Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Probable deceased Wikipedian..

I remember a while back there was a set procedure for Wikipedians who passed away, someone indicated to me privately that we probably have such a situation with User:Mike Keith Smith. Anyone want to look this over, and determine if we should do the usual things (whatever they are) with them? (link to contribs),(link to story on death). Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether deceased Wikipedian accounts should be blocked, I don't think there's any consensus on it so it should probably just be left. Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is for Wikipedians with "at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia", I don't know if that is the case here. –xeno^talk 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... he didn't even have 50 edits, so while he had an account, I would not consider him a wikipedian..---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if he had 1 edit, it should be looked into and respect paid if the user has passed away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Had this fellow been an otherwise undistinguished person who made less than 50 edits to Wikipedia, I'd agree with Xeno & Balloonman. However, Mike Keith Smith appears to be a notable individual who either has, or may in the future have, an article about him. I'd block the account, & leave a suggestion at the Signpost about either an article or a mention there. (Notable people who edit Wikipedia are always worth at least a line in the "In other News" section, IMHO.) He doesn't rate an entry to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians -- although I would be surprised if the other three who've commented in this thread don't rate a section there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user's contributions, looks like there is an article about him. Michael Keith Smith. SirFozzie (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Llywrch, a mention in the Signpost would probably be nice, but the Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians seems out of date, so I don't see an entry (at least by me) happening. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Dead wikipedian}} on the userpage might serve well, too. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That template title should probably be renamed to something a little less blunt. "Deceased Wikipedian" maybe. -- œ^™ 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Erledigt. Someone with a bot might want to go through and change {{Dead wikipedian}} to {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on all the many pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the manual of style opposes "polite language" such as "passed away" in favor of the blunt "died." Edison (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• If I may weigh in as one of the primary contributors to the development of the style guidance in this area. The advisement against euphemistic language—like the rest of the guideline—is meant to apply to literary composition in article space. This sort of template is much more in the nature of a personal communication; thus, in terms of tone, "deceased" strikes me as more sensitive and appropriate than "dead".—DCGeist (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• This makes sense; the MOS doesn't really apply to pages such as this that aren't articles or templates that appear in articles. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I was only suggesting renaming the title of the template, not the text within it. But it's fine, anyhow. -- œ^™ 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason his user page has been left as his autobio? Also, the account has been blocked but the template hasn't been put on the page. If the template is put on the user page, it would be an idea to tidy up both the user page and the user talk page, and also the article talk page (in case someone tries to reply to the comment he left there in February 2008, however unlikely that might seem). Also, as he edited his own article, the template about that should be put on the talk page of the article, even though he has died. Also, the article itself could do with some attention, and that is arguably more important than what should happen to the userpage or account. Is there a place to ask if others are willing to tidy the article up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• It may seem odd, but the editors who patrol Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are willing to tackle such articles, if you can explain more clearly to them what the attention required is. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wasn't aware they dealt with recently deceased people as well. I'll pop over there. The reason I mentioned it above was that the above post I made was more trying to make sure things didn't get forgotten, and listing everything as I thought of it, covering both issues raised above and issues that could be dealt with elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• The template didn't feel right. I've added a note to the user page and made the user talk page a redirect and protected them both. If that resolves this, then someone can mark the thread resolved. If something different needs doing, it can be discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow Commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias

I'm crossposting this from the Commons ANI: On meta I proposed on allowing commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias. Please see this page for reasoning & post any feedback there. --DieBuche (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2010 (

Propose Topic Ban

For User: Wittsun, on all articles and edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion. Per [1] and [2].

Supports and opposes can go below. Also feel free to comment on either of the two original threads, if you wish. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - having seen the article Six Families of Berlin, which Wittsun deprodded, it is clear that Wittsun holds extremist views on this subject matter. The page was an anti-Lebanese racist hoax/synthesis, and it is clear that Wittsun's views show that he cannot edit impartially on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs) 22.39, today

