User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 15


My edit, which you reverted, isn't the edit I made. All I did was remove a stray character before the two equal signs of the header so it would show up as a header. It looks like I removed your sig, which wasn't even there when I edited the page. Your revert of what I didn't do makes sense, but I can't figure out the rest. Of course it looks fine now and it's not important at all, but I like everything to make sense (you can only imagine what a curse that is).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's explained by the 1 second difference in the time stamps. I had already removed the character, so there normally would have been nothing for you to save, and you should have got an edit conflict. But I signed my post and saved again 1 second before you saved your version of the page, so MediaWiki in its infinite wisdom overwrote my post, rather than give you an edit conflict. Normally wanting things to make sense would be a good quality, but I suspect it is, indeed, a curse when working with the enigma that is MediaWiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds, unfortunately, plausible. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


So, you said, on my talk page, referencing (presumably) several of my edits, that they were "opinions and guesses". While I understand this (I mean, opinions and guesses are not anywhere near good for the encyclopedia), I was wondering, which of my edits were you referring to?

AnimosityAnimalEdits (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Primarily your edits to the two Silent Hill pages, The Purge: Election Year, Vedius Pollio, and Brahmaea wallichii. Reasons given in my edit summaries in my reverts of your edits to some other pages should be self-explanatory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

TRM ArbCom case

Hello Floquenbeam - just letting you know your recent post at the ArbCom case re. The Rambling Man needs a little bit of copy editing. If you're busy, I don't mind doing so for you. Please don't take this the wrong way - just a friendly notice. Zerotalk 14:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I have just seen your edit summary. I do not doubt for a second what your native language is. Zerotalk 17:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't have minded help with copyediting, and I don't take it the wrong way, thanks for the offer. But I don't need it, I've fixed it now. Fat thumbs, tiny screen. About halfway through I realized it made me look incompetent, but by then I'd invested too much time to hit "cancel". I know, I should have considered it a sunk cost. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for letting me know. I edit from my phone more than my computer (desktop site so I can revert edits) and so I guess I'm used to the smaller keyboard. Still, that did not make you look incompetent, we all know you are fluent in English :-) Zerotalk 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being hostile

I apologize for giving in a classic example of hostility and vitriol as I had on my talk page. I also apologize to @SchroCat: for assuming that the editor assumed that I had been purposely edit-warring and to @TJRC: for calling that editor "ignorant", for which that is the first time that I have ever wanted to be blocked. I usually keep my tone restrained from being insane, but I became fed up this time, and there is no way that I could possibly, possibly become one among administrators because that is my typical personality. I would also like to tell you that I have read your thoughts on my talk page so many times that I have lost count, and I was not even counting. Lastly, the only thing that I am worried about is the fact that I may repeat my hostile behavior (and have somewhat more confidence to do so) now that I have finally done it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason your pings on your talk page didn't reach me. I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Science ref desk

The drive-by busybody who reverted that one section is most likely a banned user. That's why I reverted it. Your own deletion is fine. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you've had to deal with a couple of people like that for a long while, so I'll take your word on it, even if I'm not sure I'm convinced this is one of them, or that undoing that particular revert was useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for closing that AN/I thread. Good grief. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that discussion jumped the shark a while ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jumped? The discussion did a Tony Hawk style 720 over the shark. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I KNEW that the account seemed familiar. Thanks for catching the block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it was OrangeMike (see bottom of Iridescent's talk page). But glad to help anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

For info

I have referred to you here: [1] -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, RH, but I don't think I have anything to contribute to the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia's neutralist philosophy work?

Recently, I've had this extremely unhealthy obsession with editing articles. Apparently I seem to be taking WP:NPOV too seriously. I do get that a large edit is more likely to hit an edit conflict since they take more time to do. I just can't help myself. I want to replace every mention of pass away with die. Pass away is an euphemism that should not be used. Die is more accurate. I don't believe that articles should say nice or rude things about anything, they should just assume indifference towards everything.

I try to make sure that articles that read like this:

  • The countries that Adolf Hitler conquered included Poland, France, Hungary, and Ukraine. Fortunately, Hitler passed away in his bunker in 1945, and it is interesting to note that the racist tyrant killed himself so the Allied forces couldn't arrest him.

become more like this:

  • Adolf Hitler conquered various countries such as Poland, France, Hungary, and Ukraine. In 1945, Hitler died in his bunker via suicide to avoid getting arrested by the Allied forces.

