User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2008/June

Roman Catholic Church

FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here [1] Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I already did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus

Go here. Let me know when you're done, I'll re-delete it. It's only Ddstretch's comment though, not the whole guffaw....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that was certainly a well-reasoned contribution from stretch. To be perfectly honest I'd forgotten what all the hoo-hah was about in the first place. As they say, when you get older you lose three things: your hearing, your eyesight ... and I've forgotten what the third one is. Re-delete at your leisure. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's long gone. As I said before, anything you need from an admin standpoint...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sp.

That's gladiatorial, and thanks for giving me a new word to use during my afternoon business meetings. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too many thumbs and not enough fingers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being a friend! NancyHeise (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		At the risk of you mistakenly thinking that I hate you (or that I'm under 14), this worthless bauble is for User:Malleus Fatuarum/WikiSpeak, which made me cry with laughter. BencherliteTalk 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I can't take the credit for all of it though, quite a few others have contributed their insights as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just adding to that, thank you for creating this page -- it's hilarious, worthy of a barnstar, and the thing just keeps getting better. One of the funniest pages to appear on Wikipedia for a long time ... but I admit I'm a fan of that old sardonic cuss Bierce. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Seeing how, um, strenuous some people can be about RfA's is making me re-think what I read and said during your recent RfA. You certainly seem like the soul of reason in everything I've read recently. I don't have any preference myself, and it's above my pay-grade to decide, but if GA reviewers want to establish a review process of their own, so that more clued-in people can be doing whatever raking-over-the-coals is required, I would definitely support that. I will also be happy to support you in any future RfA you may wish to subject yourself to. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that GA reviewers want to do; I've only been doing GA sweeps and commenting at the odd GAR since the great green dot debate. Perhaps once a clearer picture emerges of what it is that GA wants to be, then I might go back to GA reviewing. I'm afraid that the signs for the future of GA as some kind of FA-lite don't look good to me at present though.

So far as my RfA is concerned, well, it's clear that the process and I are incompatible, so there's no future RfA on the horizon. Wikipedia's notions of incivility just make me laugh if I'm perfectly honest. If you look a little higher up this page you'll see that even using a term like "wikilawyer" is considered to be "grossly uncivil", even when it's addessed to a law student who runs a web site called WikiLaw. It's very tempting sometimes to abandon the project to its army of child administrators. But not today. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TGAR Barnstar

		The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Dear mate, you rightfully deserved this Barnstar for your hardwork, tireless copyedits (as per native British English) and professionalism shown towards the GA project all these while. I hope to see more quality reviewers like you in future, so that well written articles not ready for FA status yet, can be fairly assessed, improved upon or deserved a decent mentioned. I wish to see those involved in the GA project continue to be true and steadfast in their efforts like you, so that there's wide acceptance and recognition by more Wikipedians in associating with the 'little green dot' in future, similarly like the 'FA Star' now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm sorry to see that you're still having trouble with the Sembawang Hot Spring GA review. Hopefully it'll be sorted out soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To encounter repeated unfortunate situations like my case, the folks here will aptly exclaimed in Hokkien: "Si bey suay!" (Equivalent to 'Damned, what rotten luck!') No worries mate, just that my retirement from this GA drive, which I undertook for SGpedia since Sep 2007, will be further delayed. Fyi, I got another outstanding GAN currently going thru' a review (by another female American) without much fuss or major headache. Once both are successfully cleared, I'll submit my final nomination next - 'Early Founders Memorial Stone'. I hope to hit my target total of 15 GAs before I call it day & ride towards the sunset! Then I can savour my daily cuppa of tea without any long wait and worries anymore. A-m-a-z-i-n-g grace, how sweet the sound (or taste!)... 8-) Aldwinteo (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some excitement

Seeing as A215 road may have been too exciting for some people to stand, I've given something a little less thrilling to Wikipedia. Any comments from you (or the assorted cleanuppers who lurk on this talk page) more than welcome. I'm actually quite pleased with this one; as you (almost) said in your RFA, anyone can write an article about something interesting, but it's more of a challenge making a viable article on a truly boring topic. — iridescent 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just saw that, and I was about to comment on your talk page. Pleased to see you haven't lost your touch. :lol: I'm disppointed with myself over that RfA for a number of reasons: I didn't oppose myself and I didn't make it clear that whereas anyone can write about an interesting subject, it takes a special kind of genius to bring to life an article about an abandoned railway. I'm still childishly pleased with my bog article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with em-dashes, then? — iridescent 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing — but they shouldn't be spaced apparently (like this one is). It's a mortal sin. If ever you find the will to live slowly draining away, then the WP:MOS is probably best avoided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone fail to be thrilled by any article which cites a book called Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate? (The real shock to me was that I wasn't the first person to borrow that from the library.) — iridescent 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are funny. And oh my goodness: I used to take the A215 every single day, and to know it like the back of my hand. Egads. So colour me excited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Who added...

the def for Wikipedia n.? I can't find it in diffs. I saw you move it, but who added it? Absolutely spot on. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who added it. I had a look through the diffs myself to try and find out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The culprit is caught — iridescent 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anahim hotspot

Hello Malleus. I was wondering if you could review the above article for me and tell me if its good enough for GA status? I would have done it myself, since I have virtually no contributions to the article, but I nominated it. Thanks, ~Meldshal42 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've opted to do the review. I'll post up my detailed thoughts on the review page within the next 24 hours, but on my first quick read through the article I'd suggest that you double check all of the references, to make certain that they support what's being claimed. For instance, "This in turn has re-raised the antipodal pair impact hypothesis, the idea that pairs of opposite hotspots may result from the impact of a large meteor." Apart from being a non-sequitor, as the subject being discussed immediately before that sentence was tectonic plate movement, the reference provided says nothing at all about the antipodal pair impact hypothesis so far as I can see. Also, where a book is being cited, the full publication details ought to be included, not just a link to google books. My first impression is that the referencing is going to let this article down. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm gonna get to work on them tomorrow. ~Meldshal42 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Union Jack

G'day mate! One of your fellow country folks I think, has recently nominated the above for GAN. u may be interested to take a look & help to copyedit the article if nec. Fyi, my GAN task for SGpedia is finally completed now, after the mentioned 'Early Founders Memorial Stone' was passed successfully recently. u may ask what drove me on in this solo mission for SGpedia all these while? The truth is, I was greatly inspired by one of your country great men since my younger days - William Wilberforce aka 'Yorkshire Terrier' (by his detractors) - for his oratorial powers, unwavering sense of mission despite poor health & depression, in his life-long struggles on the abolition of slave trade against the House of Lords in Parliament in the 18th century. Coincidentally (or act of God), he was also an acquaintance of John Newton, a slave-ship captain turned Anglican priest & author of the soul-touching hymn, 'Amazing Grace'. Amen -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish the nominator of that article the best of luck, but it obviously needs quite a bit of work yet to get through GA. Anyway, does this mean that there will be no more tales of British colonial derring-do from Singapore? If so, that'll be shame. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be taking a much deserved break next (a relief to many!), & afterwards, login every now & then with my usual cup of tea in hand, to check for any vandalism or messages left by any dudes brave or foolhardy enough, to approach this old Staffy for advice or intervention mate. Will focus more on other WikiProjects on Buddhism, military history, heritage & geography of other countries, but on a much smaller scale & intensity in future. I hope fellow SGpedians, a rather small group here - mainly students or undergrads, National Service men & young hot-headed adults (See their profile here), will learn & take the cue from me to pursue the GAN or FAC aspirations for SGpedia in the long run. Ironically, I've long studied & am fascinated by the history & exploits (courtesy of the East India Company) of your country from young (the other is China & India), but I have yet to step on the soil of England, the home of the famous Manchester United & Liverpool FC! Fyi, I nearly went over to London to further my studies years ago, but I finally opted for Australia due to costs & distance. While at Oz, I met lots of the sailing-mad neighbouring Kiwis, esp the senior ones, where many were formerly Brits who chose to reside in NZ upon their retirement. Really missed the good old times having Earl Grey, 'Billy tea', & lamingtons with these fun & easy-going folks Down Under. Sigh! That's why my folks & frens here mentioned that I'm more 'Westernised' in my thinking & ways at times. If time & commitments allow, I hope to visit London & its countryside one day, to see first hand historical or heritage sites like Westminster Abbey, Whitechapel, 221B Baker Street or the Imperial War Museum etc, that I've read or research so much about it previously. Maybe such visits will inspire me to write a few native UK articles then. ;-) Aldwinteo (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh

I agree with your view about admins and senses of humor. :) I think it's a quality that more admins (and people overall) should have. :) Acalamari 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still smarting a bit over this to be honest, so probably best I don't say too much more in the Ali'i RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I agree with you most of the time, Malleus, just not on this one. But even though I'm opposing, I want to say that I think you "oppose the opposes" too much in RfAs - not that I care that you're doing it, but what it does is make the opposition section longer and more noticeable, more intriguing to read. In my recent RfA, I had to quietly tell a few people to STFU because they were defending me - and in the process, hurting me. At least that's my opinion. I know you; if you don't agree, you'll let me know :-) Tan | 39 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not happen to share your opinion on this particular issue though, and so I shall continue to respond when and where I see fit. I'm sure you'll understand. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I guess I do. I was trying to tell you you're cutting off your nose to spite your face... but like you care. Ever read The Long Walk by Stephen King? You remind me so much of a character in it - the tough guy - that I find myself mentally calling you Collie Parker. Tan | 39 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Collie Parker sounds tough; I'm not tough, I'm just uncompromising. I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and I'm not prepared to be diverted from that for the sake of some wiki popularity contest. I'm just me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong‎

Many thanks for all your help, Malleus. I really believe your input and support helped put the article through a successful review. This was my first encounter with FA review, and it probably gave me more stress than it should, so I'd also like to thank you for the outlet for frustration your Wikispeak essay provided at this time. Happy editing, and cheers! (And if you're ever working on a Japanese porn article-- you know who to come to for help now!) Dekkappai (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witches

Hi, I saw a book in Salford Local History Library on the Lancashire witch trials today witch (sorry!) may interest you. It was a thin paperback printed in 1979. Unfortunately all their books are reference only, but I see you can buy it quite cheaply at http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/cot/BOOKS069513I.shtml Richerman (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll check it out. (I really must finish off that Pendle witch trials article.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ali'i

I just noticed some of your comments in the discussion section over there. Just want to say that I agree with the sentiment that, at this point, there is virtually no evidence that an RfA is anything less than a pure vote. While I don't know if it should be this way, it is becoming downright deceptive to non RfA-regulars when we discuss how the vote goes down. Unless a vote is in bad-faith or its a joke, it holds just as much "weight" as the most well explained and researched vote. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Until someone can show me an RfA that passed at 51% or failed at 91% then I will continue to believe that "consensus" is mere wikibabble. On a somewhat related topic, I'm also against people voting things like Strong Oppose, as if that's supposed to weigh heavier in the balance than a mere Oppose. My rather bad faith assumption is that such vehemence is designed more to influence other voters than it is to spread any light. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For a while, I didn't care, but now I'm wondering why we insist on telling people it isn't a vote? I agree AfD isn't a vote, as there are numerous examples where opinions were properly analyzed... but this just doesn't happen in RfAs. It's actually harming the project to keep going around telling people that crats are weighing votes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would quite like to see your addition here. I was trying to think of who in particular I would like to see views on RfA, and your name popped up immediately. It may be time consuming, but I assure you if you answer it, I will read and think about your responses. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My view on the RfA process may melt your Internet connection. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I requested it? :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Thankyou for trying to participate in the RfA review. Please understand though that to submit your answers please follow the process below (copied from the instructions). This ensures that all answers are grouped and categorised together.

