you, I'll be giving you this last warning regarding your incivility. If you continue to be uncivil, make personal attacks, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender08:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an outrageous caricature of the truth.[1] You can stick your block where the sun don't shine, I'm no longer willing to contribute to a project run by petty-minded individuals such as yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, you blocked him 4 and a half hours after the alleged personal attack? In what way was that preventative? I thought admins were not meant to issue blocks as a "punishment" - was Malleus disrupting the project at the time at which you blocked him? EJF (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the block against Malleus was justified, how come the prior incivility against him (and others) by ST47 went by without similar action on Swatjester's part? Without further explanation, one might be tempted to think that double standards are operating here. This ignores the point that EJF suggests: that the reason used for blocking was in itself not really justified given the elapsed time involved. So, I think this action does need further urgent explanation. DDStretch (talk)23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reviewing the block (I'm not an admin). It looks like a long time (at least 12 hours) after some possibly uncivil behavior by Mall, Swat came here to warn him not to continue (although it had stopped). Mall responds a few hours later in an upset manner, but makes no other edits. A few hours later, Swat blocks him for this. I'm just not seeing how this was anything but punitive. If Mall continued his incivility elsewhere after warning, then that would have been viewed as disruption and a block may have made sense. I'd like to see an explanation from Swat on this, if possible. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This block was inappropriate; it has all of the marks of being punitive -not preventative. Also, per the Tango ArbCom Auburn mentioned above, admins shouldn't be handing out blocks for insults against themselves (a thicker skin is necessary). The warning was late and the block was also too late to do any good. I would lift it myself, but my time here is limited -and I may not be around to follow through in the event the unblock was for some reason challenged. Unblock, R. Baley (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and unblocked MF. While there have been plenty of times where it might have been appropriate to block him---he can be a real... um... he knows what he can be ;-) THERE ARE TIMES that he fully deserves to be blocked for civility reasons, but I do not feel that at this time it was appropriate. As the blocking admin was notified of this discussion and hasn't commented, I'm unblocking now.Balloonman (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for lifting the block Balloonman, but I appear to have been autoblocked as well, so I still can't edit. Is that another part of my punishment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his user talk page, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on this page, on ST47's talk page, etc. My warning and message to Malleus Fatuarum stands. MF, you are obviously well aware of your civility deficiencies, enough that you make light of them publicly. Perhaps instead of making light of them, you ought to fix them. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is a problem for MF, but this type of block is not the proper response. Blocks for civility are to be used to stop ongoing civility problems, not as a punishment for past transgressions. If you think something needs to be done, you could take him to Arbcom... I think a strong case could be made against MF. While I have grown to like MF, he does have civility issues.Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a preventative action against his ongoing, admitted, well documented civility problems. Taking it to arbcom is not how this works. I warn him, he chooses whether to comply or not, and if he continues the incivility like he did, he gets blocked. Filing an RFC and the rest of that process would do nothing to prevent the problem of his incivility. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may are misrepresenting what I have said repeatedly in the past. It may be your opinion, Balloonman's, and perhaps of many others, that I have been "uncivil". That is not, however, an opinion that I share, and I have certainly never "admitted" to having a civility problem. Quite the opposite in fact. I believe that it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. I also note that you applied no sanction whatsoever as a result of ST47's egegrious rudeness to me and others. As I said, it is Wikipedia that has the problem, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm misrepresenting nothing. From your own words above: --Rami R. Incivility is my middle name apparently, so you were quite right to be concerned. Celarnor. Yep, definite "incivility problems", and unlikely to be resolved any time soon. As you can see from the entry just above this one.-- You're not excused from being civil just because you view the problem to be with Wikipedia.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing's for sure. I see that I need to be more careful when employing rhetorical devices such as irony and satire, out of respect for those editors who do not have a sense of humour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<od>Malleus, sorry I missed your latest "adventure". The fact that balloonman, of all editors (you know, the editor that co-certified your RfC a month ago...) was the one to unblock is proof enough to me that your block was ridiculous. Sorry I wasn't around to unblock you myself. Hope you've had a good laugh over it, or at least a few beers over it. Battle scars, tis all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, you're away for only a few hours and I get myself into trouble again. :-( I do appreciate Balloonman's part in this episode, even though he does still think that I ought to be taken to Arbcom. Ah well. I was initially angry at what I perceived to be the hypocrisy and double standards behind the threat to block, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest now. Wikipedia has what, 1,500 or so administrators? It would be stretching credulity to believe that they were all fully conversant with blocking policy, or that none of them ever used their tools in furtherance of a personal agenda. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although, I will say, that of the 1500 admins (only 1000 active), we are all allowed and completely capable of errors of judgement. We are also all allowed to not view our actions as errors of any kind. Swat did what he thought was necessary. Several admins and editors said WTF after he did it, and then quickly undid it. It's why there isn't one singular entity that makes all these decisions. I've made bad blocks, so has balloonman. Adminning, in that sense, really sucks. I'm glad you're "moving on". I assume (or at least, hope to assume), that you'll hold no ill-will against Swat, as he did what he thought appropriate at the time, was found to be wrong, and would likely wish to move past this as quickly as everyone else. No need/reason to harp on it, agree? Bad block != bad blood. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled. Who's Swat? What block? :lol: Of course I agree. I always have, and I always will, take people as I find them. No hard feelings from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the Malleus that I'm madly in love with (which should make you uncomfortable, and should make me seek counselling...) Ok, I can go back on holiday now (or, in my world, I can go back on vacation now...). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MF, I don't think you ought to be taken to Arbcom---otherwise, I would. I do, however, believe that you have opened yourself up to the chance that somebody could do so and would not have a difficult time making a case against you. There is a difference between ought and could... what I did say above is that the block was not the appropriate response (it was not preventative, but punative.) IMHO, the appropriate step for swat would have been an RfC, Arbcom, AN/I something other than a block hours after the fact.Balloonman (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry to have misrepresented what you said in that case. God knows, I complain often enough about people misrepresenting what I've said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair cop 'guv. There are lots of things about wikipedia and its culture that I don't agree with, but this incident has somewhat reinforced in my mind a comment made by jbmurray in my recent RfA, that I need to be more subtle in my criticism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHAME on you, Malleus. I hope this little incident has taught you your lesson: Wikipedia is most assuredly not a place for unceasing, hard, excellent building of articles and occasionally making the project a little easier through the expression of humour [sic :-)] and sarcasm. NO! Like all respectable organizations, it is a place for the unchecked and random abuse of power by a few in authority. :-) Now, if we've got that straight, I am having my first experience with FA review with the Anna May Wong article. A reviewer has suggested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong that it needs a fresh pair of eyes to look over it. If you feel up to venturing out of your general subject area, I'd be very happy if you could take a look and maybe provide a comment or two. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I reply let me share with you one of the things that I find grates with me about wikipedia. Rubbish phrases like "my bad". Bad is an adjective for Christ's sake, not a noun.
Now I've got that off my chest, I do know what a tough gig FAC can be, and it should be a tough gig. I'll happily do what I can to help, but tomorrow/today depending on your time zone, is a holiday here, so I'll be doing holiday things. I promise though that I'll see what I can do once the holiday is over. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... an anti-"My bad" stance is fairly controversial, and may get you into more hot water... (Though I, too, am anti-"my bad", and, in fact, hate the phrase so much I'll use it to be about as intentionally annoying as I can be without getting into trouble with the authorities.) Tomorrow is a holiday here in the Colonies too. No rush, and thanks for the consideration! (I'll take all the "my bads" out of the article before you get to it. :) Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're in the clear. I had a good look through the Anna May Wong article earlier, and I didn't find a single "my bad". I'm not quite ready to support it yet, so I've left a few comments. Nothing major though, just a little bit of clarification. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the useful comments, Malleus. Also, thank you for making all the changes you did, rather than just "Opposing" based on quote-mark placement. I've tried to address all the concerns you brought up. One tricky point remains which I will try to take care of later in the day. Oh, and thanks for overlooking my habit of ending every sentence in the article with, "know what I'm sayin'?" :-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the article is too good to oppose over a minor point or two. Nothing in this life is perfect, and nor do we have a right to expect it to be. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement on my talk page. I love the William Safire quote on your user page - too funny! NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thank you spam
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it to you for the now so that the tone and style aren't wobbly, and if there's anything you missed by the time it's grown to adult size, I'll add then. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone? Style? Heck, I best get my butt outta there...Malleus - fix/delete anything you see fit to. Including that last sentence that ended in a preposition. And also including that last sentence, which was a fragment...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiSpeak
I could probably add a couple myself. I was thinking of an English-to-Wiki Lexicon myself. For example:
Encyclopedic
English: Comprehensive, complete, thorough, exhaustive. Example "Dekkappai's knowledge of Japanese erotic cinema is truly encyclopedic. You can't name an actress, film, or director in the area he doesn't know. Malleus Fatuarum, on the other hand, knows nothing about the subject. His knowledge of the subject is most assuredly not encyclopedic."
WikiSpeak: Limited, censored, excluded. Particularly with reference to subjects of which the writer disapproves. Example "'Japanese erotic cinema?' Huh? Porn, you mean! NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC! Delete!!!" Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling
English: To search (for), to draw out, to entice; by extension, to disrupt the operation of an online community.
