:::There's no rule against blocking admins, but it's a rare occurrence. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::There's no rule against blocking admins, but it's a rare occurrence. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::(ec) There are no actual separate rules for blocking fellow admins vs blocking other individuals, but it could be said that the blocker might be potentially more lenient on the blockee-to-be and give him/her a shorter block or substitute the block with a warning-like message of some kind.
[[User talk:174.52.141.138|'''174.52.141.138''']]<sup>[[User:67.136.117.132|Also 67.136.117.132]]</sup>00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
== dinner ==
== dinner ==
Revision as of 00:05, 31 August 2010
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
I'm not sure if you are still a copyeditor for hire, but I would really appreciate help with this dour fellow: Ezra Pound. Its a week or two from FAC, and at the 'calling in the heavies' stage. Its a fairly absorbing story, though seeped in tragedy and at times farce. Any help appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sound, though its not a happy story, creaping madness/genious, antisemtism; at one point he was imprisioned in a suspended cage under the guise of mental health. But thats the early modernists for you. Considering that generation were almost reduced to cannon fodder, it not much wonder they were so bleak. Ceoil (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malleus. I didn't want to bother you, particularly after you worked on Hemingway and Evans, but Pound is an interesting subject and needs your considerable skills. One of the lines in the article I like is that he challenged a fellow to duel because, in his words "stupidity carried beyond a certain point becomes a public menace". Take as long as you need. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment about the flow in the article. I've trimmed out some material. Feel free to either delete or comment out anything you see as unnecessary. Some things need to stay in for various reasons, so if necessary we can discuss on the talkpage. I'd rather trim and re-add judiciously (if warranted) to achieve flow, than have an article crammed with detail that doesn't cohere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished my first run through yet, but when I have I'll go through it again looking for places where the flow might be improved. For better or for worse literature articles tend to be judged on prose more harshly than regular articles at FAC, at least I think so anyway. MalleusFatuorum12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. The challenge is to use a variety of sources, add the necessary (?) details, keep it within a practical length, and do it with brilliant prose. I'm more successful with articles I write from scratch. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've hit a wall. I hate the Paris section and can't get it come together at all. Maybe need to read more - I don't know. Probably a break from it is a good idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep on it, take a few days away from it if you need to. I often leave articles for a while and then come back to them; you see them with fresher eyes then. Meanwhile I'll continue to plod through it. MalleusFatuorum22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to interject here: at vast expense, when writing Olga Rudge, I bought the "Anne Conover (2001). Olga Rudge and Ezra Pound. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08703-9." book; it was so deathly dull I never got past page 17, but if you want any refs or quotes from it, just ask. I would like to feel it was money well spent. Giacomo 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be most disappointed to learn that much of it is available on-line. And yes, extremely boring. I had high hopes for it, but they were quickly dashed. That said, feel free to add to the Paris section - if I could find a source that's direct without wandering off into all kinds of tangents about the Ezra/Olga in Paris situation, it would help. At any rate, I'll take Malleus' good advice for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I have another formatting question. The other day I had to opportunity to use a new iPod Touch and I read the Ezra Pound article on it. Really nice formatting - images centered, sections collapsed, nice font. One problem though, there's a blockquote that's formatting word-by-word in a vertical line on the right part of the screen. In this edit [1] you reformatted the blockquote. Without the fix it looks fine on my desktop monitor and I think we should reformat for the smaller touch screens. Does the image need to be moved? This is a bit new to me. Should I just test it to get it right? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tweaking and poking on that one. It may be one of the dullest articles on Wikipedia, but as you may know (IIRC you used to live in Chiswick) it's a genuinely high-importance one. Kew and Twickenham are still unwritten but they should be fairly quick, and that will complete the set. This kind of "genuinely significant but not much to say about it" article is always a hard one to write, and the sources are well and truly milked dry. – iridescent19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You're right, I lived in Chiswick for close on 12 years, so I know the bridges to the west of London fairly well, especially Kew Bridge of course. MalleusFatuorum20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially instructive examples
I thought that one or two examples of the kind of emails I was receiving until recently may be instructive. This one in particular caught my eye, sent on 14 July:
Do you really think that I [User:MacDaid] and Mattisse and Xztou should be indefinitely blocked for behavior much less obtrusive that you and Moni3 engage in regularly? The three of us have contributed unstintingly to the good of wikipedia articles, without asking for "stars" or claiming "I wrote my articles" and such. It sickens me. None of us engaged in vulgarity or personal attacks. Moni3 is a self involved "editor", (I know you get along with females rather than males) who "owns" articles. You attack with vulgarities unnecessarily when you could get your point across in other ways. Is that the way to attract new editors to wikipedia, which it desperately needs? Or are you like Moni3 and turn you nose up at new neditors. Have you notices that the page hits for many, if not most FACs, is a few thousand a year at the most?
