Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::WTF is wikimasculated and where did you see this about Gimmetrow? ]] 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::WTF is wikimasculated and where did you see this about Gimmetrow? ]] 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Here's one I guess I missed a lot, because I haven't seen any of this. ] (]) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Here's one I guess I missed a lot, because I haven't seen any of this. ] (]) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Did you not know that Gimmetrow was blocked for edit warring? Were you not around for any of the discussions, or the opposition against Gimmetrow's actions then or recently against Malleus? Perhaps I see more of this than you two because I am constantly kept up to date about Wikipolitics by constant emails of people sending me links to read. And Wikimasculation is my neologism - to remove power on Misplaced Pages by lack of community support. It means that if you perform an action that is somewhat controversial, it will probably be overturned quickly. I am a very staunch traditionalist and I believe strongly in the Misplaced Pages standards and policies. However, as such an individual, I have to keep an eye on those who abuse such policies and give the standards a bad name. I'm kept up to date on most controversial actions. I'm sure Gimmetrow could win back at least some of his credibility if he apologized to Malleus and backed off from him, especially backing off from trying to perform silly actions like declaring that he couldn't review GAs when he wouldn't have such an authority to begin with. ] (]) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:55, 9 December 2008
My enthusiasm for the wikipedia project has ebbed away, and now at last so have I. It's a shame I didn't get to finish everything I wanted to, but it's important to me that I leave on my own terms and not at the whim of some trigger-happy administrator.
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
It's been three months since the last newsletter, but there's been a lot going on...
Promoted articles:
Greater Manchester is one of our project's top priority articles, the Greater Manchester article comprehensively covers everything to do with the county, from culture and history, to transport and demography.
Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is about the records of one of Greater Manchester's best know clubs, which feats like "the club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11".
City of Salford is about the local government area and Greater Manchester's second city. Getting Salford to GA is one our the aim's of our project, so hopefully this may help.
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is about the history and modern restoration of the disused canal running through the county. (It's now at FAC, so please improve the article if you can!)
Manchester Mummy is about Hannah Beswick, whose macabre fear of being buried alive lead to her demanding that her body was kept above ground and checked periodically for signs of life.
Milnrow is a small town in Rochdale with a long history. The wool trade was important to the town and was the basis of much of its industry. (It's also the first GA for Rochdale!)
Ordsall Hall is an important Tudor hall in Salford with a reputation for being haunted!
Bert Trautmann is the German goalkeeper who broke his neck playing for Manchester City... and carried on playing!
The Peterloo Massacre appeared on the front page on 16 August! Well done to everyone who contributed to the article about a key moment of Greater Manchester's history and managed to get it showcased.
A new portal has been set up! The Greater Manchester portal showcases some of the best articles to do with the county. Thanks to Polishname for single-handedly getting it up and running.
There is a proposal to move members who haven't edited for a while to an inactive members list, so if you've not been edited recently but still want to be a member let us know!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 5 on Yorkshire and 11 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Although the project has had a lot of GAs and FAs recently, most of the articles covered by our short term aims haven't experienced much activity recently. Baby has undergone some change, but has a long way to go, and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester is very close to FL quality. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as 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.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Misplaced Pages articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
There are 53 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Since 12 June, the project has gained 7 new members:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help.
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 big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed 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 1st September, we have had 99.5% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 157 of our 1662 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Usually this is where this month's promoted articles are listed, however there is something more important this month. In September, the project was notified which of its articles were selected for a DVD version of wikipedia. The 49 are listed here, although the quality ratings are a bit out of date. Twenty-two of the articles were GA-class or higher, and only five were below B-class. These are articles that have been selected by wikipedia, not simply as the best but the most important, so they require our attention, most importantly those that fall below GA standards. We still have until the 20th October to make changes to the articles, so please if you think you can improve any of them in any way please do so!
In other news, it's been a busy month with plenty going on...
Promoted articles:
The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is a disused canal undergoing restoration. The canal, which travels between Bolton and Manchester with a branch heading north east to Bury, was abandoned in 1961.
Having previously been described as "bare, wet, and almost worthless", Ashton-under-Lyne rose to prominence in the Industrial Revolution as one of the most famous mill towns in the north west.
Henry Taylor is Oldham's forgotten Olympic hero. He won 3 swimming golds at the 1908 Olympics, a record for most golds in a single games by a Briton until Chris Hoy equalled it this year.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 15 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
There wasn't space in the last newsletter, but as of 24 July 2008 the project has a list of articles that have tags on them. As of 14 July 2008, 351 (21.8%) of our articles need a clean-up, although this should have gone down as some have already received attention (the bot does not seem to update the listing often).
In other news, the Merseyside Wikiproject has been set up. If you have an interest in the area or want to help out in any way, head over to the project page and pitch in.
In the past month we've achieved two of our short-term aims! The List of railway stations in Greater Manchester was expertly guided through the featured list process with hardly a problem, and now that Tameside is a GA a third of the county's boroughs are GA status or better. There's still plenty to do, some our our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in! If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! And please keep an eye on the 49 articles selected for the wikipedia DVD.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Misplaced Pages articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
No new members joined the project in September and there are 49 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. A new list of inactive members has been started. Anyone who hasn't made an edit to wikipedia since 1 March 2008 automatically goes onto the list.
If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. 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 big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed 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 4th October, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, 151 of our 1684 articles remain unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
It's been a quieter month than September, but plenty has been going on...
Promoted articles:
Born in Stalybridge and raised in Ashton-under-Lyne, Hugh Mason was a mill owner and politician. He was popular among his workers for shortening the working week at his factories without cutting their pay.
No articles were DYKs this month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 14 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 7 more than both Yorkshire and London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Trafford was featured on the main page on the 12th October and was viewed 13,800 on the day (27,100 times over 4 days).
