Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 10 June 2009 (→Rollback removed: little wonder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #98

Civility and decorum

Please do not use gratuitous profanity in Misplaced Pages community discussions. This can create a hostile editing environment for other editors. If you do that again, you may be blocked. Misplaced Pages is not censored applies to content of articles. It is not a license to use profanity against other editors. Jehochman 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Jehochman 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will use the words I deem necessary to get MY point across, you are of course entitled to use what ever words YOU choose. Now quit with the threats, they neither impress me nor scare me. --WebHamster 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy. You are not entitled to use unlimited amounts of profanity against other editors. At some point crude discourse amounts to harassment, trolling or personal attacks and is blockable. You have crossed that line today and been blocked. Jehochman 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unlimited"? I used one f-bomb on AN and one on your page. That can hardly be construed as excessive. And please don't talk bollocks to try and justify this block. You know and I know it's because I didn't back down from your almighty power. Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally, and almighty sysops don't like it when the proles talk back. --WebHamster 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, there is no way "Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page?" would qualify as "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" (my emphasis) which is the only part of WP:CIVIL that could possibly apply here. The intention of CIV is "don't hassle people unnecessarily", not "don't ever use a naughty word". Please reconsider this one. – iridescent 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just the tip if the iceberg. The greater problem is the personal attacks that WebHamster is making. Please do not unblock without prior discussion with me. I'll post some diffs in a minute. Thank you. Jehochman 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Whilst looking for the diffs, why not just pop over to dictionary.com and refresh yourself as to the definition of "personal" and then explain who specifically I've personally attacked? I've used general terms for general ethos and belief systems. I've not aimed what I consider to be an attack at anyone personally. Though since this block I can think of a couple I could aim in a certain direction. --WebHamster 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agreeing with Iridescent; not everything that merits a refactor request is blockable. Although the following post to Jehochman's user talk goes farther, as a matter of form it would have been better for the administrator who was targeted to have filed a request for independent review rather than take action himself. Perhaps the best thing would be a good faith unblock and leave the matter at that. I certainly didn't intend to spark drama with the attempt to defuse one f-bomb. Durova 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the diffs below are enough to justify a block. The crudeness on my talk page merely served to confirm that WebHamster was unwilling to back down. Had they shown any willingness to discuss concerns and moderate their behavior, I would not have blocked them. The fuck drew my attention to a latent problem. You have to look at the entire combination of circumstances here. Jehochman 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The "fuck" drew your attention? I'm not surprised, it sounds to me like you're in need of a good one. --WebHamster 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the following policies and compare them to your comments: WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:TROLL, WP:BAIT, WP:CIVIL

• I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies.
• You did notice the lower-case "c" didn't you?
• This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking

You need to refrain from personally attacking other editors, treating Misplaced Pages as a battle zone, and creating gratuitous violations of decorum if you want to edit Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Jehochman 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If those diffs really are blockable, then surely the result of independent review would reach the same conclusion and place the action above reproach. The post Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Jehochman 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (referring to a post that had been directed at the blocking admin shortly beforehand) has at least a superficial appearance of retaliatory action. That may not have been the intent, but differences between appearance and intent are the stuff of drama. Let's resolve this matter without opening that door. Durova 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or how about asking for a block review from an independent sysop instead of using bit-bully tactics to win a point? It's actions like this that can get a sysop a bad name. --WebHamster 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GAB which provides instructions for requesting an unbiased review. It's not for me to pick the reviewing sysop. I request whoever reviews this to discuss the matter with me. I'll be able to respond fairly promptly this evening to any questions. Jehochman 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not appealing an unblock. I'm requesting that an independent admin review your biased actions. Perhaps if you were to be so kind as to make a small post on WP:ANI and ask your peers. --WebHamster 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted a notice of the block to WP:AN, and will add a comment that you'd like it to be reviewed. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before. We have no conflict between us whatsoever. You're evidently upset about editing disagreements and see to have misidentified me as an adversary. I am not. If you state that you will follow the above mentioned policies and try to get along with other editors, that would resolve many of my concerns. Jehochman 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I should point out that I really don't care if I'm unblocked or not. Secondly my accusation of bias towards you is not because of any previous interactions as like you I don't recall any. The bias I referred to was your knee-jerk reaction based on our short discourse on your talk page. And finally the things that concern you are totally irrelevant to me, much like the things that concern me are irrelevant to you. The only thing I promise is to be me. I am what I am and I don't see any reason that either you or Misplaced Pages will change that. Now I shall enjoy the rest of my block safe in the knowledge that WP is safe in the hands of sysops like you. Good night. --WebHamster 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chin up WebHamster; there's one thing that wikipedia isn't short of, and I'm certain you know what that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your account some time ago and have been growing increasingly concerned that you seem to show a pattern of combativeness and incivility towards other editors, and you seem to want to push limits. The recent incident at WP:AN with the word fuck brought me to the point where I was thinking, should I block this account now, or wait and see. I decided to assume good faith a bit longer, and merely redacted the gratuitous profanity from your post. You seem to have used the word to either shock or annoy other editors, not because it added anything to the conversation. That's not good. Don't do things to upset others on purpose. When you appeared on my talk page to complain about my redaction, I earnestly asked if you would have prefered for me to have blocked you, because that's exactly what I had been considering to do. Here I am being lenient, and you're complaining to me. You answered my earnest question with a suggestion my proctologist would advise against. I translated your answer to mean yes, you should have blocked me, because I'm going to do exactly as I please, regardless of community norms. That is also not good. Everyone is subject to limits. You can't just do or say whatever you please. You have an obligation to get along with other people. Please understand my decision to block you was not motivated by personal pique. People have often told me to go fuck myself. I'm used to it. That sort of thing doesn't bother me, but of course, it is not acceptable discourse on Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, you should be you. I appreciate sarcasm, irreverence and individuality. However, please try to see things from the point of view of your peers, and make an effort to get along. When totally uninvolved people, or people sympathetic to you suggest you might be crossing the line, please heed them. I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks. Jehochman 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks." Presumably the fact that I'm still blocked is purely an accident then? --WebHamster 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The block log indicates that you were unblocked. . Do you want another admin to review for technical issues? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP is autoblocked as the link above attests. Yes please, I would be grateful if someone would finish the process Jehochman started. --WebHamster 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lifted the autoblock. – Toon 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta muchly. --WebHamster 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, having posted the concerns about Jehochman's decisions in this episode the appropriate thing is to balance that with concerns about yours. I've defended your actions a couple of times now, but it's been a very close call on each occasion. And frankly it would save quite a bit of everyone's time if your actions weren't so close to the line. It's possible to contribute to the encyclopedia--even on controversial issues--without doing so in a manner that personalizes the issue or increases polarization. The Bible belt reference, for instance, was directed at an editor who describes himself as a European atheist. And although I agree with you on the underlying content discussion, it so happens that I've actually lived in the Bible belt. Please refrain from judging books by their covers; it reflects poorly on you and makes you appear gratuitously disruptive. Durova 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should point out that I used the term as an adjective, also one doesn't have to be an actual bible-belter to behave like one. I should also clear up my response to the fallacy of comment on the content not the editor. Well that doesn't apply in this particular discussion. When someone is trying to hide away an explicit image then it's perfectly clear that their attitude and belief system is coming to play and is therefore a legitimate target for comment. Now hopefully you will see what it was I actually said and why I actually said it. --WebHamster 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but the way it works around here is that the lowly editor gets the block and the misguided administrator walks away scott free to repeat his abusive behaviour elsewhere, again and again. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That could be dealt with separately if you wish to do so, Malleus. Let's say this was not particularly well done on either side, and I do hope it's the last we need to deal with it. There's a GA drive I ought to get back to. Best wishes, Durova 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my hollow laughter at the idea of this kind of out of process block ever being dealt with at all. What motivation does the administrator have to conform to the policies laid down instead of engaging in further one-man crusades of this sort? None. Editors are blocked every day because of what an administrator thinks they might do—just ask DougsTech—but I've yet to see an administrator blocked for what they are certain to do again in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having spent time on both sides of the admin/editor fence, am more of a mind to mend the divide. The block has been lifted by the blocking administrator. Although, to be candid, if he had posted the relevant diffs to the noticeboard before/instead of intervening with the tools himself it's entirely possible a similar block would have been implemented by someone else and withstood review.