Don't you notice how non-neutral the red example is and how encyclopedic the green example is?

I don't like the use of positive or negative bias in articles, such as this;

  • Notable Arkansans include Tom Cotton, who was representative since 2014, the well-known former president Bill Clinton, who is renowned for his famous reforms in education, and Sam Walton, founder of the celebrated discount store known as Wal-Mart.

I would want that to look like this:

  • People such as Tom Cotton, who became an Arkansas representative in 2014: Bill Clinton, who was president of the United States from 1993 to 2001; and Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart.

Do you really think that the positive loading and puffing in the red text is really necessary for Wikipedia articles? I don't think so. I'm one of those strictly neutralist Wikipedians.

Just because you think that something is [peacock] or you think that [weasel] that something is [peacock] or that almost everyone agrees that something is [peacock] that doesn't make it a fact, it's still an opinion, but if you want those words in the Wikipedia articles, at least cite a reliable source and put it in quotes so as to preserve the neutrality of the articles. You can criticize, bite, attack or even threaten to block or ban me just because I just started this account a few weeks ago and your account was here for years collecting all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on Wikipedia but no matter how much we learn, we can never know everything. I believe that we should not let personal bias get to the best of us as editors when trying to contribute to Wikipedia.

As the worst editor ever (and I think I should get a Wikipedia's Dumbest Editor award) I'd like to figure out how to make Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible without inadvertently terrorizing its contents. I keep having to realize again and again that I have to make small edits. That makes sense to me because if I take too long to edit something, I'd most likely crash into an edit conflict. If I keep making multiple small edits each only changing one small area or word at a time and then telling what I did in the edit summary would that be okay?

#NoobLivesMatter --Turkeybutt (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page; I'm watching that page, and it keeps the conversation in one place. I'll copy your comment above there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Blood libel.

At the AI noticeboard, you described one of my comments as "really poorly thought out." The editor opening the request closed it shortly afterwards, so I didn't have a chance to respond. As you noticed, I wasn't trying to say that the allegations made against the Israeli team were true. Personally, I think the chances that they were true are vanishingly minute. I think there are reasons not to absolutely discount them though. My knowledge of the sequence of events is a bit hazy, but I think it's true to say that it started when the President of Haiti made accusations that some of the helpers who'd entered Haiti after the disaster were engaged in organ trafficking. That might have been true or false. If it was true, then it means that it was possible that any helper may have been involved ... and that includes the Israeli team. So, there is your possibility and I don't think that thinking that way makes me credulous. My purpose at the Jenny Tonge article to this point has been to make sure that the rules on sourcing were followed. As you'll know, to state that something is false, you actually need a source which says that thing is false; if all you have is a source which reports that someone has said that something is false, all you can cite the source to state is that someone has said that something is false. That's basically what it came down to. If any of that is badly thought out, please get back to me.     ←   ZScarpia   21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to think more about how I want to respond; my first instinct is that maybe Hanlon's razor isn't applicable after all. You lose me at "I think there are reasons not to absolutely discount them though". If you really think there is a non-zero chance that the IDF emergency aid hospital was participating in organ harvesting in Haiti, and you think this "vanishingly minute" possibility is still important enough that it should be contested and doggedly not let go, while being aware of the historic fact that blood libel has been an anti-semitic trope for centuries, then I think perhaps topic banning you would be a good idea. Editing in the I/P area requires some measure of judgement, not just fixating on nit-picking something that just happens to be anti-semitic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What I thought was important and doggedly pursued was the provision of proper sourcing for a statement of fact. I noted my reasoning about the inadequacy of several of the sources in two different places on Wikipedia. Have a look and tell me whether you think my reasoning was wrong. Eventually a source was provided which, when I finally managed to access it, I accepted. My background is in science and engineering, which is probably responsible for the fact that I do regard accuracy as important; if something is going to be described as false on a page I'm involved in editing, I like a source to be provided which actually confirms that.
As far as Israeli involvement in organ trafficking is concerned, perhaps not all the accusations are "blood libels"? There's an article on that subject by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, on Counterpunch here. Now, Counterpunch may not be your cup of tea and it could be that the professor is a raging antismemite, but, for me at least, it's enough to persuade me to keep an open mind on the subject for the moment. As they say, someone may be paranoid, but that does not necessarily mean they're wrong.
You write about how editing in the I/P area requires some measure of judgement. I assume that you would have checked my record? You'll have perhaps figured out that I've been editing in the I/P area for coming up to 11 years. In that time I haven't been sanctioned. Do you think I managed that without having "some measure of judgement"? How does E. M. Gregory's record compare? How would you rate the judgement of the editor who has just tried to have me banned? And Epson Salts, the editor I was in a dispute with?
    ←   ZScarpia   23:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, another editor has pointed out the note at the top of your talkpage to me. Sorry to hassle you. I'll clear off.     ←   ZScarpia   11:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, that message obviously doesn't apply when I've (inexplicably) chosen to get involved in something. I'm just not sure there's more to be said (and I wasn't online yesterday). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was going to let this discussion die off without intervening, but today I saw a recurrence of this disturbing editing pattern- ZScarpai removed a description provided by a mainstream newspaper (Jersualme Post) , and replaced it with a description that comes from a web site that alongside the usual anti-Israeli, pro-BDS activism material also that dabbles in Holocaust denial and wild conspiracy theories . Perhaps a topic ban is not a bad idea, after all. Epson Salts (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care about anti-Israeli, pro-BDS activism; I'm even slightly sympathetic. But holocaust denial and "the Jews done it" conspiracies, not so thrilled. I'm not familiar with Veteransnewsnow; if they publish a variety of articles from/for vets,some insane and some sane, then it's not a reliable source and using it was another example of poor judgement. If they focus on insane conspiracy theories, then I'd be inclined to open an AE thread seeking a topic ban. This isn't blindingly obvious without further investigation, and I'm not going to be active until Tuesday at the earliest. I'll take a look then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