By the way-- I hope it was obvious my examples above were purely in jest. My knowledge of the subject is no more encyclopedic than an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject would be anything to brag about. :-) Also, I am quite confident that Malleus' skin is thick enough to withstand my joking presumption that I know more about this particular subject than he does. He's possibly tough enough to accept this statement even if I'd made it in earnest! Anyway, WikiSpeak is a great idea, Malleus. I know I've come across several, and I'll contribute them when they come to mind. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize Dekkappai, that these are being added to the page, without your permission, and without your signature? (OK, to clarify, Iridescent added them with your sig, then I removed the sig) Add'm yourself, then you'll be in the page history! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After recent grief on this site I have to admit this is excellent relief. No doubt the MFD for it is just round the corner .... ;) Pedro : Chat 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. No MfD is my prediction. Perfectly harmless bit o' fun. No swearing (yet), and no editors named (yet). May it live long and prosper...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied on your talk page. I've got no objection to adding a humor tag; I guess I thought it would just be obvious, but there ya go. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the article I am working through FAC. I have tried to address all of your concerns and have taken a few pointers from WP:COPYEDIT. How does it look to you know? Are there any other areas which I can massage to make it flow better for you? JRP (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, that was certainly a well-reasoned contribution from stretch. To be perfectly honest I'd forgotten what all the hoo-hah was about in the first place. As they say, when you get older you lose three things: your hearing, your eyesight ... and I've forgotten what the third one is. Re-delete at your leisure. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding to that, thank you for creating this page -- it's hilarious, worthy of a barnstar, and the thing just keeps getting better. One of the funniest pages to appear on Wikipedia for a long time ... but I admit I'm a fan of that old sardonic cuss Bierce. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Seeing how, um, strenuous some people can be about RfA's is making me re-think what I read and said during your recent RfA. You certainly seem like the soul of reason in everything I've read recently. I don't have any preference myself, and it's above my pay-grade to decide, but if GA reviewers want to establish a review process of their own, so that more clued-in people can be doing whatever raking-over-the-coals is required, I would definitely support that. I will also be happy to support you in any future RfA you may wish to subject yourself to. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is that GA reviewers want to do; I've only been doing GA sweeps and commenting at the odd GAR since the great green dot debate. Perhaps once a clearer picture emerges of what it is that GA wants to be, then I might go back to GA reviewing. I'm afraid that the signs for the future of GA as some kind of FA-lite don't look good to me at present though.
So far as my RfA is concerned, well, it's clear that the process and I are incompatible, so there's no future RfA on the horizon. Wikipedia's notions of incivility just make me laugh if I'm perfectly honest. If you look a little higher up this page you'll see that even using a term like "wikilawyer" is considered to be "grossly uncivil", even when it's addessed to a law student who runs a web site called WikiLaw. It's very tempting sometimes to abandon the project to its army of child administrators. But not today. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TGAR Barnstar
The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
Dear mate, you rightfully deserved this Barnstar for your hardwork, tireless copyedits (as per native British English) and professionalism shown towards the GA project all these while. I hope to see more quality reviewers like you in future, so that well written articles not ready for FA status yet, can be fairly assessed, improved upon or deserved a decent mentioned. I wish to see those involved in the GA project continue to be true and steadfast in their efforts like you, so that there's wide acceptance and recognition by more Wikipedians in associating with the 'little green dot' in future, similarly like the 'FA Star' now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To encounter repeated unfortunate situations like my case, the folks here will aptly exclaimed in Hokkien: "Si bey suay!" (Equivalent to 'Damned, what rotten luck!') No worries mate, just that my retirement from this GA drive, which I undertook for SGpedia since Sep 2007, will be further delayed. Fyi, I got another outstanding GAN currently going thru' a review (by another female American) without much fuss or major headache. Once both are successfully cleared, I'll submit my final nomination next - 'Early Founders Memorial Stone'. I hope to hit my target total of 15 GAs before I call it day & ride towards the sunset! Then I can savour my daily cuppa of tea without any long wait and worries anymore. A-m-a-z-i-n-g grace, how sweet the sound (or taste!)... 8-) Aldwinteo (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
help!
I do not understand what is not addressed on the RCC FAC? Please help me to understand. I am working with Xandar to address TufKat's comments. All other comments have been addressed. Xandar and I are fully complying with all commentors or giving valid reasons why we can't in some instances. I guess I do not see the elephant. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony is the elephant in the corner. With a strong oppose from him you can't hope to get through FAC. The best that most of us can hope for is a reluctant and often churlish striking of an oppose. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think this is true. I am sure that there are articles that have passed FAC without Tony's support. Moreover, his support is not usually "churlish." See here for a recent example. It's true that he sets high standards for prose, and in response an article will usually require multiple copy-edits from multiple editors. That's certainly the case with the VNQDD article. But that's fair enough, I think. In the case of RCC, however, I'd say that the attitude of the article's proponents has put off those editors, such as myself, who would normally help out at this stage (as I did with VNQDD). When I tried concretely to help and directly edited the RCC article, Nancy and others reacted with alarm and extreme ungraciousness. Again, Nancy should look at (and ideally participate in) other FACs, to see how things normally work. VNQDD is a good example. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we have a slight difference of opinion on this matter. Which is fine, but my opinion remains unaltered. To be precise, I made no comment about articles that have passed FAC without Tony's support; I was discussing articles that had passed despite his opposition. Can you find many of those? Tony does indeed often make some useful suggestions, but he does so in an overly combative way, sometimes forgetting that he is simply expressing an opinion, not laying down the law on a "professional standard of prose", whatever that's supposed to mean. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my view (as always for what it's worth): there's a range of tone among those who regularly contribute to FAC. Tony is often brusque (which I think is more accurate than "combative" or "gladiatorial," as you said earlier). Karanacs is probably the most consistently expansive and most obviously considerate. Most others are somewhere in between. But you shouldn't get distracted by issues of tone. In this case, as SandyG observes, both Tony and Karanacs (as well as others) are currently opposing the nomination. It's also notable that FAC reviewers aren't stick-in-the muds who stubbornly stick to their opposes for no good reason. Tony's not the Kurt Weber of FAC. Again, see VNQDD, which is hardly an isolated example, where Tony (and here, for instance, Laser brain) are prepared to go back to an article and re-evaluate. Again, that's how FAC is supposed to work, and how it normally works: nominators and reviewers working together to ensure that featured articles represent Wikipedia's very best work. The fact that in this case the process has somewhat broken down is not due to the reviewers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever any process breaks down, the fault is never entirely on one side or the other. Shades of grey and all that. At the risk of going off-topic, have you considered the significant number of editors who have quite simply given up on the FA process, and why they took that decision? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that there are ways to improve FAC. But again, any assessment in the process should take into account the way it typically works (I've been suggesting VNQDD as it's an FAC in which I recently participated, but there are plenty of other examples) as well as the the exceptions (such as RCC). Meanwhile, beyond identifying Tony as "the elephant in the room," what are your observations? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they could best be summarised by what I believe to be the fundamental difference between FA and GA. To paint an undoubtedly and admittedly unfair caricature, FA is perceived to be adversarial whereas GA has a more obviously collaborative nature. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How could that perception be changed? What if we had a period of discussion before any opposes or supports are registered, as at FAR? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing anything on wikipedia is a task that would challenge even the patience of Sisyphus. Which is a pseudo-intellectual way of saying that I really haven't given the matter much thought. Perhaps a move towards something more like RfC? I don't know, need to think about it more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been involved in RfC, so don't know about that. Perhaps you could explain, when and if we have the post-FAC discussion. Again, I should say that on the whole I think FAC works pretty well, all things considered. In my (admittedly fairly short) time hanging around FAC, I've never seen one like the RCC one. (I am sure, however, that there are other examples where things have not gone so well.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to defer further comment until the RCC FAC closes, but this is a most curious response, and I believe it's unfortunate that you missed an opportunity to give helpful and constructive feedback to someone who approached you genuinely seeking help on a FAC that currently has nine opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mischaracterise the situation for whatever reason. I believe that I have given all the advice that I can in this matter. It may be that you don't agree with my advice, and it may be that I don't agree with yours. But that's life I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you remind me if I forget? I always have one conversation or another pending until a FAC closes, and I mostly forget when other events overtake them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will hold out for the FA director to see that it is clearly an FA. If I thought that we had to go through Tony to have our article even considered, I would never have brought it up for nomination. In fact, if thats the way things are on Wikipedia, (which I doubt) and I have to have his personal approval for the next FA, I will not even consider wasting my time and money on the next project. People who are article builders should not be required to submit to rude FAC reviewers and the most important FAC reviewers should be required to practice some higher level of professionalism. The RCC article is being watched by a lot of editors who will be very discouraged if it does not pass, especially if it doesnt pass just because I didnt do enough sucking up to a certain very rude FAC reviewer. Maybe the FAC criteria should be amended to inform us of that factor so we can save ourselves from wasted time and effort if we are not the kind of person who does that.NancyHeise (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, you might be heartened to see this or look at the FAC history of this article. Persistence is the key in getting articles to pass... but the key is also to embrace the help others offer. I know that the FA I wrote wouldn't have made it there without help from others... and the one I helped out with recently had a lot of input from others. RCC is a contentious subject, I would place getting it past the politics on par with getting Ronald Reagan to FA status. Maybe even more challenging because more people are going to watch RCC than RR.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I am willing to persist in making RCC or any other article an FA after what I have experienced with this FAC. This was a profoundly negative experience for me and I am amazed at the swiftness of the FA team to come to the rescue of those whose words and actions were clearly provacative, antagonistic, and unhelpful to bringing the article to FA. There seems to be a clique of people who stick together at the FA level that inhibits free thinking and article improvment. There is also evidence that some reviewers intimidate others to the point that no one will tell them if they are wrong, even when they really need to hear it. If I thought the FA process was fair, I would continue to pursue FA's but if I have to go through the approval of the present FA team to get there, I will pass. NancyHeise (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, again... the "FA-Team" has nothing to do with FAC. Anyone can review at FAC. Indeed, I have been positively encouraging you to do some reviewing, as I think it would be of great benefit, and help you understand the process. In fact, I only came to the RCC FAC in the first place because I had an article at FAC, and felt it was my duty to help out on some FACs. I wrote some quick comments on a number of the FACs that had been sitting around for a while. I only got caught up in this one in particular, because almost immediately my comments were called "silly," "irrelevant," and so on. Needless to say, none of the comments that I left on other FACs at exactly the same time received anything like that hostile reaction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JB, the FA-Team did everything in its power to prevent the possibility of the RCC article becoming FA. That is my sincerest opinion. It is nice that you all have each other to turn to but it turns off other editors who have to get through your clique to do anything worthwhile on Wikipedia. Your group is an obstacle to genuine improvement on Wikipedia that will continue to turn away article builders. NancyHeise (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I don't know how many times I can tell you... The "FA-Team" had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with this FAC. I do not have a "group." The fact that you fail to assume good faith of reviewers is a great pity, and a leading cause of the problems you've been having. Again, please read what I've said above (and also many times before), as well as what others have been trying to tell you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, Malleus, I just saw SandyGeorgia's post in this section a little further up where she reprimanded you for not helping me. She is totally wrong on that comment. I want to clarify for your talk page that you have been very helpful and encouraging to me throughout the entire process. I wrote "help!" at the top because I did not know what you were talking about in your elephant comment and I understand now what is happening here. I thank you for making that clear to me. NancyHeise (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia was perhaps speaking more generally than just in response to comments made here, as I have never been shy of offering my opinion. But I thank you for exonerating me in this particular instance nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser :-) Kinda hard to imagine anyone (myself included) "reprimanding" Malleus; discussing your perceptions once the FAC closes are another matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy! How dare you! You almost brought a little tear to my eye with that barnstar. ;-) The RCC thing has been difficult, but the FA star doesn't really mean all that much in the grand scheme of things anyway. Just ask yourself one question: is the article better or worse now that you and so many others have taken an interest in it? Many articles get broken on the back of the FA review process; the reason I suggested withdrawing the nomination wasn't only because I thought that certain opposes would be a deal-breaker, but because I also think that sometimes the reviewers get it wrong, and to continue pandering to their various whims results in an article in worse shape than the one that was nominated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's only a web site
