Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would anyone care to take a look at recent moves here. I'm not getting involved, but an IP editor has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR on the same issue. I am about the notify the editor involved. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not getting involved, other than to file a spurious ANI report and continue your inappropriate engagement with Malleus? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Andy, what admin action are you looking for here? MF moved the page once and it has been restored. --John (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(

Fatuorum

22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. What's the issue? AD 22:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the BBC's take on this. Like Gaddafi/Qadhafi, this sort of argument is rarely productive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

... and here's the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's take on it "Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618), courtier, explorer, and author [also known as Raleigh, Sir Walter]"

Fatuorum

22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• As it has not been made clear, this report concerns moves to
  •
  ] 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD and one bold move therein, is not even close to being nearly a matter for AN/I. This thread is frivolous, and if there's going to be an AN/I action it will be against Rodhullandemu for shopping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Google seems to have Raleigh as the

WP:COMMONNAME, but let's not edit war, it's not worth it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please not that Rod has also blocked an editor who was making the change while involved in the edit war himself. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Malleus moved the article, and his move was challenged. The move was discussed on the talk page, and the agreement was that the new title was correct—so the move was re-done. The correct approach to a wrong move is to challenge it on the talk page, not to file an ANI report (if indeed the motive here is nothing more than that Rodhull disagrees with the move). My view is that this complaint is not actionable.
  •
  ] 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose this resulted from a recent post to
  ODNB. Rodullandemu, you are "involved" up to your eyeballs in a long-standing inappropriate fixation on Malleus; you have been reminded to back off many times, including here at ANI. This disruption needs to stop, here, on his talk, and everywhere. It seems MF can't edit without you looking to allege something. If he starts actually damaging articles or something, then someone else will notice and someone else will deal with it. But then, he's not likely to do that. This is enough: I propose that we ban Rodhullandemu from Malleus's talk page at least; more if that is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with that. I'm trying to avoid Malleus, but when he does something like that, I consider it my duty to request fresh eyes lest I be accused of the very thing of which you accuse me. Unhelpful and perhaps unworthy. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And that is just plain malarkey; anyone can review all of your posts to Malleus's talk over the last six months and find out just how much malarkey. I propose you be banned at least from his talk, and also from spurious reports about him to ANI. Your actions and disruptive posts to his talk are aggravating and waste a lot of time for productive writers and reviewers (I see Andy Walsh in here just as he is trying to promote FAC, since we all know this likely resulted from a recent of discussion of ODNB at FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Kindly do not accuse me of knowing things I do not know anything of. I do not go to FAC, nor am I aware of any discussion of ODNB there. I saw an undiscussed move, lacking Talk page consensus, in the middle of an edit-war on the very same issue. No matter whom the parties, that did not look good to me, and furthermore, to accuse me of "shopping" is disingenuous when I tried to distance myself from reverting Malleus directly and brought it here for "fresh eyes". Rodhullandemu
        22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, do you have diffs of warnings in this matter? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In one of the (many) last times he did this, I began gathering diffs for an RFC/U. I don't know where I put them. To reconstruct, at least two of them were during the DYK plagiarism discussion that got archived somewhere on ANI to a separate subpage, by Nuclearwarfare. I've been aware since then, and have seen Rod's constant taunting of Malleus on his talk, but stopped prepping the RFC based on Rod's personal situation, but sympathy can only go so far when productive editors are being stopped from their work. I may have placed those diffs, months ago, on Malleus's talk-- MF, do you have them? If not, I will have to spend a long time searching archives. It will take me some time to find them now, in case someone else knows where that discussion is. There have been more since then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing those diffs Sandy.

Fatuorum

23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe some of the diffs can be found in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a partial diff of the last ANI discussion here, which contains the full history, but someone else might be able to find the tail end of that discussion in ANI archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another, more recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Before this gets too far into other problems lets get the chrono order of what happened on the Raleigh article on the record. An anon IP with no previous edits Special:Contributions/76.4.127.100 shows up and changes the name on the article. The IP edit wars against more than one editor and gets blocked. Then MF, who has not edited the article for more than six months (and could have moved it then if it were important) moves it (breaking the link to the disambig page BTW) with no agreement on the talk page for the move. Then I move it back to the established name because there has been no discussion to move it. Only then does MF starts a discussion on the talk page. That discussion is currently ongoing. There was no agreement on MF's move and there was no third move. Please try and get your facts straight. This looks much more like MF showing up at an article that Rod was currently involved in editing and taking a provocative action. It also looks like Rod came here to get more eyes on the situation and to avoid interacting with MF. If it isn't an ANI situation than so be it but lets get the facts straight on what occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess AGF doesn't apply when it comes to Malleus, and recent perusal of ODNB. Anyway, one discussion is linked above, that included this, plenty of incivility from Rodhullandemu, and a repeated claim that his account had been compromised. And anyone can review all of his posts to Malleus's talk to see how frequently he taunts MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get the facts right by all means MarnetteD. I moved the article to what I believed and still believe should be its correct title. You chose to revert that move and I then opened a talk page discussion. So what did I do wrong in your opinion?

