Jump to content

User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

New sock of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia

Since you blocked TEoATW at SPI, I thought I'd give you a heads up: he's back, telling everyone what to do, and playing pseudo-problem solver in the guise of one Glacialfrost. There's a new filing at SPI if you were inclined to take a look. The behavioral evidence is pretty strong, and the new sock is from California, as are TEoATW and his already identified sock. He's also back in Cityside189's orbit, and giving him some difficulty, I gather from this discussion. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Got email notification of your talk page message, but spent *way* too much time on WP yesterday, no time for it today. Sorry. If it's at SPI someone should be along to help soon. Another intersection of TEoatW with Cityside would be... interesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No prob. While I was here, NewyorkBrad requested a CU, so it should get handled with some dispatch. Meanwhile, GF is calling me all manner of meanie at SPI. It is not my week. --Drmargi (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've commented there briefly. Looks like a false alarm. Something actually still seems "off", to be honest, but you can drive yourself crazy chasing shadows. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the position you're in, and better to give a (putative) newbie the benefit of the doubt, although the little twerp better stay away from me. I do think the behavioral evidence is compelling, but he's probably registered from another IP and will teflon out absent a body of edits. There are some "tells" in his writing, too, but I'll keep them for later. He'll slip up again. --Drmargi (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not call me a twerp. Leave me alone too. Glacialfrost (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You set the tone. Don't put it out there if you can't take the heat for it. --Drmargi (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

for having some common sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That RM discussion is a trainwreck and is turning everyone crazy. @Opabinia regalis: Can I ask, do you know Alakzi well? I'd love for a friend to talk them down a little. I'm going to unblock for socking, and I don't think I want to reduce it, I'd much rather just undo it, but some of their comments are pretty far over the top. Been there myself once or twice (well, not quite that far over), but having to reblock in a few hours would just ruin my day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative not punitive if the behaviors change then the block served it purpose, LHVU said indef blocks only are kept until they are not needed and just because the time isn't set doesn't mean it can't be short. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, while you're here, HiaB, could you dial it back a little too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Heh, your edit summary sounds like pro Bono advice. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 👍 NQ likes this.
That's how my daughter writes now; everything is text-speak. I guess it's rubbing off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC) D'oh, and it took me a full 1:30 to get the joke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to respond as I have been pretty calm in this whole thing and the behaviors spewed right now are at everyone, I'm vocal in calling the bullshit.I'm going to assume you are familiar with the ANI, the new redirect deletion discussion the whole nine yards but I will admit to a bit of surprise but knowing my own temperate may well be needed. I'll give it some thought but I don't make a promise I'll agree with the conclusion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And more thanks for unblocking (with an excellent reason, too ;) This is why I never get involved with block drama - I'm a day late and a dollar short for everything. I don't know how well you know anybody on the internet but we've worked well together where we've overlapped, I like the guy, and, well, I have sympathy for the anti-authoritarian dynamic. Thank you for de-escalating this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you, I never passed a black barnstar but woke up thinking I might, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry floq but this is some straight bullshit. You unblocked for edits like [[1]], or this pointy addition? These helpful and constructive edits [[2]], [[3]].?? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have anything actually useful to do? When two people are fighting, one of them because they're angry, the other because it's fun to argue with angry people, I tend to instinctively sympathize more with the angry person. If they end up getting blocked, well, I did what I could. But in a perfect world, there'd be a "baiting" block for someone along with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I did what you asked, I backed off. Those again are not my edits, nor did I play a hand in them. If they continue I intend to do another ANI, I wanted you to at least see part of the issue you started with the unilateral unblock. I'll let the chips fall where they will when that happens. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you didn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fundemental disagreement apparently. Like I say if it continues it will be back at ANI, I don't plan on engaging them or even warning them. I came back to you as I thought it most appropriate first since you were the unblocking admin but apparently that is not the route to go. Thank you for your time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Floquenbeam, thank you for this: [4]. As problematic as his recent dispute interactions have been, an indefinite block strikes me as a relatively unfair outcome that was driven by several editors with whom Alakzi has been in recent heated disputes. Even if checkuser shows actual sock-puppetry -- and I hope it doesn't -- there is still a missing element of wrong-doing required for an indefinite block. As I said on the SPI talk page, I really want to help this guy, but I don't know how to do so given the limitations of interacting through Wikipedia talk pages. He is a genuine talent, and I would be saddened if the project lost him. *sigh* Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) And, yes, I am mindful of the last time you and I stuck out our necks in the interest of giving a blocked editor the benefit of the doubt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Whatever their problem is, whoever they are, this person is rapidly turning into their own worst enemy [5]. They just. can't. let. anything. go. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I wish the SPI hadn't been filed. But it was, and I haven't yet figured out a way to reverse time and undo it. I can think of nothing further to do to try to help anyone on either side, so I guess I'll have to settle for a dissatidfying "I tried". It would be fantastic if people in conflict with each other just ignored each other, but that's not how things work here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here is a kitten. If you need more let me know.

Chillum 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's aren't enough in the world. But thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I hope all this isn't getting you down. Have this, if it keeps your spirits up! ceradon (talk • edits) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Ceradon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry I helped make this a rough day for you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

+1. I also feel like I maybe should've let you know what was going on on the functionaries mailing list, I'm glad someone else apparently did. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I was going to be done posting here today, but to cut an incipient rumor off at the knees: It wasn't a functionary, I have no idea what was going on on the mailing list, except what I gleaned from comments from CU's at the SPI; I was just guessing about the CU checks, as it didn't make any sense to run it 3 times for Webdrone. It wasn't an enemy of Jack's either, because then I would have probably ignored it. It was just a plain old ordinary editor who recognized him, and told me, so I wouldn't invest time in a lost cause. That's when I started looking into it. For all I know they didn't want me to say anything on-wiki, that's on me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate a private candid coversation with you too Floq when you feel up to it, please email me I would still like your opinion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not up to it, at least not now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough I'll butt out let me know when you do and I will keep the contents between you and me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Floq, you've been doing yeoman's work the last couple of days, and I for one certainly appreciate the burden you've carried. At times it seemed like you were almost alone in trying to maintain a sense of due process and fair play as you were sorting through a very unfortunate situation. If I have contributed to your heartburn in any way whatsoever, please accept my sincere apologies for any sharp words I may have written. It's situations like this that should remind everyone what can happen when on-wiki arguments escape us and take on a life of their own. Nothing in these disputes was worth the consequences to one editor and the hard feelings engendered among many. Best regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Floq, YGM. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Forget that noise. Personally, I think you should go out in a blaze of glory. I've been considering it myself; it seems more fun than just getting increasingly disillusioned with the rising tide of douchebaggery and quietly leaving. When you're ready, email me. Given how leveled up we both are, and the hit points and armor class we've accrued between us, it could be epic.

    Oops, did I say that out loud? What I meant was... take some time off, recharge your batteries, and come back rested and ready to once again partake in this wonderful, rational, grounded Wikipedia community. MastCell Talk 08:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Floq, I am sorry that our innocent chat about users' gender turned into misery for you. For all involved: the spiral of justice, remember? 1510 wisdom: Did you know that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"? The poem ends with "Praise the right thing (integrity, decency)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology (copy of post on ANI)

OK. So:

  • I haven't had much of a chance to see what's been going on here today on-wiki, because:
  • I've received a lot of mail
  • Some of it is of the "Yeah, I think so too" variety
  • Some of it is of the "Are you sure? that doesn't sound right" variety

More importantly,

  • Two of them are from people who have known both editors, and are very sure that they are not the same person. These are people who I trust not to mislead me to protect a friend. One of them in particular is convincing: all template-related stuff is black magic to me, but the particular area of technical expertise with templates is apparently quite different.
  • Two of them have had several conflicts with Jack in the past, one of whom is doubtful and the other pretty confident I've got it wrong.

I saw (and still see) a lot of technical area overlap, and one or two other things that led me in one direction. But the human part of this - people I trust implicitly, and people who are smarter than me, saying it probably isn't Jack, or even flat out that it isn't - convinces me that I've probably made a big mistake, and one that caused a lot of distress to Alakzi. So, I'm:

  1. Withdrawing the accusation, and am not going to file an SPI; conflicting lists of pro and con pieces of evidence that friends and enemies can argue about will not be productive
  2. Apologizing to Alakzi. Particularly because this comes on top of an incorrect sock accusation the day before.
  3. Apologizing to everyone else for doing the same thing that so pisses me off when other people do it: causing pointless drama
  4. Apologize to Jack for dredging his name up, and giving weasels an opportunity to get a free kick in
  5. Getting back out of the sock business; I'm evidently worse at it than I thought
  6. Attempting to play The Game this weekend, except instead of not thinking of the Game, I'm trying not to think about Wikipedia

Once again, sorry Alakzi, and sorry everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your infectious apologies swapped over to the user's talk page, - I don't recall that a blocking admin gave a barnstar to the blocked ;) - How could ANI be closed? "Mistrust and different concepts about disruption resolved in apologies and a barnstar."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's kind of atypical, isn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What's atypical?
  • Apologies being infectious?
  • Mistrust and different concepts about disruption being resolved? (I remember being proud when one of my edits was labeled "disruptive" the first time, an opera infobox trying out how it would look, - and restored by the one who had called it "disruptive". Progress needs some disruption even. I asked Alakzi recently to develop a template for me and had to answer: "Has it been tried before?" No, I said, I am not afraid to try something new.)
  • A barnstar for the one you blocked?
  • All of that?
Any "joke" - quoting from below - to lighten the atmosphere we had would have been welcome, + I (as you know trust almost too much in the concept to) assume good faith and think this barnstar was even intended as reaching out. My first barnstar was also for resilience, confirmed by Hell in a Bucket, DYK? - My compassion with the victim (any victim) can be seen openly on my talk, no problem hatting it here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hatting off-topic, this does not belong on my talk page. Or anywhere, really. Gerda, you're collaterally being hatted too, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If you ask me, an administrator awarding a barnstar to an editor whom they have just blocked, is grossly inappropriate. Still, it's the sort of behaviour we have come to expect from that particular admin. CassiantoTalk 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If you ask me, it's much better than keeping talk page access revoked and extending a block further (which compares to putting a lid on a pot with high pressure and turning the heat up). In this case, the admin even offered shortening. Again, not as good as offering to drop it completely (which was probably not possible as the original block was someone else's), but a step in the right direction. Whole thing was more kafkaesque than the infoboxes case, - all operas by Verdi and Wagner have an infobox now, - another step in the right direction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The extension of the talk page block in that instance was used punitively. The barnstar was nothing more than an attempt to rub salt in a wound. CassiantoTalk 07:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Your view. The barnstar was requested by the victim, and taken with dignity, I think I even felt a smile ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The very fact you refer to Alakzi as a victim highlights even more as to why a barnstar, in those circumstances, was inappropriate, joke or no joke. If Chillum was hilariously dishing out barnstars as a joke, then surely that undermines the block in the first place, no? If he felt it appropriate to joke with Alakzi, he should've unblocked him then and there. That is when the block becomes punitive. CassiantoTalk 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I spoke of Alakzi as a victim and of my compassion because of it already before this escalated to seemingly out of control. I was seriously afraid Alakzi was leaving, and would even understand. I think the situation is under control now, faces saved, why argue? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks Floq, for unblocking Malik. Guess I'm too chickenshit to do it. Really, why didn't I. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Because you knew it wouldn't turn out great? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Seconding the barnstar, because the right thing to do is the still the right thing to do, even if it doesn't work out in the end. MastCell Talk 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It was a good move. It was a reasonable extension of good faith which I don't think is ever a bad idea. Chillum 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that. Btw, the above was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Very kind of you all. Or, as my kin would say, y'all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom request

You have no idea how much I hate saying this, but, if the ArbCom does take the case on Malik, it might make some sense to allow the Dyer person to edit so as to comment in the case, if his sockpuppetry hasn't been really conclusively proven. Maybe. I dunno. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the case won't be about him, so not a worry. Also now appears to be a NoCal100 sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

If you're not currently in police custody, you deserve this morning-after beer. If you are, you can bribe the jailer with it for cigarette privileges. And get rid of your expired toothpaste. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I survived. Police custody was never a real risk, but sitting in a corner, slowly rocking back and forth, muttering "they'll be gone in the morning. they'll be gone in the mornng." over and over, was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Rauschenberg

Thanks for so quickly taking care of the Rauschenberg vandal... which kind of sounds like Marvel comic character... Anyway Rauschenberg has been dead for awhile so wasn't sure if you knew that when you cited BLP violations. The name is so familiar many don't realize he is no longer with us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC))

d'oh! I suppose in theory there's no longer a revdel criteria. But in practice I don't think anyone is going to yell at me, so I'll leave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC))

TYVM

Thank you for being an administrator that finally saw Nonamesleft for the reason why he was truly here. I noted his "edits" and article creation appeared to be both hoax and vandalism. Filed an AIV based on what looked like vandalism to me as well as WP:NOTHERE (see here). The admin who took care of it concluded none of the above applied (see here). I'm not the "I told you so" type, but... I called it days ago. And knew I was right when I saw this (saying I'm hounding and harassing) and then this on my talk page (saying I must have an arrest record for stalking) in addition to this (when the mental illness garbage started) at the AfD for the Vatican airports "article". Oh, and then there was the incidence of him copying and pasting the user space of an administrator and not removing the permission and administrator top-icons after being told he needed to. All of that said WP:NOTHERE to me, but... apparently not to at least one other (even though more than one admin was aware of what was happening). I know it's not the end of the world when people behave like this in Wikipedia, but it is pretty annoying to be called a criminal with mental illness and it's essentially ignored for days. Thanks for taking care of it. Appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Bongwarrior was wrong at the time, 5 days ago. It's sort of a cumulative thing. Any individual thing, even a couple of things, you figure maybe it's someone new. It's when they start adding up that you eventually say "Ah, OK, I see what's going on". Plus, it helps when you've become jaded and cynical. For me, as I looked through his edit history today, it was this that sealed the deal: [6]. You realize what a smug little shit he is, thinking she's a good target for mocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Spot on. I'd like to think that was block-worthy on its own. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had seen that as well - forgot about it (shouldn't have). Whatever the case and how it unfolded, I felt pretty unscathed by his comments directed at me because, sadly, I'm starting to get used to it. For whatever reason, even long-term productive editors actually doubt I am who I say I am (as evidenced by this jab re: "get out of jail free card") and feel they can use my neurological "different-ability" as way to get to me and see me as a good target for mocking. Sometimes, the internet certainly brings out the worst in people. And, please don't misunderstand: I wasn't criticizing Bongwarrior as much as just pointing out that he was able to snow others for a while. I saw it right away because, well, I really don't know why I'm typically able to spot the troublemakers right away. But this guy, I knew if he kept going the way he was, WP:ROPE would take care of his future here. Again, my sincere thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
(watching:) see the discussion on ROPE and perhaps avoid to use it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Going forward, I hope more editors and admins are cognizant that while "mental illness" can be thrown around in a run-of-the-mill "personal attack" way, it can also be used as a "personalized attack" and that when doing so it is way over the line. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

request

The OP at AE is a clear and undeniable Sock - (the only edits whatsoever are the complaint) and I would ask that it be treated as harassment by a sock, and looked into as such per policy. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The OP is about 99% sure to be an untraceable throwaway IP, and I can pretty much guarantee that they already have a new one. BLocking the IP would do no good, and would do a little harm, in that it would make me look foolish and impotent. That 1% chance that I'm wrong and that you could tie it to an editor would require a Checkuser, which I am not. You can request one at WP:SPI, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Probably better to ignore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I ask then that you be cognizant of repeated harassment of me over an extended period of time, including people who "appear" at almost every place I discuss anything at all -- this is, frankly, an example of the hell which Wikipedia enables far too often. Three editors have followed me now hundreds of times it appears - but an email to an Arb does not even get the courtesy of a reply. Collect (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (eliding "cheers" as it is officially deemed "snarky" and almost as bad as "xxxx xx xxxx". )
The most complicated cases for WP to deal with are people who are sometimes genuinely harassed, but who also define disagreement as additional harassment, muddying the waters and making it less likely that anything can be done. Still, I'll endeavor to be cognizant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) p.s. That's an interesting postscript; Is eliding something, and simultaneously pointing out that you've elided it, actually elision? Or is it something else? Seems kind of like an oxymoron, but in sentence form. Or a paradox. Or snark. Or something.
If I were to point out that "cheers" and similar closures often are viewed with a skeptical eye it might be considered impolite, so I won't do that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That essay specifies when making a veiled threat or giving "constructive" criticism and since I used it regularly, it is difficult to imply that such an essay applies to my usage. Or that the admin who advised me many years ago to use a polite closing intended it to imply a veiled threat for sure. Collect (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Anyone who claims the essay applies to your usage is just as wrong as those who say you promote political conservatism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Right - I support "conservative editing of BLPs" but I suggest my edits on Jeremy Corbyn, Stewart Jackson, John Sewel, Baron Sewel, André Marin, Trevor Graham (naming a handful of the most recent ones - remember I have edited many hundreds of articles including a GA on Joseph Widney and a GA onChristian Science), and a huge number of other BLPs shows that I am not interested in inserting my (actually fairly liberal by US standards, since I was basically forced to state my political position history - though almost dead-centre per European political questionnaires)) POV in any of them - this dates back to Ikip/Ukip/Okip/TravB/Inclusionist and his threat to get me banned since I thought the "bilateral relations" articles were deletable. He did his darndest, and some of those then involved have followed me ever since. Amazingly enough, when folks categorize a person, they do not look at the person but at what others, who may have biases, say about the person. Collect (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Its just an essay, an opinion. I have closed cmts with best wishes even when I disagree with someone which means to me at least that while I disagree with what may be a Wikipedia issue, it does not mean I am judging the person. I do not intend snark. However, WP has its own strange culture so hard to say how such cmts are taken. Best wishes :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC))

Yep -- and Jimbo et al have never even hinted that they consider "cheers" to be "snarky" but an esteemed admin has averred that it must go - and so it shall. Heaven forfend that my words should be considered "snarky" even when I quote Teddy Roosevelt (noted for calling something "bosh and twaddle" which is a bit of a way from telling anyone xxxx xx xxxx. Collect (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) .

I read it

Do I get a kitten? --Dweller (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lowering protection on the Cultural marxism REDIRECT

Hello Floq! Over at the Frankfurt School talk page we've decided to change the heading for the Cultural Marxism section, from Conspiracy Theory - to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. So we were just wondering if you might lower the protection to the redirect page (we're asking you first as per WP:RFP) [7] alternatively you could update it yourself we just need it to redirect to the new section title "Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" thanks muchly! --Jobrot (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jobrot:, I've changed the target section. It's kind of borderline whether to reduce the protection (I note Cultural Marxism (upppercase M) is only semi'd). But for some reason this one has been recreated a few times, so I'll leave it at full unless someone complains. And thank you for a nice, simple, non-stress-inducing request, I needed one of those. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! ...and yes, I read it too! Where's my kitten! --Jobrot (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding AN/I

As far as this: [8]. If the hounding and harassment and poking by the other editor doesn't stop? It would have been nice to get some kind of assurance from him that it would before you closed it out. Because, frankly, considering his past behavior and previous indef for the same kind of thing, I'm not confident that he won't continue in the same vein as he has been for the last six days. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're both acting so sub-optimally that I suspect a block in in both your futures. You seem to think because he is acting poorly, you can act as poorly as you wish. He seems to think the same. What neither of your realize is: very few people care about your stupid feud, and those that might have quickly grown sick to death of both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait -- what? I called him a prick and I posted on his talk page after he told me not to. That's it. He follows me everywhere, implies I'm mentally ill, has an extensive history of doing the same shit he's been doing to me, was indeffed for it previously, but I am acting poorly? Wow. And thanks for the kind words ("sick to death of...you"). Personally, I'm sick to death of admins letting game-players get away with the crap they do. Like you just did with the one who filed the AN/I. I'm also sick to death of trying to just edit in peace and being hounded by editors like him. But who cares, right? You and other admins are sick to death of me, so I deserve what I get. I may be slow on the uptake when it comes to pragmatics/social cues, but I heard that message loud and clear. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
WL, first, it's customary to ping an editor when you discuss them, particularly when you WP:OTHERPARENT. I'm aware that you rarely afford me that courtesy, and I usually let it slide, mostly because the threads in question often involve you calling me a "prick" [sic] and other invectives and it doesn't help encylcopedia-build for me to inject myself into those tirades. However, I object to your characterization that I am the sole person on WP objecting to your extremely unusual editing patterns. There are currently three active threads (here, here, and here) involving just short of a dozen seasoned editors and admins who have expressed extreme concern about your unusual behavior, particularly your increasingly loud and repetitive claims that you are being "hounded" by a cabal of editors. As an admin just told you in one of those threads: "Winkelvi, either there's a conspiracy out to get you or else you're acting in a way that causes multiple editors to be annoyed. I see no evidence of a conspiracy." BlueSalix (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
BlueSalix, per Floq, you both need to just go away for a while. You are also going to extraordinary lengths to prove Winkelvi correct, as no notification is required on someone's talk page. I've seen this by both of you before, although it has been a while. Just avoid him, go away, go create something, whatever, but you are not 100% in the right here, even he was a little bit more wrong yesterday. You need to avoid him the same as I've asked him to avoid you, equally. My threshold is pretty low when it comes to both of you and your constant childlike bickering. It boggles the mind. I won't warn either of you twice, I will just end up blocking you both for extended periods of time, if only to get some peace and quiet. Now everyone....go away, no replies, no explanations, just evaporate..... and that means any more on my talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you are both obnoxious. Both of you go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Floq, thanks for your help with that issue I posted. Strange situation. You quick assistance was much appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I *almost* didn't block (a little gunshy lately) but... yeah, that's trolling. Let me know if another account pops up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It was good that you were careful, the caution, then the block worked well. Seems to have settled down. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply

