User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that I'm getting close to the end of my time here. There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.

I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site,

WikiProject Greater Manchester Announcements

Cheadle Hulme promoted to FA 27 June 2009
Cheadle Hulme railway station nominated at WP:FAC 21 June 2009
Towns in Trafford promoted to Featured Topic 18 June 2009
Mellor hill fort promoted to GA 23 May 2009
Carrington Moss promoted to FA 22 May 2009
East Lancashire Railway 1844–1859 promoted to GA 7 May 2009
Sale, Greater Manchester promoted to FA 3 May 2009
Partington, Greater Manchester promoted to GA 3 May 2009
Eccles, Greater Manchester promoted to GA 22 April 2009
Worsley promoted to GA 18 April 2009

[edit] Vandalism alert

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2009. Assuming Bad Faith of our readership and all that, but you may want to invest in a copy of Huggle before that goes on the main page. – iride scent 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that. I have to be honest and say I never expected it to be TFA. Vandalism alert indeed! Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Malleus & PoD! --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Like PoD, I never imagined that would hit the front page. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm impressed Malleus. That's my sort of article. Good work! لenna vecia 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I should make demands more often! Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I can just...(tap)...make my ....(step)...way through this appr..(walk around)..eciative audience, ;) could I ask what the proper word to use [here] would be? Where the asterisks are. Pre-empting, 'leading up to', 'influencing', 'his success leading to what powell predicted in his speech' - I know there's a specific word, I just can't get it out of my mouth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Having a similar impact to…"? "Reigniting"? – iride scent 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest "foreshadowed", as in something like "when asked by The Times about concerns that his success was foreshadowed in Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech ...". Or perhaps "foreseen" as in "his success was foreseen by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That'll do nicely, I used 'presaged'. Someone can always correct it later, if it isn't quite grammatically perfect. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Presaged" is good too. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus I wondered if you might have a look at this. I don't have the book, presumably Mr Stephen does, but presently the article is at odds with that claim. A simple shortcut might simply be to remove the location (London) until the matter is resolved. What do you think? I've left a similar message here Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the claim is bolstered by the Locations section, where Oxford has a Gropecunte in 1230, from the british-history website. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that discussion too. I've just rechecked the OED, and it doesn't say where the 1230 Gropecunt Lane was, but I'm pretty certain that Mr Stephen will be right, he pretty much always is. In any event, as we're attributing the 1230 first occurrence of the name to the OED, which doesn't give its location, then probably neither should we, so I've removed it from that sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That would have been my recommendation. Is it me, or where there previously two edits by Raul, where there is now one? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, don't remember seeing two edits by Raul ... --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No deleted revisions showing in the history, by Raul or anyone else. It's conceivable that Raul reverted something with sensitive personal data ("xxxxx likes groping cunt, his phone number is xxx xxxx") which has now been oversighted altogether. – iride scent 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I'd missed Gropecunt Lane being on the front page so I decided to check how many views it got. I was shocked to see that it only got http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Gropecunt_Lane 2,500], then I checked the date and realised I was about a week early. An ideas why there was a massive spike on 30th June? Nev1 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea at all, how strange. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cock Lane ghost

(suppresses giggle) I've started doing this article up a bit, I have a couple more contemporary sources but I wondered what you thought. Its a bit messy, and there is a fair bit of hidden text concerned mainly with a very unreliable and biased contemporary account, that I'm unsure what to do with. Its all your fault by the way, you and your sweary article suggestions. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was your idea, not mine. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who could resist The curious tale of Scratching Fanny and the Cock Lane ghost? Anyway, I haven't stopped laughing since I found Mary Tofts! Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What an extraordinary story. I suppose it's definitely true? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one? Both are, they're well-known. I was surprised to see references to both in Hogarth's engravings, he even created an engraving just for Mrs Rabbit - [1] Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant the Mary Tofts one, just seems so incredible. How do you find these little gems? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Often on Google Books, when looking around for stuff. You'll find 'the proceedingf of the moft extraordinary compendium of the enlightened reverend...' and all kindf of interefting ftuff on there, and juft reading through you come acroff thingf like thif. Actually I found Mary Toft because she's in the Hogarth engraving in the Cock Lane article, (Hogarth is ripe for improvement, his prints are fabulous, you can study them for ages) giving birth to fluffy bunnies. That seemed a bit bizarre, so when I read about it in another book I was surprised to find an article here. There is loads of material about the story, so that is going to be my next little project. Cunts, Cocks, and Rabbits up vaginas, that's what we like in Flixton! Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Living in Stretford, I've always thought of you Flixton types as a bit posh. "Oh no, I don't live in Urmston, I live in Flixton!" :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know of any kind of quotation template that would fit the style of a letter, do you? Dear x, yours sincerely, etc? I could use one in here Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of such a template, no. I use the {{quote}} template like you've done, with a final line something like "Letter from X to Y published in Z on whenever". If such a template exists I'm sure that Iridescent will know of it; she knows everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd nominated the Cock Lane ghost at GAN; you've done another great job with that, can't see it having too many problems. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions appreciated