Fatuorum

23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that MarnetteD's edit summary in reverting the move claimed there was a consensus for "Raleigh" on the talk page. This claim is not supported by the contents of the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the concept of "consent by silence" in law, but the article had persisted for six months in its present form. The Talk page shows some discussion but no consensus for a change of title. Furthermore, if you're going to move an article, you should at least change all references in the article from "Raleigh" to "Ralegh", except those that impact upon image names and references; that wasn't done, hence the "botched" in the title of this thread. Now, making major changes implies a responsibility to follow it through, and even perhaps include in the

lead, text such as "rendered by modern writers as Raleigh". But that didn't happen. If you're going to do a job, at least do a proper job. Rodhullandemu

00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of tidying up the move when your compadre reverted the move, hence my work was lost in an edit conflict. Your continual arrogant rudeness is well beyond a joke. Perhaps you administrators have some magical tool that allows you to move a page and simultaneously edit its content, but I'm afraid that we peons don't.

Fatuorum

04:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My initial post is based ON AGK's summary of events which bore no relation to what had actually happened. As to the move back I was going by Wikpelli's post here [1] I assumed that there was a consensus for leaving the page where it is. I was in error. However, there was no consensus to move it and per this [2] which shows numerous dictionaries with the current spelling and only the ODoBH with the alternative spelling.

WP:COMMONNAME also applies. In light of this and the ongoing edits on that page today any move should have been discussed before it occurred and anyone with experience around here would have done so. MarnetteD | Talk

23:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you in the habit of making false claims about what has been said on talkpages when reverting? Anyone with any worthwhile experience would actually have looked at the talkpage before making such a claim. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No I am not. The important thing was to protect the article in the form that it had been in from the beginning. Anyone with worthwhile experience who show up and moves a page where contentious editing is occurring would certainly know to open a discussion and post a move request here Wikipedia talk:Requested moves MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Without getting involved in the rights and wrongs of what happened here, I think there is a larger problem here and on that basis I have proposed a solution here. If Rod accepts, what time period would be sufficient? --John (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's a moot point. He hasn't accepted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban

Proposed:

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  ), indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on Malleus Fatuorum's user talk page, filing reports on admin noticeboards about Malleus Fatuorum, reverting edits on articles made by Malleus Fatuorum, commenting in other venues about Malleus Fatuorum, or directly responding to Malleus Fatuorum's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as Rodhullandemu stays away from Malleus Fatuorum. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this ban with blocks of an appropriate duration.

