User talk:Courcelles/Archive 100

Archive 95

←

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Archive 105

Thanks, and a query.

Thanks for the prompt semi-protection of a long-dead Russian royal. [1] I see you have done this for '2 eeks' ;-) Sadly, unless you mean Estonian kroons (I didn't realise admins were paid), we don't seem to have any article at Eek that would seem to fit. Should I perhaps start researching for one on the 'eek' as a measure of time? Or has your keyboard 'w' key broken, leaving you as an ikipedian until you can get one that orks? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually have some old Estonian Kroons in a drawer somewhere around here, but, sadly, no pay for admins, my keyboard W doesn't register unless I press it very, very firmly. As this is a laptop, replacing it is not nearly as simple as it could otherwise be. Courcelles 19:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That must be a pain - though it is probably easier to compose prose omitting the relevant letter than it might be to do the same lacking an 'E'. ;-) On a more practical note, have you thought of using an external USB keyboard? not ideal, but I've found using one with my netbook useful when writing long screeds - it reduces my tendency to hit two keys at once. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason for this to be done off-wiki, so I'm going to reply here. I'm also going to be totally honest, because you need to hear this, if you are going to succeed here. It seems to me you're asking for every right under the sun, both on this wiki and others, and this is not going to go well for you. You need to settle down, forget about rights and flags, and just do some editing. Find an article you care about, and go make it better. 500 mainspace edits is a guide to gauge competence for editing, not an iron rule that guarantees AWB access, and admins granting it still must assess competence to use it. Also, I feel Fluffernutter's removal of our rollback right was entirely justified, and your lack of using Huggle correctly gives me no confidence in your ability to use AWB. Settle down, forget about rights and tools, and work on articles for a while. That's why we're here, the other stuff is either to make that a bit easier, or, worse a necessary distraction. You would do well not to ask for any rights here or on another wiki for about five months or so (Also, off-wiki communication should only really be used when there is an actual need to do so.) Courcelles 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer off-wiki because I often get quite a fair amount of lag here. Anyway, I see what you're saying, but if I have double the guide... ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Small favour

Hey, I hope your health problems are not too serious and that you get better soon. I was wondering if you could provide me with a copy of the Tricia Dingle article? - JuneGloom Talk 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, see User:JuneGloom07/Tricia Dingle. The history is kind of a mess of versions, so it is easier to let you flip through and find what you want, rather than e-mailing you a single version. Courcelles 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The article isn't as bad as I thought it would be, despite its history. It just needs some tlc and some real world development info. I think I'll work on it offline for a little while and see what I can do with it. - JuneGloom Talk 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Baiting

You are so naive. He always behaves this way, & has it down to a fine art. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was Anthonyhcole not blocked for the same amount of 72 hours for this comment], which was baiting Malleus (indeed, directed at him in the edit summary) and contains the statement "Naughty or thoughtless brats being told to go and play in another sandbox was the metaphor I had in mind", which is just as bad as what Malleus said. Being one-sided here is not benefiting anyone. Silverseren^C 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocks always take into account editor history. In this case, one editor has a long history of blocks, and another has not been blocked since 2010. Indeed, the editor who has a history of blocks for civility issues was just earlier this year admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct." The histories of these two editors are not symmetrical, so the responses to their behaviour is likewise not supposed to be symmetrical. This is just an exercise of the widely accepted system of escalating blocks. (Not to mention their behaviour is not the same. Baiting is bad, even if it was unintentional, but that never justifies taking the bait and making a full-on personal attack in reply.) Courcelles 06:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider baiting (and the edit summary shows it was intentional) to be far worse than responding to baiting, at the very least when the response wasn't any worse than the original comment. Your comment to him that he shouldn't unintentionally do things doesn't help at all and just tells him that he got away with it. And now we've lost one of our most productive contributors, who is, i'm not afraid to say, far more worthwhile to Wikipedia than the other user in question. An equal block likely would have prevented this. Silverseren^C 07:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the previous comment, I have seen far worse go unremarked on. These things are better ignored. I have no idea why anyone thinks blocks improve anything. I hope Malleus changes his mind because if he doesn't, wikipedia has lost out big time by your actions.J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've commented here. I was hoping you would consider my thoughts. — Ched :  ?  13:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Anthony's part in this is incidental to the reason Malleus was blocked, ie. a pattern of such responses to these situations, for which he's been thoroughly warned. Because it is precisely this type of repeated overt acceptance of bait that future enforcement was deemed necessary, we shouldn't keep unblocking Malleus whenever it can be shown that he was baited, otherwise that pattern has no chance of changing. Baiting is certainly bad, and given the relative lack of an extensive admonishment history for such things on Anthony's end, I think the warning to him was enough, more or less; that's what would've been done in most such situations elsewhere. But taking the bait is also bad, especially for a user with a history of all-too-gladly taking bait as an excuse to provide an attack response. As that's been the continuing issue for Malleus, I think the block should stand. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:07, 7 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not finding fault with Courcelles as an admin. I have a HUGE amount of respect for him. He saw a discussion that was getting heated, and he tried to put a stop to it. Fair enough. What I'm saying (especially in light of Anthony's recent comments), is that sometimes adults disagree and the discussion can become heated. That's life, it happens. Yes, I love the whole concept of our civility policy - and I try to always abide by it. But I've seen times where people get to the point where they get overly zealous and blunt in their posts, and sometimes I think it's a mistake for one person to receive a different sanction than the other. Especially where it concerns Malleus I think extra thought should be given. That man has been so unjustly hounded, beat upon, and blocked for some of the most ridiculous reasons that it's almost laughable. Simply because he doesn't pussy-foot around and play the "nice nice" game and tells it like it is, or at least as he sees it has been an albatross strung around his neck from day one. Yes, there have been times he should have walked away from the keyboard rather than to respond in kind - but blocking is something I think should be left for vandals and those who can't or won't stop once they have had their say. Eventually after having gone through enough of the "you said something bad" blocks, he's going to get fed up and walk away; and that would indeed be a huge loss to our project. I never said I intended to unblock if that's what your are implying. I fully understand why Courcelles did what he did, I'm just asking for a second look in light of Anthony's recent comments. — Ched :  ?  15:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the block on Malleus to time served, for reasons that I have no need to go over once again (others have made the points far more eloquently than I would have been able to, both here and elsewhere). For the wheel-warring, I'll be requesting removal of my access to the tools the instant this message is posted. It's my intention and hope that the action goes some way to showing the blocked editor how valued he is to the encyclopaedia, and perhaps makes a minuscule contribution towards a reversal of his decision to leave (this isn't an attempt at emotional blackmail; I know he wouldn't respond to such and I know this may ultimately prove meaningless). I also hope that it'll give you and others pause before reinstating the block or requesting others do so. I'll only add comment to the fact that you name as one of the reasons for the block as being his already-considerable block log. As the recent ArbCom case showed, many of those were at best contentious, and indeed this very action (a block at least in part because of the presence of previous blocks, even where inappropriately applied) has been predicted at AN and ANI several times before (sorry, it'd take forever to find the diffs), and cited as a reason that we should all be less trigger-happy lest the circle perpetuate. I hope you take that point into your future interactions here. All the best, and sorry for the patronising tone, Steve ^T • C 22:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To knowledge what you just did was wrong is proof that you really should not have done it, but, since you have asked for your tools to be removed, there is little reason to pursue that matter, or give a speech about misuse of admin access. That was one of the most blatant acts of wheel warring I've seen on this project, so I do hope you keep your promise on BN to see your resignation as under a cloud. Really, the block should be restored, not because I'm married to it, but because you undid it while knowing you were flying in the face of the rules on the use of admin tools. In broad terms, you can't claim baiting as a defense to personal attacks. You are always responsible for what comes out of your keyboard. Lord knows I ddon't want to see Malleus leave (or be kicked off) the project, WP:NPA is policy, and no personal attack is ever helpful to our goals here. Lets recap yesterdays timeline. Malleus was asked to remove his attack. He refused. It was removed from AN, he reverted, removed again, and he reverted it back in again. I actually went to Malleus' talk page yesterday to remind him of the Civility Enforcement case, and to please stop this, then I noticed the refused request, and the edit warring. If this isn't a case of a time where blocking for NPA is justified, then there may as well be no such situation, and the policy of NPA needs to be seriously adjusted (I'm not a huge fan of personal attack blocks, in 90,000+ admin actions, I believe this is the first one I've ever made, but eventually they can be necessary.) Malleus' block log, we had a chart in the evidence of the Civility case, you may want to look through it, the blocks on him are neither all good or all bad, my rough feeling from reading that evidence was that it fell at about 60/40, but only one or two of the blocks were actually outlandishly bad. Whatever, two days of a three day block isn't worth fighting about, and one hopes the message has been received that personal attacks, whatever the perceived provocation, are not acceptable. Courcelles 23:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Undoing an administrative action is not wheel warring. Reinstating the block would be wheel warring. I'm not condoning Steve's action, but I don't think it's correct to characterize it as wheel warring. --Laser brain (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles. Thanks for the considered reply. I apologise if the brevity of my reply seems like I haven't taken in all you've said—I have. However, I should say that I don't disagree that I've "flown in the face of" the rules (which is why my tools have now been removed). My only real intention in this is to convince a terrific editor to stick around just a little bit longer. He says "it's the end for Malleus unless Courcelles falls on his sword"; I don't expect—or particularly want—that to happen, so it's my (highly likely futile) hope that my falling somewhat awkwardly on my broom will help do the same. As for the meat of your post, I can't argue too strongly with what you've said, as long as what Malleus said was a personal attack of any worth. For me, it was far from it, or at the very least was mild enough not to warrant the response, something that IIRC even its target agrees with. Everything that followed stems from that initial determination. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The standard is "no personal attacks" -- they bring down the collegial environment for all Wikipedia editors; whether the specific target agrees with the consequence it's particularly relevant.