To speak more generally, one thing I learned long ago as a student in New York City is that if I allowed every small injustice to eat at me then I really didn't like the person that turned me into. So there's a simple metric: is a grievance worth really doing something about? If so then figure out what can be done and do it. If not then let it go. I have no intention to go farther now (am thumbing through references about Irving Berlin). If you feel so strongly then admin conduct RfC is thataway; it's surprising that process doesn't get used more often. Best wishes, Durova 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC is a waste of time, so it surprises me that it's used at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how to implement something better? It seems to me that part of the reason that many RfC's fail to have positive impact is that they fail to follow any of the standard protocols for giving and getting feedback and constructive criticism. I dont have any great ideas either, but would be willing to discuss with you and others at some other venue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This little story pretty much sums up my feeling about most wikipedia processes. A couple are travelling in the depths of the Irish countryside and become lost. They come across an Irish peasant, and ask him for directions to their destination. He thinks for a while before replying: "Well, if oi were goin' dere, oi wouldn't start from here. oi'd go to Ballymollee and start from dere." --Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say WebHamster that while I have defended your right to express your opinion in the past, the moment you throw out civility my support for you will go with it. Chillum 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let be clear, although any support I receive from anyone is nice, I don't request it and I don't require it. As concerns the matter of civility, well my humble opinion is that there's no such thing. It means one thing to one person and another thing to another as such I don't waste CPU cycles trying to figure out the difference and instead I use use my own criteria. I most certainly wouldn't use the moving target set by Wikipedians. As far as I'm concerned I haven't been uncivil in this recent matter merely blunt. Either way I'm not going to worry about it, no-one ever died of incivility and the alleged 'sufferer' of my supposed incivility will soon get over it. So once again it's not something that worries me. It should also be pointed out that when I requested some state who I'd "personally attacked" strangely there was no answer. Funny that. Likewise Jehochman accused me of WP:TROLL the retracted yet that is the only reason on my block log entry. Some strange inconsistencies going on here. --WebHamster 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to recognise that your interpretation of "civility" is just one of several plausible ones, and perhaps not the one that WebHamster, or indeed I, ascribe to. I consider it far more incivil to issue an unreasonable block than utter a word that may scare the horses, for instance, particularly if that word is not directed specifically at another individual but is used as a perfectly reasonable intensifier. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to tell you what I think of your interpretation of civility Malleus. So I won't. Chillum 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt because you couldn't do it civilly. I rest my case m'lud. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I rest my case. Chillum 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you meant to type? All I could see was a circular argument with no place for anyone to leave an umbrella much less a case. --WebHamster 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "I rest my defense" would have been more clear. Chillum 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue XVI - June 2009 March issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Sorry there's not been a newsletter for three months, it's not that there hasn't been anything to say but that there almost hasn't been time to say it... On 20 March 2009 Manchester was "today's Featured Article" and received over 44,000 visitors. This was the culmination of about 2 years of effort from a lot of editors who found the article in this state before the founding of the project. Along with Greater Manchester, it's our flagship article and for it to reach the mainpage is a great achievement. It was an incredible collaborative effort and shows what the project is capable of, and since then we have gone from strength to strength. The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine was Today's Featured Article on 30 May, with 33,000 visitors. Promoted articles: Carrington Moss is an 1,100 acres (450 ha) peat bog in Trafford; in the 19th century, it was reclaimed to be used agriculturally and for the disposal Manchester's waste, and is still used for farming. 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. The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machinewas the world's first stored-program computer. It ran its first program on 21 June 1948. The SSEM was a template for the Manchester Mark 1 and the first in a series of groundbreaking computers designed at Manchester. The town of Sale in Trafford was probably founded in the Anglo-Saxon period and is best known as the home of physicist J. P. Joule the founding place and former home of and Sale Sharks rugby club. Cheadle Hulme is a suburb of Stockport that formed from several small hamlets, rather than growing around a church which was usual for medieval villages. (also Stockport's first GA!) The East Lancashire Railway 1844–1859 (ELR) only operated for 16 years, but in its short history it was threatened by competitors such as the North Union Railway, and was involved in a dangerous stand-off with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (L&YR). Eventually the ELR and L&YR were amalgamated in 1859. Eccles, famous for the Eccles cake, is a town in the City of Salford that boomed with the Industrial Revolution. Along with Worsley, it is a proposed World Heritage Site. Mellor hill fort is the only Iron Age hill fort in Greater Manchester and was only discovered in the 1990s. Partington, in Trafford, is a town and civil parish that was until the Manchester Ship Canal opened in 1894, a mainly agrarian community. With the opening of the canal, Partington became a major coal port and following the Second World War was expanded as an overspill estate for deprived parts of Manchester. The town of Worsley was home to the Duke of Bridgewater's coal mines and is under consideration to be preserved as a World Heritage Site; the duke built the Bridgewater Canal to transport coal from the mines. Manchester computers, Emma (1828 ship), Carrington Moss, Greater Manchester bus route 192, and Mellor hill fort have all featured in the DYK section of the front page since the start of March. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know? With all the project's success, we must be careful not to become complacent. In March, David Beckham was delisted as a Good Article because it lacked enough references and was poorly written in parts. Improving an article and getting it reviewed for GA is a lot of effort and it's a real shame to see the article delisted, but a reminder that our role as an article writer is two-fold: once we improve them, we have an obligation to maintain them. Beckham is the kind of person who is regularly in the news, so the article will get a lot of attention and need regular updating, and it was written by members of WP:FOOTBALL, but let's take it as a reminder of what's needed from us. 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. Written by Nev1, based on a template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Aims Our extant short-term project aims: Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Stockport Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Obtain GA status for Manchester city centre. Obtain GA status for Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF). Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Over the past three months, we've succeeded in our aims of bringing Eccles and Worsley to GA status, thanks largely to the seemingly inexhaustible Parrot of Doom. Recently another aim was added: bringing Stockport to GA standard. It's currently C-class and has some well developed sections. It will be a difficult task, but worthwhile considering it's Greater Manchester's third largest settlement. Also, the importance of bringing Salford to GA has been emphasised; it's currently B-class and should be the easiest of our aims to accomplish, although it's been there for a long time. Let's see if we can put this one to rest soon. The project compared Over the past three months, WP:LOND and WP:YORK have had a massive upsurge in the number of articles under their auspices. And interestingly, WP:YORKS has had an upsurge in GAs (10), and WP:LOND has had an increase in both GAs and FAs (8 and 10 respectively), closing down the gap with WP:GM. Although WP:DERB appears to have lost a GA, one of their articles was incorrectly tagged; however Derwent Valley Mills is being prepared to become a Good Article candidate, and hopefully will be the project's first. With the recent retirement of Ddstretch and Espresso Addict, WP:CHES has lost two of its most active contributors, but is still managing to produce good articles such as list of castles in Cheshire (FL) and John Douglas (now a Good Article candidate). The majority of WP:MRSY's articles are now assessed and will hopefully go from strength to strength.   GTRM LOND YORK MRSY CHES DERB FA 38 25 23 8 4 0 A 0 1 0 0 1 0 GA 44 35 42 12 23 0 B 105 225 193 31 83 37 C 113 55 238 104 66 71 Start 731 1817 2142 528 530 482 Stub 771 1229 3603 421 455 702 List 48 75 103 20 28 24 Unassessed 0 2821 0 463 0 0 Total 1850 6344 6344 1587 1190 1316 Member News There are now 48 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 17 members inactive since 1 September 2008) as 2 new members have joined the project since the start of March: Juliancolton Sharadjalota456 The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. 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 list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention.

Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!! Regarding Lady Gaga discography.. you said that Spanishcharts was not a reliable source. But in fact it is. Official Spanish single charts are given by PROMUSICAE. Since Jan 09 the Official Single Charts combines physical single sales + digital downloads + ringtones, making the "Top 50 Canciones", and that is what reflects Spanish Charts.(Nympho wiki (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute

Hello WebHamster. Although St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute says it is located in Buffalo, New York, it is referring to its postal address. Though it does have a Buffalo ZIP code, it is physically located outside the city in the town of Tonawanda. See USGS map or NYSDOT map. I hope this clarifies things. --JBC3 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to those links it's actually in Kenmore. But TBH I don't really care where it is, it's just that at the time I did the revert, the school's article and the school's website said Buffalo. Looking at the maps it looks to be mere yards outside the city's boundary anyway :) --WebHamster 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually just outside the village of Kenmore too. A thin, dashed line just west of the school represents the village boundary. Even so, Kenmore is part of Tonawanda, as villages remain part of the town. Though the school is perhaps mere yards outside the city, one has to draw the line somewhere. Should it be the official boundary line, or something variable and subjective? --JBC3 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really care. I was just synchronising the two articles. If you wish to remove the school from the Buffalo article I won't revert it. I'll also remove it if I see that pesky IP putting it back in. --WebHamster 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --JBC3 (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBK

Please do not use rollback to revert good-faith edits. The previous edits directly addressed concerns raised in the GA review, and were no way vandalism. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That was a serious misuse of the rollback tool. Please do not do it again. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't say it was vandalism. I rolled it back because that was the easiest thing for me to do. Your copy-editing used unencyclopaedic words e.g. "snitched" "tattled" and quite frankly was quite poor grammatically. If you'd rather put that in the edit summary then that's your choice. As it is I'd already copy-edited that section a day or so ago with regard to the comments at GA. Again, frankly I believed your version made it worse. --WebHamster 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Content issue aside, using the native rollback button naturally implies that the edit is vandalism or made by a banned user. Use twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter a custom edit summary, or undo with a descriptive edit summary. –xeno 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about what other things or other people imply, as I've explained above I clicked on the rollback button because it was the easiest thing for me to do at that particular time. So sue me for a moments laziness. Another part of the reason was that I didn't want to leave an edit summary as I couldn't think of anyway of explaining the reason for my deletion without it offending a neophyte editor. Unfortunately due to his reversion and administrative nosing in I was forced to state that the edit I reverted was crap, it was grammatically suspect not to mention using non-encyclopaedic words. So now I hope the relevant admins are happy now they've forced me into that admission. I rarely use rollback and considering the amount of vandalism I revert that's minimal usage. No-one can say (and prove) that I abuse rollback. But if they are so worried about my shameful use of it then by all means rescind my rollback rights. It's not as if I get a drop in salary. I do wish sometimes that admins would realise that I do have a clue as to what I'm doing and why I do things. It's not as I've been here 5 mins. Oh, to clarify something else. The fact that the article is trying for a GA is totally irrelevant to me. I think all this FA and GA crap is total bollocks. It turns the whole thing into a competition, creates extra stress on editors and doesn't necessarily create better articles but certainly creates a disproportionate amount of wiki-drama. I edit the article because there was bad grammar that didn't flow and seemed particularly awkward in its structure. As far as I was concerned I improved it. Then along comes little lord fauntleroy and decimates my amendments with grade school level grammar. Then add to that a supercilious admin then wants me to revert back to the shite version purely because I used the rollback feature. I really don't believe this place sometimes. There is so much bullshit I'm surprised anyone stays here at all. --WebHamster 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you may have misinterpreted my intentions. I don't have a problem with the edit and I'm not trying to show that you abuse rollback. In fact, I think you should use native rollback a lot more - I see you still use Twinkle for vandalism (perhaps force of habit, or because it automatically takes you to the user's talk page?). Anyhow, I'll leave you to it but just keep that in mind. –xeno 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that a non-admin's arguable misuse of rollback generates far more sound and fury than the everday misuse that administrators make of the block function. Curious that. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call what I wrote above "sound" or "fury" but as the admin who granted him use of the rollback tool, I thought I should clarify appropriate use of the same. –xeno 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have been the third to jump in with both feet though. Is it really that important that it requires the attention of three of you? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just clarifying after WH's response which seemed to hold to the belief that the use of rollback in this case was appropriate. Correcting an honest misunderstanding of a tool's purpose seems important to me, yes. Regards, –xeno 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that according to the rules WebHamster ought not to have rollbacked the offending edit. I'm simply pointing out that having a gang of you turn up on his doorstep repeating the same thing is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome. Is the article now better or worse? What's more important, the rules or the encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Where did I say I thought it appropriate? What I said was that it was the easiest way for me to achieve what I achieved. As it happened I was on the phone at the time and leaning across my laptop awkwardly. I simply couldn't be arsed (or contorte my body enough) to go through the multiple steps with Twinkle and then have to write a critique that I didn't want to write. So no I didn't think it appropriate, just convenient. No-one died, no blood was spilled, nothing to see, please move along. --WebHamster 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you (both) misinterpret my intentions here. I was trying to explain more clearly why the two prior commentors objected to the use of rollback. That is all. –xeno 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You think what you like, I'll think what I like. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope didn't misinterpret your intentions and as it happens I don't have any problems with you writing whatever you want. It's not as if I listen, you should know that by now :) I've explained why I did it. If it was abusing it it was hardly the "serious" abuse it was said to have been above. It got the job done with the minimum amount of effort by me. None of this would have been necessary if someone had looked at the edit list then checked the revisions before jumping down my throat with the bullshit above that was factually wrong and patronising in the extreme. As it happens the only person who pissed me off was Cirt for his knee-jerk reaction and patronising tone. --WebHamster 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, fair enough. =) –xeno 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Misplaced Pages:Rollback_feature#When_not_to_use_rollback - This is quite clear. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is okay to use the Rollback Tool to revert edits of other editors while you yourself are involved in a dispute at a particular article with those editors. This is incorrect, and please do not misuse the tool in this manner again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And you sir seem to be under the impression that I give a fuck. Have a nice day. --WebHamster 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring at article Bart Sells His Soul