I've been watching this situation for some time, and this needs to stop. Malleus does not deserve this harassment. Perhaps with this formal restriction in place, Rodhullandemu can redirect his efforts in a more-productive direction. –Grondemar 23:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the exact same ban is placed on MF. MarnetteD | Talk 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Only way forward that will avoid time-consuming formal procedures. --John (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support for a trial period of at least three months. (MarnetteD, that's interesting, but Malleus never goes to Rod's talk-- it's a one-way street of harassment.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per long-standing history, see here. Last November, there was already consensus for <something>, but Rod was given a break because he disappeared and argued his account had been compromised. We shouldn't have to keep regularly having this same discussion and putting up with his taunting of Malleus, and as someone mentioned in the last discussion, that we're having to discuss an interaction ban on an admin, something is seriously wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rubbish, he posted there just a week ago. AD 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) MF never goes to Rod's talk page. Since when? He was there last week baiting him just last week [3] Thanks for you speed AD. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Struck; I suggest perusal of Malleus's page to see the level of provocation and posting there from Rodhullandemu, relative to the one response from MF. It's not a two-way street; it's a long-standing problem that Rod provoked and Rod won't drop.[4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that statement. I suggest a full reading of the post on Rod's page from the 17th. MF was insulting and threatening. Rod deserves thanks for not rising to the baiting that was going on there.MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with MarnetteD, they can both be as bad as each other, constantly bickering (though I admit it is usually Rod who instigates it). They both need to unwatch each other's talk pages and avoid each other. AD 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, this needs to work both ways. GiantSnowman 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Sandy's new info. GiantSnowman 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I read this as signifying Rod's acceptance of this proposal, at least in principle. --John (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still think it would be better to put something formal in place, so that no one can unilaterally back out of it. I would also be willing to support a mutual interaction ban, instead of a one-way ban. This situation needs disengagement. –Grondemar 23:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree and agree too with the amendment that it should be mutual rather than one-way. I have accordingly asked Malleus if he would also be willing to stay away from Rod. --John (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I can't believe that post by Rod will solve the problem. Rod has said before that he's staying away from Malleus, but apparently continues to feel that it is necessary for him to correct Malleus from time to time. Ucucha 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) & 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • In what way? Nobody's immune from criticism here, and there has been nothing since I took MF's Talk page off my watchlist until today. I repeat: it may be coincidence pure and simple, but when an editpr, whomever it is,
          boldly moves a page which has been the subject of a recent edit-war, Something seems rotten in the state of Denmark, since naming is obviously contentious. In those circumstances, no sane editor moves the article without first looking at the Talk page for consensus, which as far as I can see, doesn't exist, and making a proposal. That looks provocative, pure and simple. Rodhullandemu
          00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • That you are so concerned about the trivial difference between two common accepted spellings of the man's name shows that your judgment is affected when it comes to anything involving Malleus. Your action has made zero net difference to Wikipedia, and only caused a lot of unnecessary consternation and waste of time. That you think your admin work and actions to contain Malleus are so indispensably necessary to the Wikipedia are a problem. You can't seem to walk away, even over something relatively insignificant. The community has asked you to do this many times; it hasn't worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Rubbish, and you know it. Google search shows how people come to our article, and the bottom line is that our concern should be for them. As regards this article, "Raleigh" is by far the most preferred term compared with "Ralegh". However, that did not concern me initially, when in the middle of an edit-war, the article was moved unilaterally, and that is not the action of an experienced editor, who might be expected to have looked first at the Talk page to assess consensus. Malleus isn't that stupid; the article is on his watchlist, and he could have easily have examined why it suddenly popped up there again, and examined the history. He didn't appear to have done so. Both he and you are ostensibly capable of rising above trivial disputes, but sorry, all I see is a bilious witchhunt. Stick with FA please but do not fuck with the janitors. Rodhullandemu 01:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the added condition that someone tell Rod he isn't the most important and bestest editor on Wikipedia ever. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, why, what did you expect me to say? The immediately above comment is a gross breach of how we are meant to interact here, and I've never claimed to be so; I invite you to refactor/withdraw. I just do my job with the mop and occasionally contribute content, mostly gnoming, but some DYKs and a handful of GA's. Mostly I try to keep articles within policies and guidelines. I've already taken MF's Talkpage off my watchlist, but if I see him vandalising, it's my job to deal with that. That's why we have admins. To cry "involved editor!" in such circumstances would be missing the point. But as also pointed out above, this is a two-way thing, and MF also realising his humanity, as well as that of his fellow-editors, would be no bad thing. Sorry if you disagree, but we do NOT operate a two-class system here. See you at ArbCom. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination can the move to the "Ralegh" spelling be described as vandalism. I urge Rodhullandemu to rethink his use of language here. Maybe he meant to say "if I see MF doing anything I disagree with, it's my job to start an ANI thread about him to stir up shit". DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; "IF" is a mighty big concept for such a short word, and should not be abused. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This has to stop Rod. When have you ever seen me vandalising anything?

Fatuorum

00:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, MF, I don't see you getting the difference between a hypothetical and a real here. Never have I accused you of vandalism; I'm saying that if it occurred, it should be dealt with, and by whichever admin gets to it first, and there's no reason why that should not be me. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I might agree with that if I believed that you were able to discriminate between vandalism and your desire to have everything your own way. But I don't.

Fatuorum

00:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason it should not be you, Rod, is that you aren't objective when it comes to Malleus, and the Wikipedia will not break if you don't get to something first-- there really are plenty of admins here, in spite of you always falling back on how tired you are, how hard you work, etc, etc, each time you cause one of these problems. Take Malleus off your list, accept the interaction ban because no matter how many times you claim you'll leave him alone, you never do-- that might lighten the load. This spurious ANI distracted, at least, Malleus from an article he was writing, Laser brain (Andy) from promoting FAC, and me from an article I intended to finish citing. We can all do without the constant distractions because you can't disengage from Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh puh!. Is it really beyond you to not all pitch in, like a fanclub, and just ignore it and walk away? That's an argument that doesn't bear much scrutiny, by adult terms. That's not just limp, it's lame. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool off-- we don't need any more wanker charges here. If you can claim your admin work is sooooo important that the Wiki will break if you don't address a common name with two different spellings, we can point out the work you interrupt with these drahmaz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::::::} "wanker charges"? Really? How really, do you dare to breach