If, following an ArbCom case with over one hundred viewpoints offered, an editor continues to disregard community standards, what other alternative besides blocking is left? As it was, in a recent RFA, MF was edge riding his ArbCom restriction from WT:RFA by discussing editors other than the candidate. Nobody Ent 21:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I am honestly shocked at your reply here Courcelles. To be honest, I was expecting something entirely different. — Ched :  ?  18:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is "Wikipedia Signpost Inquiry".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lord Roem (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh My....

Wow, I saw that Malleus was blocked again and immediately, my first thought was "Gee what a surprise, proof that ArbCOM's resolution was doomed to failure as was predicted when it was issued." The ArbCOM resolution provided no guidance on how to handle future minor breaches involving Malleus---which everybody KNEW was simply a matter of time.

And this is just another minor breach, which is not worthy of a block.

You may deem only 1 or 2 of his blocks as blatantly bad, but most are questionable and would never have been issued if it wasn't for a growing block log of bad/questionable blocks---which I classify this one as. But what makes this block worse is that you are a member of ArbCOM. You, of all people, should know the dhramafest that ensues surrounding a MF case. You, of all people, should know what happens. And you, of all people, should have reclused yourself from the case as involved.

Not only were you a member of ArbCOM during a preceding Arbitration case, but you should have known that any future action might have invoked future ArbCOM actions. This fact, above all else, pushes your actions from a dubious admin action to a bad one as this case epitomizes the shortcomings of the ArbCOM actions taken in Feb.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal Request for Recall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have witnessed with dismay your recent dealings in the incident concerning Malleus Fatuorum, and the way in which you handled his block. I have also witnessed an administrator fall on his sword after overturning your decision to block Malleus, albeit in a unilateral fashion - and I have also seen general discontent that your actions have subsequently, driven away a damn good editor.

As I am unable to make a diff from the block log, I link at this point directly to the log, showing your application of a 72H block on April 6th, and the now former administrator Steve, lifting it on April 7th. link here.

At this time, therefore, not seeing you making any move forward, I have no choice but to place this formal request for recall, noting that I bear no grudge personally against you, and no ill will of any kind - this is merely a disagreement with your actions as an administrator, not with you as a Wikipedian.