The project's cleanup listing has been updated with stats from 8 October. As of 14 July, 351 (21.8%) of our articles need a clean-up, this has risen to 447 out of 1689 (26.5%). Although this is disappointing, it reflects a more widespread use of tags on articles to indicate what needs attention rather than a decline in the standard of this project's articles.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Member News
There are now 53 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester as 4 new members joined the project in October:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. 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}}.
On top of these aims, some our our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in! If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Misplaced Pages articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed 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 1st November, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, 75 of our 1708 articles remain unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Last but not Least... If you've got a story to go in next month's news letter, leave a note here.
Delivered on 2 November 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Commons images
Malleus, I hate to bring up a few-days-old discussion, especially since we've never interacted before, but I'm slightly confused by your argument in this thread on Iridescent's talk page. When you say that "Commons images need to be justified in each article they're used in", are you talking abour fair use rationales? I'm wondering if you misread free use as fair use in the discussion. As you said, Commons are more rigorous about their images than Misplaced Pages is; Commons don't accept fair use images, so every image their is free content that can be used anywhere. As far as I can tell this is exactly what Iridescent and How do you turn this on were saying. Commons images are never used under fair use, and so never need fair use rationales. Raven4x4x (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, all this fair use / free use stuff can get confusing sometimes. And annoying if you deal with it too much :). If I may offer some advice, I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss a person's opinion as "irrational ramblings". You may find they actually have a fair point after all. Raven4x4x (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only did I actually do some content work today, but I'm nominating a candidate for RFA who is basically only an article writer, and appears to be over the age of majority. You're just getting into my thought process now ....... and changing it for the better! Pedro : Chat 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
"Resistance is futile". :-) Seriously though, I do firmly believe that the only reason anyone ought to be here is to do article work, not to play whackamole with vandals. And I have long been of the opinion that many of those under the age of majority just want whatever kudos pre-teens and teenagers get from being able to say on their school applications that they're a wikipedia administrator. I've supported the odd specialist at RfA in the past, but basically I don't trust anyone who hasn't been through the shit of a heated content dispute, or an acrimonious GA/FA review. --MalleusFatuorum20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh - yeah resistance is futile! You might quite like my latest nom - no whack a mole, no pontificating at AFD and no pushing around at ANI. Just an editor who needs the tools to move stuff over redirects. Refreshing, to say the least...! Pedro : Chat 20:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
← Before I add my support to this RfA, to avoid any accusations of canvassing, I want to make it clear that I first became aware of it a few days ago, after I replied to a posting on Pedro's talk page, where it was not explicitly mentioned. --MalleusFatuorum21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You know what, due to my general weekend inactivity (wife, children, beer etc.) I'd forgotten you might actually be aware of it as well - Doh! Pedro : Chat 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Man, I need to stay on top of things a little more. I saw that Pedro was going to nom a person today, but wasn't saying who, so I went in search of... and was shocked to realize that the RfA was all but over... I think I need to go home and go to bed.---Balloonman21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
admit it
... you're just pissed 'cause I'm trying to steal your Bastard of the Year crown. Come on. Be a man. Admit it. :-P Ling.Nut23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In what way odd that an editor might comment on the fact that a 721-word article had been nominated, given the interest surrounding short articles at FAC, and my stated support for such short articles? Are you suggesting that I might not otherwise have been aware of your article's nomination, and therefore might not have lodged my opposition to its promotion? If so, then reflect on the fact that I frequently look through the list of FACs, and comment on those that catch my eye, even doing some work to help some of them get over the line. This one, for instance, which I managed to find all by myself. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish I'd missed something. Haha. There are just so many pointlessly dramatic situations... and editors. It's like nothing can happen on this project without ridiculous amounts of stupid discussion. An example, that I don't think I can get yelled at for discussing, is the... hmm... drama, for lack of a more descriptive word, on Talk:Michael Jackson. It's like, I'm engaged in these discussions and while typing out my comment, I literally cannot even believe I'm having to make the comment. It blows my mind. لennavecia05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jackson doesn't come close for stupidity – at least "should we include details of rumors about him, even when they've been denied" is a legitimate discussion. For true stupidity, head on over to David Van Day, who for some reason has drifted onto my watchlist; the lame edit-warring there is so fascinating, I don't want to step in and put a stop to it. – iridescent13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, I was reading the above article and checking on the refs for some rather overblown statements in the "Localized effects" section, when I began to realise that none of the citations in the section seem to support what's said in the text. When I went to put a comment on the talk page I noticed you'd done a GA reassessment in September, which included asking for this section to be cited, and you passed it. I'm confused, have they slipped one past you there (which seems unlikely) or has someone changed the citations since you passed the article? I've listed my concerns on the article's talk page. Richerman (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Maybe I was bamboozled, and didn't check the added citations closely enough; I'll take a look now. Either way though, if the citations don't currently support the facts, then this article needs to be brought back into line, by being taken to WP:GAR if necessary. --MalleusFatuorum00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think if I looked at that article again today I'd be a little more critical of it than I was during its sweeps review. A couple of the citations don't appear to support what they're presumably intended to support, it's true, and I ought to have noticed that. The facts don't appear to me to be particularly contentious though, although I'm not offering that as an excuse. A GA Sweeps review is a delicate balancing act; you need to make a much stronger case for removing an article's GA listing than you do in a regular GA review for not listing it. But looking at the article again, I'm concerned about the lack of citations in the Behavior section as well. I think there are only two courses of action: fix the article or take it to WP:GAR. Don't let the fact that I may have cocked up deter you. :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at it too and noticed that the behavior section is undereferenced - I just found a dead link further down as well. It's getting late so I'm putting some tags on for now and I'll see what happens with those first. Richerman (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Civility warning