To participate in the review, please create a subpage in your user area to hold your answers, by clicking Special:Mypage/RfA review, Once you've done that, add the following text: {{subst:RFAReview}}, to your usersubpage, and it will generate the questions on your subpage, as well as code it for use once you've completed your responses.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages here and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the project's talk page.

Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that I was on the wrong page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to drop you a note instead of blindly reverting. I've been making a few slipups lately and didn't want to make more. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisit old comments

Tony is the elephant in the corner. With a strong oppose from him you can't hope to get through FAC. The best that most of us can hope for is a reluctant and often churlish striking of an oppose. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Before attempting a response, I need to understand what you're saying (subsequent comments make it unclear):

1. FACs aren't passed over an oppose from Tony?
2. Prose opposes "count" more than others?
3. A "strong" oppose from Tony is a deal stopper at FAC (emphasis on "strong")?
4. Or, from your further comments, your concern is not Tony's oppose at all, but the tone of his opposes?

Also, some data to back up your position (or combination of the above) might help shed light on your concern.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Number 3 best sums up my opinion. I make no bones that I do think Tony's inevitable opposes over stylistic differences come over as being unnecessarily abrasive, but that was not my concern. I have not collected data on how many FACs have been promoted in spite of a strong oppose from Tony. Have you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked for data because I don't need to: I have a direct line to the half-brain of the person who does the promoting/archiving, and I know her thought processes :-)) Would it surprise you to know that "strong" in front of anyone's declaration means very little to me (an oppose is either actionable or not, and "strong" is relative, different editors use it differently, it's not helpful to me at all)? Also, Tony doesn't always get back to revisit his opposes, so I look at the consensus among several editors re prose when he doesn't get back to strike. Has there been a case where Tony didn't strike after other editors said prose was fixed or a ce was done? I dunno, not worth trawling through archives, since I know how I process FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will simply say that in this particular case of the Roman Catholic Church article, which was the context for my comment, then I believe that events have proven me to be correct. I do accept though that that article's FAC was rather unusual in many respects. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think you were correct? Do you not consider POV or sourcing concerns equally (or more) significant than prose concerns? Do you not consider the preponderance of opposes more important than one individual prose oppose? (Or am I misunderstanding your statement again?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, I think that most of the sourcing concerns were invalid, and that the POV concerns were simply pitting one POV against another, not an honest attempt at achieving a neutral POV. I remain deeply unimpressed by opposition along the lines of "Oh look, I found an error; there must therefore be many more that I haven't found yet". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But back to the statement you made about Tony; how do you consider you were right about one prose oppose, when there were a dozen broad opposes on many other issues? That was what I meant about missing the opportunity to help Nancy better understand the process, instead of giving her the idea it was all about Tony, or all about prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Did the RCC article pass or not? It was clearly going to fail, no matter what Nancy did, hence my advice to her to withdraw the article. Like it or not, it remains my opinion that once the elephant in the corner has shouted "Strong Oppose" you might as well switch the lights out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, we seem to be going in circles around the original statement, and I'm still not entirely certain I understand your POV, so I'll summarize mine. A 1a oppose carries no more weight than another (e.g.; 1b, 1c, 1d). A "strong" in front of any declaration means almost nothing to me. An oppose from Tony is weighed against other prose reviewers. And the misunderstandings that Nancy and Xandar had about the FAC process were unfortunate; I wish you hadn't furthered incorrect impressions when you were presented with an opportunity to clarify how to effectively deal with a FAC without filling up 700KB of debate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a circle, a straightforward disagreement. If I ever see an FAC pass despite a strong oppose from Tony then I may review my opinion. Until then, one person's "incorrect impression" is another's "reality". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, I don't take "strong" into account; has no meaning to me (although I can think of policy cases where it might provoke a speedy close, such as BLP issues). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong: both Jbmurray and Maralia went through after Tony's oppose, and you supported the prose as well. Article passed, rest my case. More significant is the lost opportunity to steer Nancy and Xandar towards a better outcome rather than giving them info that might have furthered confusion and adversarial tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply gave my opinion, and my opinion has not changed. Probably best we let this go now, because it looks increasingly unlikely that we will agree. I will simply say that the adversarial tone did not come from me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Incivility Barnstar
		For your great call at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Karanacs#Discussion of Gears of War's oppose. (I would say something more meaningful, but the whole point of a barnstar is to be short and social networking-ish.) giggy (:O) 11:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can you archive this page please... giggy _(:O) 11:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice surprise. When I saw the orange bar I naturally assumed that I was going to be threatened with another block for gross incivility, like you do. :lol: This talk page is supposed to be archived automatically, every 28 days. I'll check it's still working. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone as talkative and popular as yourself (for the right reasons, of course) I think 28 days is somewhat overkill... giggy _(:O) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, especially about me being popular. But don't you mean underkill? ;-) I just like the tidiness of monthly archives, but the page is getting a bit long, I agree. Perhaps I'll supplement the autoarchive with a bit of manual archiving from time to time ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Underkill/Overkill. Incivil/Uncivil. *ducks*

btw. about the (GA related) comment two sections down, there's some discussion at WT:GAN that may be of interest (Sandy started it, if that helps you find it). giggy _(:O) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's very disappointing given the negative attitude that some already have towards GA. I've been wondering why I've been under pressure to list the Anahim hotspot as a GA by that same editor.[2]. To be truthful that isn't the only reviewer I have concerns about, and I've had recent cause to challenge another as well, here. I've been very suspicious of a small number of reviewers who've been racking up what seems to me to be an extraordinary number of reviews in a very short time, marking 5 or 6 at a time as being under review. The Awards Center may well be the explanation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The awards center has survived MfD twice; maybe now it would finally make it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth another try Sandy, as it certainly seems to be causing more harm than good, at least to the GA project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was had by the awards center once, in a different way ... saw a barnstar on an editor's page, and was misled, thought it really meant something ... that thing needs to go. It's corrupting GAN, and those bad passes eventually find their way to FAC as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Draft in process at User:Laser brain/AwardCenterMfD. The previous two MfDs were not executed well (one was closed for process reasons); it needs to be done correctly and finally. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's one MfD I'll certainly be supporting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

British people arghhh

An even longer argh!!!

You did though make me laugh! Nowt wrong with British people! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anahim hotspot

Is the article ready for GA? ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I must say, you are quite the reviewer. You notice everything! ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus Fatuarum. Wish I was a good reviewer like you :-). Black Tusk (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user name vs. your signature

Hi
Is it a clever way to express your hidden anarchic nature, or simply a mistake that you signature reads Malleus Fatuorum instead of Malleus Fatuarum?
I'm just asking because I tried leaving a reference to you on Talk:Asian Tiger Capital Partners and was wondering about the red link. :)
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a side-effect of my doggerel Latin, and a consequential attempt to be gender unspecific. BTW, I rather resent your suggestion that my anarchic nature is in any way hidden; I wear that badge with pride! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm going to have to go and see what you were saying about me now. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I gave you the link to it right away and didn't make you hunt for it in the special pages.

But I didn't really talk about you, I just didn't want it to look like I stole your quote. ;) --Amalthea (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of that article, I'm inclined to believe that a proper one could be written about Asian Tiger Capital Partners – heck, I've worked on articles about musical instrument repair companies and shopping malls – but I'm convinced that the present one isn't even close. It needs a complete rethink. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, you do know you can post at WP:CHU and all will be magically fixed? – iridescent 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did know, yes. I guess I never really thought it was anything worth bothering about, so I didn't. Bother about it that is. Perhaps I will get it sorted out now; I can see how it might be confusing for others sometimes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you can write a good article about anything. I'm not sure if that user can, and as you said, it needs a *complete* rewrite. But I'm still not convinced that this company is noteable. Although, when I wrote that comment on the talk page and went through the list of banks in Bangladesh I saw that only a handful of the local bank articles there even try to assert notability, and all but two could use some major copy editing. But those are at least banks, I'm inclined to simply assume noteability with a bank. A private investment group should IMHO really have some good news coverage before becoming encyclopaedic.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Language

Just to remark that Realist2's first language is Spanish, and his/her English is not great, as I have noticed myself at GAR. This is, however, usually irrelevant to talk page discussions, where Realist2 makes reasoned and useful contributions, whether one agrees with them or not.

Hope all is well. Cheers, Geometry guy 23:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to bear that in mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GAN of Trumpet

Could you review this article for me? I believe it is quite good, but you can make it the best it can be. Thanks. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What's going on? Can you give me any good reason why I should agree to review Trumpet? I'll tell you straight that I have very little patience for people who claim to have worked on articles to get them to GA/FA when they have done no such thing. I notice from your userpage that you claim to have helped to get William Shakespeare to FA. I've just checked, and you made only seven edits to that article, six of which were marked as minor.

I have no intention of playing your game, whatever it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about blowing your own trumpet....sorry couldn't resist... ROFL. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on GA process reform at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#Open review proposal). Your further input would be very welcome, as there are a number of areas that may need more discussion before this proposal is put to the wider community. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your rename...