Initiator:  BarkingFish  23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Per my comments further below, I withdraw myself as initiator of this request - I cannot and will not leave myself in this position, criticising someone else's standards when I fail to meet my own and other's expectations. If someone else wants to take this over, your call, but I'm out.  BarkingFish  15:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Courcelles' block of Malleus did not violate any administrative policy, so I see no basis for a recall. If we had recall petitions for every admin decision a group of editors disagreed with, we'd have no more admins. This is just an effort to save an editor who, frankly, polarises opinion by unfairly penalising someone who's only done what he thought was right. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there isn't a similar process for editors as recall for admins, because if all it takes is a strong disagreement over how someone has handled something, then I'd start a similar petition against you for this. Just pointing out how nonsensical I see this as being. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with what you say wholeheartedly, StrangePasserby, I defend your right to say it. I have had disagreements with Malleus in the past, Courcelles did what they thought was right - thought being the operative word here - someone else undid that decision, based on what they thought was right, and wound up no longer an administrator. I'm sorry, feel free to start an RFC/U on me if you wish, but it is my belief that the wrong administrator went. I may not have gotten on with Malleus, but I also believe in justice being done and being seen to be done, neither of which I saw here. BarkingFish  00:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Said user/ex-admin requested removal of his own rights, when he had no need to. His decision had nothing to do with Courcelles. To suggest that Courcelles is somehow responsible for that admin deciding to resign is ridiculous. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I did not suggest that Courcelles had anything to do with Steve not being an admin anymore - I stated quite clearly that he "fell on his sword" (went of his own accord), and did not imply that Courcelles was responsible for that. Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there in the first place.  BarkingFish  00:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Just to address the "general discontent" -- the most vocal side is always the discontent side. Anyone who's happy with the block doesn't have as much reason to speak, so gauging the "general" feeling about this based on what you happen to be hearing right now isn't necessarily going to present an accurate picture. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:02, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)
      • Wow, BarkingFish. So your feeling is that Courcelles's block of Malleus was "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"? Or are you using the lesser standard of "I disapprove of this action, and I don't think people should be admins if they take action I think shouldn't have been taken!"? Because only one of those is a valid basis for a recall based on User:Courcelles/Recall. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, User:Courcelles/Recall has been sitting there for a while without any attention for about a year now. I honestly wrote it one day and never went back to refine it down to a science. The criteria to open the first phase of the discussion means we need six signatures to find that my block of MF was not just ”bad”, but that it was so bad it violated the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard. Recall is to be used if an admin is abusing their tools, not just for one action that, even if severely disagreed with, was justifiable. That Malleus feels he needs to leave the project over this block is unfortunate. Was the block debatable, of course. But the history of this event was we had an editor who has been told many times that personal attacks are unacceptable on this project, who made a personal attack again, was asked to remove it, refused, has it removed, reverted the removal, had it removed a second time, and reverted back in his personal attack a second time. So, if in 48 hours, we can find six editors, other than the first requester, that meet that document's standard of being in good standing to certify blocking here was the level of unreasonable mentioned in the recall document, I'll find a clerk to announce it around the project, and have a week of discussion. 48 hours, ending at 0200 UTC on the 11th of April. Courcelles 02:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Initiator of record

Initiator: Silverseren^C 21:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Certifiers

1. I support that the action meets the standard. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible to certify per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   It saddens me to see that WTT is attemping to get certifiers to withdraw their support via email. I received such an email and I have decided not to withdraw my support. I stand by my decision to support this. If it gives even ONE admin reason to hesitate before pulling the block trigger unfairly and with a bias then I feel that supporting this motion is worth it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

   More on my talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

   Moving to initiator I support recall. Though I think this should be more widely publicized, because there's no reason to believe that that many editors will just happen to be reading your talk page during the 48 hours. Silverseren^C 02:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible to certify per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   Not eligible per criteria Yes, if this admin is sincere about being open to recall, and blocked one side but not the other in an area in which he was previously involved, did not leave a warning or even a block template, and did not respond adequately to good-faith inquiries about what they had done, that sounds like a recall is merited to me. --John (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible to certify per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin's opinion on this particular one. Per User:Courcelles/Recall, "Not from an editor who has been warned by me within the last year." User:John was admonished, a warning, in the Civility Arbcom case. Does this count if the warning was issued by Arbcom, which Courcelles is a member of?--v/r - TP 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I struck the !vote, as John is certainly not neutral in this regard. While the letter of Courcelles neutrality section reads "article" it is clear that he intended it to be applied to anybody whom ArbCOM sanctions. Even if Courcelles had omitted it, it would be hard to consider a person sanctioned by ArbCOM as being being neutral in relation to a sitting Arb. Especially, as that case stemmed from a similar issue where another admin blocked the same user for a similar incident.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

2. I have been thinking about this for days. I cannot express how distressed I am here. I'm so sorry, 'celles, but 12 hours maximum would have been sufficient to be "preventative"; and even that, in my view would have been dubious, and would have needed some discussion and consensus at the time, not on a fall-back position. There are people in this WikiWorld who get away with deliberate baiting, and, in my view, they ultimately cause far more disruption to the project. I agree that being baited doesn't excuse growling back, but deliberate, provocative baiting goes unpunished, and shouldn't. And I couldn't help but note that one of the contributors to the ANI thread was someone who quite deliberately and self-confessedly went over to MF's talk page not so long ago to bait him "for the entertainment value", and commented that "it's as good as a zoo!" And this is someone whose opinion carried weight, at all, at AN/I? On the whole, I think you ooze sound sense and integrity, but I feel you slipped up badly here. This was not an even-handed action, and it was a block for something which others also do on a regular basis and get away with scot-free. I am finding it hard to recall when I've felt this disappointed and upset. Just adding; it's the comments below re this coming from an Arb which most distress me. I wouldn't have felt quite the same if you hadn't been an Arb. And I hate doing this, I really do, but I feel it's the right thing. Life's a bitch. Pesky (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible to certify per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   _(ECx2)I regret to say that I find myself supporting this proposal. Everyone has their faults, and although there is a history of "incivility" with Malleus, I feel that this block was not preventative and you have, perhaps inadvertantly, caused the loss of an excellent editor in another case of the WP dhrama we all know and presumably love.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 10:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible to certify per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)I have decided to retract my certification. This probably will not do anything as it seems likely that it will go ahead, but after talking to my Mentor, Worm That Turned, and reading the comments made by 28bytes, I have decided that I was over-reacting and considering things too emotionally to make a balanced judgement. However, I still consider the block a questionable or "bad" block, but one block an admin does not make. Plus all the other points I (and others) have made elsewhere.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

3. I support this proposal, and endorse the foregoing observations. I also draw attention to my comments in this diff. Nortonius (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible per User:Courcelles/Recall.--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. I can't begin to describe how much I dislike the politics that has developed at WP, but I find myself with no choice but to support this action:

• I see no evidence that Courcelles discussed the situation on MF's talk page before blocking. We're not talking about the actions of a newbie (or IP) vandal here (which might warrant blocking without discussion).
• I'm concerned that we are developing the nanny state at WP with these sorts of blocks. Have we really evolved to the point where MF's comments warrant a stern rebuke (let alone a block)? MF is a tremendously experienced editor who is an expert in adding content and editing articles. I've not had much interaction with MF, but if he ever questioned whether I had a mind (let alone used it), I'd be inclined to take a step backwards and figure out what I'd done wrong. I have no doubt that if I were to ask MF for assistance, he would go out of his way to provide it. I'm therefore concerned that Courcelles did not weigh all parts of the equation in arriving at the decision to block.
• The recipient of MF's comment didn't seem overly perturbed, and I believe that a block should only have been considered after established and discussed complaint from the "wronged" party.
• This looks far too much like an action by someone now established as a judge, jury, and executioner. Someone in Courcelles' position could easily have called on the assistance (and guidance) of dozens of other admins to discuss, confirm, and effect the block. Doing so would have added substance to any action, and would have preserved the dignity of process at WP. Not doing so shows surprisingly poor judgement.
• I'm concerned that there was no attempt to evoke the regular block procedures. For example Courcelles made no attempt to apply the block template to MF's talk page—the one which notifies MF and the viewers of his talk page as to the exact nature of the block, and provides MF with a standard mechanism to appeal the block. In this at least, Courcelles' lack of procedure is concerning.
• The incident in question is far less severe than the incident that provoked the recent arbcom deliberations—something for which MF was not blocked. For this lesser "infringement", blocking appears little more than an unfortunate snap: something that should not be evident from someone in Courcelles' position. I'm left with no other conclusion than to believe that this block was not of a preventative nature.

