Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Let it be delisted, it will have a far more peaceful life. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
::Let it be delisted, it will have a far more peaceful life. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Oh I plan to; I've got no intention of touching it while it's at FAR. ] ] 15:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Oh I plan to; I've got no intention of touching it while it's at FAR. ] ] 15:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
== ]: Your input requested ==
Greetings, MF-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit ], where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! ] (]) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:57, 15 November 2010
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.
Yes of course. Twelve days isn't very long to have to wait at GAN these days though sadly. There seem to be fewer and fewer editors willing to do reviews, which is understandable I suppose, as it's a largely thankless task that takes time away from what it is that presumably brought you to this project in the first place, writing about something that interests you. Anyway, on a very quick first look through it looks good, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. MalleusFatuorum23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a very popular article, but I am sure that the history is wrong. That is to say that the cheese was originaly made in Cheddar. I think you might be able to fix it!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, I would like to ask you to do me a big favor. Could you please take some time to read Skanderbeg? It is a long article, so please take your time. I plan in bringing it to GA in a couple of months and in FA in 2011. Gaius Claudius Nero is the main author of the article, but I'm getting involved recently too. There are still some references to be fixed there, and it's a complex article, so it may take a while to get it to GA.
For now I would just like that you get involved with your thoughts with the paragraphs management: currently we have the wars, which occur almost throughout his 25 years (1443-1468) as the head of the confederacy of the League of Lezhe, and then the foreign relations, which of course go throughout those 25 years. I personally tend to merge the diplomacy paragraphs (relations with Venice, Naples, and Pope) into the main body of the article, and thus to give a clear chronology of his life, so that the article becomes more readable. I would gently ask you to tell me if you would see that article better flowing with a clear set chronology, or with those paragraphs separate as they are now. It would be awesome if you could also get involved in the discussion for that matter.
Thank you in advance, and please understand that I come to you as I see you the best wikipedian in writing with perfect elegance. --Sulmuesi (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You make me blush, I just do what I can. I remember the good work you did with Vangjel Meksi, and certainly Albanian topics aren't yet very well covered. I had a quick look at Skanderbeg and as you say it's a big article, so it'll take me some time to read through it and absorb it. MalleusFatuorum04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've offered my opinion on the article's structure, which I think pretty much corresponds with yours. The article's full of good stuff, but the pieces haven't been put together right, or even at all. MalleusFatuorum01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
…and there's more pieces arriving in the post every day, from Serbia, Macedonia and all points Balkan. Latest consignment is an image of the seal of Skanderbeg with an image caption larger than the article, most of it in Greek, and Hitler. Ning-ning (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Dick Turpin (bap. 1705 – 1739) was an English highwayman whose exploits were romanticised following his execution in York for horse theft. Turpin may have followed his father's profession as a butcher early in life, but by the early 1730s he had joined a gang of deer thieves, and later became a poacher, burglar, horse thief, and murderer. He is best known for his fictional 200-mile (320 km) overnight ride from London to York on his steed Black Bess, a story that was made famous by the Victorian novelist William Harrison Ainsworth almost 100 years after Turpin's death. Turpin's involvement in the crime for which he is most closely associated—highway robbery—followed the arrest of the other members of his gang in 1735. He then disappeared from public view towards the end of that year, only to resurface in 1737 with two new accomplices. Later that year he moved to Yorkshire and assumed the alias of John Palmer. While he was staying at an inn local magistrates became suspicious of "Palmer", and made enquiries as to how he funded his lifestyle. Suspected of being a horse thief, "Palmer" was imprisoned in York Castle, to be tried at the next assizes. Turpin's true identity was revealed by a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law from his prison cell, which fell into the hands of the authorities. On 22 March 1739 Turpin was found guilty on two charges of horse theft and sentenced to death; he was executed on 7 April 1739. Turpin became the subject of legend after his execution, romanticised as dashing and heroic in English ballads popular theatre, film and television. (more...)