Of course, I fully expect you to sign Malleus Fatuarum now, just for the giggles...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Get thee behind me Satan! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, now that I've changed my username, perhaps it would be safe to go for another RfA. What do you think? I don't think that anyone would notice it was me would they? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work up a nom for you. I'll do some massive canvassing, er I mean coaching, we'll post links to all your editor reviews and checklists towards adminship. Should be a breeze! Meanwhile, don't call anyone a wikilawyer, unless they really really earn it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should give me a list of things to go through? I think I've contributed to two or three AfD's today, and I even nominated one yesterday. I've done two GA reviews today – although admittedly I did rush them because I'm desperate to get one of those reviewer of the month awards.</joke> But most importantly I haven't been rude to anyone for at least 25 minutes, although I can't guarantee that I'll manage to make the full hour. Perhaps another RfA isn't such a good idea after all. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you've done, I won't nominate you. Good grief, you haven't even welcomed 100 new users today, or used vand1 warning templates using huggle, or given out any wiki-cookies! How could you possibly think that you're ready for adminship??? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's adminship that isn't ready for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that I'm a newbie again now, with only 123 edits to wikipedia. If anybody sends me a {{subst:Welcome}}, so help me I'll swing for them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template a few sourced images as "unsourced", AfD a few award-winning Korean-language films, put the entire "Hindi TV" category up for deletion within a 24-hour period, and you're a shoe-in for Adminship, Malleus. Hell, plaster my talk page with "You've uploaded an image," templates and I may even vote for you. (Pretend you didn't just read the word "vote", and you get bonus-points for "civility".) Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Eric Corbett/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (swing that hammer!)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I posted I remembered about WP:BEANS, you bar steward. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So was it a sexual identity thing which led to the change from feminine 2nd declension genitive plural to masculine? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What litle Latin I learned during one year's study oh so long ago has almost all been forgotten. Apart from odd things like the rote recitation of "nominative, vocative, accusitive, genetive, dative and ablative". What tf does "ablative" mean? I've long forgotten, and I'm not much bothered in knowing the answer. Hence my lack of due care in my initial choice of uesername. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking of beans, here's a link :) Pedro :  Chat  00:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, thanks for that. You've reminded me why I gave up Latin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing the waters

Reply on my talk page. giggy _(:O) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

But what was it, a space? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, simple as that, the space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Worst is, I hadn't even noticed ... <eek> ... glad you caught it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

None of us are perfect SandyG, not even me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Worse, I was distracted by another issue when a friend was in need, and hurried along, not noticing the comment hadn't worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. I noticed. No harm done. I wish your friend the very best of luck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blast furnace

Thanks for the kind words. It seems that a lot of the metalworking and mechanical engineering related articles around here get neglected. So I at least to try and do what I can... Wizard191 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You think they're neglected. Take a look at the IT-related articles, they're a complete shambles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

What do you need to happen? (I'm also quite aware that it's much later where you are than where I am ATM, so I'm quite aware that you might just be "pissed" in the Brit sense and not just "pissed" in the American garbled sense... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just pissed in the American sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Read his talkpage. Also, I just struck my vote in his RfA#2. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really not a good advert for RfA. Keep your mouth shut for three months, make as many friends as you can by nominating them for RfA, but once it's over you can say whatever the hell you like. I think that's a disgrace. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that he fooled you of all editors into supporting speaks volumes towards his craftiness. I'm absolutely appalled that he sent that email, and I'm even more appalled that he said "so what" afterwards. I wouldn't have supported, based on his ridiculousness in your misguided RFC, but when I saw you support, I actually looked at his contribs. He's a terrific editor, lots of positive contributions. Worthless now. Going back to a 6 month old RfC, and basically giving the finger to an editor that added criticism to his RfC after he finally passed an RfA is appalling. I would support a desysop, but still believe it to be highly unlikely to be successful. I'm righteously pissed though. American pissed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I supported in spite of my reservations. I now see that I was wrong. Epbr123 did promise to be open to WP:AOR. Let's see if he means to keep that promise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Recall, heh. Another bit of bullshit. He isn't listed here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This absolutely reeks. Elonka did something similar after hers (it's buried in my talk archive somewhere) but at least that was immediately following her RFA while tempers were still high. Sod WP:CIVIL; to let something like this fester for six months is just plain crazy.

If he is going to stick to his "if two admins request it" (he did say so in his RFA), then Keeper & I make two. Be aware that only once in the entire history of Wikipedia has an admin actually relinquished the bit following AOR.

I strongly agree with whoever it was that said, wait until tomorrow when tempers have cooled down. Hell, Epbr might decide to apologise - everyone has bad days. – iridescent 23:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs a night of pillow loving. Agreed to sleep on it. Go to bed Mall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to come back to this tomorrow, but not happy to push this under the carpet. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

<--No carpets here Malleus. His email was ass. Arse. See you in the AM (keep in mind that your "AM" starts 6=8 hours before mine...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's much of a consolation, but it's good to see a couple of good editors finally joining me in pissed-status, (American sense). A good temporary cure will be getting pissed, (British sense), and I'll be there in a couple hours. Feel free to join me... Dekkappai (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also supported this time around, but I did have reservations and some uncertainty. If I knew then what I have seen now, I would have opposed. Let us hope that a new day at least sees an apology for what was at the very least a massive error of judgment. That is all I will say publically, but I imagine people who know me would be able to guess what else I could say.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading his responses on his talkpage to where I've challenged him, no apologies yet, only justifications and excuses. I'm royally (American) pissed for supporting him for adminship, and I struck my support (on principal, I know it's meaningless) on his RfA#2. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, just another administrator that can't be trusted then. Wikipedia ain't exactly short of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Xihr (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've very bluntly asked him to recall his own adminship. We'll see how that goes. If it comes down to it, I'd much rather have this than this. I don't care how many f-ing GA's and FA's he has. His email was the most immature email I've ever come across, and I (among others) instantly and completely regret supporting his quest for adminship. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no saint, but I do believe that Epbr123's vindictiveness has now gone too far. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that email was rather disturbing and shows, if anything, that the people concerned about his behavior in the RfC and his first RfA were absolutely right. The email was spiteful and malicious and showed someone who harbored a long grudge (as the RfC was the better part of a year ago). That is not the kind of person who makes for a good admin; quite the opposite, in fact. His actions since the first RfA suggest to me someone with a mission to become admin no matter what -- even in the second RfA (which I did not take part in simply because I did not notice it until it was completed), when he answered User:Hellboy2hell's optional question, "If your RfA Nomination was unsucessful [sic], what will you do?" with, "If this RfA was unsucessful [sic], I would be surprised and disappointed, but I would take on board the criticisms and try again for adminship in a few months." Great. I guess that's the cornerstone of Wikipedia: Keep trying until you get the result you want. Xihr (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that you all aren't watching, but I've asked him to step down according to the recall provisions that he uttered in his own RfA (#2). We'll see how he responds. Iridescent (admin), Keeper76 (admin) and Ddstretch (admin) have all commented that he crossed the line. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And to think that he only got the bit 12 days ago ... The mind boggles. Xihr (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And again I'll say, I regret my support. I supported because Malleus supported. Epbr has added excellent content to Wikipedia. Meh. He is not a collaborator, he is vindictive, he is power hungry, and he is immature. I've already struck my support on the closed RfA. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody reverted that change. (Which is probably appropriate, since archived pages should remain archived except for exceptional circumstances.) Xihr (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Alerted to this by high activity on my watchlist. Confused. What the hell’s going on ? giggy _(:O) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr "gave the finger" to someone that offered their opinion at his RfC back in Nov/Dec. He didn't say anyhing until he'd passed RfA, and then sent an email to said opposer saying basically FUCK YOU, I'M AN ADMIN NOW. I'm pissed off at this misuse of Wikipedia for personal benefit. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It started here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Epbr on his talkpage to step down from adminship, as 3 admins (myself, Iridescent, and Ddstretch) have asked him to. We'll see how that goes. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For more background, here are the discussions about it I've caught on my watchlist: [3] [4], and straight from the horse's mouth, [5]. Xihr (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can foretell the future. This is how it goes: "Fuck you, I'm an admin now". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although you're probably right, I hope you're wrong. Epbr attained adminsip under false pretense, and should be desysopped. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He did what loads of other RfA candidates are advised to do, keep your head down for a few months before your RfA. It's not Epbr123's fault that the system is crap. It is to his fault though that he took advantage of that crap system, by trying to settle old scores once he felt himself to be invulnerable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm disgusted at this behavoir also, of course (like any reasonable person would). You have my fullest support with taking this as high as you feel is needed. I will watch this issue closely. An utter disgrace. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys and gals, if I may make a suggestion... Obviously, there's a lot of old crap that this stirred up, and I believe it's for the best if people just took a breather, snagged themselves some rest (or whatever it is one does to unwind, maybe a good attempt at getting pissed, Brit style?) and approach this issue with a refreshed mind and spirit in the morning? (Ignore the time differences, of course.) This issue clearly isn't going to go away, and will not be dealt with anger; it will be dealt with clear heads and applied knowledge. It'll be here in the morning, in the afternoon, and probably much later than that... Just get some frakkin' rest. Please? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no anger, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief. How will a crap admin become a good admin in the morning? Magic? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. I have had no ill feeling towards Epbr123, but even objectively, if this is true (and I understand the issue fully), and that e-mail had been sent in say a work environment, he'd certainly be looking at some form of disciplinary action at best/worst. Infact, had that been in my organisation, that would be gross misconduct - a dismissal. It simply can't be allowed to go unchallenged. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He has admitted that he sent that email. It is quite simply unacceptable. He should be sacked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've also formally asked for a recall with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. Hopefully Epbr123 will be true to his word, and then this issue can be discussed in the appropriate place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which, regrettably, isn't much), Epbr did send an apology to me. As I don't have his permission to reprint the e-mail, I won't copy-and-paste it here. He claims that he was angry after reading the RfC and decided to e-mail me out of anger. He said that he wanted to talk about things more calmly, and reiterated that the RfC was upsetting to him. (Hence my suggestion on his talk page that he voluntarily step down from his position as administrator.) I find the "anger" excuse to be unacceptable, as I've also noted on his talk page. Interestingly, he does not address his reactions (basically ignoring my concerns) to my various attempts to communicate with him about the e-mail. Also, for the record, all communications I have ever had or will continue to have with him will be on talk pages, so that it is all documented. I am aiming for transparency here, as this is a serious issue. Further, if any of you feels that I've stepped over the line in my comments towards him, please do not hesitate to call me out on it. Now I'm going to take my advice and get some rest as well. Good night from America! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, and as I've said elsewhere, I believe that Epbr123 has also maliciously and vindictively targetted me. I have no doubt whatsoever that that he is unfit to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that, at least until he says something in response (it's what, 3:30 am where he is?), it might be best for everyone's sake to ease up for a while... crap admin or no, he's still a good article writer, and I (for one) don't want to lose him in that regard (though I do think a desysopping might be the best route here). So please, let's wait to the morning. giggy _(:O) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good plan, not trying to lose article writers, I agree. But whichever way this goes, we will very likely lose article writers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a realist, which means that I agree with you, Malleus... If Epbr doesn't take voluntary action and step down from his admin status, and if this thing goes to RfC (or higher), I can more than guaran-frakkin'-tee that WP will lose an article writer or three. The ball's in Epbr's court now. I have the slim hope that he does the right thing for himself. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Break