Per your recent wiquette alert, your personal attacks on me , and your vandalism to Talk:Brenda Song (yes, I do mean vandalism, since you have not fixed it yet), I am hereby warning you that any further vandalism or incivility may (probably will) result in a block. Gimmetrow22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to it, bring it on. Threatening me with a block for warning you about your own dishonesty in attempting to rewrite the article history of one of your favourite articles – for which you have already received a 3RR block – is quite simply a bizarre and outrageous abuse of authority. Not a surprise though, just the way it is around here; too many administrators in possession of power beyond their limited experience to wield with any honesty or integrity. --MalleusFatuorum23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit by Malleus to Talk:Brenda Song was not vandalism, but a positive correction to restore article history. However, I recommend that Malleus leaves Gimmetrow's talk space alone. Please read my comments there. Geometry guy22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I am quite happy to stay well clear of Gimmetrow's talk space, but I thought that he ought to be warned that if he persisted in his vandalism then I would do exactly as I did before. Frankly I fail to understand why anyone comes here and tries to threaten me anyway. Is it supposed to scare me into submission? Fat chance. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not recent. It's old, and pointless even threatening a block over it. I'm honestly shocked that Gimmetrow is an administrator. This is the kind of behavior that should be avoided. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there will soon be some effective checks and balances put in place to curb this kind of administrator abuse. Until then we just have to grin and bear it. --MalleusFatuorum23:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You're the one doing the abuse here, MF. You've been warned multiple times to stay off my talk page, and you were let go once with the NPA above. No more warnings. Gimmetrow23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, if you block under these cicumstances I will reverse your block. Any such block is outside policy, both in terms of the letter and spirit of WP:BLOCK. Pedro : Chat 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
MF has been guilty of abusing editors in the past. He has been guilty of incivility. He personally attacked me, and was in clear terms no longer welcome on my talk page. Yet he posted there. Are you saying you are now making MF another untouchable? That you will personally undo any and all blocks of MF, however worthy they may be? And that you fully support MF in his incivility and abuse of other editors? Gimmetrow23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, for transparency Malleus and I had a set to that was pretty ugly, far more of a "Personal Attack" than the diff above (on both sides). I'd implore you to leave this. Pedro : Chat 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You have made it very clear that I am not welcome on your talk page. What leads you to believe that you are welcome on mine? Please take your crusade against me elsewhere. --MalleusFatuorum23:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not saying that. However 1) As an admin you should never tell editors they are not welcome to post on your talk page (excepting obvios bad faith editors which Malleus is not). 2) I said I would undo any block by you over this issue. 3) Malleus needs (IMHO) to be far more civil. Regretfully, my definition of civility is not shared by Malleus, you, Jimbo, Giano II or anyone else as we all have different tolerances. I'm saying that if you block over this you'll be at ANI and ARBCOM in a flash. I don't "do" vested contributors but I do "do" net benefit to the encyclopedia - and that extends to both of you. Pedro : Chat 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
My earlier comment at the GAN improvement project about whether we should ever point people to RfA if they started feeling a need for some sort of "official" position was a terrible idea. I figured that out after I posted it, as I said later. I think that may have given the impression that I think that RfA is all flowers and sweetness and wouldn't distract from other jobs. (That might easily have made it look like I was "up to something", and colored some recent comments you made elsewhere.) I was really looking to head off in another direction entirely, but didn't get any feedback and never got there: I'm wondering if more people would be willing to say when they like or dislike the work of copyeditors. It's a legitimate complaint that some copyeditors are "self-appointed" (I hear the word a lot at WT:MOS), and the way to solve that is for people to weigh in more often on the quality of work. We could even keep these reviews somewhere. I wouldn't want to get too brutal about it ... it doesn't need to evolve into "RfA for copyeditors" ... but then, you never know what direction things will evolve once they get started. That was where my head was at with talking about RfA at that time. I talked with Balloonman because I know he specializes in looking for people with talent in "content", and I wanted him to alert me when he ran across people who can copyedit. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I admire your enthusiastic efforts to get more people involved in copyediting, something that can very often make or break an article at GAN and especially at FAC. However, my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... well, no need to go there right now. My main objection to what I've seen has always been the quid pro quo nature of some of your suggestions. "If I copyedit your article then I want credit as one of the major contributors", or "A history of copyediting will give you an easier passage at RfA". I understand that you may feel that I've caricatured your initiatives, and perhaps I have, but it's a shorthand way of making my point succinctly. --MalleusFatuorum21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's a caricature, but if you stay tuned, I think those concerns will ebb away over time. I'm starting to find myself. And I will stop saying "Copyediting builds strong bones and drives the women wild" when I am not feeling the lack of copyeditors so sharply; we will get there, soon I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Man, I want to start a competition to see who can fill in the blank from MF's statement above: my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... What are the possible reasons that we can come up with to fill in the blank?---Balloonman21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what was going to be in the blank, but I'll offer a prize for the best suggestion; I promise not to be un/incivil to the winner for a whole month. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... being forced to become 'an incompetent, malicious, vindictive and dishonest administrator'... At least they can't make me turn back the years and become 12 again too...-- Myosotis Scorpioides22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
