|
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unsigned messages will likely be removed. For messages left here, I will usually respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for a response there.
Start a new talk topic.
Seriously?
You've blocked someone for a week for that edit summary? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's hardly an isolated incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you haven't blocked them for that edit summary, but for something else? Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- His block log for civility is the one of the longest I've ever seen. I don't think Bongwarrior was unjustified in making that block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- You do not block on the basis of a block log. You block on the basis of the existing incident. Would another editor have been blocked for a week for that? Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beyond unjustified. Malleus was clearly provoked. Ryan Vesey 23:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Please undo this block. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not happening, at least not by me. Malleus has seemingly made a career out of this sort of behavior. A one week block is lenient, if anything. Enough is enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I will not attempt to speak for Bongwarrior here, but a long-term pattern of incivility easily leads to a block though I think 48 hours is better. If this were a first offense, probably no block.
- On the subject of provocation, yes Malleus was provoked. However, I feel that it's not proper to blame others for Malleus' incivility, because he shouldn't be getting a free pass for repeated incivility incidents. I am not comfortable having this discussion on-wiki, because I have respect for Malleus. But I still side with Bongwarrior's decision here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll undo it myself, then. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's how it usually goes, isn't it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Sorry, it was clearly excessive given the situation. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- If we wanted to make policy such that any form of abusive language was a qualification for a block, I'd be supportive. Outside of that, we need to base the blocks on the situation. In this case, the block was not appropriate for the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the bigger problem here, Bongwarrior, is that you did this in an Admin forum, without consulting the Admin corps. I realize that it is not a requirement to ask, but considering the forum, and the fact that it is for Admins, you should have made sure that your decision to block was going to be helpful, and that it had the consensus of the Admin corps. A discussion on Civility shouldn't end with the complaintant ending strung up by the very agency within Misplaced Pages that he is seeking redress from. -- Avanu (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just don't understand what is so difficult about being civil. I have managed to edit here for 6+ years without calling someone an "arsehole" or something similar. Malleus is a smart individual, but despite the blocks, despite the warnings, for whatever reason he cannot grasp that such behavior is untenable. It's not rocket science. The easy course of action is to ignore it - that doesn't make it the correct course of action. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're right in that. But given that standard, why don't we block consistently for incivility? The admin who said 'fuck you' should have been held to the same standard at least, right? Otherwise we are telling people that admins get a pass because they hold a special place in Misplaced Pages. I don't think admins want to send that message, but without being extra careful, it is all too easy to appear biased. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Neither incident is acceptable, and admins aren't special, but the situations are vastly different. I'm not aware of any recurring civility issues with Mark, and he was contrite and apologetic. This may be a generalization, but it seems like when Malleus steps out of line, it's never his fault, but the fault of one or more evil and incompetent admins. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- You got that right, evil and incompetent, indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Evil, possibly. Incompetent? Hardly. Inconsistent? I could easy test that argument. -- Avanu (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Incompetent and evil, obviously. The administrator punk who called Black Kite a groupie hasn't been called on the carpet yet. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- And won't be, as administrators are on the whole notoriously blind to the incivility of their colleagues. Not all of course, but far too many. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm serious on the zero-tolerance for NPA idea. If every instance of calling someone an idiot got you blocked for a day. People wouldn't call other editors idiots. Right now, that doesn't exist, which is why I felt this block was inappropriate. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Question: How would we consistantly enforce such a strict policy which relies on a subjective thing (What is considered a personal attack by one editor may not be considered a personal attack by another)? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- You might easily prove me wrong, but I don't know that personal attacks are subjective. Whether a personal attack is severe or not might be subjective, zero-tolerance would take the subjectivity out of it. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea in principle, Ryan, but in a lot of cases, a *little* incivility isn't a problem. Certain words are clearly beyond the pale, but even those are often shrugged off if they aren't persistent. Civility is a pillar here, but putting the face to the name is hard for Civility. Certainly one can very graciously insult someone, or one can very coarsely compliment someone else. Civility can mean overlooking someone elses bad behavior or poor manners, or even their exasperation at a situation. Civility can also mean that we respond to a jerk with a considerate response, or even sometimes just walk away. Often, we know when a person is being civil, and we know when they aren't. But emotional baggage can influence all of this. In general, we just need to be as thoughtful as possible, and when we can't be, we should take a break. To quote Scotty from Star Trek: "Laddie, don't ya think you should rephase that?" -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I understand you, and your comment is logical; however, we've used that approach for a long time and it just doesn't work. The problem clearly exists, and every time I see a flare up like this, I become more and more certain that we need a drastic change. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, I'm AFK as of right now so I won't be able to respond to any future comments. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have read WP:CIVIL (you know that one? One of the five pillars? anyone?) over and over, and try as hard as I can, I can't find the part that says "Unless you don't feel like it." Unfortunately, there are a select group of editors who have free reign to be as uncivil as they wish and should they ever be held accountable for their actions, there will always be one of their groupies around to unblock them. Malleus is a fantastic writer, but I fail to see how and why that gives him the unfettered ability to be as caustic and obnoxious as he can manage without any repercussions, ever. Trusilver 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then you fail to see the obvious, which is that your characterisation of administrators who have the balls to act honestly and consistently as "groupies" is far worse than anything I've ever said. Malleus Fatuorum 07:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that a breach of trust is a worse thing than a breach of etiquette. That said, perhaps Bongwarrior might appreciate if this debate were moved to a more appropriate forum, and I personally would appreciate if the personalities were removed from the debate and we simply focus on solutions that editors can easily use as a guideline. -- Avanu (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- People are human. The expectations for "civility" on wikipedia are ridiculous. We are not here to behave like saints. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Its embarrassing reading a lot of the comments and at ANI/Jimbo/Arb. Its just not important. Yes, editors should try to be productive and communicate amicably but it is perfectly normal for people to get angry at some point and call somebody an ass for their pompous behaviour. Far worse is the fuss made in the aftermath and time wasting over pointless bollocks than anything anybody can say. Yes, Malleus is often what you could call "uncivil" by wikipedia standards but he is who he is, blocking him or continuing to moan about him isn't going to change him or improve wikipedia, this sort of response only fuels further bad feeling in the future. Just accept people as they are, unless its seriously racist/threat etc it really isn't important. The sooner we drop the ridiculous standards for civility and stop interfering with editors the better the site would be. We are not here to exemplify perfect behaviour, we're here to build an encyclopedia in a tough environment normal human beings are occasionally susceptible to getting frustrated in. When 100 times the discussion goes into how people behave rather than articles something is very wrong. Focus on content people!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus' block log is laughable as it is. Out of 16 overall blocks that administrators have seen fit to impose, only four have ever been allowed to stand (one of these was an hour). Regardless of whether the civility policy is patently ridiculous or if this block was absurd, everyone can see that Malleus is perpetually exempt from normal blocking process—a blatantly vested contributor to whom even the most moderate blocks are swiftly overturned. That is a far greater issue than Malleus calling someone an "arsehole". If Bongwarrior deserves a trout for this block (which he doesn't—it was perfectly legitimate, no longer than they've been blocked for in the past thus clearly can't be seen as "excessive"), then Black Kite deserves a fat fucking whale for perpetuating the absurd breakdown of our ability to function normally when Malleus is blocked. Swarm 16:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Swarm, let me get this straight. Is either Black Kite or Malleus responsible for your ability to function normally or the breakdown of your ability to function normally? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Or alternatively of course, the eleven different administrators who undid those twelve blocks merely realised that a lot of them were either unwarranted or excessive. It's actually worth going through some of them - I did last night whilst this was going on. Some of them are utterly ludicrous and others would certainly not have resulted in a block for any other editor. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really only twelve blocks? Seems like a whole lot more. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kiefer—nope, not in the least. As I said above, my concern isn't even with Malleus' conduct. I think I clearly described my issue above, and I'd quote it but I don't think that's necessary, seeing as it's only a few lines up. Kite—I'm fully aware that many of these blocks were indeed inappropriate and were rightfully overturned. However, Malleus isn't "any other user" as you seem to be arguing. Of course we'd never issue a week block for calling someone an "arsehole". However, given the context of a well known history of incivility, numerous blocks, and an admonishment from arbcom, I don't see how you can look at this the same way as you would for "any other editor". Swarm 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bongwarrior, I guess I wasn't paying attention yesterday when all this exciting stuff happened. I wish it hadn't--I also think that this was a bad block. A block log is needlessly lengthened, an admin's competency is questioned, the value of the consensus model is lowered. I'm not here to call for your head or your bit, just to express my sadness, on an already rainy day. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I value your opinion, but I stand behind the block. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy, or it isn't. Right now, it appears that that particular policy isn't even worth the server space it occupies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- If we had that attitude on all such cases, Bongwarrior, I think we'd see a lot better Misplaced Pages. Like it or not, blocking is often a punishment. For Malleus, it is an indelible scarlet letter. Many editors reference his long block log as further justification for why he should be further blocked. Meanwhile another editor was free to make a similar statement, hiding being the veil of email, and has no such stain on his record. It isn't a fair outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, the two situations are vastly different, although Mark's email was probably worse, judged strictly on its own merits. However, Mark apologized and took responsibility for his actions. To the best of my knowledge, Malleus has done no such thing, ever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think CIVIL is fairly useless, because it depends on individual interpretation, but if we are to take it as it reads then my argument would be that it also says "In cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.". Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- The block was for an explicit personal attack and was logged as such. There aren't various ways to interpret calling someone an "arsehole". Swarm 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course there are. Language isn't that simple, Swarm. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you really trying to suggest in the slightest that calling someone an arsehole isn't insulting? Really?? We really need to have this debate? We can discuss Malleus' behavior, the block, the unblock, the culture surrounding it all...but the word "arsehole"? Seriously Drmies?! Do I seriously need to provide references that "arsehole" is a pejorative term? Please tell me I don't. Swarm 05:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I object to the simple-minded view that a word, even that one, means only one thing, and I object to the simplification that this can be viewed without context, without the baiting that preceded it--and that a one-week block was appropriate. Yes, seriously. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- "means only one thing" - It has various definitions, if that's what you're referring to, but when used to refer to someone else, it has quite a specific (derogatory) definition that you can read more about in its article or in a dictionary. "this can be viewed without context" - never said anything that could even be construed as that, nor did I even reply to any point made by black kite that had anything to do with looking at this with context. I was responding to Kite's general point on why CIVIL is useless, by merely pointing out that this particular incident is an explicit personal attack as opposed to being ambiguous or open to interpretation. Nothing there about ignoring context. Swarm 05:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Bongwarrior...your block was more than lenient. You blocked a repeat offender who has already been admonished by the arbitration committee. How many get out of jail free cards should anyone get...the supply should never be limitless, nor should our patience.--MONGO 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is an abuse of administrator function. The block policy clearly states that blocks are not used as punishment. I agree with Black Kite's comments above. Tony (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is correct that blocks aren't to be used for punishment, however since Black Kite did the unblock, Malleus has resumed his usual programming with an out of the blue posting of abuse and harassment at Matthew Townsend's talkpage. Since Malleus is under arbcom admonishment and the committee, especially NewYorkBrad, have discussed the need for Malleus to be civil, if falls in the realm of our administrators remit to maintain the peace, which in this case, since "friendly reminders" don't work, means to use the block function.MONGO 11:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Urgent: copy-editing and policy compliance
Hi, since you've relinked five articles from the main page, are you prepared to copy-edit each of them, and check for copyvio, plagiarism, sourcing, and other essential requirements? Can you let me know if you don't intend to do this as a matter of urgency, and I'll raise the matter on the main-page talk. Tony (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I'm a little busy. Someone else had better do it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I'm busy too. So why are they exposed as direct links right at the top of the main page, when the featured article is the target that has been properly audited for that purpose? Tony (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're coming across as a little hostile. They are linked because I did a partial revert of your edit, which made no mention of any unlinking (). Because such unlinking is non-standard, and there was no community discussion regarding appropriate main page linking that I am aware of, I made a perfectly logical assumption that your unlinking was accidental. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch!
Bongwarrior, thanks for letting me know you made that change. I'd left my laptop open at my college campus and one of my buddies (who doesn't necessarily care for my use of Misplaced Pages) got on and changed some stuff. It looks like the edit you fixed was the only one. Thanks again bud!
Joseph90x (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, your other edits looked fine so I figured it might be something like that. Sorry about the warning, you can remove it now if you'd like. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Your code
What's it mean? Really Zen (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- You mean the one on my userpage? --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Really Zen (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's an old Pink Floyd-related thing. It doesn't really mean anything, except maybe that I'm a big nerd. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed. Really Zen (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I aim to disappoint. And welcome to Misplaced Pages, by the way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Least valued currency unit
Please semi-protect this page. Recently it has become a source of attraction. --Raamin (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can you summarize the problem for me? Are the IPs adding incorrect information? I tried checking some diffs, but everything just looks like a jumble of numbers to me and I couldn't make much sense of anything. I'd be hesitant to protect solely because of a spike in activity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- IPs remove citations, add unsorced (and untrue) infos; They even vandalize. --Raamin (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, fair enough. I've semiprotected it for three days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Raamin (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thanks for helping out
Thanks for helping me out. I'm a bit rust using Hug after my two year sabbatical and not sure how to use all the features. I saw that on Craig Furgeson you reverted back to a good version better than I did. Thanks, and if you can help me use this tool better let me know. Stillwaterising (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. You're on your own about Huggle, though - I never really cared for editing with it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