Quite frankly, at this point I am not very impressed even with an apology, if he gave one. I think it's gone past that; his actions in sending that email reflect on all of Wikipedia, since he is an admin, and there's already plenty of problems with Wikipedia. Such a massive lack of judgement on the part of a Wikipedian is proof positive that he is not fit to be an admin, pure and simple. All of the concerns of folks in the RfC and first RfA have been proven unequivocally true. Consider that he engaged in this vindictive behavior less than two weeks after acquiring the power, essentially promising to rain punishment down on people who disagreed with him in the past, as well as others who might disagree with his philosophy about Wikipedia in the future. (I am especially concerned about this, in no small part, since I'm one of those people.) The behavior he engaged in, if he were in some fiduciary responsibility at a company, would result in serious disciplinary consequences if not outright termination. He promised that he would be available for recall but has not followed through; as three admins have already expressed concern over his behavior, he should voluntarily step down as admin and stop his quest for power on Wikipedia. Xihr (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As one of Epbr123's long-term targets myself, I very much share your concern. Who's going to be next in line for his bile? You? Me? It's completely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like some half-wit Cassandra was trying to tell us something at "Wikipedia is not a democracy"... (Somebody check the edit history to relieve me the odious task of saying "I told you so," and also to prevent my blocking for "incivility"). Dekkappai (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some of those entries are very near the truth. Looks like the carpet's been well and truly smoothed over on this issue now though. Let's all pretend that this vindictive and gloating behaviour was a one-off aberration on Epbr123's part, and that he didn't lie in his RfA about being open to recall. Pathetic! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has the issue been "smoothed under the carpet" ? Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been, but epbr hasn't edited since yesterday. I'm not angry ad disgusted anymore, just plain old disgusted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He last edited at 18:17 this evening. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Do you mean why has it been smoothed under the carpet, or why do I think it's been smoothed under the carpet? Assuming it's the latter, because Epbr123 is still an administrator and has still not made himself available for recall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I make it 5 admins plus Giggy & Malleus who both may as well be, who've requested it, WP:AOR is a voluntary process. If he doesn't respond, all you can do is either try to find someone he'll listen to (Sandy & Raul seem the obvious choices), or go through the motions of an RFC.

All that said, if it were down to me I'd say give it a day or so. He may just have been having a really bad day yesterday, and will calm down and realise where he's gone wrong and start issuing grovelling apologies – or even allow himself to be recalled/reconfirmed (stranger things have happened). – iridescent 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You're probably right. I admit that I'm still feeling a little bit bitter about Epbr123's past behaviour towards me, so I'm not an altogether disinterested observer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to number my points for response. 1) Why he should issue "grovelling apologies" when his apology was already rejected escapes me. 2) All parties should start by ending the exaggerations about the actual content of the e-mail. 3) Raul is highly unlikely to get involved. 4) There are no de-sysoppable offenses here (and if there are, I've got a very long list of admins to be de-sysopped). 5) On the other hand, the personal attack lodged by the other party, including a blatant failure to AGF, on Epbr's talk page is probably worse than anything in the e-mail. 6) It seems to me that the logical course of action is to file this in the "If It Ever Happens Again Action Will Be Taken" file, and move along. I see too much accumulated resentment on all sides, and frankly, some very thin skins when I compare the contents of that e-mail to the kinds of things I see daily on Wiki and that have been said to me by admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but that is a very weak argument that you would not accept if it was presented in defence of an article at FAC. There are lots of other bad articles, some worse than this one, so this one should be passed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Even at FAC, when consensus overrules, one has to back off. Some of you are missing the fact that somewhere in all of these discussions (I'm sorry I can't remember on which page now), several admins have told y'all the same: if this were taken to AN/I, it wouldn't be "actionable" and there is nothing desysoppable there. It would be better if he had never sent the email, but the actual contents of the e-mail have been greatly exaggerated in these discussions. He has apologized, and his apology was rejected, which will only possibly fuel further resentment, and the resentment should stop on all sides. I'm saying to accept the reality, it's not desysoppable, and file it in the For Future Reference file. If you all will settle down, I will attempt a private e-mail conversation with Epbr123, but in the mob environment this was taking on yesterday, I was reluctant to get involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Epbr123 promised in his recent RfA to be open to recall. That promise has not been kept. Why would anyone believe that further promises would be kept? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is putting him through a recall now the best thing for Wiki, or will a conversation putting him on notice about future actions be better for all, including our articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Recall is something that he agreed to. Let's not lose sight of that fact. If he has now gone back on his word, then he ought at least be honest enough to say so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a point when an apology is not enough? Upon being confronted with his misbehavior, he defended his behavior and dismissed the objections; when pressed further, he claimed to regret his wording but not his actions. That's after having days to reflect on his actions. He only apologized (in a private email, not publicly) once he realized how bad things had gotten, and the person he apologized to (quite understandably) doubts his sincerity. Xihr (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

uh, sorry, but we have AGF for a reason. In my book, we AGF and accept his apology. If it happens again, that's another story. (And as far as I can tell from following the chronology, he apologized fairly quickly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems to me that WP:AGF shouldn't be a suicide pact. User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. did assume good faith by assuming that the email in question wasn't sent by User:Epbr123 in the first place, but rather someone mimicking him to get him in trouble. Upon reading the email that was pasted to his talk page, I concluded the same thing at first. After Epbr123's simple reversion, User:Keeper76 confronted him about it, and it was Epbr123, not Beaudoin, who failed to assume good faith, and in addition flat out refused to apologize. Xihr (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xihr, I'm in no mood to play semantic games or wikilawyer this issue. Epbr apologized, Beaudoin rejected it and lodged a personal attack on Epbr's talk page. We all know the rest of the history, so please don't occupy bandwidth and colons re-telling it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, by my count, no fewer than five admins have now expressed grave concern about his behavior, outright insisted that he step down as administrator/be recalled, or have promised to escalate this -- to an RfC, something which we already expended thousands of words on and months of time with and never went anywhere. If nothing ends up happening because of this, Wikipedia really is beyond hope -- this is clear abuse. Xihr (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(several ces) And I'm not pissed anymore... just have a throbbing headache... I think Joe pointed out that the email was not the worst of this. Anyone could write such an email in the heat of the moment, out of anger or some other such thing which interferes with good judgment. (As an Admin, however, one should certainly be able to keep that sort of thing under control.) To tell the truth, the email itself didn't bother me much, because I'd expected this, and worse all along... The reaction from others did surprise me a bit. I'd thought everyone had experienced Epbr123' pre-Admin-campaign side, and this was just the old Epbr123 that we all knew and loved clearing his virtual throat before he really started singing-- going on a rampage of one sort or another... What was much worse than the email, and the true proof in the pudding, was the reaction-- days after the email was sent and he'd had time to consider his actions. Basically, "I won, you lost. Ha, ha. Now go away." Obviously that tune changed once more people started registering complaints. But it still stands as his real, considered reaction to this whole conflict. Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The email was stupid, vindictive, in-your-face, and lame. Many worse things are said onwiki. The egregious thing to me is the utter lack of remorse. I don't want him representing Wikipedia as an administrator able to block other editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

Malleus, can you install some editing breaks here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to format the topic whichever way you feel works. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is very fruitful to start to criticize the opinions of some editors towards this on the grounds that they have an unfortunate history of interactions with the editor concerned. This is because one could easily suggest that the person making this suggestion has, so far, had good interactions with the editor, and so if bias is present in one group of editors, it could also be present in the opposite direction in this editor. The biases do not have to be conscious, either. I'm not mounting any attack, rather I'm pointing out some elementary matters that are well known in basic psychology.

On the matter of them "having thin skins", made by referring to more extreme cases of bad behaviour for which no action has been taken: This may equally well indicate that action should have been taken in those cases, rather than that no action should be taken here.

As an extra observation that just occurred to me when I was typing that last sentence, as a result of some points Epbr123 made about aspects of my behaviour during my recent RfA, I would argue that if he felt it appropriate to say I had overstepped some line of acceptable behaviour in the cases he raised in my RfA, then his own behaviour in this matter here certainly does. Consequently, it is not our thin skins that are an issue here, as we applying what would appear to be his own criteria of unacceptable behaviour against himself. (see his comments here: my RfA nomination and process Neutral section here.) As I said, this last point just occurred to me now, but I think it has some merit.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been brought to RfC or a more public venue? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess because several people have counselled waiting for a day or two, to let some of the dust settle presumably. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And, what's the rush? I've got to go read FAC now; I'll catch up later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Epbr123 should given a chance to respond and react. That's only fair. Xihr (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No criticism intended along those lines, ddstretch; looking for a way forward in the best interests of our articles and less drama, which I'm seeing way too much of here with the exaggerations about the e-mail content. And, for those who believe Epbr123 should be desysopped, well ... won't you have a stronger or weaker case after some current ArbCom cases close? Heck, I can't figure out if there are any standards for admin behavior here, but there's a case before ArbCom that should answer that question finally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As Malleus says above, can't everyone leave this for a couple of days? Waiting until the weekend won't do any harm, and a couple of days might give everyone a chance to calm down. Everyone here has done something stupid on Wikipedia at some point, and Epbr might have an explanation he hasn't given yet. (Sandy's right, incidentally; while the email's IMO completely unacceptable—I think I used the word "reeks" somewhere—I've seen much worse; just have a read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, which I assume is the Arbcom case she alludes to.) – iridescent 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To Sandy

Trying to get out of the fray above... Anyway, my point was that the e-mail doesn't really disturb me. It's his blatant unwillingness to address the issue with me. I did try to communicate with Epbr123 first via e-mail, as I had previously mentioned. I waited 24 hours, received no response, and saw that he was editing on Wikipedia. I surmised that he had internet access, but may have not received the e-mail. So I communicated via his talk page. Less than 12 hours later, my comments were reverted. (By the way, this EXACT same action occurred when I notified him of the RfC against him.) He chose to ignore it. Clearly, he had a grudge against me which he has held since late 2007, and I properly surmised that he was angry and had no desire to communicate with me in a professional, ethical matter.

