Malleus and yet another adminmageddon

[SB_Johnny]

Apparently started on ANI (by a sock of this guy, so it seems), leading 14 hours later to a thread on AN about the thread on ANI, during which a couple of admins are less than polite to one another, so get blocked by Ironholds (T-C-L) (also on AN), then Kww (T-C-L) blocks Malleus, Malleus is quickly unblocked, and then yet another proposal to indef block Malleus (because this is all clearly his fault, you know).

Just to make it more interesting, Scottywong, who was one of the guys blocked by Ironholds, apparently took his toys and went home, causing havoc on some of the other noticeboards, leaving people to wonder if they can steal his sourcecodes.

Ah, Malleus. What would they ever do without you?

[Tarc]

I will always oppose Malleus blocks, because his presence leads to lulz.

As for bots, the entire system seems antiquated and Byzantine, where one creator can take his ball and go home whenever they want.

[SB_Johnny]

I will always oppose Malleus blocks, because his presence leads to lulz.

Certainly seems to be doing the trick today. There are already two "Jimbo, save us!" threads on Jimmy's page, and endless hand-wringing on AN. If he acts quickly, maybe he can take those powers back.

As for bots, the entire system seems antiquated and Byzantine, where one creator can take his ball and go home whenever they want.

So much for the "we don't need admins because it's all been automated" theory.

[The Devil's Advocate]

If getting angry about someone questioning the veracity of your article about people putting weasels in their pants for fun leads to a community-wide meltdown, you might be a Wikipedian.

[Cedric]

If getting angry about someone questioning the veracity of your article about people putting weasels in their pants for fun leads to a community-wide meltdown, you might be a Wikipedian.

[EricBarbour]

And this "improves" Wikipedia, how exactly?

I will always oppose Malleus blocks, because his presence leads to lulz.

Then you admit you're there for the giggles?

This is like hoax articles--I've got literally too many examples of Malleus-plosions.
A hundred years from now, no one will believe all of this idiocy happened.

ALL of those little bastards should be purged. ALL OF THEM -- except Malleus, because he's actually doing some real work....

[The Joy]

Wouldn't the source codes be released under the cc-by-sa if it runs on Wikipedia? If so, why would people be worried about "stealing" someone's codes as they "belong to the community?" Maybe bot policy should require three or more people to have the codes should the bot creator go mad? IIRC, a similar thing happened on the French Wikipedia when a bot creating articles on French suburbs (or villages?) was taken offline after the bot creator had a dispute with the community.

Wikipedia is no place for vanity or pride... unless you have the social backing and the block button. Actually, just having the social backing is enough in most cases. That's why some people on Wikipedia will never be banned nor blocked for a long period.

[Tarc]

And this "improves" Wikipedia, how exactly?

I will always oppose Malleus blocks, because his presence leads to lulz.

Then you admit you're there for the giggles?

Not solely, no. Someone has to stick around to make sure no one removes images of Muhammad or labels Nirvana a punk band after all. Serious business.

[oscarlechien]

Well, we now know when it is appropriate to use the term "fucking idiot on WP"! Think of all of the disputes that have been resolved!

[roger_pearse]

Just to make it more interesting, Scottywong, who was one of the guys blocked by Ironholds, apparently took his toys and went home, causing havoc on some of the other noticeboards, leaving people to wonder if they can steal his sourcecodes.

I don't know anything much about ScottyWong, other than that he has a whole shedload of tools useful to Wikipedians. But ... is this another case of a heavy contributor to Wikipedia (in this case of tools rather than content) getting upset because of the way that he gets dealt with when there is a dispute?

Doesn't anyone on Wikipedia get it yet? This overpowering feeling of hurt and outrage, when your contribution is treated as worthless, is the main reason for all the ex-Wikipedians and all the bad publicity?

A sensible forum tries not to hack off the people who really contribute, by doing things like publicly humiliating them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[roger_pearse]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

[Malleus]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

"Invisible" blocks is actually a pretty good idea. So good in fact that there's no chance it would ever be implemented.

[The Devil's Advocate]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Of course, if you take all that stuff private, then it will simply be even more of a problem when the admins mess up or abuse their position because no one will be the wiser.

[Notvelty]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Of course, if you take all that stuff private, then it will simply be even more of a problem when the admins mess up or abuse their position because no one will be the wiser.

Dear God! Can you imagine what the busy-body-furry would think! He'd have kittens.

[Tarc]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

"Invisible" blocks is actually a pretty good idea. So good in fact that there's no chance it would ever be implemented.

[SB_Johnny]

Okay, now this is just awesome. Malleus, please hurry up and start cursing at somebody so you can get blocked, and then someone can unblock "per WP:MALLEUS".

[Volunteer Marek]

Okay, now this is just awesome. Malleus, please hurry up and start cursing at somebody so you can get blocked, and then someone can unblock "per WP:MALLEUS".

