User talk:Thumperward/Archive 67

Template:Infobox philosopher
Dear Thumperward, In Hillel Steiner's infobox the show/hide thing looks a bit odd as there is only one influenced. Is there a way to switch it off? I know it doesn't matter much but it might help me understand the template things better. I am asking here as I think you might have made it do this anyway. Hope it is no problem and sorry to bother you if it is. Best wishes. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC))


 * I've added the option to expand the lists by default, and applied this option to the article in question. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - it still looks a bit ugly on my screen as it forces the influenced person to the next line. But I guess these things are tricky to make nice. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Problematic IP
That IP who was wikihounding me and who agreed to stop interacting with me has now incited via email User:Irolnire to create an attack page about me,, in article space, no less. Isn't it about time to give said IP a good long block or even a community ban? Yworo (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no point in issuing a long-term block to a dynamic IP, especially when the user is switching IPs so rapidly. Irolnire has been dealt with now, though, and I've deleted the additional copy of the content in question he had in his userspace. I'm going to propose a ban for the IP user, which isn't likely to be able to prevent him from editing by will at least mean editors are at liberty to revert him on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves
I'm sorry to keep hammering this subject man: i've tried to speak with the Spanish anon user, i know it would be to no avail, with his humungous set of IPs, i tried nonetheless. The vandalism continues (yes it is vandalism, inserting wrong info in box and removing refs, or is it not?), article is now on my watch, and it's a pity it has to be...