You clearly have a different axe to grind than contributing content. Step aside please. Your continual interventions targeted at MF make a strong case for separation of you from the ability to edit. If you weren't an admin, you'd be long gone. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say, leaning support here, though I'd like to see more evidence of past interactions. In chronological order: Malleus moves the page
  WP:BRD. Rodhullandemu opens a thread against Malleus at AN/I. MarnetteD reverts Malleus. Malleus opens a discussion on the talk page, Rodhullandemu posts on the talk page opposing the move. Rodhullandemu tells User:John that he has no opinion about the page's name and was merely acting as a good admin stopping an edit war (the page had never been moved before and the last discussion was 3 years ago) [6]). There seems to be something wrong here. At the very least he must familiarise himself on basic policies like BRD, but his actions here and his comment to John I think can be taken as prima facie evidence of a lot of bad faith in operation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk
  ) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again MF shows up on a page that he has not edited for over six months and moves a page where edit warring over that exact wording has been going on. That is not a coincidence. MarnetteD | Talk 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So Malleus sees the issue of the name raised in an article on his watchlist (he's edited it before as you say), decides to look into the matter and moves the page. Is this not the most likely explanation for his move? As far as I can see the dispute about the form of the name in the recent edit history was tied to the anon breaking image-links and did not indicate BRD could not be followed (if I am wrong here then Rodhullandemu blocked an editor he was revert warring against). Am I being fair? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again? Let's not exaggerate and fail to AGF; Malleus's first edit to that article was in July 2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The editor breached 3RR and then sock/meatpuppeted. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You were the main editor reverting him, so you are too

involved to perform such a block (though free to seek other admin involvement); if it was a content issue that is. If it was about the broken images then there is no problem with your block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't patronise me, please, he was edit-warring and blockable. He was not supporting his edits except by edit-summaries, and broke 3RR even though I had on more than one occasion pointed him to the Talk page. That doesn't make me "involved", because I've been an admin for far too long to fall into that trap. Cuh! Rodhullandemu 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, this has already wasted too many people's time. If this needs to go to an RFC/ArbCom route, it will certainly end in an interaction ban anyway. Rod, I urge you to accept this voluntarily lest you face more unpleasant sanctions down the road. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Implied threat aside, I am perfectly prepared to avoid MF, even if this encyclopedia suffers as a result. If I do not step in, perhaps others will. If I could be certain of that, I'd live happily. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you are "perfectly prepared to avoid MF", then why have you opposed the interaction ban? It's not an implied threat, it's Wikipedia
      dispute resolution, and the route you are forcing the community to if you don't accept this proposal. Many of us are tired of dealing with your long-standing taunting of Malleus, as it takes time away from article writing and reviewing, and your behavior is an embarrassment to the admin corp. SandyGeorgia (Talk
      ) 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I really must protest against Rodhullandemu's persistent assertion that he and he alone is protecting wikipedia from my vandalism. Where are the civility police when you need them? (That was of course a rhetorical question.)
      Fatuorum
      00:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have I said I was alone in that? Please don't put words, or anything else, into my mouth. I just happen to have lots of spare time right now. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How can that be? Didn't you very recently post on your talk page that you hadn't slept for 48 hours? Are you trying to set some kind of record?