I like Hans Adler's comments in that discussion, esp last paragraph. It's true, power at the Wikipedia is all about how good you are at controlling/directing/molding mobs, to get them to do your bidding. Most of the admin, big names types in fact specialize in developing that skill. Indeed they do little else - riling up and shifting mobs takes so much of their time they don't write any content or do any actually useful work.

The thing is that Malleus is pretty good at getting a mob going too, though for a different reason; the mob identifies with him. This creates tension with the usual mob-mongers. "Wait a minute, who is this guy? We're the ones who are suppose to round up mobs and send them after targets of our choice. This guy hasn't gone to our official mob-control school! He needs to have ... a mob sent after him". So mobs clash and you get a mob war.

[roger_pearse]

What they should do, of course, if blocking is the right response -- I have my doubts -- is to:

a. Ask privately and politely the user to stop contributing for x hours, "to let things cool down".

b. Apply the block, but invisibly, if that doesn't work. And don't call it a block: find some inconsequential term.

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Of course, if you take all that stuff private, then it will simply be even more of a problem when the admins mess up or abuse their position because no one will be the wiser.

True: which could be handled, in a rational world, by giving the victim the ability to appeal, privately if necessary, to someone else.

Whether the admin system works well enough for appeals to be heard is another question. But privacy would avoid that deep sense of anger that so many ex-wikipedians feel.

[SB_Johnny]

Okay, now this is just awesome. Malleus, please hurry up and start cursing at somebody so you can get blocked, and then someone can unblock "per WP:MALLEUS".

I like Hans Adler's comments in that discussion, esp last paragraph. It's true, power at the Wikipedia is all about how good you are at controlling/directing/molding mobs, to get them to do your bidding. Most of the admin, big names types in fact specialize in developing that skill. Indeed they do little else - riling up and shifting mobs takes so much of their time they don't write any content or do any actually useful work.

The thing is that Malleus is pretty good at getting a mob going too, though for a different reason; the mob identifies with him. This creates tension with the usual mob-mongers. "Wait a minute, who is this guy? We're the ones who are suppose to round up mobs and send them after targets of our choice. This guy hasn't gone to our official mob-control school! He needs to have ... a mob sent after him". So mobs clash and you get a mob war.

Probably the best way to bring peace to the wiki would to be to put Malleus in the "Founder" usergroup, so poor Jimmy can go on vacation.

[The Devil's Advocate]

True: which could be handled, in a rational world, by giving the victim the ability to appeal, privately if necessary, to someone else.

Whether the admin system works well enough for appeals to be heard is another question. But privacy would avoid that deep sense of anger that so many ex-wikipedians feel.

The same problems would emerge with a private appeals system. Making it secret erases at least one major disincentive for abuse, the risk of public dissension. If no one is likely to know an abuse has taken place, then it makes such abuse less risky. Not to say public discussion does not have its fair share of disadvantages or that there should always be public discussion, but people tend to act better when their actions are subject to public monitoring so transparency should always be given priority.

People would also still feel frustrated with a private system. In fact, they would probably be more frustrated as a public discussion can at least allow room for people to voice support. Knowing that you are not alone and that there are people who understand you or care about what happens to you can do a great deal to dull the stress. Worse than feeling mistreated is feeling as if no one cares about you being mistreated or as if no one can keep you from being mistreated.

It is the public lynching at noticeboards that is the biggest drawback of doing things openly, but it wouldn't be as bad if it were managed more judiciously. As it currently functions, AN and ANI are places where angry people run in the heat of the moment to seek quickie sanctions against someone who is annoying them. People showing up there to comment tend to have little interest in doing a thorough evaluation of the problem and just jump in to agree or disagree based entirely off what the sanction-seeker has cited or even just how they feel about the person or subject in question. Community restrictions, site bans especially, should only arise after a lot of consideration and evidence. However, rather than a posting being used as the starting point for an investigation into an allegation, it is often used as an endpoint for a feud where how people handle the escalation generally determines who "wins" at Wikipedia.

Were such tendencies actively restrained, public discussions would not be such a serious problem. It is the free-wheeling nature of admins and noticeboards that creates the problem, rather than the public nature of the administrative process.

[Notvelty]

The idea that anything on wikipedia can be fixed by changing the wording of policy is a red herring.

The current rules would work perfectly well if they were being enforced by adults.

[cassiopeia]

The idea that anything on wikipedia can be fixed by changing the wording of policy is a red herring.

The current rules would work perfectly well if they were being enforced by adults.

yes, I am am quite impressed with how well the rules or guidelines are thought out, shame the admins. seems to defer to popularity and democracy. That's why I was wondering if Arbcom might take them more seriously. The WP:IAR 'rule' is perhaps a loophole though.