Do you really care about wikipedia at all?
I don't find it curious. Mattisse is still obviously troubled and has no familiarity with straightforward communication or taking responsibility for her own actions. She needs help and I pity her. I hope she gets counseling. She clearly needs it.
If you let these emails bother you, Malleus, just consider that she only appears to be able to manipulate and obfuscate and is trying to upset you, cause you to question yourself, and diminish your enjoyment in what you do here. She is succeeding. She emails people with whom she has had conflicts in the past when she is mentioned in various talk pages. Not to explain, build bridges, or improve anyone's lives, but to sow discord such as this. This will no doubt cause another spate of her trademark manipulative missives to the same editors, none of whom ever deserved her twisted attention. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really bother me, I just find I can do without it. I did find the "I know you get along with females rather than males" comment rather strange though, as I've always dealt with people as I find them, regardless of their gender or sexuality. I suspect that was a knock at SandyG and Karanacs; you wouldn't believe how many emails I've had telling me what a bad lot they are. MalleusFatuorum23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus, did a bit of work on the Varian article, ready for round two, though I may need some further feedback to fix a couple things. I hope that I clarified the training and philosophy sections so they are more understandable to non-horse people. I added some additional references. Jack also went through and cleaned up my refs a bit more. I also hope I fixed the pedigree stuff. Just let me know what else is having trouble, and I'll get to it as soon as I can (which may mean a wait of a day or so, but I won't forget about it!) Montanabw(talk)02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus! I don't know if you have any interest in working on a couple of FARs right now, but there are a couple of new ones that could use your prose expertise. They both have inexperienced nominators who either don't thoroughly understand the FA criteria or didn't make it clear what their concerns regarding the criteria were. Anyway, this is probably more information than you need, so here are the links: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive1. If you have the time/interest your input would be much appreciated; if not, I'll trundle along and try to find someone else :) Dana boomer (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the (seriously unintended) risk of starting a puerile thread here, do you have any sources to help expand "the organ was enlarged and improved in 1907 by Mr. H. J. Lister" from here? --Senra (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence, and I could just about have manged a nudge in the direction of NPOR, but bells are more my thing. Organs are jsut somethign I sing along to, and hope that the person driving knows what they are doing! David Underdown (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice your comments, it's nice to see that everybody on Wikipedia isn't a whining troublemaker and states the facts.
If Camelbinky's IQ is in the top 1% then I have only two things to say; first of all commiserations, and secondly that I'm a Chinese whore on crack. MalleusFatuorum22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that soliciting the blocking/banning of other editors is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. BTW, calling me a troll is most definitely a personal attack. MalleusFatuorum22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is as funny as shit:
I'll just get attacked here for making another complaint and this wont be taken seriously and it will continue because everyone knows "make fun of Camelbinky and nothing will happen".Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be on Wikipedia for quite awhile, to many douchebags, one right after the other. There are people on here that are hell bent on what could be a good thing for everybody in general with penny-ante bureaucratic bullshit and you have to humour every misanthrope with an internet connection. Stick to your guns. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roux is what he is. I have nothing but disdain for those like Camelbinky who try to get other editors blocked: "Um, can I get a 24 hour block on Malleus for what he said on the above closed thread?'" Pathetic. MalleusFatuorum00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a lot of pain right now, so this seems like a good idea to post: the concept of effective pedagogy and education seems to be a foreign concept to many editors, which surprises me. The outcome of any effort to change your behavior, Malleus, does not appear to be as important as the punishment involved in these draconian exhibitions of "you hurt my feelings, now suffer". Bang the square peg into the round hole harder and it just might fit.