How so? Being only one of two German speakers on that thread, I was able to evaluate the referenced sources for notability. As for stonemason89's partisan fixation to get me banned, I encourage others to evaluate his 'contributions' such as the supposed widespread misuse of the metaphor 'black hole'[3] and his close following of the 'redneck shop'[4]]--Wittsun (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been accepted by the Did You Know editorial team as legitimate, and were even featured on the main page, so you're going to have a very hard time getting people to agree with your statement. Also, simply creating an article about a particular topic, as long as the topic is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedia (unlike, for example, the aforementioned Six Families of Berlin), is not in an of itself a reason to suspect bias. If everyone on Wikipedia was afraid to write or contribute to articles about certain topics because they thought other people would judge them for it, then Wikipedia's growth and comprehensiveness would be greatly harmed. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban -- 6 months, say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as Stonemason89 is an activist who himself is biased when it comes to racial issues.--Wittsun (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since when is being anti-racist being biased? In my opinion, you're lucky this isn't a full ban. Support per Stonemason's reasons. (By the way, I really think this dispute belongs as ANI instead of the main noticeboard.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Being 'anti'-anything for ideological reasons is an admission of bias. By the looks of things admins have shown more tolerance towards your presence here than you show others.--Wittsun (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • First of all, I think it's more than a little ironic that someone who defends Podblanc would accuse other people of not showing "tolerance". Second of all, Wikipedia has a very definite policy regarding WP: FRINGE views, as opposed to mainstream ones; white nationalism is definitely the former, while being opposed to racism is generally regarded as the latter. You may think that's unfair, but it's how Wikipedia operates. WP: NPOV means that we try to avoid adding our own bias to articles, but it does not mean that we have to give FRINGE viewpoints the same amount of weight as mainstream ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban related to race and ethnicity only. There doesn't seem to be an issue in regards to religion. -Oescp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a heavy-handed editor yourself[5] with a history of over-involvement in ethnic disputes this vote is hardly surprising.--Wittsun (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Oescp's comment on Spylab's talk page, it appears as though he conducted himself civilly. He didn't attack Spylab, he merely asked Spylab about some of the latter's edits, which Oescp didn't understand the rationale for. Nothing wrong with that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I support a topic ban as a minimum, why aren't we talking about an indef block? An editor with a history of making unacceptable edits to push their political views has no place in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban (six months as per Sarek is ok). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Who was it that said "Many laws make bad men, as bad men make many laws"? -- Answer: Walter Savage Landor--Wittsun (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't know that apothegm; personally, however, I'm more for quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt?, as Horace put it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer Tacitus myself: corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.--Wittsun (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems excessive, only one block for 24 hours, nothing here warrants such a punishment. Requests for a full ban are laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Leland Yee new editors scared away

So two new editors try to improve Leland Yee's article and what do editors do? Threaten them, report them and then scare them off. Is this really appropriate conduct for an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.148.164 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here. One problem I just discovered is a lot of close paraphrase - I removed 'most notably' from a paragraph and then discovered that it had been copied from the newspaper source (which is clearly a press release). Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Leland_Yee. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 much? –MuZemike 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Could someone please take a look at this on AN/I and do whatever closing out and implementation seems appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the related RfC here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why it seems to be a problem getting an admin to deal with this. Is there a problem I should know abour? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I just cleared a sizeable backlog there. IT's quietened down now, but more admin eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've blocked Rodhullandemu for 24 hours. It's been suggested that because he's an admin, I should get a second opinion. While I don't think that's really true - why get a second opinion for blocking an admin, and not get one for blocking any other established editor? - I'm always open to feedback, so I'll bring it here.

Quick history:

• Rod and Malleus were part of an argument at Wikipedia:BN#Asking for adminship back.
• Rod told Malleus to stop arguing at BN, and take it somewhere else.
• Rod went to Malleus's talk page, and rather pompously repeated the same. [6]
• It may come as a surprise to some of you that Malleus doesn't like admins coming and being pompous on his talk page.
• For the next few hours, Malleus, Rod, and some kibitzers traded childish insults.
• It's worth noting that Malleus did not post to BN again.
• Rod told Malleus that he was "less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe". [7]
• Malleus told Rod basically the same thing. [8]
• Rod blocked Malleus for 31 hours for personal attacks.
• I blocked Rod for 24 hours for a personal attack.
• Moni3 unblocked Malleus.
• I asked Rod to assure me he wouldn't go back to Malleus' page, and I would do the same. He wouldn't so I didn't unblock. There's an unblock template up there now.

To be clear, I would not have blocked Rod if he hadn't blocked Malleus. Malleus is a big boy, can take care of himself, and was being rude too. But it is completely unacceptable to block someone you're arguing with, especially for "personal attacks" on yourself, especially when you just called him a name on his own talk page. If Rod truly believes that Malleus should have been blocked for "personal attacks", I don't see how he can believe that he isn't guilty of the same. If he doesn't believe that, then I suppose I could change my block rationale to "grossly inapproriate use of admin tools".