I'm not allowed to respond? Rusted AutoParts 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, he got mad (apparently because you were incorrectly reverting), said something dumb, and I removed it. You said something dumb (name one way your post benefits the encyclopedia) and I removed that. Why in the world would you want to push things further, rather than dial things back? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
1, because I want to talk to him rather than have someone intervene. 2, I like to goad people. Rusted AutoParts 19:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I only goad when they initiate the conflict. Rusted AutoParts 20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, @Rusted AutoParts:, but you're done now. I saw the edit summary on your talk page, that's your last free shot. The next one will be worth a block. This is not the parking lot behind the gym; it's (theoretically) an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like it's already been closed. FWIW I agree with the result. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User page vs. user talk page

Please advise me what you are talking about; "posted to user page." I am dealing with an administrator who refuses to accept my version of the events that led to two totally different pictures being said to be of the same person. I am posting to the user page of the administrator as seems to be the way of Wikipedia Jagtig (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jagtig, what Floq is talking about is this: you're posting comments to people's user pages, but you should be posting them to user talk pages. You actually did it with this very post; you posted it to User:Floquenbeam in this edit, but it should've actually gone to Floquenbeam's user talk page, which is this one right here, at User talk:Floquenbeam. The "User talk:" instead of just "User:" matters. (I've since moved it for you, which is why it's here now.) People won't get notified if you post to their user page; you need to post on their user talk page to be sure they'll read it. That's what Floq meant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, WK, and for moving this here. @Jagtig: I have a user page: User:Floquenbeam and a talk page: User talk:Floquenbeam. So do you. User pages are for users to describe themselves a little, talk pages are to communicate with them. You need to be careful which page you post to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy it should be said that I am not an admin. Floquenbeam, Nyttend and Writ Keeper are, but I am not. The edits I've made are ones that any rank-and-file editor could have made, no admin tools were required. BMK (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you monitor today's discussion at Talk:Alfred de Grazia? I'm afraid there may be a CIR issue here. BMK (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bothering you. Could you look at the most recent comments (mine, his, mine) there, (context given vby this thread on his user talk page) and if you think it's approrpriate, follow through with a block? I'm getting nowhere trying to be helpful and I'm being attacked in return. BMK (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Sorry, a little swamped IRL yesterday and today.
I don't think a block is needed quite yet, but I do agree you've bent over backwards to help out, and the weaselly accusations from the person you've been helping probably feel shitty. I've been there myself sometimes; WP doesn't seem to bring out the best in people.
My advice is, leave it for now. They may have given up, or may want the last word on the talk page (if they do, just let them have it), but they have not made anything close to a reasonable case for their position, and if they return with more insinuations or article edits, I'll intervene administratively. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'm glad you'll keep an eye on it. BMK (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, an IP that is very obviously Jagtig filed another DRN request in spite of being turned down before. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Now closed. FWIW, I don't think the use of an IP was an attempt to evade scrutiny or anything; they just don't seem to be overly careful about staying logged in. They're pretty up front about who they are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I figured as much; I've forgotten to log in on such-and-such device from time to time out of overenthusiasm... Just figured you should know about this since I noticed you were keeping an eye on this situation; that being said, you probably knew anyway and it's not exactly major. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 17:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I agree that there was no attempt to evade scrutiny. BMK (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I noted this block of Unframboise. You might be interested in User talk:SMcCandlish#The Fall. It's dense, so here's the precis: I deleted a seemingly irrelevant line at The Fall (TV series), a non sequitur statement that Gillian Anderson's character "is extremely comfortable with her own sexuality", in a one-liner character description, which seemed WP:UNDUE prurience stated like that (and made some WP:PEACOCK correction tweaks) [9]. Unframboise reverted the lot, on the insistence that it was relevant. I worked in good faith with the editor to preserve the statement (my response to the assertion that the sexuality of the character is important to the entire plot line is that we should "say so"), but clarify it so its relevance would be clear to the reader and not come off as fanwanky (and I reinstated the PEACOCK fixing) [10]. Other editors have since worked with those changes (and reinforced that we should not be using peacock terms like "extremely"), yet Unframboise has taken personal offense at all of this (warping all commentary about content into a perceived insult to him personally), and has been playing an amazingly long-winded, quote-everything-you-said-back-at-you, WP:BATTLEGROUND game on my talk page, about what is an already resolved and moved-past dispute from about two days ago, and seems unwilling to just drop the matter, as well as engaging in a constant pattern of nearly unbelievable levels of WP:IDHT, on every single point raised in the discussion.

The relevance to the recent block:

  • This is a bunch of hostility all designed to thwart clarification of why a (maybe relevant maybe not – I raised this question at Talk:The Fall (TV series)) sexuality-based comment about a female character in an article might make sense in the context, by giving readers enough context to understand the alleged relevance. There doesn't appear to be any rationale or excuse for this level of invective aimed at sticking it to someone for daring to make a character description seem less to the average reader to be inappropriately focused on Gillian Anderson and sex.
  • When I pointed out that I don't do "political correctness" and that my concerns were about the broad public perception (the external PR problem) that WP is often accused of sexist writing, not about pushing my own views about the how the character should be described (I don't mind that part of the description being there as long as the reason for its inclusion is clear to the reader), Unframboise twisted this into his own statement that it was just a bunch of PC PoV-pushing, and tried to put the "PC" claim in my own mouth.
  • Every attempt (and I've made several) to get this editor to see reason or even to just drop it and go away, and to read the applicable guidelines and policies, has met with total failure. Every single criticism of the former content (which has long since been improved) and the editorial approach that led to it has been irrationally twisted by Unframboise into "personal attacks". The editor displays a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between content vs. contributor, between editorial style in our article vs. real world [alleged] facts about the TV show, between internal editorial understanding of why to include something or who to phrase it vs. reader understanding, between WP's communication to our readers vs. what ideas a fan of the show might already have formed, even between WP editorial approach vs. the intent or reputations of the show's cast and crew. It's mind-boggling, and evidence of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. The editor is generally productive (although focused WP:SPA-style on nothing but a few TV show articles). He seems simply to take an "I will bury you" approach to any contradiction (yet reasons so poorly that his attempts to refute any criticism just turn into a bunch of incoherent noise).

I don't think this incident requires any immediate action (this is not a request for a new block), but the nature of the incident as both "anti-PC" attitude-pushing involving how WP writes about women and their sexuality, and a confrontational, fight-to-the-death-over-moot-points pattern, closely relate to why this editor was previously blocked, and it may help establish that the pattern is habitual, should such incidents arise again later with other editors. (I don't edit TV articles much, so don't anticipate running into this editor again any time soon).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I haven't been able to do anything beyond skim this - haven't even read it in detail, much less the thread on your page - very very busy in real life probably through the long weekend. You say you don't need immediate action; if that changes, please check with another admin. If it can wait, I'll look at it next week. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Right-o. This is just for later reference, and you might not even want to read the thing on my talk page (or, later archive) unless it's necessary; it's long and frustratingly circular. Just there if it's needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What what

Why did you change User Talk:SimonTrew. I put it under WP:CSD#G7, blanked as author requests deletion. I put in the edit summary that I shall continue to edit wikipedia, but it is a matter of privacy, and I want it blanked. I edit under my real name and thus in real life I get a bit of abuse sometimes, Flo, so I want it blanked. Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew:, I did just blank it. By tagging it with {{G7}}, you asked for it to be deleted, which it can't be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


== I'll try again ==

(edit conflict), sorry. I have absolute respect for you, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Sorry that that hill is So far away (one more song about moving along the highway). It's no big deal, but my talk page was just getting rather cluttered, so I emptied it. I do that fairly regularly because I know it is there in the history, so it doesn't have to be at the talk page. I know WP:CHEAP but it gets hard for others to read it if it's too long, or if It's too late. Your sincere friend, Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So far away, doesn't anyone stay in one place any more?
it would be so fine to see your face at my door
And it doesn't help to know, you're just miles away
One more song about moving along the highway
Can't say much of anything that'a new
I'd rather work my own life out in my way
But I'd rather spend it, being close to you,
But you're So Far Away, Carole did know how to pen it and bash the ivories, didn't she. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well Carole was quite good at bashing the ivories but if you want to take a perfectly good instrument and reduce it to timber, I'm the man to ask. I had a nice german upright and a high-tone baby grand, and what good did that me, I could hit the high notes if you hit the low notes, but I'll be in Scotland afore ye. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought maybe you meant the Dire Straits version, but I guess the "It's too late" link should have been a clue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Floquenbeam, can you join me in the article talk page? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

Seems like it resolved itself without my participation. my favorite kind of dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

re: Partial mistake? Yes. I lost my cool. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I appeal that?

Blocked as an obvious sock, unknown master, by Keilana. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Gamergate was exactly the article I was trying to edit the talk page of. How do I appeal it so I can edit the talk page? It is very strange that I can't even edit the talk page. The other articles I read almost always have sources in the ledes. This one strangely does not for some very strong claims. Saigo no Yume (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Ledes summarize, so the claims made should be sourced further down in the article. As far as appeals go, that would take a huge undertaking that is simply not going to be successful. The rule is there for good reason and you would be alone in wanting it removed. You simply have to wait until you've been here long enough to edit it, and I would strongly suggest using the talk page first, when that time comes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict w/ Dennis)I already explained this on your talk page, although upon review of WP:CITELEAD (which you should read) the FAQ and I may have stated the case too strongly. Generally citations are avoided in the lede section, since what is in the lede is also in the body of the article, and claims in the body do need cites. Evidently this is not always the case, but it's quite common. However, as I explained, you need 500 edits and 30 days to participate in that conversation, per an ArbCom decision, made in a desperate attempt to keep out the sockpuppets, cranks, and POV pushers. If you want to stick around and edit in other areas, 500 edits and 30 days is not an insurmountable requirement; if you're not interested in other areas, we've kind of decided that people who are only interested in editing on the GamerGate issue are not people we want to be editing on the GamerGate issue. To appeal that decision at WP:ARCA, you'd need to come up with some kind of persuasive explanation that it shouldn't apply to you in particular (or that it should be repealed). However, I really can't recommend that you try that, as I am quite confident that such a request would not succeed, and if all you say is "I want to edit that talk page", it's going to get shut down pretty fast. There are lots of eyes on that article, and lots of other articles. Please wait to try to get involved in that one until you've got some experience under your belt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I was looking at the Arbcom decision to impose sanctions on the article and it says nothing about there being a 500 edit minimum and 30 days of account life in order to edit the Gamergate article. Why is this a restriction when that wasn't part of the decision? I can't seem to find where or how this was decided. Thanks again. Saigo no Yume (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I thought it was part of the ArbCom decision, but apparently not. I assume that means it was an Arbitration enforcement action. I'll research and reply, unless @Dennis Brown: knows off the top of his head. If that's the case, appealing it would be different, although I am quite confident the result would be the same. Hang on, if it is an AE issue, WP:AE might be the place instead of WP:ARCA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your patience and assistance. Saigo no Yume (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, found it (we do not have a user friendly way of recording sanctions): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate, in the bottom section "Page-level sanctions" refers to here: [11]. It was an AE decision, which means it could theoretically be appealed at WP:AE (I know, I deleted your thread there. My bad. But it would still need to be clearly labelled as an appeal). But as I said, I can pretty much guarantee that people are tired enough of the unending drama of this topic that failure is essentially guaranteed, especially if you have no other edits to any other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You got there just before I did, and I agree it is fruitless to try to get it repealed. And yes, it is ridiculous that we are one of the largest websites in the world and can't find sanctions more easily. The actual AE is here, and wasn't exactly a panel, but the outcome is still supported strongly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(moving this back a bit) Ok, I'm reading through this and it looks like this was a request against TheRedPenofDoom for essentially calling other people stupid and crazy. I looked him up in the search engine and found that he is now topic banned from the Gamergate article - presumably for being disruptive. However, in this instance, instead of punishing TheRedPenofDoom, the people in charge decided to implement this 30-day minimum/500 edit thing.

This course of action does not seem to follow.

I went back to looking at the Gamergate Arbcom page and it sets out a very specific set of remedies that are available ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Remedies ).

"(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning."

The 500 edit/30 day account action is not in the list of available remedies.

Furthermore, "Discretionary sanctions" were also referenced ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions ), but the relevant section does not allow the action taken by Zad68:

"Page restrictions7.5

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})."

Also, reading the discretionary sanctions page makes it clear that new people should not be assumed to be bad editors, but this policy makes that assumption by default.

Am I overlooking something or is my logic and understanding sound? Saigo no Yume (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I can gather these methods haven't been working. In any event, the sanction appears to be along the lines of "Jews and Transexuals can't discuss the content of this article." Or, assuming your interpretation, "Content from Jews or Transexuals is prohibited." This doesn't make sense. Content is content - not a prohibition on certian individuals from contributing. Thanks again for your help. I assume appealing will be fruitless, since you both seem to think so, so I'll think about it for a bit. Saigo no Yume (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... equating a prohibition on new editors to a prohibition based on religion or gender seems like the kind of hyperbole that we are trying to keep off of that page. So maybe, in its own small way, it is working. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm merely changing the terms involved from "new users" to something else. Content is actual content. Prohibitions on classes of users are not allowed by the rules. It is a massive stretch to say "content from certain users" because that does, in fact, open up precisely the sort of examples I gave. Saigo no Yume (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

On another note, I'm glad the page is free of hyperbole:

The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns sexism in video game culture. It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several feminists from the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, death threats and was related to a mass shooting threat at a university speaking event. Saigo no Yume (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Prohibitions on classes of editors exist all over Wikipedia. You have to be an established editor to vote for Arb. Only established editors can edit semi-protected pages. Only admin can view deleted material or edit fully protected pages. Only Oversighters can see suppressed edits, and only CUs can see your IP under limited circumstances. We have all kinds of class restrictions at Wikipedia. The key is, they are community supported and only used when needed, and the community wisely decided they are needed here. Not to be snippy, but yes, this dialog demonstrates why the restrictions are in place and are a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Then make it a semi-protected page. That is allowed by the rules. Requiring 500 edits to use that is NOT allowed by the rules. I guess being semi-protected isn't prohibitive enough for some people though. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue alternative methods of protecting the page. The fact is, policy allows admin broad discretion in coming up with creative solutions that stop disruption, under General Sanction, Discretionary Sanction, AE and other limited circumstances. If you asked, a majority of editors of that article, they would say that it is a good restriction. It has thus far stood up to scrutiny. If you want to appeal it, WP:ARCA is where you need to go, and by all means, feel free to do so there. Complaining about it on Floq's talk page will get you nowhere, and is just taking up space. Floq has answered you, I've tried to also explain as well, we both have given you the link to the only place that can help you. I think we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spamming all the tired Wikipedians

Try this, there's nothing like it! Bishonen | talk 18:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

P.S. I'm like this now. Or at least Bishzilla is. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC).
Man, I would hate to be one of the bunnies in the mawashi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Even if it was Bishzilla? (See the helpful Bishzilla.[12]) Bishonen | talk 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

Calm down

I was trying to see what difference it made for looking at the user name..Your threat speaks volumes about you.. Void burn (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You are lying. I am calm, just have a low tolerance for trolling. I'll leave a block notice on your page in a moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, oh, we have a helpful essay about calming down! Bishonen | talk 07:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC).
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 71.202.151.209

I noticed you have blocked this IP for disruptive editing and personal attacks against HkCaGu. Can you revoke access to this IP's talk page as he blanked his talk page including his block notice (referred to as "nonsense"). Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's so important to so many people that all the stuff stay on the talk page. I say just let him blank it, and ignore him for a year. It might be different if there were more personal attacks going on, but all they're doing is blanking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You nailed it

Yes, that editor (who is otherwise a productive editor, but who basically stalks me - although I've never bothered to put together the evidence for it) does put my back up, and when that happens I behave like an idiot . My apologies. BMK (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a poorly worded protection rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bad faith"

Would you please respond: why do you assume these nominations were made in bad faith? The rationales are totally valid. If you were really that concerned about my supposed "bad faith", you should have better warned me, rather than have gone out there to close perfectly reasonable nominations. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) PS. This is why people get so pissed off about Wikipedia, you guys are champions in making real content creators get off. Keep up with your drama-whoring (and this is not a personal message, this is directed to whoever feels touched) --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase your question and I'll consider answering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Given this and this I think that you have been shown a lot of lenience. A less patient admin may have blocked you. Someone who has been here 8 years should already know not to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. HighInBC (was Chillum) 18:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lady.de.Clare

Your little clique of Administrators has gotten the message across. I guess you must wield what little pathetic power you have. Funny how the first article I created is scheduled for deletion IMMEDIATELY after I file a complaint against an Administrator. (Personal attack removed) I am done here. Lady.de.Clare (talk) 9:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So filing a complaint against an administrator should make you immune from having to follow the policies that everyone else needs to follow? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So for how long

... do you have time to weep over the state of RfA? - "the Alakzi cantata" - the one about spirit and soul becoming confused - is on the German Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not long. I saw what happened at Alakzi's page; I'm sorry, I know you think very highly of him. Congrats on yet another German dyk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't recommend to join the cabal of the outcasts. Remembered the beginnings just today. Only women seem to survive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I have had the theme song from Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt stuck in my head on and off for several days, and your last sentence immediately brought it back, because of the line "But females are strong as Hell". Now I have to sing the Flintstone's theme song all afternoon to try to get it out of my head again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hah! I was just noticing last night that the "Kimmy Schmidt" theme song had gotten stuck in my head again as well. I think it's because I watched the Emmys, where the show was nominated. "They're alive, dammit!" MastCell Talk 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My favorite part is the perky "dammit!" right at the end of the song. I find myself almost unable to resist adding it to the end of all my sentences, here, at work, and at home. So far so good, but it's a constant battle. ♫ Dammit! ♪ --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I learned from my friend Montanabw that "female" should only be used as an adjective ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That's Montanabw's view, but it's not mine. Eric Corbett 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, outcast from the beginnings mentioned above ;) - a 9/11 thread as I just noticed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've always done it similar to the way MBW recommends, using "female" as an adjective, and using the noun "female" to refer only to non-human females when there is no simple English word (like "mare"). Not because I was taught it was wrong, or because I've thought the logic completely through, but because "woman" sounds better and less... dismissive to my ear. I've been informed before that "female" is acceptable (or some say even preferred, because they claim it is less dismissive). I thought maybe it was an EngVar thing, but I've been told that by an American too. It probably doesn't matter too much; I'm too old to be changing now. As long as it doesn't become offensive somehow, I'll stick with "woman". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably a biologist thing but "females" as a noun means specimens as far as I'm concerned. "The females" can be the female mice, or even the samples from the female mice, but not the female technicians who take care of the mice. Whether it's "female technicians" or "woman technicians" or "women technicians" is a good way to start a fight though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The next cantata will sing of the victory of that fight, to be followed by consolation, but don't forget "He who speaks a word of consolation ..." and that you don't have an equivalent to Schweinerei in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Listen to joyful songs of victory, - if you don't see victories, look for small ones, like I managed to improve a template, without help, and didn't break it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh good; now I finally know a template expert to ask technical questions! If something has more than two curly brackets I lose track and can't function; congrats on your success. How are you with .css and .js scripts? I need a backup to User:Writ Keeper; his abrasive, threatening, holier-than-thou persona is starting to get on my nerves. I should probably wait until I'm sure you can help with those too, but I can't hold it back any longer: WK, you're fired!! --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Ask RexxS for .css etc. please. You can also place calls for help on WP:QAIPOST and hope for a merciful soul. You never had to wait long as long as you could count on her or him whose name is not to be mentioned. - I find the curly brackets much more elegant than the straight ones. See how many I managed to place in one docu today. - Why did I remember our church where I sing joyful songs when you talked about nerves, perhaps because of the talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was just using it as an opportunity to tease WK, Gerda. Don't worry, I won't ask you about scripts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I wrote fear not, and you think I would be afraid of being asked about scripts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"Don't worry" as in "don't be bothered", not "don't be fearful". --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you listen to my songs talked about? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I read the articles (enjoyable as always, clearly a labor of love), but didn't *listen* to the works, if that's what you mean. Which makes me wonder; I know some Bach articles have links to public domain performances of the piece (some even have, shall we say, maybe a few too many such links). But not all. Is that because not all of them have been performed and released without a copyright, or because it's just something no one has added to all the articles yet? Then I could easily "listen to [your] songs". --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I confess that I rather meant "listen" in a more general sense. I don't include sound examples, as I don't include a translation (which was done in early articles but discussed to not do anymore): in both cases, my POV would make the choice, and the taste of a reader might be different. Some Bach cantatas have good soundexamples, which I don't revert, example Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54 (see External links). I try to give a hint at the character of recordings by background colours for choir and orchestra, aka the Alakzi colours, compare Mass in B minor discography#Table. - "Listen" (when I wrote it) was pointing at the dissonance on the talk which seems softer now. - Noisier: I have been called a monster (which I try to consider amusing), but a friend has a problem with this and other reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn that vortex

[13] — Ched :  ?  01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which vortex you mean; there are so many to choose from... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't say there was any ONE thing, but several items that compelled me to do more than just read and fix the occasional typo. The concept of a "vortex" was something that has stuck with me, thus an excuse to drop by. I hope all is well with you and yours. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the Generic Vortex. The worse kind. All's well, just busy. Hope the same for you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem of sorts

