:::Thanks for the offer, but it'll be a while yet before either is anything like ready for that kind of scrutiny at the rate I'm going. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the offer, but it'll be a while yet before either is anything like ready for that kind of scrutiny at the rate I'm going. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
== Clown ==
"quite a few"? And you are seriously satisfied with that as a source? How many is "quite a few"? 1 per 100? 1 per 1000? 1 per 10000? She doesn't cite her sources, and yet you will put this out to our readers as an authority? What a fucking shame, and I really expected better of you. I think you should stop trying so hard. A clutch of featured articles really does not exempt you from meeting basic requirements. Let us part our ways, since it's clear that you have lost the way as far as [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] goes. Other admins may see fit to block you, but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to destroy the integrity of Wikipedia, you are on your own in that regard; I have never ever been here to do that. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:28, 14 February 2011
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.
Earlier today when I found that I'd been blocked in my absence for nothing at all my initial reaction was to ignore it as just another bit of the systemic silliness here. But as the day has worn on and several administrators have tried to make excuses for the inexcusable, my position has changed.
Wikipedia values new contributors and degrades established contributors. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that Dr. Blofeld is right, and like him I will be taking no further part here until there are some changes. MalleusFatuorum 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But earlier you were lambasting him for micro-stubs and heterochromatic cats? I'm confused. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You should be given an award for staying here for so long and dealing with the endless drama. Best of luck, Tommy! 02:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Dr. Blofeld and I have had our differences, but on this issue I think we're probably in agreement. I'm not "retiring", simply withdrawing my freely given labour until I see some recognition that our efforts are appreciated, and that we're not treated as units of work. Call it a strike if you will. MalleusFatuorum 02:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not surprised to see this post. I think you made a valiant effort to stay with the article while it was on the main page. Had it been me, I think I would have walked away, though it's very hard to walk from an article, particularly when featured on the main page. I think this needs discussion somewhere. I was absolutely shocked to see the main contributor of an article blocked from editing and the unblocking admin made responcible [sic] for his actions. Something like this should never happen again. For those of us contemplating writing FA quality articles that inevitably end of up on the main page, it's nothing less than chilling. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage other contributors to join me in my strike, but I know that it would make no difference. Makes me feel better about myself though. MalleusFatuorum 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We all go on strike at one time or another. I've spent most of this week happily away from Wikipedia when I realized I was coming close to edit warring on Olivia. I'm afraid I'll have to shelf that for now, which is too bad. But I have just started a new article I've wanted to work on for a few months, and you know how it is when the juices are flowing. Gotta go with the flow. I'd be on a serious strike if I were you. Give it break for a few days. Be on strike. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a short break; I need to see some changes. MalleusFatuorum 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much on strike already, as far as contribs to articles go (again - I was for a couple of years from mid-2008), and for similar reasons, so I'll join you in that. I have one or two "pet pages" on my watchlist, and a top secret (yeah, right) article in incubation, but otherwise I do very little with articles these days, so often it doesn't feel worth the grief - you feel better about it by all means! And, I'd like to see some changes too. Nortonius (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Feeling better about yourself is the only reason to do such a thing, because nobody else gives a damn. The MMORPG will carry on and Jimbo will continue collecting his speaking fees. That's the bottom line here, not that sweetness-and-light pablum about producing a reference work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new to see here. Mr Boris regards it as a "standard punitive block", others see it as unacceptable. Some will join the strike, others will contribute more content of their own. Until there are changes, that is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Malleus, from my perspective you weren't blocked for "nothing at all". You were clearly falling short of Wikipedia's standards of civility. The fact that you were arguably provoked, that it wasn't a particularly noteworthy breach, and that there was no gain to Wikipedia from blocking you all add up to make the block an overreaction, but the nature of crowdsourced project management is that it's particularly prone to exactly this kind of lapse of judgement, either individually or collectively. The only way to improve the situation is through positive, active, and patient leadership. You're (pardon me for saying so) an irascible codger, but you're also an experienced and intelligent editor and I'm not really sure how anyone, especially yourself, benefits from a protest strike. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I benefit from it, no more having to put up with ... well, fill in the blanks for yourself. Enough is enough. MalleusFatuorum 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin, and I make no excuses for anyone, and I offered to help you correct the problem, but you said it was no big deal at the time. My offer is still open. I regret that you were blocked for whatever that is worth. I would not have blocked a user in that situation. I might well have a word with the blocking admin anyway. You're welcome to take a break, but I expect you back at the salt mine to get Maggie to FA in early March. Deal? --John (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't then seen the blocking admin's sneaky attempt to have me reblocked, but short of a show trial followed by a swift public execution there's really nothing that anyone can do. So far as Maggie's concerned, we'll see. MalleusFatuorum 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a word with the blocking admin is definitely in order. The block itself was bad enough, but the belligerence in the face of near unanimous opposition, followed by this (which was quickly hidden), was particularly destructive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't seen that. I wonder what would have happened if I had been around at that point? Anyways, Malleus, I replied to you at my talk before I saw all this, and it still stands. I hope you find whatever you're looking for here. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just work on your own projects Malleus, and anyone that comes calling, tell them you won't help because...well, just point them up there. Parrotof Doom 13:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean more like a work-to-rule? Perhaps. I see you're having some fun at the old Hanged, etc; I fully expect to see you blocked in the not too distant future. MalleusFatuorum 16:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. It's great fun to take an article almost single-handedly from this to this and receive nothing but abuse and criticism for doing so. What I want to know is, where are all these people who concern themselves with such matters when it comes to doing the hard graft? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. While I'm spending money educating myself on these things and attempting to spread some of that knowledge, they're...doing what? I rightly (hindsight is a great thing) received a fair bit of criticism for the Jones essay but where I've attempted to resolve the situation by investigating the sources she used, most other people have moved onto the lasted ANI squabble. That's why I hang around your page Malleus, because most of the people who post here are content builders, like us. The ones who aren't are the ones to keep an eye out for. FYIParrotof Doom 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know that noticeboard existed. Seems like there's a noticeboard to suit every variety of crank. This is the kind of thing I find so disspiriting about wikipedia; I had to spend a not inconsiderable amount of effort yesterday arguing about whether two young girls should be referred to by their first names or surnames, and ultimately got blocked for my trouble. You've been battling to include one external link that some have taken a dislike to. Are there really no more important things that we should be concerning ourselves with? Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? MalleusFatuorum 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can be pretty stubborn when I like, but I'll always back down and apologise when necessary if enough people tell me I'm being an idiot. What I don't do, ever, is lie and bully my way into getting what I like. That's what seems to be happening on that article, unfortunately. I get accused of all kinds of nonsense and rarely bother complaining about it, as do you, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bossy little liar tell me exactly what I can and cannot write about. I'm rambling now so I'll shut up. Parrotof Doom 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good to vent once in a while, else you start to get the feeling that you're the odd one out and everyone else thinks that things are going swimmingly. I'm reminded of a discussion yesterday on Moni3's talk page, about the stress of TFA day, where she says that she thought until recently that she was the only one who hated it. MalleusFatuorum 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be difficult dealing with the nonsense but some goodness sometimes slips in. Its just a shame that they're not protected by default. Parrotof Doom 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just work on your own projects Malleus, and anyone that comes calling, tell them you won't help because... well". I've been thinking about this over the last few days and I think that's the way it has to be; I've been too kind in offering help and support to other editors while receiving very little myself in the face of clearly deranged administrators. No more. I'll still be happy to help those who help me, like you and Ealdgyth, but no more Mr Nice Guy, the rest can sod off. MalleusFatuorum 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that way in moments of frustration too. Only for moments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang in there, Mall-man. Let me know if you need me to troll some candy-ass admin.TCO (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO's comment and many comments on this page and by Malleus make me wish that WP have a "like" button, at least for users' talk pages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've needed to return the favour by looking at one of your articles since you were kind enough to look at Royal Maundy.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is that? I don't remember taking anything to GAN or FAC recently, and right now I have no intention ever to do so again. MalleusFatuorum 03:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is that you did me a favour and I ought to do one in return by reviewing one of yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum, forging fine articles and pitying fools since 2006.
I'll say the same thing as I said to Dr. B: you need to look in the right place for appreciation of your contributions, and it can no more be found at ANI than at Jimbo-talk. Some admins have an air that they know better than everyone else, perhaps because they they have been around so long. They are not worth anyone's time, save as a valuable object lesson in how not to wear one's experience.