Fatuorum

00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support in the strongest possible terms. I respect both immensely, but nothing productive is coming from Rod interacting with Malleus and previous attempts to keep the two on opposite sides of the street of their own accords have failed. Hopefully Malleus will take the opportunity to avoid Rod and there will be no need for the kind of bilateral restriction suggested below. I also have to second Sandy's point that this saga in general and this thread in particular are distracting many editors (including myself) from more productive work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. In these circumstances it seems unhelpful to pick out one side in a long-running conflict. Impose sanctions on both or or on neither. Mathsci (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would be interested in what specific problems you found with Malleus's conduct here; I keyed in on the problem after the DYK plagiarism incident, and have seen Rod's taunting ever since. That the conflict is long-running does not mean both are equally involved or to blame. Rod comes to Malleus's talk page regularly to taunt him. And we do expect certain conduct from admins; when they repeatedly breach admin norms, they are likely to end up before ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was thinking of the events surrounding the blocking and unblocking of GTBacchus (by HJMitchell/Spartaz) in early January. I agree that wikipedia is not the place for editors or administrators to settle grudges or continually to cite personal circumstances as an excuse for poor conduct. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• SupportRod is a pest. Malleus is too bored to even rise to the bait much. It's obvious, Rod is stalking Malleus, not vice versa.TCO (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support something stronger. Rodhullandemu has been acting extremely poorly since his block of Malleus on 11 July of last year, which was one of the worst admin actions I've ever seen. Where,to refresh everyone's memory, he launched a personal attack at Malleus continued it, got the same in return, and replied by blocking him at 0149, and then left a final warning a minute later, when it is a critical breach of
  civility. Time to stop this disgraceful sequence in its tracks. Courcelles
  02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• comment from an enforcement POV a one way interaction ban strikes me as a bad idea.©Geni 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but the hope is that, with Rod prohibited from provoking Malleus, Malleus will have no reason to go anywhere near Rod. It would be unfair to impose this sanction on Malleus, because it is clearly Rod who has been (and continues, even on ANI where he's the subject of discussion for the very same thing) picking the fights. If rod is banned and Malleus picks a fight, then we can consider imposing the same restriction on him, but I think Malleus, like the rest of us, would much rather get on with writing an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This needs to be a mutual restriction to have the most teeth and best chance of working, methinks. This has less to do with "fault" and more to do with common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Gobsmacked epiphany I had no idea that Rodhullandemu was an admin. This puts the whole thing on a different plane. The
  talk
  ) 03:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have seen nothing positive come from rod appearing on Malleus' talk page. This is the better of the two solutions. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looking for trouble is not like looking for love. If you look for trouble, you find it. In general, I have great respect for Rod as an admin, but this particular area he should stay out of. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've never much liked the idea of interaction bans, but the notion of a one-sided ban is more objectionable still. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This isn't a knock on Rod's skills. But the recent interactions, coupled with Rod's bristley "tin ear" comment above, pushed me into the group !voting support. I'm a bit taken aback by Rod's lack of respect for consensus input of his fellow editors here, even though I understand Rod is peeved. I think it is a step in the right direction that Rod has taken MF's talkpage off his watchlist--there are a rogue sysop or two who in Rod's place (until the hammer falls) don't understand the wisdom of taking such steps in circumstances such as these, and view themselves as some Angel of Something-or-ever whose purpose is to follow another editor about the Project. But I would think, that being the case, Rod would not be likely to run into MF in the vast expanse of wp, and if Rod did it would be no-nevermind to report the issue to another sysop, and let her take care of it. Rods' absolute intransigence under the circumstances to agree to do so strikes me as troubling, and perhaps relates to some of the attitude that caused the issue in the first place. A ban would not only do both the parties good, it would rid the other editors commenting here of needless drama and distraction, freeing us to do God's work at the Project.... so to speak.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that an identical ban should be ready and waiting to apply the other way without another full discussion should our faith in MF be misplaced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposed interaction ban

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  ) are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on each other's user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards about each other, reverting edits on articles made by each other, commenting in other venues about each other, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as they stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this ban with blocks of an appropriate duration.

Submitted for discussion. I don't think Malleus needs to be restricted, but I think the good here outweighs the bad. –Grondemar 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to show evidence that there is a problem on Malleus' part here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's been a problem on Malleus' part. My first preference would be for the interaction ban I originally proposed. However, I'd rather see Malleus be banned from interacting with someone he has no intention of interacting with then see the current situation continue. I apologize to Malleus for any slight since I really don't believe he's at fault here. –Grondemar 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Others wouldn't see it that way, just see the ban as yet more evidence that I'm a bad 'un, which is why it would be unacceptable to me.