Floq, many of the support !votes I had at my RfA had relatively little content or discussion, but yours was one that did. I valued your statement, "The question in my mind is whether I trust her to never involve her admin tools, directly or indirectly, when a friend is in conflict with someone else. I'm not positive she will, but I'm reasonably confident she will. I wouldn't be willing to take the risk for everyone, but in this case the benefits of having a smart, active, serious content contributor who has a ton of experience and cluefulness leads me to want to take that risk. " Because the potential for abuse of the tools did seem to be the crux of it for many people, I am curious as to how you got there with me and how I can continue to convince more people that this is true. Seems a Catch-22: If you have the kind of personality that is not afraid of conflict and sticking to your guns, crucial to a good admin, you have also had conflicts, so it is labeled a "battlefield mentality" that disqualifies you for getting the mop. How did you resolve that dilemma? As far as things I'm looking at in terms of what the oppose !votes said, some of that needs a little more time to let the bruises heal up a bit to think clearly Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this is a long term postmortem. That's good, because I don't have much time available this week. I'll post date this to prevent archiving, get back to this when I can, and ping you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred de Grazia

FWIW, just wanted to point you to this, in case you hadn't seen it. At this point, we're either in the middle of an intra-family dispute between son and step-mother, or we're being whipsawed, I'm not sure which. I don't plan to respond to it. BMK (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw, but haven't had time more honestly, the inclination, to formulate a comment. Frankly I haven't even looked at the article rewrite yet. It does appear to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I'll try to take a look and comment (from an admin perspective, not a content perspective) in a bit. Hopefully it doesn't blow up before then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Gringolandia

That term can refer to the touristic area of Quito, or, indeed, any touristic area in a Hispanic country. As such, it probably should redirect to a more general article. I trust your judgment. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 14:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

First reaction

My first reaction was "NOOOOOOOO!". Now that I think about it I 100% see where you are coming from. The community has a long standing pattern of failing to protect users from abusive individuals. I am also sick of Wikipedia constantly giving 1 more chance to people who engage in nasty attacks on other editors. I do hope you return, but I get it. I am one step closer to walking away myself. HighInBC 15:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend usually to agree with Floq but not with you, HiBC. On this occasion, I do in fact agree with you. This (Reguyla) is a ridiculous turn of events and I foresee a lot of disruption starting up once more. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I am taking a wikibreak. I sincerely hope your retirement can be shortened to a wikibreak too. HighInBC 16:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last. The community is what it is, and individual judgment often gets the good faith tag to ensure that the bad that comes with whatever good can be brushed under the carpet. Enjoy your retirement (hopefully temporary), cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
So long, and thanks for all the fish! Youi'll be missed. Please reconsider and turn this into a brief hiatus or wikibreak. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
"No foul, play on", your words which helped me to stay in this place of misery. Need help expanding Chronicler of the Winds to something worthy of the author who died of cancer today. Play on. My heart swims in blood, - suggested for Halloween but all too real now. Play on ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You may have read it on the Main page today: I do not let you go, but that was not for you, - I try to let go, and thanks for all the play, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To a great contributor

The best revenge
Illegitimi non carborundum Honing only makes you sharper. Surviving and thriving will make your point. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand, but...

realize that the terms of Reg's unblock specifically include a restriction on interacting with admins, and could certainly be specifically extended to include a broader i-ban with you. I know Reg too, and I know that his more-than-occasional self-absorbtion can be at bast irritating. And, honestly, given the nature of some of his comments on his own talk page, although I in no way want to be seen as making anything like a hard prediction here, I can honestly say that I would not myself necessarily bet that the current situation will remain unchanged for long. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I also get the impression that there may be discussion in the near future regarding this unblock. It hasn't started yet, that I know of anyway, although I am not a party to any e-mail lists around here, but I think your input would be very, very much welcome if and when that discussion takes place. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I guess I could say that if there are any old PD works that you would like to have visibly transcribed over at wikisource, let me know on my user talk page or through e-mail. If you do decide to permanently retire, God knows you've earned at least that much of a memorial around here. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy

Hope you enjoy your (temporary) retirement, it's always good to get some headspace and regenerate (like Doctor Who), coming back fitter and fightier than before. And usually younger, but I don't know how to make that work. Regardless of all the "flaming arrows" (as my boss refers to the pesky interruptions of those trying to burn your rope bridge while you're en route to Nirvana), there are many of us who already miss you. I'm not into the patronising stuff, but seriously, we're a "man down" now. We'll limp on, but your insight is mandatory here so don't leave it too long before you get back to it. You have my highest regards, take good care, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I understand why, but this is a horrific shame. If you want to earbash me, you know my email. I will miss you. WormTT(talk) 19:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Floquenbeam. You have new messages at WP:AN.
Message added 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It has been suggested that you provide input to this discussion. We would greatly appreciate your insight in whatever form you deem fit. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see you go

Au revoir
I hope the sailing gets smoother and that you come back. Shearonink (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Live long and prosper, Floq. BethNaught (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Assume that I've said ...

... all the obvious things that you'd expect me to say here. Hope to see you again soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but

I don't really feel like talking to anyone right now, hope that's OK. All well wishes are appreciated, all emails or requests for an email will be followed up some point. Right now this place makes me nauseous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't know me...

... so to the extent this means anything, it is incredibly sad and demoralizing to see you leave, especially under these circumstances. You will be missed. Crow Caw 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;" Okay, a bit dramatic, but just another note from a regular grunt who's always appreciated your assistance, advice and thoughtfulness. Hope you'll feel like coming back at some point, but you'd done some heavy lifting over the years. Toss off the weights and soar into the sky! Ravensfire (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much, and good luck with your life in the future. Rubbish computer 22:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your service to The Project, Floq... —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Come back!

That didn't even take 24 hours. Reguyla has already said, fuck it, forget about it, he's not coming back. So please, Floq: un-retire, tell the crats never mind, and let's get back to normal here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wild horses?

Wild horses award
If wild horses can drag you back to wikipedia, I'm sending you some! Hop on and enjoy the ride! Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just another suggestion...

...that you return after you've had a break sufficient to recharge your batteries. What you contribute to the project is too valuable for us to lose. Best, BMK (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Amen! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue

This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on on 19 June 2012.

... and thanks for all the play. De profundis --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Floquenbeam. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

IRC

FYI, a troll tried impersonating you on the IRC, I have then registered your nickname with a 60 char random pw, poke me if you want me to release it to you. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.

You indicated at your retirement that you didn't want to edit at a site where a certain person was free to edit. I thought you might like to know that the discussion of possibly allowing that account to have its ban lifted has resulted in that individual being indefinitely banned from the site. Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I was surprised to find you retired and finally noticed it today. Best wishes for where ever you go! SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome semi-back

Sorry if semi-back sounds like a type of ballroom frock, but you know what I mean. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

I tend to be very welcoming to women wearing ballroom frocks myself. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If at all possible don't scare me again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Always good

I won't trouble you with questions, observations or anything else, and I do hope all is going well for you. I just wanted to note that it's always good to see you pop in for a visit. Best always. — Ched :  ?  16:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, good to see your name pop up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't cross the line, please.

You may have become frustrated. Calm down and listen, please don't threaten me again. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Shoo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Venting

Floq, given the circumstances of the user's block, I'd block them for even longer for calling you a "vile human being". However, you're not an ordinary attackee, so I'll refrain if you'd prefer that I not do it. BTW, welcome back to the admin corps. Not sure how happy you are about it, but it's easier for my brain to think of you as an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Don't worry about it, there's a 15% chance ignoring it will deescalate, and a 0% chance that extending the block will suddenly make them realize what a wonderful person I am. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi seems to be in a mood, immediately prior to this latest incident he got upset at me our of nowhere months after an incident: [14] and User_talk:HighInBC#Nature_of_your_concerns. That conversation reveals a fair bit about how he responds to authority. The short form of the argument is that he thinks that when someone is freaking out that they should not get further blocks, in reference to me increasing his block duration due to ongoing personal attacks/block evasion the last time he was blocked.
He would prefer that he be allowed to vent on Wikipedia when blocked, I don't think Wikipedia is here for people to vent. Based on my experience I think removal of talk page access will be more productive than increasing block length as Alakzi tends to calm down after a day or two. My 2 cents. HighInBC 16:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Forgot to ping Bbb23. HighInBC 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@HighInBC: Except nothing has happened in a day or so, so removing talk page access now would be a truly horrible idea. I hope you weren't announcing you were going to do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No. I was referring to Bbb's comment about increasing the block. What I meant was that if there was further trouble that removing talk page access would be more productive than increasing block duration. I certainly don't think we should disturb a situation that has calmed down. My point was that longer durations are unlikely to be more effective than short durations in this case. I should have been more clear about that. HighInBC 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, very happy to see you back. I always appreciate the level of wisdom you show. HighInBC 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see. I'm actually OK with some venting, esp. if directed at me, but in the case where it isn't OK, I certainly like talk page access removal better than lengthening a block. And thanks. Still probably not "here" here, but here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I missed something and I don't have time right now (class in a few). Yeah, Alakzi doesn't take kindly to authoritay, but I think they are a very valid net-positive for the project. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The best for peace would have been to not block to start with. I mused about how I would have reacted to finding myself blocked, hope I could laugh as a famous model did, but who knows. See also Thank you with kitten box, and that was for her answers to some arb cand questions. Remember the name of the cat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed...

...that you got the bit back. Well done. BMK (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What gave me away; threatening to block people right and left? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Will you be the one?

Will you be the one to end the drama thread about RO on ANI? It is clear to me that things are heated from a days long discussion. RO is indef blocked right now so couldn't someone close the thread, and revisit the issue about community sanctions at a later date when cooler heads are around? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be cooler heads around. And that block is probably not permanent, though I could be wrong. That thread is a mess, 70% due to RO's own behavior, 30% due to the fact that most people who hang out at ANI are hyenas, waiting to pounce on anything they think is wounded. Personally, after having observed the whole thing for a long time, I think a site ban is in order. But (a) I know you don;t agree, and (b) I doubt there's consensus for that, so I think you want someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for background for one of your comments

Remember this? Do you recall where the template editor discussion occurred? --NeilN talk to me 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That was probably a dangerous thing for me to say, because (a) I was relying on memory, not an actual review of the discussion, and (b) my memory is deteriorating rapidly with age. I'm still pretty sure that was a real concern at the time, but no, I can't recall where that discussion was. Maybe do some detective work on when earliest edits to WP:Template editor were made? History of WP:CENT? Ask at VPP, where people who probably felt passionately pro- or passionately con- are still hanging out? Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, Neil, I really do view this as quite a minor issue to be pursuing given all I did was in one instance apply TE+admin salt instead of admin only salt to a page that's unlikely to be unsalted at any time in the near future anyway. Accountcreators can quite accidentally create editnotices, and although there was minor controversy surrounding that at one point also, I view allowing a TE to potentially unsalt a page that's unlikely to be unsalted in the same category I view accountcreators creating editnotices - de minimis non curat lex. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's the first one I think. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. I feel like there were other discussions leading up to, or after, this RFC, probably on a village pump of some kind, but this was the easy one to find. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Also here (link found in the RFC). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I know it's not a regular practice (even when I'm salting I usually go for admin-salt - I just hit the wrong dropdown and although I noticed, didn't see a significant reason was it was an inappropriate level so just went with it,) but if this came up to a large discussion, I really do suspect it would go the same way that +acc's creating editnotices went. "Technical accident, does no harm to allow and once in a while might potentially do good, if rarely." Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ydgm ygm

You don't got mail -- no email link? I'll send you the ace2105 if email (or turn your email pref on). NE Ent 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@NEEnt: sigh. You don't know how difficult it is to be an idiot. I turned it off to avoid any WP related email on my break and forgot to turn it back on. Switched on now. Thanks. The 2105 questions should be even more useful than the 2015 questions; I was thinking of running again in 2105, so that will give me a real advantage. Emoji goes here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC::
@NE Ent: double sigh. Not having a good day so far. Repinging. ~

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhh

@NE Ent: There. 106.0.176.61 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Arg yourself. NE Ent 13:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User issue

This guy seems intent on ridicule and uncivil behavior [[15]] Viriditus. I am wondering if he could be blocked or warned for incivility. Please look at the Drexler citation section toward the bottom of the page on the talk page of the Post scarcity article. I am asking here since you seem familiar with similar situations in regard to this person. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

At worst, Viriditas was guilty of being uncivil to you because you did something really really stupid. And he told you so in a variety of ways. Removing a reliable source based on the fact the author (a well-known expert/name in the field) hosted a copy of his (published in multiple countries in the world by reputable publishers) book on his personal website was ridiculous. Multiple people told you why you were wrong and you still failed to get it. Generally that will start to annoy most people. Had you gone "Oh sorry, I didnt notice it was reliably published elsewhere" he probably wouldnt have blown his top. As it is, you didnt notice because you dont know anything about the subject or the author and failed to do basic diligent research (including reading the bloody article!) before removing the material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with Earl King Jr. from other topics (one example) so I browsed the article talk where extreme IDHT is displayed by EKJ. If EKJ understood any of the simple comments made by several editors in that section they would be apologizing for wasting people's time rather than drawing attention to the mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, I'm not interested in being Viriditas' parole officer; please don't come to me every time you're in a dispute with him.
In this particular case, I see two problems. And since you came to me, I won't sugar coat it. One is your bull in a china shop approach on that talk page. See WP:RANDY. If you do not understand a subject, don't keep reverting and lecturing other people; instead, ask them questions and learn from them. If you do not understand a subject, don't assume you are right and others are wrong. it is much, much more likely that the opposite is true. It really is hard to remain kind and sweet with you when you're trying to be condescending, when you actually don't know what you're talking about. It really is frustrating for people. It harms the encyclopedia. I understand why others were getting mad at you there, and you need to stop. if you don't stop, I will consider blocking you for disrupting things - that's how seriously I think you're doing wrong here.
The second problem is Viriditas saying "Any other moronic, imbecilic, microcephalic comments you would like to make now?", on top of the other uncool things he said in that thread, and elsewhere. There's getting frustrated, and then there's losing all restraint. I am not a member of the civility police - I think I've established bona fides with most of the civility corps as "chronically enabling incivility" - and even I think that would be worth a serious warning even if it was a one-off. Except it isn't a one-off. On top of all the other over-the-top stuff Viriditas has been spewing the last day or so (just that I'm aware of), I just can't stomach my usual "everyone gets mad, so let's see if it dies down" approach. I'll probably be blocking Viriditas for a while, I need another cup of coffee to decide.
Now, Earl, change your approach. It is damaging too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Floq... I know how much you dislike civility blocks, but would invite you to view Viriditas' response to your block. With blocks intended to be preventative, and his answer to your block on top of all the other civility/NPA violations he's racked up in the last couple days, I would suggest a longer than 72 hour block would be preventative. Engaging in the exact same behavior you blocked him for on his talk page during his block isn't exactly a good sign that he would instantly return to his behavior in the last couple days three days from now when his block wears off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same; on the article talk page it's directed at a specific person. On his talk page, it's directed generally at the people he thinks are not as smart as he is. I don't care about his user talk page snark (and over-reacting to that could muddy the waters if the block is appealed), but I will keep an eye on edits after the block expires. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

O.k. Floquenbeam I get the message and will try to reform. I don't want to be a Randy. Thanks for the thoughtful overview. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Earl, I missed this until just now. You're welcome, hope it helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing. Go away: my talk page is not where you two are going to start bickering with each other
Since your last post here HighlnBC revoked access to his talk-page, and to add insult to injury User:Wikimandia comes along and adds a barnstar of good humor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL. And how does this add insult to injury? I don't even know who is injured in the first place so I'm not sure who it is I am supposed to have insulted? Talk page stalkers? If I think someone is funny and want to rain barnstars upon them I will. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That would be fine if you weren't giving it to a blocked user whose crude behavior was the reason for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI retirement templates

Just flagging this to spare an unnecessary followup ANI next week if the user decides to play it by the book and go back to announcing January 2016 wikibreaks every day - you closed this ANI discussion saying that "MVBW has kindly agreed to not use the retired or long wikibreak templates", but they only mentioned the former. (They actually took a luxurious two-hour "long wikibreak" in the time between their two comments on the ANI.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can go back and correct the wording of the close. I closed the thread because people were beginning to harass him about text on his user page too. There's no call for that. He seems to acknowledge the confusion it caused, so I'm willing to assume he'll handle this more clearly in the future. If not, I suppose you can bring it up again, or maybe better, let me know and I'll have a further word with him. This is #465,127 on the list of most important things to worry about on Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's save some time and keep it "the retired or long wikibreak templates". I do not need any of these templates. Thank you for quick closing! My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, my pinging is messed up, I didn't see this. I think I'll just leave the ANI close as-is, but I think that's the right call, MVBW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Voter guide?

Are you going to do one this year? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I kind of doubt it, I've never done one before. But I might do a very, very short thing with 1/10th the tables and colors and formatting and text of everyone else's. But my concern is: either no one will care (in which case, why bother?), or it will actually influence someone (in which case, why in the world is anyone listening to an idiot like me?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I would listen. - I don't guide, but you can compare. - Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it for a few minutes, and no, I'm not going to do a guide per se. But here's a list, FWIW:

Definitely support
  • Casliber
  • Drmies
  • Kelapstick
  • Opabinia regalis
Definitely oppose (for various reasons (including "too green", and "mortal enemy", and lots of places in between those two extremes)
  • AKS 9955
  • Callanecc
  • Gamaliel
  • Hawkeye7
  • Kevin Gorman
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Kudpung
  • MarkBernstein
  • Wildthing61476

Everyone else is in the grey hazy middle, again for various reasons (including "I don't know anything about them" and "I like them but I suspect they'd suck at being an Arb" and "I don't like them, but it could be me and not them" and "negatives tend to cancel out positives"). I don't even want to add "lean support" or "lean oppose" to anyone; if I decide on someone currently in the grey area, I'll add them to one of the lists. If not, I'll probably choose neutral, and let others decide on them. I doubt I'll end up supporting more than 5 or 6 in total, though. I tend to hope we don't fill all 9 positions this year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You and I appear to be thinking along similar lines. Perhaps someone should start something at SPI. One thing that really needs to be stressed is that people do not have to vote "yes" for nine people. They can vote "no" to the entire list if they wish, although I do think the field is wide enough that there will be at least one or two candidates who appeal to someone. I really do not understand the point of opting for the "neutral" column but that's just me. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Bishzilla's neutral recommendations in her guide (actually there's only one neutral recommendation at the moment) don't really mean she thinks anybody should vote neutral. More that she can't make up her mind. We can hope her promises of more research will be redeemed, and then there won't be a single neutral recommendation. PS, opposing everybody is good too. Bishonen | talk 05:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
I don't know; neutral seems reasonable if I don't know enough, or can't decide after doing the amount of research I feel like doing. I get your points, S and B, but I don't want to oppose for no reason, and I don't want to feel compelled to study everyone in depth. Just like a don't bother voting for anyone for the assistant deputy dogcatcher in municipal elections. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify?

re: {{Red|Also, I'm not an admin anymore.}}[16]. As technically inaccurate, could this be "in theory"? "in practice"?, "in hopes of"? - or perhaps as "in - oops"? Not that it matters to me in any way, but there are various OCD types which may have twinges at such. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"in - oops". Thanks Ched, glad you're still around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For returning to the mop and bucket brigade. I fully understand why you gave them up but your return is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd put them to use at AIV, but so far all I'm doing is removing reports without blocking. Maybe didn't need the bit back after all? Anyway, cheers, thanks for stopping by. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah he really needs them so he can deal with abrasive assholes like me, right Floquenbeam? ;) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Dr._Blofeld, please read NPA, you are making a personal attack against User:Dr._Blofeld which is... wait... oh nohz, which is WP:CIRCULAR and now my policy-oriented-brain just exploded. Crikey what a mess. Nevermind me then, just ne'er-do-mind.  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

arb?