On Rod's talk page, Rod is saying I should not have blocked him because he's an admin. On the contrary, I think admins should actually be held to the same, if not a higher, standard. He's also saying he should have been given a warning (really? It's not obvious you don't call someone dogshit, and then block them when they dare to answer back?), and that I've further insulted him by not placing a template on his talk page (??).

I welcome a couple of things:

• Some feedback on the block.
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I unblocked Malleus. I don't have an opinion on the block. I wouldn't have blocked Rodhullandemu, just because I don't like to block other editors. But I do agree with Tony1's suggestion that Rodhullandemu should go through a admin review. First, to come to a user's page and patronize him as an admin is abhorrent. To continue to bait the user, to attempt to silence him for using valid (albeit profane) arguments is simply stupid. It has no basis in any effective administrative duties. It's petty and childish. To block the person with whom you're arguing is astonishingly, breathtakingly abusive. Rodhullandemu does not seem to grasp these cause and effect relationships per the unblock requests and exchanges with Floquenbeam on his talk page. Stunningly, he uses the argument that he writes GAs or something. I don't get that. Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs?? That's just weird. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block to me. Welcome to the club of those who have blocked an admin, Floquenbeam. Though I imagine you'll soon also be member to those who have had their blocks of an admin overturned before it expires. It's pretty rare that these things stick, valid as they may (or may not) be. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, I just declined the unblock request, and he stated that that was unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The argument at Malleus' talkpage was escalating and the blocks certainly put a stop to it. However, it cannot be acceptable for an admin to use their tools in an argument against their opponent. Given Rod's volume of work on the encyclopedia, I can only assume that he lost his cool and didn't think through the ramifications of using his tools in such circumstances. His subsequent comments on his talkpage show he is still missing that point. Since the block is preventative, not punitive, as soon as he regains his composure and realises that he crossed a bright line, he should be unblocked. I don't feel that there's any pattern of tool abuse here to require any further action. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam acted appropriately in this situation. Rod has a long pattern of good work both as an editor and as an administrator. However, current consensus is greatly opposed to blocks by involved administrators. Thus, the act of blocking by Rod was questionable. Hopefully this issue can be resolved without hard feelings by any parties. Rod disengaging totally from the situation, while difficult, is the quickest route to such a non-negative resolution. Lewis Windsor (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good Block You do NOT use your admin tools to win an argument. Let the dust settle and cooler heads prevail. I think we'll see one red-faced admin tomorrow. N419BH 05:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Each of the users who are involved in this have something to worry about.
  • Rod: Rod was involved in the content dispute, engaged in grossly inappropriate commentary, and was responded to with the same kind of commentary. Rod was not in a position where he was permitted to use his tools (as they do not exist for that purpose), but blocked Malleus anyway for attacks that were made within half hour of the block being applied. Basic principle that administrators are expected to refrain from issuing (or modifying) blocks in response to personal attacks directed at themselves (especially where there is a level of involvement in the dispute).
  • Flo: It appears Floquenbeam responded to this block by blocking Rod. The stated reason in the log was personal attacks/harassment (that were made some 2 hours ago), as well as "Rod is going to have a hard time unblocking Malleus; I've blocked him for 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)". Blocking an administrator for refusing to unblock someone (or because they blocked someone inappropriately) is not what the blocking tool exists for. If it was to prevent Rod from going to Malleus' talk page, and it would have been applied irrespective of the incidents here, then fine. However, Flo stated this block would not have been applied had Malleus not been blocked. This is problematic.
  • Moni3/Courcelles: Meanwhile, Moni3 unblocked Malleus with the log reason "Oh for Pete's sake". Courcelles was going to unblock Malleus also. This was after both admins could see that Rod was blocked. No unblock request was made and it was unlikely that an assurance would be made that such rhetoric would not continue. It is unlikely that any other editor in those circumstances would have been unblocked in the same fashion, even if the block was inappropriate. Is this a situation where a couple of admins were enforcing their own views about civility blocks? Possibly. It would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus had Rod not been blocked; it would have been appropriate to unblock Malleus if Rod was also unblocked. However, the appropriateness of unblocking any single party (alone) in the circumstances is more than just questionable - it is problematic.
  • Conclusion: The person who has the most to lose (or has a greater chance of losing it) is Rod for multiple issues, but even that has been somewhat pacified by the act of keeping him blocked while unblocking the other party. Frankly, either way, based on what actually has happened here, I think all of you involved in the incident have at least something to worry about either in your use (or attempted use) of tools, your judgement, or in your conduct. These issues are certainly likely to crop up when (or if) it goes to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncmv, a clarification: I didn't block him for blocking Malleus, I blocked him for a personal attack because he blocked Malleus for one. A subtle but important distinction, IMHO. In other words, I would have been perfectly willing to overlook his violation of WP:NPA if he hadn't blocked Malleus, because both of them were acting foolish. But I was no longer willing to overlook this violation of policy after he blocked Malleus for having the audacity to talk back to an admin when insulted. Also, I don't understand this "two hours ago" comment; he was blocked within 10 minutes of making the comment. And finally, I was perfectly willing to unblock Rod if he would agree to stay away from Malleus' talk page; he was unwilling to agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If he inappropriately blocked someone for NPA (which he did), the block should have been lifted and you should have opened the dispute regarding his conduct here. Instead, you took matters into your own hands and blocked him (as a tit for tat as if this is a war or something). Your judgement was seriously flawed and had a much more chilling effect than any block on Malleus could ever have. You say you blocked him for NPA, yet you sat on your hands and refused to unblock based on technicalities. If Malleus was unblocked without any unblock request or assurance, be it by Moni3 or anyone else, I don't see how you could reasonably believe that the scales were being balanced by keeping him blocked. I'm not going to merely glare at Rod's poor judgement and ignore the other serious problems here (due to an overreliance on the incomplete picture you provided at the outlook of this review); it shouldn't have taken Wehwalt to approach you to unblock - you should have done it yourself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