Fatuorum

00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Grondemar, we don't impose restrictions on editors purely because their 'opponents' have acted inappropriately. The community won't even look at a proposal unless there is evidence that it is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, my original intent in posting this alternate proposal was to codify what several of the opposers were mentioning as preferable to my original proposal, which is what I meant when I said it was "submitted for discussion". I also originally thought enacting this version of the proposal would be preferable to no action being taken at all, since it would at least achieve the goal of stopping Rodhullandemu's harassment of Malleus. After further consideration, however, I agree with Malleus: it's not fair to him to accept his reputation being maligned just to stop someone from harassing him. I therefore now oppose this alternate proposal. Only the original proposal is acceptable. –Grondemar 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neutral, prefer the first option, as this puts additional stigma on Malleus for having long been taunted by admins, and is unfair to him. If it's the only way to get community consensus for Rod to stay away from Malleus, considering the long history of admin abuse by Rod documented in the diffs above, followed (typically) by his pleas for clemency, then that's a shame, since Malleus should not be stigmatized for Rod's admin abuse. If it has to go to the arbs, so be it; Malleus may be sanctioned, but there is plenty of evidence for Rod to be desysopped. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• After seeing Courcelles' diffs of how Rodhullandemu started this, and knowing how he continued it, I oppose any suggestion that Malleus should be further penalized for Rodhullandemu's actions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will not accept such a ban, as it implies that I have done something wrong, and I have not. Unlike Rod I rarely bear grudges and never target those editors I feel are unworthy to be the shit on the sole of my shoe. Just look at his talk page if you don't know what I'm talking about, search for the words "cockroach", or "human".
  Fatuorum
  23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  I searched; I can't find them. Maybe they went unarchived while his "account was compromised". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Cockroach" and "not human" are here [8] which are what led to the mirror comments. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neither will I, as it implies that I am precluded from taking necessary Administrative action against MF, for example, IF it appears that his account is compromised. Unlikely, perhaps, but I've been here long enough to see it happen, and more than once. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my admin actions, because most are short-lived and adequately effective to deal with the immediate problem. In short, I move on. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You would perform administrative actions against him? Are you not too involved anyway? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod, please read this boilerplate ArbCom principle; I urge you to accept the first interaction ban proposal (above) to avoid taking more time away from the community. Many long ago grew weary of the disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of us are also tired of MF's long-standing taunting and threats towards Rod. He was threatening and baiting him on Rod's talk page less than one week ago. MF's lack of civility which can be seen in his comparing editors to what can and cannot be on the sole of his shoe (little comment on content there) are just as much of an embarrassment. MarnetteD | Talk 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MF was echoing Rod's prior use of the phrase [9]. DuncanHill (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You've indicated one post by Malleus, which was the response to long provocation on Malleus's talk. Let's tell the straight story and not exaggerate one incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would look at the edit history you would see six posts over 25hours by MF. The first coming at 17:11 on Feb 13th [10]. A personal attack came at 17:46 on the 13th [11], a remark implying that R will likely lose his admin status came at [12] 17:55. The last post came more than 24 hours later [13] at 18:41 on the 14th. Neither editor can be said to have been acting appropriately. R then removed the enire thread which looks like he was tying to disengage. As to your contention that there was a long provocation on MF's talk page I have gone back to Jan 3rd, 2011 and can find no post from R on it between then and 19:28 on the 13th of February - that is more than two hours after MFs first posted on R's talk page that day. Indeed it even comes after the other two posts that i have linked above. That post does contain incivilty that I think should not have been used but, as so many others have stated that is par for the course between these two. The facts that I can find do not seem to show a "long" provocation recently - at least six weeks recently I should have said - on MF's talk page. That would seem to be the straight story based on your request for diffs in your edit summary. I have watched this go on for a number of months. Neither editor has covered themselves in glory but to claim that the things that are going on between these two editors are only going one way would be incorrect. That is why any interaction ban should apply to both MarnetteD | Talk 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please fill in the missing diffs so we can all see the whole story and draw our own conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod is pestering Malleus. I've watched a very little bit of it from afar and it's pretty clear that Malleus isn't even interested enough to do battle. The whole Rod thing is just lame. Find some article to write or if drama is the lure some juicer drama.TCO (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm not sure that this needs any community action at all. Malleus is more than capable of dealing with Rod himself, and while Rod's clearly the one proactively pursuing the conflict, Malleus seems to be getting his own share of enjoyment out of baiting Rod and trading abuse. As long as the issue remains between the two of them they're perefectly capable of dealing with it without administrative intervention. - DustFormsWords (talk)

• That's a curious thing to say: I'm pretty sure I know Malleus fairly well, and I'm certain he's not enjoying this. And why should we leave a content contributor to constant distractions from an admin who has been after him for a long time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New info