And what's even worse, someone that every schoolkid thinks they know something about. Poor Pod, Raul must have it in for him this month. :lol: MalleusFatuorum12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Show me an editor who doesn't think that writing an FA gives you experience of vandal fighting and I'll show you an editor who's never had one on the main page. MalleusFatuorum12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
At least we can protect the real magnets now without getting summarily overturned due to the suicide pact. I get that feeling this one might end up with a couple protection log entries on the 18th. Courcelles12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be watchlisted by many now ... lots of folks gearing up for that anniversary, we need to avoid article deterioration beginning now. I'll add a note at FAC as soon as I get time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Already edit warring over there-- any admins on board who can make a call as to when semi-pro is needed? I don't know policy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
All I need to know about him is that he screwed around on his wives, so although I am watchlisting for generalities, I'm fersure not paying attention to details and don't know much about him or give a crap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh. I escaped, although since I just had one Sunday, I guess I've already done my penance. Must say, horses on the main page are easier than bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. While you're here, any clues on where to find reliable information on Bonfire Night food? Buggered if I can find anything, but I've always associated Bonfire Night with treacle toffee and that must have come from somewhere. Parrotof Doom21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just dump "Bonfire toffee" into GBooks. Or, indeed, fish out the ridiculous number of books in the bibliography of Bonfire toffee. (And find out where "in the North, darker sweets are preferred" came from. I have a vision of Londoners eating Milky Bars, Brummies eating Caramacs, Mancs eating Galaxy Bars and the Scots gnawing away on Black Jacks.) – iridescent22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
In York, they fancy Yorkie bars. Of course.--22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No luck searching for toffee, or celebrations in commonwealth nations. There isn't a great deal written about such things, the three decent sources I have on Gunpowder Treason Day don't really mention them much. I guess what's sauce for the goose... Parrotof Doom21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You've already done more than enough to halt the rot with that article. It's always easier to defend something that's in good shape than it is a crock like it was before. There's a software development principle called refactoring which I think is analagous, although you wouldn't know it from reading that article. Why is it that almost all of the computing articles are crap? Even this one, on a technology fundamental to the way that wikipedia works. MalleusFatuorum22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Alexander of Lincoln or Walter de Coutances? And .... how close are you to the actual location of Liudhard medalet? I didn't get to Liverpool while I was there, and I don't THINK it's close to Manchester, but I could be wrong (since both places are only notable in history well past the period I usually study, I never have got a good feel for where all those Industrial Revolution cities were located...) I think the hunk of gold is the next "weirdness" that I wanna work up. (I'm not feeling very manuscriptish right this moment) Ealdgyth - Talk23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm about 40 miles and half a world away from Liverpool. Any city that renames its airport after John Lennon is a place to be avoided. MalleusFatuorum23:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I recommend what used to be called an "Atlas" but is now known as Google Maps. It is amazing: you can scroll away from the North American continent without even leaving home, and so discover a whole new world of Geography, with far-out place names and everything! There is even a magnifying glass to view the smaller countries. Ace! The kids will love it! ;) Geometry guy00:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ealdgyth did the Grand Tour this summer, but the span of her historical interest doesn't extend to the Industrial Revolution, so no reason for her to have visited the mecca that is Manchester, or the scally paradise that is Liverpool. MalleusFatuorum00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I once wanted to know how far it was from Manchester to Liverpool, so I googled it and ended up on somewhere like answers.com where there is a vote on which is the best answer. The one that came out top was " not fucking far enough!" Richerman (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I know that Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all over in the western/northwestern part of England, but beyond that, I'm unclear. I also discovered something while I was in England - that the English think going 200 miles is "a LONG trip" whereas this yank thinks nothing of it. We routinely do 400 round trip to the inlaws in one day along with a long visit, so what I'd consider close by the map probably isn't considered close by an Englishperson. Ealdgyth - Talk13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Did 200 mile "trip" yesterday- 5 hours (last ten miles took 1 hour), 30 GBP of petrol, so 400 mile round trip with long visit would take all bloomin' day, cost 60 GBP, involve 3 minor accidents, 2 road rage incidents and 1.5 visits to a motorway service station toilet. Ning-ning (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't resist. You folks will love my neck of the wild west. Where I live, the 75 mph speed limit is really just good advice for those suckers who don't have a radar detector. Anything under 85 is a wrist slap if the cops are bored enough to pull you over. Nonetheless, the locals have become inordinately fond of tiny roundabouts at uncontrolled intersections of paved rural roads as a "traffic calming" measure. The only problem is that they are too narrow to navigate through with a cattle truck, so most have wheel marks over the curbs. Plus no one wanted to install a water line, but they still put in non-desert landscaping, so now we have roundabouts with three dead trees in the center. This one is a classic in-town variety: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=587 Note the people to get the sense of (inadequate) scale. Oh wait, they call it "Context sensitive design." Where I live, they are doing these in the country. Anyway, have fun furthering the conversation... Montanabw23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Ealdgyth says that he's glad we didn't run across that roundabout while we were in England. His exact words were "EEEWWW!". Ealdgyth - Talk23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, someone wanna look over and smooth over Leges Henrici Primi enough for GA? I'm about ready to chuck it out the window as I really dislike manuscript studies... that long list of manuscripts defeats me every time... Ealdgyth - Talk19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The Manchester Mark 1 was one of the earliest stored-program computers, developed at the Victoria University of Manchester from the Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Work began in August 1948, and the first version was operational by April 1949; a program written to search for Mersenne primes ran error-free for nine hours on the night of 16/17 June 1949. The machine's successful operation was widely reported in the British press, which used the phrase "electronic brain" in describing it to their readers. The Mark 1 was initially developed to provide a computing resource within the university, to allow researchers to gain experience in the practical use of computers, but it very quickly also became a prototype on which the design of Ferranti's commercial version could be based. Development ceased at the end of 1949, and the machine was scrapped towards the end of 1950, replaced in February 1951 by a Ferranti Mark 1, the world's first commercially available general-purpose computer. The computer is especially historically significant because of its pioneering inclusion of index registers, an innovation which made it easier for a program to read sequentially through an array of words in memory. Many of the ideas behind its design were incorporated in subsequent commercial products such as the IBM 701 and 702. The chief designers, Frederic C. Williams and Tom Kilburn, concluded from their experiences with the Mark 1 that computers would be used more in scientific roles than in pure mathematics. (more...)
I think I may have to give up writing FAs, too stressful. I didn't create this article, it's been around almost as long as wikipedia, so heaven knows what horrors may lurk in its history. It's changed quite a bit since that first version though. MalleusFatuorum00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank for reviewing. I will attempt to address the points but it might take a couple of days as I have a temperature, 'flu I think, and an intermittent broadband connection and we've had two short power cuts today.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do now but I'll be glad to get this one finished. Thank you for your help so far. Even the broadband works today!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we'd best get it done quickly, in case you felt the need to rush out and buy cake. Now you can relax with a nice glass of wine. :-) MalleusFatuorum22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind checking over Haflinger (horse) for me, if you fancy another dip back into the horse world? It's the next one I want to take to FAC, and I would love you have your copyediting skills applied before then. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Malleus! Are you still working, or was my prose actually not that bad this time? (Usually you fill up a whole page on the edit history!) Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm finished now. FAC (like GAN) depends on who turns up, but I wouldn't be opposing on the basis of your prose. One thing though, this looks a bit ugly: "The others are either gelded or sold to other countries. Other countries base their registration ...". MalleusFatuorum00:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
For your wonderful contributions in the Featured Article realm. You are not only a prolific writer of FAs, you also copyedit other editors' efforts, review at FAC and clean up at FAR. Keep up the good work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I can never remember if you accept barnstars or not. If so, then enjoy; if not, feel free to toss - I promise my feelings won't be hurt! Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflicts, we were tweaking the intro at the same time. Hope my stuff will dovetail OK with your stuff. I'll get out of the way now and leave you to the rest of your work. Montanabw22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Bot, it was most kind of you to also visit my house after an arb put a non-free image on my talk page. Keep up the good work; nice seeing your around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think my advice to you at ANI bears emphasising: "You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it." Unspecified and unevidenced accusations achieve nothing except making you look bad, and making it less likely people will take you seriously when you have something substantial. (You already know, of course, that it's unhelpful and somewhat disruptive, even if people have the good sense to merely ignore such remarks.) Rd23201:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, what are you doing here, other than continuing to poke at Malleus? Rd232 has no history with Malleus, and if he wants to make a comment, at least he's not here to poke. You've been warned many times to cease your baiting and poking at MF; now heed the warning, or plenty of people will be happy to start on RFC on your conduct. Malleus, I suggest that people are finally heeding the message, and you could advance "the cause" against admin abuse and double standards by letting others take the lead for a while. Heed the message: there is a way to deal with admin abuse, and it seems to be working in the "other" case. I don't think some of Rod's diffs would hold up very well at RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I am not here to provoke conflict; that is not what collegiate editing is about. If, as you suggest, that Malleus takes your second point that patience is wearing thin, fine. But I want to see a commitment to that. In the absence of, RFC must follow, for which ever editor is considered by the cummunity to be out of line. Rodhullandemu03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And this response is constructive because ...? (hint: we are not all on the same peak of adequacy as you, so some education to lesser mortals might be regarded as educational, as opposed to patronising) I detect you're on thin ice, given the responses you've already received, and perhaps the time has come when you should no longer be complacent of relying on your fan club here. Make no mistake, Malleus, wasps are not welcome at this picnic unless they subscribe to Misplaced Pages values, with chapter and verse, and continued abuse of other editors, bald or otherwise, will not be tolerated. I know I've previously blocked you incorrectly, but your next block is entirely up to you and your behaviour as regards this community. Bottom line is that neither you nor I should receive special treatment for any reason whatsoever. Nobody's fireproof here; but patience can be exhausted, and it is my considered opinion that general patience of you is running out. Rodhullandemu03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep posting, keep adding evidence of how you are unable to disengage from Malleus, and continue to poke at him. You exhaust patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You do at least make me laugh Rod, so it's not all bad, and at least you've now grudgingly admitted that your block was bad. I only wish that I could return the complement, and block you incorrectly as well. MalleusFatuorum03:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment (not complement); it's appreciated. But on balance, I find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia when you spend so much other time "kicking against the pricks" here. If there's one human attribute I despise it's arrogance, and particularly intellectual arrogance. It utterly disgusts me. @SandyGeorgia: Why not let Malleus fight his own fights? If you've other issues, you know where to take them. Rodhullandemu04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
How could any rational person not see Rod's comments as a personal attack? Simply compare what he's done today with what I've done, and then decide who's here to build an encyclopedia and who isn't. MalleusFatuorum04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Rod, you've been asked to stop. Saying to Malleus that you "find it had to believe that you are here to build an encyclopedia" stretches all credibility about your reasons for being on his page, considering the amount of encyclopediahe has built. If you continue poking here, expect to see an RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear, Malleus. Rod has lodged a blatant attack and cast aspersions upon you on your talk page, and most likely, in spite of the number of talk page watchers you have, he will not be held accountable. Everyone knows that: the arbs have made it clear repeatedly that RFC/U is the means for addressing admin misconduct. Rd232 came here in good faith, with no bones to pick, so don't shoot the messenger. You probably know that Rd and I have had some rather large differences over content in the past, but he is approachable, reasonable, and you can talk to him (you didn't). Rod, then, came here to stir the pot. Don't judge all admins by the yardstick set by abusive admins; I've never seen Rd232 abuse the tools or make personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
{ec}} I know as well as you do that Rod will once again skip free by claiming some stress caused by noisy neighbours or his imminent demise. Just goes to show how corrupt the admin corps has become, in that they tolerate that kind of nonsense. MalleusFatuorum05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Standby. I lost all my work because my computer was unplugged without me knowing it and my battery died. I should have it reconstructed shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if a statement intended as an entirely generic suggestion of how to deal with problems came off as an intervention in a specific dispute - and in doing so helped escalate it. In terms of that specific dispute (which I only know a little of), it seems to be heading towards RFCU, though we'll see what happens with the current ANI thread. In terms of your response "you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about" - well I guess that relates to the specific dispute, but it illustrates my general point: if I don't know what you're talking about, it's because either