You are on the list of honored mentors for my plan. See Mentors list. All of the other mentors seem comfortable with the role and I hope you are also. I do not envision any problems and none have arisen since the arbitration opened, even though I have returned to "normal" editing. As you have said, I am not a child. I believe I understand the rules now regarding what is considered unacceptable behavior. I welcome your opinion/feedback in any situation you feel that my behavior is borderline or wrong. Ling.Nut suggested that I come up with a list of Stressful situations and, although I resisted, it turns out that this list has been helpful to me. I trust your judgment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn' recommend myself as a mentor to anyone, but I'll always try to do what I can to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do confirm that you are willing! Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. I humbly ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page. Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this can now be wrapped up soon, and we can all put this behind us and move on to a new chapter. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I'm bored...

... and there's nothing fun going on around here. I did archive an dead conversation, though. I think they both know me well enough to get the humor in it. Funny for me either way, though. XD Haha. Alright, I'll take my naughty tail off your talk page now. >_> لenna vecia 04:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Behave yourself Jenna. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You won't know me from Adam, but one of the things I like about skulking about WP's talk pages and discussions is finding engaging personalities and intellects with principled, cut-the-crap, good humoured (well, mostly) contributions. For making this place fun without detracting from its serious and lofty goals, I'm popping one of these thingys on your page (and Ottava's too). Thanks for being around. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise! Thank you very much Hamiltonstone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not canvassing

Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Malleus, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've presented my opposition to your suggestions, particularly the second of them, at WT:RFA in the full and certain knowledge that all discussion there is little more than "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I don't even bother to read that talk page any more. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is and always will be important, whether you keep up or not. You're special. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Only to me and my Mum, and on good days my wife as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I used to be....

Hi Malleus. I used to be a sweet calm person who never made any provocative comments. But I think I am about to turn into a MF (God forbid!). See this. Sorry but I think it is ***. How about you? Perhaps I should not take WP seriously after all - a pity. Power to you. (Perhaps I should not have had that glass of wine.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd need more than just the one glass to turn into an MF Peter. ;-) Like you, I take WP seriously, but I've stopped taking the stuff around the edges seriously, like FT/DYK and do on. The rules there are at best arbitrarily applied. My last DYK nomination was rejected because it failed to meet one of the "hidden rules" that I didn't even know existed, and I suspect that few others know of the existence of either.

Back to your list though; obviously I completely agree with your position. I'm an infrequent visitor to both Runcorn and Widnes, but they're clearly quite different places with quite different feels, and so far as Hale is concerned, I've always thought of that almost as a part of Liverpool. I'll pop along to the review and give my opinion—I had it watchlisted anyway after I copyedited it, so there can be no suggestion of canvassing on your part. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for all of your help. If you hadn't did wonders with the prose, it'd likely still be sitting at FAC or maybe have to face a second attempt. I like how the article has continued to improve since I first started working on it. It's amazing what others see that I was oblivious to. Anyway, thanks again for the assistance. I may have you look at all my future FACs (if you're not too busy!). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really very hard for any of us to see our own work objectively as others see it. We see through the veil of knowing what it was that we meant to say, whereas all others can see is what we actually say, and often the two are at odds. I'm really pleased this one got through though; it's an important topic that deserved a proper treatment, which you've provided. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sidelines