Let's calm down people, and remember the words of a wise man who once (yesterday if I remember correctly) described wikipedia as "A sandcastle on the shore of the sea of time. Within play-dramas on miniature stages, the actors argue over the exact position of each grain of sand, unaware of the approaching tide." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, the reason I wanted it to be FA was specifically for that reason. Less people are going to destroy an FA than if it were not an FA. On a controversial topic like RCC where there are some people who just hate Catholics and this article is the top article for Wikiproject Catholicism, it was advantageous to the whole project to get this top article up there. At least then you have the central hub from which you can build the rest of the wheel (Im not saying there isnt already a lot of wheel already out there - I am amazed at what already exists). NancyHeise (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has been continually sneering, rude and abusive throughout the FAC. He has made entirely negative, vague and dismissive comments without any justification. Moreover he has insisted on making unwarranted and totally unjustified attacks on, not only the writers of the article, but also upon the editors who have indicated their support of the nomination, accusing them without any evidence whatsoever, of dishonesty and collusion. He then tops this up by trawling through the supporting editors, criticize one for his English language skills on the page, and then, seeing a message on his page, and without checking his facts, he made further false and completely unfounded accusations against the nominator of the article! Now that his accusations have been proven false, he refuses to apologise! yet people here still back him up. This behaviour is outrageous and Tony needs to be reined in before these actions make a mockery of wikipedia. If articles can't get through FA without this sort of thing happening, the entire process has been subverted and made a joke. Tony needs to be reined in here and changes need to be made. Xandar (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some excitement
Seeing as A215 road may have been too exciting for some people to stand, I've given something a little less thrilling to Wikipedia. Any comments from you (or the assorted cleanuppers who lurk on this talk page) more than welcome. I'm actually quite pleased with this one; as you (almost) said in your RFA, anyone can write an article about something interesting, but it's more of a challenge making a viable article on a truly boring topic. — iridescent18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I just saw that, and I was about to comment on your talk page. Pleased to see you haven't lost your touch. :lol: I'm disppointed with myself over that RfA for a number of reasons: I didn't oppose myself and I didn't make it clear that whereas anyone can write about an interesting subject, it takes a special kind of genius to bring to life an article about an abandoned railway. I'm still childishly pleased with my bog article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing — but they shouldn't be spaced apparently (like this one is). It's a mortal sin. If ever you find the will to live slowly draining away, then the WP:MOS is probably best avoided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone fail to be thrilled by any article which cites a book called Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate? (The real shock to me was that I wasn't the first person to borrow that from the library.) — iridescent18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are funny. And oh my goodness: I used to take the A215 every single day, and to know it like the back of my hand. Egads. So colour me excited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(crossposted to assorted user's talk pages, if you're thinking this looks a bit familiar)
While looking at WP:GAN for other articles to review (I don't like nominating things without reviewing one if possible), I've come across Anglesey Central Railway. Looking at the creator's history, all they've worked on is this article and articles related to it (aside, bizarrely, from Characters in Asterix). While I can't in all honesty pass this at the moment – it has serious structural failures, as well as bending the MOS to breaking point – this is so much better than a new editor's usual "my favourite band" starting effort that I'd really like to get this one through the GA hoop. (IMO there's enough sourced content there to get it to FA.) I'll have a go at cleaning it up, but you're generally much better at the "nuts and bolts" side of things than me; would you mind having a look at it too, as I really think this looks like an author who should be encouraged. (What I know about Welsh railways can be summarised as 1) they're railways and 2) they're Welsh, so I don't think I'll be much use in content-adding.) — iridescent21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the only glaring problem (a section title that didn't describe the section) and passed it. Although it still has problems, it undoubtedly passes the "I know more about it than I did before"/"I believe what it told me"/"I know as much now as anyone could reasonably want to know" tests, which are all that the GA criteria boil down to. — iridescent22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Malleus. I was wondering if you could review the above article for me and tell me if its good enough for GA status? I would have done it myself, since I have virtually no contributions to the article, but I nominated it. Thanks, ~Meldshal4217:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've opted to do the review. I'll post up my detailed thoughts on the review page within the next 24 hours, but on my first quick read through the article I'd suggest that you double check all of the references, to make certain that they support what's being claimed. For instance, "This in turn has re-raised the antipodal pair impact hypothesis, the idea that pairs of opposite hotspots may result from the impact of a large meteor." Apart from being a non-sequitor, as the subject being discussed immediately before that sentence was tectonic plate movement, the reference provided says nothing at all about the antipodal pair impact hypothesis so far as I can see. Also, where a book is being cited, the full publication details ought to be included, not just a link to google books. My first impression is that the referencing is going to let this article down. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day mate! One of your fellow country folks I think, has recently nominated the above for GAN. u may be interested to take a look & help to copyedit the article if nec. Fyi, my GAN task for SGpedia is finally completed now, after the mentioned 'Early Founders Memorial Stone' was passed successfully recently. u may ask what drove me on in this solo mission for SGpedia all these while? The truth is, I was greatly inspired by one of your country great men since my younger days - William Wilberforce aka 'Yorkshire Terrier' (by his detractors) - for his oratorial powers, unwavering sense of mission despite poor health & depression, in his life-long struggles on the abolition of slave trade against the House of Lords in Parliament in the 18th century. Coincidentally (or act of God), he was also an acquaintance of John Newton, a slave-ship captain turned Anglican priest & author of the soul-touching hymn, 'Amazing Grace'. Amen -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the nominator of that article the best of luck, but it obviously needs quite a bit of work yet to get through GA. Anyway, does this mean that there will be no more tales of British colonial derring-do from Singapore? If so, that'll be shame. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be taking a much deserved break next (a relief to many!), & afterwards, login every now & then with my usual cup of tea in hand, to check for any vandalism or messages left by any dudes brave or foolhardy enough, to approach this old Staffy for advice or intervention mate. Will focus more on other WikiProjects on Buddhism, military history, heritage & geography of other countries, but on a much smaller scale & intensity in future. I hope fellow SGpedians, a rather small group here - mainly students or undergrads, National Service men & young hot-headed adults (See their profile here), will learn & take the cue from me to pursue the GAN or FAC aspirations for SGpedia in the long run. Ironically, I've long studied & am fascinated by the history & exploits (courtesy of the East India Company) of your country from young (the other is China & India), but I have yet to step on the soil of England, the home of the famous Manchester United & Liverpool FC! Fyi, I nearly went over to London to further my studies years ago, but I finally opted for Australia due to costs & distance. While at Oz, I met lots of the sailing-mad neighbouring Kiwis, esp the senior ones, where many were formerly Brits who chose to reside in NZ upon their retirement. Really missed the good old times having Earl Grey, 'Billy tea', & lamingtons with these fun & easy-going folks Down Under. Sigh! That's why my folks & frens here mentioned that I'm more 'Westernised' in my thinking & ways at times. If time & commitments allow, I hope to visit London & its countryside one day, to see first hand historical or heritage sites like Westminster Abbey, Whitechapel, 221B Baker Street or the Imperial War Museum etc, that I've read or research so much about it previously. Maybe such visits will inspire me to write a few native UK articles then. ;-) Aldwinteo (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I agree with you most of the time, Malleus, just not on this one. But even though I'm opposing, I want to say that I think you "oppose the opposes" too much in RfAs - not that I care that you're doing it, but what it does is make the opposition section longer and more noticeable, more intriguing to read. In my recent RfA, I had to quietly tell a few people to STFU because they were defending me - and in the process, hurting me. At least that's my opinion. I know you; if you don't agree, you'll let me know :-) Tan | 3922:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not happen to share your opinion on this particular issue though, and so I shall continue to respond when and where I see fit. I'm sure you'll understand. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah, I guess I do. I was trying to tell you you're cutting off your nose to spite your face... but like you care. Ever read The Long Walk by Stephen King? You remind me so much of a character in it - the tough guy - that I find myself mentally calling you Collie Parker. Tan | 3922:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collie Parker sounds tough; I'm not tough, I'm just uncompromising. I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and I'm not prepared to be diverted from that for the sake of some wiki popularity contest. I'm just me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your help, Malleus. I really believe your input and support helped put the article through a successful review. This was my first encounter with FA review, and it probably gave me more stress than it should, so I'd also like to thank you for the outlet for frustration your Wikispeak essay provided at this time. Happy editing, and cheers! (And if you're ever working on a Japanese porn article-- you know who to come to for help now!) Dekkappai (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed some of your comments in the discussion section over there. Just want to say that I agree with the sentiment that, at this point, there is virtually no evidence that an RfA is anything less than a pure vote. While I don't know if it should be this way, it is becoming downright deceptive to non RfA-regulars when we discuss how the vote goes down. Unless a vote is in bad-faith or its a joke, it holds just as much "weight" as the most well explained and researched vote. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Until someone can show me an RfA that passed at 51% or failed at 91% then I will continue to believe that "consensus" is mere wikibabble. On a somewhat related topic, I'm also against people voting things like Strong Oppose, as if that's supposed to weigh heavier in the balance than a mere Oppose. My rather bad faith assumption is that such vehemence is designed more to influence other voters than it is to spread any light. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. For a while, I didn't care, but now I'm wondering why we insist on telling people it isn't a vote? I agree AfD isn't a vote, as there are numerous examples where opinions were properly analyzed... but this just doesn't happen in RfAs. It's actually harming the project to keep going around telling people that crats are weighing votes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would quite like to see your addition here. I was trying to think of who in particular I would like to see views on RfA, and your name popped up immediately. It may be time consuming, but I assure you if you answer it, I will read and think about your responses. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for trying to participate in the RfA review. Please understand though that to submit your answers please follow the process below (copied from the instructions). This ensures that all answers are grouped and categorised together.
