User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

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)

Redlink Investigation

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! :) Giant Snowman 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://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=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://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=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)

LOL! Hi Dr. B :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 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. p b p 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)

I've clarified above. You need reliable sources, which cover the subject in detail establish the notability of the subject. Not just reliable sources that mention a guest on the show. Those sources are the same kind of sources that were in the article previously, just more of them. Multiple unsuitable sources does no good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 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)

I didn't revert you at User talk:G-Zay, but as I see it, your redirects are pointless and violate WP:DENY by drawing attention to the issue. Ryan Vesey 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ryan. Please don't take my question too far, I came here with a simple question about Floquenbeam's thoughts about the use of banned user's talk pages that did not mention anyone. G-Zay, even though he may be a good contributor, has a history of misrepresenting sources in BLPs and other articles (see his contributions and the community discussion concerning his ban). To be fairly honest, I do have a couple of points though about redirecting banned users' talk page. Pointless or not, WP:DENY does apply to some disruptive users as well like Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was a long-term abusive user since she was banned in 2008. In the banned user template, there is a section that we can link to the community sanction as well. If a user is banned and comes back under a different name, the revert, block, ignore guideline comes in handy or an WP:SPI should be filed.

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)

I would have certainly considered it reasonable for AH to participate in the AFD, but since he agrees to deletion, and since no one else really contributed to the article, I've deleted it per WP:CSD#G7. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 28 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)

Thanks, both of you. I appreciate the feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 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)

Agree - good close. Turns out he wanted to make use of that rope. His choice I suppose. Stalwart111 04:32, 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. p b p 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). p b p 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. p b p 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. p b p 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)

OK, seriously y'all--somebody click on this video. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 23 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? p b p 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)

Header

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! Giant Snowman 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! Giant Snowman 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. p b p 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. p b p 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. p b p 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? p b p 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? p b p 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. p b p 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)

I'm surprised it's even an option for anything other than the Template namespace, to be honest. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Sometimes I'm amazed they let me anywhere near the tools. Thanks for the note, Luke, and thanks for the help, WK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 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. Worm^TT(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. Worm^TT(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. Step hen 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed c-upload is used on today's POTD. Step hen 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)

It gets worse Pedro, they're not just a 'crat, they're supposedly part of MedCom, albeit an inactive part... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Luke, could we maybe not stir the pot? 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 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)
- Hi Pedro, TParis got the same treatment. I think I'm going to move on, though. (side note: Evidently I'm Astounding and Andrevan is Staggering... two more admins or crats with similar superlatives and we can make a Wikipedia Justice League.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  - So I see, and have commented, perhaps unwisely. I think it's best dropped now. It's clear Andrevan can't see the wood for the trees. Pedro : Chat 17:02, 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)

Excellent, well done, and I'm even happier as everyone I voted for got in (although to be fair I only voted for five people and opposed the rest). That could've been a lot worse. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks BK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 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)

Thanks, Bzuk, you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 24 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)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

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)

Andrew, no worries, I've done the same many times myself. And hi, WK, nice of you to drop by as always. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 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∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk~~ 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)

Ah, you must be devastated that someone hsates you, Floq. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:42, 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)

[1]