[roger_pearse]

People would also still feel frustrated with a private system. In fact, they would probably be more frustrated as a public discussion can at least allow room for people to voice support. Knowing that you are not alone and that there are people who understand you or care about what happens to you can do a great deal to dull the stress. Worse than feeling mistreated is feeling as if no one cares about you being mistreated or as if no one can keep you from being mistreated.

This is what happens now, tho, with the public system. Because, unless you are a wiki-fanatic, you won't have any idea how to bring anything to anyone's attention; and getting ignored when you try is not nice. The ordinary contributor already experiences all these things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[The Devil's Advocate]

This is what happens now, tho, with the public system. Because, unless you are a wiki-fanatic, you won't have any idea how to bring anything to anyone's attention; and getting ignored when you try is not nice. The ordinary contributor already experiences all these things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I know this already happens as I have personally experienced it, but I much appreciate the ability to raise it publicly so that there is a public record of what has taken place and the prospect that I can get support.

[EricBarbour]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... s_Fatuorum

Content-writing admins and honest people are voting to keep, and patrollers and insane gnomes are voting to delete. Typical.

[Zoloft]

I voted 'banana' ...as is my right.

[Herbert West]

The idea that anything on wikipedia can be fixed by changing the wording of policy is a red herring.

The current rules would work perfectly well if they were being enforced by adults.

Nonsense. Young master Keyes is exceptionally mature by toe headed runt standards.

[MysteriousStranger]

Apparently started on ANI (by a sock of this guy, so it seems), leading 14 hours later to a thread on AN about the thread on ANI, during which a couple of admins are less than polite to one another, so get blocked by Ironholds (T-C-L) (also on AN), then Kww (T-C-L) blocks Malleus, Malleus is quickly unblocked, and then yet another proposal to indef block Malleus (because this is all clearly his fault, you know).

Just to make it more interesting, Scottywong, who was one of the guys blocked by Ironholds, apparently took his toys and went home, causing havoc on some of the other noticeboards, leaving people to wonder if they can steal his sourcecodes.

Ah, Malleus. What would they ever do without you?

I thought Ironholds had been desysopped...(?)

[Moral Hazard]

2012 (Ironholds blocked Scottywong) < 2013 (Ironholds Desyssopped) < 2016 (now)

[LynnWysong]

If getting angry about someone questioning the veracity of your article about people putting weasels in their pants for fun leads to a community-wide meltdown, you might be a Wikipedian.

Just when I get ready to ignore the WP drama, I get the amusement of reading an ANI on Ferret Legging.

[MysteriousStranger]

2012 (Ironholds blocked Scottywong) < 2013 (Ironholds Desyssopped) < 2016 (now)

Gotcha. I must not have been reading closely enough---I thought this was a recent occurrence.

[Jim]

Gotcha. I must not have been reading closely enough---I thought this was a recent occurrence.

Easily done.

If getting angry about someone questioning the veracity of your article about people putting weasels in their pants for fun leads to a community-wide meltdown, you might be a Wikipedian.

Just when I get ready to ignore the WP drama, I get the amusement of reading an ANI on Ferret Legging.

Can you link to the "ANI"? Wikipedia search is crap and "ferret" just comes up all "albino" with a dash of "baiting".

[LynnWysong]

2012 (Ironholds blocked Scottywong) < 2013 (Ironholds Desyssopped) < 2016 (now)

Gotcha. I must not have been reading closely enough---I thought this was a recent occurrence.

So did I, when you revived the thread. Am still amused.

[Zoloft]

Gotcha. I must not have been reading closely enough---I thought this was a recent occurrence.

Easily done.

If getting angry about someone questioning the veracity of your article about people putting weasels in their pants for fun leads to a community-wide meltdown, you might be a Wikipedian.

Just when I get ready to ignore the WP drama, I get the amusement of reading an ANI on Ferret Legging.

Can you link to the "ANI"? Wikipedia search is crap and "ferret" just comes up all "albino" with a dash of "baiting".

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

[Jim]

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

Probably.
I was so amused I was hoping for more on the strength of that, so searched.

[Zoloft]

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

Probably.
I was so amused I was hoping for more on the strength of that, so searched.

There are hidden barrels of Corbett drama over there, and I agree that Wikipedia's search capabilities suck.

Oh, look, a penny! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Cornellier[/link]

[eagle]

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

Probably.
I was so amused I was hoping for more on the strength of that, so searched.

There are hidden barrels of Corbett drama over there, and I agree that Wikipedia's search capabilities suck.

Oh, look, a penny! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Cornellier[/link]

May I gain community consensus in advance that any search engine grant from the Knight Foundation will not only improve search of Wikipedia articles, but it will also improve search of the ArbCom archives and the ANI archives? (We can add more open-source drama materials later.)