Ahem, User:Floquenbeam, since you have decided to take up your old habits, perhaps soon we will see you filing a statement here, WP:ACE2015/C, seeking the sweet ambrosia of arb-ness? Well, maybe not, since that violates "complicated, stressful, depressing, AND time consuming".  :-)     But in any case, my real question is, who ought to be running? There are some good names already on the list as self-noms, but can any other folks perhaps be armtwisted into a last-day-surprise-arbcom-run? Nine open seats is a lot, and at present only two of the arbs up for re-election have re-nominated themselves for another term. There are plenty of long-haul wikipedians: who has the temperment and the time and the reputation, that is not yet announced as a candidate? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@75.108.94.227: (do pings work for IPs?) I'm sorry, it's a reasonable question, and I suppose I might have a semi-useful perspective, but something seems to have fundamentally switched off in my brain, and I find it really hard to care anymore. I still care in short bursts, but they're separated by long stretches of meh. I considered for a second putting together a short election guide (or whatever they're called), but it would mostly be a list of "vote for"s and "vote against"s; I don't have the energy to write rationales. And I think someone decided that lists like that were "bad" anyway. I'm not as optimistic as you are about most of the noms so far. The vaunted community will get what they deserve, I guess, and I'm not really optimistic. I suspect entropy has grabbed hold of the project, and I don't see it getting better.
To try and answer your question, most of those I think would be good have already made it clear they won't run. I assume NYB isn't willing to wade back in. I've always said that Bish (or even better, Bish) and MastCell should run, but they're apparently too smart for that. I'm glad to see Opabinia regalis and User:Drmies running. Most of the other people I can think of off the top of my head would truly hate it. User:Black Kite? User:Reaper Eternal? They'd hate it and probably wouldn't get elected but would be good. User:Ponyo? User:Diannaa? User:Sphilbrick? Don't always agree with them, but they seem to have good heads on their shoulders. Sometimes the rebel inside me thinks anyone who has made a "cowboy unblock"...
The only useful ArbCom suggestion I can make is this: assuming no one has asked it already, I think a good question to ask every candidate is: "Please point to the most recent discussion on-wiki where someone has convinced you that you were wrong about something." I'd be concerned about anyone who can't point to something. I very seriously doubt I'm going to bother asking anyone that question myself, so you're welcome to steal this question if you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Bish. And the Lady. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if she's up for it, but last I check she was semi-retired. Although I guess Reaper is too, so why should that stop anyone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
MastCell passed the buck to Opabinia this year, it seems. Black Kite I believe is now retired, not-so-coincidentally from arbcase fallout. I tried to arm-twist Ponyo, they were having none of it. Drmies is trying to armtwist Diannaa, but she is resisting. Reaper_Eternal has written a voter-guide, if you wanna copy their stuff create an independent voter-guide from scratch inspired by standing on the shoulders of predecessors you might get away with it. I also like reading User:Rschen7754's voter-guide , but this year they too are feeling gumption-shortage, and have written something up with no names named. I see the other two below; I am glad we have at least one member of the plant kingdom running this year, arbcom needs species-diversity. p.s. User_talk:Floquensoque has reported you for campaign finance violations to the proper authorities, in case you have not yet been templated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm tempted to attempt a humorous response on the lines of what if I done to annoy you but my family has made it exceedingly clear that my attempts at humor fall flat so I'll not try. As a more serious response, I have considered it. I signed up to be a clerk, on the theory that spending some time as a clerk would force me to pay more attention to the committee which would help me if I decided to run. My theory was correct; the problem is that the experience persuaded me not to run. I've taken on more commitments than I can handle, and that's without Arbcom. I may reconsider in the future, but I'll have to prune my commitment list, and probably stop tilting at climate change windmills.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hah, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I doubt I could even support myself if I were to run. I'm completely discouraged / disgusted / disappointed with the current ArbCom for multiple reasons, which I won't really name here. (Honestly, I've been considering dropping the admin and checkuser tools.) I also don't really have the time to commit to ArbCom. Anyways, good luck to you all, and I'd happily support you again if you were foolish enough to wanted to run again! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ITN

Hi Floquenbeam,

For some reason "near [the] Syrian border" isn't showing up on the Main Page display yet. Sca (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those "purge your cache" things; I looked, and it wasn't on the main page for me either, but once I purged the cache it showed up. I don't *think* there's anything I can do to fix it for everyone. Besides maybe a null edit to the main page, which I don not want to mess with. One of those weird MediaWiki mysteries.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried deleting my cache, but it still wasn't showing (for 20 min. or so). Anyhow, thanks for fixing blurb. Sca (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand

My comment was not a personal attack -- as I already explained. It should not be marked as a personal attack as it was NOT a personal attack. Doing so is wrong, and essentially a personal attack in and of itself. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth. It was not intended as humor. I don't think your "calling me out for making personal attacks is a personal attack" gambit is going to work. I really will block you if that gets restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
p.s. if you want to just remove the {{rpa}} tag, I don't care about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not telling the truth? The hell I'm not. I'm not a liar and I don't appreciate being called one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Relax. It was just dry humor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to push me and get me to blow so you will have a legitimate excuse to block me? Because at this point, you do not. Just like you have no legitimate reason to call me a liar. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to get you to have an epiphany, by seeing it from the other side. Alas, I don't think it worked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it didn't. When I'm being piled on and unjustly called a liar and threatened by two admins for something that isn't really blockable, my defenses go up. I'm funny that way. (no, not humor funny). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[18], [19],[20]. Also this is the source of the accusation [21] Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom election -related edits

If there is some consensus somewhere for that "edit-vandalism ratio" rule you are talking about then please cite it. Otherwise you seem to be reverting edits based on a rule you made up, when my edit was justified based on consensus. Thank you. THEowner of a l l 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just a common sense limitation on trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I'm an admin now -- if a sockpuppet says it, it must be true! GABHello! 22:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, you're also notable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a dream come true. Glad you're back. GABHello! 22:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wowitmoves

Thank you. It was obvious to me from his first edit he was a troll. I hard-blocked the account based on the ridiculous username, but he was allowed to rename. He continued to troll, of course. I wanted to block him, but after my initial block, I was reluctant.

A weird thing, btw. When I clicked on either your username or Talk page link in the sig of your block notice. It would go to this silly Jimbo graphic. It didn't do that on any of the other sigs on the page, as far as I know, just yours. I have no idea why, although I'm sure there's a technical explanation for it. Anyway, I removed the link to the graphic at the top of his Talk page, and the links in your sig work properly. Made me feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Making a mistake and blocking a newbie feels horrible, so I avoid trolling blocks even when I'm 95% sure. In this case, though, it was 100%. We (not "you and I" we, but "Wikipedians in general" we) tolerate trolls too much on the noticeboards. Although a related problem is we label too many people we disagree with as "trolls" in an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints....
I can reproduce the problem you describe when I make the window small enough so that my signature occurs underneath the general area where the image pops up. I think that area is actually always the image superimposed on top of the page - even when Jimbo is hiding behind the left menu bar, the image is still there, just transparent. When I resize the window so my signature is on the right side, the problem goes away. But I re-removed the image anyway.
About 95% of the time, two types of user use that image: long-term editors, who are almost always productive and good faith and (generally) interesting and fun; and new editors, who are almost always trolls. Unfortunately, that remaining 5% prevents us from using it as a block rationale (pull down menu: "newbie with the peekaboo Jimbo"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocking reason

BlackPenus_Jesus (talk · contribs)

I am a bit lost as to lame being a reason for blocking someone? I assume it was name? I do agree that it is lame though.

Jab843 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant "lame", as in "this vandalism is lame". However, you're right, there were name issues too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User faking long wikibreaks

Just following up this talk thread from a couple of weeks ago, where a user was disingenuously using {{retired}} and {{long wikibreak}} templates in order to "relax and minimize my involvement in contentious disputes". You said that the user "seems to acknowledge the confusion it caused", but taking a look it seems they're still doing it: several times since then (eg. here) they've posted a vacation wikibreak template with a little graphic of a plane, obliquely wishing visitors a "Happy New Year!", only to take it down and continue some controversial talk page threads a few hours later.

A user talk page falsely implying that the user is on vacation until the new year does not seem significantly different from putting up a fake {{long wikibreak}}. --McGeddon (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this really needs dealing with. He's added a note below the template encouraging people to leave messages - that's new since the first ANI report, and goes a long way, I think, towards addressing the main concern. As currently set up, I don't think anyone is actually going to be detered from posting on his talk page if they want to. As a result of looking into this a little last week, I had his talk page on my watchlist, and found the constant bouncing back and forth a little distracting/annoying; then I remembered that I'm able to remove pages from my watchlist, and I did, and it hasn't bothered me one iota since. I encourage you to do the same. If this ever becomes an actual problem, instead of a potential problem, someone will bring it up and it can be dealt with. But I suggest you don't expend karmic energy forcing someone to act in what you consider a more rational manner, when their irrationality is actually harmless. Allow people their quirks. There are too many other bigger deals to worry about. That's what I plan to do, anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the user's behaviour because it's distracting on my watchlist (their talk page isn't on my watchlist), I'm objecting to the fact that they're apparently using these templates with the express intention of tricking other editors into leaving them alone. A big, honest "grr, go away, not interested, I'll blank anythiing put here, don't template me, don't expect any responses" template would be fine by me, but a knowing misrepresentation of "am on vacation until January" seems like a deliberate act of bad faith. It's not that far from ending a talk page comment with "I disagree but anyway, I have a flight to catch, no time to continue this, back in January" in the hope that the other person might not rush to respond, and eventually forget (and if they do reply, to rattle back a full response an hour later). Not lying to each other is basic etiquette.
We can't know how much harm is being done by a user hiding behind a fake vacation template to avoid flak from what they consider to be "contentious disputes", because that harm takes the form of editors occasionally drifting away from conversations in good faith, or deciding not to question or template the user, or not rushing to raise a behavioural issue at ANI, without realising that they've been misled. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this editor, but from what I've seen I don't think intentionally misleading others is the reason they're doing what they're doing. First, they seem to be interacting with long term editors who no doubt know what's going on; second, I doubt it would be effective even with less experienced editors anyway; and third, the "can't maange to quit, and this helps me disengage" rationale kind of rings true for me. They seem to be using this as a kind of {{Useronline}}. Particulary with the added text below it, I just don't see it as problematic enough to warrant "enforcing" anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, absolute good faith is that when they said that a fake {{retire}} or {{long wikibreak}} template "helps me to relax and minimize my involvement in contentious disputes" they meant it's just a reassuring habit that keeps the mastodons at bay and they'd never really seen a downside to it. But it was pointed out at ANI that this relaxation technique could mislead other editors, MVBW acknowledged this and you closed the discussion on the basis that they'd agreed to stop doing it. Reading what they're saying in their added text ("I am on a literal real life vacation, implicitly until January, my account is currently inactive and may remain so, I will possibly respond to comments later, don't expect me to respond to any pings"), I can only see the thinnest sliver of daylight between that and the {{long wikibreak}} that they agreed to stop using.
It doesn't matter why they're doing it, or how effective it is as a strategy to keep people off your talk page. Deliberately misleading other editors harms the project. --McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So does picking at scabs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Meaning what - that you think the problem will clear up by itself, if left alone, and that I'm making it worse by drawing attention to it? --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. I'm saying that with the addition of the text below the on-again off-again templates, I don't see it as a serious problem, so the attempt to "fix" it is likely to do more damage than just not sweating the small stuff. It's not so much that I think it's going to clear up by itself, as I think it's already sufficiently cleared up already. It's not perfect, but nothing is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

More weeding

This [22] really needs to go. Caden cool 20:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove it. In return, you need to not comment in that section. It has nothing to do with you, and you have a history of conflict with the editors it does have to do with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks for being fair by removing all of the comments and not just mine. But just one thing, do you really think it was fair of Tim to call me a "he she or it" on ANI? Don't you see how that could be taken as an attack towards transgender people? I'm not but I still think it was a very ugly thing for him to say as it can be taken the wrong way by advocates of the LGBT community. Caden cool 21:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he was trying to attack transgender people, I think he was trying to be a jerk. If there was some evidence that it was actually some kind of anti-trans attack, I'd be willing to do something drastic, but in the absence of any reason to think that, I'll go with Occam's razor. I'd much prefer to see this die down, but yes, you and Tim and SchroCat all said things that will get you all blocked if it continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

They may very well be blocked, but somebody is going to be banned from here eventually if he doesn't just drop it, and it aint going to be Tim or Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld remove me from your watchlist. I'm sick of you stalking me and real tired of your empty threats. Find something positive to do for a change. Caden cool 20:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-dttr4im

Template:Uw-dttr4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Krett12 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle does that by itself--so it doesn't count as templating a regular. Krett12 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Krett12::
Technically, you did choose whether or not to use the template; there's a checkbox in Twinkle. Also, it's long established that people are responsible for what they ask Twinkle to do.
Practically, it doesn't matter whether it "counts" as templating a regular, because the message Chris left on your talk page was a joke. No one is actually criticizing you for leaving the template on my talk page. Some (including me, a little) are criticizing you for nominating it for deletion. But it is poor form to think that you should never be criticized, and that criticism is "treating you like shit" (your words). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No I didn't. It was checked by itself. So it's not true that I chose to, but it is true that I didn't choose not to. Krett12 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
oh, I see, the problem is you're an idiot. I hadn't realized until just now. Well played. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Good to see you're back! :)

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I missed this. Thanks, RC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sitting candidates

Regarding "why is being an ArbCom candidate reason to recuse?", I'd consider it legitimate grounds in this particular and unusual set of circumstances. Imagine Kevin finishes 9th and GW 10th, and GW then votes to take action against Kevin and he resigns in disgust, meaning she gets bumped up into the newly-vacant slot; it would cause a huge stink. Thus, it puts huge pressure on her not to support any sanctions against Kevin, as support from her for something potentially disqualifying him will look like corruption regardless of intent. (Pinging GorillaWarfare in case she wants to correct that, although I'm fairly certain my interpretation of her decision is correct.) ‑ Iridescent 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've said on the arb page, my recusal was largely due to my forgetfulness that voting is over. I'm not terribly concerned about your hypothetical, which strikes me as fairly unlikely. If that kind of thing happened due to my support of a sanction against Kevin, people should certainly be supporting me, as that kind of precognition would be nearly supernatural. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's a possible concern I hadn't thought of, Iri. Seems pretty unlikely in this case (and it would only work if Kevin actually voluntarily quit completely in response to being desysopped), but it is a theoretical concern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
But ... there's no reason to believe that if hypothetically one of the top nine vote-getters were to withdraw or be disqualified or choose not to serve, the 10th vote-getter would be seated instead. That didn't happen when 28bytes chose not to take his seat, for example. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be up to the EC, but my guess would be if the withdrawal happened before the announcement of the results, they'd treat it like any other withdrawn candidate, and if it happened after, they'd probably treat it like they did when 28bytes chose not to take his seat. So that's another complicating theoretical point. Practically speaking, if Kevin is 9th and Molly is 10th, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Weirder things have happened, and this election is weirder than most; besides, if you don't think "theoretical marginal possibility of corruption" is enough to set the hounds barking, I'd suggest you watchlist Jimbo's talkpage. My prediction—as documented at length on OR's talkpage (no, not that OR, the other one) is that the inflated turnout will mean many more votes based on what the candidates say in their statements, and proportionately a lot less based on actual experience of seeing way the candidates really behave rather than how they claim to behave; consequently, I suspect some results which will seem really weird to those used to business as usual. I tip Kirill, Mark Bernstein, Keilana, Opabinia and Marensingha all to do better than would be expected by those familiar with them, as they're the ones who've done the best job of looking good on paper. ‑ Iridescent 00:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, three out of five. Only three of the winning nine whom I wouldn't have expected to have won in a normal year, although I'll admit to being totally wrong about Mahensingha. ‑ Iridescent 00:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: et al.: My take on the election is that the results might well have been substantially the same in a "normal year" (i.e. with a fifth as many voters). All the speculation that the less active editor-voters would radically change the nature of the election seems in retrospect to have been wide of the mark (although it was a quite understandable concern, especially before Opabinia regalis posted her analysis). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think what made the outcome more predictable (or less unusual) than we might have thought is the fact that you get Neutral served as default and need to do something to support or oppose, resulting in many neutrals which don't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I was very surprised when I finally got around to looking at the 'most recent edit' data, because spot-checks from myself and others seemed to indicate that we really were looking at a lot of voters with little recent engagement. Shows how big the gulf can be between anecdote and data! Incidentally, last year was on the low end for neutrals as a percentage of the total; historical average is ~40%, compared to this year's 50%. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

N0n3up

Would you consider easing your 0RR rule to 1RR, for N0n3up? I don't want to see any editor getting booted off of Wikipedia, unless that editor's vandalizing, threatening or socking. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I would be against that change, although if other admins disagree and want to change it, I won't fight hard. My reasoning is:
  • Helping N0n3up: I honestly believe it will be easier to follow 0RR than 1RR. 0RR is a way of saying: never do this. 1RR is a way of saying, do this but only a little. it seems to me that the best hope of success is to take reverting completely out of his toolbag. Sort of like "I won't drink" has more likelihood of success than "Well maybe just one..."
  • Limiting further disruption: If he can't resist doing something when it is crystal clear than doing it will result in an infinite block, then he's not going to be able to edit here. If that's the case, let's get it over with, for his sake and ours.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok :) GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Choice

How old are you Lmnodogsuphomie101 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

At least 3 times as old as you, I'd wager. Possibly more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So how old — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmnodogsuphomie101 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Can We Tattle On Someone?

It looks like you were the last admin to block this guy and thought maybe a review of his recent contributions was in order. The changes made have been purely vandalism.

75.118.125.22

Thanks for your time. Briscut (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Briscut:  Done, thanks for letting me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

user confusion

I bet you mixed up DHeyward with RHaworth on the edit warring notice board. I think that is cognitively very likely. Funny the tricks the mind plays.--ℕ ℱ 07:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Aha! That is probably it. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Like it

"The block is only for 12 hours, because I'm assuming whatever you're on will wear off by then. If I'm wrong, and you keep this up tomorrow, then you'll be reblocked indefinitely." I don't think I'd have dared, but quite agree. Peridon (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear

I'm not on drugs, nothing like that. I was just having a little fun. You see, I recently got accepted into three different colleges that are very good colleges (Rutgers University, Pace University and Seton Hall University) and just decided to have a little fun on here, as I haven't edited in a while, being busy with my school studies and whatnot. I see that my fellow denizens of Wikipedia were askance with my humor and pointedly rebuffed it, so I won't be making any more attempts at facetious humor on here if the end result is my fellow Wikipedians getting stressed out. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians generally don't mind a little humor, except (a) when it looks like you're accusing another person of cheating, especially in a stressful situation like an RFA; (b) when you double down on your humor and act even more loopy when people get stressed out about (a); and (c) when it isn't obvious to at least a decent percentage of them that it's humor. Then, it's kind of indistinguishable from trolling. Anyway, sounds like congratulations are in order, and this can be put safely behind us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bzuk. Merry Christmas to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Floquenbeam as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't reverse my page move to a DAB

Admins have no more say then other editors. Your persistent efforts to frustrate my work are not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: that's a lot of cluelessness, self-importance, and hypocrisy to pack into one short message. I'd be happy to explain all the different things you're doing wrong if you change your attitude and ask for help; I imagine any one of the other experienced editors on that page would be willing to do the same. But I'm not inclined to help you when you're acting like this. Your fellow editors deserve better than what you're giving them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
So you confirm you are just being obstructionist. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dave! Hope you have a great Christmas and New Year as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Arr thanks Floquenbeam, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology for the confusion

I haven't edited since you requested other admin review and treated it as a block. I apologize for the confusion. I was indeed aware of 1RR (and disagreed that it was a violation). I was not aware, however, of the ISIL case sanctions or of that particular arbcom case (or even how it was decided that article is under that umbrella) prior to the report. Indeed, after reading it, the 1RR remedy doesn't even require warning of sanctions. The person requesting sanctions kept adding "in violation of ISIL sanctions" which seemed to imply more than what 1RR is and if that was the case, I wanted it known that I was not aware of anything beyond simple 1RR rules and punishments (the 3RR board was the second place he asked for sanctions). I wasn't gaming the system in claiming that I didn't know it was 1RR and defended the edits I made as not even being 1RR violation. I take your analysis to heart, though and your (paraphrased) perception that it was 1 revert was charitable, 3 reverts was harsh so probably fair to say more than 1 and less than 3 my understanding is the 2nd revert is a 1RR violation. I would have preferred the benefit of the doubt, calling it 1, but I understand that reasons for such things as 1RR is "benefit of doubt" is used up. I personally find that noticeboard drama to be largely time consuming and wasteful so I checked out until it was resolved one way or another and I appreciate the warning. I will try to tack away from those that seek dramaboard participation (you addressed one). I apologize if it appeared I was gaming the sanction and really only needed to know that it was a standard 1RR restriction and not some special discretionary sanction dreamed up for ISIL 1RR's. --DHeyward (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. As I mentioned, it was admittedly a little fuzzy how many reverts that was, but I think "more than one" is a reasonable interpretation, so just keep that in mind in the future. If I understand you correctly, then I apologize for the claim that you were playing games; you're saying you were aware of 1RR but thought others might have been trying to sanction you further? I'm not even entirely clear why the ISIL sanctions apply, and actually kind of think it's a bad idea that they do, but I don't have the time or energy to argue that point. Maybe that's at least something you and Liz can agree on, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
you're saying you were aware of 1RR but thought others might have been trying to sanction you further? Yes, I was aware of 1RR and there are many articles on 1RR that aren't ArbCom sanctions. That wasn't rocket science to figure out that for "reasons" that article was on 1RR. I didn't even bother trying to figure out why or when it was on 1RR and 1RR restrictions usually don't bother me since I normally don't ever purely revert (which is why it's always fuzzy - take that as good or bad but usually editors that are working towards a solution deal with "fuzzy" as incremental improvements/wordsmithing/sourcing rather than noticeboard material that a bit of a sentence or paragraph was removed or re-added). I got templated for two different noticeboards regarding violating sanctions (I was surprised one wasn't AE since they kept mentioning ArbCom decisions in the violation.) It doesn't take long to find a rather mundane discretionary sanctions that were met with very harsh AE type sanction. I didn't want to be a test case for whether a single 1RR violation could lead to an arbitrary AE enforcement action. Anyone that's been around long enough knows AE is a crapshoot at best and with AE actions favoring "first mover", I didn't want to deal with that. 1RR (or 3RR) would have, in a regular article, been a 24 hour block and a regular admin action, not AE action. The tedious edit counters/clock watchers seem to drill into counting rather than look at bigger picture of "Is this edit warring? Is this disruptive?" and more words were spilled on noticeboards than the article. --DHeyward (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Yuletide

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhoark. Hope your Christmas was Merry, and your New Year is Happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)
Hi Montanabw, thank you for the note. Hope 2016 is peaceful, happy, and prosperous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays


User:Denisarona (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Happy New Year!

Denisarona (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Denisarona, and Happy New Year to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish computer, thank you, same to you. Happy New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Winkelvi, best wishes to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support, and for being one of three to return, to my joy, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, thanks, and happy new year to you too. Looks like your turn-of-the-calendar DYK-ing is as productive as always. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Have a great new year Floquenbeam, I can't add the template here without messing up the others. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 02:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rubbish computer, I know, a lot of these templates are missing <div> tags or something. Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Floquenbeam!

