Misplaced Pages

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unsigned messages will likely be removed. For messages left here, I will usually respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for a response there.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives
Archive 1 (April 2007 – October 2007)
Archive 2 (October 2007 – January 2008)
Archive 3 (January 2008 – April 2008)
Archive 4 (April 2008 – September 2008)
Archive 5 (September 2008 – April 2009)
Archive 6 (April 2009 – January 2010)
Archive 7 (January 2010 – October 2010)
Archive 8 (October 2010 – May 2011)
Archive 9 (May 2011 – October 2011)
Archive 10 (October 2011 – May 2012)
Archive 11 (May 2012 – present)

Thanks!

For blocking 173.18.169.203, it was getting annoying reverting his edits so much! daintalk   01:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing that nastiness from my Talk page. Enjoy a brownie. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A pie...

...For having to put up with a lot of immature people impersonating you and vandalising your page. Have this hot pie to throw at them next time, it will burn! ツ Jenova20 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

You've blocked someone for a week for that edit summary? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly an isolated incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So you haven't blocked them for that edit summary, but for something else? Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

His block log for civility is the one of the longest I've ever seen. I don't think Bongwarrior was unjustified in making that block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not block on the basis of a block log. You block on the basis of the existing incident. Would another editor have been blocked for a week for that? Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Beyond unjustified. Malleus was clearly provoked. Ryan Vesey 23:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Please undo this block. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not happening, at least not by me. Malleus has seemingly made a career out of this sort of behavior. A one week block is lenient, if anything. Enough is enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will not attempt to speak for Bongwarrior here, but a long-term pattern of incivility easily leads to a block though I think 48 hours is better. If this were a first offense, probably no block.

On the subject of provocation, yes Malleus was provoked. However, I feel that it's not proper to blame others for Malleus' incivility, because he shouldn't be getting a free pass for repeated incivility incidents. I am not comfortable having this discussion on-wiki, because I have respect for Malleus. But I still side with Bongwarrior's decision here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I'll undo it myself, then. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how it usually goes, isn't it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. Sorry, it was clearly excessive given the situation. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we wanted to make policy such that any form of abusive language was a qualification for a block, I'd be supportive. Outside of that, we need to base the blocks on the situation. In this case, the block was not appropriate for the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem here, Bongwarrior, is that you did this in an Admin forum, without consulting the Admin corps. I realize that it is not a requirement to ask, but considering the forum, and the fact that it is for Admins, you should have made sure that your decision to block was going to be helpful, and that it had the consensus of the Admin corps. A discussion on Civility shouldn't end with the complaintant ending strung up by the very agency within Misplaced Pages that he is seeking redress from. -- Avanu (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand what is so difficult about being civil. I have managed to edit here for 6+ years without calling someone an "arsehole" or something similar. Malleus is a smart individual, but despite the blocks, despite the warnings, for whatever reason he cannot grasp that such behavior is untenable. It's not rocket science. The easy course of action is to ignore it - that doesn't make it the correct course of action. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that. But given that standard, why don't we block consistently for incivility? The admin who said 'fuck you' should have been held to the same standard at least, right? Otherwise we are telling people that admins get a pass because they hold a special place in Misplaced Pages. I don't think admins want to send that message, but without being extra careful, it is all too easy to appear biased. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

^ Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither incident is acceptable, and admins aren't special, but the situations are vastly different. I'm not aware of any recurring civility issues with Mark, and he was contrite and apologetic. This may be a generalization, but it seems like when Malleus steps out of line, it's never his fault, but the fault of one or more evil and incompetent admins. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You got that right, evil and incompetent, indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Evil, possibly. Incompetent? Hardly. Inconsistent? I could easy test that argument. -- Avanu (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm serious on the zero-tolerance for NPA idea. If every instance of calling someone an idiot got you blocked for a day. People wouldn't call other editors idiots. Right now, that doesn't exist, which is why I felt this block was inappropriate. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: How would we consistantly enforce such a strict policy which relies on a subjective thing (What is considered a personal attack by one editor may not be considered a personal attack by another)? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You might easily prove me wrong, but I don't know that personal attacks are subjective. Whether a personal attack is severe or not might be subjective, zero-tolerance would take the subjectivity out of it. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea in principle, Ryan, but in a lot of cases, a *little* incivility isn't a problem. Certain words are clearly beyond the pale, but even those are often shrugged off if they aren't persistent. Civility is a pillar here, but putting the face to the name is hard for Civility. Certainly one can very graciously insult someone, or one can very coarsely compliment someone else. Civility can mean overlooking someone elses bad behavior or poor manners, or even their exasperation at a situation. Civility can also mean that we respond to a jerk with a considerate response, or even sometimes just walk away. Often, we know when a person is being civil, and we know when they aren't. But emotional baggage can influence all of this. In general, we just need to be as thoughtful as possible, and when we can't be, we should take a break. To quote Scotty from Star Trek: "Laddie, don't ya think you should rephase that?" -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand you, and your comment is logical; however, we've used that approach for a long time and it just doesn't work. The problem clearly exists, and every time I see a flare up like this, I become more and more certain that we need a drastic change. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm AFK as of right now so I won't be able to respond to any future comments. Ryan Vesey 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:CIVIL (you know that one? One of the five pillars? anyone?) over and over, and try as hard as I can, I can't find the part that says "Unless you don't feel like it." Unfortunately, there are a select group of editors who have free reign to be as uncivil as they wish and should they ever be held accountable for their actions, there will always be one of their groupies around to unblock them. Malleus is a fantastic writer, but I fail to see how and why that gives him the unfettered ability to be as caustic and obnoxious as he can manage without any repercussions, ever. Trusilver 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you fail to see the obvious, which is that your characterisation of administrators who have the balls to act honestly and consistently as "groupies" is far worse than anything I've ever said. Malleus Fatuorum 07:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that a breach of trust is a worse thing than a breach of etiquette. That said, perhaps Bongwarrior might appreciate if this debate were moved to a more appropriate forum, and I personally would appreciate if the personalities were removed from the debate and we simply focus on solutions that editors can easily use as a guideline. -- Avanu (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for semi-protecting Phil Heath! Anonymouse321 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)