there is no onwiki explanation with appropriate evidence, or nobody's pointed me to it. Dispute resolution is unfortunately hard work but if you can't work things out one-to-one (a helping of letting bygones be bygones can sometimes be rather good), then that's what's needed. Rd23209:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I really wasn't, and wrote the comment carefully to make it clear I wasn't (note in particular the word "nobody"). A lot happened today though (I missed it all, being out), so never mind. The bottom line is, you need to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful. This doesn't need to involve repetition - if people ask, you can point them to prior explanation where that exists (if they don't find it or have others point it out). Rd23200:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, coffee...:) Rephrasing: "one needs to explain and justify concerns to have a realistic expectation of action being taken; vague accusations are not helpful." Rd23219:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm smelling the coffee, and the roses. Two threads closed in less than 24 hours each in two days at ANI with admins held accountable! Come on, MF, that's progress, and you get lots of credit. So does Rd232. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, would you be able to locate-- or tell me where to look for-- those diffs where Rod talked about how much time he spent on Wiki and how it was affecting him? This is an editor in trouble, based on Alison's post and his post, and it's clear that ANI isn't equipped to deal with this, particularly with the lack of respect shown at that circus by people like Baseball Bugs. This needs to go to the arbs, they are accustomed to situations like this, it looks like serious burnout, an RFC/U is not the right thing to do to an editor evidencing these kinds of problems; can you find those diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, saved me a job. Despite our very evident differences I'm rather concerned about Rod– the person I mean, not the administrator, but I'm also amazed at how the concerns about his increasingly erratic behaviour are being handled, or rather ignored. MalleusFatuorum22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Iri. Malleus, I agree-- the ANI circus now is troubling me more than the original events. Have people no compassion? I'm not sure how to escalate this to the arbs without generating another circus. They really should have a separate sub-committee for handling situations like this, expeditiously, without all the gore. Iri, I don't know if bringing those diffs forward at ANI would really be helpful at this point. Not sure what to do next-- maybe watch and wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what can be done next. With my cynical head on I might suggest that Rod is telling whatever stories he thinks might get him out of the shit, but I sense there's more to it than that, and someone needs to step in and do something. MalleusFatuorum22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Alison is no dummy (d'oh), so since she is aware, I hope the remainder of this will be dealt with away from the peanut gallery. I think there's nothing left to do; what I thought was a compromised account turns out not to be so, and I'm hoping he won't be poking you any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least it's apparent that an editor attempting DR to deal with admin issues will be called "petty" and "silly", which at least underscores the problem. What happens to the "little guys" who don't have the <whatever I have> in the community to stand up to this? Oh, right, I know-- I was there in 2007 :) More than once, in fact, with a former arb (I was recalling that case just now, and thinking how fast she'd be blasted in today's current BLP environment if she endorsed what she endorsed against me in 2006). If I start to recall all of the instances of injustice here, I begin to wonder why I give so much. And while the muse doesn't return, it's hard to get motivated to read FAC. Admin abuse affects us all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that Uncle G ought to spend some considering his position, because it really does encapsulate the rotteness at the heart of this project. "Admin abuse" is constrained to mean misuse of admin tools, not abuse from an admin; George Orwell would be proud. For myself, I'd hoped to get this packed up and ready to go at GAN, but like yours, my muse has temporarily gone awol. MalleusFatuorum23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I put Uncle in that category of people who just haven't yet had it happen to them :) And we hope it never will, even though that means they'll never get it, and call those who do "silly". The problem is, these governance issues completely sap any motivation to continue working here. But we already know that from Moni's absence, and too many others to count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Without going into detail, I learned very early as an editor here what administrators are capable of. It's one reason I try to keep quiet, not make friends, do my work, and then get out of here. As it happens, I have made a few friends, and haven't been that quiet recently; but I was put very firmly in place when I had about 500 or so edits. As my first experience with an admin, it wasn't very pleasant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that very many of us have had similarly bad experiences with wikipedia's elite early in our editing histories; I know that I did. It's amazing that we're still here really. MalleusFatuorum23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I don't :) But droves of people don't get it. Read Jimbo's talk some time-- we're a "small but vocal minority" :) @TK: yep, Wiki is a battleground, because of an absence of governance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