We protection-collided. Mine was shorter. I think that's what she would prefer, but she can do what she wants when she returns tomorrow. If there are further problems before that, you (or I) can extend it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wheel war! ANI! ArbCom! Tonight won't be boring after all, you shall pay dearly for your insolence, User:Bbb23. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh thank you. We don't get our next Netflix DVD until tomorrow. I was going to have to read a book.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Eww. A book? That was close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Netflix still sends out DVDs? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Size matters, Bbb. And I already have a book. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


Getting excited about going to Bruges, tomorrow! (more on top of my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy it as much as we did, Gerda. Break a leg (do you say that for singing?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The composer wanted a smashing effect, - breaking a leg might help ;) - We say "Hals- und Beinbruch". Looking forward to meeting people with whom we have worked from 2001, but not for last few years. The Bruges image was taken when most of the cathedral was closed for restoration, so we sang at the end of the transept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We visited that cathedral. Good acoustics, you could hear a pin drop in there. Enjoy! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure I will! - DYK that the piece graces the German Main page today? ... that I suggested to stop saying infobox haters and infobox warriors ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Good rehearsal and nightly stroll of the town, - any recommendations for Der 100. Psalm? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
pictured, and the article about the piece is GA now, going for FA eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
And now I know who to look for! Glad you enjoyed it, and good luck with GA/FA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is progressing nicely. I am held responsible for four good content editors leaving, sigh. Elsewhere on WP, you need a citation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Cause of all evil: "the IB warriors' hit list" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Cause of all good: rejoice and serve! (not from Bruges but from Wiesbaden) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Problematic and a bit tiresome

Hi Floquenbeam, regarding this warning, you might be interested in this user's contributions, my reverts, their discussions on talk at