Having nowhere else to turn, I didn't think AN/I was the right place for it. I am not looking for a desysop or ban here. I was looking for an honest answer. If he simply addressed my issue with a sense of urgency and maturity, we would not be having this conversation. In any event, I posted the e-mails and a brief outline of my actions in rectifying this issue on the talk page for his most recent (and successful) RfA. The page was deleted, then certain revisions (excluding i.e. mine) were excised from the record. Sandy, I can send you an e-mail in PDF format of the deleted contributions if you'd like, as I have admin rights and can see them.

You can read them, judge for yourself. I wanted answers. That's it. What people did with the information was up to them. (I will be quite honest, given Wikipedia's growingly horrendous reputation on the Internet, it would not have surprised me if this was all "under rug swept".)

My assumption started off as an assumption of good faith. I assumed that someone was impersonating him in an attempt to discredit a newly promoted admin, since no recently promoted admin in their right mind would ever engage in the uncouth behavior I've been subjected to. I even congratulated him on his success as an admin and wanted to help him get to the bottom of the e-mail—assuming at the time that the e-mail never came from him. I had absolutely no evidence either way! As I noted, any imbecile can get a hotmail address and pretend to be anyone! Someone could, today, jump on hotmail and impersonate me, my writing patterns, and send it off to all of you in an attempt to discredit me. I've had it happen to me before, I know how difficult it is to clean up your good name, and was willing to take time out of my extremely busy schedule to help him with it. I wanted to smooth over any ruffled feathers with him in the process! I had assumed that he changed from the immature behaviors that lead to his RfC! I have never stalked him, never interacted with him on Wikipedia after his RfA (until now)—I had basically left after that fiasco for I do not need the immaturity and dissonant idiocy that is so rampant on Wikipedia these days.

It is completely mind boggling to me why someone would work so hard at Wikipedia just to throw away what they've achieved over an RfC that was filed back in OCTOBER 2007! Nearly 8+ months have passed since that time. If Epbr123 was wanting to vent, I would expect him to throw me such an e-mail a week or so after the RfC; that would be understandable, since that's human and I can roll with the punches.

At this point, I'm leaving this in the hands of the community. Do with it what you will folks. If you folks want to bring this to RfC, to ArbCom, to the top of Mount Olympus to Almighty Zeus himself, that's fine. I'll be here to provide what I can.

I have repeatedly praised Epbr for his great work at GA/FA. I will continue to do so. He is a valued asset in that arena, an arena that does not require the use of administrator tools. I will suggest that he simply step down of his own accord and work there. He cannot handle conflict resolution—and the extremely saddening fact is that he turned this in an issue by ignoring it—and conflict resolution is a quintessential part of being an admin. If he can't handle it, then, to borrow a well-worn axiom: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I am also suggesting this because if the first RfC was emotionally disturbing to him, wait until the second RfC... And that's something I think we all want to avoid!

Or am I wrong?

There, I've said my piece. I'm probably a bit vulgar and out of line here, but... I really have better things to do. So do you all.

As for my not accepting his apology... given his previous history with other editors, including myself, I cannot ethically accept his apology. Honestly, I see his apology as a means of damage control and is, at best, a tactical maneuver of great insincerity. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoted

Not that it matters, but I've added your reply to Xp54321 to my Quotes list.[6] That was a perfect "Shot DOWN!" moment. :-) Thanks!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I get enough hassle from the adult administrators, never mind these kiddie wannabees. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop putting down the younger editors, as I happen to be offended by it. Cheers! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you kept your suggestions to yourself. I am not interested in what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You know part of WP:CIVIL is that you shouldn't disregard other editor's opinions and instead take them into perspective and try to understand their viewpoint.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Go away XP. Your post does not have the foresight worthy of posting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at Xp54321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Xp feels that he or she has a point to make, and I'd be quite happy to discuss that point. What I'm not happy with though is Xp's charges of incivility and worse simply because I have a different point of view. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've put words into your mouth somewhat here. If I've misrepresented your view (I hope I got it right), do feel free to correct me. – iridescent 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You've perfectly represented my view and thanks for that. I suppose I ought to have been more explicit myself, but as you say, I just thought it was self-evident. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody, we have an all new RFADOD (RFA Drama of the Day). Anyway, since Joe has initiated a conversation on Epbr's talk page, I'm going to step back for a few days anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope that conversation comes to some kind of an acceptable resolution. What's happened so far is not acceptable to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has redefined "ageism" to the point I have no idea what people are even talking about. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Think back. Think playground. I firmly believe that one of wikipedia's current problems is the number of kids pissing off the adults. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm not ageist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think a major issue is that it is somewhat forbidden to bring up a user's age when dealing with a behavioral issue, because of "ageism". Sometimes arguments go round and round and round, when everyone needs to take a step back and admit that one of the users just turned 10 and that might have something to do with the problem. Like if a 10 year old has already failed his second RfA, and the "civil" thing to do is encourage admin coaching, when in reality, the best thing would be suggesting waiting several years before considering. But not... that's ageist, wrong, etc. Ugh. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I know you normally let things run but may I suggest you archive this thread now, or at least collapse it down (as per with the flamewar on Keeper's page)? Everybody's said their piece, nobody's going to have their opinions changed on this issue by anything anyone could say, and there's (ahem) more than enough drama going on already. – iridescent 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, really? This seems like a reasonable discussion. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of it could now be reasonably collapsed I suppose, but you may have to do it as I'm apparently about to be blocked again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I take back my charges of incivility,etc. and lol, I'm a he.:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You know MF(your new nickname,see my talk archives) R2 said I won...Is this true?!(Not that it's a competition they just kept saying no one had beat you at a flamewar ever,that you were a master with words,etc.,:D,not that a flamewar is a good thing)Again I apologize many times over.(I feel like I lost.)See my talkpage as well.I await your re.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, if you think you're hard enough, bring it on. I really would advise against it though. Trust me on this. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant who won? I'm not going to continue to flamewar(proving my maturity).That was R2's point. See his talkpage. And,bring what on?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Who won what? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The flamewar at Ryan's RfA. Oh and I did bother sandy ain't happy with your cmt.;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I really would advise you to leave this. My patience is not endless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My head hurts looking at this thread. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom of page. Link didn't work right.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments in a recent RfA

Please remember to remain civil when discussing candidates at RfA. While you are, naturally, fully entitled to your opinions, please do not personally attact other users, as you did to the current candidate. You are free to oppose if you do not believe the user is responsible enough to handle adminship, but insulting remarks such as

I believe that you are misguided. Race or gender cannot be changed. Human beings, on the other hand, do grow up. Or at least some of them do. Allegedly.

can deeply offend some users. Please avoid making ad hominem attacks and other uncivili remarks toward others in the future, as you can truly insult and offend people this way. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Oh dear, here we go again. Just block me and let's get it over with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

God. You've said worse than that in several other places. Go away Mizu, this is a ridiculous "warning". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. If you think Malleus's comments are "abuse", go visit any admin talkpage and read the drivel some people write. – iridescent 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an argument, I just want Malleus to stop personally attacking other users, especially on the basis of age. I agree with many of his arguments, but this one in particular troubles me. This isn't a "warning", it's just a frienly reminder of civility. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and if I came off as if I was warning or threatening Malleus. He should be aware, however, that personal attacks are not tolerated. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Besides, everyone makes mistakes; We're all human. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus didn't attack anyone. He stated his opinion. Again, go away. You're claims have no merit here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a major argument, I am going to walk away from this conversation. Again, I appologise if I offended any of you in any way. Thanks, and have a nice day (in all sincerity). --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting fucking close to "attacking" someone now Mizu, and it isn't Ryan. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've appologised, been civil, and even walked away from this argument. What more do you want me to do? --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good response. Have a great evening/morning (I don't know where you are)...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask. You won't like the answer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. ;-) Let's just put this behind us now, before we all start "attacking" one another. I respect your opinion, Malleus, even if I don't wholly agree. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

...and Mizu has (hopefully) left the building (hint, hint). Majoreditor (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan

I apologise for the earlier conflict above. Perhaps we can reach some agreement on such debate? Cheers, and good morning (etc.). :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. We disagree on one little issue about a minimum age for administrators, that's all. Doesn't make either of us a bad person. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Notice that we don't disagree, however, as I share the same concern, and am opposing. I just didn't favour the way you said it. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

I've been told before that I can appear a little blunt, but in this particular case I believe that I said nothing inappropriate. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now, let's put it behind us. Just one other thing; I notice from your talk page that you're intending to accept an RfA nomination yourself in the not too distant future. Don't be at all concerned that you might see me in the oppose column because of this incident, that's not my style at all. I'd be far more likely to support you, because you showed a bit of bottle in confronting me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. :-) --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mystified

Why so bitter? I don't think I ever announced that my opinion was the only one worth taking seriously. A comment so inflammatory as yours would probably not even be warranted if I had announced some such thing. Have I done something to incur your extreme resentment? Please let me know -- I'm a bit mystified. — Dan | talk 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... butting in here, but your exact words were "worthless and probably insulting." How is that not saying you don't think Malleus's opinion should be taken seriously? And as I say above, everyone calm down about this; nobody's going to change anyone's mind here. – iridescent 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. I'd be glad to talk about it with you too if you like, on your talk page or mine, but at the moment I'd simply like to ask Malleus what prompted his comment. — Dan | talk 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "worthless and probably insulting" do you not understand? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, "probably insulting" is merely a prediction: we could figure out whether opposition based solely on age is insulting by asking the candidate whether he was insulted. I've never asked, hence the 'probably'.

When I said such opposition was "worthless", I was assessing its relevance to the question of adminship. I do not happen to think it is relevant at all, which is to say I think it isn't worth anything. This is in fact merely the articulation of my opinion, and not any sort of remark about whether you have the right to yours. I do of course think that your opinion is incorrect, unsupportable, ill-founded, and so forth, but if I didn't think that, then it I couldn't be said to have an opinion at all. Presumably you think the same of mine. The fact that I wrote a comment at all points to my willingness to take the opposing position -- that age per se is relevant to adminship -- seriously. If I did not take it seriously I would simply have ignored it.