You have so far reverted edits by multiple editors at Bart Sells His Soul, three times. Please stop this disruptive behavior pattern, and instead engage in discussion about these edits with other editors, on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? I've reverted twice and against one editor. If you actually look at the article history instead of skimming it. Now please go use your broom instead of your lecture podium. Thank you. --WebHamster 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

By edit-warring multiple times on this article, which is currently undergoing a review for possible GA status, you are jeopardizing that GA status consideration, due to point 5 of WP:WIAGA. I request that you please self-revert yourself to the last edit before your most recent revert, as a show of good faith. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks to that. Thye reason I reverted in the first place was because I thought the text that replaced mine was garbage. So no I won't self-revert, why would I? Good faith has got nothing to do with it. And if you look at the timings my copyedits were made after the critique of the article's prose. That's why I did it in the first place. Then along comes someone using terms like "snitched" and "tattled". That's why I reverted and that's why I won't self-revert. It's pretty apparent that you haven't given this any in-depth analysis and have just taken a cursory look at the edit history. Are you really telling me that the crap that replaced my text is better than mine? --WebHamster 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that the way you have gone about asserting your stance is inappropriate, and that instead you should try to engage the other editors in discussion, at the article's talk page. So far, you have failed to do so, instead preferring to edit-war. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mighty Bruce Campbell

Bruce Campbell with smite you with his awesomeness. Love, Brian 69.143.218.36 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback removed

