User talk:Mkativerata/RFAR draft
While I'm not (yet) calling for Hawkeye's bit... I too find his revisionist history a little dubious. In his rationale to re-block he made no reference to the continued or new issues surrounding MF; instead he declared that it was "per consensus." After getting called out on the fact that there was no consensus to do what he did, he's revised his rationale. I'd rather him admit that he made a mistake than to look like a liar.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Couple of comments[edit]
I've been following this since it started, but trying to stay out as the intention was always to take the time over the holiday period to do some work on articles. But I'll make a few comments here rather than add to the incredibly long procession of statements currently at RFAR.
- (1) Minor nitpick out of the way first: "Hawkeye simply reversed John's block" - that should read 'John's unblock'.
- (2) A slightly more serious nitpick: you put the word 'attack' in what look like scare quotes, when referring to the comment made about Spitfire. That edit by Malleus about Spitfire looks like an actual personal attack (and others have said that as well), so putting it in inverted commas like that looks a bit strange.
- (3) The support in the ANI thread from Hawkeye, and the self-reversal, and then carrying out the block looks very damning (ironically, given the comments about Malleus's strengths as a content editor and contributor, Hawkeye is a content contributor par excellence - really, look at the work he has done here). Anyway, if Hawkeye's comment at the ANI thread had been spotted earlier, a lot of this could have been avoided. What would most likely have happened is that an uninvolved administrator would have lifted the block, saying (correctly) that Hawkeye had commented at the ANI thread in support of the block and (despite removing that comment) shouldn't therefore have been blocking. But then that uninvolved administrator would legitimately have been within their rights to carry out an independent block for the attack Malleus made on Spitfire, though it was clear from the edit summary there (the 'farewell Wikipedia' bit) that Malleus was asking for a block, for reasons best left for him to explain (I'd hope that any administrator considering blocking would have had sense to recognise that one option would have been to warn, not block, and then ask Malleus what he meant by 'farewell Wikipedia', point out the option of the wikibreak enforcer as an alternative to cussing and cruising for a block, and leave it at that).
- (4) The whole bit with Malleus unblocked to comment at the RFAR, and then asking to be reblocked, and then making comments on his talk page, and at Wikipedia Review, all comes across as very strange. He should either engage here properly and stand up for what he believes in, or not take part in what he calls a 'farce'. At the moment, it looks like he is trying to have his cake and eat it (i.e. make comments at arm's length but reserve the right to denounce it as a farce and refuse to take part). I'd have expected more from Malleus, quite frankly, unless (as some of his latest comments indicate) he has a larger agenda in mind.
My view is that the whole thing should be deferred until: (a) The new arbitrators take office (1 January 2012); and (b) Malleus's block expires or he decides to actually take part in this instead of commenting by proxy. And in the week between now and the new year, everyone should just get on with other stuff. Which is what I'm going to do now. If anyone reading this wants to mention it by diff at the RFAR, please feel free, but I don't want to get drawn into the timesink of any case that may be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Update: In the end, I did comment briefly here, but I still intend to avoid any case that may be accepted, though I may copy my comments here to somewhere if this page gets deleted at any point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Longterm Abuse[edit]
I'd find it hard to justify a block for "longterm abuse" on a currently active editor unless there was a fresh example such as the Spitfire edit, so I'm not sure I buy the argument that that edit summary was ignoring the Spitfire edit. I see a difference between that and an edit summary of "disagree with unblock". If the attack hadn't happened on Spitfire we would in my view be in a different situation, as it is there are in my view some grounds for doubt. Sufficient at least to ask Hawkeye to confirm that it was the attack on Spitfire that prompted his block, which he appears to have done..... ϢereSpielChequers 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- The part that makes the argument hard to swallow is that Hawkeye did a good job of elucidating his reasons for the reblock. Had he included the Spitfire comment, then there would be no question that there was reasonable grounds for his actions (if still dubious and questionable in light of the ongoing ANI report.) But he failed to reference it at all and instead justified the action as "per consensus" where no consensus existed. Frankly, I would have rather he said, "Malleus needs to be blocked" but his rationale is what raises doubts in my mind.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that some of his reasoning might be subject to criticism, but it wouldn't have been if his block reason had been Longterm abuse. Despite recently being given yet another chance, promptly called an editor a f**** c***. But a key part of his rationale was "# You have a long term pattern of abuse". Now in my view that is fair comment, but only a valid block reason if accompanied by a fresh incident or some equally valid evidence that the pattern persists. In any event he has been asked to reconsider the reasons he gave for the block, but few dispute that the block itself was legit. Even those who don't care for the civility policy usually accept that calling someone a f******* c*** is a personal attack. As for an RFAR where is the evidence of an unsuccessful dispute resolution? Hawkeye has been told that a number of people disagree with parts of his block rationale, and he has responded by taking their comments on board. For an RFAR I'd expect to see inappropriate use of the tools and or inappropriate behaviour and an unsuccessful attempt at dispute resolution. What we have here is an appropriate use of the tools, a flawed rationale for that use and the stewed comment. The latter two he has promptly been retracting or clarifying. Maybe a trout would be in order - but not IMHO an RFAR. ϢereSpielChequers 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- This might be as good a place as any to also puncture the idea that the word 'c***' is acceptable usage in general discourse in the UK. It might be acceptable in some parts of the UK, but to many in the UK it isn't acceptable, and certainly not in public. As I keep trying to tell people, Wikipedia is a public place, even user talk pages and projectspace talk pages (like WT:RFA). Even if you are talking to someone you know, it is not the same as talking to a mate down the pub (this is best explained in the statement by Bwilkins). And to those saying that it was 'understandable' in light of the blocks, when did getting blocked by admin A ever become an excuse to yell at editor B? Malleus knows all this, yet deliberately chose to flaunt these conventions in an attempt to get blocked. And he succeeded. Even if the case is declined, there is easily enough material for an RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- RE Malleus, I've always felt that those who want to get rid of Malleus are shooting themselves in the foot with their blocks. They know that the blocks will be over turned, but they still block for petty reasons that wouldn't result in blocks of anybody not named Malleus. The edit history is there that if somebody went through them, they could make a strong case against him---one that would be hard to defend against. But by attacking individual incidents, they lack the punch and let the defenders of Malleus come to his aid. Generally I defend Malleus, not because I am oblivious to his rude behavior/history; but rather because the specific case/rationale against him for individual blocks is lacking/knee jerk/premature.