I just undid two more of their edits ([2], [3]), but following and checking all of them is getting a bit tiresome. This continued misinterpretation of guideline and policies (and essays) might be a slight case of wp:CIR perhaps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And, as expected, here we go:
and of course [4], which I undid. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There should be a list of examples on how to properly deal with instructional / non-neutral / first-second person wording / editorial opinion material without getting complaints from other editors about altering meanings, grammatical errors or removing things that have been supported by cited sources. I think that all opinions and instructional statements should be reserved to quotations. Why aren't some of the "we" and "let's" and "you" and "should" and the "must" and the "this is a serious issue we must deal with" or any other similar things in between quotation marks in this article? --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
And again: [5]. Turkeybutt, please stop this. - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
... followed by User talk:DVdm#"Well-known stars" - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There's another instance that I have documented on Talk:Human rights#The_.22replace.5Bment.5D_.5Bof.5D_synonyms_for_said.22, which I think you will also find useful and relevant. Chenzw  Talk  02:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And more:
- DVdm (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I am also concerned the s/he is changing the MOS, editing "words to watch", while simultaneously being involved in discussions about similar words. By the way his rephrasing of Braille is not faithful to the original text. It is a rather hurried and poor editing job. Dr. K. 13:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I just interacted with this guy at the Teahouse. S/he seems to have a pretty strong "don't bite me" mentality, which reads like they are a sock. Most newbies don't know to use all these WP-specific terms. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not that the thought hadn't crossed my mind - there are other hints in that direction too - it's just that I don't think it's productive to pursue it. In the end, it's the disruption that we need to focus on, I think. Suspicions of socking that are nearly impossible to prove would distract from that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add my 5 cents in agreement. I think it easier to manage this user as a single account than it would be to block it as a sock, then deal with shifting IP addresses. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. By the way, first I thought about going to ANI, but when I noticed that you were aware of this, in the spirit of AGF I decided to come here first, although trolling crossed my mind at some point. Cheers, and thx for having stepped in. - DVdm (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he understands the concept of a topic ban. These are two clear violations: 1, 2. Thinking about it, he does exhibit a certain rigidity regarding changing his MO which is a main characteristic of a sock. Dr. K. 22:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours, but block length is going to escalate really quickly if this happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Floq. Apart from the clear topic ban violations, I am really concerned about the latest edit on Napoleon. He returned to the article to edit-war removing a description of Napoleon, even after the earlier discussion on the talkpage went against his action. He just returned out of the blue to revert the description, despite his/her topic ban and without even bothering to reply on the talkpage. This is strongly indicative of disruptive sock behaviour. Dr. K. 22:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: yes, besides a topic ban breach, this was troublesome for two reasons: (1) "materiel" is indeed entirely correct, and (2) the {{when}} template spits right in the face of my remarks about wp:RELTIME in Talk:Big Bang#I dispute this article's neutrality. That is either an extreme lack of competence or plain trolling—and i.m.o. likely a combination of both. - DVdm (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@DVdm: I agree. But I think this behaviour goes beyond CIR and/or trolling; it also demonstrates the classic rigidity and persistence associated with a sock account. As far as materiel we have a local article as well. Dr. K. 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This purely trollish act speaks for itself. Please consider extending block and revoking TP access. John from Idegon (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Talk page access removed. I apologize to everyone in this thread for not blocking him indefinitely, but rest assured if it starts back up tomorrow I'll do so very quickly and won't drag it out any more. Please don't ask why I didn't just block him indef now, because I really have no good explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


One followup comment I was trying to post: "It's one of Vote(X)'s occasional tactics. Whether he's also the Nazi troll is hard to say for sure. But it's perhaps telling that the Nazi troll's latest IP got reverted and blocked a little while ago, and then this Wilson popped up, so they might indeed be the same guy." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think it's important/useful to post that there for posterity, I certainly don't mind if you restore the thread and post this there; I don't always have the right answer. But my gut tells me it's better to RBI. But please, you decide, it affects you more than me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No, deleting it is fine. And you can delete this section too, if it suits you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of the practice in Mission: Impossible where the message self-destructs after it is read. Dr. K. 03:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone should tell the developers to get on it! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Even better would be if it could be reversed engineered to send a command that would cause the next (and all subsequent) IPs hard drives to fry the minute they typed the letter "j" :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting idea. So instead of just rebooting to get a new IP, they would have to have a stack of PC's ready to put into place of the fried one. That could run into money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
That is the hope :-D MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Now the mission is in the hands of the developers. Should they choose to accept it, of course. :) Dr. K. 04:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop having fun. It's too late for that. It's a school day tomorrow for Floq and me. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
First test subject - the idiot special snowflake who keeps on causing rapper and dog articles to be protected. --NeilN talk to me 05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You are not making it easy Neil. I was trying to follow Drmies's advice to stop having fun until I saw your comment. :) Dr. K. 05:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen the programme (maybe because it's American?). Perhaps Instagram? Snapchat? got the idea from that :) (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above is yet another incarnation of the ref desk troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


