Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposal to close has been enacted by agreement of involved users (as well as uninvolved users).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC).

Law Lord (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

Law Lord is allowed to maintain this state of his user page.

Description

At 13:07, 8 November 2008 Law Lord changed his user page into a semi-retired template with the text: "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners." [1]

At 20:50, 16 December 2008 SheffieldSteel posted to Law Lord's user page stating that the text was a personal attack. [2]

At 02:28, 19 December 2008 Law Lord moved the warning to his talk page and replied. [3]

At 02:33, 19 December 2008 Law Lord posted on the talk page of Jaysweet and requested advice. [4]

At 01:58, 20 December 2008 Law Lord posted a request on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and requested that the actions of SheffieldSteel were stopped. [5]

The following users stated that there was no personal attack on Law Lord's talk page:

A few administrators disagreed.

At 04:10, 21 December 2008 Seicer wrote: "Sorry, there is no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia. Given the context of this incident, I feel that the snipe is uncalled for and will be removed. Further instances of insertion will result in the userpage being protected for a duration." [10]

04:11, 21 December 2008 Seicer removed Law Lord's statement from Law Lord's user page. [11]

06:03, 21 December 2008 Seicer changed write-protection of Law Lord's user page preventing Law Lord from editing it. [12]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Law Lord's original statement of 13:07, 8 November 2008 [13]
SheffieldSteel's warning of 20:50, 16 December 2008 [14]
JzG's edit of 20:43, 20 December 2008 [15]
Law Lord's revert of 23:18, 20 December 2008 [16]
Seicer's edit of 04:11, 21 December 2008 [17]
Law Lord's statement of censorship of 05:34, 21 December 2008 [18]
Seicer's write protection of 06:03, 21 December 2008 [19]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Wikipedia:User_page

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Administrator abuse: [21]

User certifying the basis for this dispute: Law Lord

[Self-filed RFC]

I objected, and do still object, to the removal of my user page contents. I have great difficulty seeing the premise with being accused of drama. In that case, anybody who objects to absurd actions by administrators, would be guilty of drama. --Law Lord (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cheers Dude

Despite community consensus seemingly going in one direction that SheffieldSteel's wasn't correct in his behavior which was the point of that discussion, admin Seicer ~~kind of took it upon herself to mark the discussion as resolved and~~ remove the user's comments here [22]. More than anything right now, I'm apalled by how that admin Seicer handled the issue so abrasively. This [23], this [24] (have no idea what Baseball Bugs was talking about), and eventual page protection here [25] was all uncalled-for. I'd also like to note that the ANI noticeboard discussion was to have a talk about SheffieldSteel's behavior, not remove these remarks. From what I saw, general consensus was the admin was making false accusation in considering this I have had enough of administrators who lack manners a personal attack about himself. I have no idea how successful LawLord will be in this issue, but I can say he is being treated incredibly shoddy and unfairly in my mind. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the part about admin Seicer closing the discussion. My apologies. Also, I'm not quite sure why the case related to Guido den Broeder was brought up. My basis for being here is to provide my honest opinion of this matter and nothing more. If you don't agree with it, I respect that. Cheers!

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by Seicer

I've been out of town for the past day, so I took this on as entirely uninvolved. There are certain instances that we do not allow on a userpage, and pointed characterizations, especially towards other editors and administrators, is simply not acceptable. I gave plenty of notice that further edit warring regarding this topic would lead to a page protection; would you have rather I doled out a block?

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would stop haunting my edits. I understand that you have disagreed with my handling of the Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) case at MFD/DRV, at ANI, and now at RFAR, but to make statements that I handled this "abrasively" and that I "took it upon herself" to mark the discussion as resolved is stretching the truth. I should add that my comment at ANI regarding this case was the only comment I made in regards to Law Lord; that I did not mark the case as resolved (please check your DIFFs; and that I am not a female.

In addition, thanks for not informing me of this RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 06:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the initiator of the RFC should inform all involved editors and administrators of the open RFC, as canvassing in this case is rather inappropriate; see also: [26].