Happy New Year!

Floquenbeam,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks, Davey2010, I did have an enjoyable new year's eve, so off to a promising start. Happy new year to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Me Again...

I have two questions, the first pertains to the IP address below. This user has made changes which aren't blatant vandalism but there hasn't been a single edit that I noticed that hasn't been reverted. They'll throw an 'x' into the game score(example: 28x-21), change the format of a sport team's record(example: 9/3(0) instead of 9–3) or change random times to 24 hours as opposed to the standard a.m./p.m. format.
I assumed good faith when I saw the time changes and partly for the team record's but it didn't make sense that only or two of the scores/records/times were being changed when there's over a hundred on a page.

I'll let you be the judge if you care to look: 189.202.65.105

The second question I had in my mind was whether there's there a group of admins here on Wikipedia to report vandalism to? I feel like I'm going about the process wrong.

Thanks again for your time and have a good new year.
Briscut (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Briscut
Sorry, I've been AWOL for a while. I looked at the IP's contributions, and I don't think I'd call it vandalism, but I'd agree that maybe 3/4 of the edits aren't helpful. On the other hand, it looks to me like some of them are useful. They look to be editing in good faith, I think, but edits like the ones you're pointing out, I don't get. Have you tried asking them why they're doing what they're doing on their talk page? Another option would be to ask for uninvolved sports editors (not just admins) to take a look, since I know nothing about any peculiarities in formatting of NFL articles. I'm still not active enough to try to take this on myself.
For your second question, to report vandalism to admins, go to WP:AIV. As you note above, this particular case is probably not vandalism, but that answers your question if it comes up in the future. Happy New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem Floquenbeam. Like you said, family always comes before the internet.
Thanks for the reply and answering my questions. I'll send a message, I was just hesitant since it was an IP address and they switch around from time to time.
And for clarification who are these "uninvolved sports editors"? I feel pretty dumb when I get this deep, if that's how you want to refer it to, into Wikipedia... I'm so used to just making tons of edits.
Briscut (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Briscut: I guess if it was me, I'd first ask the IP editor what he was doing, and then go to the NFL wikiproject (WT:NFL) only if that didn't yield satisfactory results. Wikiprojects are a good, underutilized place to ask for fresh eyes of editors knowledgeable in an area. Generally you should check the history of the wikiproject talk page first, to see if it's active; some wikiprojects don't actually have active editors watching the page. But I'm confident the NFL is quite active. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh, yes I will if I do something similar again absolutely add a notice about that. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Question for talk page stalkers: what is going on?

I've been catching up on my Wikipedia reading tonight. Is there a 2 minute version somewhere that explains what is actually going on with Doc James and WMF? Too many conflicting comments to parse on Jimbo's talk page; some are by people who might know something, but they're drowned out by dozens of comments by idiots who don't know anything. There are threads at WO, evidently official blog posts, unofficial blog posts, mailing lists, all of them full of so much guessing, I can't find any actual useful information buried in them. I'm lost. I just want some clue what is going on, even if it is only the best educated guess available. Like the most recent or fullest explanation (if it exists) from Doc James, and the most recent or fullest explanation (if it exists) from WMF. And the most recent or fullest explanation (if it exists) by a smart and clueful and trustworthy editor. By which I mean, someone with enough wisdom to have my talk page watchlisted.

<slightly off topic rant>

To tie this into my other Wikipedia reading tonight... While there are people on ArbCom who I do not trust, there are also people on ArbCom I do trust. While they may not even be a majority anymore, they still exist, and if things really got unethical, I would trust them to not keep silent, even if it meant their wiki "career". It would only take one, out of a half dozen people I trust, to blow the whistle. Other people probably don't trust those particular people, but I would really think that almost everyone has at least one person on ArbCom that they trust.

There are no such people on the WMF board. I either don't trust them (because most of them have been appointed and have interests that do not correspond to the interests of the community, and have demonstrated it in the past), or don't know enough about them to trust them (because although they were elected, I've never heard of them). About the only person I felt that I could trust was Doc James, and they got rid of that one person.

So when ArbCom says "we are banning this person, and aren't going to tell you why", I don't "like" it, but I understand how that can be necessary, and still believe if it was actually underhanded, then if nothing else, one of the four people I voted for this election would say something. When the WMF board says "we are dismissing this board member, and aren't going to tell you why", I have no reason to think it's not underhanded, and have their past decisions to make me think it could very easily be underhanded. Maybe that's unfair - maybe they want to explain but feel constrained, maybe I'd agree with them if I knew - but it's what happens when you have a board organized in a less transparent way than the legislature if Myanmar. Unlike a transparently elected ArbCom, there is literally no reason to trust anything the WMF says.

</slightly off topic rant>

So anyway, if someone without an axe to grind knows what's going on, a note or an email or a pointer to an actually useful post online somewhere would be great. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been doing old-fashioned admin/functionary work lateley and satying away from the drama boards, so I have no idea what it is we're talking about, but it doesn't sound good. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
here's a statement from Doc regarding what he was accused of and his rebuttal to those accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Beeb, I just found a similar/identical statement from Doc James on his talk page, that helps. I doubt the WMF has said anything beyond the information-free statement released a few days ago, I assume they're going to go silent and hope it all goes away. That just leaves an independent clueful reading-between-the-lines explanation from someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
YGM. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
There is also a post from Dariusz Jemielniak, the only other nay voter. It is... well, if you're looking for something with some meat, it's a tofu burger. But it's better than nothing. I am kind of appreciating the problem of only being able to say "well, we did it because reasons" though.... Haven't seen anything else useful, including the preview of this post. Hope that email is better. Maybe it'll get more useful when I hit save? Edit: Nope. Still clueless. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm as up to speed as I want to be. Thanks all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Peterwoodwilson

Thank you sir. But I am not doing any Spam or vandalism on the wikipedia. Kindly do not block me. I have not done anything like a spam. Sir, please I request you to allow my edits.

Thanks and Regards, --Peterwoodwilson (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't leave

I'll shut up now. My point(s) have been made. And what with the arrival of a well known troll, I'm out. Please don't self-block. CassiantoTalk 21:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Now there's a tool in the admin toolkit you didn't know was in it, did you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed not. And you're the first person I've seen to magnanimously threaten to use it. To be honest, I think that's more of a deterrent than actually blocking the person whom it concerns. CassiantoTalk 05:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I have a feeling that's the kind of thing that wouldn't work very well if I tried to use it all the time.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That depends on who it concerns. Personally speaking, I'd happily take a block/shut the fuck up, if it meant you staying here and not resorting to a self block. CassiantoTalk 18:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh. shame that ain't freely-licensed. also NSFW (language) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, stranger! So that's two ways to summon WK: ask for technical help, or threaten to block yourself. Good to know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Asking for help on an article is a good way to make him disappear. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

TP Access Revocation for User:2upremeiidiiot

It appears that this very nice gentleman could use his talk page editing rights revoked - see this :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Eventually he'll realize vandalizing his own user page makes him look impotent, and he'll go away. Just unwatchlist it. Thanks for the original report, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for looking. Fist bump. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbcase

As usual, you make a lot of sense, but until FPAS admits he's gone too far, your generosity of spirit is somewhat wasted. If the unblock was correct, the block was wrong. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah, i think the blocks were wrong, or I wouldn't have undone them. My hope is that people who FP@S respects (and Arbs) will tell him that, and he'll come to realize it, without feeling backed into a corner by threats of desysopping. I realize that's much easier for me to say, since I'm not the one who was blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised I wasn't made a party to the case. Shhhh, don't say anything.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I won't tell if you won't. I had you named, but deleted it. Who needs this kind of thing. One piece of advice going forward is that these banned IP admin warriors should use some kind of default template to let people know that they're being duped by banned editors, and provide links within the template to the evidence, rather than just rely on bad faith edit summaries, which appears to have been picked up (in reverse) by one of the Arbs. That way we'd all know what the crusaders are trying to do, with something to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your good clarification on the Power Rangers

Could I ask you to look at the "block evasion" issue which I mistakenly posted on the SoftL Talk page (it was archived there just before your own edit there) which you corrected, dealing with a user with dynamically changing accounts. It appears as an akwardly long list of user names unless it is read in context. Can you tell if it is a "block evasion" issue by that account? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm on WP today in occasional little 5 minute windows; I can't look into anything complicated. Please ask another admin for help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can you give me some general life advice?

Hello Floq, from your user page and the one edit I have seen from you, I believe that you are a good person, so I want life advice from you. Can you give any such advice to me? Zaostao (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure:
  • Stop defending a lowlife like Shkreli, it makes you look like you have no soul.
  • Stop pretending you know the guy; you don't, and the fact you think people will believe the lie makes you look like an idiot.
  • Stop asking random pseudonymous people on some random website for life advice.
  • In general, stop fucking around and wasting other people's time. They don't do that to you.
HTH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Sorry for making you look through my contributions (I seriously did not mean for you to do that, I just wanted general life advice), but Martin Shkreli is just a product of unfettered capitalism and if he didn't do what he did, someone else would have. His birth date is actually 17/3/83 also, not 1/4/83, so I was not just arguing for the sake of arguing. Anyway, I ask most people who seem reasonable such questions to understand why they continue living, I realise most people find this intrusive and invasive for a stranger to ask them, but I figure that if even one out of a hundred replies with something interesting, then it is worth it. Zaostao (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
In which case, even you recognise that you're being a disruptive time-waster 99 times out of 100. Consider this a warning that if you continue using Wikipedia as a social network you'll be indefinitely blocked; I'll post the formal warning on your talkpage in a minute. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry...

...I didnt know he was socking that recently or I would have shut it down myself. Last time I noticed him was in 2014. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No apology necessary, we can't all be expected to keep track of this guy. I just happened to remember seeing it, but I'd wager he's appealed to 6 other people since then that I just didn't see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I was beginning to think I was the insane one. --Dweller (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia; there are no sane ones. Or I should say, it's a Committee, there are no sane ones. Or I should say, it's a Wikipedia Committee, completely abandon all hope. I've been there before, I guarantee it seems like a reasonable compromise to them right now. It's sometimes hard to take a step back and do a reality check when you're on the committee, not sure why. Politically hard to take something back once you've said it in public, I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Worst Arbcom proceedings I've ever seen. Ever. I'm gobsmacked. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I get a Harumph for "institutional memory"? — Ched :  ?  23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Impact
Thank you, Floq, for your impact
in wording the sane and short sentence
"no foul, play on", as an arb!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

geeks, mops, and sociopaths

I wanted to leave this link[23] for you a while back in response to some discussion, but I didn't get around to it then. Anyway, there it is. In case there's confusion, I'm not connected with the author. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, nameless stranger. I suppose I'm definitely a mop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Nah, the different hats you've worn in Wikipedia put you well into geek territory. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

ok it was a little harsh but

who are u ppl and how do u have authority over me. i just don't understand. u are all mysterious unidentified ppl that make me angry by deleting articles about ppl who have fanbases of over 500,000 ppl, or deleting sections which i know are true bc the person i am writing about has said it themselves. but the only proof of this is a youtube video which is viewed here as a "non-reliable" source. if tHE PERSON I AM WRITING ABOUT SAID IT ABOUT HIMSELF HOW IS IT NOT TRUE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmartenslol (talk • contribs)

@Kcmartenslol: In a nutshell:
We don't get to write whatever we believe to be true, even if we're positive from first hand knowledge. We need to be able to prove what we write is true, per our policy on verifiability. sometimes that means "true" information that isn't "verifiable" gets left off the article. That's OK.
When someone reverts you, instead of getting mad, all you have to do is start a thread on the article talk page, and discuss it. If that isn't satisfactory, follow the steps outlined in our dispute resolution system. Sometimes consensus is going to go against you, and then you need to accept it and move on. Other times, consensus will go your way once you've explained things. But over the top namecalling is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative effort.
I suggest you re-add the welcome message someone left you on your talk page in 2014; it has links to some of these policies and guidelines. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request, Thanks for your help!

The Admin's Barnstar
Just sending this barnstar your way to thank you for your help with my IP unblock request. You are one of the friendliest, most helpful admins I've encountered on Wikipedia! Maestroso simplo (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Maestroso simplo, glad I could help. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sign the confidentiality agreement

Please see the noticeboard, and the confidentiality agreement. The Oversight flag can't be given to you until your name is on the noticeboard list. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Courcelles:. You don't happen to be active right now, do you? I'm (slightly) confused about this whole Phabricator thing. I need to do it that way, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I got it taken care of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I was around, but good, glad it is done. I expect the WMF will do the paperwork tomorrow and the flag can be assigned. Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Should I publicly complain the instructions were confusing, or would that needlessly worry the masses that you're about to +OS an idiot? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The instructions are as clear as a foggy morning in the Appalachians... I pretty much got the task done by trial and error. Courcelles (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If you complained, you would just join the many who feel the same way. Besides, per your logic, we're all idiots. Now I'm happy to confess that I'm an idiot, but I wouldn't want to label everyone else that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The instructions were a nightmare. I ploughed my way through for my OS hat. When they asked me to do it again for OTRS access, I just refused. I'd rather lose the access. It made absolutely no sense to have to sign the same thing twice. --Dweller (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI close of AfDs

excellent summary of the situation. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

AFC headache

I'm going to ask your opinion. Should I be restoring and taking to MFD pages like Draft:The Assasins Clan? It was deleted under G2 but I can almost guarantee that no one would have found it if I hadn't added the AFC banner tag. I feel like I'm crossing the line into WP:POINTiness with that but I want to resolve this as soon as practicable and move on to more productive things than asking MFD to re-delete pages that already weren't edited for 18 months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: In that specific case, no of course not; don't restore obvious detritus just to MFD it. But I don't know if that extrapolates to other pages you've been submitting to AFC. I'm kind of the wrong person to ask anyway, as I'm not up on AFC procedure. The reason I posted to WT:AFC was an idiot IP decided to stir the pot at AN, and I took a look. If things were like Dodger says - taking pages in an active user's userspace, moving them to the draft namespace, and then AFCing them without telling the editor - then we have a problem. But I asked for evidence that things are like he says, and didn't hear anything. It doesn't look like they are like that.
If Hasteurbot is notifying editors of deleted pages, I wouldn't go mass restoring them for MFD; seems like busywork. Obviously if someone wants it undeleted they can ask. If you've been AFC'ing pages of active editors without telling them, you should stop. I would imagine adding an AFC banner causes extra work for AFC volunteers, and an MFD wouldn't necessarily be less work, so I'd probably stop doing that going forward, but I'm less confident about that because AFC/MFD aren't really my area. And obviously I'd suggest notifying active editors if you do something to a page they've created. But recreating obvious MFD fodder by inactive editors who've been left messages about how to undelete their work if they return? No, I don't recommend that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
They were notified, I restored them anyways (it wasn't a lot) and they are now all at MFD again. No, I've been using the draftify script. Again, only for inactive users and notifies them that the page has been moved. Look in detail, you won't find me taking the work of active users, I've been here long enough to know that's insane. There's other editors who do take AFC drafts and move them to draftspace but I'd never do that. The only active user issue is Roger there who is active but added a page to draftspace years ago (without an AFC tag). That's why the page he pointed here wasn't moved by me, it wasn't my move, he put it in draftspace, I found it years later and took it to MFD. Seems like Hasteur and Roger take the position that no draftspace article should ever be deleted as long as the editor who created it is still active, akin to a userspace draft that isn't in userspace. They aren't the first to take that position and to be angry that pages they put in draftspace one, two years ago get taken to MFD and people there either ask them to take it back or have it deleted saying again if it's in draftspace, it's treated like an orphaned draft, not your draft. Hasteur's still on his demand that no draftspace page can be taken to MFD due to age, that's absurd as MFD currently has a half dozen pages taken there on that basis alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Ricky81682, there is obvious dispute over this, and I think it will take a general RfC to decide it. As you know from my comments, I have considerable sympathy with your position, but it would be a good idea in the meantime not to do controversial disputed actions. But please don't overload MfD either--this is not really one of our most urgent quality control problems. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll take that into consideration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I hadn't even checked their earlier edits [24]. Very much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And I hadn't realized that all that vandalism was just from today. So thank you too, and to Alex for protecting the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion to return Oversight privileges to Floquenbeam

A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amortias, I've commented there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, your account is marked as semi-retired. While not explicitly forbidden by the CUOS requirements by the activity requirements, is not recommended. I don't think there would be any issue with the related redlinked category, however. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, jumping ahead on the waiting period: Congratulations on becoming a functionary! (That must, surely, be a rare sentence, right along with "I love paperwork, it's so relaxing!" and "I think I'm going to sit and watch this paint dry." But really, thanks for volunteering.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, welcome back/thanks. Be good to have your voice on the mailing list again too. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Everybody's saying nice things there, maybe I should have requested God Emperorship? I assume all the "anti" comments went to the mailing list... Cheers all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that I opposed something there .. but meh - congrats. — Ched :  ?  16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Curses, how did you figure out the first step in my plans for total site domination and control? And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for you rotten kids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a rotten fish. Phew! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Julia Kronlid

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that I have to share credit with other editors on this; with all the effort I put into this, I've come to think of it as "my" article. Now, where's my invitation to the content creators' cabal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just oversight them out of existence. Or threaten to block yourself. BTW, need Girl Scout Cookies? I'm also selling cheese. Just ask LadyofShalott. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'll gladly give anyone who wants it my niece's GS cookie link! LadyofShalott 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't you dare cutting in on my action. Remember, I'm on ArbCom. I can disappear you whenever I like. Psst...they have different flavors in Georgia...shall we meet up for some illegal exchanges? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No cookie orders from me. Our office is large enough that there are easily half a dozen parents (possibly a dozen some years) all leaving their daughters' order forms out in the lunch room. I did an informal study a couple of years ago, and discovered (as I suppose one would expect) that the higher up the corporate totem pole the parent is, the more people order cookies from that kid's sheet. So in an act of rebellion, I always order a few boxes from the 3 kids who have the fewest orders on their sheets. Fight the power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

PP

Thanks very much for that. I really appreciate the help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's late and so I got confused by the typo in Tb's fix, but I think it's all sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

I allowed my frustration with that editor's continual attacks on the Crats to morph into a bit of sarcasm at the cratchat talkpage. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

?

Why did you revert this Krett12 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going through your talk page history, and your recent edit history, to see whether the many mistakes you are making is going to require an indefinite block on your account. That was one of your mistakes. Expect to see more reverts of your edits in the next few minutes. Then I'll decide whether to block or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but you didn't answer the question, what about this one as well ? Krett12 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The first, because it was not a false positive, Cluebot correctly caught some silliness, and you reverted Cluebot to put it back. The second, because you're warning an IP address for having a misleading account name. Neither make any sense. This is in addition to all the other things you've been warned about on your talk page today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I was warning an ACCOUNT for having an IP address name. I saw the user creation log in recent changes. Krett12 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You just said it was your IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
An account CALLED my IP. Krett12 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That is an IP address, not an account. You claim that you saw it in the user creation log, but you also claim it is your IP. One of those two statements is incorrect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw it in RC. and I just made an edit with it. Krett12 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You saw an IP address in the user creation log? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Not just AN IP address, Floquenbeam....HIS OWN IP address. What are the odds?! YOu know, I just assumed you were incompetent, Krett12, now I'm thinking you're a troll. only (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

AE

Thanks for the fix. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Done it myself many times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have mail

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

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bans

Thanks for the input; it especially helps to have you responding to Drmies. He's uncomfortable participating in the other request ("Gaming at MOS"), so any input you have there would also help. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, wasn't there a topic ban from "winningest" for all 5 of them as well? I haven't looked for the closing summary in the archives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Diff, which includes All five are topic-banned from "winningest". Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for forwarding the emails. I don't know what caused the misunderstanding, but he indeed has been copying me. The reason the copyvio situation arose now is that I had forgotten to check my email: Dennis emailed me several days ago about this situation, but I unintentionally ignored him because I didn't notice that he'd sent anything. Upon this whole situation blowing up today, he recontacted me to ask if I could address the situation from several days ago. Of course, this meant that I had to deal with that situation and today's at the same time. Compounding the issue was some weird technical problem: we went through several cycles of him emailing me, me saying that I hadn't gotten anything, and him re-sending, until suddenly they all arrived together. Meanwhile, in the stuff he's sent today, the only reference to "winningest" that I remember was a single statement essentially saying "I've dropped the issue completely; they can fight it out if they want, but I'll obey the ban". Very different from the other side! Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, I responded.