He did not wheelwar despite giving him this bait; he requested to be unblocked. Meanwhile, the person whose violation was overlooked received

Cliques abusing their admin powers for their friends? Unpossible. Q ^{T C} 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Malleus was acting like a fool. However Rodhullandemu acted like a much bigger fool. I don't particularly have a problem with the block of Rodhullandemu - I see he's now stomped off with a big dramatic retirement announcement. As is always the case with editors who make big dramatic retirement announcements, the project is better off without him. Problem solved, nothing more to do here. Friday (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block: I haven't looked at the specifics of this interaction, but I understand there were personal attacks flying back and forth and Rod should have simply the more mature of the two and taken the issues to AN/I rather than responding with personal attacks of his own and then abusing his admin tools to "win" an argument. The block should remain until Rod has calmed down and recognises that blocking someone for personal attacks against himself, while making personal attacks of his own, is a gross misuse of the admin tools. Since this is an isolated incident I don't feel that this alone will warrant admin recall, but Rod needs to appreciate that a 24-hour block is the least of his worries: the way he treated the tools could cause the community to lose faith in him, and the longer he takes to accept that he was in the wrong and promises to use the tools in a responsible way, the more likely that is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I hardly see how he is going to accept anything when he's declared that he has retired, presumably as a result of this block (or its handling). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    Clearly he's not ready to do so at the moment; I suspect he will quickly regret declaring himself "retired" and apologise profusely, promise not to do it again, etc. In which case fine, give Rod a second chance if he promises not to abuse the tools again. If he sticks to his "retirement", then good luck to him; we certainly don't need admins who abuse their tools to fight with other editors and then throw a strop about it when blocked for blatant misuse of the admin tools he promised to use responsibly. I would say give him a few days to cool off and acknowledge his own fault; if he doesn't, perhaps admin recall will be necessary. Just my opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    The point that is being missed in all of this is that the method by which we decide whether administrators should be desysopped or not, based on their tool-use, is well-established - those methods have never included blocking. As for incivility, editors and admins are on equal playing ground...which still leaves the question unanswered - why is one editor being unblocked without any requests while the admin is being still blocked despite making a request earlier? Because "he started it"? Or has he shown a tendency to reblock the editor even after the editor was unblocked? Has the community forgotten the doctrine of good faith or is it trying to signal that he was trying to hurt the project? He had every opportunity to wheel war so that he could become unblocked too; he did not take this bait that was dangled in front of him. Instead, he expected the community to respond to his unblock request by unblocking him, given that Malleus was also unblocked (for that matter, without any on-wiki unblock request or assurance of any sort); the administrators involved failed to meet this expectation. I cannot in good conscience ignore these facts. The serious issues in judgement should have been addressed through normal methods; not childish insult trades and childish block/unblock wars. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    "Bait that was dangled in front of him"? That's completely ridiculous, and insulting. It does, however, save me some time, as I no longer see any value in discussing this with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Let's see: Admin compares editor to dogshit on editor's own talk page. Editor responds, effectively saying "no, you're dogshit." Admin blocks editor for "personal attack" (comparing him to dogshit). Admin retires in a huff when blocked for his ridiculous behavior. Seems like it was handled fine by all concerned except the admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's unhelpful to overlook the fact that behavior on all sides was ridiculous - responding to incivility with incivility is utterly stupid and childish, regardless of which space it is on-wiki or regardless of excuses like "he started it". Admin Flo blocked admin Rod for personal attacks (which might have been fine), in which case no unblock was warranted by Moni3 or Courcelle. Had Flo not blocked, an unblock would have taken place (which would have been fine) and it is very unlikely that a contributor would have been lost today. Flo has also given every indication that he blocked for tool misuse if the civility block didn't stick - admins should not block other admins on grounds of tool misuse (unless it is an emergency, like account compromised, vandalism, etc). If