GFHandel ♬  07:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Eligible --v/r - TP 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Which recent deliberations are you referring to? Nobody Ent 09:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire Arbcom case on civility?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 15:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

This is absolute rubbish. To suggest a 72 hour block of a user who has been repeatedly warned about attacking other editors, baited or not, is cause for a recall is outrageous. It's not the fault of the admin that Malleus wants to take his ball and go home until he sees Courselles' "head on a spike". Absolutely absurd. This drama should be closed and people can wait for Malleus to come back on his own, or not. And that should be the end of this issue. Dave Dial (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If this does achieve the quorum necessary, I will strongly oppose this objectionable action and will provide full reasoning. Leaky Caldron 09:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooh!! I'm gonna play this guy. Pro bono, naturally. Doc talk 10:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me also state that several of the editors above fail the caveats(1,2) given in the very recall they are proposing. Most obvious are the editors who were heavily involved in the ArbCom case. One who was admonished. Dave Dial (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Being involved in the case as witnesses/participants doesn't automatically disqualify one, but being sanctioned... yes. I struck John's support as a result. But this again, goes back to why this was an ill thought out action---ArbCOM members should refrain from taking administrative actions that they know are controversial.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Utterly ridiculous process here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• I can't believe this is going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Having been through a recall myself, I can understand why you are standing on principle and letting things proceed. But I can also see the points of Spartaz and Sarek that this sort of thing rarely leads to good outcomes. MBisanz ^talk 13:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be surprised if it gets the six endorsers to proceed and even if it does, I don't see it resulting in anything. Was it a questionable action? Yes. Should he have let somebody else do it? Yes (see my reasons elsewhere.) Is it egregious enough to demand he resign his Mop? No. Is it bad enough to ask that he step down from ArbCOM? No. While I am highly critical of a member of ArbCOM acting on a controversial case wherein ArbCOM is INVOLVED, and this is such a case, a single bad judgment doesn't warrant either outcome---If it passes, I will restate my criticism, but I support Courcelles remaining in both roles.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't deserve this

break 1

I like Malleus and hope he will reconsider his departure. But this recall petition is completely uncalled for, and those participating in it ought to be ashamed of themselves. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes, and I've lost respect for a lot of those above with their stupidity. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the block, Support block but even if we consider it as bad, still not cause for recall. Seems to me like the above is a call for revenging the departure of Malleus. --Rschen7754 03:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Modified above... confused MSK for MF. Epic fail on my part. --Rschen7754 04:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I oppose the block as ineffective and unhelpful, but this is patently ridiculous, and now the drama here is pouring over onto User talk:TParis! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree... BUT Courcelles should have known that this would be a by product of his actions. Therein lies my criticism. Regardless of how justified/unjustified the block may/not have been, Courcelles of all people, should have known the dhrama that would ensue... it is that fact that, moves this from a questionable, to a bad block. As an Arb, whose input might have been sought for a case clarfication or round 2, he should have reclused himself. It is for that reason that I am most critical of the block---I expected more from an Arb in this scenario.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard for this is predicated on "no sensible person" doing a similar action...I highly doubt that is met here. Whether the action is right or wrong, it was certainly justifiable and another sensible person may have done the same thing. But that's just my two cents. Lord Roem (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it goes without saying by now, but I also agree. People may disagree with blocking a user who repeatedly violates NPA policy by posting and replacing attacks, but it isn't abuse of the tools by a longshot, and wouldn't be considered as such in any other situation. This is purely a "special" reaction to Malleus' involvement. In response to Balloonman, the fact that a block can predictably cause drama is no reason to call it abuse; in fact a proposal in his recent arbcom case was to formally call any block of Malleus bad since they're so contentious, but that was quite rightly rejected. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:31, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

At no point/place have I called it abuse. Poorly thought out? Yes. Abuse? No. Courcelles failure here was to unilaterally act on a case which could easily be seen going back to ArbCOM. To act in a manner which he knows would create an immense amount of Dhrama. His actions, have now poisoned the well. By letting himself, as a member of ArbCOM get drug into this debate in this manner, it raises the barrier towards MF's getting an impartial review. It raises the spectrum that ArbCOM would not be able to review the case as one of their own is now intimately involved and dare-I-say a victem of harrassment/badgering? And Cour should have known this would be the by product. It was a dumb block for that reason. At no point did I say it was abuse. On it's own, the block is questionable/debatable... but for it to have come from an active member of ArbCOM? That moves it to the realm of being a dumb block.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a "bad" block either merely because it would cause drama. Courcelles can recuse himself if he's deemed to be an involved party in future arbcom cases. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:52, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, on its own, it was a debatable block/a questionable block, but because of his role as an Arb member, it IS a bad block. His reclusing himself from future ArbCOM cases involving Malleus isn't enough. His being an ArbCOM member, he should have known the Dhrama that would ensue from this action. By letting himself get involved in this way, it raises the spector that any actions taken by ArbCOM are jaded. One of their own has now been "persecuted" and taken to the proverbial wood shed for actions related to MF. Will this cause other members to rally around their own? To take a harsher stance than they might have otherwise? To cower in fear and not act? No, *I* am more concerned about this block as it relates to his being a member of ArbCOM than I am as an Admin. As an admin, the block was questionable. As a member of ArbCOM, it was bad. As a member of ArbCOM which just reviewed a major case involving Malleus and might be called upon to review it in the future, he should have reclused himself from any such actions against Malleus.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Hell, ArbCOM members should refrain from making any controversial admin actions on cases which have or might reasonably land before ArbCOM. If the case warrants admin action, leave it to somebody else. When elected judge, the sherrif turns in his badge.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No more heads need to roll over this. We had one editor give himself to the cause; and Malleus tends to demand the head of the admin who blocked him as a rule of late anyway, and it usually doesn't happen. Sending one hit squad to eliminate another hit squad, all amongst supposedly "good" editors; it just looks bad. Enough's enough... until the next time, right? Doc talk 06:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as Malleus actually retiring over this thing: fat chance, folks. From the earliest NPA blocks[2] to the more recent ones[3], this is what he usually says he will do. So I don't believe he's going to retire for one gosh-diddly-ding-dang-darned second! So it's all good, right? :> Doc talk 07:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute a thing you said, because you are right. Malleus does call for the bit of every person who blocks him... and even if he isn't successful, it does create a chilling environment in regards to him. But again, that only heightens my criticism of Courcelles doing it. Arbs should refrain from making controversial admin actions that they know will create dhrama and/or may end up at ArbCOM. ArbCOM members need to present a face of neutrality. The fact that Courcelles put himself in the firing line, knowing how MF and the community would respond, either indicates poor foresight or excellent foresight. Either he didn't think his actions out or thought his status would protect him; OR he realized what the fallout would be and hoped his being persecuted would force his fellow Arbs to act. If the former, it was a dumb action, one that I hope he could acknowledge and move on from. If the later, then it becomes a dispicable manipulative action---I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was simply poorly thought out. I am, however, interested in hearing his stance as it relates to my criticisms.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion that Courcelles was dumb or despicable is based on your unsupported premise ArbCom members should not make controversial actions. Can you provide any policy statement or prior consensus to support that premise? Given any block on MF will be controversial and result in a strong reaction, I can't think of anyone better to perform it than the top vote getter in the last ArbCom election. The concept that admins should "avoid drama" leads to the illogical conclusion that MF et. al. are untouchable and can do anything they want. Avoid drama is not a pillar, consensus & civility is. Nobody Ent 15:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