To participate in the review, please create a subpage in your user area to hold your answers, by clicking Special:Mypage/RfA review, Once you've done that, add the following text: {{subst:RFAReview}}, to your usersubpage, and it will generate the questions on your subpage, as well as code it for use once you've completed your responses.
If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages here and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the project's talk page.
No worries. I just wanted to drop you a note instead of blindly reverting. I've been making a few slipups lately and didn't want to make more. GazimoffWriteRead18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit old comments
Tony is the elephant in the corner. With a strong oppose from him you can't hope to get through FAC. The best that most of us can hope for is a reluctant and often churlish striking of an oppose. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before attempting a response, I need to understand what you're saying (subsequent comments make it unclear):
FACs aren't passed over an oppose from Tony?
Prose opposes "count" more than others?
A "strong" oppose from Tony is a deal stopper at FAC (emphasis on "strong")?
Or, from your further comments, your concern is not Tony's oppose at all, but the tone of his opposes?
Also, some data to back up your position (or combination of the above) might help shed light on your concern.
Number 3 best sums up my opinion. I make no bones that I do think Tony's inevitable opposes over stylistic differences come over as being unnecessarily abrasive, but that was not my concern. I have not collected data on how many FACs have been promoted in spite of a strong oppose from Tony. Have you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't looked for data because I don't need to: I have a direct line to the half-brain of the person who does the promoting/archiving, and I know her thought processes :-)) Would it surprise you to know that "strong" in front of anyone's declaration means very little to me (an oppose is either actionable or not, and "strong" is relative, different editors use it differently, it's not helpful to me at all)? Also, Tony doesn't always get back to revisit his opposes, so I look at the consensus among several editors re prose when he doesn't get back to strike. Has there been a case where Tony didn't strike after other editors said prose was fixed or a ce was done? I dunno, not worth trawling through archives, since I know how I process FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply say that in this particular case of the Roman Catholic Church article, which was the context for my comment, then I believe that events have proven me to be correct. I do accept though that that article's FAC was rather unusual in many respects. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think you were correct? Do you not consider POV or sourcing concerns equally (or more) significant than prose concerns? Do you not consider the preponderance of opposes more important than one individual prose oppose? (Or am I misunderstanding your statement again?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you ask, I think that most of the sourcing concerns were invalid, and that the POV concerns were simply pitting one POV against another, not an honest attempt at achieving a neutral POV. I remain deeply unimpressed by opposition along the lines of "Oh look, I found an error; there must therefore be many more that I haven't found yet". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But back to the statement you made about Tony; how do you consider you were right about one prose oppose, when there were a dozen broad opposes on many other issues? That was what I meant about missing the opportunity to help Nancy better understand the process, instead of giving her the idea it was all about Tony, or all about prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Did the RCC article pass or not? It was clearly going to fail, no matter what Nancy did, hence my advice to her to withdraw the article. Like it or not, it remains my opinion that once the elephant in the corner has shouted "Strong Oppose" you might as well switch the lights out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, we seem to be going in circles around the original statement, and I'm still not entirely certain I understand your POV, so I'll summarize mine. A 1a oppose carries no more weight than another (e.g.; 1b, 1c, 1d). A "strong" in front of any declaration means almost nothing to me. An oppose from Tony is weighed against other prose reviewers. And the misunderstandings that Nancy and Xandar had about the FAC process were unfortunate; I wish you hadn't furthered incorrect impressions when you were presented with an opportunity to clarify how to effectively deal with a FAC without filling up 700KB of debate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a circle, a straightforward disagreement. If I ever see an FAC pass despite a strong oppose from Tony then I may review my opinion. Until then, one person's "incorrect impression" is another's "reality". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you, I don't take "strong" into account; has no meaning to me (although I can think of policy cases where it might provoke a speedy close, such as BLP issues). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong: both Jbmurray and Maralia went through after Tony's oppose, and you supported the prose as well. Article passed, rest my case. More significant is the lost opportunity to steer Nancy and Xandar towards a better outcome rather than giving them info that might have furthered confusion and adversarial tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply gave my opinion, and my opinion has not changed. Probably best we let this go now, because it looks increasingly unlikely that we will agree. I will simply say that the adversarial tone did not come from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice surprise. When I saw the orange bar I naturally assumed that I was going to be threatened with another block for gross incivility, like you do. :lol: This talk page is supposed to be archived automatically, every 28 days. I'll check it's still working. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For someone as talkative and popular as yourself (for the right reasons, of course) I think 28 days is somewhat overkill... giggy(:O)11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, especially about me being popular. But don't you mean underkill? ;-) I just like the tidiness of monthly archives, but the page is getting a bit long, I agree. Perhaps I'll supplement the autoarchive with a bit of manual archiving from time to time ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Underkill/Overkill. Incivil/Uncivil. *ducks*
btw. about the (GA related) comment two sections down, there's some discussion at WT:GAN that may be of interest (Sandy started it, if that helps you find it). giggy(:O)06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That's very disappointing given the negative attitude that some already have towards GA. I've been wondering why I've been under pressure to list the Anahim hotspot as a GA by that same editor.[3]. To be truthful that isn't the only reviewer I have concerns about, and I've had recent cause to challenge another as well, here. I've been very suspicious of a small number of reviewers who've been racking up what seems to me to be an extraordinary number of reviews in a very short time, marking 5 or 6 at a time as being under review. The Awards Center may well be the explanation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was had by the awards center once, in a different way ... saw a barnstar on an editor's page, and was misled, thought it really meant something ... that thing needs to go. It's corrupting GAN, and those bad passes eventually find their way to FAC as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Is it a clever way to express your hidden anarchic nature, or simply a mistake that you signature reads Malleus Fatuorum instead of Malleus Fatuarum?
I'm just asking because I tried leaving a reference to you on Talk:Asian Tiger Capital Partners and was wondering about the red link. :)
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just a side-effect of my doggerel Latin, and a consequential attempt to be gender unspecific. BTW, I rather resent your suggestion that my anarchic nature is in any way hidden; I wear that badge with pride! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did know, yes. I guess I never really thought it was anything worth bothering about, so I didn't. Bother about it that is. Perhaps I will get it sorted out now; I can see how it might be confusing for others sometimes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can write a good article about anything. I'm not sure if that user can, and as you said, it needs a *complete* rewrite. But I'm still not convinced that this company is noteable. Although, when I wrote that comment on the talk page and went through the list of banks in Bangladesh I saw that only a handful of the local bank articles there even try to assert notability, and all but two could use some major copy editing. But those are at least banks, I'm inclined to simply assume noteability with a bank. A private investment group should IMHO really have some good news coverage before becoming encyclopaedic. Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Language
Just to remark that Realist2's first language is Spanish, and his/her English is not great, as I have noticed myself at GAR. This is, however, usually irrelevant to talk page discussions, where Realist2 makes reasoned and useful contributions, whether one agrees with them or not.
What's going on? Can you give me any good reason why I should agree to review Trumpet? I'll tell you straight that I have very little patience for people who claim to have worked on articles to get them to GA/FA when they have done no such thing. I notice from your userpage that you claim to have helped to get William Shakespeare to FA. I've just checked, and you made only seven edits to that article, six of which were marked as minor.
BTW, now that I've changed my username, perhaps it would be safe to go for another RfA. What do you think? I don't think that anyone would notice it was me would they? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work up a nom for you. I'll do some massive canvassing, er I mean coaching, we'll post links to all your editor reviews and checklists towards adminship. Should be a breeze! Meanwhile, don't call anyone a wikilawyer, unless they really really earn it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should give me a list of things to go through? I think I've contributed to two or three AfD's today, and I even nominated one yesterday. I've done two GA reviews today – although admittedly I did rush them because I'm desperate to get one of those reviewer of the month awards.</joke> But most importantly I haven't been rude to anyone for at least 25 minutes, although I can't guarantee that I'll manage to make the full hour. Perhaps another RfA isn't such a good idea after all. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all you've done, I won't nominate you. Good grief, you haven't even welcomed 100 new users today, or used vand1 warning templates using huggle, or given out any wiki-cookies! How could you possibly think that you're ready for adminship??? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I'm a newbie again now, with only 123 edits to wikipedia. If anybody sends me a {{subst:Welcome}}, so help me I'll swing for them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template a few sourced images as "unsourced", AfD a few award-winning Korean-language films, put the entire "Hindi TV" category up for deletion within a 24-hour period, and you're a shoe-in for Adminship, Malleus. Hell, plaster my talk page with "You've uploaded an image," templates and I may even vote for you. (Pretend you didn't just read the word "vote", and you get bonus-points for "civility".) Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, Eric Corbett, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (swing that hammer!) DDStretch (talk)00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What litle Latin I learned during one year's study oh so long ago has almost all been forgotten. Apart from odd things like the rote recitation of "nominative, vocative, accusitive, genetive, dative and ablative". What tf does "ablative" mean? I've long forgotten, and I'm not much bothered in knowing the answer. Hence my lack of due care in my initial choice of uesername. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. It seems that a lot of the metalworking and mechanical engineering related articles around here get neglected. So I at least to try and do what I can... Wizard191 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you need to happen? (I'm also quite aware that it's much later where you are than where I am ATM, so I'm quite aware that you might just be "pissed" in the Brit sense and not just "pissed" in the American garbled sense... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not a good advert for RfA. Keep your mouth shut for three months, make as many friends as you can by nominating them for RfA, but once it's over you can say whatever the hell you like. I think that's a disgrace. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that he fooled you of all editors into supporting speaks volumes towards his craftiness. I'm absolutely appalled that he sent that email, and I'm even more appalled that he said "so what" afterwards. I wouldn't have supported, based on his ridiculousness in your misguided RFC, but when I saw you support, I actually looked at his contribs. He's a terrific editor, lots of positive contributions. Worthless now. Going back to a 6 month old RfC, and basically giving the finger to an editor that added criticism to his RfC after he finally passed an RfA is appalling. I would support a desysop, but still believe it to be highly unlikely to be successful. I'm righteously pissed though. American pissed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely reeks. Elonka did something similar after hers (it's buried in my talk archive somewhere) but at least that was immediately following her RFA while tempers were still high. Sod WP:CIVIL; to let something like this fester for six months is just plain crazy.