[Jim]

Oh, look, a penny! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Cornellier[/link]

I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have gotten the memo. Yes: it's okay. It's openly tolerated, so "don't poke the bear"! Why reopen this thread? Dèjá vu. Doc talk 07:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...

Scottywong, are you implying Malleus was rightly blocked by all the blocks in his "mile-long" block log? Or rightly blocked for just some of them? What? What is your message exactly, by writing that? (How you you want readers to interpret it? Because Malleus has accumlated some blocks, that were all or nearly-all unblocked without his even appealing, therefore, Malleus is of a character of xxx? What is it you are exactly saying here? Be specific rather than drop ambiguous hints that I for one cannot understand and am expected to "fill in the blank" for you. It's your blank. Fill it in, please.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Are you implying that Malleus isn't widely known for having problems with civility? Perhaps his various appearances (and sanctions) at arbcom would sum up my message? Here, I'll spell it out for you so there's no ambiguity: Malleus has a years-long track record of delivering blatant personal attacks (in violation of WP:NPA) and incivility (in violation of WP:CIVIL), and this episode appears to be yet another in a long line. He's been blocked dozens of times for it, probably more times than any other editor in Wikipedia history. He's also a very prolific and talented content editor, and therefore the blocks frequently get overturned out of fear that we might lose his content contributions (not because the block was incorrect; seriously, what are the chances that dozens of admins erroneously blocked the same editor?). If we do nothing in response to this episode, then we send the wrong message (not only to Malleus) that this type of behavior is ok. It's not ok. Clearly. You can have a disagreement with someone without resorting to name-calling. This is my message. Now I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 08:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrels indeed...

[Kumioko]

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

Probably.
I was so amused I was hoping for more on the strength of that, so searched.

There are hidden barrels of Corbett drama over there, and I agree that Wikipedia's search capabilities suck.

Oh, look, a penny! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Cornellier[/link]

May I gain community consensus in advance that any search engine grant from the Knight Foundation will not only improve search of Wikipedia articles, but it will also improve search of the ArbCom archives and the ANI archives? (We can add more open-source drama materials later.)

In order for the search to work on Arbcom content it has to first not be made up BS secret evidence and two it has to be on Wiki. So uch of what they do is stored off site in their private wiki via email, etc. that we are only seeing a tip of the iceburg from Arbcom. I people knew everything that happened behind the scenes I am certain that the Arbcom's days were limited.

[Zoloft]

I think they meant the aforementioned talk page wrangle.

Probably.
I was so amused I was hoping for more on the strength of that, so searched.

There are hidden barrels of Corbett drama over there, and I agree that Wikipedia's search capabilities suck.

Oh, look, a penny! linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Cornellier[/link]

May I gain community consensus in advance that any search engine grant from the Knight Foundation will not only improve search of Wikipedia articles, but it will also improve search of the ArbCom archives and the ANI archives? (We can add more open-source drama materials later.)

In order for the search to work on Arbcom content it has to first not be made up BS secret evidence and two it has to be on Wiki. So uch of what they do is stored off site in their private wiki via email, etc. that we are only seeing a tip of the iceburg from Arbcom. I people knew everything that happened behind the scenes I am certain that the Arbcom's days were limited.

Eh. Here is a typical advanced search URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=malleus+ferret&fulltext=Search&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&profile=advanced

[Jim]

Eh. Here is a typical advanced search URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=malleus+ferret&fulltext=Search&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&profile=advanced

Which, encouragingly for the knowledge engine, gives, apart from the tempting invitation:

You may create the page "Malleus ferret"

these details:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779 (section Malleus Fatuorum and Cornellier)
between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is
718 KB (101,783 words) - 17:46, 19 February 2015

The discussion ended in 2012, but a bot fiddled with some templates on the huge archive page in 2015, so any discussion in the archive will presumably now return that date to search...

[Smiley]

...with a dash of "baiting".

Ah, ferret hammocks and long-haired gerbils. Happy days.

The wonderful DracoE and Delicious Carbuncle, both on top form...

I once spent a miserable evening sitting opposite a sizeably chunkificated member of WMUK, and, believe me, watching that guy devouring his food was anything but enjoyable[...] DracoE

What? You speedy deleted an image of a ferret because it was "created purely to attack or mock another editor"? This is an image of a ferret, not a portrait painted with someone's penis. Delicious carbuncle (T-C-L)

It wasn't a picture of a ferret, it was some kind of long-haired gerbil or similar. GiantSnowman (T-C-L)

Lukas P. Orridge strikes again!

Future Perfect at Sunrise, have you seen any photos of guinea pigs who look and act like ferrets sneaking in to WP lately? I've heard that such creatures are, at this very moment, making plans to sneak into WP somewhere, somehow...Cla68 (T-C-L) 21:31, 20 January 2016

[Zoloft]

As much fun as this was, we're going to take a break from Ferr- er, Eric Corbett for a while.