As best I can tell, you and I are acting with the same goal in mind: the good of the project. In service of that end, I presented arguments followed by a conclusion. I fear I may have been insufficiently clear, so I hope you won't mind my taking another shot.

• What we are concerned with at RFA is predicting, on the basis of the data we have, what sort of an administrator a candidate would be.
• In particular, we are looking to promote candidates whose future behavior will fall within a range that the community has agreed is acceptable.
• While there may be a strong correlative connection between age and behavior -- i.e. twelve-year-olds may tend to be poor administrators -- the history of our project, as well as my own offline experience, shows a number of exceptions. Even a single exception would be enough to demonstrate the possibility of further exceptions. We have likewise seen exceptions in the other direction: adults who behave 'childishly'.
  • These exceptions show it is possible for a twelve-year-old to behave in a way which the community considers acceptable of administrators: this is to say there is no necessary connection between age and suitability for adminship.
  • These arguments agree with a principle of enlightened Western thought: that there is no necessary connection between age and patterns of behavior.
  • So it is possible for a twelve-year-old to make a good administrator.
  • Therefore it is not reasonable to use age in itself as a predictor of behavior.
• The strategy (A) that will best benefit the project is one which attends to observed patterns of behavior: i.e. what a candidate has actually done on Wikipedia. This will allow us to benefit from unusually mature young administrators, and not to suffer from unusually immature adult administrators.
  • A strategy (B) which focuses on age in itself, ignoring actual observed patterns of behavior, only makes sense if there is a necessary connection between age and suitability for adminship. The above arguments show that there is no such connection: therefore this strategy does not make sense.
  • This strategy will not result in the greatest benefit to the project, and may indeed result in damage to the project (turning away suitable candidates for adminship).
• The facts support strategy A: they do not support strategy B.
• Reasoned argument supports strategy A: it does not support strategy B.

I am perfectly willing to admit that there were many reasonable grounds for opposing the recent candidate, whose candidacy caused this argument. There were, for instance, plenty of concrete instances of immaturity quoted by the users who opposed his candidacy. I am only taking issue with the arguments that mention age. I consider those specific arguments to be without merit.

I apologize for failing to be clear the first time round, and I see now that with the word 'worthless' I left my comments wide open to misinterpretation. However, do you see the point I was trying to make? Cheers — Dan | talk 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly truthful, nothing that you or anyone else can possibly say will alter my conviction that a 12-year-old child should not be an administrator on wikipedia. You or others may consider my view to be worthless bullshit that ought to be discounted, but it remains my view nevertheless. And if any other 12-year-olds put themselves forward at RfA I will oppose them as well, no matter who doesn't like it. I have had just about of this stupid nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I begin to understand. I'm sorry if some folks have been rude about your views, and of course you're justified in ignoring the rude people, but I'm even sorrier to see that you are unwilling to consider my careful argument. Myself -- I think I'd be more likely to oppose an adult who refuses to participate in a reasonable discourse than a twelve-year-old who keeps his mind open to change. Happy editing, and may your immediate future contain an absolute minimum of stupid nonsense. Regards — Dan | talk 02:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as I've tried to make clear repeatedly, there is no argument that could possibly persuade me that someone who is not considered to be legally accountable for their own actions is a proper person to be an administrator, and I find it incredible that anyone could seriously believe otherwise. And to equate that with sexism or racism—I'm not saying that you did that, but others certainly did—I find to be both a gross misrepresentation and an even grosser slur on an honestly held opinion. I have not attempted to change your mind, or anyone else's, on this issue, because I recognise that the effort would be fruitless, as is your effort to change my mind. It ain't gonna happen. In fact, I can see no legitimate reason why someone of 12 would even want to be an administrator. I can, on the other hand, think of quite a few dubious reasons why they might. But let's not go there, and let this drop now, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you ever consider trying to open a debate with me in the future, you may get a better response if you don't start it off by asking "Why so bitter?", a comment that I did not, and do not appreciate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake again, of course. I'm happy to 'let this drop', though do certainly try to change my mind in future if you think I'm wrong about something -- it's been known to work. — Dan | talk 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The "other matter"

I see you're quite busy here, Malleus... But I'm wondering if the other matter has "got better" yet?... Dekkappai (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If I catch your drift, it sure doesn't seem like it. Xihr (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. And not entirely unexpected. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The action that did happen was at least consistent with the first reaction to the blunt question (deletion). We have had regrets about trouble, and explanations of behaviour that are not excuses for it, but neither any acknowledgment of any wrong-doing nor any promises to not do it or anything like it again. Very sad.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that what's happened is exactly what I thought would happen. It appears that leopards do not, after all, change their spots. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't relish the prospect of being the next target of an administrator apparently out for revenge. I have enough trouble with too many of those I haven't yet upset. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with the lack of pressure put on Epbr123. I can't understand it, this place talks a talk but doesn't walk a walk when it comes to distruptive users who've been here in the mid to long term. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

...Maybe we're being impatient.... maybe it'll "get better" by the weekend... Dekkappai (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll keep an eye out for that squadron of flying pigs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the weather forecast for Hades... Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm continuing to breathe easy and regularly.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy for you to say Stretch, you're wearing the cloak of invulnerability now. I'm just counting the days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To Dekkappai: I may have got this completely wrong, but I have the idea that you are either Japanese or Korean? I say that not because I have anything against Japanese or Koreans, simply to say that if I'm correct, then your command of English is truly astonishing, far better than most native speakers. Of course, I could be completely wrong, and you live in Chelsea, in which case I take back everything nice I've ever said about you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for complimenting my command of English. I'm a "white" American, so, yes, I guess you could say English is a bit of a second language. :-) I was lucky enough to grow up close to the Japanese language and culture, and then was lucky enough to marry into the Korean language and culture, and spent time in both countries. Hence my main areas of editing interest, and my iffy ability with both of those languages. Dekkappai (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're an American, then I think that congratulations are even more in order for your command of proper English. Truly astonishing. *sticking tongue out in a jokey kind of a way* --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think it may have been the googley you bowled me about Japanese porn stars that may have given me the wrong idea. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem-- The offer for help on the Japanese subjects was quite sincere, I assure you. Just check my list of "Articles started" :-) (And I supplied WikiSpeak's second definition of American English, you know.) Dekkappai (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To Malleus: I don't see myself as being invulnerable, and if Giano can retain his position after all he appears to do, I am sure you can. As an aside, it amuses me that the RfA criteria many people chant contains such mantra as "trustworthiness" and yet people get criticized and complained about if one indulges in what are called ad hominem arguments just because they are stated to be ad hominem. The inconsistency in not realising that a proper discussion of trustworthiness necessarily involves at its root an ad hominem argument seems lost on most people: not all ad hominem arguments are inadmissable in discussion: it all depends what type of discussion one is engaged in (the different types are called "Normative types" by Douglas Walton, whose work I have studied and lectured about, and still do research in. I find his position on the matter very persuasive.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are preaching to the converted. It ought to be very obvious to anyone that in the context of an RfA, any comment is potentially ad hominem, that's the nature of the beast. RfA is broken, I believe, precisely because of that PC reluctance to discuss the candidate's trustworthiness. Much easier to focus on edits made, articles written, AfDs contributed to, RfA nominations made, vandals reported ... yet it appears to suit the current zeitgeist, so any proposal for change is shouted down --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty goofy. Ad hominem only applies if you're dealing with a logical argument (in which case it's a logical fallacy); but choosing someone to be an admin isn't exercising a logical argument, it's making a political choice. Politician jokes notwithstanding, the two things are not even remotely related. Xihr (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm just guessing here Xihr, but I have the distinct impression that you are not 12-years-old. Or am I horribly mistaken in my blatant and now well-publicised ageism, and you're just a five-year-old trying to entrap me? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm your worst nightmare. I'm a zygote. Xihr (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Zygote or not, you have an uncanny ability to make me laugh out loud when I read your postings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) Xihr (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What really puzzles me is the chain of events that took place. For some reason User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. started out by insisting he was going to take the issue to RfC, but when Epbr finally popped back up, he acquiesced. Obviously it's up to him whether or not he pursues the issue, but since he didn't accept his first apology, I'm not sure what changed his mind or convinced him to drop it, as it's a pretty big reversal of his rhetoric when the issue started. (The tone of Epbr's response is also puzzling to me -- it sounds almost like he's accepting an apology, not giving one, with a hint of a non-apology apology.) As we've repeated, this is an action that in a position of any authority at a company would likely result in disciplinary action or outright termination -- it was spiteful and pointless, and it doesn't matter much if he was angry at the time (as if he would have done it if he weren't angry at all?); it reflects a serious lack of responsibility and maturity on his part. I suppose if someone were so inclined, it could still be brought to RfC, but given his deletion of the long discussion on his talk page without complaints (down the memory hole it goes), the unwillingness of a number of other admins to press the issue, least of all which Beaudoin, who is the only one with any real standing in the issue, it seems it would be even more pointless than the first RfC. I mean, how bad does it have to get when one of his co-nominators is clamoring for recall, and sounded pretty sure the other co-nominator would agree (but he's unavaliable)? Oh well, welcome to Wikipedia I guess. Xihr (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the (perfectly reasonable, not complaining) deletion of the email that caused the problem, the only people that could start another RfC against Epbr123 are the administrators who can still see what all the fuss was about. For myself, I'd be be content for him now to fulfil his promise to be available to recall, but given his past behaviour, and having seen other administrators wriggle out of it when it doesn't go to their liking I wouldn't place very much trust in that anyway. What I do find unacceptable is this attitude of wait, it'll all get better. Better for who? An apparently vengeful nutcase, or for me? Let's not forget that Joe Beaudoin is an administrator, so he has some weapons at his disposal. What defence do you or I have? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you. He hasn't said one word about recall, and it's pretty obvious from his reaction and reversions that he's hoping the whole thing will blow over, which it seems that it almost surely will at this point, despite the rhetoric that Beaudoin, User:Keeper76, User:Jza84, User:Rudget, and User:iridescent (if I remember the names properly; if not, sorry) were using. Like you say, any RfC initiated by non-administrators would be meaningless and a waste of time at this point, so there's not much that you or I can do ... except perhaps wait for the inevitable. (One more thing, though, the email is still visible in his user talk page edit history. The oversighted version was on his second RfA talk page.) Xihr (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I do not doubt that an RfC filed by administrators has more weight than an RfC from a contributor, I do seem to recall that I was the one who initiated the first RfC against Epbr123... and that really did nothing to rectify any of the issues we have here. Not saying that the effort was wasted, but, the honorable thing for Epbr to do at this point is adhere to his "campaign promise" of the recall, since four of his supporters (admins) have said they'd support such an action. At this point, their words have more weight than any words I have, since my "adminship" status is more a fact at this point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Xihr (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question/concern, I really don't have the time to pursue this issue. Furthermore, I no longer consider myself a "Wikipedian" or a contributor to Wikipedia (aside from some minor, pathetic edits), so it's not really up to me to initiate an RfC. At this point, I view Wikipedia as a very bad joke at the expense of numerous legions of well-meaning, honest people who are made suckers from the people on top: admins who seemingly cannot be banned (unless given a job at Wikia and then outed by Wikipedia watchdog groups, a la Essjay, and forced to "resign"), etc.