anything, this seems to have been handled poorly by all concerned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse While I personally never had a problem with Rod and always thought him to be a good admin, I have to agree with Friday that in this case Rod simply made a mistake. Not only because of the personal attacks but also because he used his tools in a situation he was involved in. I do think though that Malleus should not have been unblocked, since in this case both sides were equally responsible for what happened. It's sad to see that Rod used this situation to announce his retirement though - he should accept that he was baited by Malleus and overreacted, misusing the tools in the process. We all make mistakes after all - how we handle them and the consequences is the important part. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good block, Floquenbeam.'* Rod "advised" MF (he says), and MF didn't do as he was told, so Rod decided that was "disruption". What does "disruption" mean today? Lèse majesté ? Let me quote WP:BLOCK's list of what the actual blockable disruptions are: [9]. Did Malleus do any of that lot? Nope. "Disagreeing with our betters" isn't in there, that I can see. I quote some more from the same source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&oldid=371986015#Explanation_of_blocks "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment " Did Rod do that? Nope again. I'm not much of a blocker, but Rod's block of Malleus was so horribly bad, and misused admin tools so flagrantly, that I think he should stay blocked his full time, and we should ignore his flouncing-off "retired" template. A small case of burnout, perhaps. We've all been there there, and when we are, the community should be protected from our bad actions. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC).
• Good block, blocking someone you're in an argument with for personal attacks no worse than the ones you've made yourself is very, very silly behaviour. Technically, I think both of them warranted a block given the bilateral nature of the argument - but unambiguously it should not have been Rod that did the blocking of Malleus. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fair enough block. But I hope Rod comes back to edit again when the block expires. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and concur that admins should be held to the same standards as any other editors and that it is inappropriate to use admin tools against someone you're arguing with: I think that's what WP:INVOLVED is there to avoid; and I think it could have justified at least an RCF/U, had Rod not retired. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I think he should be desysoped for his outrageous behavior. "blocking an Admin is a serious step to take, and should not be done unilaterally", give me a break. Sole Soul (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Kommentar Flo: your version of events seems to have left out who made the first personal attack, which appears to be Malleus when he called Rod an idiot. The many people who watch Malleus' talk page, which includes many admins as well as notable editors highly active in the FA process, chose to ignore the attack and instead let it fester and grow. Indeed, to some extent they have joined in by being jocular about what occurred. These jokers include Moni3, who lifted the block on Malleus. The FA cabal is fun and productive, but it needs to be on its guard against its all too frequent slips into the unfunny and unproductive. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not quite right DrKiernan, not unless you believe that calling someone a coward is a term of endearment.[10] Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• • A quick look at my contributions should dispel any notion that I'm part of an FA cabal, Dr. K. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but those that are have a habit of closing ranks rather than showing contrition when they make a mistake or behave poorly. That's what I find disappointing. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple move requests @ Cote d'Ivoire = disruption?

Anyone else agree that this is becoming effing ridiculous? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it Gdansk or Danzig? I agree, starting move discussions every week is not acceptable, and there should be a moratorium on doing so for at least X amount of time. NW (Talk) 13:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Need extra eyes on Colton Harris-Moore

Also known as the "Barefoot Bandit". Sounds like he was finally captured today after a two year manhunt. Not too many details as of yet. Expect a large amount of POV speculation, unsourced BLP additions, and many, many people attempting to add links to his facebook page and facebook fanclub. Extra admin eyes would be helpful. N419BH 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stats are down?

See [11] for an example. We seem to be missing a lot of data from the last few days ([12]). Does anyone know what's happening? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a recurring issue with stats.grok.se - there were several threads last month about this on WP:VPT. —DoRD (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)