That, and per And yes, I would GLADLY put my best ARTICLE contributions against his best article contributions any day makes me point out that my penis is larger than any of yours. All of you. Me, big penis. I need drugs now. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other day someone, I think it was MastCell, brought the quip "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with hammers" to my attention for the first time. Ever since, I see wiki-eggs wielding wiki-hammers all over the noticeboards. Can't get the image out of my head. (Malleus of course is a hammer armed with a hammer). ---Sluzzelintalk23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all just sticks and stones. I've never, and I never will, call for sanctions against another editor, unlike the self-confessed genius who calls himself Camelbinky. His friend Roux is simply unworthy of comment. MalleusFatuorum00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear, Malleus. I don't think I've seen a more unreasonable block request, nor did I ever think I would (but then, I don't really hang around ANI; I've got bigger things to worry about than trying to get other editors blocked). Had I been around before the thread closed, I would have told your surly friends to go fight to improve an article instead of fighting to get back at the guy-who-chastised-them-but-broke-no-rules. Save the ANI for the real troublemakers and take a short break from Wikipedia if you're upset, myfriends. What do you have to gain? Roux, if you're reading this, remember the advice White Shadow and I gave you. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, TwilightHelryx02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "personal attack" most commonly used here appears to be "anything I don't like or don't agree with", and it ony applies to other editors, so long as they're not administrators. 13:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, human nature. Don't these people have other things to worry about besides considering statements they find insulting "personal attacks"? Really, I've had pretty harsh things said to me before (both online and in real life), but they never bugged me enough to make me snappish. Can't we all just get along?--TwilightHelryx14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've long thought that forums like WQA and to a large extent ANI cause more problems thay were ever intended to solve. There's a certain type of editor who rushes off there on the slightest pretext with the hope of having whoever it that (s)he's involved in a dispute with at the very least blocked. MalleusFatuorum14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. That's why, my advice to those who intend to hang around there would be to break out the coke and popcorn, because they're in for quite the show(s). Translation: Too much empty drama for any sane person to bother with.--TwilightHelryx15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only editor who drives-by ANI just for a laugh now and again? At one stage recently, I felt like putting in a 24 hour block request against Malleus for "persistent unwarranted behaviour verging on extreme civility towards me" with a long list of diff's supporting my argument. I stood back for a moment. When I reasoned that the apparent lack of any sense of humour in such places led me to think that I myself might get blocked for being facetious, I withheld my post --Senra (Talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm perhaps one of the most unselfish, helpful, supportive ... (running out of self-aggrandising superlatives here) editors on wikipedia I'm forever destined to be portrayed as an uncivil "dick of porn star proportions". So if you'd made that posting at ANI it would more likely have been me who was blocked, not you. Just because. I could give you a long list of administrators who are looking for any reason to block me, and the way it works here is that once you've been blocked you're obviously a bad 'un. But am I bitter? You bet your ass I am. MalleusFatuorum02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not the only one Senra, I do it occasionally. Then again I do the same with the Daily Mail's website. Sometimes its funny to see how other people view life. Parrotof Doom22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For your commentary about six months ago. Nothing came of it, alas, but it is sadly rare to see someone whose principles outweigh personal feelings. Thanks. →ROUX₪20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you'll have to remind me Roux, six months is a long time ago when you get to my age. On your more general point, I have weeks where I sometimes think that I'm the only editor on wikipedia who puts principle above personal feelings. MalleusFatuorum21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just mooching around GAN looking for something to review to get my own nomination a bit further up the queue, but yes, I will review Meksi. I probably won't get to it until tomorrow though. MalleusFatuorum16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no I'm prepared for it. I know what it takes to bring to GA: it's that I have used all that can be used for Meksi, there is almost nothing else around. --Sulmues(talk)16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and take a look through, perhaps tomorrow. As has already been said in the peer review though, you really need to cut that lead down a bit. MalleusFatuorum22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite good at hacking away at prose, we'll