I think I am going to go to the sidelines because it seems like Peter will be going to ArbCom. He probably wanted this anyway. Sigh. Chillum and the others are gullible enough to take such obvious bate. One tiny sentence completely blown out of proportion. What was the saying? "Kill them all and let God sort them out?" Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ottava, can I join you? Maybe you can help fill me in on what I'm missing as well. — Ched : ? 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ched, this is how it goes. People claim Peter wants to destroy Wiki, yes? So they mass up together and decide to block him for that. They claim that he is going to destroy Wiki with his one line oppose which doesn't hold much sway and can be discounted by Crats. There is no policy or guideline about that. There is no real grounds for it. Instead, they try to stir up a large group of people to support a community ban. This causes commotion and drama. This distracts people from editing. This takes away from actually reviewing RfAs. Thus, regardless if Peter was actively trying to destroy Wiki or not, it is being destroyed by disruption over something that was really insignificant. Instead of being the monster that attacks Wiki, he turned a lot of people into the monster and they are doing his work for him. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OUCH .. I have to admit, I hadn't thought about it that way. And, I'll admit to be as guilty as many of the others in that respect. Point taken, and thank you. ;) — Ched : ? 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary of my view as well Ottava. It's the administrators like Law who are destroying wikipedia, not Peter Damien. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that second part may be a little harsh - I think he had the best of intentions. It's not like he was the first admin. to every block the person. — Ched : ? 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Law had absolutely no legitimate reason to block Peter Damien. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I heard that a lot when I was a yonker. I never did quite marry into it though. I think a persons intension speak volumes, but then again - it's not like you and I always agree. :P — Ched : ? 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help

Hi Malleus. I'm here to request some help in understanding the Peter Damian situation. It appears that he has a great deal of support from a large number of people that I admire greatly, and I can see that there are pieces to this situation that I am not aware of. I'm trying to do my own research through links and history (apparently some of it has been oversighted). I get the impression now that the situation goes much deeper than a "plan to destroy", and "he can write good articles". Anything you could tell me, point me in the direction of, provide a link for would be greatly appreciated. I'm coming here to ask you because I know you'll be blunt and honest. I've just recently come to the conclusion that I'm missing a huge piece of the big picture here, and I'd honestly like to know more about it. Would you be willing to help me? Thanks — Ched : ? 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd help if I could, but I probably know even less about this situation than you do Ched. A better person to ask would probably be Iridescent. Of course I've seen Peter's comments on WR about "destroying wikipedia", but I frankly don't take them seriously, and I find the idea of destroying wikipedia by voting oppose at every RfA to be completely lunatic. As I said, to really destroy wikipedia one should vote support at every RfA; that way the body of incompetent admins will reach the critical mass needed to chase off every article writer by issuing daft blocks for "incivility".

And that's at the root of my objection to Peter's block. I don't agree with his stated position, and I've no reason to believe that many others do either, but there have been quite enough witchhunts of those who dare to oppose anyone at RfA, for whatever reason. The logical destination on the road Law set off down today with his heavy-handed blocking is that any oppose at RfA will result in a similar block if he or some other power-crazed administrator decides to take exception to it. My position is not one in support of Peter Damien, it's one in support of fairness, integrity, and playing by the rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, I'll try to come up with some acceptable way of approaching Iri - my first effort didn't fare well (my own ignorance), but hopefully she'll understand that I only want to help and improve things here. Thank you for your time and sage words of wisdom. — Ched : ? 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent's bark is far worse than her bite, or so I believe anyway. And like all sensible adults with far better things to do she doesn't harbour grudges. If you're lucky she may even offer her opinion here unsolicited. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to go replace a network card for a client, but I'll check back - and keep my fingers crossed. ;-) — Ched : ? 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus pretty much sums up the problem here; Peter Damian (along with Greg Kohs) is probably our most prominent example of a "thought criminal". It's a difficult case to reconstruct if you're not familiar with it, because his accounts have been blocked and password-scrambled, and then renamed to allow him to start new accounts under the User:Peter Damian name. Very basic summary (see this for more background):