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've come across enough Malleus incidents to not be surprised at him having a long block log, but I can't say I've looked into the specific incidents that lead to the earlier blocks. I appreciate that his FAs mean that some people believe in cutting him extra slack - but it does surprise me that he still has defenders after the latest attack. Afterall he has been here long enough to know that the c word is not acceptable on either side of the pond - OK in a comedy sketch but this place isn't Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Review or a Derek and Clive sketch. ϢereSpielChequers 18:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- RE Malleus, I've always felt that those who want to get rid of Malleus are shooting themselves in the foot with their blocks. They know that the blocks will be over turned, but they still block for petty reasons that wouldn't result in blocks of anybody not named Malleus. The edit history is there that if somebody went through them, they could make a strong case against him---one that would be hard to defend against. But by attacking individual incidents, they lack the punch and let the defenders of Malleus come to his aid. Generally I defend Malleus, not because I am oblivious to his rude behavior/history; but rather because the specific case/rationale against him for individual blocks is lacking/knee jerk/premature.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- This might be as good a place as any to also puncture the idea that the word 'c***' is acceptable usage in general discourse in the UK. It might be acceptable in some parts of the UK, but to many in the UK it isn't acceptable, and certainly not in public. As I keep trying to tell people, Wikipedia is a public place, even user talk pages and projectspace talk pages (like WT:RFA). Even if you are talking to someone you know, it is not the same as talking to a mate down the pub (this is best explained in the statement by Bwilkins). And to those saying that it was 'understandable' in light of the blocks, when did getting blocked by admin A ever become an excuse to yell at editor B? Malleus knows all this, yet deliberately chose to flaunt these conventions in an attempt to get blocked. And he succeeded. Even if the case is declined, there is easily enough material for an RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that some of his reasoning might be subject to criticism, but it wouldn't have been if his block reason had been Longterm abuse. Despite recently being given yet another chance, promptly called an editor a f**** c***. But a key part of his rationale was "# You have a long term pattern of abuse". Now in my view that is fair comment, but only a valid block reason if accompanied by a fresh incident or some equally valid evidence that the pattern persists. In any event he has been asked to reconsider the reasons he gave for the block, but few dispute that the block itself was legit. Even those who don't care for the civility policy usually accept that calling someone a f******* c*** is a personal attack. As for an RFAR where is the evidence of an unsuccessful dispute resolution? Hawkeye has been told that a number of people disagree with parts of his block rationale, and he has responded by taking their comments on board. For an RFAR I'd expect to see inappropriate use of the tools and or inappropriate behaviour and an unsuccessful attempt at dispute resolution. What we have here is an appropriate use of the tools, a flawed rationale for that use and the stewed comment. The latter two he has promptly been retracting or clarifying. Maybe a trout would be in order - but not IMHO an RFAR. ϢereSpielChequers 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- WSC, I think you're asking the wrong question. Hawkeye told Arbcom the block was solely for the Spitfire edit. That's plainly untrue. What is clear to me is that Hawkeye realised the Spitfire edit after the block and is now adopting it as the reason for the block to weasel out of the wheel-warring claim. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this edit. Are you saying that you don't think that Malleus should have been blocked for attacking Spitfire? Or are you saying that Hawkeye would have reblocked Malleus regardless of the Spitfire attack? My reading of the situation is that Hawkeye has been asked for clarification and has cited the Spitfire edit as the justification for the block - if instead he'd said that he would have reimposed the block regardless of Malleus' subsequent edits then we'd be in a different situation. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- WCS, I think we are referring to this edit. Hawkeye didn't provide a cursory explaination as to why he reblocked Malleus, he gave a detailed one. In the detailed rationale, he explained that the reblock was "per consensus." In that summary he did not reference the Spitfire attack; had he done so, I don't think anybody would be faulting him. Ok, some would, but he would be on stronger ground to defend himself. He reblocked "per consensus", where no such consensus existed. He also tried to add a condition to anybody who wanted to unblock, I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself. Finally, while this quote says that there was no consensus that John had a COI issue when unblocking Malleus, Hawkeye's post in the ANI says otherwise. But its the fact that he gave the reason "per consensus" without raising "ongoing attacks" or referencing the F* C* attack raises our eyebrows.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this edit. Are you saying that you don't think that Malleus should have been blocked for attacking Spitfire? Or are you saying that Hawkeye would have reblocked Malleus regardless of the Spitfire attack? My reading of the situation is that Hawkeye has been asked for clarification and has cited the Spitfire edit as the justification for the block - if instead he'd said that he would have reimposed the block regardless of Malleus' subsequent edits then we'd be in a different situation. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)