If he is going to stick to his "if two admins request it" (he did say so in his RFA), then Keeper & I make two. Be aware that only once in the entire history of Wikipedia has an admin actually relinquished the bit following AOR.
I strongly agree with whoever it was that said, wait until tomorrow when tempers have cooled down. Hell, Epbr might decide to apologise - everyone has bad days. – iridescent23:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's much of a consolation, but it's good to see a couple of good editors finally joining me in pissed-status, (American sense). A good temporary cure will be getting pissed, (British sense), and I'll be there in a couple hours. Feel free to join me... Dekkappai (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also supported this time around, but I did have reservations and some uncertainty. If I knew then what I have seen now, I would have opposed. Let us hope that a new day at least sees an apology for what was at the very least a massive error of judgment. That is all I will say publically, but I imagine people who know me would be able to guess what else I could say. DDStretch (talk)00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading his responses on his talkpage to where I've challenged him, no apologies yet, only justifications and excuses. I'm royally (American) pissed for supporting him for adminship, and I struck my support (on principal, I know it's meaningless) on his RfA#2. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've very bluntly asked him to recall his own adminship. We'll see how that goes. If it comes down to it, I'd much rather have this than this. I don't care how many f-ing GA's and FA's he has. His email was the most immature email I've ever come across, and I (among others) instantly and completely regret supporting his quest for adminship. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that email was rather disturbing and shows, if anything, that the people concerned about his behavior in the RfC and his first RfA were absolutely right. The email was spiteful and malicious and showed someone who harbored a long grudge (as the RfC was the better part of a year ago). That is not the kind of person who makes for a good admin; quite the opposite, in fact. His actions since the first RfA suggest to me someone with a mission to become admin no matter what -- even in the second RfA (which I did not take part in simply because I did not notice it until it was completed), when he answered User:Hellboy2hell's optional question, "If your RfA Nomination was unsucessful [sic], what will you do?" with, "If this RfA was unsucessful [sic], I would be surprised and disappointed, but I would take on board the criticisms and try again for adminship in a few months." Great. I guess that's the cornerstone of Wikipedia: Keep trying until you get the result you want. Xihr (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you all aren't watching, but I've asked him to step down according to the recall provisions that he uttered in his own RfA (#2). We'll see how he responds. Iridescent (admin), Keeper76 (admin) and Ddstretch (admin) have all commented that he crossed the line. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again I'll say, I regret my support. I supported because Malleus supported. Epbr has added excellent content to Wikipedia. Meh. He is not a collaborator, he is vindictive, he is power hungry, and he is immature. I've already struck my support on the closed RfA. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, somebody reverted that change. (Which is probably appropriate, since archived pages should remain archived except for exceptional circumstances.) Xihr (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr "gave the finger" to someone that offered their opinion at his RfC back in Nov/Dec. He didn't say anyhing until he'd passed RfA, and then sent an email to said opposer saying basically FUCK YOU, I'M AN ADMIN NOW. I'm pissed off at this misuse of Wikipedia for personal benefit. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Epbr on his talkpage to step down from adminship, as 3 admins (myself, Iridescent, and Ddstretch) have asked him to. We'll see how that goes. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He did what loads of other RfA candidates are advised to do, keep your head down for a few months before your RfA. It's not Epbr123's fault that the system is crap. It is to his fault though that he took advantage of that crap system, by trying to settle old scores once he felt himself to be invulnerable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disgusted at this behavoir also, of course (like any reasonable person would). You have my fullest support with taking this as high as you feel is needed. I will watch this issue closely. An utter disgrace. --Jza84 | Talk 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys and gals, if I may make a suggestion... Obviously, there's a lot of old crap that this stirred up, and I believe it's for the best if people just took a breather, snagged themselves some rest (or whatever it is one does to unwind, maybe a good attempt at getting pissed, Brit style?) and approach this issue with a refreshed mind and spirit in the morning? (Ignore the time differences, of course.) This issue clearly isn't going to go away, and will not be dealt with anger; it will be dealt with clear heads and applied knowledge. It'll be here in the morning, in the afternoon, and probably much later than that... Just get some frakkin' rest. Please? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. I have had no ill feeling towards Epbr123, but even objectively, if this is true (and I understand the issue fully), and that e-mail had been sent in say a work environment, he'd certainly be looking at some form of disciplinary action at best/worst. Infact, had that been in my organisation, that would be gross misconduct - a dismissal. It simply can't be allowed to go unchallenged. --Jza84 | Talk 02:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth (which, regrettably, isn't much), Epbr did send an apology to me. As I don't have his permission to reprint the e-mail, I won't copy-and-paste it here. He claims that he was angry after reading the RfC and decided to e-mail me out of anger. He said that he wanted to talk about things more calmly, and reiterated that the RfC was upsetting to him. (Hence my suggestion on his talk page that he voluntarily step down from his position as administrator.) I find the "anger" excuse to be unacceptable, as I've also noted on his talk page. Interestingly, he does not address his reactions (basically ignoring my concerns) to my various attempts to communicate with him about the e-mail. Also, for the record, all communications I have ever had or will continue to have with him will be on talk pages, so that it is all documented. I am aiming for transparency here, as this is a serious issue. Further, if any of you feels that I've stepped over the line in my comments towards him, please do not hesitate to call me out on it. Now I'm going to take my advice and get some rest as well. Good night from America! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, and as I've said elsewhere, I believe that Epbr123 has also maliciously and vindictively targetted me. I have no doubt whatsoever that that he is unfit to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think that, at least until he says something in response (it's what, 3:30 am where he is?), it might be best for everyone's sake to ease up for a while... crap admin or no, he's still a good article writer, and I (for one) don't want to lose him in that regard (though I do think a desysopping might be the best route here). So please, let's wait to the morning. giggy(:O)03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a realist, which means that I agree with you, Malleus... If Epbr doesn't take voluntary action and step down from his admin status, and if this thing goes to RfC (or higher), I can more than guaran-frakkin'-tee that WP will lose an article writer or three. The ball's in Epbr's court now. I have the slim hope that he does the right thing for himself. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break
Quite frankly, at this point I am not very impressed even with an apology, if he gave one. I think it's gone past that; his actions in sending that email reflect on all of Wikipedia, since he is an admin, and there's already plenty of problems with Wikipedia. Such a massive lack of judgement on the part of a Wikipedian is proof positive that he is not fit to be an admin, pure and simple. All of the concerns of folks in the RfC and first RfA have been proven unequivocally true. Consider that he engaged in this vindictive behavior less than two weeks after acquiring the power, essentially promising to rain punishment down on people who disagreed with him in the past, as well as others who might disagree with his philosophy about Wikipedia in the future. (I am especially concerned about this, in no small part, since I'm one of those people.) The behavior he engaged in, if he were in some fiduciary responsibility at a company, would result in serious disciplinary consequences if not outright termination. He promised that he would be available for recall but has not followed through; as three admins have already expressed concern over his behavior, he should voluntarily step down as admin and stop his quest for power on Wikipedia. Xihr (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of Epbr123's long-term targets myself, I very much share your concern. Who's going to be next in line for his bile? You? Me? It's completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of those entries are very near the truth. Looks like the carpet's been well and truly smoothed over on this issue now though. Let's all pretend that this vindictive and gloating behaviour was a one-off aberration on Epbr123's part, and that he didn't lie in his RfA about being open to recall. Pathetic! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Do you mean why has it been smoothed under the carpet, or why do I think it's been smoothed under the carpet? Assuming it's the latter, because Epbr123 is still an administrator and has still not made himself available for recall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I make it 5 admins plus Giggy & Malleus who both may as well be, who've requested it, WP:AOR is a voluntary process. If he doesn't respond, all you can do is either try to find someone he'll listen to (Sandy & Raul seem the obvious choices), or go through the motions of an RFC.