They do, and there's clearly no will to address the fundamental problem with wilkipedia's administrators, which is that they're elected for life and are to all intents and purposes unaccountable. In fact even dying doesn't result in desysopping, on the basis I suppose that it would be disrespectful to remove the utility belt from someone just because they're dead. It's a strange world here. I was sorry to see that Moni has decided to throw in the towel, but it's an opportunity to tell an old joke. A guy in a bar hears one woman call another a lesbian. He turns to his friend and asks "What's a lesbian?" His friend tells him that's it's a someone who likes women. "Well, then I guess I'm a lesbian too" he replies. Boom boom. MalleusFatuorum23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's structurally very hard to get any significant change implemented. If you put a lot of work in you may eventually succeed, but it'll probably take a lot longer than you'd think. One example is the Article Wizard - this took about 2 years from gestation to completing its implementation. And that doesn't really challenge anyone's power, does it? This sort of structural inertia is why I created Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab), to at least try and have a space where ideas don't get shot down so quickly. Bottom line, the difficulty of changing the governance is not unique - though it's clearly a special case of being even harder. The only solution is to keep trying to come up with new ideas. PS The problem is not so much being given the tools indefinitely; the processes for removal of tools where that's clearly warranted are not so bad. The difficulty is in handling low and mid-level problems, and a certain tendency from people who've heard Wolf cried too many times to dismiss any problems short of "desysop now" seriousness as either bellyaching from troublemakers or just minor stuff of the "everyone makes mistakes" variety. More organised, constructive feedback might help, eg having a mandatory Admin review every year. Rd23201:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I worked in state government for about 8 years total out of a 15 or 16 year period. Sad to say, wiki actually isn't all that different... sigh. Looked back at my edit count; the most edits in a month were done the last month I worked for the state and the first month after. Wiki was actually LESS dysfunctional than state government...and that was even including a time when my evil twin tried pulling an ANI on me. We are the world! That IS a scary thought, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 01:46, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
The obvious and very simple solution is staring you in the face, but you and many others refuse to see it: term limits for administrators, perhaps two years. MalleusFatuorum01:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt that if I'd done what Rod just did I would by now be blocked. He needs to get his act together nevertheless, and stop obsessing about me. MalleusFatuorum01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you very possibly would have been. I don't think he took Rob's note seriously. I hope he does mine, because I really don't want to have to block him, but I will if he comes back here, because I think the consequences if I don't might be worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Rod is out of control, and he needs to be helped to understand that. I never want to see anyone blocked, but in this case I fear for the man's sanity. MalleusFatuorum01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's torn it .Yes, I do believe his behaviour, what he has said about his circumstances, and even the wierd spelling errors, are indicative of a problem in real life. I hope he takes a break and feels better, but I am afraid that I have seen people in a 'xyz.com is the only thing I live for' phase before, and it has never gone particularly well Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(ignoring unhelpful interruption from Rod)
Term limits are probably a bad idea for Misplaced Pages, with reasons for and against discussed at great length not so long ago in several RFCs (links not to hand; were you involved there? I don't recall). Compulsory admin review, as an alternative, would achieve something in itself; but if it worked well enough, it could evolve into something quite effective. For instance the expectation might develop that serious issues identified at admin review would lead either to a voluntary RFA, or to a community request to Arbcom to impose on the basis of the review. But a straight re-run of RFA (i.e. voting), at fixed intervals, regardless of activity? No. And even regardless of whether it's a good idea, it's not likely to happen, so something useful which might be a sort of stepping stone is rather more worth pursuing. What do you think? Rd23202:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Other wikipedias do use terms without apparently major issues, regarding their admins like local government elected officials it seems to me. the thing with Misplaced Pages was that the admins started out as sysops (have the tools so you can delete articles) and are crawling towards a role as something else, having got to about the middle ages and baronial fiefs in some cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