Former Arbcom member User:FT2 wrote a long userspace essay (User:FT2/ap, preserved off-wiki here – before anyone starts yelping about links to deleted content, remember that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL" checkbox). Although FT2 argued (almost certainly truthfully) that this was a first draft what would eventually become a neutral article on an important if distasteful subject, it was certainly possible to consider it as a personal essay in favor of bestiality.
Peter then started going through FT2's edits, to a degree which some considered harassment.
Relations between the two deteriorated, culminating in this thread. Edits by FT2 which would have potentially demonstrated that Peter's arguments about him were correct, were oversighted without apparent legitimate cause, making it appear that Peter was fabricating allegations (see here for the alleged content of the oversighted edits). Following that Peter retired, followed a few days later by Jimmy Wales's "User says he is leaving. Good timing." hardblock and emailblock.
As it became clear what had actually happened Peter was then unblocked subject to very strict conditions, which were later eased. (See here for Peter's version of events, which is obviously only showing one side of the case.)
Last month, Peter proposed an "Association of Established Editors", to "represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community, to champion their interests, and to defend them where there is just cause". Despite attracting a number of well-established editors willing to participate, it was promptly jumped on by an IRC clique as "trolling", and Peter was bombarded with abuse from the usual suspects. (Established Editors went ahead in a very modified form, without the membership criteria, as WP:AWN.)
In a foul mood following the Established Editors debacle, Peter posted this thread at Wikipedia Review. One of his thoughts was "Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up."
Peter voted "oppose" in 11 RFAs. (As per my comments at ANI, just to put that in perspective, Majorly, who is probably the most prominent advocate of "support by default" as an RFA position, has made 64 opposes, Malleus has made 57 and I've made 96)
Peter was blocked on WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA grounds for the RFA opposes.

I can easily see why Peter gets frustrated. He works mostly in an area (the history of philosophy) where there are very few people qualified to comment, but in which an awful lot of people feel the urge to add things they "just know are true". A well-known and long-established problem with the Wikipedia model is that, while it's great for arcane and obscure topics, there's no method for discerning contributions from genuine experts, from contributions by any drive-by crank with an opinion. (A common strand on the talkpage of virtually any "content expansion" editor – from Giano to Mattisse to Durova to Ottava to SlimVirgin to Malleus to myself… – is that despite the wild differences in style between them, every talkpage will generally contain at least one crank arguing passionately against their Censorship Of The Truth on some article or other.) I fundamentally disagree with WP:EQUALITY; this is a hobby, not a job, and those people who put large amounts of generally thankless unpaid work into keeping this site at least halfway stable and accurate, should be granted more leeway than the rabble of cranks and schoolchildren who treat the mainspace as a sounding board for their pet essays, and the userspace as Facebook for ugly people. I disagree with Peter more often than I agree with him, but Malleus hits the nail on the head; once we head down the road of indefinite blocks for expressing opinions an admin disagrees with (at RFA, for christ's sake!) we've taken a very big jump towards the blurry line that separates "open editing" from "self-appointed Citizendium-style clique". – iride scent 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The last point you make there sums up pretty well why I will always support editors at RfA whom I know to have added good content, almost regardless of any other consideration, but certainly regardless of the "not enough experience in adminly areas" bollox. Heck, I even supported Ottava, and not just to offer support. I genuinely believe that you have to have fought in the trenches to understand the point of view of the common foot soldier. All that spending excessive amounts of time at AN/ANI/XfD, on the other hand, ought to teach a rational person is that they want to stay as far away from them as possible. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I resent that! I have documented evidence of having 7 months of experience pushing those admin buttons and doing menial and degrading admin tasks at other projects before my RfA. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

... thus proving my point; I didn't hold that against you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. My RfA was destined to fail for three reasons: 1. I didn't boast at all nor link to any of my content contributions. 2. I stated blatantly that I did not like nor wanted to block people or delete pages. 3. I stated that I would participate in unblock discussions. I was 100% opposite of every other candidate out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true, not every candidate out there. If it wouldn't be interpreted as simply making a point—which to be perfectly honest it would be—I'd have an RfA every year, on the same date each year, just to remind the honest of what a shitty process it really is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Malleus and Ottava Rima have just made (again!!) a good case for splitting admin functions. Some are genuinely menial, as Ottava Rima. But anything that touches on disputes (ANI, AfD DRV, etc.) and hence the possibility of blocks should be handled only by admins with a strong record of content production, diplomatic skills and a cool head. -Philcha (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That obviously rules me out then. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Ottava, IIRC - I did look at the contribs, and then supported ... zOMG, does that mean I agreed with Malleus? Will wonders never cease? ;)