Frankly, had Epbr simply answered my private e-mail, which was the first thing I did before taking the second step to initiate contact on his talk page, none of you would know about this at all. The e-mail itself didn't disturb me (I was howling in laughter when I opened it), and all I wanted is confirmation on who sent it, since I had my sincere doubts that he had sent the e-mail in the first place. However, he has disappointed me -- and a great many of you -- by throwing rocks at my retirement home just to bring me "out of retirement".

As for it being spiteful and pointless, I agree. I was gone from Wikipedia. I did not need that shit (yeah, that's what it was, puerile shit) in my mailbox. However, the thing that caused this escalation was the fact that he didn't nip it in the bud when he had the chance. Now he has to pay for that. His reputation has been damaged because of his inability to handle the issue properly when directly confronted. Instead, it took another person to call him out on it.

So, if you guys (and gals, though I haven't seen any outside of Sandy) want to initiate an RfC, or pursue the admin recall, or whatever, that's fine. If you need me to testify, that's fine.

But that's all up to you fine folks. If you're going to continue to contribute to this project, you've gotta deal with him... I don't, so I am unconcerned. And if that comes off as callous, then I'm sorry for that, but, fact of the matter is, none of us are "forced" to contribute to this project. We do it of our own volition.

Frankly, my suggestion of what he should do still stands. From the available evidence, I don't think he has it in him to be an admin. I believe him to be far better off just working on the GA/FA area, which he excels at. Not everyone is meant to be an admin, you know. :) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I want to make it clear that the only reason I brought you up at all, Joe -- if I may call you that -- is based on some of your earlier comments, namely vowing to start an RfC and pursue it to the end, rejecting his apology, etc. I want to make it crystal clear that I'm not under the impression that you're under any such obligation; obviously, you may choose to do or not do whatever you wish. It's his weirdly cool response to your lengthy defense against (what I think was a ridiculous) WP:AGF violation claim by another admin that almost sounded like he was accepting your apology (and included a non-apology apology on his part), before he reverted the whole conversation. It was just downright bizarre, I guess is what I'm saying here. But I agree with your summary: He should fulfill the promise he made in his AfD and make himself available for recall, either way, since it was in effect a campaign promise. Whether that recall procedure is initiated also is something I also have little control over. Xihr (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of yet another warning from an administrator I have no respect for, I will simply state that I believe Epbr123 has behaved in way that shows him to be completely without honour, integrity, or honesty. So block me. See if I give a flying fuck. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I am nonplussed over Epbr's actions to date. He really should have kept that communication up on the talk page, and that's from my experience as a formerly active Wikipedia admin. He clearly wants this to blow over by pretending it never happened... How does one, pray tell, learn anything if they close their eyes and try to wish it away? If anything, Epbr should be looking at all this as a learning experience on how to better himself... but I just feel I'm preaching to the choir at this point. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's how I feel as well. Nothing will change. As a point of information though, I want to make it clear that I do not tar all administrators with the same brush. There are many I have learned to respect, including some I initially encountered because of some disagreement ... on reflection I think I probably disagreed with all of the administrators whose opinion I would now take seriously when I first encountered them. But they, topically, include one who I believe to be a teenager, in spite of my alleged ageism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, he's not going to learn from his behavior unless he's forced to answer for it. Given that several admins (with all due respect, including your semi-retired self) are willing to let him get away with it, it's hard to see how anything positive -- even positive for himself -- could come of this. Non-admins without real standing here such as Malleus, User:Dekkappai, and myself, really don't have any legitimate way to force the issue. This is really just a little bit of history repeating; his obvious contempt for the process of the first RfC showed someone who wanted to get on with things and continue on the road to RfA (someone laughably was trying to nominate him for RfA while the RfC was in progress!), not someone who wanted to legitimately correct their misbehavior. Surely, if lessons aren't learned, it will happen again -- and given the way other admins are letting him sweep things under the rug, it's hard to see how that could happen. Xihr (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that you're right on both counts. He won't be held to account and he won't learn. He has the cloak of invulnerability. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he might learn if he were forced to experience negative consequences for his actions. Maybe. But since it seems highly unlikely he will be in this case, it's rather moot. Xihr (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be quite frank. While I do feel that, ethically speaking, you're "right"... the reality of the situation is that I don't have the time to pursue this with the vigor I had when I first launched the RfC back in October '07. I consider Wikipedia a lost cause... it has so many problems right now that frankly stem from the incompetence and dilettantism at the top. The people at the WMF like to live in their idealistic, pseudo-rosy world where 12 year olds can be admins (yet by the laws of the USA, they're not legally adults and thus are immune to any legal proceedings, so they can practically get away with anything they'd want—slander, libel, etc.—should they choose to do so and not be held accountable from a legal standpoint), ignore the fact that they really need to have background checks for the people at the top (remember that COO who was a convicted felon, anyone? how about that duplicitous Essjay?) and really need to reform their organization so that accountability can be properly held at all levels... cloak or no. Frankly, the people who need to lodge the complaint are the people who work here on a daily basis and have the reputation to back it up. My adminship is a mere formality at this point, which is something that Xihr dosn't apparently grasp. I'm just as ineffective as you are and am now "biased" against Epbr for my previous interactions with him. I'm nothing more than an old retiree who hasn't been euthanized yet and whose lost his choppers... Anyway, I'm done with this and said all that I have had to say. If people want me to "testify", I'll be glad to do so... but that's about the extent of my involvement with this pathetic incident. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Mail Me} 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your general points completely, and as I said earlier, obviously I want to make it clear that you should do (or not do) whatever you like here, regardless of what was said before. But I would point out that the primary reason that I think you (or another admin) would have to spearhead an RfC procedure for it to have any possible effect is that you were the injured party (and an admin to boot, regardless of whether it's a "formality" or not -- you still have the bit and the rest of us don't) as the other admins expressed outrage and demanded a recall. A non-admin that was watching the conversation trying to carry this to RfC would clearly go nowhere. Xihr (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also the practical point that only administrators can now see what all the fuss was about anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, there's an unoversighted version of the email in Epbr123's talk page history. I was trying to be subtle about it, hence it magically disappear, too. Xihr (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! You ought to know me well enough by now to know that I don't do subtle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321

This user has retired, unfortunately I cannot guarantee he will return. On a lighter note, look your famous!!! — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. What he did was rather silly, however. Anyway, sorry for bothering you two again, I'm not usually a great one for Talk page stakling, but I forgot to unwatch this page and this topic brought up my attention, a bit. :P Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC).

It's a shame he didn't feel able to demonstrate that my prejudice against 12-year-old administrators might possibly be ill-founded, and instead confirmed it. BTW Realist2, I don't hate you at all. In fact, I really can't think of anyone I hate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Diocese in England / Benkenobi18

Even though for obvious reasons I'd disagree with you on topics regarding Yorkshire/Greater Manchester ;), you are completely right in moving back Benkenobi18's mysterious moving of Catholic diocese articles; Diocese of Salford for example. He doesn't seem to understand that in England, the Catholic diocese specifically have different names to the Anglican ones so there can be no room for confusion between them all, so the qualification of "Roman Catholic" and "Anglican" is not needed. Do you have any ideas to disuade him? I've already tried to explain to him but it doesn't seem to sink in. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me 'guv. It was User:Malleus Haereticorum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Any relation? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely none. And if you've come here to accuse me of sockpuppetry ... then I'd be very surprised.</joke> I'm just winding down from my warnings over ageism/sexism/racism, so I'd be unlikely to get myself involved in controversial moves of articles I know nothing about anyway. You seem to have got into a few battles yourself though recently. Nothing new there though I suppose. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the latin for magnet? I feel I ought to be called Magnet-ius Fatuorum at the moment! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My Latin is notoriously bad—the reason I changed my username—so I've got no idea what the Romans called magnets. Just a word to wise though. Magnet of the foolish ain't such a great username ... on the other hand though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for reviewing the article on Zhang Heng; I have tried my best to address your concerns. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far... and a *nudge*

BG7even has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Can you whack some stuff on Blackpool tramway? BG7even 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, just as soon as I've finished with Zhang Heng's FA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In the meantime, i'll work on some smaller articles! BG7even 20:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mal, u ready now? Thanks, BG7even 09:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a suggestion on Blackpool tramway's talk page about formatting the depot and fleet sections. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

When you're happy with your new version of the article, give me a shout and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Heng

Have you been able to revisit yet ? Nom says issues dealt with ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it again now. The specific issues I raised seem to have been dealt with, but they were just representative examples. I'll reply at the FAC very shortly, but in summary I still don't think it's ready, and I think Tony would have a field day with the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Eric Corbett/Archives/2008. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Malleus Fatuorum/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 15:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

His response is the 12th one down, Gazimoff. (He had a name change from Fatuarum to Fatuorum, tis all.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's why my countif didn't pull up a wildcard match. Pesky username changes, tsk tsk :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed that you use Rollback. I got access for it recently, and I thought I'd ask you a question about it that I've had: is there any way to rollback a specific edit by a user if he/she had another edit before that? For example, let's say:

(cur)(last) 19:42 27 June 2008 User (Talk | Contribs) (edit summary)

(cur)(last) 19:25 27 June 2008 User (Talk | Contribs) (edit summary)

Would it be possible to rollback User's edit at 19:42 WITHOUT rollbacking (rolling back, I guess) his edit at 19:25?