There's some concern that this editor may be back. See my talk page. I don't know much about this. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

replying on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for curing the heartburn!, Your closure/comment and about 3 lots of cuppa teas had seemingly done the trick ... for now .... I give it a week before something else sends me to an early grave ,
Ah well thanks for your comment/closure - You've already restored about 60% of my faith here so you're on a roll lol,
Anyway thanks again & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just when you think you'd seen it all, people edit war over a time stamp. It's a candidate for WP:LAME but since everything seems to have ended amicably it's better not to poke fun. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest revoking TP access- just FYI. The rants have become increasingly bizarre. Muffled Pocketed 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sorry to wake you up! Muffled Pocketed 13:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like it's been taken care of. Thanks Nick. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It was getting pretty specialist back there ;) but thanks all. Muffled Pocketed 17:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The difference between being a sucker for a troll and assuming good faith with a newbie is easy to see in retrospect, but (at least for me) difficult at the actual time. I'd rather err on the side of assuming good faith a little longer, but it does make life difficult for the people who have to deal with them. I'll try to recalibrate slightly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I think- if I can presume- yours was a good call. I see your Admins' role as being (in part) as a rope-distribution service. You think the best of an editor- they prove you wrong- and someone else settles the account. And the cycle carries on every day, doesn't it! Just saying- I didn't mean my remark above to infer that it was too specialist or anything- just that I don't normally request TP revocation except in extreme cases. PS: morning! Muffled Pocketed 17:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If we had a barnstar that featured a shovel, I'd be giving it to you. This particular incident required considerable shoveling of what is left on the street after the parade has ended. Great patience and use of rope. We'd be in a lot better shape if more admins used the discretion they are entrusted with, as you did very well here, and there was much less reliance on ANI. Thanks for a fair job well done. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you say that, John, thanks. You are one of the editors whose time I was afraid I was wasting by not being a little more block-aggressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The way you did it, your decision is fireproof. Beats the hell out of endless discussion that leads to compromise that seldom works. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Except for a bit at Commons, en Wikipedia is all I know. Somehow, I'm getting pinged from one of Turkeybutt s User pages at Meta wiki. I can't find my name, but there are absolute nonsense rants there ("Show me some real disruption as opposed to my disruption"). How can he be sitebanned. My that will be a circus. John from Idegon (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps ignoring into oblivion is more effective. - DVdm (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts also. John from Idegon (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@John from Idegon and DVdm: Hopefully this will resolve the issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Likely. Or is it? Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi Flohquenbeam,

You are the admin that, ultimately banned my account User:SimonTrew for making legal threats. It was quite right for you to do so, also quite right I believe to express my doubts about right of reply; usually in a legal case the two sides have a chance to discuss rather than have a blanket ban.

However, I revoke all legal threats and will suggest in a constructive way to the Wikimedia Foundation that they should amend their policies to allow users a right of reply before a ban. The only way I can constructively do that, without impersonating and so on, is to do it under my own name User:SimonTrew (which is my real name). I have very much missed contributing to Wikipedia, especially in the small slips written by non native english speakers which could be so easily fixed, but I have not edited at all under any other name or any IP except to give you this, for that you have my assurance. I did create User:SimonTrew2 in an attempt to get a right of reply, but that can be safely deleted, and was certainly not WP:SOCK (it would be a pretty thin veil I think I could have chosen a better disguise).

My beef, over at RfD, really was I was being hammered for as I see it intelligently going through the Neelix redirects and getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me for bad Neelix redirects. As far as I can gather, having gone through thousands of them, Neelix created them in good faith when the Wikipedia search engine was not as good as it now is. Some I have marked as keep, some I have taken to CSD, and some I have listed at RfD. Some take me up the garden path,. as London Buses route 43 did, and spend two days sorting out all the redirects to London Buses.

The real start of the problem was when I marked them at RfD as (neelix redirect), which is what the policy think says I should do, then being told I am a Neelix hater. You can see from the RfD discussions and from my history of keep, csd, refer that if I am not entirely sure it is a speedy delete I take it to RfD for discussion, so quite right that sometimes the outcome is keep, I would not have expected otherwise. I have been made to be the stool pigeon for Neelix but I am a big enough man to take it, as I hope and am sure he is, he was doing his best when the search engine was not as good as it is now. But every time I read Wikipedia and see something against the WP:MOS and so forth that I could quickly correct as a minor edit, it reminds me why I want to be part of this community that tries to make the world better in its own way.