@Malleus 15:11 post. Well, I honestly have put some work into Rex White, NASCAR, Tim Richmond and a couple other articles, but your point is well taken. Hopefully over the coming weeks/months/years - I'll be able to persuade you that I'm not such a bad sort after all. Admittedly, my recent efforts (when time has allowed), have been focused on the "how and why" things work the way they do here - but it's not "devotion", rather a quest for perspective. And for your help in that sir, I say "Thank you". ;) — Ched : ? 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're a decent sort Ched, and I've got no doubt at all that if we met in real life we'd have a laugh and a few beers. I just don't agree with (what I see as) your naive attitude to how wikipedia is developing. No big deal though, friends are allowed to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] on the comment by iridescent

Can I say that was pretty damn good. Yes: I have a higher degree in philosophy and this area is easily the worst in Wikipedia - everyone understands their own philosophy, don't they? Whereas the usual ratio of experts to 'Randy from Boise' is 3 to 1 in favour of the experts, it is the other way round. Generally I am the only one there able to support 'Academic point of view'. This is very demoralising. Also I specialise in cult or POV-infested areas like Neurolinguistic programming and Ayn Rand, and don't forget Pederasty and other train-wrecks. It is very emotionally tiring and exhausting and very frustrating when admins have no sympathy and feel that Randy from Boise must have his or her say. So, yes. Thanks for those comments Iridescent. Peter Damian (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

... one of the worst. I'd argue that the psychology articles are in at least as bad shape, if not worse, but I've steadfastly refused to go near any of them so far, for the reasons that have got you into trouble. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Literature is easily the worse. Philosophy is controversial enough to have people make pages. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Television deserves an honourable mention in any "worst" category, ironically because far too many people know about it. Recent television in particular seems to have acquired a particularly irritating "all have won and all must have prizes" mentality, where nobody ever dares to point out that any given edit is unnecessary. As I may have mentioned once or twice, the unlikely trio of Realist2, LessHeard vanU and Rodhullandemu don't always get the credit they deserve for the particularly thankless work they do preventing the most important articles in Popular music from sliding down the same slippery slope, and Realist in particular can't be praised highly enough for keeping the most read article in Wikipedia's history from slipping into a POV nightmare. (Although he has now got the dubious privilege of Shankbone deciding to share his pearls of wisdom with him.) – iride scent 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Although MJ did receive 4 million views, Billy Mays received 1 million. In comparison, I think Mays should get the credit as he was relatively minor in comparison. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Realist deserves a lot of credit for his efforts, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I honestly do admire your passion, and even support your stance on so many things - but geesh, if you could just be a tad more subtle in your approach, I think it would really work wonders. Just IMHO. — Ched : ? 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you "subtley" confront a bully? You don't; you get in his face and you make sure he understands where he gets off. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, normally I would say that it's best to approach the content rather than the editor - but just so that you know, I can think of one certain admin right now who has developed a habit of controversial blocking (perhaps not entirely sober decisions), that I can see your point. — Ched : ? 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Normally" I'd agree with you, but sometimes unpalatable truths have to be told, no matter who's offended. That the administrator to whom you allude hasn't been sent packing is a clear indictment of the "subtle" approach, and indeed very clearly demonstrates the corruption of wikipedia's system of governance, of which you yourself have become an enforcer. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "sometimes unpalatable truths have to be told" and that some will take offence, but there are ways of doing it without giving such people any leverage. --Philcha (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just another day on wikipedia. Note the saber-tooth admins ~~savaging a new user~~ delivering justice.

You're probably right. My view though is that if you're going to smash someone in the face with a hammer it makes little difference whether it's a 2 kg hammer or a 3 kg hammer. Your weights may vary, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a good metaphor. I prefer digging a pit and leading nuisances towards it, or pricking balloons - or occasionally holding a large hammer stationary in the face of an onrushing adversary. --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have this picture in my mind of you and me confronting a Mammoth. I'm standing there with my little club shouting "Come on if you think you're hard enough", and you're standing behind me quietly adding the finishing touches to your newly patented Mammoth trap. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not patented, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 :-) --05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] So that explains it

Saw this and thought of Wikipedia admins. Dunno why....... Wikipedians are a bunch of grumpy introverts--79.64.194.248 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that 69 Israelis can be considered representative of anything very much, not even Israelis. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, you've been recommended to me...