Users who endorse this summary:

seicer | talk | contribs 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Baseball Bugs

As one who has been blocked in the past for personal attacks, and justifiably so, and hence not blocked recently, I take the subject seriously. The user wants to retain a sentence permanently that takes a verbal shot at other editors. The various policy violations for such retention include Disruption, Point-making, Personal Attack... and Wikilawyering that it's somehow not a personal attack just because he didn't specifically name someone. It's also a misuse of the User Page. The user page does not belong to the user. The purpose of the user page is to further the purpose of wikipedia, and the comment "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners" does not qualify. The user also makes a "free speech" and "censorship" claim that betrays that he does not understand the way wikipedia works, despite having been on it for nearly 2 years. He claims he's going to retire. He needs to either actually retire and stop this ongoing disruption; or become an active editor again, focusing on normal editing rather than on disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that this supposedly "retired" editor Law Lord has been soliciting input from a variety of users, though apparently not all those who are actually involved in the dispute in some way. Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One would hope that he's truly trying to get the right answer, as opposed to trying to canvass those he thinks will agree with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of his comments to at least some of the other editors sounds like canvassing. Also, it turns out he was actually banned from the Danish wikipedia, so evidently he has precedent for creating drama.

Users who endorse this summary:

Clarification and statement by roux

Clarification: I was the one who marked the ANI resolved, and would appreciate if the various statements were corrected to absolve seicer of that. Not that there was anything wrong with it, but the closure seems to be used as--for lack of a better word--ammunition against seicer, which is entirely misplaced. If there is any blame to be had for marking the discussion as resolved, it should fall on me and nobody else.

Statement: I will simply quote what I said to Law Lord on my talkpage:

I don't see any admin abuse. I think your statement is probably (barely) within the rules, but is definitely skirting the edge, and probably isn't really all that necessary. Believe me, I understand the desire to flip the bird from time to time, and have only just stopped doing so myself. But I think seicer was well within discretion to say "Okay, this stops now." Keeping the statement there just keeps more drama. Removing it--especially if you remove it yourself--shows you to be the bigger person. You know how you feel, and by this point so does everybody else. So it's probably not necessary to keep it there, y'know? I think it's probably best for everyone involved to just let this matter quietly fade away.

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by SheffieldSteel

I'm surprised that so much drama has been caused over this incident. On the face of it, it doesn't look like much. I asked law Lord to remove something which I felt was a personal attack. He agreed [27] to remove the message on condition that I named the party I felt was being attacked. I named myself. At this point one might expect Law Lord to remove the remark in question and for that to be the end of the matter. I'm surprised to hear that he's subsequently refused to remove that message.

Of course, there's more to it than that - and I'm surprised that no one who's commented here has seen fit to look back and find the causes of this.

Executive summary:- After a WQA discussion in which it was pointed out to him that issuing a templated warning to Flyer22 was likely to be provocative and inflammatory, Law Lord thought that a "quite reasonable" response to a trivial misdemeanor would be... to issue a templated warning to Flyer22.

[28] This thread in my Talk page archives shows exactly why Law Lord was frustrated with me - because I forcibly stopped what was, in my opinion, a campaign of harassment,wikilawyering, and needling against another user. His attention thus turned towards me. [29] This thread on another User's Talk page shows that Law Lord would get no sympathy from neutral observers. That's when he decided to post his "semi retired / sick of admins with no manners" message on his user page.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Some editors are good at being weasels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is background to Law Lord? Pshaw. seicer | talk | contribs 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience (and for those who can read Danish and here) of Law Lord on Danish wikipedia I can only endorse this statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted Law Lord's checkered history at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Law_Lord#Law Lord banned from Danish Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Law Lord is asserting his right to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. No such right exists. This RfC should be closed ior refactored, because the desired outcome is something which policy forbids us from granting. To use an RfC to effectively give some kind of pseudo-legal force to any user's preferred version of the content of any page would be an extremely dangerous precedent. If Law Lord wishes to start another RfC which addresses something which is actionable by the community then he is more than welcome; he could also rephrase it in terms of "X is not uncivil", which is uncontriversial, but I am not aware of any venue anywhere in Wikipedia where we have allowed any user to assert absolute and total ownership of any page to the extent of mandating a particular version of content. Feel free to correct me on that.