Only if someone else has edited after 19:25. Rollback will remove the whole sequence of edits until it finds one made by another editor, when it stops. Bear in mind though that you should only be using rollback to revert vandalism. It's not very usual that one edit is made in good faith but others are vandalism. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you install Twinkle, you'll find a very handy "restore this version" button, which should work nicely. And to echo what Malleus said; using rollback to revert something that isn't "blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism, obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject" is a very good shortcut to blocking. – iridescent 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to use Firefox on my computer (it uses up too much CPU power), so I can't get Twinkle, but I'll keep that in mind. I'm quite aware that Rollback is for blatant vandalism only, and I don't revert vandalism much anyway, but I keep it in case I run into some. Thanks Malleus for the help. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Pericles of Athens, award you this barnstar in recognition of your [tireless] copyediting contributions to Zhang Heng. The article looks much, much better due to your efforts. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very thoughtful Pericles, thanks. I've just made what I think may be my last comment at the FAC. I'm about ready to support, so just one final push should do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I just responded to your questions on the FAC page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

... and I've just responded to your responses. Let's try and put this one to bed now. SandyG desperately wants her list to get smaller. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Zhang_Heng

FYI, it appears you used {{rc}} to cap your comments, but it did not work correctly as the contents is not appearing. Gary King (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, you're right. I think I've fixed it now. Thanks for pointing that out. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I don't know if you're already aware, but if not, then feel free to check out {{Resolved comments}}, which is very useful for capping comments. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite sure though whether SandyG is entirely in favour of capping comments. She probably goes through them all anyway, capped or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, so it is probably best to only use it if the comments are long. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mount Garibaldi

Well, Malleus, would you like to put in a second opinion? --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I just didn't have the strength to go down the route of explaining this. I'm sure this gentleman will return later this week with his material, with which we'll likely need to respond as appropriate. I hope all is well however. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An impressive number of warnings given to that IP address. Makes me feel quite inadequate. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Santikhiri

Hi again, I would like to share my 'discoveries' made during a recent research I done on movies based on the true & touching stories of the KMT army remnants in Santikhiri:

• "A Home Too Far" (異域; 1990). Details: http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.533092/qx/details.htm
• "A Home Too Far" finale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6c22jwiFNM (in Mandarin with English sub)
• "A Home Too Far" - Persecutions from Burmese/Chinese Communists soldiers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSq4FuAAg2c&feature=related (Cantonese)
• "A Home Too Far II" aka "End Of The Road" (異域2-孤軍; 1993). Details: http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.1401/qx/details.htm

Fyi, the first movie was a box office hit in Taiwan & HK (not screened in mainland China) & won several Golden Horse Awards (Asia equivalent of the Oscar Award) in early 1990s. In the recent Hollywood movie, American Gangster, Santikhiri was briefly mentioned wrt the illicit opium trade during the Vietnam war. When I saw the movie excerpts again, it nearly brought back the sad memories & tears, esp the scenes of the old & crippled KMT soldiers fighting and children dying. Sigh! Never though I would write about their stories many years later. Nevertheless, I'm happy to note that their long years of hellish living were finally over, as the old surviving soldiers & their descendants are living in peace & harmony as Thai citizens now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. A great end to a fascinating story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

[7] – iridescent 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reply. I wonder how close we are to that utopia where "most of our admins should be college students or graduates"? A pretty long way is my impression. Right now I'd probably settle for all them being older than 12. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now now, Iridescent, you've discounted Jimmy's influence on Wikipedia and declared that he's irrelevant to "today's Wikipedia", you can't now use a diff from him, no matter how tempting, to start a "Must Have Degree" requirement for adminship. :-) But that would be an interesting turn, wouldn't it...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I stuck by my "irrelevant" post. But it's quite interesting that the Kiddy Klub's appeals to their Dear Leader have generated pretty much the same reply Friday or Malleus would give, no? – iridescent 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it actually even sweeter to taste that he went above what anyone else has called for. Friday et all have merely said "adult". So, 18. Lots of 18 year olds don't attend any sort of college, let alone graduate. Had the "kids" not asked Jimmy, the criteria for adminship would be lower, lol! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

18 is not remotely adult, despite what any legal fiction says. Others may disagree, but where I've been more specific, I've suggested that 25 is more like an adult age. 20-25 is a grey area. Friday (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't actually agree with the "graduate" part - a mechanic who's spent all their life working with cars, for instance, is probably better qualified to comment on all but the most technical automobile articles than someone with a degree in automotive engineering. – iridescent 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec re to Friday). Anyone that is allowed to go die in a war as a soldier is an adult in my book. 18 it is. That doesn't mean they should be admins though, or are mature. But they are adult. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect [8]. And why can't "adults" go out for a beer? And you had to be 21 to vote until relatively recently - kids were getting needlessly killed in Vietnam who didn't have the vote - and many were kids - make no mistake about that - same as now. Our all-volunteer military is so low on troops now - they'd go to 16 in a second if they could - the Civil War for example. In WWII, they drafted up to 40 or 45 years old. Supply and demand. I personally wouldn't let the government (or more specifically, the Pentagon) tell me when someone becomes an adult - besides we all mature at different rates - and some never. I'm not sure what definition of adult is being used here. Sounds more like a bumper sticker on the back of pick-up truck (with a gun rack). 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kek, please don't follow me around posting where I post. I appreciate your thoughts on things, I find you to be someone that speaks intelligently for the most part. But when you start turning up where I turn up (besides the dozens of posts to my talkpage in the last week or so), I start to wonder about your motivations. As you are the only editor (so far) to drag me to ANI (even if it was rightfully done), I have reservations about answering your posts in more than one venue. Please don't "go there." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, you flatter yourself. I did not follow you to this talk page. Our recent exchange on your talk page was all in good fun - and was an exchange - you know that - and it's in the record. That all took place over one day - rather than a week if I recall. Bygones, I thought you said (re ANI) - doesn't feel like that. Our recent exchange ended with your paranoid thoughts that I seemed to know or remember too much about you. In my world (and line of work), remembering things about people is considered a positive thing. This is probably the second time you have heard from me in months - and yet you again express a paranoid mind-set (that I am somehow cyber-stalking you). I will refrain from contacting you or responding to your posts in the future so as not to cause you any further concerns. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What's a guy to think? Over a course of 2 days (My apologies, I thought it was over a longer period of time), you made 38 consecutive posts to my talkpage, with no edits between. All in good fun, tis true. My talkpage is open, and part of Wikipedia that I or anyone else, outside of blocking your IP - which is not about to happen, you've done nothing wrong, can't stop you from posting. After your 38 posts to my talkpage, you show up on ANI regarding an issue/editor that Islander asked me about. Now, a few days later, you show up here, where to the best of my knowledge you've never edited before, responding to one of my posts. I'm not being paranoid, I'm being honest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not 38 actual posts - mostly correcting typos I'm sure - as a former copy editor, I try to get it right - no matter how long it takes me. No edits in between because there was a really fun and risque talk going on if you recall, you man-whxxe :). I think you even commented that it was one of the more bizarre exchanges even for your talk page - with several editors participating - not just you and me. Which made for many edit conflicts too - oh and I hope your were able to view the various links at home - since your boss's PC won't let you see them at work. I do hold a warm place in my heart for Islander, tis true. Though that should really be "bygones" by now as well. And being paranoid and honest are most certainly not mutually exclusive - I believe that you believe it. But regardless, I did not follow you here and have only addressed you these 2 times in as many months. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair enough response, Kek, I'll leave it be. That conversation on my talk was surreal, but if you go look at every other contributor to that bizarre conversation, including me, you'll not find one of them that has that many consecutive posts without break. It just looks disconcerting in your "Special:Contributions". Malleus has had enough orange "message bars" about this, time to move along, or at least, move it off his page. Sorry, MF.  :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise for the orange bars Keeper. They've had the side benefit ridding me of that sinking feeling of "Oh no, what am I going to be accused of now?" that I did before. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that feeling too. Thanks for the use of your talk page, Malleus. We're movin' on now - promise. And I like the William Saffire piece on your user page. Kek. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec re to iridescent) I don't agree with the graduate part either—even though I am a graduate. There are lots of people who've never been near a university that know a lot more than I will ever know about all sorts of things; and they're often more polite than I am to boot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The law supposes that 18 year olds are adults. Dekkappai (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Had I seen this post, I wouldn't have written mine. Excellent. Says it better and with fewer words. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Areas of Stretford?

I'm trying to improve the navigation to and from some of our articles about small districts and localities in Greater Manchester. Some receive hardly any attention at all, some are orphaned and some are unknown to our editors and readers.

I'm trying to create a series of "areas of X" templates, but I don't know Trafford all too well. Do you think you'd be able to help with say, a Template:Ares of Stretford, based on Template:Areas of Salford? Are there many articles that would be included? I known Old Trafford, Greater Manchester would be one. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy help. The only other article I can think of that could be included in an area of Stretford template would be Trafford Park though. Other areas, like Gorse Hill, don't have articles, and likely never would. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's interesting. Oldham and Rochdale have plenty of little, and notable areas (Sholver and Castleton come to mind), although they are somewhat more expansive owing to them being former county boroughs, I guess. Perhaps we only need these templates for those types of towns? i.e. Stockport, Wigan, Bury, Bolton? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can think of areas in other former municipal boroughs in Trafford that might be more fertile soil, like Timperley, Sale Moor and Ashton-upon-Mersey in Sale, Broadheath in Altrincham and so on. On reflection, I might have spoken too hastily in writing off a Stretford template anyway ... it ought to be possible to write short articles about areas like Firswood and Gorse Hill ... I've talked myself into it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, I didn't even know those articles existed until just a few minutes ago, which I guess goes to prove your point Jza84. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some templates might be underpopulated; how about 'areas of borough' templates rather than 'areas of towns'? Nev1 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a possibility. I'd be more inclined to keep the templates within the bounds of the towns however. The rationale being that these provide detail at a historical level, and are very useful in terms of researching geneaology. Also, some of the lists of localities within the "borough-wide" template may be rather lengthy and sprawling. I don't think every town needs these (like say Shaw and Crompton), just some of the larger ones. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a provisional Template:Areas of Stretford. I can always delete it if we decide to go in another direction. I think these are useful little templates. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, and I too would prefer to keep the templates town-oriented. It's funny how one thing leads to another though. Out of curiosity I followed the template to see which article linked to Firswood. To my astonishment there was one from Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester, which I've now corrected. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)