All that said, if it were down to me I'd say give it a day or so. He may just have been having a really bad day yesterday, and will calm down and realise where he's gone wrong and start issuing grovelling apologies – or even allow himself to be recalled/reconfirmed (stranger things have happened). – iridescent20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You're probably right. I admit that I'm still feeling a little bit bitter about Epbr123's past behaviour towards me, so I'm not an altogether disinterested observer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like to number my points for response. 1) Why he should issue "grovelling apologies" when his apology was already rejected escapes me. 2) All parties should start by ending the exaggerations about the actual content of the e-mail. 3) Raul is highly unlikely to get involved. 4) There are no de-sysoppable offenses here (and if there are, I've got a very long list of admins to be de-sysopped). 5) On the other hand, the personal attack lodged by the other party, including a blatant failure to AGF, on Epbr's talk page is probably worse than anything in the e-mail. 6) It seems to me that the logical course of action is to file this in the "If It Ever Happens Again Action Will Be Taken" file, and move along. I see too much accumulated resentment on all sides, and frankly, some very thin skins when I compare the contents of that e-mail to the kinds of things I see daily on Wiki and that have been said to me by admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for saying so, but that is a very weak argument that you would not accept if it was presented in defence of an article at FAC. There are lots of other bad articles, some worse than this one, so this one should be passed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even at FAC, when consensus overrules, one has to back off. Some of you are missing the fact that somewhere in all of these discussions (I'm sorry I can't remember on which page now), several admins have told y'all the same: if this were taken to AN/I, it wouldn't be "actionable" and there is nothing desysoppable there. It would be better if he had never sent the email, but the actual contents of the e-mail have been greatly exaggerated in these discussions. He has apologized, and his apology was rejected, which will only possibly fuel further resentment, and the resentment should stop on all sides. I'm saying to accept the reality, it's not desysoppable, and file it in the For Future Reference file. If you all will settle down, I will attempt a private e-mail conversation with Epbr123, but in the mob environment this was taking on yesterday, I was reluctant to get involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Epbr123 promised in his recent RfA to be open to recall. That promise has not been kept. Why would anyone believe that further promises would be kept? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is putting him through a recall now the best thing for Wiki, or will a conversation putting him on notice about future actions be better for all, including our articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall is something that he agreed to. Let's not lose sight of that fact. If he has now gone back on his word, then he ought at least be honest enough to say so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, sorry, but we have AGF for a reason. In my book, we AGF and accept his apology. If it happens again, that's another story. (And as far as I can tell from following the chronology, he apologized fairly quickly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xihr, I'm in no mood to play semantic games or wikilawyer this issue. Epbr apologized, Beaudoin rejected it and lodged a personal attack on Epbr's talk page. We all know the rest of the history, so please don't occupy bandwidth and colons re-telling it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by my count, no fewer than five admins have now expressed grave concern about his behavior, outright insisted that he step down as administrator/be recalled, or have promised to escalate this -- to an RfC, something which we already expended thousands of words on and months of time with and never went anywhere. If nothing ends up happening because of this, Wikipedia really is beyond hope -- this is clear abuse. Xihr (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(several ces) And I'm not pissed anymore... just have a throbbing headache... I think Joe pointed out that the email was not the worst of this. Anyone could write such an email in the heat of the moment, out of anger or some other such thing which interferes with good judgment. (As an Admin, however, one should certainly be able to keep that sort of thing under control.) To tell the truth, the email itself didn't bother me much, because I'd expected this, and worse all along... The reaction from others did surprise me a bit. I'd thought everyone had experienced Epbr123' pre-Admin-campaign side, and this was just the old Epbr123 that we all knew and loved clearing his virtual throat before he really started singing-- going on a rampage of one sort or another... What was much worse than the email, and the true proof in the pudding, was the reaction-- days after the email was sent and he'd had time to consider his actions. Basically, "I won, you lost. Ha, ha. Now go away." Obviously that tune changed once more people started registering complaints. But it still stands as his real, considered reaction to this whole conflict. Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The email was stupid, vindictive, in-your-face, and lame. Many worse things are said onwiki. The egregious thing to me is the utter lack of remorse. I don't want him representing Wikipedia as an administrator able to block other editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is very fruitful to start to criticize the opinions of some editors towards this on the grounds that they have an unfortunate history of interactions with the editor concerned. This is because one could easily suggest that the person making this suggestion has, so far, had good interactions with the editor, and so if bias is present in one group of editors, it could also be present in the opposite direction in this editor. The biases do not have to be conscious, either. I'm not mounting any attack, rather I'm pointing out some elementary matters that are well known in basic psychology.
On the matter of them "having thin skins", made by referring to more extreme cases of bad behaviour for which no action has been taken: This may equally well indicate that action should have been taken in those cases, rather than that no action should be taken here.
As an extra observation that just occurred to me when I was typing that last sentence, as a result of some points Epbr123 made about aspects of my behaviour during my recent RfA, I would argue that if he felt it appropriate to say I had overstepped some line of acceptable behaviour in the cases he raised in my RfA, then his own behaviour in this matter here certainly does. Consequently, it is not our thin skins that are an issue here, as we applying what would appear to be his own criteria of unacceptable behaviour against himself. (see his comments here: my RfA nomination and process Neutral section here.) As I said, this last point just occurred to me now, but I think it has some merit. DDStretch (talk)21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism intended along those lines, ddstretch; looking for a way forward in the best interests of our articles and less drama, which I'm seeing way too much of here with the exaggerations about the e-mail content. And, for those who believe Epbr123 should be desysopped, well ... won't you have a stronger or weaker case after some current ArbCom cases close? Heck, I can't figure out if there are any standards for admin behavior here, but there's a case before ArbCom that should answer that question finally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Malleus says above, can't everyone leave this for a couple of days? Waiting until the weekend won't do any harm, and a couple of days might give everyone a chance to calm down. Everyone here has done something stupid on Wikipedia at some point, and Epbr might have an explanation he hasn't given yet. (Sandy's right, incidentally; while the email's IMO completely unacceptable—I think I used the word "reeks" somewhere—I've seen much worse; just have a read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, which I assume is the Arbcom case she alludes to.) – iridescent21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Sandy
Trying to get out of the fray above... Anyway, my point was that the e-mail doesn't really disturb me. It's his blatant unwillingness to address the issue with me. I did try to communicate with Epbr123 first via e-mail, as I had previously mentioned. I waited 24 hours, received no response, and saw that he was editing on Wikipedia. I surmised that he had internet access, but may have not received the e-mail. So I communicated via his talk page. Less than 12 hours later, my comments were reverted. (By the way, this EXACT same action occurred when I notified him of the RfC against him.) He chose to ignore it. Clearly, he had a grudge against me which he has held since late 2007, and I properly surmised that he was angry and had no desire to communicate with me in a professional, ethical matter.
Having nowhere else to turn, I didn't think AN/I was the right place for it. I am not looking for a desysop or ban here. I was looking for an honest answer. If he simply addressed my issue with a sense of urgency and maturity, we would not be having this conversation. In any event, I posted the e-mails and a brief outline of my actions in rectifying this issue on the talk page for his most recent (and successful) RfA. The page was deleted, then certain revisions (excluding i.e. mine) were excised from the record. Sandy, I can send you an e-mail in PDF format of the deleted contributions if you'd like, as I have admin rights and can see them.
You can read them, judge for yourself. I wanted answers. That's it. What people did with the information was up to them. (I will be quite honest, given Wikipedia's growingly horrendous reputation on the Internet, it would not have surprised me if this was all "under rug swept".)
My assumption started off as an assumption of good faith. I assumed that someone was impersonating him in an attempt to discredit a newly promoted admin, since no recently promoted admin in their right mind would ever engage in the uncouth behavior I've been subjected to. I even congratulated him on his success as an admin and wanted to help him get to the bottom of the e-mail—assuming at the time that the e-mail never came from him. I had absolutely no evidence either way! As I noted, any imbecile can get a hotmail address and pretend to be anyone! Someone could, today, jump on hotmail and impersonate me, my writing patterns, and send it off to all of you in an attempt to discredit me. I've had it happen to me before, I know how difficult it is to clean up your good name, and was willing to take time out of my extremely busy schedule to help him with it. I wanted to smooth over any ruffled feathers with him in the process! I had assumed that he changed from the immature behaviors that lead to his RfC! I have never stalked him, never interacted with him on Wikipedia after his RfA (until now)—I had basically left after that fiasco for I do not need the immaturity and dissonant idiocy that is so rampant on Wikipedia these days.
It is completely mind boggling to me why someone would work so hard at Wikipedia just to throw away what they've achieved over an RfC that was filed back in OCTOBER 2007! Nearly 8+ months have passed since that time. If Epbr123 was wanting to vent, I would expect him to throw me such an e-mail a week or so after the RfC; that would be understandable, since that's human and I can roll with the punches.
At this point, I'm leaving this in the hands of the community. Do with it what you will folks. If you folks want to bring this to RfC, to ArbCom, to the top of Mount Olympus to Almighty Zeus himself, that's fine. I'll be here to provide what I can.
I have repeatedly praised Epbr for his great work at GA/FA. I will continue to do so. He is a valued asset in that arena, an arena that does not require the use of administrator tools. I will suggest that he simply step down of his own accord and work there. He cannot handle conflict resolution—and the extremely saddening fact is that he turned this in an issue by ignoring it—and conflict resolution is a quintessential part of being an admin. If he can't handle it, then, to borrow a well-worn axiom: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I am also suggesting this because if the first RfC was emotionally disturbing to him, wait until the second RfC... And that's something I think we all want to avoid!
Or am I wrong?
There, I've said my piece. I'm probably a bit vulgar and out of line here, but... I really have better things to do. So do you all.
As for my not accepting his apology... given his previous history with other editors, including myself, I cannot ethically accept his apology. Honestly, I see his apology as a means of damage control and is, at best, a tactical maneuver of great insincerity. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at Xp54321's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Xp feels that he or she has a point to make, and I'd be quite happy to discuss that point. What I'm not happy with though is Xp's charges of incivility and worse simply because I have a different point of view. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
I've put words into your mouth somewhat here. If I've misrepresented your view (I hope I got it right), do feel free to correct me. – iridescent00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've perfectly represented my view and thanks for that. I suppose I ought to have been more explicit myself, but as you say, I just thought it was self-evident. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody, we have an all new RFADOD (RFA Drama of the Day). Anyway, since Joe has initiated a conversation on Epbr's talk page, I'm going to step back for a few days anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a major issue is that it is somewhat forbidden to bring up a user's age when dealing with a behavioral issue, because of "ageism". Sometimes arguments go round and round and round, when everyone needs to take a step back and admit that one of the users just turned 10 and that might have something to do with the problem. Like if a 10 year old has already failed his second RfA, and the "civil" thing to do is encourage admin coaching, when in reality, the best thing would be suggesting waiting several years before considering. But not... that's ageist, wrong, etc. Ugh. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I know you normally let things run but may I suggest you archive this thread now, or at least collapse it down (as per with the flamewar on Keeper's page)? Everybody's said their piece, nobody's going to have their opinions changed on this issue by anything anyone could say, and there's (ahem) more than enough drama going on already. – iridescent01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know MF(your new nickname,see my talk archives) R2 said I won...Is this true?!(Not that it's a competition they just kept saying no one had beat you at a flamewar ever,that you were a master with words,etc.,:D,not that a flamewar is a good thing)Again I apologize many times over.(I feel like I lost.)See my talkpage as well.I await your re.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs)03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to remain civil when discussing candidates at RfA. While you are, naturally, fully entitled to your opinions, please do not personally attact other users, as you did to the current candidate. You are free to oppose if you do not believe the user is responsible enough to handle adminship, but insulting remarks such as
I believe that you are misguided. Race or gender cannot be changed. Human beings, on the other hand, do grow up. Or at least some of them do. Allegedly.