I've finally located the full archive of the previous ANI report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Rodhullandemu admin account; Rod was already requested to stay away from Malleus, so he has already been well in breach of that directive since November with repeated taunts at Malleus's page. I suggest we have all we need to either ban him from Malleus's talk or go straight to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Go on then; make my day. Meanwhile, while I am able, I will resist vandalism as much as I see it here, and will try to keep articles within policy and guidelines. If I don't do that, other admins will, although there are fewer and fewer being appointed here. Quelle surprise, although the poisoned chalice of adminship from some quarters has had an unexpected effect, that an uphill struggle for adminship over the last couple of years has resulted in a Sisyphean task for those who have the balls to even volunteer. The concomitant result is that admin tasks get backlogged, to the detriment of Wikipedia, and admins are worked harder and harder, and burn out. I'm sure that's not what you intend, but it is a natural and probable consequence of you actions. Well done! Rodhullandemu 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the link provided by SG I have checked further back than my last post above. There is no post on MF's talk page from November 13th - the day that the ANI thread was closed until two hours after MF had posted three times on R's talk page. Any ban of R from MF's talk page should most certainly a reciprocal ban. MarnetteD | Talk 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, since you checked, how about diffs to substantiate that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They are in my post above. But I will repost them here for your convenience. If you would look at the edit history you would see six posts over 25hours by MF. The first coming at 17:11 on Feb 13th [14]. A personal attack came at 17:46 on the 13th [15], a remark implying that R will likely lose his admin status came at [16] 17:55. The last post came more than 24 hours later [17] at 18:41 on the 14th. Neither editor can be said to have been acting appropriately. R then removed the enire thread which looks like he was tying to disengage. As to your contention that there was a long provocation on MF's talk page I have gone back to Jan 3rd, 2011 and can find no post from R on it between then and 19:28 on the 13th of February - that is more than two hours after MFs first posted on R's talk page that day. Indeed it even comes after the other two posts that i have linked above. That post does contain incivilty that I think should not have been used but, as so many others have stated that is par for the course between these two. The facts that I can find do not seem to show a "long" provocation recently - at least six weeks recently I should have said - on MF's talk page. That would seem to be the straight story based on your request for diffs in your edit summary. I have watched this go on for a number of months. Neither editor has covered themselves in glory but to claim that the things that are going on between these two editors are only going one way would be incorrect. That is why any interaction ban should apply to both MarnetteD | Talk 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason for leaving off the diffs from Rod while giving them for Malleus? Seems biased-- I see a refernence in one of them to Malleus "not being human", which is the worst thing I've seen so far, so it seems you're presenting a one-sided account, curiously missing some diffs, and certainly not exploring where it started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's all a moot point, as usual. Rod has reacted by blanking his talk page and refusing to accept good faith offers by John and others. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You did not ask for the entire exchange to be posted blow by blow. If that is what you wanted you should have asked for it or, perhaps, done the research yourself. Please be more thorough in what you are requesting. Nor did I say that R was without blame in this. I still think that they are both in the wrong. If anyone want to read the entire exchange they can do so here [18]. In his first post after MF came to his talk page I see that Rod suggests the proper wikiprocedures to deal with whatever the bone of contention was. MF then state that R "doesn't know what he was talking about". I am glad that you don't see that as provocative. I hope that no one says that to you. Rod then asks him to step away MF doesn't and things deteriorate from there. I also notice that you don't point out who made the statement about "Malleus not being human". That seems biased to me. It was HalfShadow and not R for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing. In your post in the "Alternate proposed interaction ban" above you claimed that there had been a long provocation on MF's talk page prior to the Feb 13th exchange. I simply pointed out that there had been no posts by R on MF's talk page from Nov 13th until Feb 13th. In your post here you stated that R was in violation of the talk page ban as though there had been no provocation before he broke it. I pointed out the MF had made three posts to R's page before R broke the ban. Based on my research I felt that both of your statements needed some context. Since it looks like R has left the project I will be bringing my posts to a close. I am sorry if I have offended you SG. My AGF would have been better with more research on your part. And I also apologize for that statement. MarnetteD | Talk 03:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no offense taken; I just want to get the full story for the benefit of other readers. I wouldn't take it too seriously that Rod has "left the project"; he also was absent for the last discussion, and it is my understanding that this is the typical reaction every time something comes up (he hasn't slept, his computer was compromised, etc). Now that I've seen Courcelles description of the original incident (I didn't begin to follow until some months after that), I suggest it's time for a visit to the arbs, since the community doesn't appear to be prepared to deal with an admin who thinks it's his personal "job" to insult MF and prevent him from "vandalizing", and it's been going on much too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Rod "left the project" - I think he just went away briefly (to bed?). I don't know that Arbcom is necessary here; we have a pair of community proposals that appear germane and effective here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What I see is part of the folks arguing they won't accept an interaction ban unless it applies to both, and the other part arguing they won't accept an interaction ban if it applies to both. If there's not a clear consensus when I check in the morning, my conclusion is that the community can't decide this and with the ongoing disruption and a clear pattern of admin abuse, it's time for the arbs. And btw, since Rod was supposed to stay away from Malleus anyway, why wasn't he blocked on his first taunt? I don't see evidence that the community is handling this at all, but I'll peek in in the morning and maybe things will have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And with that...