my own enthusiasm for getting involved in anything on wikipedia has largely ebbed away in the face of ... endless helpings of fish, chips, and mushy peas, all washed down with gallons of Dandelion and Burdock offered to me by the United Teddy Bears Picnic Division of "How to write an encyklienematensighklo (no hang on, I've got it and I can spell it real good, man - gr8 in fact, dude) "How to write a big book of facts about computer games and Powerrangers" whilst the polemical drums of rigour beat futilely in the distance. You are Colin Macfarquhar, and I claim my five pounds! DDStretch (talk)00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There must be some mistake; I voted support for an admin candidate at RfA? Seriously though, I wish you the best of luck in your new role. --MalleusFatuorum23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a FAC when I saw yours. I want to help you, not make it hard for you so I'll make comments here and not on the FAC. The opponents of my article say the introduction is too short and the references need fixing. Your article needs the same if you use their standards. Good luck. I'll vote for yours soon. Chergles (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'd like to claim the article as my own, but I was just the messenger who made the nomination. Which article is yours, so that I can compare notes? --MalleusFatuorum23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've only had very limited contact with Malleus. Based on that experience, I'd support unblock if he normally acts the way he acts in front of me.Chergles (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've checked the last few edits and they are ok with me. I'm sorry that you've been blocked. I know from personal experience how painful it is, particularly if you have been wrongly blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I only have limited contact with Malleus but he is ok. I also checked his recent edits and they are ok. Based on that, an indefinite block is not right. If he did something that I don't know about, let me know and I'll try to talk with him and see if we can all come to an understanding. Chergles (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your very kind Chergles, and I appreciate your support. I wasn't blocked though, this was Jennaveccia's idea of a joke. Understandable really, given that I rarely support any candidates at the bear pit that is RfA, much less two concurrently. :-) --MalleusFatuorum19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll give Jennaveccia a severe talking to on your behalf. ;-) I'm very touched that you supported me all the same, so thanks for the thought. I hope I can count on you when I really am blocked again. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I've never requested an unblock, and I never will – hopefully I'll never need to. But if you ever do see me in that category and it's not another one of Jenna's jokes, then a block because my account has become compromised would be in order, 'cos it won't be me. :-) --MalleusFatuorum20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't serious about giving you a "severe talking to", I only said that for comedic effect. I think everyone knows that I have the utmost respect for all administrators, and never act with anything other than due deference when in their exalted presence. Admittedly the deference that I think is due does vary considerably from case to case. --MalleusFatuorum20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There is more than one admin hanging around with his/her blockhammer just waiting for an opportunity to pounce, who may not be able to tell the difference between a bit of banter and a personal attack. Dut-dut-dah! Perhaps you've heard that I'm to be blocked from taking any further part in the GA project, and not allowed to do any more GA Sweeps? --MalleusFatuorum21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(<--) O, please. Give me a break. Gimmetrow has no authority whatsoever to remove you from GA sweeps, much less the GA project, and if he should try, watch the fallout. What a joke. You know better than that, MF. Get back to work. :) لennavecia19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I occasionally have real life nightmares that I sign onto Wiki, see the dreaded, orange, "you have message" sign, click it and find I'm blocked forever. Should I be worried that Wiki has now entered into my nightmares? Also who's idea was it to make the message sign orange? It gives me butterflies whenever I see it. — Realist23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've had my share of blocks Ottava ... I was going to say fair share, but well, no names, no pack drill. Anyway, you've got two girls looking out for you now, you're sorted. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
LMAO, no one looks out for me. :) I'm a primal force of nature. I am raw truth. Like the sun, I give life and I burn. You can't help me. You can't hurt me. You can only stand in awe.... and possibly block me. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There were a couple of places where I didn't think it was clear what was actually being said, but that may be at least in part down to my unfamiliarity with the play – I don't think I've either read it or seen it except occasionally on TV since I was at school. If you like, I'll leave a few comments on the talk page and you can do with them as you will. --MalleusFatuorum21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops
You accidentally deleted G-Guy's oppose over at Erick. I'd give links and crap but I've got to go write a bunch of thank-you notes :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I withdrew my involvement with a GAN review because I had edited the article to much, and conveyed this to the editor. (He was going to nominate it again, but I guess he did not.) Anyway, I forgot to remove the "on hold" notice on the talk page. Do you know how to fix this, while preserving the review in the article history? The page in question is Talk:Rocko's Modern Life. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably the easiest way to proceed is to close the review as not listed, and it can be nominated at GAN again whenever the editor's ready. --MalleusFatuorum21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how to do that without losing the GA1 review. I looked at the article and the editor has not been working on it at all, so I failed it as a way to close it out. I wrote on the review that he could renominate it. How do you close it as "not listed" without losing the GA review? (I don't really understand those templates nor what happens to GA reviews if the bot doesn't do the right thing.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably misunderstanding what's bothering you, but I've just updated the article history to reflect your now closed review, and everything looks fine to me. --MalleusFatuorum22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever was bothering me was foolishness. I have trouble understanding it myself! Thanks for fixing it. I noticed what you did and perhaps I can duplicate that myself if such an issue arises again. (Why don't you run for Arbcom next time?) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
At User talk:Mike Christie#Interesting argument, you say, "whether julian could be bullied into working on other articles". Explain to me how I'm being a "bully". We live in different countries, so maybe I don't understand, but that's a fairly negative term where I come from. It implies all 3 of: selecting a weak target, hurting them, and deriving pleasure from it. Was that your meaning? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
PS. Is it not itself a personal attack to claim falsely that another editor made a personal attack? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --MalleusFatuorum 17:04, 4 December 2008
Holy Shit! Tznkai is an admin! And you have been Strongly Discouraged! Flee! Flee for your lives! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa---ah--ah--ah! Ling.Nut07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Aww, don't be too mean to Tznkai. He's not that bad of a guy. Plus, he's banned people who had far more friends than Malleus and didn't care about all the flak then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"Is it at the whim of any pasing administrator bearing a grudge?" is obviously critical, but not at all uncivil. No mention of anyone's ancestry. No physiologically improbable suggestions. No exclamations that would invoke the wrath of YWH. All clean and above the waist. So the point is, pointed criticism is no longer allowed? Ling.Nut15:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent, free the indentured colons of Misplaced Pages) I do see two adults endlessly whacking each other over the head, to the detriment of all involved, including innocent bystanders, including the encyclopedia, including the community, etc. I don't see a reason for an admin to adminnishly imply adminnish action of a blocking sort, with powerful adminnish words like "Strongly Discouraged" and links to NPA. Ling.Nut15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now that was a personal attack. :P Malleus, why don't we start a Wikiproject and just run A class reviews? They are higher ranked than GA, and they can't say we are wrong or remove us from them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well then, we will just have to create our own talk page boxes with our own assessment. You can mark it "approved by Malleus Fatuorum" if you think its a good page. :) Also, since we would be coordinators of the project, we could always run A class and close it ourselves without any problem, seeing as how I wouldn't complain if you had a conflict. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I take no interest in the happenings at ANI. Gimmetrow continues to behave badly, but because he is an administrator it is me who gets warned for some imaginary wikicrime. So I'm really past caring what you do. --MalleusFatuorum17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, my mistake. Edit warring it is then. Obviously guilty as charged 'cos I'm not the admin. Curiously, I was poised to make another 3RR report against Gimmetrow for his repeated removal of what he chooses to call a personal attack. --MalleusFatuorum17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, if he would have continued to edit war he would have been blocked and same thing would have gone for yourself. Also, please note that you were never blocked, and while I do think your edits where a bit on the disruptive side, it is not because you are a non-admin. Tiptoety17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The "disruption" was the creation of this vexatious AN report, and the continual false allegations of personal attacks. But I have nothing more to say on this matter, at least nothing that wouldn't earn me a (for once) deserved block. --MalleusFatuorum17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, it is probably better if you let me lodge the "false allegation" thing. I tend to have more of a reputation for it, and, besides the Milton work (which is this weekend), I can handle being blocked for a while the self-fulfilling prophecy works its way to that point. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a generous offer Ottava, but I want you to be blocked even less that I want to be blocked myself. Working on topics like Milton (and dare I mention dear old Sam Johnson) is far more important than making a fuss about the actions of one out of control administrator. Besides, I wasn't intending to pursue the matter anyway, as I don't believe there's a fair and open-minded forum where it can be done, so nothing would come of it except the usual whitewash. I know that Gimmetrow has acted disgracefully and has distorted his version of events to avoid having to admit that he has behaved outrageously, but that's just par for the course here on wikipedia. Water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned. --MalleusFatuorum20:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But Malleus, you forget (or maybe you didn't know), I am a Wikiversity member who deals with ethics, along with being an ethicist in real life. I mean, I live and die by ethical dilemma. I'm a hard core traditionalist and I believe greatly in the system, so I can handle such things that most others cannot. Plus, I've dealt with some of the hardest issues from the other side of the administration power structure. Hell, Moulton still sees me as the devil for my role in his being blocked. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikiversity? I've never looked at that. Is it good? Regardless, I don't want you blocked, or even running the risk of a block, because of something that I'm alleged to have done. --MalleusFatuorum23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a member of so many cabals, I don't know what the result of anything would be. I've chit chat with Cary Bass, that must mean something. :P Regardless, Wikiversity is fun. You create pages based on "learning projects", i.e. trying to analyze a topic, discuss things in a more intellectual progressive based, i.e. you build something over time. I normally mop over there, but I've been meaning to hold readings courses. I want something fun that can be linked to various pages at Misplaced Pages that are Wiki based, but deal more with individuals than scholars. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. The shit you get into. Can you possibly drop a couple links to what started this dispute? All I got from the sweeps talk page is a linkless timeline. I looked over the article, the GAR and the links on this page... hope I didn't miss any. I read something about what I assume was a quick-fail for instability or edit warring. I'm about to go to bed, but if you've got the time and desire to give me this info, it'd be much appreciated. If not, can you do it anyway? :/ لennavecia07:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It started here after Gimmetrow refused to accept that Brenda Song had been failed at GAN (not by me) and removed the record of the failed review from the article history. If you follow the history from the link you'll see that Gimmetrow was edit warring not just with me but also with another editor, as a result of which I made a 3RR report and he was blocked for 8 hours. He started the same game again only a few days ago, hence the recent unpleasantness. During the course of the disagreement Gimmetrow issued various vague threats of blocks and warnings, which he refused to elaborate when I asked him, blanked all the messages I posted to his talk page and forbade me from posting on his talk page again, culminating in me calling him "just another admin fucktard then" in one edit summary. That's it in a nutshell. --MalleusFatuorum13:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
PS. I understand that some sensitive souls may consider an edit summary of "just another admin fucktard then" as in some way uncivil. I view it as fair comment in the circumstances. --MalleusFatuorum18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand this behaviour of Gimmetrow's, a generally rational and helpful editor in my experience. The article probably would be a GA by now if the natural course of events had been allowed to occur. (No appeal via another editor to Jbmurray, no GAR; just a renomination to GAN, which Gimmetrow did, until the renomination was derailed, and not by you.) I guess we all have our irrational buttons. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Like you, I find the sequence of events to be incomprehensible, not least of all being accused by Gimmetrow of having a conflict of interest over an article I've never even read, much less edited. I guess we can only hope that this was a one-off aberration, never to be repeated. Had Gimmetrow just dealt with the initial failed GAN like every other editor is expected to, instead of trying to chuck his weight around, I have no doubt that the article would by now be a GA, as you suggest. --MalleusFatuorum16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Greater Manchester December Newsletter, Issue XII
November has been a successful month, with lots of progress made on articles, and more work in the pipe-line:
Promoted articles:
Scout Moor Wind Farm is England's largest onshore wind farm. Although it was opposed by environmentalists, the wind farm was opened on 26 September 2008 and provides enough power for 40,000 homes.
The River Irwell runs 39 miles from its source in Lancashire until it joins with the River Mersey. The river was important in the Industrial Revolution, and was left poluted with industrial waste and lifeless.
The Bridgewater Canal is currently a GA nominee and the Scout Moor Wind Farm is under scrutiny at WP:FAC. Please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. Hopefully, next month we can report on two more promoted articles!
Scout Moor Wind Farm featured in the DYK section of the front page last month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 14 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 10 more Yorkshire and 11 more than London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Member News
There are now 50 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester as 2 new members joined the project in November:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. 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}}.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Already we're making great progress, and Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and the River Irwell are already GAs, while Scout Moor Wind Farm is on the way to becoming an FA! The Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF) are hot topics at the moment with the referendum currently open. As an aside, some of our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Misplaced Pages articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed 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.