If you could somehow give me, through the channels, a chance to edit in any kind of limited way, that would be better than not editing at all. I do read too, but when I see something that is wrong I want to correct it. (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) (User:SimonTrew under IP, this is the only time I have used this IP or anything near it. Were I want to fake an IP I have a VPN that will send to various contries in Europe, I come here with clean hands. (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page (User talk:SimonTrew, not User talk: --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Signpost IP

Hi Floq, I was actually in 2 minds on whether to revert or not, Seeing the IP remove someones name I just automatically assumed vandalism, Had I looked at the other users contribs first I probably wouldn't of reverted however I prefer to be safe than sorry that's all,
Anyway hope all is well, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Floquenbeam. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Use a header please

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hi, I've just seen you post at ANI. Do you fancy blocking (talk · contribs) for a few hours? They've just vandalised a template and an article so I think they may be settling in for a bit of fun. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone with an overabundance of good faith might interpret those as editing tests, so I've warned them instead. It's karma balancing: I'm an abusive admin to some people and an overindulgent softie to others, so in the end it's a wash. I'll look at their contribs from time to time, if it continues I'll block. Good to see you back, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Floq. And that is why I'll never be much use as an admin. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Even though the Broncos do suck (go Giants), I award you the barnstar of good humor for this block description. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Giants are the best [FBDB] --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

↑ This impersonation will be kept intact so I can use it in the upcoming ARBCOM case against you. (Finding of fact #1: Broncos rule). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

My apologies I was reverting an IP that removed another users comment and some how removed your in the process my apologies. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I see how that could happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Just checked the history and it looks NeilN got the IP reverted as I was trying to do the revert with twinkle and other edits were coming in, so again apologies I was not trying to remove anything. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Template:Human timeline" May Need Page Protection From Vandals?

@Floquenbeam: IF Possible - my somewhat recently created template => "Template:Human timeline", transcluded on 155 pages at the moment - has now been vandalized several times (ie, vandalism-1 and vandalism-2) - and may require some page protection - perhaps similar to what you performed on "Template:Life timeline" and "Template:Nature timeline" not too long ago? - in any case - Thanks, at least, for considering the issue - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, semi-protected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Thank you *very much* for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


-should have reported this two days ago ;) Muffled Pocketed 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, that was a pretty obvious tell, wasn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
No harm in making it easy for me, every now and again ;) Muffled Pocketed 15:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


I saw that you grasped the nettle and blocked Zaostao. Thank you.

I remain gobsmacked at the amount of leeway that Wikipedia's editing community is consistently willing to extend to dog-whistle racism of various flavors. Even after the thread closed, I see another editor chiming in that unless a user very nearly scrawls "I am a Nazi" on their userpage, we should just ignore this stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that accusing someone of being such a person if they actually aren't is such a horrible prospect, that everyone wants to bend over backwards to make 110% sure first. I have to admit, if it had just been the statue and the Wagner userbox, I probably wouldn't have done anything, even after an explanation - not because I wouldn't have been very, very suspicious, but because no way would I have wanted to guess wrong on something like that. It was the addition of the bible verse and the 1488 that clinched it. Then, of course, you look at his edits and smack your forehead and say "well, obviously...." --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well. He probably should have been blocked about three months ago for this and this. As I've said before, we need to be less tolerant of such nonsense.- MrX 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add my thanks as well. It's good too finally see someone taking antisemitism seriously around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me

Not cool. I'm trying to find something out on a talk page. I'm trying to find out what happened from another person's perspective. This is not vandalism nor some kind of disingenuous snark. Your threat is not in the spirit of wikipedia. if you wanted to be constructive maybe you could tell me more about what happened to Treasury Tag.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No you're not, you're trolling and gravedancing. I will block you if you do it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your perspective is incorrect but clearly you have your mind made up about me so it's pointless arguing. I may decide to ask the question again on his page in a more matter of fact way if that will satisfy you but please do not abuse your power and ban me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be unwise. I really will block you if you post to that page again, no matter how you rephrase it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You're probably smarter than me Floq, is this some kind of secret vandalism that escapes me? I sent it to XFD because it makes no sense, but I found other vandalism type redirects in his past. Not all activity mind you, and I haven't searched exhaustively, but since you are in the middle of this, a look might be worthwhile. Dennis Brown - 01:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I don't have any particular insight into this editor, I just know gravedancing when I see it. I don't know anything about his other edits, they might be good, they might be bad, they might be a mixed bag. And unfortunately, a combination of (a) lack of significant time, and (b) a deep revulsion to something else going on here today, are going to prevent me from looking at his edits in more detail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow.... Dennis Brown wants to start a witch hunt against me. I've been on wikipedia for over a decade. I'm sure you could find things you don;t like if you look hard enough. Thanks for confirming all my paranoia about the way this place is run.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown actually owes me an apology and teh Don Sahline redirect needs to be put back. It was not a "secret vandalism" link. None of my redirects are "secret vandalism" even the ones that have been deleted because people have misinterpretd nicknames that these people actually have. I stopped arguing on some of them because of that but this is ridiculous. The Don Sahline redirect shoudl be put back and Brown owes me an apology.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