Inapprop use of Rollback while edit-warring in article dispute: , and failure to acknowledge or understand after instruction, see above discussion on this page. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've behaved disgracefully in this affair Cirt. You issued a warning and because the demanded ritual self-abasement was not forthcoming you decided to remove rollback without there having been another misuse of the tool in the interim. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No wonder that so many believe the administrator corps needs a bloody good clear out. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see above discussion the user fails to comprehend the tool was misused. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what I've said, the user has not repeated that misuse since your warning, so removal was not warranted. It was clearly done because the ritual self-abasement you demanded was not forthcoming. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was done because the user misused the tools, does not have a need for the tools, and has shown a misunderstanding about how to use the tools appropriately in discussion at this page. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: See also the bolded text in bright red, at Misplaced Pages:Rollback#When_not_to_use_rollback. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If users trusted with a tool abuses that tool, then refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong, and then he tells administrators clearly acting in good faith that he doesn't give a "fuck", then removal of said trust should be swift and sure. The actions taken here were entirely appropriate; I'm only surprised that so much good faith was extended. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, dear pious Blaxthos, thank you for your comment, however you appear to be incorrect (now there's a surprise). I didn't refuse to acknowledge that I had done something wrong. I knew I had done something wrong. My response was that I really didn't give a shit. It's hardly a hanging offence and doesn't rate even a 1 on my "in the shit again meter". There are far worse problems happening on WP yet someone takes the time and trouble to make a big deal out of an insignificant event. Yup, that's the sort of admin we really need on WP. Why sort the big problems when it much easier to deal with the insignificant ones? --WebHamster 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Fully agree with this comment, by Blaxthos (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to patronise me. You acted inappropriately and no amount of disingenuous bollox from you or your mates can disguise that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? In no way was I trying to be patronizing, and to my knowledge I have not had prior association with this user Blaxthos (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The indentation after the edit conflict made it look like I was replying to you, whereas I was actually replying to Cirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Still confused - I think you meant you were replying to Blaxthos (talk · contribs)? Cirt (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant what I said, I was replying to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, okay. Well, like I said, the comment above by Blaxthos (talk · contribs) is quite appropriate and sums up the matter nicely. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a punishment for not bending over and puckering up whichever way you try to spin it. When you have a free moment from all this important work that you do perhaps you'd be kind enough to remove my rollback rights as well. I see no reason to offer any passing administrator on a mission a similar stick to beat me with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a punishment for not bending over and puckering up whichever way you try to spin it. Wow, highly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• My take on this (as I intimated at my talk page) is that WebHamster was basically admitting that it was inappropriate use but that he wasn't too fussed about it one way or the other (DGAF'ism). What I don't see him saying is that he will continue using rollback for such purposes so I felt leaving him with the tool was fine. He's a smart guy, and if he wants/needs the tool, he'll probably use it the right way going forward. It's not that big of a deal anyway and I doubt he will give a toss in the morning when he sees it was taken away. Would suggest re-instatement anyhow, as there was only 1 misuse. –xeno 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "DGAF'ism" is, it is not an excuse to respond inappropriately as was done above by WebHamster (talk · contribs) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I would be against reinstatement of WP:ROLLBACK for WebHamster, as the user misused the tools and not shown an understanding of this or of Misplaced Pages:Rollback#When_not_to_use_rollback. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that by now you ought to have got the idea that neither WebHamster nor I give a flying fuck what you think. About anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this statement relevant to this discussion, or WP:CIVIL? Cirt (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to being honest, something you seem to be struggling with. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have said above is relevant to this discussion and factually accurate. Your comments seem to be instead laced with incivility, rudeness, and obscenities. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging: It is clear from above that this discussion has deteriorated and is no longer directly relevant to the purpose of the discussion itself, rather it has become a forum for editors to direct incivility at each other, which is most unfortunate. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a pity you didn't disengage sooner, and used a little more common sense before doing so. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, what is painfully obvious is that you don't understand what not giving a fuck means. By your words you also can't differentiate between a user "not understanding" and not caring. That in my view makes you admin who is left wanting in the area of 'customer relations'. What is also apparent, and I'm in total agreement with Malleus's assessment above, is that you are one of those admins whose view on the world has been affected by their admin bit and the power it brings them. You obviously didn't like the fact that I didn't immediately do an Uriah Heep at your first words from the Mount and your response was that of a petulant school prefect who brought his power to bear. In my view that also makes you an example of a bad admin. Strike 2. Am I bothered by the rescinding of my rollback, well what do you think? Now on the other hand your evidence to suggest that I would abuse it again, given that I've only used it once more since the use you take exception to, is absolutely minimal. This means that your admin action is one that is punitive rather than preventative. This, as you well know or at least should do, not only makes you a hypocrite (unless you genuinely don't understand punitive vs preventative) because that is a similar abuse of your privileges to the accusation you made against me, it also makes you a bad admin. Strike 3.

Now, has all of this bollox made any difference to how I do business here? No. Has it made any difference to my attitude towards admins? No, I still think the majority shouldn't have the job, you most definitely included. The fact that you are aware that I don't have an absolute need for rollback as I use Twinkle most of the time; yet strangely, even though it's more powerful than rollback and the fact I've been using it for years, there is no evidence that I've abused that either. That in itself shows what a piss poor decision you've made. It also demonstrates that your action is just pure petulance to make a point. Unfortunately the real point though seems to be rather obvious to everyone but yourself. In other words how to fuck up being an admin in one easy go. Have a nice life feeling powerful. It's a shame you can't see the illusion. --WebHamster 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this I would say Cirt was not wrong to remove your rollback. You should consider the very real possibility that rollback was taken away from you due to your actions, not some childish impulse on behalf of a power hungry admin. I see nothing out of line here done by Cirt. For someone who does not a fuck you sure have a lot of spite in your response. Chillum 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet I didn't ask for it back. Probably because I don't give a fuck whether I had it or not. I only actually asked for it in the first place so I could give Huggle a try and to compare it with Twinkle. I never got round to installing Huggle, so rollback was irrelevant to me. Anyway, who asked you to chime in? Afraid of missing out on some time-wasting wikidrama? The above paragraph of mine was what I was thinking at the time I wrote it. Your response or anyone else's for that matter wasn't required. It most certainly wasn't necessary. But as you've done your little bit in defence of a fellow admin you can feel proud and fraternal. Not a lot else to hang around here for now is there? --WebHamster 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And you, Chillum, should realise that you are once again talking complete crap. I doubt I've ever seen just an ill-fitting username as yours. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's little wonder that people complain about there being too many admins when it takes three of them plus one sycophantic wannabee to deal with a single alleged misuse of rollback. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)