Sandy has a good idea for us all here: "I'll peek in in the morning and maybe things will have changed.". Things like this are often solved by us all going away for a few hours and coming back with a long-term plan and fresh ideas in the morning. Rod's behaviour is distressing more than anything, and it's disrupting the project, but situations like this need to be handled carefully. I'm appealing to everyone - as an arbitrator, administrator, and more importantly as a fellow editor - for us all to go and have a hot bovril and sleep on it, and approach this from a fresh direction in a few hours. The Cavalry (Message me) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Rod for 2 weeks for disruption, harassment, and childish behaviour in the midst of a discussion of his actions. I can provide a more detailed rationale, but really, it's obvious from the preceding discussion that enough is enough. There is too much behaviour entirely unbecoming an admin here, and maybe for once we should just say enough. Rd232 ^talk 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All this over "Raleigh" vs. "Ralegh"? Ugh. P.S. "Raleigh" is the most common spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All those who think that was

lame say "I" Blackmane (talk

) 10:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Or "i". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aye! To avoid any confusion. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery

Having used poor judgment and allowing myself to waste time getting sucked into this drama, I have the following thoughts:

• In my opinion, MF historically and consistently is needlessly provocative and rude to the WP community. For me, the community tolerance of his interaction approach epitomizes "all-that-is-wrong-with-Wikipedia."
• Obviously, while MF's opinion on what is appropriate is vastly different than mine, he is forthright in his approach and reasonably consistent. He demonstrates superior understanding of the bounds of allowable behavior and stays within them, albeit frequently on the very edge. If the WP community as a whole has a problem with his behavior, it is up the community as a whole to address it. Personally, I find WP is sufficiently large and my interest in editing small and sporadic such that the best solution has been an unannounced because no one cares, self-imposed interaction ban with MF.
• Also to his credit and consistent with the philosophy stated on his user page MF expresses no interest in an admin role.
• As stated above, an admin should be held to a higher standard of behavior. Consider this comment from rodhull last July [[19]], and all that has followed, it appears that Rodhull has a personal vendetta against MF.
• Rodhull's statements to the effect of (paraphrasing) It is my personal job to protect WP from MF show a serious lack of judgment. I've never noticed a shortage of administrators on WP.
• As discussion above per BRD, the cited reason for the block rodhull dropped on MF isn't credible.
• Accordingly, I think that it is insane that the WP admin community has wasted so much time on this.

• Not only should rodhull have an interaction ban imposed on him, he should be desysopped. I mean, really guys? Isn't that obvious?
  talk
  )

(i) Yes, MF can be needlessly prickly, to a degree that isn't terribly unusual. Actually, it's a long time ago, but under a previous username: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum. (ii) Rod's relationship with MF at this point doesn't require a formal interaction ban (a previous ANI suggested informally staying out of each others' way), it's risen to the level of harassment and any further behaviour in that direction should be met with further blocks. Desysopping is not out of the question, but if the errors of judgement relate purely to one user then maybe it's not necessary/worth the effort. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen how this has unfolded. If I may, I'd like to try and intercede on Rodhullandemu's behalf, at least to the extent of suggesting that a two-week block may be a little excessive. Maybe commute it to two days? There are obviously things going on in Rod's life, and sometimes they may cause him to lose some perspective and act inappropriately, but we're none of us perfect, not even me. As you say, I can be sometimes be rather prickly, but then so can everyone else; all that varies is our threshold level. That it has been felt necessary to block an administrator for personal attacks and harassment without that administrator being desysopped is a disgrace really, given the way that administrators treat the handing out and removal of trinkets like rollback, but that's a discussion for another time and place. My view quite simply is that Rodhullandemu should not now be an administrator but that a two-week block seems a little savage.

Fatuorum

13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm going out now so if anyone wants to amend or remove the block, there is no need to consult me. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On that basis, I've reduced the block to two days, but will recommend that Rod stay away from Malleus or I'll have to reimpose it. The Arbitration Committee are already looking at the situation (separate from any filing that SandyGeorgia is in the process of making), as things can't really go on this way. Malleus, I'm trusting you to have the sense not to post anything - however concilliatory - on Rod's talkpage or in response to him in this interval, as previous experience has shown that it's never taken well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have no desire to inflame this sorry situation.

Fatuorum

14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just catching up this morning. Considering the events while I was sleeping, that I have pending travel, and that the community now appears willing to deal with this and EotR indicates the arbs are looking at it, it doesn't seem helpful at this point for me to file the RFAR. It appears to me that if there is a recurrence, there will be swift action. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.