Hello, Floquenbeam. You have new messages at Chesnaught555's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ches (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've replied, and I'll apologize here too. I confused you with someone else, you didn't deserve the lecture or the tone, and I appreciate the gracious way you responded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely fine, sir. It was an easy mistake to make. I will always be civil, and I am glad that you can see that. Ches (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking of you all day

Well, you said it. Kinda nice to get it right, isn't it? Risker (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

woot --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You (the royal you) finally did it. Congrats! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi's block

I have put forward an unblock proposal for you at User talk:Winkelvi#January 2016 2. Have a read and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi? The one who left almost nothing on Hana Blažíková, and now others - like me - have to bring it back? That soprano is so wonderful that we tried to get her, she was even willing, just the date didn't fit. - The content cabal is here, btw. Nice infobox on "your" DYK, Floq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I brought her back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
{{tiny in-line barnstar}} Bravo! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Very elegant use of the curlies, thank you ;) - When she couldn't make it Eibenová came, DYK? I took the picture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
ps: making an infobox disappear works like this, and once you did that, make a fuss on the talk as if you were threatened. I am thinking about a reply, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the solution is, Gerda, that's why I'm such a firm believer in not worrying about infoboxes. I sometimes see that same group comment in rapid succession to agree on removing an infobox after one of them comments. I sometimes see a core group of people in favor of infoboxes all comment in rapid succession to agree on having an infobox after one of them comments. If people are going to follow each others' contribs (and everyone does), and if everyone's opinion is so firmly in place that no one will ever, ever change their mind from article to article, and if everyone thinks this is critically important, and as long as the two sides are (roughly) evenly matched, and if decisions are going to remain article-specific, then it's going to end up being Team A vs. Team B. In theory, you would comment there, and they would comment, and some uninvolved person would come along in a while to evaluate the points raised and close the discussion based on consensus. In practice, it's all about who has the better ground game (link to dab page intentional; you can pick what you think I mean). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The rules of the game are different, as far as I see. They are: whoever improves the quality of an article can dump what others created. Is that a good rule? That is the question? How about the readers? Only today, Dank made a link to Madagascar, saying that not all our readers know what it is. The same, the writers of the article about that TV star probably know it's a TV star just by the image. We others - I at least - would like to see at a glance when he was born where, died when and where, and why he is notable. Models for that are around, just look at Percy Grainger ((FA) and Beethoven (community consensus). I would like to have that date of birth in some templated form to be useful in comparisons, translations and calculations, not in prose. Did you know what I found in the Italian Wikipedia? They have a template "bio" with these things, which translates not to a box, but a lead sentence. No redundance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes? Nooooooooooooooo! (but thanks re: Madagascar) - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: tell me the difference in a link to Madagascar and the info that Mr. Grainger and Mr. Beethoven are composers, and when and where they lived (something that Persondata used to supply but doesn't now). To me, both try to help someone who wants to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean "no inboboxes", I mean "no I'd rather not talk about infoboxes" ... at least not at the moment, I'm busy with a project of cataloging and sorting copyediting edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about my misunderstanding. Do you think some others also might mean only "not talk about them" when they scream nooo? - I am looking for a new name because the old one is so loaded. How is pdbox? persondatabox? ideas welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
They insist on "infobox", they love to hate it, it seems. I decorated my talk accordingly. Archived heartache, makes too vulnerable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call

[25]. I hope you won some money... MastCell Talk 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I won the princely sum of $20 on this game (straight win/lose bet, I didn't even get any points, but it was my only friend willing to bet on the game at all), but I never got around to betting on them to win the Superbowl before the season started, so I missed out on the big money. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WLVA

I would, just for the sake of curiousity, like to know what I should have done with the references on the page that don't match up with the links given for them. I have asked three admins (you are three) and posted on the article talk page, but I haven't received any answer on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@NeutralHomer:, you should have had the discussion you are having now on the talk page, before you reverted any more. Not after you got to 4 reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant @Neutralhomer: of course. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning at AN/EW

I'm not commenting at AN/EW since the discussion is closed and I didn't want to reopen it, but as the reporting editor I just wanted to say I agree entirely with your closing actions/logic; I think the warning is definitely more appropriate than a block given the circumstances. Thank you for taking the time to look through it all.

FWIW, and to an extent echoing the comments above, if (having now reviewed all the back-and-forth) you think I could have handled any of this better in any way, that's feedback I'd be very interested to hear. Obviously no obligation etc etc.

—me_and 22:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me and: I suppose optimally you could have waited until NH finally understood what was going on before your second revert. There's no obligation to follow WP:1RR, but it sometimes saves heartache. But I don't really have a big issue with your second revert, just a tiny one with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of line?

Regarding this: was I out of line at the AN3 noticeboard? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why you stick your nose into things that have nothing to do with you, except that someone you despise is involved. You talk about them having a battleground mentality, but your behavior is classic battleground mentality too. And no, this is not an invitation for you to tell me in great detail how their battleground mentality is worse than your battleground mentality. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"this is not an invitation for you to tell me in great detail how their battleground mentality is worse than your battleground mentality." I would not have considered doing that, regardless of the circumstances. As far as despising LP: I don't despise him. I don't despise Wikipedia editors, any of them. Behavior is another matter and it's certainly possible to be completely against despicable behavior but not the person committing the behavior. Despising another is not my personality. In regard to the "battleground mentality" statement you made above about my own behavior, I guess I never would have considered it as such until you just pointed it out. I appreciate being straightened out on that. Seriously. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: While, at times, it may seem like my actions are intentionally disruptive, I swear to you that's never the case. I don't have hidden agendas or malintent. I may be slow to learn some things here, I may make the wrong choices at times, but my intentions are never to do harm (even if what I have chosen to do does cause harm). Indeed, what you will usually see is me trying to do the right thing or assist in righting a wrong or pointing out something that's wrong. My point is that if I have behaved like an ass or made another editor's life here more difficult, that is never the original intent, rather my intent was to be helpful. Having bad choices pointed out to me (as you did above) is only helpful and assists me in learning from my mistakes. As I said, it's appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My 3rr report

Are we defining 3rr differently or have I missed something? Each edit I provided showing the editor deleting material, eg [26]. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Like everything else in the world, the "simple" idea of what a revert really means isn't as simple as one would think. I'm using the definition at Wikipedia:Reverting#What is a reversion?; most of their edits were massively rephrasing different parts of the article; a revert is more going back to the same version of an article (or part of an article). Just "deleting material", when you're adding new material each time but not primarily going back to a previous version, isn't really reverting. I suppose you could say they were partially reverting one sentence in one paragraph of the lead every time, but everything else about their edits wasn't a revert, it seemed to me to be a stretch to focus on that one sentence. That's my interpretation, anyway. You can probably find a dozen others out there.
As I hope I made clear in the closing and in the message on their talk page, that does not mean they're not being disruptive. Massive POV-laden changes, continuing without any discussion or response, is not OK. Some would probably say an edit summary of "I took out the lies and added the TRUTH" would be prima facie grounds for an immediate indef block. If it happens again a block for disruptive editing would certainly be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. That whole section makes my head ache. Does a partial reversion count for 3RR? Does the section really represent what the community thinks? That's an essay and I think statements such as " this is not the way the community interprets reversion" don't belong in essays, but of course that's just my opinion. But WP:3RR says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." And I thought that that was what the editor was doing. Oh, I did see your talk page comment, but have to disagree about the statement they weren't reverting. How is not a revert? Doug Weller talk 15:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
But then every single edit that is not a pure addition of new material is a "revert". That can't be right... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So an editor could go through an article, making major changes, without doing any reverting. But others who changed back would obviously be reverting. I guess I can see that argument but the first editor would still be reversing, at least "in part", the actions of other editors. But then as you say there are other solutions. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
And it gives a disruptive/pov editor a major advantage, as editors who don't think the edits are appropriate would be unequivocally reverting, and on pages where there are few watchers... Doug Weller talk 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear colleagues, consider blocking for edit warring, not for 3rr. The behavioral argument can be more difficult to make than the simple math of counting Rs, but has its advantages--like, one can block for what is real disruption. Note also that what we typically call the 3R board actually has a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and edit warring also includes the overriding of others' edits, which is I think what you boys were talking about. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
And it does say "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." But excludes even egregious pov pushing. However, although that was clearly happening, it was happening in a disruptive manner, so a block would have been appropriate although not required, and as it is, the editor has stopped. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I need admin assistance to get user winkelvi to stop harassing and hounding me

Hello Floq,

I looked up your name as the last admin to have blocked winkelvi. I only started here less than one month ago.

Please see these three diffs for and explanation of winkelvis detailed campaign of harassment and hounding toward me.

She seems to be really upset about the failing of the GA nom for Billy the Kid. Her harassment campaign has increased since then. Now she has filled a bogus SPI and included me in it. Just for everyones information I have edited before at another site for children's articles that uses this same wiki software. This is just the next step in her campaign of harassment and hounding against me. Please see the harassment and hounding that winkelvi by starting with these three diffs. [27] [28][29] I have asked her repeatedly to leave me alone and to stop her harassment of me. Thanks. Something should be done to stop all winkelvi's disruption to Wikipedia. Please look it over and see if you might help assess the situation and get winkelvi to stop harassing me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilllyjo (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the SPI winkelvi filed against another user but she put an accusation against me as well. [30] Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jilllyjo (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jilllyjo: I see Sarah and Ritchie are already involved. I trust them (along with the admins and checkusers who review the SPI) to sort this out, and do not have the time or inclination to wade into this myself. A couple of notes, though:
  • I am not WV's supervisor. I am not the person to come to every time you want WV to get in trouble.
  • I'm probably not the person for either "side" to come to right now, because my instinctive reaction (which I am not acting on, but you should know is there) is to indef block about 8-10 editors, 3-5 on each side, for violating WP:Not caring at all about wasting other people's time, because fighting is so much FUN.
  • I'm not going to review the SPI in depth, but on the surface it doesn't seem outlandish. Filing a non-outlandish SPI isn't harassment.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Synthwave 94

Could you please tell him to stop removing every edit I make to an article? He removes reliable sources from articles just because i added them. I'm fed up with Synthwave. Caden cool 03:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked both of you for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

mkultra

You shouldn't have done that. Everyone would've been better off if we just let the incident fade into memory rather than appease the editor acting like a screaming child.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, things seem to have simmered down now, and it took nearly zero effort to write the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Reward for the cutting of a Gordian knot
Thank you for this edit. Remember that bacon heals all wounds. And while I have your ear, kindly remind Kelapstick that it's been nine years. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, where does the time go? --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done

That was all that was needed, and admonition duly accepted, even though as a grammarian I refuse to accept that inverted commas must everywhere be taken as 'scare quotes'. Perhaps today readers think that way. People raised on the old system of English grammar and parsing don't think that way. Still, your judgment was fair to all concerned parties. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-block

Hi

I wanted to have myself blocked until August 31, 2016 since I felt my edits are being too boring and I wanted to relax from the English Wikipedia. 135.23.144.92 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If your only edits are from this IP address, then I doubt you've become addicted enough in the last 48 hours to need a block. If you have other edits from other IP adresses, then a block of this IP address doesn't really achieve anything, does it? We generally don't block IP addresses for that long, as they tend to recycle, or be used by more than one person, etc. Instead, please just enjoy your break, and perhaps we'll see you in September. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI protection

Thanks for throwing the protection on there. I've gone ahead and rangeblocked. --Kinu t/c 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, per your edit summary, this might be useful in the future. I never bothered figuring out how to figure out ranges manually, but who needs to when you have the technology? :) --Kinu t/c 22:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I know, I know, Bish tries to tell me it's easy and I should join the 21st century, but I'm scared to try it. I'd end up blocking all of Leeds or something... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It's dead easy! All I do is ask my programmer son. It's why we have kids, innit? And of course I ask RexxS. It's very comfortable to not need any personal skills. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Thank you

For doing the right thing regarding Jilllyjo. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Hard to believe they thought that gambit would work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I second the thanks. Hopefully that's the last we'll be hearing of this nonsense. Best, --Ches (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hallward's Ghost, someone definitely needs to make that! --Ches (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Racial equality (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racial equality (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial equality (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ibadibam (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding warnings on User talk:2607:FB90:2700:E2D0:0:2A:A39C:C101

I was, and am, paying attention to the warnings I place. The user was reverting multiple editors, hence the warnings. Please be courteous (admin or not) about removing others talk page comments on another users talk page - WP:UP#OWN. Garchy (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You were not paying attention (or, were ignoring his explanation because it was coming from an IP and all IP's must be wrong). Don't ask me to be courteous when you were rude to another editor 5 minutes previously. By the way, WP:UP#OWN has nothing to do with anything here; did you mean to link something else, or did you misread the page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I was asking you not to edit or refactor others talk page comments on a talk page that is not your own. If the IP user wants to remove the warnings (as they did) they can, and it will not be reverted back. Do you think your comment [[31]] is very smart, accusing me of edit warring for reverting back an edit you had no place reverting in the first place? This doesn't seem to be proper procedure for an admin - would you consider WP:RECALL? I see that it's a voluntary category you've added. Garchy (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I realize that you believe admins should always back registered users over IP editors, so I can understand your shock that I'm still an admin. I'm a little shocked sometimes myself. The process is laid out right here: User:Floquenbeam/Recall. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
If editors filed a recall request every time they disagreed with an administrator, we'd have no administrators. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The point is being missed entirely. Don't mess with another user's talk page comments if you didn't place them there. I also take exception to you implying I was edit warring. I reverted two edits - one edit from the IP user (after they reverted 4 other edits from multiple editors) and I also reverted you blanking my talk page comment on the IP users page. I don't think that's fair or befitting behavior, whether it's an IP user or not. Garchy (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You reverted an editor for no reason, and then lectured them about it, and still as of this writing haven't apologized. Focusing on my use of the term "edit war" seems tone deaf; so does complaining that you have a right to have your inappropriate warnings stay in place, as if that's the most important aspect of all this. It shows warped priorities. I see you've acknowledged on another page that you now understand you were wrong about your reason for reverting, so I'll stop trying to educate you further, and will instead hope that I don't encounter you again. This desire to jump on the "revert the IP" bandwagon when you see others reverting, without understanding the underlying situation, is too depressing, whether technically "edit warring" or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I reverted an editor for reverting multiple other editors - in the future I would hope you would caution a user against multiple reverts, whether you think they were in the right or not. The part you don't seem to understand here is that the IP editor should have let it be after being reverted by two other editors, and should not have engaged in a revert war regardless. That was my note to them (and you obviously didn't read my extra note at the bottom), but I was certainly justified to warn ANY user against multiple reverts of the same edit. Don't mistake my humility in certain situations (different cases) as having anything to do with things here - I could easily say based on your recent edits that you seem to have an issue acknowledging when YOU may be in the wrong or treating others unfairly. In your haste to defend the IP editor you seem to have failed to take a full view at this situation. And for the future - if I see ANY editor, IP, admin, or regular, reverting multiple edits (in violation of simple Wikipedia guidelines), I will certainly say and do something, and encourage others to do the same. I'll let this go now since I guarantee a majority of users who look at this situation would empathize with my actions over yours. In short, don't accuse others of edit warring unless you can actually PROVE something and don't refactor or remove others talk page comments that are not on your own page. Garchy (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Garchy, this isn't one sided on Floq's part. You say "I reverted an editor for reverting multiple other editors" and that's just...wrong. I thought by leaving the message on your talk page explaining that your interpretation of the stale removal process at AIV was incorrect that you would understand why Floq removed the unnecessary warning on the IP talk page (and maybe apologize to the IP for the mistake as Lectonar kindly did). Instead you appear to have doubled-down on your stubborn stance that you were correct to revert without bothering to take the time to actually look at what the IP was saying. That you state "I'll let this go now" is more a favour to yourself than to Floquenbeam, I don't think you'd want to put a spotlight on your actions in this case. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I was incorrect about the procedure, yes. My issue was with being accused of edit warring when I was simply doing something that at the time appeared to be correct (I read what every user said and still believed at the time the IP user was incorrect) - funny how the fact that I was simply trying to help has been overshadowed by the fact that I must be some kind of evil, IP hate-mongering user (not true). I do need to let this go, I realize that - but I simply want it to be known specifically why I'm offended here - something that has been ignored. Garchy (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Money (That's What I Want) topic ban

Can you tell me why you lifted the "Money (That's What I Want)" topic ban for User:Synthwave who's now free to edit as seen here [32] and here [33] but you never bothered to lift the topic ban for me? Why is he free to edit and I'm not? Explain to me Flo because I am not happy at all with the way you have handled this. Caden cool 22:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: You are not happy at all with the way you imagine I've handled this, you mean? I didn't lift the topic ban for him and not for you, that's an odd thing to assume, and an easy thing to check before making the accusation. He shouldn't have edited the article, I've reverted that. I'll remind him that even uncontroversial edits are banned. I assumed this was, indeed, uncontroversial, and took responsibility for it myself; no need to punish the article for editor misbehavior. If I misunderstood and you disagree with the content of that edit, you're both still welcome on the article talk page.
That said, do you think you and he can be trusted not to disrupt the article if I remove the topic ban from both of you? I know you can't speak for him, I'm asking about you. If I don't get both of you to agree, I'll keep it in force for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
"Money" is on my watchlist so when it showed he edited it twice I figured you lifted his ban but not mine. Perhaps I should of looked into it further before I wrote you. In regards to your question, yes I can be trusted but he certainly can't be. Based on his history he has some very serious ownership issues not only on "Money" but also on "Heart of Glass" and "Ring My Bell" which never has been addressed by you. Due to this the topic ban must be kept until he resolves his ownership issues. Caden cool 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
To avoid this snark is why I asked only about you, and not him. But anyway, I'm posting the following on both your talk pages and the article talk page:

Money (That's What I Want)

This post is cross posted to both of your talk pages, my talk page, and to the article talk page.

I'm trying to figure out a way to (a) not have to personally monitor this article 24/7; (b) allow two editors who have 11 years and 47,000 edits between them - and who should thus both know better - to edit this article collaboratively; and (c) not have to write 6 paragraphs of instructions. I've come up with this:

The article topic ban is rescinded for both of you. However, you are both limited to strict WP:BRD; if either one of you changes any portion of the article from the way it is at the time of this post (22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)), and anyone (including the other editor, but also anyone else) reverts you, then you may not edit this portion of the article further, and must instead discuss the issue on the talk page. Hopefully other editors will join in, and an uninvolved editor (not one of you two) will implement consensus. This "enforced BRD" will last for 1 month from right now. If problems develop again between you two, on this article or any other article, then I anticipate going to ANI and get one or both of you sanctioned more severely, including one or more of: expanding this "enforced BRD" to include the entire encyclopedia; topic bans; interaction bans; or blocking. If you actually want an ANI thread because you think you'll be vindicated and your enemy will be cast down, I advise you to rethink; I strongly suspect both of you would get sanctioned equally. This is not a case where one of you is right and the other is wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of line

On Feb 28, you made this edit to my talkpage. That is a threat with abusing admin powers. I note that you did not engage in the [34]] to argue any point. I propose you withdraw that out of line threat in wording (I already removed it from my page). -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I stand by that statement completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
You can stand by your thing yourself, but that does not make it correct. Also, and not irrelevant, you did not respond to the 'admin' part I mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing to respond to, unless you mean I need to say "No, it was not an abuse (or threat of abuse) of admin powers". It was fair warning that if you continued to violate policy, you would be blocked. There was no need for me to participate at ANI. That note was very kind of me, I think, since many other admins would have just blocked you without the final warning. But I'm a much more wonderful person than those other, meaner admins. You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Trolling is a specific form of PA and disruption. Pointing that out is not against policy. (Check this: what if it is trolling?) Next, "many other admins would have just blocked you" - no, if you had read the ANI thread. And this group of admins you seem to know and want to join (with "I'm nicer" - another showing of self-aggrandising lack of self-criticism and independent judgement, while invoking the admin bit), that group again shows the issue on a bigger scale: once endorsed with an admin rights, rarely if ever a serious reasoning happens at ANI. Just a bunch of pavlovian single-minded blockers. Incompetent in reasoning and solving things, gut-judging. This is the trap of ANI: that set of admins you mention & join are incidental, they can do adminally whatever they like unchecked by fellow admins. Your individual action says qed. -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Yes, I have to admit that it was stupid of me. But anyway, will do my best to add as many tags as possible and to future articles as well of course. Do you have any other suggestions or helpful tips when it comes to doing articles that are at least at times translations? If you have any personal experience from that. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I'm sorry, I saw this when you posted it and figured I'd reply later, then forgot and never replied later. The only real "tip" I have is what I said on your talk page: attribution is much cleaner if the edit summary of the edit when you create the page is something like "copied and translated from Swedish Wikipedia article sv:Jane Doe". Or if not really copied, but based on the Swedish article, still give them a shout out with something like "based on information in Swedish Wikipedia article sv:Jane Doe". That link is all that's really needed to give Swedish editors credit for their work. I saw you'd added a bunch of tags to article talk pages, thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I will continue to add tags as time goes by if I find more articles that need it :) Thank you for the reply. And I agree with you fully! Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AWB rights. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Commented there a while ago, forgot to add this note for posterity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Bach

- his birthday, DYK? (Old calendar, but still.) Music for you. Same image on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

People born before the switch are lucky, they get 2 birthdays. Thanks for the music, and congrats on another GA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominated three more GAs since, - my name, you know ;) - planning two more before Easter, for this section. Final touch: adding the Alakzi colours. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.

Per [35] I wonder if it might also be a good thing to do to full-protect that user page as well? Just wondering. Your call. Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean their user talk page? They're already blocked with no email and no talk page access, and there's no history of IP's posting there, so unless something changes I think it's fine as is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. Montanabw(talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ani notification

As you're obviously way too active [36] to be considered "semi-around," I've opened a pointless drama thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Floquenbeam misuse of semi-around banner. NE Ent 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep your nose out of my business, you pest! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nyah nyah

You forgot something... that's like the third time I've invited someone to block me and nobody has! Okay, so I don't actually have time right now to write an article on my talk page or anywhere else, but that's beside the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I keep inviting people to desysop/recall me, and nobody ever does. Perhaps if I block you for no reason, and someone reports me to ArbCom for it, we'll both get our wish? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It's weird, it's almost as if people don't get around to this stuff because they're busy writing an encyclopedia or something.... nah, that can't be it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can't join 'em, ...