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tried AGAIN to contact the person, kindly directing them to BOTH external links (Portuguese as the player) to make them understand it is CORRECT stuff that keeps being removed from the box. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus
Really? Have you really just gone and indef-blocked one of the most helpful, prolific and talented editors that Wikipedia has? OK, so he's a bit outspoken sometimes but the good work far outweighs the minor problems that Malleus causes from time to time. I seriously hope that you reconsider your decision. Cheers, Big  Dom  22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have. Malleus is not merely "sometimes" disruptive: he has for some time been the most persistently poisonous element in the whole of projectspace. His utter refusal to abide by WP:CIVIL in any way, shape or form means almost all contact with him has a negative effect on both new and existing users. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment discredits you as behaving like a hypocrite and fool. Please resign the administratorship you have disgraced. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is so "poisonous" and uncivil, why did the other tens of admins who will have seen his comments today (me included) take no action. Why have you taken it upon yourself to block one of the most experienced editors on this site just because he said a couple of swear words on a talk page? Big  Dom  23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that we would prefer to avoid a painful, meritless shitstorm on our talk pages which is what invariable ensues after blocking certain editors. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely that. Prodego  talk  23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * what a completely ridiculous block - have you any training in being an admin or experience of Wikipedia? Giacomo Returned 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with BigDom. Malleus did overstep the mark, but a sudden indef block with no real discussion regarding his conduct is premature at best, even reckless. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit like a personal attack on Chris. Whether right or wrong its not personal. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment on MF's talk; also, there's always been a long-term consensus to unblock after Malleus' blocks.  HurricaneFan 25  —  22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, did you consider taking the matter to ANI? Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think the main problem is that you took it upon yourself to block an editor who is in generally good standing without discussing the issues with him, never mind the community. Had you opened an RfCU, the whole community could have decided what should happen, rather than just you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It really does show an immennce lak of experience of Wikipedia - it seems things are no better here than they were three years ago as far as afmins are concerned. Giacomo Returned 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither Malleus nor the community need a refresh course on why wading into a discussion and broadsiding a large part of the participants with utterly unacceptable insults is actively harmful to collegial discussion. Our rules on civility do not make allowances for the breadth of one's contributions, while the limits of the community's patience most certainly consider an editor's history. As previously stated, had almost any other editor made such comments a block would have been utterly uncontroversial, and as such, I'm not apt to consider that the block was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you aren't willing to reconsider the block, and per your comment above you're going to pursue to the ends of the Earth any other admin who dares to defy you? For your sake, please at least take this to ANI for some more opinions. Big  Dom  23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Imo, it would be wisest for you to ask for a block review at ANI, Chris. You would be able to present this in your way as you see it. The alternative is that someone else may present it (and they will) and it won't come across as you intended. I would echo Nev1's concerns and think that is best for keeping things procedurally correct. My 2p. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would echo this. I can't understand what this block is for other than using naughty words. I'm bewildered. Please unblock this editor or ask for a review. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm drafting a block review. That said, if one does not see why Malleus's contributions to the thread in question are unacceptable then there's little likelihood that a block rationale will be persuasive. (and tough luck Protonk.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to support this block (short comment to avoid ec). Protonk (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, a thread has been opened at ANI regarding your block of Malleus. The section title is "Indef block of Malleus Fatuorum requires review". Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nev1)
 * Chris, I have one of them, and I'm not offended. Deb was offended, but to be fair to Malleus, he let the thing drop at six o'clock this morning, long before Deb or anyone else except {{User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] (who I believe also has one of them) passed by, and he let another editor redact the offensive term when someone did complain about it.  I'm going to unblock him now, on the basis that you mistook this for being a personal attack on someone, and didn't realise from the timestamps that it wasn't actually aimed at anyone who commented later. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen, might I request that you (and any other admin) does not alter Malleus' block until a consensus emerges at ANI? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I've seen that there's a discussion, I'll wait for that. I'd prefer for Chris to undo his own block anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When you have time Chris, I would be interested to see your rationale for this block. I have undone it as it seems it contravened our blocking policy as evidenced by the strong consensus at AN/I. --John (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out this blatant incivility from earlier today. Note that I don't care that Malleus used the word "fuck", it was his derisive tone at a simple question that was uncivil. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time for an RFC/U rather than more blocks. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An RFCU would be much better than assinine blocks... and yes, it is assinine to block Malleus every other week when the odds are about 90% likely that it would be undone.--- Balloonman  {{sup| Poppa Balloon }} 16:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust of the community
I believe you have lost the trust of the community to hold blocking powers. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools "under a cloud?" Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was predictable. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is premature...and I don't think that it goes that far. Chris is a good admin. Let's put the pitchforks and torches away, please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh cool. time to hop on this fucking train. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I blocked Malleus for an obvious breach of WP:CIVIL. That is not a breach of the community's trust. Address further comments of this nature to the community at large rather than disingenuously presenting them to me as "honest" concerns over my abilities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The community is usually silent. Those calling for your head do not speak for the community. Buster Seven   Talk  01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note, Thumperward called me on a breach of civility I made recently...even suggesting I be blocked for it...in this case, I support Thumperward for taking a stand on the right side again.--MONGO 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The flapping of slick vultures' wings bores me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Might that be "sycophantic" vultures' wings? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, dunno Malleus, could be (but either way I don't see that as one of my "greatest hits" log entries). My outlook on civility blocks shifted in a big, deep way two and a half years ago when I blocked you for a week, then took it back shortly after, owing to a lack of consensus for it. I still think you were wrong, but I was wrong, too. Sometimes you say stuff that's needlessly forward and edgy and I guess I'd still hope you might stop that one day, but when one gets to know more about you, I'd say your way of putting things when you get tweaked isn't all that harmful (and no, I don't mean any of that as a put down). I even dare say you seem to wear your feelings on your sleeve more than need be, but that's up to you, not me, as it should be. We both know, far, far worse stuff goes on here. The pith is, given your contributions, I don't think your incivility is much of a worry, but it's you who has to deal with the outcomes of that now and then, not me. I know you thought all that through long ago and I don't think blocking you would help anything. So, I wouldn't have lifted a finger had you been blocked for a day, but I canny would've unblocked you from indef this evening if nobody else had done. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're obviously none of us perfect, not you, not me. But I find it intolerable that you got away with that block. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuff has been done to me here that I find "intolerable," awful, but I don't go on about it. Maybe that's a weakness of mine. I blocked you within policy, but the policy, like most bureaucratic policies, has its weaknesses and I missed that, being wet behind the ears as an admin at the time. If it helps, I agree with you, the whole thing stinks. Peace. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, come now, Malleus. You know how this works. You always call for the blocking admin to be desysopped and it never happens. Well okay, once, sort of, in a roundabout way. The whole thing is déjà vu, with the same cycle repeating itself. Block, AN/I thread, quick unblock, chastise blocking admin,... I forget what comes next. ;> Doc   talk  04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...lots of dramah. :/ ⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  04:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On a completely unrelated content note, I wish someone would expand this poor thing. This one too. Doc   talk  04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I think Chris was out of line here... but your harping on Gwen for an action taken what a yaer or two ago is over the top... she's acknowledged a mistake and learned from it... move on.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have not yet answered my question, so I'll re-ask it - "Under what circumstances would you voluntarily resign your tools 'under a cloud?'" If the answer is "if arbcom tells me to," that's fine, but please be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be made to resign over this or is it likely arbcom will impose it other than maybe Hawkeye who re blocked. Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You pointedly weren't given one. I'm not in the habit of discussing hypotheticals with editors who come to my talk page with dubious assertions of speaking on behalf of the community. And even given that, I note that your identical comment addressed the other other blocking admin has a far less ambiguous title, which strongly suggests that this was not intended to be a question but rather a demand. Find some other drama to involve yourself in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:ADMIN. I civily asked you a non-leading question. You are supposed to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." You have failed to do so - instead providing non-responsive snark, and asking me to not discuss your misconduct with you. This is conduct unbecoming. This is not a hypothetical - I am going to attempt to fulfill whatever hurdle you place in front of me to see that you no longer use your tools to vanquish your enemies. However, the first step in doing so is to ask what you want a complainant to do - in this case, it appears you will only accept a by-force removal. So be it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If "describe the circumstances under which you would resign in disgrace" is a non-leading question, I am Engelbert Humperdinck. We're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not use the word "disgrace." I used the technical phrase "under a cloud" which is wikispeak for "such that you may not request them back." Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that this talk page is longer than some of your most recent archives, and wouldn't blame you at all for doing a little housekeeping. For what it's worth I vehemently disagree with your decision, but know you well enough to know that you wouldn't have blocked unless you felt it would have been a net positive for the project. —WFC— 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's in need of archiving. As for disagreeing, well, we disagree. I'm somewhat disappointed that your own statement at ArbCom reiterates the asserted link between bad behaviour and good content, but of course the whole reason this is at ArbCom is because of how many editors hold that impression. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here too, but I don't think we're as far apart as that. X featured articles should never give editors a free pass to unfettered incivility. But in cases that would have been borderline anyway (in this case a long term pattern of valid points with a controversial method of delivery) I do believe that it's a relevant factor. —WFC— 18:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of there being a distinct Wikipedia definition for "under a cloud". I understood the term in its idiomatic meaning in regular English, which is "in disgrace or having committed some wrongdoing". "Resigning permanently", or words to that effect, would seem to be a less confusing expression if you wish to use this boilerplate to "question" other administrators in future. Anyway, there's an ArbCom case draft already, and as you've already been told that this isn't a welcome line of discussion on my talk page (regardless of what rights you may assume you have over editors who have the admin bit) you may find that your further pursuit of this matter is more effective if made there instead. Now in case you weren't aware of the Wikipedia definition of "We're done here", it's a polite request to disengage from my talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You block was probably merited, and probably unwise at the same time. I used to do things like that, but learned that all that happens is the mob with the pitchforks arrives and their disruption is worse than the demon you were trying to exorcise. Anyway, don't let the bastards grind you down.--Scott Mac 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I think that it was a good block as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was certainly brave. I suspect that if the block review had been allowed to run its course, there would have emerged a consensus for a block. Its like at RfA where nominees tend to get a wave of support before the opposes start trickling in. Epbr123 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your block has to be one of the most stupid admin actions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And you are not even a teenager. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox (2)
Hi Chris, thanks for offering your help, it infobox European football. Basically I'm not sure how to get the documentation right, everything I want in the infobox is already in there, I don't know how to get it right so that it actually works. Been a long time since I made an infobox, so I'm at a loss at how to get it to work, any help at all would be a godsend, thanks. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added documentation. The code itself looks fine, so you should be able to deploy it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom Case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alexandria (chew out) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A pussy cat for you!
To help you reflect on the privileged bit that was marginally granted to you. A re-worded message of love for you in this trying time. Re-worded because had taken offence&mdash;I assume on your behalf&mdash;at my previous innocuous Wikilove message