Seconded. If you think Malleus's comments are "abuse", go visit any admin talkpage and read the drivel some people write. – iridescent01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to start an argument, I just want Malleus to stop personally attacking other users, especially on the basis of age. I agree with many of his arguments, but this one in particular troubles me. This isn't a "warning", it's just a frienly reminder of civility. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and if I came off as if I was warning or threatening Malleus. He should be aware, however, that personal attacks are not tolerated. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
At the risk of starting a major argument, I am going to walk away from this conversation. Again, I appologise if I offended any of you in any way. Thanks, and have a nice day (in all sincerity). --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss02:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. ;-) Let's just put this behind us now, before we all start "attacking" one another. I respect your opinion, Malleus, even if I don't wholly agree. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss02:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I've been told before that I can appear a little blunt, but in this particular case I believe that I said nothing inappropriate. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now, let's put it behind us. Just one other thing; I notice from your talk page that you're intending to accept an RfA nomination yourself in the not too distant future. Don't be at all concerned that you might see me in the oppose column because of this incident, that's not my style at all. I'd be far more likely to support you, because you showed a bit of bottle in confronting me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why so bitter? I don't think I ever announced that my opinion was the only one worth taking seriously. A comment so inflammatory as yours would probably not even be warranted if I had announced some such thing. Have I done something to incur your extreme resentment? Please let me know -- I'm a bit mystified. — Dan | talk21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... butting in here, but your exact words were "worthless and probably insulting." How is that not saying you don't think Malleus's opinion should be taken seriously? And as I say above, everyone calm down about this; nobody's going to change anyone's mind here. – iridescent21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks. I'd be glad to talk about it with you too if you like, on your talk page or mine, but at the moment I'd simply like to ask Malleus what prompted his comment. — Dan | talk22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "probably insulting" is merely a prediction: we could figure out whether opposition based solely on age is insulting by asking the candidate whether he was insulted. I've never asked, hence the 'probably'.
When I said such opposition was "worthless", I was assessing its relevance to the question of adminship. I do not happen to think it is relevant at all, which is to say I think it isn't worth anything. This is in fact merely the articulation of my opinion, and not any sort of remark about whether you have the right to yours. I do of course think that your opinion is incorrect, unsupportable, ill-founded, and so forth, but if I didn't think that, then it I couldn't be said to have an opinion at all. Presumably you think the same of mine. The fact that I wrote a comment at all points to my willingness to take the opposing position -- that age per se is relevant to adminship -- seriously. If I did not take it seriously I would simply have ignored it.
As best I can tell, you and I are acting with the same goal in mind: the good of the project. In service of that end, I presented arguments followed by a conclusion. I fear I may have been insufficiently clear, so I hope you won't mind my taking another shot.
What we are concerned with at RFA is predicting, on the basis of the data we have, what sort of an administrator a candidate would be.
In particular, we are looking to promote candidates whose future behavior will fall within a range that the community has agreed is acceptable.
While there may be a strong correlative connection between age and behavior -- i.e. twelve-year-olds may tend to be poor administrators -- the history of our project, as well as my own offline experience, shows a number of exceptions. Even a single exception would be enough to demonstrate the possibility of further exceptions. We have likewise seen exceptions in the other direction: adults who behave 'childishly'.
These exceptions show it is possible for a twelve-year-old to behave in a way which the community considers acceptable of administrators: this is to say there is no necessary connection between age and suitability for adminship.
These arguments agree with a principle of enlightened Western thought: that there is no necessary connection between age and patterns of behavior.
So it is possible for a twelve-year-old to make a good administrator.
Therefore it is not reasonable to use age in itself as a predictor of behavior.
The strategy (A) that will best benefit the project is one which attends to observed patterns of behavior: i.e. what a candidate has actually done on Wikipedia. This will allow us to benefit from unusually mature young administrators, and not to suffer from unusually immature adult administrators.
A strategy (B) which focuses on age in itself, ignoring actual observed patterns of behavior, only makes sense if there is a necessary connection between age and suitability for adminship. The above arguments show that there is no such connection: therefore this strategy does not make sense.
This strategy will not result in the greatest benefit to the project, and may indeed result in damage to the project (turning away suitable candidates for adminship).
The facts support strategy A: they do not support strategy B.
Reasoned argument supports strategy A: it does not support strategy B.
I am perfectly willing to admit that there were many reasonable grounds for opposing the recent candidate, whose candidacy caused this argument. There were, for instance, plenty of concrete instances of immaturity quoted by the users who opposed his candidacy. I am only taking issue with the arguments that mention age. I consider those specific arguments to be without merit.
I apologize for failing to be clear the first time round, and I see now that with the word 'worthless' I left my comments wide open to misinterpretation. However, do you see the point I was trying to make? Cheers — Dan | talk00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly truthful, nothing that you or anyone else can possibly say will alter my conviction that a 12-year-old child should not be an administrator on wikipedia. You or others may consider my view to be worthless bullshit that ought to be discounted, but it remains my view nevertheless. And if any other 12-year-olds put themselves forward at RfA I will oppose them as well, no matter who doesn't like it. I have had just about of this stupid nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I begin to understand. I'm sorry if some folks have been rude about your views, and of course you're justified in ignoring the rude people, but I'm even sorrier to see that you are unwilling to consider my careful argument. Myself -- I think I'd be more likely to oppose an adult who refuses to participate in a reasonable discourse than a twelve-year-old who keeps his mind open to change. Happy editing, and may your immediate future contain an absolute minimum of stupid nonsense. Regards — Dan | talk02:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but as I've tried to make clear repeatedly, there is no argument that could possibly persuade me that someone who is not considered to be legally accountable for their own actions is a proper person to be an administrator, and I find it incredible that anyone could seriously believe otherwise. And to equate that with sexism or racism—I'm not saying that you did that, but others certainly did—I find to be both a gross misrepresentation and an even grosser slur on an honestly held opinion. I have not attempted to change your mind, or anyone else's, on this issue, because I recognise that the effort would be fruitless, as is your effort to change my mind. It ain't gonna happen. In fact, I can see no legitimate reason why someone of 12 would even want to be an administrator. I can, on the other hand, think of quite a few dubious reasons why they might. But let's not go there, and let this drop now, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you ever consider trying to open a debate with me in the future, you may get a better response if you don't start it off by asking "Why so bitter?", a comment that I did not, and do not appreciate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake again, of course. I'm happy to 'let this drop', though do certainly try to change my mind in future if you think I'm wrong about something -- it's been known to work. — Dan | talk03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The action that did happen was at least consistent with the first reaction to the blunt question (deletion). We have had regrets about trouble, and explanations of behaviour that are not excuses for it, but neither any acknowledgment of any wrong-doing nor any promises to not do it or anything like it again. Very sad. DDStretch (talk)21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that what's happened is exactly what I thought would happen. It appears that leopards do not, after all, change their spots. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't relish the prospect of being the next target of an administrator apparently out for revenge. I have enough trouble with too many of those I haven't yet upset. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed with the lack of pressure put on Epbr123. I can't understand it, this place talks a talk but doesn't walk a walk when it comes to distruptive users who've been here in the mid to long term. --Jza84 | Talk 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Dekkappai: I may have got this completely wrong, but I have the idea that you are either Japanese or Korean? I say that not because I have anything against Japanese or Koreans, simply to say that if I'm correct, then your command of English is truly astonishing, far better than most native speakers. Of course, I could be completely wrong, and you live in Chelsea, in which case I take back everything nice I've ever said about you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thank you for complimenting my command of English. I'm a "white" American, so, yes, I guess you could say English is a bit of a second language. :-) I was lucky enough to grow up close to the Japanese language and culture, and then was lucky enough to marry into the Korean language and culture, and spent time in both countries. Hence my main areas of editing interest, and my iffy ability with both of those languages. Dekkappai (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're an American, then I think that congratulations are even more in order for your command of proper English. Truly astonishing. *sticking tongue out in a jokey kind of a way* --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem-- The offer for help on the Japanese subjects was quite sincere, I assure you. Just check my list of "Articles started" :-) (And I supplied WikiSpeak's second definition of American English, you know.) Dekkappai (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) To Malleus: I don't see myself as being invulnerable, and if Giano can retain his position after all he appears to do, I am sure you can. As an aside, it amuses me that the RfA criteria many people chant contains such mantra as "trustworthiness" and yet people get criticized and complained about if one indulges in what are called ad hominem arguments just because they are stated to be ad hominem. The inconsistency in not realising that a proper discussion of trustworthiness necessarily involves at its root an ad hominem argument seems lost on most people: not all ad hominem arguments are inadmissable in discussion: it all depends what type of discussion one is engaged in (the different types are called "Normative types" by Douglas Walton, whose work I have studied and lectured about, and still do research in. I find his position on the matter very persuasive.) DDStretch (talk)23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are preaching to the converted. It ought to be very obvious to anyone that in the context of an RfA, any comment is potentially ad hominem, that's the nature of the beast. RfA is broken, I believe, precisely because of that PC reluctance to discuss the candidate's trustworthiness. Much easier to focus on edits made, articles written, AfDs contributed to, RfA nominations made, vandals reported ... yet it appears to suit the current zeitgeist, so any proposal for change is shouted down --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty goofy. Ad hominem only applies if you're dealing with a logical argument (in which case it's a logical fallacy); but choosing someone to be an admin isn't exercising a logical argument, it's making a political choice. Politician jokes notwithstanding, the two things are not even remotely related. Xihr (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm just guessing here Xihr, but I have the distinct impression that you are not 12-years-old. Or am I horribly mistaken in my blatant and now well-publicised ageism, and you're just a five-year-old trying to entrap me? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What really puzzles me is the chain of events that took place. For some reason User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. started out by insisting he was going to take the issue to RfC, but when Epbr finally popped back up, he acquiesced. Obviously it's up to him whether or not he pursues the issue, but since he didn't accept his first apology, I'm not sure what changed his mind or convinced him to drop it, as it's a pretty big reversal of his rhetoric when the issue started. (The tone of Epbr's response is also puzzling to me -- it sounds almost like he's accepting an apology, not giving one, with a hint of a non-apology apology.) As we've repeated, this is an action that in a position of any authority at a company would likely result in disciplinary action or outright termination -- it was spiteful and pointless, and it doesn't matter much if he was angry at the time (as if he would have done it if he weren't angry at all?); it reflects a serious lack of responsibility and maturity on his part. I suppose if someone were so inclined, it could still be brought to RfC, but given his deletion of the long discussion on his talk page without complaints (down the memory hole it goes), the unwillingness of a number of other admins to press the issue, least of all which Beaudoin, who is the only one with any real standing in the issue, it seems it would be even more pointless than the first RfC. I mean, how bad does it have to get when one of his co-nominators is clamoring for recall, and sounded pretty sure the other co-nominator would agree (but he's unavaliable)? Oh well, welcome to Wikipedia I guess. Xihr (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the (perfectly reasonable, not complaining) deletion of the email that caused the problem, the only people that could start another RfC against Epbr123 are the administrators who can still see what all the fuss was about. For myself, I'd be be content for him now to fulfil his promise to be available to recall, but given his past behaviour, and having seen other administrators wriggle out of it when it doesn't go to their liking I wouldn't place very much trust in that anyway. What I do find unacceptable is this attitude of wait, it'll all get better. Better for who? An apparently vengeful nutcase, or for me? Let's not forget that Joe Beaudoin is an administrator, so he has some weapons at his disposal. What defence do you or I have? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you. He hasn't said one word about recall, and it's pretty obvious from his reaction and reversions that he's hoping the whole thing will blow over, which it seems that it almost surely will at this point, despite the rhetoric that Beaudoin, User:Keeper76, User:Jza84, User:Rudget, and User:iridescent (if I remember the names properly; if not, sorry) were using. Like you say, any RfC initiated by non-administrators would be meaningless and a waste of time at this point, so there's not much that you or I can do ... except perhaps wait for the inevitable. (One more thing, though, the email is still visible in his user talk page edit history. The oversighted version was on his second RfA talk page.) Xihr (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not doubt that an RfC filed by administrators has more weight than an RfC from a contributor, I do seem to recall that I was the one who initiated the first RfC against Epbr123... and that really did nothing to rectify any of the issues we have here. Not saying that the effort was wasted, but, the honorable thing for Epbr to do at this point is adhere to his "campaign promise" of the recall, since four of his supporters (admins) have said they'd support such an action. At this point, their words have more weight than any words I have, since my "adminship" status is more a fact at this point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question/concern, I really don't have the time to pursue this issue. Furthermore, I no longer consider myself a "Wikipedian" or a contributor to Wikipedia (aside from some minor, pathetic edits), so it's not really up to me to initiate an RfC. At this point, I view Wikipedia as a very bad joke at the expense of numerous legions of well-meaning, honest people who are made suckers from the people on top: admins who seemingly cannot be banned (unless given a job at Wikia and then outed by Wikipedia watchdog groups, a la Essjay, and forced to "resign"), etc.