First, clarification, I am not saying that admins should avoid drama---I'm saying that ArbCOM members should avoid drama when related to cases where they sat as judges and/or are likely to get involved in again. Courcelles standing as an Arbitrator makes a world of difference here. If he was just an admin, I would say it was a questionable block. As an Arbitrator, he should have known better. ArbCOM members should refrain form making controversial issues on subjects which have or are likely to appear before the committee. If the action was warranted/necessary, let somebody else do it. I would have had zero problem with him posting as an Arb his view as an Arb in the discussion, but he should have let somebody else make the actual block.

As for the second part, WP:INVOLVE---if we are going to hold that John was involved by posting to MF's talk page on a regular basis, then Courcelles is similarly INVOLVED as having just sat as a judge on a major ArbCOM case. But it goes into judgment. Courcelles had to know the circus that would result from a block of MF---he sat on a review board on the subject. He had to know that any such action might prompt clarification from the committee. He had to know that by his acting, he was going to bring down criticism on himself---it's happened every time MF has been blocked. He had to know that any such action might prompt clarification from the committee. As an Arb who just weighed in on the case, he should have recused himself from acting as INVOLVED---and that INVOLVEMENT is ongoing based upon the possibility of Civility I being revisited. Allowing himself to be brought into what he knew would be a controversial case, undermines the process. What happens now? What would happen if this case had to go before ArbCOM? Would he now be listed as a principle party? A sitting member of ArbCOM who just sat on Civility 1 would now be a principle party on Civility 2? A sitting member who has become persecuted as a result of his actions? A persecution which was predictable? That he had to know would occur? Would that not raise questions about the objectivity of the court? Especially as he had to know the possibility of further ArbCOM involvement that occuring?

My criticism is not of Courcelles the admin, but rather Courcelles the Arbitrator. We have a higher standard and expectation for Arbitrators. He failed to live up to my expectations for the later.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find repeating a viewpoint with more words with some of them captialized makes it any more convincing. Repeating my question: Can you provide any policy statement or prior consensus to support your opinion? Nobody Ent 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if you choose to ignore wp:INVOLVE and common sense... no.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A more illuminating question for me is, would an admin who was not involved, and was unaware of the backstory (I have to assume that's possible?) reasonably have made the same call over what went on between Malleus Fatuorum and Anthonyhcole? A 72-hour block for one party and (having seen it) a rather mild interaction with the other. I don't know, so I'm genuinely asking. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but then, that history does exist. Several people seem to be applying an unwarranted "isolated incident" test here, but the fact is Malleus does have a history of personal attacks, with warnings and arbcom admonishment for it. Sure, an admin who didn't know that history probably would've applied a shorter block, but if he researched the user's history prudently he would've applied an escalated block, as this admin did. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:14, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Thanks – so, you think a block would have been warranted? Ok, well if that's the general view (is it?) then there's little point in pursuing this: as I recall, Malleus Fatuorum only engaged with the ArbCom case because he was persuaded to, and he then or since expressed a belief that he'd quit if he were blocked again. By the way, I think that it would be mistaken, and an utter failure to understand the man, to characterise that as an attention-seeking threat. I'm not convinced by "unwarranted", regarding this "isolated incident test" as you put it, though: to be clear, I think that it's a great pity, and a loss to the project, that Malleus Fatuorum could not be accommodated somehow, and that this reflects badly on the project. Goodness knows, how many of us have put in anything like his quantity and quality of work? And, were his "offences", as they've been deemed, really so awful, on the spectrum of on-wiki behaviour? In other words, I think that each incident involving Malleus Fatuorum required looking at very carefully – in isolation to a degree, yes – and my feeling remains that this block was unworthy. Having said that, I think for the time being I'll switch to following events insofar as I can, rather than contributing; if it comes to a vote, I'll vote, but I don't feel that I have anything more to say right now. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

break 2

• As an involved Arb and admin, could he not have refered it to one of the 1500 uninvolved admins to consider? He must have known, having previously sat on the committee that examined past fallouts like this, what controversy or reaction this block would provoke.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  So if a different admin who was not on ArbCom and had never interacted with Malleus before had issued the block, you would support the block? 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Probably. If they had considered the situation (including previous exchanges with anthonyhcoles) and came to the conclusion that a block was necessary as a preventative measure then yes, I would support it. I just feel that he did not consider this, and I would have hoped that he would have done this instead of imposing a three day one-sided block. --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  In that case it seems a little unfair that you'd vote to strip the admin privileges of someone whose action you'd support if someone else had done it. You mention one-sided... do you believe the other parties to the edit war should also have been blocked? 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify... with one-sided, I don't believe either side should have been blocked, but if anyone was to be blocked, it should not have been three days for one side and an AGF for the other. And in addition (possibly to contradict myself), I think that your question is slightly hypothetical, as, firstly the block as done by anyone would have been (IMHO) dubious at best and at worst punitive. I reconsider probably to be possibly, in consideration of the circumstances, responses and all the other baggage that goes along with this case (including previous histories), for both Malleus (who although I am "supporting" I would urge him to hold such heated debate in less public areas) and for Courcelles, who, up until now, I have regarding in anything but a egative light. Apologies if my answers aren't completely comprehensible.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Honestly, in this particular case, I wasn't going to say anything. I had started to review the case and looked at the discussion leading up to the attack. I noticed a number of users who made personal attacks against Malleus who were not challenged. But decided that I really didn't care one way or another. If Malleus wants to leave, let him go... it was only a matter of time and the dhrama created everytime somebody blocks (whether warranted or unwarranted) was ridiculous. I had decided it wasn't worth it. Then I noticed who the blocking admin was and THAT surprised me. I can honestly say that at the point in the time when I realized that it was Courcelles who had done the block, I had decided not to say anything beyond my "prediction post." Might that have changed if it had been another admin? Possibly; but at the point in time that I realized who it was, I had decided it wasn't worth the effort.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• No as much as I will support Malleus, to hound Courcelles is wrong. Mistakes happen, hopefully people learn from those mistakes. — Ched :  ?  03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Of course not; I crossed the floor and thanked Steve (who I don't know) because of the principle he stood for in the unblock summary:

  Paint a bullseye, don't be surprised when a shot lands.