... beat 'em (or say "Nyah, nyah, nyah" at them). Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up after the other user!, Maybe I'm being a grumpy sod but after seeing the same shit get done year upon year it begins to get boring and rather tiresome!, Ah well thanks for cleaning up anyway, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a borderline grumpy old sod; I don't find much of it amusing anymore, but I'm willing to look the other way much of the time. Except when it's just so stupid and pointless and makework for other people. I mean, put some thought into it, show some style, avoid actually harming things; anyone can punch 6 pages into Twinkle. In his defense, I assume he's like 10. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair I guess that's the bestest thing to do... Just ignore it and count the hours until the 2nd , Well I won't be at all surprised if we see worse than Danny and won't be surprised if someone ends up blocked .... Shame we can't ban the "event" .... Could ban Christmas whilst we're at it , Ah well Good Luck you'll probably need it lol, –Davey2010Talk 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Butterfingers

Thanks for catching that. For some reason I didn't think the merge request would not post a notice in the target article. - MrX 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspected it was something like that; I know you know your way around BLP really well. No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
(and he *is* a Short Fingered Vulgarian.) At least I can enforce BLP on that page 1000% certain that I'm not just protecting my favorite candidate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Make Wikipedia Great Again!™ ...and Vote for Pedro.- MrX 18:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AN notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerking compensation

The clerk's barnstar: more paperwork
What, you thought the compensation for good clerking would be anything else? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, OR. Please put the new folders in my inbox here. FIFO, I'll get to them when I can. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's weird. How'd you get a screenshot of my inbox? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guinea pig

Hi Floq, Sorry I was completely busy, Anyway I wouldn't of minded being your guinea pig ... infact I don't see much point to the new "rights" so had you removed it I probably wouldn't of bothered asking for it back anyway!, Ah well thanks for asking anyway I guess :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I found another sucker volunteer. I figured you wouldn't mind, but needed to ask someone actively editing, to see if it would be automatically re-granted by the software. Thanks anyway. -Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I have the new user right. What does it actually mean? I was confused this morning. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chesnaught555: You've probably run into an explanation by now, but it's a way to enforce the ArbCom 500/30 rule by protecting pages so only those with 500 edits/ 30 days experience can edit them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights, and probably a half dozen other threads sprinkled randomly around the site. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the Gamergate article has a blue padlock on it now. Something about discretionary sanctions. Thanks for explaining! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, also. Glad to hear you've sorted that out - I've been meaning to join Procrastinators Anonymous myself for several years. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still pretty much doomed IRL for another 2 weeks, but at least I can breath now, and at least I'm allowed to go home and eat dinner with the family, and at least I can now whack a vandal or something occasionally to unwind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. The vandalism levels are pretty intense today, if you're interested. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Xboxmanwar

You may wish to take Magnolia's suggestion and block him for 3-12 hours. He blanked the talk page at Carnage (DJ). That being said, Magnolia may have been a bit reactive too. I don't see a downright bad nom, but a couple were marginal. Getting a handful of articles AfDd all at once might piss me off too. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see a point in blocking, since he seemed to have stopped removing the tags at the time, and, as you say, I can understand he was probably pissed off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
He did stop. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please

I guess I will look over the next couple of weeks at who is in which clan, draw up a list, and start an ArbCom case in which I try to get +/-10 people site banned. Including @Winkelvi:, @MaranoFan:, and @Legacypac: (I'm pinging you so you have a heads up, not because I want any of you to continue to squabble here); I'm not sure who else yet. I mentioned a "ceasefire" at the ANI thread, but I've thought about it, and I have better things to do with my time than babysit. I would spend all my time fielding complaints from people that they'd been subtly insulted by someone from the other clan. In the mean time, I see no point to allowing this page to become, as Drmies says, ANI 3.0. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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

explain to me how you came to fathom your edit summary? I don't have a feud with anyone, for the record. And I often redirect articles that FAIL WP:NSONGS. I do hope that I see you leave a comment on MaranoFan's user talk about the glaring WP:OWN issue.  — Calvin999 19:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me you do; you've participated in several Winkelvi/MaranoFan/Legacypac threads, always taking one side. If I read the community correctly, we have had more than enough of all of you. You redirected; he disagreed. You don't get to bulldoze your way through. Come to a consensus on the talk page. Undoing a redirect is not an WP:OWN issue. There are plenty of people editing that article and MaranoFan does not appear to be preventing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I know me, and I don't with anyone. Many times I tried to help and even last week offered advice to the editor. I don't have to be engaged in a feud to take a side, and I am entitled to my opinion on a situation. "If I read the community correctly, we have had more than enough of all of you." - I've never even heard of you or spoken to you before, and I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone. That in itself makes you look bad. I redirected because I followed the GUIDELINES of Wikipedia, on which we all edit, and did so on the basis that it completely and utterly fails WP:NSONGS which is written in black and white. You reverting is a violation of the NSONG guideline. By MaranoFan disagreeing, that means she is ignoring the very policies that we are all supposed to be adhering by. You're apparently an admin, so you should know that. Undoing a redirect is not an OWN issue, you're right, but the edit summary, was. No one is editing the article presently, and I am the only person who has been prevented. I even removed an unsourced genre from the info box last week, and MaranoFan added a different unsourced genre straight after to spite me. Do you think that is okay? To re-add unsourced content? You're accusing me of picking a side, but your refusal to caution her on the comment forbidding me to edit any article she has worked on (we are all free to edit which ever article we like) when she has made countless un-constructive (and unfounded) edits to many articles I have worked on, you have quite clearly picked your side.  — Calvin999 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • OMG Floq, is this ANI 3.0? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You won't believe what happened next [37]. Calidum ¤ 20:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't do that and deletion wasn't my intention. Floquenbeam actually suggested AfD Calidum, owing to the impartially presented on our guidelines for WP:NSONGS in the edit summary.  — Calvin999 21:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • So just that we have this clear: Winkelvi said on ANI that he wouldn't involve himself in disputes with MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? To quote him from the ANI: "I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action." Yeah, I really think "involuntary" restrictions are needed. only (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      • "MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? " - No one owns the article, you are condoning WP:OWN. And clearly people don't respect the guidelines set in place or taken notice of them at WP:NSONGS like they should, which is being demonstrated. The article fails the guidelines completely, it has nothing to do with MaranoFan. Lots of articles are redirected or nominated for deletion everyday. I'm shocked at the tunnel vision.  — Calvin999 21:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • So just that we have this clear: Winkelvi said on ANI that he wouldn't involve himself in disputes with MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? To quote him from the ANI: "I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action." Yeah, I really think "involuntary" restrictions are needed. only (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Per my comment at ANI, I'd lean not just towards involuntary action, but sending the entire group on an involuntary vacation; perhaps Wikia may appreciate their unusual approach better than we do. For those viewers just joining us, this is an argument about the notability of Meghan Trainor's promotional singles, not the authenticity of quantum mysticism or the legal status of Ariel. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Exactly, and it fails the guidelines that have been put in place for us all to adhere by. Anyone else/any other article and it would just be redirected for failing the guidelines no problem. But because it's MaranoFan who, as per Only above, "owns" the article, special treatment is being given. In fact, it's not even special. It's unfair treatment. The article violates every aspect of WP:NSONGS.  — Calvin999 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

− Excuse me, but it's not any editor's article, it's a Wikipedia article that appears to not yet be ready for primetime. The AfD says clearly: delete or redirect, the reasons are sound. Was I wrong to start the AfD? It's a viable, relevant article that should stay as is? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's MaranoFan's article in the sense that she created it. Regardless of my phrasing, your action is complete inappropriate. If you're taking a "voluntary truce" you need to actually step away and NOT involve yourself in disputes involving MaranoFan. How is nominating this article for deletion staying away from MaranoFan at all? If it's a bad article, it'll be acted upon eventually. YOU should not be the one to act upon it. only (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No it's not. No one owns any article. We all do this for free. Creating an article doesn't mean you get to decide what happens. It does not permit you exercise any action you want, or to tell others not to edit it. Both examples are OWN through and through. Wikipedia is a collaborative force, remember.  — Calvin999 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My god. Again, my phrasing is just saying that MaranoFan created it. I imply no ownership. Only that if you're being told to stay away from another user, you shoudl NOT be nominating articles that person creates for deletion! only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
What has creating it got to do with anything? It's a flawed concept. The creator doesn't exert any more influence, power, control, however you wish to dress it up, than the next person who edits it. MaranoFan has no right to tell me or any other Wiki editor not to edit any article, regardless of whether or not she created it. Wiki is a joint force. And I didn't nominate it for deletion by the way, but anyone can with valid reason. Again, Floquenbeam suggested it. There really is no case here on your part. Back the policy, not the person.  — Calvin999 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, but I call complete b.s. on your reasoning. Especially since Floquenbeam suggested an AfD. There were no stipulations. But why should there be? No article belongs to any one editor. "Eventually"? Good lord. Yes, let's just let Wikipedia suck even more by allowing shit articles that are policy vios to remain in place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome to call B.S. on my reasoning. But, just as there was not "stipulations" on floquenbeam's AFD comment, there are not "exceptions" to your voluntary truce. There isn't a "I'm not going to interact with Maranofan....unless she makes an article that is 'shit'" exception. only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You have explanations for calling the article MF's article, and I have an explanation for nominating the article for AfD after saying "truce": nominating an article for AfD should never be seen as a personal attack on anyone, hence, there's no truce being violated by doing so, and nominating an article for deletion isn't interaction with the article creator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ £
You clearly don't get it. And I have more important things to do than explain this to you. I'll let others do it. It's hysterical that you think that nominating an article that someone created isn't interacting with them. only (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, it seems you are the one who truly doesn't get it. Any of it. Further, it appears MF has once again put themselves on a script enforced break, so no interaction is likely or even possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not interaction, Only. There's no dialogue between X, Y or Z, and AfD when done correctly is always above the editors. It's about the article and Wikipedia. AfD is something than shouldn't ever be taken personally, but some do take it personally. Basically, if MF had followed the guidelines, or at least read them for the first time, at WP:NSONGS, this thread would not exist. The article in question still 100% violates all aspects of the policy, and you know that.  — Calvin999 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, I seriously saw nothing wrong with doing what I thought was the right thing by opening the AfD. If it will make you all feel better, I will withdraw it - if that's possible at this point. The thought of being site banned over things I'm still not clear about (other than inconveniencing administrators), is literally making me physically ill. I had no intention to cause or be part of disruption. If leaving everything involving MF alone (where I haven't been first) is an answer, I will gladly do it. I'm not a jerk, I'm not a bad editor, I'm not an intentionally disruptive person. I will do whatever it takes to not be taken to Arbcom or get a site ban (even though I think sitebanning is uncalled for and overkill). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Addict

Re your prior status [38]: 

Your lights are on, but you're online 
Your mind is not your own
Your heart sweats, your body shakes
Another edit is what it takes

You can't sleep, you can't eat
There's no doubt, you're in deep
Your throat is tight, you can't breathe
Another edit is all you need

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i

You see the pings, and you must read
You're typing at a different speed
Your heart beats in double time
Another edit and you'll be ours, a one track mind

You can't log out 
One more post is all you crave
If there's some left for you
You don't mind if you do

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i

Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i

Your lights are on, but you're online 
Your mind is not your own
Your heart sweats, your body shakes
Another edit is what it takes

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah
It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough
You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i

Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i

NE Ent 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we all play at this?

Here's to the rules of Wikipedia
Where breach of "just a guideline" results in an instant block
And "edits in a similar way" means "obviously a sock"
Where "flexible policies" are as immovable as rocks
For they'll always be defended by a mindless admin flock
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Policies, go find yourselves another project to be part of.

Here's to the forums of Wikipedia
Where children sit in judgement over experts in their field
And accuracy is sacrificed for populist appeal
Where editors are blocked as the result of secret deals
And it's still as far as ever from the WMF ideal
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Forums, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.

Here's to the government of Wikipedia
Where despite "no formal power" the founder ought to wear a crown
Directing all the policies right from the top straight down
Where editors all quiver every time an admin frowns
And "policy discussions" are the ravings of a clown
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Bureaucrats, go find yourselves another project to be part of.

Here's to the admins of Wikipedia
Where academic knowledge is a thing to be despised
If it's not in their school library, it's suspect in their eyes
And if anyone's an expert, it's an "obvious COI"
For if you've your own opinion, you're just a troll in disguise
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Admins, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.

Here's to the Arbcom of Wikipedia
Who rubberstamp decisions that are made on IRC
And fight against every step towards increased transparency
Who defend their own decisions, no matter how arbitrary
For disagreement with them is a "breach of policy"
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Arbcom, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.

And here's to the critics of Wikipedia
Who can always spot a problem, but never find a cure
And all their proposed solutions make the simplest task a chore
Where every crank with an agenda finds themselves at home
And legitimate critics are drowned out by trolling drones
Your blogs with pretensions are nothing to speak of
Critics, go find something more worthwhile to go and write critiques of.

 ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Shamelessly ripped off Here's to the State of Mississippi, if it's not already obvious.
@NE Ent: @Iridescent: You guys are far more creative than me. Also, you have far too much free time. Nicely done< i tip my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

happy

I "demanded" the cat below also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well look at that. I suppose everyone would appreciate it if I stayed off that page, but that's good. I don't understand the "demanded the cat" thing, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Calvin is stalking me again.

Hoping you come through with that one-month block. Check his contribs.--MaranoFan (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How am I stalking you? Please elucidate. "Check his contribs" means that you are stalking me. I assume you thought you was trying to be helpful, not hateful, when you vandalised "Up Out My Face" and "Love Me Like You" and tried to cause hassle by wrongly saying that sources where not reliable, only to be told that they are. The only way you would have known I edited those articles was by looking through my contributions and poking around the collapsables on my user talk. That is stalking.  — Calvin999 10:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Is it possible for someone to take a voluntary permaban?--MaranoFan (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't block users on their own requests. What you can do is go to a strong password generating website, create a really hard password, copy it as your new password and make that your password on this account. And, obviously, never write the password down somewhere. Then, log out. Now you shouldn't be able to get back into your account, therefore, making yourself permanently unable to edit. only (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is why I think an arbcom case is better; I am not going to spend the few free minutes I have available for Wikipedia "checking his contribs". Better to work to get you all sitebanned, rather than just one of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

you listen

This is the uncle of the guy with the disability you dealt with yesterday. I'm very disturbed with how. He was treated. You don't ever do that to people like him. Thanks be to you I have to take him to counseling today. You need to think twice about who u deal with on Wikipedia you should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.150.232 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do 12-year-olds always think they can successfully impersonate adults? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Listen bozo my disabled nephew is 29 and I'm. 50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.151.54 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Floq, I think you need a nice calming cup of tea. You have wound up in the middle of this never-ending dogfight, and they don't take your hint (or even your outright saying so) that you are sick of it. I think you are right about the only solution to this mess. Meanwhile, put your feet up and have some tea. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Melanie, that is just what I need, and I think I'll go do it right now. (Sorry, I missed this earlier) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems a further block is needed

Edit summaries such as this [39] make it hard to believe any longer that this is just a confused new user. EEng 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I do think that a block is not yet necessary since I truly did that mistake and I was just confused because it states that " Usernames of editors who do not meet the first two criteria may be removed from the list by any editor." and the first 2 criteria are:
  • a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old.
  • a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles.
Daniel Kenneth (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
about https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=716174413: I just thought that I was allowed to remove a person from the list of participants if the person is indefinitely checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng:, I don't think that's necessarily evidence of a prior account, tho I understand what you're saying. @Daniel kenneth:, please try to focus on doing things that are marginally useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC
That was just a particular, obscure thing I thought you should see. I'm sorry to say that Dk's contributions continue to be almost entirely random thankings and misguided tinkering in project space. EEng 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I got here by following DK's contributions, 'cause I watch his page, 'cause I have been concerned about his editing patterns as well. DK racked up an impressive number of semi-automated edits and then his 502'd edit was to Gamergate controversy, which is a suspicious pattern that we've seen before. --Jorm (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jorm: I saw that, but the change itself was harmless. Less innocuous edits to Gamergate controversy would be worth a second look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of us can do range blocks

Your 66.87.xx friend has so far only posted from quite a small range, 66.87.150.0/23. I've blocked it. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. And re: your ability to do range blocks (and my implied inability to do so): I meant to brag a week or two ago, but I made several non-trivial edits to MediaWiki space, and most of them didn't get reverted. Can you say that? No, I didn't think so.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
MediaWiki… hmmm, oh, this place, right? (That's quite recent. Yours has whiskers on it.) Bishonen | talk 16:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC).
No, silly, this place. Although I guess you've dabbled, you're no MediaWiki expert like me. Still, since you're a Global Renamer now, I suppose I should show appropriate deference, or I'll wake up to find I've been renamed Floqey McFloqface or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Kudos

Thanks for your comments. I didn't invent that code. It was suggested by another user, MusikAnimal, who is also the author of the bot that removes the plain "pp" template when protection expires. He assured me this approach should work, and take away the need to manually add it when a page is protected. Should make Duncan Hill happy too. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It does work, I tested in in my sandbox. Thanks to MA then, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection templates

Re your comment, there is a bot which removes the template from unprotected pages, but it sometimes takes a while to get around to it. There isn't a bot to add it to pages which are protected, this needs to be done manually. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There used to be, though. I wonder what happened to it? It used to act within 5 minutes or so of page protection. Hard to change habits ingrained by 5 years of doing it one way, but I'll try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Baseball Bugs did something clever that will at least address the problem at the ref desks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Protecting with Twinkle allows you to add the the template of your choice and it's all in one click. —SpacemanSpiff 14:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this the second or third time this week you've told me something useful that I'm publicly embarrassed not to have known before? Thank you, and stop it! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
MA (won't ping him as he seems to have an outstanding ping below) has done a wonderful job with WP:ADMINTOOLS (I only read it as I've been away for a few months.) I haven't gotten to using many of them and I'll stop talking now. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Thanks for your advice. I'm just feeling bothered by this user who insisted that I violate the 3RR rules, for which I didn't! I have proof that my 'fourth edit' (which is made by another user) is not within 24 hours and I'm not even reverting into my own edit. It was someone else's edits. Thank you again for listening to me. Sorry for bothering you with this. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@SquidHomme:, this is easily solved. Discuss the issue on the article talk page, and all the edit warring complaints will melt away. Betty Logan's main complaint appears to be that you are not discussing; she's opened a section on the talk page, chime in there. Easy peasy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, I see you already did that. Great. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting used to this. This is the first time I engage in a dispute. Thank you again for your advice sir, have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidHomme (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

request

If you're online, would you mind taking a look at this 3RR report about me? The reporter seems to have just gone off the deep end [40] and I'm really exhausted at having to have just put hours into defending my edits only to find out it was all a big joke. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please also note here. This is completely out-of-hand. 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@LavaBaron:, sorry, I'm not around much on weekends. It looks like JBW has dealt with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Another example

Another fine example of arguing & convincing you delivered. How bright your understanding of the thread it shows! One question: why only one month? Have you grown a sense? Next time, just start with a year no less. To keep your standing, as it were. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Make it two years, in your mental universe. The smallest universe known. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow... sorry I got you blocked Floquenbeam. HighInBC 01:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: For such a wonderful and upstanding person, my block log is getting pretty long. Certainly longer now than Bish's, which I hope is a source of envy and minor annoyance to her. Anyway, Bagumba, if I'd seen DP acting out like that with any other editor, I'd have done the same thing you did, but for future reference, if his petulance is aimed at me, and only at me, I don't really care. The problem is it is seldom aimed only at me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Bagumba blocked you? That's nice. Admittedly I have no recent blocks, but I did get reported for vandalism the other day, and by the excellent Oshwah.[41] "Actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Sock puppet of Profile101". Better than your Personal attacks or harassment. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
I see you remain unblocked even after your sockpuppetry has been exposed. Protected as always by your admin friends. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Membership has it's privileges: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagumba.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And its has it's spelling. EEng 04:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Be careful what you say, or them crazy admin friends will come.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my bad. I still don't know how I managed to do that instead of reporting the IP. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Does that also go for other editors? 'Cause I'd really like to pop by and call you a dick once in a while. Izkala (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like an odd way to keep me from talking to/about you (which as I recall was your strong desire). But sure, why not, if it brings you some kind of joy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I just feel kind of terrible after saying it. Izkala (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No harm done from my end. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