Senra (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of satirical magazines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Reporter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves (2)
No not what you think (or maybe...), not coming to ask anything, just to notify you of the following (would be worse if you found out by chance or similar): after attempts to politely converse with the Spanish anon "user", i am seeing quite well what he thinks of my efforts, continuing to remove the correct and insert the wrong in the player's box (and refs go too!).

Anyways, my notification is: i lost it in my last message to him, if you want to take action against me do so, i won't protest. Quite "interesting" to see that the "user", with his tons of IPs, is interested ONLY in editing J.Alves' article, nothing else, and what a good job he does at that!

Happy Christmas to you and yours, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've semiprotected for three months. With any luck that should dissuade said user from continuing to disrupt the article. Thanks for keeping on top of this, Vasco. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Since the thread was archived only a day or two after it was created, I thought I'd let you know that there's a question for you at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732. Thanks. 75.177.157.233 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the absence of a response means that you have no reasonable explanation. Thus, it is obvious that your statements are an entire fabrication. Case closed. 69.134.111.98 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens with a GPS


Happy Holidays.

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Phil Babb
Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

following on your latest edit: so is the intro going to be left like that, he has "no country"? It looks rather odd, but don't fret, i won't revert you or go against the flow.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Vasco. Hope you had a great Christmas. There is not, and never has been, an absolute requirement to state a country (of birth, of nationality, or of any other sort) in the first sentence of a biographical article. In anything but the clearest-cut cases it is liable to result in terrible writing and questionable accuracy (such as the dreaded "English-born Irish" for players who may never have set foot in Ireland other than to play for the national team). I am genuinely surprised that you haven't seen any of the discussions on this at WT:FOOTY, as it's come up roughly once a month for the entirety of the time I've been on the project. I [clarified the expected layout at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players]] last June following one such discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit it, sometimes i don't study my lesson :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)