Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I've commented here. I was hoping you would consider my thoughts. — Ched :  ?  13:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

3. 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)[reply]
4. _(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)[reply]
5. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

You don't deserve this

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, and as far as Malleus actually retiring over this thing: fat chance, folks. From the earliest NPA blocks[1] to the more recent ones[2], 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)[reply]