Addendum: relevant policies, for the avoidance of doubt and to forestall potential Wikilawyering:

WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a soapbox
WP:OWN applies to any content, or has historically
WP:UP#OWN addresses this specific issue

As to the remark, it is not inherently incivil, but at least one individual finds it offensive. This is independent of the external issues of civility and reasonable criticism; the criticism is in any case sufficiently vague as to be no use in informing anything at all - on might as well say "Wikipedia is teh suck" and leave it at that. The history of this dispute is staggeringly lame: Law Lord templated a regular and took umbrage when the regular was offended. Sauce for the goose? One might legitimately say so. Law Lord's fundamental problem appears to be not with "admins who lack manners" but with people who disagree with him; given his ban form the Danish Wikipedia one might legitimately question which of these classes - Law Lord vs. everybody who disagrees with Law Lord - is in the right, but in the end it doesn't matter: this RfC is an attempt to cast in stone his right to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. No such right has ever existed, and I hope it never will. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Bingo! You have found the policy that shoots down this ridiculous RFC. It should be closed immediately, on that basis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you meant to cite WP:UP#OWN instead of WP:OWN above. A minor detail, but User:Law Lord and the ever-energetic User:Cheers dude are wikilawyering over that and not the common-sense principle of your words. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both apply, I would say. Nobody owns any page on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted earlier seicer | talk | contribs 16:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sums things up nicely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close

This diff makes clear Law Lord's position: that the remark wasn't intended as a personal attack, or directed at me. I'm happy to accept that statement at face value. Given that Law Lord has changed his user page recently, I don't see any need for this RfC to continue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. لenna vecia 04:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus of RFC is clear regardless of recent changes to LL's user page. MikeHobday (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have an agreement as per my talk page. [30] [31] --Law Lord (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Cheers_Dude (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Conti|✉ 13:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure.--Saddhiyama (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely l'aquatique |✡| talk 16:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse --Smashville^talk 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God yes – iridescent 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by L'Aquatique

This seems pointless to me. I understand that tempers can flare over silly things, but we're talking about a short nonspecific comment on a userpage here. It's not really a big deal- admins shouldn't be getting upset and on the flip side the user in question really needs to get off his "it's my userpage, my right" trip. There are so many other things that need to be done- articles written, vandalism reverted... Seriously. This is just a continuation of the dramaz that was shut down over at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ask_your_admin_friend_to_stop_his_personal_attacks).

Users who endorse this summary:

l'aquatique |✡| talk 06:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really nothing more interesting to be fighting over? – iridescent 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I endorsed some of the above summaries...I believe this is merely drama for drama's sake. Smashville^talk 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too much drahmahz. This is one of the most pointless edit wars ever, since a) other editors shouldn't really care about an ultimately innocuous statement and b) if Law Lord was really retired, he should have no reason to return to even FIND OUT that someone removed the statement. Neither side in this dispute comes off as deserving ANY endorsement of their positions, and I have wasted more time than necessary even commenting on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dtobias

The admins involved seem ridiculously thin-skinned. It's his own user page; let him be. Some of the old cliques I fought in the past have faded away or lost their power, but the general attitude on the part of some admins that they can be judge, jury, and executioner against anybody who hurts their feelings, and they don't have to care what anybody else thinks about it, will seemingly never go away.

Users who endorse this summary:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtobias (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one, not even admins, are above criticism. MikeHobday (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If anyone thinks this is "abuse", I dread to think what will happen when they get into an argument with JzG. – iridescent 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers dude (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack my ass. لenna vecia 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a personal attack by a mile. I could see it as such, IF it had mentioned names, but as a generality no.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know who could disprove validity of the statement. Also per Jenna. Enigma ^message 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Criticism is allowed. If you're this thin-skinned, you don't belong at a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Reason is not required for admin actions, and neither are manners. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fred Bauder

Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.

Users who endorse this summary:

Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Conti. لenna vecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Smashville^talk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~SIS~~ 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by VX

I don't really see how "having enough with admins who lack manners" is a personal attack. Law Lord after being told by SheffordSteel that that content was a personal attack came out of retirement. Then it exploded into this whole dramafest that wasn't really helpful at all. I could think of a bunch of things are worse than saying that admins have no manners. I also don't see why this WP:RfC/U was needed in the first place. So basically, just ignore it, don't give a fuck, or whatever you need to move on.

TLDR - Get over it, ignore, and lets do something that's actually productive.