  As I've said elsewhere, reach an understanding. Jack Merridew 03:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (waves at 28 and wiz)

• The issue is that what Malleus said did not deserve a block and, if one for whatever reason thought it did, what Anthony said was just as bad, so blocking one without blocking the other is a one-sided stance. And we already know that Courcelles has opinions about Malleus, making this even more one-sided. Anthony even agreed that Malleus' statement did not deserve a block at all. Furthermore, Steve's actions were met with a statement by Courcelles that was so out there, so "Courcelles doesn't get it" that it just boggles my mind. I don't see how anyone can trust him in a capacity as an admin when he holds these opinions and can't see plain sense. Silverseren^C 08:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I guess a lot has changed in two years, because his adminship had not even one single oppose vote.[4] I guess we're all thinking a whole lot more clearly now, right? Doc talk 09:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) *un-lurk* Strange... I'm not sure if it is me or something but did anyone just noticed that the BANNED editor User:Jack Merridew spoke? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  He's not banned, and that account is not blocked. Doc talk 09:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm... this just keeps getting better and better~! To the batmobile, Robin~! *re-lurk* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse what 28bytes says. I would suggest, Courcelles, you have no reason to agree to the request. Utterly stupid. Merely an "an eye for an eye" reaction from Malleus' cohorts. Agree with Wizardman that I've lost respect for a number of editors above. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• No reason whatsoever to relinquish your tools Courcelles...Malleus doesn't need a boilerlate warning and he was lucky arbcom did not sanction him in the civility case...yet, even though his penalty there was a mere admonishment, he and his supporters acted like some grave injustice had befallen them...preposterous.MONGO 11:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse calls to have this motion thrown under a bus, rather than another editor. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to comment earlier, as my action probably escalated the issue. While I think the original block was a bad one (cf. Balloonman), another witch-hunt doesn't serve the project, even if I thought the place would be better off if Courcelles gave up the tools (and I don't know his history well enough to comment on that either way). Recall is a ridiculous notion; it exists only because we're incapable of dealing with poor administrators through any consistently-applied community sanction, and we're unwilling to do anything about it. Steve ^T • C 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the problems are systemic and need to be addressed at that level. Blocking, recalling and witch hunts are part of the problem, not the solution. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not gonna go through anyways. Even if two more certifiers do show up, the resulting discussion obviously wouldn't go anywhere. I was hoping this whole thing would get something across to Courcelles about how they should use their admin tools, but that seems unlikely at this point. I think they are determined to just ignore this as a whole. Silverseren^C 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that he's not ignoring this. He's already asked me to clerk the recall if it happens and I've been monitoring this all day. I can understand him staying away all day today, there is a lot of stress and drama involved with one of these and there are plenty of people who will argue on his behalf and on the opposing side without his help. If it happens, it happens. Of course, I don't speak for him but imagine if you were going through it. He'll give his comments when they are needed. There isn't a need to argue with everyone who has an opinion here.--v/r - TP 21:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't really answer whether Courcelles understands the issue we have with their actions. From what they have stated from before, it seems they do not. Silverseren^C 21:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I was just saying he is is aware and not ignoring it is all.--v/r - TP 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He provided numerous explanations once the opposition was voiced, in which it seemed apparent that he stands behind his actions. Repeating himself at this point doesn't seem like it would accomplish much. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:46, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't that Courcelles stands by their actions, it's acknowledging the possibility that it was a wrong decision. And then going further to disparage Steve for his, decidedly selfless, actions just makes it even worse. Silverseren^C 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it says as much that he was forthcoming and timely with clarifying his recall process and willingness to assign a clerk. You really need to hear the words "I could be wrong"? Re: the selfless act, it was wheel-warring, which has been known to cause more harm than good -- that's why it's prohibited. Just because Steve acknowledged he was doing something that would make him lose the tools doesn't necessarily make it a noble act. Not everything done to one's own detriment is admirable, and I actually agree that this wasn't. You obviously think otherwise, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to. There's a lot of disagreement here and you might want to consider accepting that. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:48, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• I am stunned that not one, but two of my proteges have signed this. I try to teach those who go through my mentorship program that the world is not black and white, but shades of grey. I personally disagreed with the block of Malleus, but I understand Courcelles rationale and believe it was one that a reasonable person who viewed the facts differently might take. I don't believe in revenge or going after blood. If Malleus has truly fallen out of love with this project, then nothing that happens here will make any difference, he will never come back as the great editor he was. If he's not, and this is just a short fit of anger, he will be back whether or not Courcelles has his bit removed. I often see admins who make decisions I disagree with, I don't often see ones that I think should be stripped of their bit for it. When I do, I say so. This is not one of those situations. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"I don't believe in revenge or going after blood" was the part that clashed with your view of the world particularly, was it? Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The "I can't believe my protoges are here. I tried so hard to be a better teacher. I can't believe I didn't mold them so they see the world exactly as I do." That part.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If I see my protoges do something that I feel is misguided, I say so. That two took the same action which I felt misguided, was quite shocking to me. Still, I think this is the first superlative I've ever received on Wikipedia, so I'll just enjoy that for what it is. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I urge those trying to put this recall in motion to exercise restraint and stop the process. I was one of the first people to post my disagreement with the block, and strongly, but Courcelles does not need to be recalled for this. Admins need to be able to use their tools according to their judgement and not feel like an impeachment is waiting around the corner if they make an error—just like editors (like Malleus) need to be able to engage in strong discourse without being blocked. We need to level the playing field all-around. The block was indeed an error in judgement, but that only means it should be reversed. It was not so egregious as to warrant a recall. The only result of this will be that admins dealing with the real trolls and troublemakers on this site will be less emboldened to do so. --Laser brain (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  For what it's worth I think Laser's comment above is quite wise and considered. I agree with what he/she's saying here. I don't think Courcelles deserves recall for this. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  We have to remember that this is not only an admin we are talking about here but also an arbcom member. As such they should uphold a MUCH higher standard of conduct than a regular admin. One-sided blocks such as what initiated this discussion should NEVER be issued by an admin currently standing in arbcom as well! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Still doesn't warrant a witch-hunt. What would come of Courcelles going through recall? It's a terribly disheartening procedure, as if the backlash wasn't chastising enough in the first place. We'd risk losing another great contributor to this site, one who works very hard on its behalf. Nope, not worth it. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 23:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The issue goes beyond just the fact that the block was made. A far bigger issues is that Courcelles doesn't seem to understand why the block was bad and went on to make a negative comment toward the unblocking admin, Steve. It is this lack of judgement that the recall is being placed on, that it is hard to trust an admin with the tools who can't acknowledge that they made a wrong move with those said tools. Silverseren^C 23:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the very few admins willing to brave AE, that this even has as much traction as it does is frightening. I honestly don't see what the problem is; as I hold a strong opinion on the subject Malleus was commenting on when he was blocked, I won't opine on its validity, but it was certainly within admin discretion. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing about "ABUSIVE ADMINS ON POWER TRIPS FORMING LYNCH MOBS OH MY GOD!!!!!!!", and it literally makes me sick to see Thích Quảng Đức's name so flippantly evoked; get a sense of perspective!! If there were so many abusive admins, you'd be focused on removing them as opposed to Courcelles; that you choose to target him is a sign of who the real "lynch mob" is. All your little crusade demonstrates is that we on Wikipedia have a band of rebels searching for a cause in "the system" to rage against. How about adding some of your vaunted content instead? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