get it down to a reasonable size. Just close your eyes and open them again when the job's done. MalleusFatuorum00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No please go ahead, you are doing GREAT. I just thought it should have been me to put the "Done" template, as I was seeing one GA nominee. This is my first application. Undid myself, sorry about it. And the review is SIGNIFICANTLY improving the article. --Sulmues(talk)02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My aim is to be able in all conscience to list your article as a GA, but I'm aware that I can be a little demanding. So if you're in for the ride, then so am I. :-) MalleusFatuorum02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you dreaming already of being Mr. Pinkerton? I sure dreamt of being Mr. Meksi when I wrote that article in June and now I'm reviving the dream, :-). --Sulmues(talk)17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working with you was an excellent experience! I really had fun going after your suggestions and making fixes. Thank you for your time and support! I hope I can one day return the favor. --Sulmues(talk)22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It usually is; don't listen to what those nasty administrators say about me. ;-) Congratulations on a nice piece of work on what is undoubtedly to many a rather obscure topic. Just what wikipedia needs more of. MalleusFatuorum22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another FAR
Hi Malleus - Thank you for your comments at the two recent FARs. Both of them will be able to be closed before going through FARC, which is always nice. If you are interested, there is another FAR that may be able to be kept pre-FARC. The review for Chess can be found at WP:Featured article review/Chess/archive3. Thanks in advance if you have the time and interest; no big deal if you don't. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you promise, cross your heart and hope to die, that you won't turn into one of those nasty administrators I was referring to above when your RfA succeeds. MalleusFatuorum23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, he is a typical Appy, and that's why I like him. It would be if you bribed him to start acting like an Arab that it would "teach me"...*oh, buurrn* :) Secondly, Malleus, I promise to not turn into a nasty admin if my RfA succeeds (btw, thanks for the support, both of you), but only if you promise not to leave and make Ealdgyth and me find someone else who doesn't mind being inundated with requests for copyediting horses and bishops... Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for some time now that my time here is up, and I'm surprised to find myself still here; my mistake I think was in not choosing a nice pink and fluffy username, but that's history. Oh, and in saying what I think in terms that seem to offend the Californian kiddies who seem to run this site. MalleusFatuorum01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't judge the rest of the US by the Californians :) Us out here in the midwest are actually usually pretty nice and laid back... And actually, on the Chess FAR, hold off for a bit, unless you're really looking for something to do. I had only taken a quick glance at the actual article last night, and upon a more thorough look this morning it's not quite ready for you. Sorry for getting your hopes up *grin*. Dana boomer (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Something that is ready for you to take a look at though, if you would like, is Andalusian horse. I'd like to nominate it the week after Labor Day weekend (err...do you have Labor Day in the UK? If not, it's the first weekend in September in the US), so it's not in a huge hurry, but I would like to get your thoughts on it if you are interested in giving them. There are some pretty complicated breed politics, and I'm not sure if I managed to explain them in a way that is comprehensible to non-horsey folk. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't have Labor Day, although we do have a bank holiday at the end of August, this weekend in fact. I'll get to it before Labor Day. MalleusFatuorum14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chess FAR
The members of WikiProject Chess are spread from the Czech Republic to California. So I've ask them to tell you when to start, to avoid ECs etc.
PS I did ever say that you are one of the most generous editors? I'm saying it now.
PPS If you get trouble, don't respond directly, tell me:
Ugh!. I just noticed that it's one of those pending changes thingies ... not sure I want to play that game. I ought to make it clear somewhere that I won't work on pending changes articles or WikiCup nominations. MalleusFatuorum02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then can you fix this sentence? "Redfish and Trout mainly lived in the lake until the construction of the levee, which brought the populations down. A large amount of silt is now diverted to the Lake, which has negatively affected the delta ecosystem." MalleusFatuorum03:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-USA may find "embankment" easier than "levee".
It's easy to see what happened, but I couldn't find sources - there are dozens of Green Lakes in USA:
Silt runs offs that "fertile soil" in the lake.
It makes the bottom anoxic and the top level overloaded with nutrients.
Cyanobacteria handle these conditions better than any else can do - cyanobacteria have lived these conditions for at least 2.4 billion years.
And they produce a green or green-blue tint.