...as the perfect person to polish up my plodding prose, at Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (and you were the name I had in mind to approach anyway). No manga characters or Runcorn connections, I'm afraid, but you might be able to think of more synonyms than I could for "construction", "renovation" and "woodwork". Oh, and it's been suggested that I might overuse brackets (can't think why). Anyway, if you would be so kind to do a pre-FAC polish, I would be very grateful for your time, but if time does not permit, I will understand. Regards, and with anticipatory thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No manga characters you say? Not sure that sounds like my kind of article at all. Of course I'll be happy to take a look. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Poking my head in, but you might want to wave this one under Giano's nose as well. Even if he doesn't touch it himself, anyone with an interest in historic English architecture is likely to have his page watchlisted. – iride scent 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. (I would have bugged you as well, iridescent, of course, but you helped me last time round and it's only fair that I spread the pain around a bit...) Bencherlite ^Talk 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got quite a few problems with this article, so I'd encourage you not to rush to FAC with it. Many people won't bother to read further than the lead, where they'll see this in the second sentence: "Construction of buildings by Price, which replaced and added to those that were already on the site, began shortly after the college's foundation and continued in stages after his death in 1574." What's that trying to say, exactly? What buildings already on the site? The site of what? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the improvements you made. If you get a chance to let me know what the remaining problems you have are, that would be very helpful. I wasn't planning to rush to FAC, as I was going to give the article a chance to get established and improved by others who are unfamiliar with the subject-matter. I'll see what I can do about the lead, although in my defence the version of the lead that existed before you started your improvements did in fact define what I meant by the "site"! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that the article did describe the present extent of the site, but what it failed to do was to describe the original 16th-century site. Anyway, I've made it a policy never to attempt to "improve" an article when I feel that my "improvements" are unwelcome, so I wish you the best of luck with what is really a pretty good article anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think that I was saying your improvements were / would be unwelcome; that wasn't my intention at all. Is this any better? Bencherlite ^Talk 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very big improvement, and I'd suggest focusing you efforts on the lead, as that's all that most readers (and even some reviewers) will take the trouble to read. For instance, are you attempting a world record for the most repetitions of the word "Oxford" in one sentence with this: "The main buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, one of the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford, are located in central Oxford"? I think even those without the benefit of a classical education may have begun to get the point that Jesus College Oxford is in Oxford. What about "Jesus College, one of the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford, has its main buildings in the city centre." --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now, and worth a punt at FAC when you feel that it's "matured" sufficiently. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Elegantly done, sir. See you at FAC at the end of July (post-holiday). Warmest thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why 'one of the constituent colleges?'. What does 'constituent' add? Why not just 'one of the colleges'?Peter Damian (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another redundant word eliminated, thanks. After comments from Giano, incidentally, the infobox is gone (I never liked it anyway...) Bencherlite ^Talk 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes have their place, but in this case I think Giano is quite right. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ba Cut FAC

Hi. I've replied YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've accounted for the remaining typos/carelesslly inserted words YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do you know who this sock puppet could be? He reminds me of the Mumbai IP nuisance that was causing problems during The Lucy poems FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't even begin to guess Ottava. All I can be certain of is that it isn't one of mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] So nothing's changed?