– Whatever it is that you are trying to say, TBNL, seems disconcerting and threatening. It is also rather incoherent. Would you mind restating what it is you want to say here with more clarity? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I understood it. Maybe you should point out specifically which parts you're confused about, I could try and explain. If it's the Thich Quang Duc reference, see the link. As for the threat, I can't see one. Who/what do you feel is being threatened? Equazcion ^(talk) 10:22, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Equazcion, but it was TBNL I was asking to clarify what he wants to say. I wasn't asking what you imagine he was trying to say. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Does "TBNL" in this case mean "To Be Named Later"? — Ched :  ?  21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Apologies if using that contraction was seen as impolite --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as I know it's referring to me, I don't care how anyone shortens my name. I'll try; basically, my frustration is that I can think of a couple admins who warrant this kind of scrutiny, but Courcelles is not one of them. I feel like he's being dragged through the mud by people who, like James Dean, are basically rebels looking for a cause. As an AE admin, I feel like I have a hard enough time keeping a lid on things without the community actively undermining attempts to cut the Gordian knot (which is basically what this was), I don't need it to be more difficult than it already is. The Thích Quảng Đức comment is a response to a link above; the ASD in me gets me very upset when I see people comparing an anonymous individual editing a website to people who dedicated and/or sacrificed their lives to fight real-world horrors. Of course I know it's not a literal comparison, but I've read about Thích, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, Aung San, and his daughter, and the autobiographies of Shigeru Kayano (whose article I want to start working on, as soon as I can get his book back in my hands) and Zoya Phan (whose article I basically wrote), and I do literally start feeling sick to my stomach when I see those kinds of names bandied about so casually. I shake it off pretty quickly, but the reaction is real. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes... we've discussed that before. Of course the difficult work you do at AE needs every support, and I would hope that open discussion of issues like this current one don't undermine that. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to close immediately

Right - Not withstanding any of the above, regrettably, I have to file to have this petition withdrawn; having carefully reviewed the standards for the recall which Courcelles themselves set, I have realised that (even as the filer of this petition), I actually fail the standards set for both Good standing, and Neutrality.

Good standing being "At least 10 article edits per month in the previous 3 months) and

Neutrality - "Not from an editor who has been active in articles closely related to where I have been issuing ArbCom discretionary sanctions"; while i have not been active where Courcelles has been issuing sanctions, I have been involved in an ArbCom case where Courcelles was sitting, and making physical judgement based on the evidence provided.

For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, one of Malleus Fatuorum's "cohorts".

However, based on my failure to meet required standards, I do not feel that I can leave this petition in place. With apologies to those involved here, and for the general ill feeling this may have caused, I request closure. Thanks.  BarkingFish  13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, it seems wrong to me that the issue might end here: I think it deserves more attention than a recall under this admin's own terms. Given the circumstances through which it arose, the block on Malleus Fatuorum was patently absurd, e.g. per this. If the issue is taken up elsewhere, I'd be grateful for notification. Nortonius (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What action other than blocking do you think would have been effective? Nobody Ent 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was no admin action taken prior to the block, is that correct? If so, then the block was demonstrably premature, and I believe ill-considered. If not, then feel free to correct me. Nonetheless, I think the subsequent comments by the other involved party, Anthonyhcole, speak volumes. Talking of which, I take your comment below as a correction, so I'll add my name to the other five: I disagree that the action shall cause more harm than good. Nortonius (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Standards apply to certifiers, not initiators, so you should not withdraw for that reason; given that five other editors have certified I don't it can be closed at this point. (This is unfortunate because it will cause more harm than good.) Nobody Ent 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The link you just posted says that blocks should be applied when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective. MF been blocked 13 times for incivility and disruption, and was recently admonished and sanctioned by ArbCom. Clearly, all of this has proven to be ineffective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

However, even the editor Anthonyhcoles, who MF was adressing, has stated that the block was unfair and disproportionate i.e. one-sided.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidently I can't add my name to the certifiers (see my previous edit) because it has been closed: however I shall respond to A Quest For Knowledge, who was, I believe, addressing me. The link I gave includes text, which you yourself repeated here, which clearly relates to "a situation". The situation here was that Malleus Fatuorum and Anthonyhcole were exchanging strong views. QED. And, what Gilderien just said. Nortonius (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Granted, I'm not familiar with Anthonyhcoles, but this is Malleus Fatuorum's block log. This is Anthonyhcole's block log. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That Malleus Fatuorum's block log is compromised is well established; my own observations of his interactions with other editors going back over about 4 years gave me an impression of someone who spoke plainly, in a fashion much more to be respected than the passive-aggressive or weaselly contributions of many others. I'm sorry, I haven't kept a diary, but that's my impression FWIW: his prolific, high-quality contributions gave him a higher profile than most, which it hardly needs to be said made him a target, it's the way of the world. Like you, I'm not familiar with Anthonyhcole, but, as I already said, his comments subsequent to Malleus Fatuorum's block speak volumes, IMHO. In the end, though, isn't this really about semantics? Your interpretation of "a situation" includes Malleus Fatuorum's entire record, whereas mine refers only to the situation that arose between Malleus Fatuorum and Anthonyhcole – is that a fair appraisal? If so, forgive me if I maintain my own interpretation: under the circumstances, I think it's reasonable. Nortonius (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well since my request to close based on what I put above, has been ignored, I will do it this way instead. As the initiator of this petition to recall, I withdraw said petition, and request closure of this debate. I do not preclude anyone else taking this up if they wish, but it won't be me.  BarkingFish  14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Barking, it's not that your request has been ignored, but rather it's like an AFD where votes to delete have been cast. Generally if others are voting to delete, then the nominator pulling his support for deletion isn't enough. The fact that 5 people have endorsed the recall, means the 48 hour window is going regardless of what you do. Basically, your withdrawing at this point means that 2 more people need to step in and endorse the recall petition. (I won't endorse it as I do not believe the act was egregious enough as an Admin action to remove the bit.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Then at this point, Balloonman, I'm striking my initiation of this petition. If someone else wishes to continue the initiation, and find more certifiers, fine, but I want no further part of this per the reasons I've already given. I cannot criticise someone else's standards when my own aren't up to scratch either.  BarkingFish  15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's perfectly fine, I support your doing so. My point was that your request wasn't being ignored, but rather it set into motion actions which your retraction now can't undue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose I should also add that I wouldn't be supporting the recall request at all if Courcelles had even acknowledged the possibility that their decision was incorrect and out of place. And if they hadn't spoken disparagingly toward Steve for his admirable actions. Silverseren^C 20:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So your certification is based on an emotional response rather than a purely technical reason consistent with the recall criteria? Leaky Caldron 20:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • My certification is based on Courcelles' actions and statements, and that they would not acknowledge that they could have been wrong. One-sidedness in this situation was already a problem, but the inability to admit the potentiality of being incorrect in a decision is a trait that admins should not have. Silverseren^C 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a qualified proposer, this should probably be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved myself to initiator position. Silverseren^C 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This has got to be the most ridiculous request for recall I've yet seen on wikipedia and should be closed immediately. At best, it was a well-needed wrist slap on an experienced editor who is generally popular, but sometimes does cross the line between snarky and mean, and at worst Courcelles had a knee-jerk reaction to minor snark and slapped on an unneeded block that was at worst a mere brain fart. Recall is inappropriate: the block was reversed and Malleus is back. So I think it's time for everyone to just quit hyperventilating. Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. This recall discussion appalls me. It's time to de-escalate. And I'm saying this as a long-time supporter of administrator recall. But in this case, recall would be a gross injustice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As an example