MF's block

Hi Floquenbeam. First of all, I completely understand your reasoning for the blocks of Calvin and MaranoFan and based on the former's behaviour, I agree with it 100%. I don't know if you've noticed, but I recently adopted MaranoFan so that I'll be ensuring that this fiasco and pointless feud with Calvin doesn't happen again. To be fair, she did get drawn into that ANI thread (which everyone admitted was pointless) by Calvin, so I'm not advocating anybody's behaviour. I've been talking to MF a lot lately and I've made her aware that I'll be guiding her and keeping an eye on her to make sure that nothing like this happens again. We both agreed that she wants an interaction ban with Calvin and she has promised that she won't get drawn into to any more arguments. To enforce this, I will monitor her closely and I can vouch for her. I'm going to cut to the chase; would you be open to unblocking her now or would she have to make another unblock request so that a neutral party can review it? I know how you might feel about this, but she's been doing good work lately. She has potential, and I'll make sure nothing like that happens to her again. JAGUAR  19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Let me think about it a little bit. One the one hand, she's made several unblock requests that, to me, didn't acknowledge any responsibility for the overarching problem. Calvin's unblock requests have been in a similar vein. If two people just don't seem to get that they're both at fault, it seems a little off-putting to unblock one and not the other. It would be different if one of them owned their responsibility and the other didn't, but that doesn't seem to be happening here. On the other hand, I have a certain level of hope/confidence that your mentoring will help the situation on her end. I'll get back to you in a while after I've chewed on it some. Of course, you can always put up a new unblock request and see how another admin sees it, no matter what I end up saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I will weigh in here because I declined a set of unblock requests from each user. My opinion at the time was that the duration was justified because of the continuation of the blame game.
Had either of the users managed to not continue to blame the other and take responsibility I probably would have approached Floquenbeam about a reduction in duration. However what I saw was one editor accuse the other of vandalism(over a content dispute) and the other suggesting it was not their actions that were disruptive.
The idea of one being unblocked but not the other when neither seem to get it sticks in my craw as well. I won't interfere with any future unblock requests but my suggestion is that either the mentoring take place after the block to avoid them repeating such a situation, or that it helps them address the actual reasons for the block.
As it stands I still think the blocks are preventative in nature. That is my 2 cents, take what value you will from it. HighInBC 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, have been corresponding with Calvin. He states that he wants nothing to do with MF but I warned him that if he couldn't stay away from the editor, or commenting about her and her editing behavior, the next block would be significantly longer. This is my gut feeling but I think it takes a while to disengage when one is in a feud with another editor and I don't think they are there yet. A week is just not enough time.
I would consider an unblock after two weeks of month-long block but I fear that despite promises made in unblock requests, an unblock so soon would result in an subsequent block in the near future. One can proclaim "I won't be provoked by Editor X" but what really has to happen is for them to not even acknowledge each other or stalk each other contributions and that is a major behavior change that will take some time. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think an interaction ban would be best for these two editors. It appears that this time Calvin lured MF into the last argument, and both seem to be willing to leave each other alone. MF has also agreed to an interaction ban (community enforced or informal, I'm not sure). I understand how unblocking one and not the other would seem unusual. How does unblocking both and imposing an interaction ban sound? If one editor violates the interaction ban, then they can be blocked or warned, and I can vouch that MF will never do that. Once she gets unblocked, I'll keep a close eye on her contributions and will guide her on making content work, which she enjoys doing. JAGUAR  22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see you are an enthusiastic mentor but I don't see how you can promise editors who have been unable to stop complaining about each other for months can now cease and desist after one week? I think you do them a disservice if you are advocating an immediate unblock because I don't think they have reached the point where they can stay away from each other or refrain from discussing each other. I think an IBan now will be hard to abide by without a little more time off from editing.
I still advocate reconsidering unblock requests, at a minimum of two weeks into this block. But I also don't think a month-long block is unwarranted in this situation. These are two editors who on the first day into a block started asking for an unblock. Promises are easy to make and difficult to abide by when the feud has gone on as long as this one has. What I'm trying to avoid for both of these editors is a future indefinite block which I think could happen with an unblock that happens too soon. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: On reflection, I don't personally want to unblock early, due to neither person acknowledging any responsibility for this long-running timesink in their unblock requests. The longer-than-you-might-expect duration was intentional, and if anything, so far the message seems to have been received more clearly by the other people feuding than by these two. If MF wants to resubmit an unblock request, or Liz wants to consider an unblock after 2 weeks, I will likely not comment further on their page; I've said my piece there, and am more than willing to defer to another admin's take on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't suck the software

I worry about you. Softlavender (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I probably could have worded that a bit more clearly... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Befreit

Did you know that I nominated this (meaning: released, freed, liberated) in February, with certain hopes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ps: in case you'd like more background to what you have to deal with: please... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm too thick to know what you mean by certain hopes, but it's a nice little article. Always nice to see articles created by editors I've never seen at AN/ANI/ANEW/ArbCom... restores my faith a little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Byronmercury created it, I saw it, thought of someone I wanted to see released (befreit) and nominated it, said so on Bach's birthday, and released he was. (No foul, play on, you said so first, finally the other arbs followed.) Signpost and DYK fell nicely together, I had three GAs today, and the reviewer became a member of the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

re: FORTRAN deck

If you are interested, the IBM cards were also known as Hollerith cards, in early days. I not only punched programs for college courses, but received paychecks which were Hollerith-punched. (My spelling may be incorrect.) Rags (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like your spelling is fine, Ragityman (there's a redirect at Hollerith cards). I'm too young and wet behind the ears to have received Hollerith-punched paychecks, the University made the change from punchcards to fancy monochrome terminals in, I think, my senior year. Still had to walk all the way across campus to the mainframe building to get any printouts, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User page

Very kind, many thanks. Best wishes, you-know-who or 82.36.105.25 (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's me

I'm about to create User:Floq's newbie account. Have no fear, it's not a troll or imposter. Just want to see what the whole VE crisis is about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry about that- I was just temporarilly deranged (!!!) with banging my head against what seemed to be a brick wall., and of course, when it's one's own TP, it seems a helluvva lot like vandalism! Thanks for all your help though. Again, apologies. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I undestand the frustration - kind of.
I tried to look into this a little, but all the templated warnings and mutual AIV reports and IP changes and revert wars on the article talk page and general wordiness of everyone involved and 3-4 ANI reports plus AIV and AN3 reports make it impossible for me to understand what's going on without spending 45 minutes to review, and I don't have 45 minutes. There is really no way to quickly tell who's trolling and who's calling someone they disagree with a troll. I see admins I think are wise traeating this person as a troll, and other admins I think are wise cautioning people not to do that. My gut tells me someone is using the Chewbacca defense, but I don't have time to prove it.
I'm just not going to be useful in figuring out what is what, my only goal was to try to keep AIV from getting sucked into the vortex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to be disruptive so as to hurt myself

It is a lie to say that I had not been disruptive. It is true that I had vandalized pages. I have done this a lot, and this is my worst yet.

P.S. Forgive me for my being excited, but do you believe that I have been disruptive? The reason why I have reported myself is because I am angry with myself. One side of me tells "the truth" that I have vandalized Wikipedia, and I believe in the statement, but how about you? Do you believe that I have vandalized an article on purpose? I hope that I had not. The thing is that, when I make little mistakes, I try to have myself blocked because no one would take action, and it may be better that I be blocked for now. Would you like to do that? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Fine. How long would you like to be blocked? Shall I remove talk page access? I can't tell whether this is some kind of passive aggressive act, or whether you're over-reacting for no reason, but keep in mind that when you wake up tomorrow morning and realize you're being silly, I, for one, am not going to unblock you. I'm leaving in 5 minutes. If you give me a block duration before I go, I'll block you for that long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, would you like to take the lead on dealing with the unblock request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Optakeover123

Hi Floquenbeam. Thank you for your comment on my AN post. I created those accounts as I was dealing with a sock a while back and I didn't want to be impersonated. I do not intend to make any more of such accounts. However, I would like to ask if you could help me review the aforementioned account, as I have lost access to that account completely and I don't want to be construed as owning that account maliciously.

Please understand I'm doing all this so that I will not be faulted for any sock related matters in future. I hope that you would understand, and I would appreciate your patience. Regards, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well... it has been quietly sitting there not causing any trouble for 7 1/2 years, so the odds of it coming to life are essentially zero. Still, since you don't control this one account, I'll block that one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. My sincere apologies for troubling you. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: I hope you did not mind my closure of your request. It was a procedural matter for me and not personal. You are always welcome on my talk page if you need a simple admin action. HighInBC 20:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thank you for your message. I admit I was a little shell shocked by the reception XD but I have taken note of your comments and Flo's, and I agree with them. Thank you both once again. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 20:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding [42]

I think you should take a look at this edit closely. His edit is causing the malformation of the header. I am right in reverting it. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahh you fixed it. It's all good haha. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, all 3 of us were partially right and partially wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be explaining and apologizing to the anon. By the way he's been blocked by Widr for editing on a proxy. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw; not sure what he did to get his IP checked, but it's mostly over my head so I'll leave it to others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217

I didn't realize there was a typo in Shotgun surgery. I read User:Optakeover's message as "replacing superfluous uppercase by lowercase is unconstructive". This is not polite. Saying "you inserted a Greek letter" would have been polite. Also the Swoosh smack is unpolite.

Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. It is not an open proxy. HaŋaRoa (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If the IP had been blocked for the conflict, I'd unblock in a heartbeat; all 3 of us were too quick off the draw, and this has already sucked up 100x more bytes than necessary. However, it was blocked as an open proxy, and I have zero clue about open proxies, so you'll have to take it up with User:Widr. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @HaŋaRoa: Sorry it appeared impolite to you. Please read WP:BOOMERANG again. I don't take it personally that you raised a comment about me; however you must understand that your own actions and words may be commented upon as well, and it was in your best interests if you 1) spoken to me directly on my talk page first (I'm always open to discussion) or 2) make sure that what you were reporting on was factually-accurate. With regards, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Widr: I'm in over my head, but... I thought corporate proxy servers were OK, and it was open proxy servers that were blocked automatically. Isn't there a difference? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, if that is so, please unblock. I guess there's a policy somewhere that I'm not aware of. Widr (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I hesitate to unblock only because I'm outside my comfort zone of competence; I think this is right, but I'm not sure. I'll ask someone... (imagine the "please wait" circle of death whirling away for a while) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Uh oh Widr....... Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 15:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
In California. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup. [43] It's relatively common in the UK for large companies' corporate networks to route via the USA for internet access. Mike1901 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
What he said. Although I actually meant Experian (is a company in the UK, I have no idea of their US presence) rather than the IP was in the UK. My wording was faulty. Will alter nowOnly in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For protecting Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert, very much appreciated. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, OF, we'll see if it had its intended effect when the protection expires... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I for one got the message. I will try to stay more on topic in the future, and limit by concerns about user behaviour to user talk pages and appropriate noticeboards. When user behaviour and the topic of what is acceptable at RfA overlap the lines can get blurred. HighInBC 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, let's hope so... Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Template:Life timeline" May Need Protection From Vandals?

Seems "Template:Life timeline", transcluded on 160 pages, has been recently vandalized - and may require some protection? - perhaps similar to that performed on the "Template:Nature timeline" somewhat recently? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected that template too, thanks for the suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hedy Epstein

I see you have cleaned up this article. Please check my edit and let me know if I have correctly added the info that someone was looking for on the Flotilla issue. Thank you. Gabs Blue Labs (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gabs Blue Labs: well, not so much "cleaned up" as "made a mistake and removed a lot of text that shouldn't have been removed... Anyway, I've looked at your edit and I think it addresses the problem. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A quick question with respect to that RFA

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but does an RFA need to be closed as either successful or unsuccessful, rather than archive closed, as you have done? Due to the archive close, the RFA has not appeared in the history. Let me know how it's done either way - I am interested, and I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. --PatientZero talk 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the archive message, someone with a better memory than me will hopefully come along and fix it. If not, I'll do it myself in an hour, when I have a little more time. I closed it that way - the only way I could remember - to stop people piling on with mean-spirited things like "NOTNOW, not ever". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I took it back. I was pissed off and shouldn't have been commenting anywhere at the time - I do apologise. Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. --PatientZero talk 17:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course not. What would be the point? NE Ent 20:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
As I previously mentioned, NE Ent, I was angry, and I no longer understand why I made that comment. My temperament has lead to situations like this before and I acknowledge that. --PatientZero talk 09:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Vacation

To address bullet one; thirty five more years of history in Europe is roughly the same as 350 years of history in the North American Colonies (the US I believe you touchingly like to call them). Have a fantastic trip sir - the itinerary looks wonderful. Enjoy. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pedro! Long time no see. Thinking of coming back for a while? Don't get blocked, you cranky old goat.
Point taken about historic perspective (although I think you meant 3.5 years in North America? or did I miss your point?), but if there are McDonalds and Burger Kings in small towns in Germany (see below), perhaps colonization is actually going the other way now? I felt it was high time to visit our Old World Colonies (what you charmingly call "Europe"). There were visa-related issues that prevent us from going to the UK this trip. It's on our long-term wishlist; my oldest is infatuated with London and all things England for some reason (I think because of Harry Potter, but she swears it's deeper than that); my Celtic blood has always yearned to visit Ireland and (especially) Scotland. So I hope a trip to UK/Ireland is on tap in a couple of years when our seriously depleted vacation fund is restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Any chance to meet you in Germany? My infobox tells you where to find me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerda! Looking at a map, it seems a little unlikely, but not (yet) impossible. I'll email you and see if we can work something out. But I must say I'm a little ... upset? is that the word I'm looking for? perplexed? disconcerted? ... that a small German town of 15,000 people has a McDonalds and a Burger King (Google Maps helpfully highlighted these for me before I even zoomed in, knowing that as a Yank surely I would need this information). I was kind of hoping to escape that kind of thing. Please, please, please tell me it is not physically possible to buy a Bud Light over there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Surely you meant to say an America Light? MastCell Talk 22:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that's Canada. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Dammit, Homer Simpson stole my joke. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you with the news that we are open to other cultures ;) - I will not promise what you can get not, - I bet in Frankfurt you can many imported goods. Please don't go just by counting, - it's a town with the history of a regional capital, and had Hessentag, when we got the second of that kind of thing. I can't tell you about their quality, - you can't escape seeing them, the yellow M in the sky is actually the hint that you almost arrived, - but don't have to eat there. Hessentag is when you get the chance (the extra money I mean) to sing Die Schöpfung with two choirs in historically informed performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If you like real beer then the Benelux countries are the place to be. If you can, ask for Pauwel Kwak - it's less a beer, more a science experiment. Or, failing that, Westmalle which is just sex in a glass. Oh, I'm afraid I've got bad news floq - sorry! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will have to rather drastically limit my beer intake the whole time I'm there: as in, one beer per day absolute maximum, and better if it's only half a beer per day. (no, I'm not pregnant) Luckily we're visiting someone who knows beer, so he can provide advice on what best to choose with my limited intake (and he'll probably be willing to drink the other half of my beer). But I'll add those two to the list. Thanks Ritchie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)...do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France? Muffled Pocketed 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Great movie. And it's on Netflix. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for blocking the IP vandal!


ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Though vandal blocking strikes me as more of a dog or cat type thing (a terrier or cat catching a mouse) than a kitten type thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Another IP to block in the Rothschild dispute.

[44] if you wouldn't mind taking a look.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...
polite, courteous, and friendly
... you were recipient
no. 157 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gerda! Time flies! Sending an email to you soon... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Help

Enjoy your vacation!

About a month ago, you blocked Winkelvi for a month. He is back following me around and causing trouble, along with his friend, Soflavender. I wish Winkelvi would not be so disruptive. I thought that someone who has been blocked 10 times before would behave better but he didn't learn from your block. I give up. That is why disruptive users win. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Whiskeymouth: "That is why terrorists and criminals win." Really. Do you have diffs of them causing trouble? --NeilN talk to me 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Whiskeymouth:, how does this edit help you when you are complaining about other editor? I'm referring to the addition of the world "girl". Another (talk page watcher). Moriori (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Girl friend and girlfriend are different. Some people refer to females as "he", which infuriates a few. That's all Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to trim my watchlist for some time, but it seems I should add another to the list. Moriori (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Whiskeymouth: Looking at your talk page, many of your explanations really strain our WP:AGF policy. This is another one of them. Please be significantly more judicious when writing about other editors. We can continue this on my talk page if need be. --NeilN talk to me 03:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Note

Just letting you know I "borrowed" your comments for the close. Didn't seem a point to restate in this case when you did so well : ) - jc37 08:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry

Just now noticed that I reverted you earlier today; wasn't my intention, just following the link you left on my talk page while on my phone and evidently hit rollback. Still not really around so will self-revert and reply on my talk page in a day or two, when I'm really back. But why are you closing discussions that were archived several months ago? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Closed due to this request. - jc37 09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. OK, glad my comments were useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July

10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - "play on" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but that's pretty cool. Email coming your way in a day or two when I've caught my breath. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Still trying to work it out here... Robert South? Died 300 years and a few days ago *shrugs* Muffled Pocketed 15:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
"it" being what, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-block request

May I request to be temporarily blocked for one day on Wikimedia Commons? I seem to be throwing a fit here and just want to stop it. I am trying my best not to fight over it and lose it again, but I think that I can calm down on Commons if I happen to be blocked there. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That is, unless you have no administrator's controls on Wikimedia Commons. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I personally can't do the deed for you, but I will say that most admins willing to place these self requested blocks need you to not be "under a cloud"; in other words, you can't ask for a block in order to get out of a tricky situation in which you are directly involved or have caused, and with all due respect I think you've walked straight into this one... my advice to you would be to take a short break without the block in place, or try and sort things out with, say, an apology. Just a few ideas - hope I was of help Gamingforfun365. --Zerotalk 18:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do I keep forgetting to apologize? It used to be easy, but it is difficult nowadays. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There should be a bot that reads files for "Creative Commons" and "Noncommercial" or "Non-commercial" and warns users that their files are poorly licensed. I am requesting that now. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, but you would be the bigger person if you apologised (even if you think it will be difficult, it would be advisable to do so). You could ask for that, that may indeed be useful. --Zerotalk 19:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A very brief look at this leads me to believe this has settled down. If so, yay. If not, let me know where I should look and what I should look at. But FYI, no, I can't block anyone on Commons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

re Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back

If it all turns to dust, then you will be to blame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll take the risk, gladly. I think the categories on my user page need some pruning. Yay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Back, but...

Here are some birds flying; now you don't have to leave your computer. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm back, but still have that feeling you get when you've been away for a while (long enough to regain some perspective) and then can't help yourself and look at a random noticeboard, and are horrified by how depressing this place is. I'm sure I'll get sucked back in during the coming week(s) - I always do - but for today I think I'll go watch birds fly around outside.

But anyway, I'm paying attention to my talk page again, and messages left here will no longer go unanswered for a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the same sense - once you step out of the bubble for a bit, it's hard to want to come back to this place and deal with its culture and underlying assumptions and priorities. At this point, I'd rather be forced to watch the entire Republican National Convention, Clockwork-Orange-style, than bother with this place and its "community". MastCell Talk 20:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a fringe branch of the Unitarian Church who think that is, literally, what Hell is like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait, so this thing I'm watching is a real political convention and not live-action ANI? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
16 July 2016

... on a centenary of a performance, - don't give up on this place, there's still content, daily! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

True, true... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Another: Berger Kirche, for your next trip to Europe in 37 years. It's more than 1000 years old, what 37 in comparison? (Do you see what I see in the Rossini ref? The complete alto section.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

RFA

I'm not sure how I incorrectly listed it. Can you help me post it in the technically correct manner? Also, I appreciate your feedback saying I wouldn't have a chance of getting approved. However, I think that may not be the case, if I have the chance to respond directly to objections, and explain why I would be the best candidate in terms of my fairness, balance, and knowledge about the project, I think I could win. JoeM (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not going to help you waste everyone's time. You will not pass, so an RFA would just be an experiment in trolling or in disrupting WP to make a point. There were instructions; you didn't follow them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't you assume good faith? That's more of a core Wikipedia policy than the right technical procedure to list a RFA. JoeM (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"Assuming good faith" has nothing to do with whether your RFA would be a timesink or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) JoeM I suggest you also read AGF is not a suicide pact. Mkdwtalk 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) (edit conflict) @JoeM: I've just left you a note on your talk page - I obviously can't speak for Floq, but their general opinion is one I agree with. You may wish to read through Advice for RfA candidates before seriously considering putting yourself through what would likely be a WP:NOTNOW (at best) RfA. As I said on your talk, there is so much you can do without those couple of extra buttons -- samtar talk or stalk 17:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"...win" The proof that you are not yet ready. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"How did that happen?"

Simple. 1 I am a deeply flawed human being ;-) 2 Harry's brother, Albert, has long been a bit of a hero of mine. Mainly because of this: "In 1899 ... Trott's penchant for the spectacular did not fail him: having already landed the ball on the pavilion balcony at Lord's in the match, he became the first (and to this day the only) batsman to hit a ball over the current Lord's pavilion, bludgeoning Monty Noble out of the ground on 31 July 1899. The ball hit a chimney and fell into the garden outside the house of Philip Need, the Lord's dressing room attendant." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you took my comment in the spirit intended; I was a little worried after the fact it sounded snarky and it wasn't meant to be.
The interaction of cricket and my brain is interesting; occasionally I see a game on cable and get curious, and read our article on it, and the rules make perfect sense while I'm reading them, and I feel like I could watch a game and understand it... but 5 minutes later I once again have no idea how the game works; I can't seem to keep the understanding fresh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Cricket is a very simple game, with many complexities. You could watch a cricket match and understand the essentials very quickly indeed. But it's the complexities that make it so enduringly fascinating. And don't worry, it was a very helpful edit and a reasonable question. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Most useful statement on the Hardy Arbcom case request

Amen (pretend this is some sort of barnstar) --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I pretend it's twice the size of other, "loser" barnstars? And purple? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ASL Hungary Flight 7332

Can you please restore the article too? I saw you did the AFD. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone renamed the article at some point, so I've already restored it. The new name is ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. I started both the ANI thread and the AFD. As I said at ANI, I thought the article should be deleted but the closing was premature. I think a strong warning is necessary with one caveat. I would suggest a search at ANI to see if this behavior has been done before or if BQ has ever received any other serious warnings....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You can do such a search if you want, but in my experience BQ is a good egg, who made a mistake here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but why?

Do I have a target on my back? I've had two spurious SPIs in as many months. pbp 01:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All it takes is one moron with a dynamic IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your RFAR comment

Just noticed this. It turns out a few months ago I had written this. You're welcome. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Vape Shoreditch

Regarding Vape Shoreditch, just be aware of this sockpuppet investigation. This is part of the reason I tagged it with WP:G3. You make a valid point about it already having a WP:AfD going but just wanted to explain my motives. Hope you are well! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certainly not defending the existence of the article, and there may be sock issues, but that wouldn't really make it a hoax. Company seems to actually exist. I'm sure the AFD will sort it all out. No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam/Archive_8&oldid=1094574580"