Articles needing attention Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Cleanup listing|list of articles needing cleanup]] are in permanent need of attention.
I know it's early but since there won't be a newsletter for a month... merry Christmas everyone, enjoy the holiday and mince pies.
Delivered on 5 December 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
I stumbled across that yesterday and had a read through. It looks good to me. I particularly like the inline citations to the relevant policy sections, which is a really good idea. Oh, and the proper spelling of "behaviour", of course. --MalleusFatuorum16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
As a general comment on AdminWatch, I think it's potentially an important leveller. Regular editors accumulate block logs, too often because an administrator has acted out of process, but even though the block may be swiftly reverted the logged entry remains for the remainder of that editor's stay at wikipedia. Administrators, on the other hand, are allowed to slash and burn wherever the fancy takes them without there being any equivalent record of their misdemeanours that can be easily referred to when they make one mistake too many and it becomes necesary to request that they be desysopped. I wish your initiative well. --MalleusFatuorum18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if this went anywhere, but that being said, there is an area that I think is ripe with abuse that has virtually no oversight that you haven't even broached on. The area I see the most abuse and potential for long term harm is CSD. Too many CSD'ers/Admin CSD'ers are too trigger happy with the delete button and will delete articles without giving them a chance. This chases away the next Tony/Ling.Nut/Malleus---oh wait, is that a bad thing? ;-) No, back to being serious, I think CSD'ers do more long term undetected damage to wikipedia than most people realize. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife was an admin, I would have never stuck around after my first two articles were speedily deleted---WHILE I was editing them! Even as an experienced editor, I've had more than my fair share of first drafts deleted (when I forget to write them in my user space.) I suspect that if I reviewed the work of 20 CSD'ers, 19 would have significant issues. If I revewed the work of 20 CSD Admins, 18 would have significant issues. I would love to see a process for monitoring CSD'ers/admin CSD'ers. ---Balloonman20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm willing to concede your point in the GA/1 about in-line citations in the WP:Lead, but I'll continue to argue for the time being the other point.Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not saying that I don't agree that some of the info in the lead ought to be in the article – in fact I do. I was just clarifying what the guidelines actually say. --MalleusFatuorum19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
My opinion, and I have no experience of the process, is that this is a FA-class article so I don't wish to prolong the GAR process. The point about being the first proper canal (with foot note to say that the Sankey Brook also has a claim) is now contentious and I've seen the strong arguments elsewhere in WP, with no citations provided. I now have a copy of: Blair, John (Edr) (2007). Waterways and Canal-Building in Medieval England (Medieval History and Archaeology series). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921715-1. There are other canals that have strong medieval claims for being regarded as the first artificial inland waterway in England. So, its not a straight fight between the Bridgewater and the Sankey; and nor should it go into the Lead and/or the body of the article without adequate WP:verification.Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me. I think you're a very conscientous GA reviewer, and a model that many would struggle to emulate. For excellent reviewers like yourself, the difference between GA and FA is fast disappearing. My own view is that GA cuts a little slack in some less important areas that FA would not allow. Whatever, keep doing what you're doing. :-) --MalleusFatuorum19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain its quite at FA-class yet - there are some small sections that require expansion, and personally I feel the Bridgewater Trustees section is too large in relation to the rest of the article. The article has stalled a little at the moment, as I've been working on other articles (M&B railway, and Radcliffe are two), and Peter Vardy (the other main contributor) I presume is busy on other things.
As for it being the first 'true' canal, I believe the claim is that the Bridgewater is the first waterway wholly manmade which does not follow the course of any other waterway. The wording could easily be changed however to "first canal of the industrial age", with an addendum to reflect the fact that its construction pretty much kick-started the industrial revolution in Manchester. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
See, Chapter 7 by James Bond in Blair (2007), we'll put a claim in for Exeter Ship Canal and/or Glastonbury Canal. :-) Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Damn
I'm kicking myself, maybe not as hard as I used to, that I didn't let you explore ideas at your own pace and in your own way about whether comments directed at people who have just failed RfA make their lives happier or sadder. Damn. I am so clumsy sometimes. My proposal is to promote what I see as some very good directions at WT:RFA. If we can make the process less bruising (as it occasionally is), then perhaps everyone will be a little less tense, and feel a little less of a need to step in and "fix" things, which doesn't always help, no matter who's doing the fixing.
My plan is to try to stay focused on one thing at a time. I don't think I have anything to say that will be helpful in recent threads at WT:FAC. I think people have said some interesting things about RFA recently; I'm going to follow up on that and see if consensus that has eluded us is finally ready to happen on a few points. After that, I'm going to downshift considerably, leave the big questions of the day alone, and see if I can help nurture the community of people who want to learn and apply AP Stylebook and Chicago; that's probably where I could do the most good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with MF, RfA (like most WP) is a dinosaur... not the fastest thing to change. Sometimes it is better, as MF so aptly put it, just to bend over and pucker up...---Balloonman20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's say the same thing with less darkness, because WP is no different than the rest of life in this respect. In any successful enterprise (and WP is certainly that), there are people with phenomenal amounts of clue, and other people who can basically get it, and other people who lack context and sensitivity; they just repeat the kinds of things they hear other people saying. If the plan is to give up on every process that has some clueless people in it, then not only will we not fix anything in WP, we won't do very well in life, either. I see solid progress in the conversations recently and especially today at RFA; I think we can make some small changes that will lead to fewer bruising RFAs, and if even one person is benefitted by that, then it's worth doing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has got to where it is despite its obvious flaws. Whether good faith editors will continue to contribute in the face of those increasingly obvious flaws is a quite different question. --MalleusFatuorum20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a problem. About earlier: I was angry because I saw you handing someone who was stressed an easy answer to explain it all away, and sometimes that's the wrong thing to do; sometimes they need to find their own answers at their own pace. You're a kind, generous, and tough person, Malleus, and I'm very glad you're here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You are now an administrator, someone who ought not to act on their emotions or in anger. Someone who also ought not to make arbitary judgements about how other editors may feel – take a look at the section below. I voted against your promotion because I did not believe that you had the judgement necessary to be an administrator, and sadly you have proved me correct even sooner than I had expected. --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You're as entitled to your opinion as I hope am I to mine. But regardless: ".. my calling him that isn't going to have him running to the corner crying for his mama." You got that right. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL @ your first comment on my talk page. You seem like a cool guy. Let me know if you need help with anything. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two users, currently both with a week-long block for edit warring over an article Che Guevara (photo), although the blocking admin is vacillating, suggesting an RFC which I know is useless. One of the editors, User:Redthoreau, I tangled with a while ago and ultimately ended up nominating the article in question for FAR, Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. The other editor User:Damiens.rf I don't know, but his current complain is that 61 quotations in an article is too many.