Frankly, had Epbr simply answered my private e-mail, which was the first thing I did before taking the second step to initiate contact on his talk page, none of you would know about this at all. The e-mail itself didn't disturb me (I was howling in laughter when I opened it), and all I wanted is confirmation on who sent it, since I had my sincere doubts that he had sent the e-mail in the first place. However, he has disappointed me -- and a great many of you -- by throwing rocks at my retirement home just to bring me "out of retirement".
As for it being spiteful and pointless, I agree. I was gone from Wikipedia. I did not need that shit (yeah, that's what it was, puerile shit) in my mailbox. However, the thing that caused this escalation was the fact that he didn't nip it in the bud when he had the chance. Now he has to pay for that. His reputation has been damaged because of his inability to handle the issue properly when directly confronted. Instead, it took another person to call him out on it.
So, if you guys (and gals, though I haven't seen any outside of Sandy) want to initiate an RfC, or pursue the admin recall, or whatever, that's fine. If you need me to testify, that's fine.
But that's all up to you fine folks. If you're going to continue to contribute to this project, you've gotta deal with him... I don't, so I am unconcerned. And if that comes off as callous, then I'm sorry for that, but, fact of the matter is, none of us are "forced" to contribute to this project. We do it of our own volition.
Frankly, my suggestion of what he should do still stands. From the available evidence, I don't think he has it in him to be an admin. I believe him to be far better off just working on the GA/FA area, which he excels at. Not everyone is meant to be an admin, you know. :) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I want to make it clear that the only reason I brought you up at all, Joe -- if I may call you that -- is based on some of your earlier comments, namely vowing to start an RfC and pursue it to the end, rejecting his apology, etc. I want to make it crystal clear that I'm not under the impression that you're under any such obligation; obviously, you may choose to do or not do whatever you wish. It's his weirdly cool response to your lengthy defense against (what I think was a ridiculous) WP:AGF violation claim by another admin that almost sounded like he was accepting your apology (and included a non-apology apology on his part), before he reverted the whole conversation. It was just downright bizarre, I guess is what I'm saying here. But I agree with your summary: He should fulfill the promise he made in his AfD and make himself available for recall, either way, since it was in effect a campaign promise. Whether that recall procedure is initiated also is something I also have little control over. Xihr (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of yet another warning from an administrator I have no respect for, I will simply state that I believe Epbr123 has behaved in way that shows him to be completely without honour, integrity, or honesty. So block me. See if I give a flying fuck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I am nonplussed over Epbr's actions to date. He really should have kept that communication up on the talk page, and that's from my experience as a formerly active Wikipedia admin. He clearly wants this to blow over by pretending it never happened... How does one, pray tell, learn anything if they close their eyes and try to wish it away? If anything, Epbr should be looking at all this as a learning experience on how to better himself... but I just feel I'm preaching to the choir at this point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's how I feel as well. Nothing will change. As a point of information though, I want to make it clear that I do not tar all administrators with the same brush. There are many I have learned to respect, including some I initially encountered because of some disagreement ... on reflection I think I probably disagreed with all of the administrators whose opinion I would now take seriously when I first encountered them. But they, topically, include one who I believe to be a teenager, in spite of my alleged ageism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, he's not going to learn from his behavior unless he's forced to answer for it. Given that several admins (with all due respect, including your semi-retired self) are willing to let him get away with it, it's hard to see how anything positive -- even positive for himself -- could come of this. Non-admins without real standing here such as Malleus, User:Dekkappai, and myself, really don't have any legitimate way to force the issue. This is really just a little bit of history repeating; his obvious contempt for the process of the first RfC showed someone who wanted to get on with things and continue on the road to RfA (someone laughably was trying to nominate him for RfA while the RfC was in progress!), not someone who wanted to legitimately correct their misbehavior. Surely, if lessons aren't learned, it will happen again -- and given the way other admins are letting him sweep things under the rug, it's hard to see how that could happen. Xihr (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe he might learn if he were forced to experience negative consequences for his actions. Maybe. But since it seems highly unlikely he will be in this case, it's rather moot. Xihr (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be quite frank. While I do feel that, ethically speaking, you're "right"... the reality of the situation is that I don't have the time to pursue this with the vigor I had when I first launched the RfC back in October '07. I consider Wikipedia a lost cause... it has so many problems right now that frankly stem from the incompetence and dilettantism at the top. The people at the WMF like to live in their idealistic, pseudo-rosy world where 12 year olds can be admins (yet by the laws of the USA, they're not legally adults and thus are immune to any legal proceedings, so they can practically get away with anything they'd want—slander, libel, etc.—should they choose to do so and not be held accountable from a legals tandpoint), ignore the fact that they really need to have background checks for the people at the top (remember that COO who was a convicted felon, anyone? how about that duplicitous Essjay?) and really need to reform their organization so that accountability can be properly held at all levels... cloak or no. Frankly, the people who need to lodge the complaint are the people who work here on a daily basis and have the reputation to back it up. My adminship is a mere formality at this point, which is something that Xihr dosn't apparently grasp. I'm just as ineffective as you are and am now "biased" against Epbr for my previous interactions with him. I'm nothing more than an old retiree who hasn't been euthanized yet whose lost his choppers... Anyway, I'm done with this and said all that I have had to say. If people want me to "testify", I'll be glad to do so... but that's about the extent of my involvement with this pathetic incident. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Mail Me20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. What he did was rather silly, however. Anyway, sorry for bothering you two again, I'm not usually a great one for Talk page stakling, but I forgot to unwatch this page and this topic brought up my attention, a bit. :P Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss05:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
It's a shame he didn't feel able to demonstrate that my prejudice against 12-year-old administrators might possibly be ill-founded, and instead confirmed it. BTW Realist2, I don't hate you at all. In fact, I really can't think of anyone I hate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Diocese in England / Benkenobi18
Even though for obvious reasons I'd disagree with you on topics regarding Yorkshire/Greater Manchester ;), you are completely right in moving back Benkenobi18's mysterious moving of Catholic diocese articles; Diocese of Salford for example. He doesn't seem to understand that in England, the Catholic diocese specifically have different names to the Anglican ones so there can be no room for confusion between them all, so the qualification of "Roman Catholic" and "Anglican" is not needed. Do you have any ideas to disuade him? I've already tried to explain to him but it doesn't seem to sink in. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none. And if you've come here to accuse me of sockpuppetry ... then I'd be very surprised.</joke> I'm just winding down from my warnings over ageism/sexism/racism, so I'd be unlikely to get myself involved in controversial moves of articles I know nothing about anyway. You seem to have got into a few battles yourself though recently. Nothing new there though I suppose. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Latin is notoriously bad—the reason I changed my username—so I've got no idea what the Romans called magnets. Just a word to wise though. Magnet of the foolish ain't such a great username ... on the other hand though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BG7even has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm looking at it again now. The specific issues I raised seem to have been dealt with, but they were just representative examples. I'll reply at the FAC very shortly, but in summary I still don't think it's ready, and I think Tony would have a field day with the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eric Corbett. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Malleus Fatuorum/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.GazimoffWriteRead15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you use Rollback. I got access for it recently, and I thought I'd ask you a question about it that I've had: is there any way to rollback a specific edit by a user if he/she had another edit before that? For example, let's say:
(cur)(last) 19:42 27 June 2008 User (Talk | Contribs) (edit summary)
(cur)(last) 19:25 27 June 2008 User (Talk | Contribs) (edit summary)
Would it be possible to rollback User's edit at 19:42 WITHOUT rollbacking (rolling back, I guess) his edit at 19:25?
Only if someone else has edited after 19:25. Rollback will remove the whole sequence of edits until it finds one made by another editor, when it stops. Bear in mind though that you should only be using rollback to revert vandalism. It's not very usual that one edit is made in good faith but others are vandalism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you install Twinkle, you'll find a very handy "restore this version" button, which should work nicely. And to echo what Malleus said; using rollback to revert something that isn't "blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism, obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject" is a very good shortcut to blocking. – iridescent20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Malleus, For your sincere kindness and help through a difficult FAC process. Thanks :) NancyHeise (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