Users who endorse this summary:

VX!^~~~ 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
l'aquatique |✡| talk 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– iridescent 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smashville^talk 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with this, as long as I can say "some wikipedia editors are idiots" on my user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and User:Baseball Bugs can put the idiots statement on his user page if that's what he believes. There are similar statements already. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by QuiteUnusual

One of the most pointless RfCs I've ever read; a total waste of editors' time, effort and storage on the Wikimedia servers. Me, I think the line should go from the userpage, but is it worth arguing about? No. Let's move on and get on with the real work of this project.

Users who endorse this summary:

Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree... and yes, LL can leave his page as he wants to.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Cla68

We need to name some names here. Seicer, SheffieldSteel, and Baseball Bugs need to get a grip or get a new hobby.

Users who endorse this summary:

Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Dan T.* (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers dude (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility by Baseball Bugs on talk page is personally dirceted, relentless and inappropriate. MikeHobday (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could say that they lack manners. --NE2 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thin-skinned admins and hypocrisy abound. What's new? Nothing. I should perhaps point it out on my userpage. >_> لenna vecia 15:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was half way tempted to respond under Tony1, that if somebody took personal offense to this blanket statement, then they probably needed to turn in the bit. You need thicker skin than that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Smashville

Law Lord has made 71 edits in December. Six of the 71 were mainspace edits. That means less than ten percent of your edits this month have been in regards to building an encyclopedia. This RfC is pure drama. How about everyone focus on building an encyclopedia and real problems instead of this pure and utter drama? Quite honestly, at most this was a matter for WP:WQA. Taking it to RfC is overkill and pure and utter drama from the wording of the initial complaint to the RfC, it just appears that is all this was ever meant to be...

Users who endorse this summary:

--Smashville^talk 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sums up my position nicely. VX!^~~~ 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. This never needed an RfC, the matter was closed properly at ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 should choose his words a bit more wisely, I might add. seicer | talk | contribs 06:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those edits were to this rfc, I wonder? l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first 6 or 7 edits in December were pretty much normal edits. Everything after that has had to do with that baiting comment on his user page, one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jennavecia

There are plenty of editors who have left the project and dropped paragraphs of reasoning as to why they left on their user page. I would list examples, but some pointy admins who lack clue would go MFD them. Anyway, some have been MFD'd and survived, others have seen attempted alterations, which were reverted by WP:TPS's, but they remain. Why? Because they should remain. Just because some admins (and perhaps some non-admins with admin aspirations who are too uncivil to ever actually become admins) realized that they fall into the category of "admins with no manners" and felt personally attacked. Well, FYI, there's no policy that says you have a right to be unoffended. So get a Kleenex, blow your nose, and then suck it up when something here offends you. Wikipedia is not censored. That includes porn, profanity and any general statements that upset your delicate emotional state.

The page should not have been altered and surely not protected. Ridiculous.

Users who endorse this summary:

لenna vecia 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, you're on fire. By the way, check this out dating back from early 2007 [32] that should effectively prove your point that it has been done before =) Cheers dude (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely said. VX!^~~~ 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes down to it, I actually agree with this...considering we get accused of "admin abuse" for blocking someone for writing "Bob is teh gay" on 30 pages, I kind of almost expect it. This is extremely tame compared to some. --Smashville^talk 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Dan T.* (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Locke Cole • t • c 10:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. "Admins who are offended by this message should be offended by this message" is a self-selected personal attack which only requires the emotion of offence without reason or threat. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by KimvdLinde

Smashville indicates that Law Lord has made 71 edits in December. And that only six of the 71 were mainspace edits. And then tries to flip it around to that he is not building an encyclopaedia. He is right on the count, but anybody who would have checked the start of this drama fest, and the start of the non-mainspace edits would see it coincide. To blame someone for non-main-space edits who is defending himself is far below any standard.

Users who endorse this summary:

Law Lord (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that the drama surrounds a retirement message. Of course he's not editing the mainspace. He retired! لenna vecia 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Jenna said...Amen!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could I hug you? Cheers dude (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Dan T.* (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MikeHobday (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers_Dude (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A semi-retired editor is expected to have few edits, and fighting admins can consume many edits which they'll ignore anyway. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Tony1

The policy governing admin behaviour and actions says:

"Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions."