All Wikipedias are different. It's not impossible it could work on en.wp, but it's a dramatic change and it could cause all sorts of problems. Hence my suggestion for an intermediate position which could then potentially evolve towards that. Does that make sense? Rd23202:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What do I think? Here's what I think. Misplaced Pages is ossifying, and nobody can do anything about it, or change anything that matters. We can't even agree on the basics, that admin shouldn't be for life. MalleusFatuorum02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well to address your point head on: adminship is indefinite (not "for life") because in theory everyone could be an admin, if the community agreed to trust them with the tools. Sysop bits are not limited resources; it's solely whether the community trusts the user. There are mechanisms for withdrawing the bit on the basis of losing the trust of the community; but it's philosophically muddy to demand term limits. What is needed really is processes for evaluating the trust that the community as a whole places in a user. A "term limits" approach insists that evaluation takes place through voting, which for various reasons is not a good idea here - it should be through discussion. Rd23202:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
We will clearly have to agree to disagree. It seems very plain to me that RfA is a vote, even a popularity contest, so to baulk at the idea of a re-election after two years seems inconsistent to me. MalleusFatuorum02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
RFA shouldn't be as close to a vote as it is. And whilst it's bad for RFA to be a vote, it would be rather worse to have a popularity contest routinely later on. If voting was compulsory and you had a proper electorate (no sock puppets...), it might work. Absent that, it's too likely that those with unjustified grudges for admins acting as they should have done will cause the re-election to fail, because they'll be far more motivated than anyone else. It might even encourage banned users to sock really quietly in order to be able to WP:GAME the re-election RFA of admins that dealt with them. Besides which, the mere fact that it's a vote will raise the drama level infinitely; it will mean every single issue of the last two years that's brought up being discussed to death, rather than people being able to say "well that's your opinion, you haven't persuaded anyone and it's not a vote...". I have thought about this, and it's why I suggested the Admin Review approach, which achieves a lot of the same goals. Rd23211:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with term limits is that people who really wanted the bit would spend the latter part of their two years with their eye on the upcoming vote. Admins, even good ones, make enemies. I would favour a sort of Court of Appeal system. It would have to be set up so it didn't become just another ANI. The idea would be to review tool use and admin behaviour where there were serious concerns about abuse or "conduct unbecoming". Fainitesscribs12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to ping you directly about this (I know you're probably as busy as Sandy, whom I've also bugged with this, is), but if you could possibly take a quick peek at my query here I'd much appreciate it. Oh, and please don't feel obliged to do any actual research on this; you're just a likely victim by sheer edit-count on Samuel Johnson and I'm hoping to get a rough idea from what you can recall off the top of your head (unless you happen to have the relevant books' index immediately to hand to check without too much effort). Thanks, --Xover (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi! just a message to say thank you for the time and effort you took to review the London Road Fire Station article and to help get it into shape for GA Pit-yacker (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. You had some pretty strong editors helping out, so I knew it would turn out OK. I saw that Richerman said I wouldn't give you an easy ride, but I hope you like the end result. :-) MalleusFatuorum23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want anyone to get the idea that because you're a member of the GM wikiproject you'd be any less critical of that article than others you've done. I also said you were very helpful - you proved me right on both counts :) Richerman (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably likely to be more critical of a GM article, to avoid any hint of collusion. Plus I may even know a little about the subject, which makes a refreshing change. :lol: MalleusFatuorum00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
toss a coin (grins). I'm plugging away at Cragh as we speak, trying to link in some stuff... required me to start a whole new article... blech! And we really should have articles on those rebellions, but I can't find them.. Ealdgyth - Talk21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the link to William de Briouze that you added. I'm going to look around to see if wikipedia has anything on measuring to a saint, 'cos that's going to need an explanation in Cragh's article. I also need to add a bit about Cantilupe's successor as bishop of Hereford, Richard Swinfield (there's another one for you), as he was the one who petitioned the pope for Cantilupe's canonisation. Beyond that I think it'll be about done once the lead is expanded a bit. It's taken forever! MalleusFatuorum22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you will be able to start work on this very shortly. Look forward to seeing what you do with it. it's a good story, I hope to be be near Hanslope some time before Christmas and get a photo of the gravestone. Regards. Giacomo 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Who knows, perhaps Cirt will decide to fix it, instead of continually whining because nobody else has. Or in this case that they tried to, when he wanted the article to be delisted in any event. MalleusFatuorum13:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, MF-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Malleus Fatuorum, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.