I can probably find cites for the general mechanisms ("Silt runs offs ... green or green-blue tint"), but not for this Green Lake. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, another well-deserved sign of this editor's heroic reputation. A plug badge of pride that makes me jealous. Malleus is apparently climbing the status ladder entirely through the unwanted efforts of others. I think we should start planning a celebration for his 100 000th edit, or the honorary bestowal of adminship. Whichever comes first. I wonder which that would be? Keep up the good work! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my millionth edit will come way before any honorary adminship, if I live that long. Naive of me though it may be, I'm constantly surprised to discover how many enemies I've made here on wikipedia. I put it done to a surfeit of hypocritically thin-skinned Californians and their followers. MalleusFatuorum02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheffield
I request you to review your undo of may edit to the Sheffield article. This article became a featured article back in 2005, and one of the choices we took in the process to becoming featured was to remove a section on notable people. Firstly, we generally do not refer to people as notable as this is very POV; secondly, choosing who to include and who not to include is too much down to the editor is basically their own original research. We have a long list at List of people from Sheffield that includes everyone known to have been born in or lived in Sheffield about whom Wikipedia has an article; this article is linked from the main Sheffield article. As an aside, these sections are also one of the most susceptible to drive-through edits and generally become long and ungainly. The Sheffield article as been without such a section since 2005, and although the article lost its featured status last year, it has recently undergone much improvement towards regaining that status, including gaining the level of 'good article.' The 'notable people' section was added in the last few days, and I strongly feel that it is a backward step for the article. I also note that a currently featured article on the neighbouring and similar-sized city, Manchester, includes no such section. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general principle you're completely wrong, as a cursory reading of the UKCITIES guidlines shows]. As it happens I am not a great fan of the craze for "notable people" or "in popular culture" sections; I simply objected to your assertion that the choice of which people to include was "original research", which it clearly isn't. I have no particular interest in the Sheffield article though, so do with it as you will. MalleusFatuorum03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary guidelines put together by Wikiprojects don't really concern me. I am more concerned with writing the best articles that we can, and a quick scan of British places that are currently listed as featured articles shows me that nearly all (e.g. Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Somerset, Blyth,_Northumberland, East End of London, Manchester, Sale, Greater Manchester, Weymouth, Dorset) don't include a notable people section. This suggests to me that the UKCITIES guideline is incorrect. I would like to make Sheffield be once again a featured article as soon as possible, so I would prefer to emulate the standard set by those articles that are already featured. —Jeremy (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange really, I have such a high regard for John and the great work he does ... err... doing whatever it is that he does. I'm sure it's very important, whatever it is. MalleusFatuorum15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your comment over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: "administrators are scared rigid to block each other". Kinda off topic for that page so I thought I'd comment here.
I say, sure, why not? But would it work? I suspect that a blocked admin would still retain the rights to unblock himself. I'm pretty sure if I blocked, say, Jimbo Wales, he could easily fix that himself (and fix me while he's at it). I'm not certain what happens if an admin blocks another admin. Do they really get blocked? Maybe sometime I'll conduct a test. I do get the standard form to fill out when I try to block myself, but I haven't gotten the nerve to submit it.
If I block someone, I won't be paying any attention whatsoever whether the miscreant has sysop privileges. Disruption is disruption. If an admin is stupid enough to use a sockpuppet account, they'd get quickly blocked. I suspect many admins would feel the same way. There are a handful of admins whose names I recognize, but for the most part I don't know who else wields a mop around here. If someone is sufficiently disruptive to require a block, it shouldn't matter who they are.
That said, the bar for passing the adminship threshold is sufficiently high that it's unlikely that an admin would engage in behavior that requires blocking. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can easily unblock themselves, if they are blocked. Though doing so is effectively digging their own grave, if the block was legitimate. Aiken♫23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Amatulic: If you're not checking who it is that you're blocking then you're in for a big fall I'm afraid. Different rules apply to administrators and non-administrators. MalleusFatuorum23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like elitism. An admin is just another regular editor, with above-average experience and access to a few extra tools. If there exist different rules for blocking different classes of users, I can't see that they're written anywhere (other than the one about not indef blocking IP addresses). Would someone kindly point me to them? As I said, disruption should be dealt with consistently no matter who is doing it. As Nev1's reply shows, admins do block other admins from time to time. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There are no actual separate rules for blocking fellow admins vs blocking other individuals, but it could be said that the blocker might be potentially more lenient on the blockee-to-be and give him/her a shorter block or substitute the block with a warning-like message of some kind.