Sorry to be legalistic, but it's appropriate here. Two questions arise:

(a) Has LL avoided the bounds of incivility and personal attack, and is he in reasonable good faith in posting on her/his page "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners"? The statement appears to be beyond the outer edge of incivility and personal attack: it is not overtly rude, and is directed at a class of editor, not a particular editor. Indeed, it refers not to every admin, but to a subgroup of admins (plural, and in the absence of this comma—"I have had enough of administrators, who lack manners"). On the contrary, the statement is a truism, since it's extremely difficult to argue that none of the 1600 active admins on the English WP lacks or has lacked manners. The argument raised by an admin on the user's talk page that it is directed at that admin on a personal level lacks clear evidence and has been denied by the user. Concerning "reasonable good faith", the vagueness of the statement makes it difficult to pin down what is in bad faith about it; instead, it seems to be a plain statement of why the user went into semi-retirement. If it's an accusation, it's in such general terms as to make personal insult seem like an arbitrary choice on the part of the beholder.

(b) Is it "administrator actions" that are the subject of the comment? It's a reasonable assumption that the user's belief that more than one admin lacks manners resulted from admin actions, not from observations of character.

My conclusion: Admins should be willing to let this one go. Many WPians rightly or wrongly believe that some admins lack manners. Making a fuss over one editor's right to express this on his user-page is more likely to reinforce negative beliefs about admins, something none of us wants. A much better way to go would be to engage more closely with the user—to develop a rapport with him or her; that is the key to stopping the departure of good editors and to proving the statement wrong. This would be entirely within the spirit of the policy "editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions".

Users who endorse this summary:

Tony (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yeah, anybody who takes it personally must have a guilty conscious. I've written an article Why I hate Speedy Deleters. Perhaps some speedy deleter should start an RfC on me? But no, there is no way LL's comments can be read as a personal attack against a single admin. It is too generic.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Thanks Dtobias, I meant to mention what you said in my statement as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs is entirely wrong... somebody who considers himself personally affected by a comment is the last one who should be attempting to enforce civility rules regarding that... this should be done by an uninvolved, unbiased party. Comments on this page indicate that the majority of the community does not appear to side with the "offended" parties here. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know who the admin with no manners is now. From the statement in question, however, it was not "clear" at all who he referred to. His statement, while possibly based on actions from SheffieldSteel, was a general one and Tony's conclusion still applies. As does mine. Sheffield doesn't have the right to be unoffended. If I have a conflict with someone and then chose to speak in generalities about it, they have no right to jump my ass for it. In this case, neither does Sheffield or any other admin. لenna vecia 05:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Law Lord (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good explanation. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MikeHobday (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Locke Cole • t • c 10:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility is against the rules. Making a complaint about incivility is not. Lightmouse (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin who thinks that some admins lack manners, I endorse this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VX!^~~~ 18:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin who has dealt with numerous other admins who lack manners, I endorse. However, I still say this RfC is unnecessary. --Smashville^talk 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. --Conti|✉ 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said… and notice how deftly Tony cuts straight to the heart of the matter and eschews a play-by-play commentary on the back-and-forth between the numerous parties involved? Top notch.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tony, yet I do share Guy's concerns about the purpose of the RfC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I especially liked the analysis Tony is famous for. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone could close this discussion now as there seems to be a clear consensus Cheers_Dude (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balloonman hit it on the head.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As admins ignore their own rules [33] is is hardly surprising that some lack manners. They should be criticized. And an opinion of a class of editor is a general attack rather than a personal attack. (Proper personal attacks available upon request. :-) -- SEWilco (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by CIreland

When Bedford's userpage was under scrutiny I said the same thing I will say here: such things generally have a different effect to the one intended by the author. Yes, the text is not very nice about administrators but the primary meaning I (and I suspect many others) will take from such a page is that its author is foolish and petulant. If the author wants such a page I find it hard to find the motivation to object.

Users who endorse this summary:

CIreland (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by CalendarWatcher

If Law Lord wishes to leave, he ought to just leave and be done with it. If he wants to grumble and complain and cause drama, there are many fine webhosting services which will be glad to host his opinions: Wikipedia is not one of them. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.