Kind of calling out Cla here, but he rather deserves it for this comment. Take this comment, please, which I would hope all of us can agree is far worse than what Anthony or Malleus said, combined even. Furthermore, the latter part of it is even directed at a specific person, while the first part is directed at "the rest", which apparently includes OrangeMike specifically, so you can say the first part is directed at him specifically too.

Under Courcelles' reasoning of what deserves a block, should Courcelles not immediately block Cla for civility breach? Or can we all agree that no blocks should be issued, meaning that neither Anthony or Malleus should have been blocked either for their comments. I mean, we all know that civility is almost never used as a reason for a block unless the blocking admin has a personal interest in the block. Silverseren^C 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was blocked for not taking down the comment when asked and then revert-warring to keep it in, when he has an extensive warning history for these things -- not merely for posting a personal attack once. I'm still not sure if this comment by Cla qualifies as quite the same; but assuming it is for argument's sake, under Courcelles' reasoning, Cla should be asked to remove the comment. If he doesn't, and someone else removes it, and Cla proceeds to replace it multiple times, then he should be blocked, with the block time chosen based on how much he's done this previously. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:11, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question: When Malleus' comment was removed, was Anthony's comment also removed? If not, that's one-sided. Furthermore, the point is that none of the comments should have been removed in the first place. And Malleus was fully in the right for reverting the removal of his comment. Silverseren^C 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't, and Courcellus acknowledged his regret for not dealing with Anthony's actions at the same time as Malleus'. Though that doesn't give Malleus the right to continue re-inserting his personal attack. We do have a No Personal Attacks policy (though perhaps one you disagree with?). Equazcion ^(talk) 23:28, 9 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure neither Malleus or Anthony considered what they said to be personal attacks. But, i they are, then that means Malleus' attack was removed, while Anthony's was not. I would also revert this if such one-sided removal was done to me, because it would be a clear case of favoritism. For that matter, should you not go and remove Cla's rather egregious personal attack right at this moment? Silverseren^C 23:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, Malleus' comment should have been removed from that community board, but so should mine. Malleus' loudest criticism is of the uneven use of sanctions. I had, earlier in that discussion, likened his behaviour to that of an arse hole and him to a bratt. When an editor removed his comment about me having no mind, but left my far worse insults, Malleus was perfectly justified in defending his edit.

If you're going to invoke Malleus' past as a justification for his block, please take all of his past into account, including his repeated valid complaint, over many years, that admins demonstrate extreme partiality from time to time in the exercise of power. He had every right to insist that his relatively mild insult stood on the record while mine did. Blocking him for that was a mistake. I hope Courcelles can see that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A couple points. (I'm going to stick this in the archives after this edit, but I'll save these here first for posterity.) First, we ran this under criteria I qute frankly, threw together one night, I ment to go back and refine (perhaps even write them from scrathc), but it slipped the mind and task priority as 2011 rolled by. Until I was trying to find something in Paris and Google threw up that page, I had pretty much forgotten the need to redo it. Yeah, they're not great, so I'll try and get that done. Second, I sort of stayed away from the project for the last couple days all together so I wouldn't have any indication of interfering in this process. Right or wrong, I decided to trust TParis and any other neutral admin to keep things even handed here, and that my participation here would not have been optimal. Third, thanks for all the comments on both sides. Third, I've read everything here and will take it all into my mind. Courcelles 06:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One week late

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review/Proposed_decision. Hipocrite (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "one week later than target". Arbitration matters are not "late" simply because a target date has been missed. You'll notice that real-life courts don't pre-schedule their deliberations: things are done when they are done, not before. While ArbCom is often mocked for behaving as a quasi-legal body, in this case, we would probably be better off to emulate the courts more closely and stop publishing dates at all, since some people seem to misconstrue them as commitments rather than estimates. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the community who has chosen to use the word deadline on the page. If ArbCom doesn't want to set deadlines for themselves, that's fine, but per WP:ADMINACCT it's not unreasonable to expect the ArbCom subcommunity to either meet the deadlines they set or update them when it becomes clear they're not going to. Nobody Ent 18:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll see about getting the word deadline removed, but WP:ADMINACCT does not apply to arbitration deliberations--they're not "actions involving administrator tools" in the first place, and the publicly posted proposed decisions and subsequent discussions are self-explanatory. That is, there's no call for us to explain the absence of anything needing explanation, because when we do post something, that something we've just posted is, in fact, the explanation. Does that make sense? Deliberations should take as long as needed to get right, and target dates are our best estimate at the time the case is opened of how long it will take to reach that point. Sometimes, missed deadlines are the fault of individual members of the committee or the body as a whole, often times they are based on one or more participants' availability, but generally they are attributable to a multitude of factors. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the complexity of the problems ArbCom tackles and the fact you're volunteers I don't have any issue with dates slipping. So why post a decision date at all? To post one and then to neither meet nor update it is just rude. Nobody Ent 09:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a scratchpad of notes for this that runs to several sheets, I'll put in some serious time on getting it closer to publication tomorrow. (My eyes willing. Seems like I'm averaging only a couple hours a day where my vision clears well enough to read at anything less than a 49px font right now.) Courcelles 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)