I hope you don't down tools for long, but enjoy the break while you do. Geometry guy 12:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I'm very sorry you are the target of yet more shoddy behaviour from an unaware administrator. I missed the ANI, but it seems the stage has been reached where blocks for experienced content editors should now be regarded as de rigueur on Wikipedia, minor badges of honour and rites of passage. Can anyone now contribute genuinely over a significant period of time, without having to continually keep their head below the parapet for fear of being blocked by the Wikipedia equivalent of a village idiot? The integrity of the block process has been undermined and degraded by administrators who lack competence when it comes to dealing with actual content editors. They have little skill or experience themselves in real content creation, and consequently no real concept of the processes and psychology in play. It is very wrong that such persons should be given the absurd and arbitrary power they now have over genuine content editors. The solution is simple – only a special type of administrator who has established his/her credentials with genuine content editors should be handed the right to block such editors. Far, far too much self determination has been removed from the hands of the content editor, and put in the hands of... well... outright incompetence. We have administrators now who focus on blocking as many genuine content editors as they can. Administrators such as Sarak of Vulcan, with no record of real content contribution, seem to run around with a mission to block every substantial content editor they can on the flimsiest of reasons. This behaviour is among the most dysfunctional on Wikipedia, and does far more damage than an army of vandals. Nothing happens to these people, they are given free passes to intimidate content editors at will; I see this happening in the back waters of Wikipedia all the time. If a content editor tries to defend themselves they are blocked for "incivility". Why do other administrators not protest at this? The dysfunctional administrators are a very small minority. Most administrators do good and even superb jobs, but a minority do disproportionate damage, leaving a serious havoc in their wake that is not addressed by the rest of the administrators. It is increasingly demeaning to be a content editor on Wikipedia. We are expected to genuflect, like serfs, to Wikipedia apparatchiks who are saturated in the blood of unjustly subdued content editors. This is miserable and wrong, an undignified and unjust environment! Now, having said how it is, I suppose I must inevitably await a trumped up block. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Geometry guy: I don't expect appreciation, not for me personally anyway, I simply expect not to be treated like a naughty child. My point about appreciation is a general one that applies to everyone who produces content; we ought not to be treated as easily replaceable and therefore essentially worthless units of work. MalleusFatuorum 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Treated by whom? This is like asking a hive of bees not to sting you. Even if you are a great benefactor to the hive, there is no telling what an individual bee will do. Beekeepers either develop a thick skin, or don appropriate protection. If you let others make you feel like a naughty child, or replaceable, you give them power over you. Geometry guy 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They already have power over me, and exert it periodically just to prove that they can, as happened yesterday. MalleusFatuorum 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, a headstrong admin proved to be powerless in the face of consensus in your support. I could block you now for disagreeing with me if I wanted to, but that would not mean I have power of you. It would only make me look like a total prat. Geometry guy 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I couldn't block you for disagreeing with me, not that I want to of course. I understand what you're saying though. MalleusFatuorum 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we understand each other pretty well. I would rather be without the block tool: it is pointless to have it unless one is dealing with vandalism, point of view pushers and the like. The idea of admins sans block has been discussed here. Would you like to have the block tool or not? Geometry guy 23:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would I like to have the block tool? Definitely not; like you I'd very rarely, if ever, use it anyway. MalleusFatuorum 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first got involved in GA it was an unaccountable process. Reviewers imposed their own standards and GAR was a vote along the lines of "Delist. Not enough inlines". We subsequently learned that one of the best ways to create accountability was to ensure all actions are not only recorded, but easy to find. I suggest that unaccountable uses of the block tool be dealt with in the same way. As a first step, I propose creating something like WP:Blocks of established editors which were overturned and listing examples there (including the name of the admin making the overturned block). We all make mistakes, but unless we record those mistakes, they will be repeated again and again. Geometry guy 00:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'd support such a proposal, but I can't see that many other administrators would. Most seem all too keen for their mistakes to be swept under the carpet, even though their victims are stained by those mistakes, so this would probably just be labelled as some kind of an "attack" page and deleted. MalleusFatuorum 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to know without trying. In the worst case, the MfD would be illuminating. Geometry guy 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have used the word predictable rather than illuminating. The culture here is that it's perfectly acceptable to record the alleged misdemeanours of the peons in the form of their immutable block logs, but not of administrators. That's partly why it's so hard to get rid of the buggers, as the system allows and encourages them to hide their tracks. MalleusFatuorum 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me of Sept, who was just as defeatist about GA in 2007. Revelling in injustice and victimhood makes defeatism into a self-fulfilling prophecy. To break it you have to let go of the past. Geometry guy 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Epipelagic: I think your idea of removing the block button from the present administrator package is a good one. So good in fact that it'll absolutely never happen. MalleusFatuorum 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're going to have a long wait. Jimbo makes no bones about the fact that he considers us all expendable peons. (Remember he's a self-declared "objectivist to the core.") And the social aspects of this place far outweigh the lip service given to content creation. It was always like that to some extent, even in the old days. I have my hypotheses as to why the social-club aspects have accelerated over the past two years or so, but that's another discussion for another time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what Jimbo thinks, he's irrelevant. MalleusFatuorum 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought the social-club aspects went into reverse with the deletion of WP:Esperanza. Are you (SBHB) talking about the less organised social aspects, or do you mean the WP:MMORPG aspect (which is different)? Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a social club a la Esperanza, but more the MMORPG stuff. Though I don't see a whole lot of difference between a MMORPG and a social club since it seems that at bottom an MMORPG is about building an artificial society. (Disclaimer, I don't actually play MMORPGs). "Social experiment" might have been a better choice of words than "social club." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In re, g guy's idea a few indents above, what would constitute an "established editor"? Two years tenure intersect/union 4000 edits at the time of blocking? Had one featured article credit (I think there is a parseable log page for FAs)? If the parameters can be quantified, I could interrogate the database. Not in the next two days, but it would be a fun project. I would also show the total number of blocks which ran their full course, for "fairness" - so Malleus' 10-second block would appear as legitimate of course. Not sure how to handle blocks that expire while the subject editor is still asleep. Franamax (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the administrator issuing that 10-second block is still an administrator is to wikipedia's eternal shame. MalleusFatuorum 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question, I suspect that looking for unblocks of autoconfirmed editors would already restrict the search considerably. I would suggest proceeding from there, adding more requirements (such as months of tenure and/or thousands of edits) to reduce the list to a reasonable size. I don't think it would be helpful to go back more than a year or two anyway: the point would be to provide an ongoing record. Geometry guy 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catching up
... after two weeks of vacation ... besides that you were blocked again (gasp, surprise), what else did I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too, after two weeks of zooming about in the snow, I return and can only assume some admins have also been blinded by the snow, on the piste and skating on thin ice. Little changes it seems. Giacomo 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, we must stop meeting on the slopes, and you shouldn't have tried to dump me on the ice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah it was you! The spray of virgin snow was too heady an aphrodisiac, our goggle clad eyes met, the orange glass failing to mask our our impetuous feelings; I felt the soft caress of your minken headband against my manly cheek, as you eyed my well padded salapottes for one brief moment we felt the rush and adrenalin of the off-piste allure, but we knew it was a love that could not be: ”Addio mia cara” I whispered into your tiny, muffled ear as the dreadful roar of the blizzard screamed around us, deafening your sobs as I skied off into the twilight—you watched as my diminishing blue and red figure blurred into the swirling snow — only the trembling bobble on my hat hinted at my emotions; a small, solitary, frozen tear rolled down your face. It was love in a cold climate as you realised Giacomo had but one mistress, her name Wikipedia. He turned for one final glance, as he raised his pole in heartbreaking salute — he saw, high on the ledge above the banned editor in a black ski-suit holding her shotgun aloft, she fired, and the avalanche headed towards you, on perfectly edged, parallel skis, he turned—his heart racing — he must save Sandy.......<to be continued. Installment 2 has a price of $5—all major credit cards accepted> Giacomo 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank heavens you don't write architecture articles in this style... Risker (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He does, but Malleus copyedits them so well that no-one would ever guess. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Hell Giano - are you writing a chocolate advert? Pedro : Chat 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what's going on but I'm glad I have Malleus' talk page on my watchlist. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a story about a banned editor in a black ski-suit, Stax. I'm trying hard to raise the $5 to get the next episode ... --RexxS (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Myles of the little ponies… do you not admire his cuteness? Ning-ning (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Guild of Copy Editors has a Requests page where editors can list their articles to request a copy edit. During January and February, the requests have been arriving at the rate of several every day, and we are getting a bit behind! We are putting out the call for a little help to get caught up. If you are interested in lending a hand, please select one or two articles from our Requests page and do a copy edit. Help a little or a lot; it's good karma! Thank you very much for any assistance you can offer.
I'm not in a frame of mind to help anyone with anything unless it interests me in some way, but I wish you luck with your drive nevertheless. MalleusFatuorum 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks all the same. See you later --Diannaa(Talk) 02:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing a good job, just not for me. MalleusFatuorum 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you might like to try something different. Hey, have you ever considered vandal hunting? The seamy underside... the hilarious inclusion of the word "butt hole" in places you never dreamed possible... it's fun. --Diannaa(Talk) 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to do anything about vandals I'm not about to go looking for them. MalleusFatuorum 20:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strangely written article, obviously still needs a lot of work. But what little motivation I can muster I'm going to reserve for this and this. MalleusFatuorum 23:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you need someone really pedantic and MoS-wonky to look at those, just raise a finger and I will go through them. I need a job to do, as I am avoiding some real-life work that I will otherwise have no excuse not to do. --John (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but it'll be a while yet before either is anything like ready for that kind of scrutiny at the rate I'm going. MalleusFatuorum 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clown
"quite a few"? And you are seriously satisfied with that as a source? How many is "quite a few"? 1 per 100? 1 per 1000? 1 per 10000? She doesn't cite her sources, and yet you will put this out to our readers as an authority? What a fucking shame, and I really expected better of you. I think you should stop trying so hard. A clutch of featured articles really does not exempt you from meeting basic requirements. Let us part our ways, since it's clear that you have lost the way as far as reliable sourcing goes. Other admins may see fit to block you, but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to destroy the integrity of Wikipedia, you are on your own in that regard; I have never ever been here to do that. Rodhullandemu 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