The blocking admin User talk:EdJohnston wants to handle the situation constructively but does not know how. I suggested to him that someone like you, an experienced editor might be willing to be a neutral editor between the two, focused on article quality.
I suggested you (and perhaps also User talk:Geometry guy) to direct the warring editors to concentrate on article quality. My experience in the past with User:Redthoreau is that he does rather well when a "father figure" type takes an interest. Some of his obnoxiousness, I believe, is due to youthful aggression and ignorance. I think he would respond positively to someone whose goal was to produce a quality article. As he dominates all things Guevara, the only way to improve the Guevara articles on Misplaced Pages is to move Redthoreau over onto the side of the forces of good.
Since the focus would just be this one article, and your job would be to render advice/judgement on article criteria, I think the job would not be unduly burdensome. Redthoreau had a past mentor-like relationship with User:Coppertwig and did very well when pointed in the right direction behaviourally. (Of course, you may not be quite the right model there!)
Would you consider taking on this project? It might be just up your alley. I figure that since Redthoreau is not going to go away, he may as well put all that energy into writing articles that don't have 61 quotations in them. How about it? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not for me. I wish those editors well, and if there's anything specific I can do to help then I will, but I should be nobody's mentor or role model. My views on the way that wikipedia is run are quite at odds with the mainstream, so my involvement would be likely to be more of a hinderance than a help. --MalleusFatuorum03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I was kidding about the role model part! I think taking an article review role is the key. Not take sides or focus on anything other than what a GA would be, for example. I do not think Redthoreau thinks about article quality. He gets too caught up in having 61 quotes without thinking that there might be a better way to communicate information in an article. Besides, I think you underestimate how soothing you are when you are acting like an editor rather than ranting. (Sorry! I'm not immune from ranting either.) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't rant! I just make my point. Again, and again, and again, and ... Anyway, I replied on the talk page. If the editors really want help and are prepared to listen, then ... --MalleusFatuorum03:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Redthoreau had agreed on his talk page to the suggestion by the admin "that we get some GA reviewers to see if the article has the right number of quotes, or too many. If we can get some reviewers to comment on that, are you willing to go by their advice? I.e. will you reduce the number of quotes if they say there are too many? I'll ask Damiens also. This would be instead of doing an RfC."
I can ask him, but I just looked at his talk page, and he has a real world class who are all trying to get their articles passed as GA with Awadewit. I will ask though. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Che Guevera is an important and potentially controversial article. Jbmurray is probably one of the best judges of that article. His is the opinion that I'd be looking for, not mine. --MalleusFatuorum04:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. Redthoreau is being unreasonable, and the blocking admin is no longer willing to negotiate anything. Happy tomorrow (or today, or whatever it is in Manchester)! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the discussion, and I'm not certain I'd characterise Redthoreau's attitude as "unreasonable". Being asked to stay away from the article for two months was clearly a step too far for him though. Ah well, I suppose it means that everyone just has to serve out their blocks now. Shame. --MalleusFatuorum19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The two months part was a new addition and negotiable. It was his saying that it was "his" article and his personal attacks on other editors and accusations of sockpuppetry that devolved the situation into the "same old same old" for me. The other editor User:Damiens.rf, poor guy, was willing to agree to any resolution involving neutral editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking generally, I think that there are a great many administrators who ought to be stripped of the ability to block other editors. It's a sanction that's threatened and applied far too frequently, and without much subtlety, against registered editors of long-standing. It's like a version of WP:OWN: "This is my encyclopedia, and you will not be allowed to edit again until you agree that I'm right, and bow down before me." I'm not naive enough to believe that anything's going to change any time soon though, or even ever, so I hope that both of these editors will be able to put this episode down to inevitable battle scars. --MalleusFatuorum20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
New question
Is there a mechanism where the two editors of Che Guevara (photo) can take the article to get some outside advice? Meanwhile a third editor, the one Redthoreau called a sock puppet (since retracted as proven impossible to be true), has put cleanup and quote farm on the article. This situation will just continue unabated after the week-long blocks end if nothing is done. Can no one step up to help the situation? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to be done I don't think unless all the parties involved agree on a course of action that each would find at least acceptable. Other than waving the blockhammer around again anyway. --MalleusFatuorum20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It is so very unfortunate! The problem is that it works to be aggressive and to dominate those editors who are newer and less equipped for nasty fighting. I have become ruder and uglier because of experience with editors like Redthoreau. It took me a couple of years to learn that all that being nice stuff was phony and that it is best to ignore it unless you want to be kicked around. Rodthoreau will continue to own those articles because wiki has no mechanism to stop such behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that wikpedia has a perfectly good mechanism to stop such behaviour, or would have if the civility police just butted out. Just look at the often acrimonious arguments that academics have with one another for instance. There needs to be some kind of reasonable rules of conduct, but they ought not to be written and enforced by 10-year-olds. --MalleusFatuorum22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I know what your views are. However, what is the mechanism for stopping such behavior? You focus on a few mistakes by admins in confusing situations where they are outwitted by cunning editors who feel entitled. However, my experience is that the vast majority of aggressive editors win out over more conscientious and polite editors. Redthoreau have been blocked several times for a week, yet there is no sign this abates his editing aggressiveness and ownership of articles. And the admin even felt bad, originally, for doing that! The editor who brought Che Guevara to FA status won't even edit the article any more because of Redthoreau. In fact, that editor barely edits anymore on Misplaced Pages, and he/she was one of the best. In fact, two excellent editors were driven away by this incident. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe in the power of rational argument, even where that argument may sometimes appear to outsiders to be acrimonious. I do not generally condone name-calling, although I do believe it may sometimes be a necessary intensifier. I also believe that I'm in a minority of one here on wikipedia. --MalleusFatuorum23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of alienating you, I don't see your rational arguments nearly as often as I see you a grumpy person, alienating others either for the pleasure of being right or the pleasure of getting away with it. I hasten to say that I am no different, though not quite as over the edge as you are. I find being irritating way more effect than "rational arguments" that generally get no where in most editing disagreements. With the Redthoreau types, it is better to give up and let them have the article. (It is strange that you are so sensitive to the slings and arrows of others, but so ready to give them out yourself. But I definately appreciate your wonderful support when I am in one of those situations, and thank you so much for it!) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You or anyone else stating your opinion is never likely to alienate me; I believe that we're all entitled to our opinions, even me. However, I do have a very strong sense of fairness, of right and wrong; so when I see what I perceive to be abuses of authority I am not likely to bend over and pucker up, no matter what the price, no matter who is upset. --MalleusFatuorum00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you put it in such terms? Do you think that is what I am doing if I realistically assess that I will only be frustrated in dealing with a certain article/editor and accept the limitations of the situation? (Are you a cowboy, Brit style, a Sir John Wayne?) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no longer certain what point you're trying to make Mattisse. What I am certain of though is that I'm no John Wayne. You must do whatever you think is right for you, as I try to do what I think is right for me. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, especially anonymous people on a web site, :-) --MalleusFatuorum01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Merrie England
Don't mind the Ainsworthesque title. I just wanted to note that if everything finishes as planned, there will be about 32 more pages on the pedia dedicated to that bastard Milton. ; / So dear ol England will have another one of her insane literary people promoted again. The best part? All written in Colonial English. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? I have original editions of most of his books, including his magazine. :) Okay, I took a long enough break, time for the long haul (politics and then the final poetry!). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
He is leaving because of one admin who vandalises and one self-important, bigwig editor who supported the vandal for personal reasons? Doesn't make sense! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Got diffs, Mattisse, so we can see who this "bigwig editor" is and where this "dumping on Malleus" that you allege is occurring, or are these your opinions, that will never be struck, even when shown inaccurate? For my part, I offered months ago to nom Malleus at RfA if he would show he could put past differences behind him; at that time, he rejected my offer. Since then, I'm not sure you've been a particularly helpful influence, considering the dissemination of opinion presented as fact, accompanied with a good dose of personal attacks, that only muddies the water. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, your departure will be a big loss for the project. I hope you will reconsider. You should know that you have far more friends than adversaries here. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mattisse, as I'm sure you know, Malleus has issues with a lot of admins and there's been a lot of drama lately. He frequently talks about leaving, but never does. That's because, like all of us, he's addicted. And so while one may leave the crack house, sure that they're leaving all the ugly mess that is Misplaced Pages behind, the temptation is too great. Even if one does not return to feel that sweet poison pulse through their veins once more, they hit it up somewhere else (IP or sock editing) every now and again to ease the symptoms of withdrawal. But Malleus cannot leave, because I need him. Without his talk page and understanding for my expletive-ridden rants, I will have no where to turn and will surely be desysopped for snapping my shit. He can't carry that sort of guilt. لennavecia15:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope Malleus takes a break and returns soon refreshed. Losing such a dedicated editor as him is bad enough, but if also one of our finest admins is in danger of being desysopped as a consequence, well, that's a double whammy I don't think Misplaced Pages can recover from... Geometry guy19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
just popped in to say that although I stand by everything I've said about Gimmetrow's behaviour, I fully realise that it has not been sufficiently bad in the eyes of his peers to warrant him being desysopped; little short of manslaughter appears to be sufficiently bad. If the playing field is ever levelled between admins and non-admins then I may reconsider my position. Until then, au revoir. --MalleusFatuorum20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Gimmetrow may not be desysopped, but he is currently wikiemasculated, which means that he will have little influence over any actions. So don't worry about him doing anything against you. Just keep me informed of what is happening if anything gets out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I hope you are right! But how is he wikiemasculated? You are so good at finding out info. Where did you find that out? (I have seen nothing but support for Gimmetrow.) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of those evil cabal members. Why else would I act like a rude jerk all the time and push my views of the encyclopedia every chance I get? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you not know that Gimmetrow was blocked for edit warring? Were you not around for any of the discussions, or the opposition against Gimmetrow's actions then or recently against Malleus? Perhaps I see more of this than you two because I am constantly kept up to date about Wikipolitics by constant emails of people sending me links to read. And Wikimasculation is my neologism - to remove power on Misplaced Pages by lack of community support. It means that if you perform an action that is somewhat controversial, it will probably be overturned quickly. I am a very staunch traditionalist and I believe strongly in the Misplaced Pages standards and policies. However, as such an individual, I have to keep an eye on those who abuse such policies and give the standards a bad name. I'm kept up to date on most controversial actions. I'm sure Gimmetrow could win back at least some of his credibility if he apologized to Malleus and backed off from him, especially backing off from trying to perform silly actions like declaring that he couldn't review GAs when he wouldn't have such an authority to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Administrator note Whoever unblocked you should be partially flayed, before being burned alive for abusive wheel-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