Resolved. Malleus writes in idiom and metaphor. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Malleus. He does that. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I do, and that ain't gonna change. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the loveable fuzz ball we've all come know if you did... ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

When telling the truth becomes a wikicrime then I'll no doubt be among the first to be stood against the wall. My hope is though that enough will come to see the idiocy that wikipedia's governance has become ... but you know what I think anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for that. I knew there was something I forgot to do. :) The leftorium 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evening

You and me, we oughtta get together, take this fucker out for a spin sometime. I like your style. Baileyquarter (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that we kiss and make up. Making up I can deal with, but not kissing ... unless of course you're a foxy ... oh no, let's not go there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the Jimbo RFC, I believe we have more in common than you might think! Baileyquarter (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Wiki_brah sockpuppet, indefblocked. – iride scent 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Hooks

I remember reading on your talk page a few weeks ago about how you thought DYK hooks were boring... I remember it because I couldn't agree with you more... I've written a rough draft of an essay that I thought you might enjoy. Like I said, this is rough draft form right now, but I could use some constructive feedback/criticism on it... this was pretty much free flow thought.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the hooks that are boring, but many of the articles are pretty dodgey as well, perhaps because of the daft DYK time limit. Just for interest's sake I've looked through most of the main page DYKs over the past few weeks, and they're mostly pretty embarassing. Anything you can do to raise DYK's game is only to be welcomed. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's got the makings of a good essay. On the main page as I write is this DYK: ".. that Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Martin was the grandson of another admiral of the fleet, William Rowley? I added the bolding, just to make the point that the DYK "reviewers" clearly don't check spit, much less have an eye for a good hook. Admiral of what fleet for Christ's sake? Earlier today I had an interesting discussion with the author of The Exchange, Bristol, about railway time. I think a DYK from that article about Bristol's lost 11 minutes in 1852 could make a good hook, but as it was written a couple of years ago the article isn't eligible. We're stuck instead with stuff like "... did you know there's a leaky dam in Sri Lanka? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up the "So what" factor that I should include in the essay... who cares that there's a leaky damn in Sri Lanka? (Heck, it's Sri Lanka, some might be surprised if there wasn't a leaky damn somewhere there.) The question then becomes, "WHY does this matter?" What are the risks of said damn? Why hasn't it been fixed? Good observation...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, a lot of the problem is that potentially interesting things seem to get worded by whoever moves them to the DYK template to be as dull as possible. To take the example I used then, "Did you know that that the Niue Star, founded in 1993, is Niue's only printed newspaper?" – which made the main page – is dull as dishwater unless you already know that Niue is a country; reworded to "Did you know that there was not a single newspaper printed in the entire country of Niue until the Niue Star opened in 1993?" has a "fancy that" factor. Of course, some are unsalvageable. – iride scent 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW Malleus, how do you rate my DYK articles? AdjustShift (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't look to see who's written any DYKs. Which ones were yours? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's one that for me stands head and shoulders above what I normally see at DYK. The hook though is dire: "Did you know that in the 1774 speech "On American Taxation", British member of Parliament Edmund Burke (pictured) argued that Britain should reconcile with the thirteen colonies?" --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that Malleus was referring to my articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember a while back how you were concerned about bad information in DYKs, that people were just pushing them through with plagiarism and the rest. Well, I keep finding more and more of these problems with GAs and FAs lately. I am really confused by how they are even able to pass through without anyone caring - then I get comments by people basically saying that original research, verifiability, and the rest, aren't real standards and they can be ignored. It makes me feel like we almost need an editorial task force to go around and really clean out things. Something like a group of people willing to take the time to make a hard review of some of these FACs and the rest to at least put forth some attempt to make sure it doesn't slip by and ensure that these people knock it off. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism at FAC? Can't say I've noticed that. I'm not even aware that plagiarism is much of a problem at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, OR, and all the rest, to be more exact. Anything in which content does not match sources or is stealing from sources. FAs are supposed to have honestly done content. In the past three weeks, I've had run ins with a handful of people that really seemed to have destroyed the standards and don't care. I really don't know how they got through. When this recent thing ends, I will send you some link of some of the previous problems so you can get a sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which cases you're thinking, but there are some quite tricky areas around OR. For instance, to take a recent example, yesterday I was reviewing an article in which it was claimed that time was standardised throughout the UK because it was required by the introduction of the telegraph, a claim that was supported by a plausible source. Yet I know that it was the introduction of the railways that forced the change, the telegraph simply made the synchronisation of time across the country easier. It then becomes a judgement call about how many reliable sources make one claim as opposed to the other, and how plausible are those claims. Whichever side you come down on arguably you've done some "original research" in making up your mind which way to present the information. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When Theleftorium had an edit at the Battle for Middle Earth video game page that cited information about the video game to the 1950s book, that was beyond a doubt original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)