I found a request on my talk to translate an article - the one I started the year with, and which was on DYK on Wikipedia's 15th birthday. Interesting discussion followed, - such a nice break from the usual being held responsible for all evil on the site, especially annoying FA authors (by doing nothing). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A nice reminder that not everything turns into a dispute. Congrats on being so useful; such direct positive feedback from non-Wikipedians is fairly rare. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought that was a non-Wikipedian (by no signature), but found he has created several articles, including about the two music academies in Frankfurt. Do you like my proposal for the commemoration? When I suggested I didn't expect it to get real. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh! I just assumed (also purely because of the lack of a signature). Still, evidence of real life impact is always nice. And a nice idea about the whole place singing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I smiled when I saw his name as a tenor soloist in one of the sources. - I just returned from singing all of Elijah, last rehearsal before the dress rehearsal on Sunday, concert on Monday, as you may remember from my New Years' greeting ;) - The whole place will not sing, just those who know to read the four-part music: Come, o death, brother of sleep. I will cry, not sing, I guess. - That's an FA-to-be, you heard it here the first time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The memorial concert is today. The other was magnificent, and I don't say that often (and only quoting the conductor who said he was rarely that happy after a concert. He actually used "happy" in German.) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It was exceptional, program on my talk. I didn't cry but sang soprano because the light was too dim to read the alto line. - They printed every word I had written in the German article (and asked if I was present!), so had little room for the chorale ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm glad to hear it Gerda, I'll take a look at your talk when I'm in a better mood. It sounds like something to be joyous about, and I'm not in the right frame of mind to be joyous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
What happened? - Don't worry, it gets as joyous as "Come, o Death, brother of sleep". - Don't look at the review of the other concert, because that really was 2 hours of drama! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
"Joyous" was a poor choice of words on my part, I wasn't thinking. Anyway, I'm glad you were able to go, and contribute words and song, and be recognized. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
... and hear an abundance of some of the best music ever written! Two of the pieces are GA, one has no article (yet, Widor)), one (Haydn) a stub which should also be a GA - some day ;) - Perfect programming: organ start and finish, uplifting in the end, chamber ensemble (a capella and with recorders and viols), guitar, piano, cello, - and the person who contacted me both conducting and singing tenor solo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For doing good work, making good choices and being an all around good person.

Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you, Ratatosk Jones, I appreciate it the kind words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI Closure

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.

Fair enough on closing that thread - I wasn't aware that blanking talk page messages like that was permitted (hence why I was checking), neither was I aware that I had to notify someone when discussing their actions. In any case, I don't appreciate being labelled a troll just because I did not know. TGS is causing a lot of disruption, has recently been blocked for socking (only 1 week!?!) and I believe is taking as all for a ride. I'm compiling evidence for an SPI, and I'll make sure I let them know when I post it. (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There has never been a productive edit from this IP address. You're careening from actual vandalism to trolling and shit stirring, and are going to get blocked if you don't knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam I appreciate closing the pointless ANI case; I still am not entirely sure what it was about. The fact the IP has targeted me and Garagepunk while referring to me as TGS (although that is somewhat common among other more respectable users) makes me believe this is another address being used by CrazyAces489, but that is just a theory. I am not going to accuse him/her yet so I am not somehow mixed up in another meaningless ANI thread.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
"Careening from actual vandalism to trolling and shit-stirring" !? I made one joke edit a while back, apologies profusely, and was still blocked for 2 weeks. TGS abusively uses a sockpuppet (yes, absuively, they were using it to harass their "friend" GP66, and actively contradict their own edits - that is what I call "shit-stirring"), shows absolutely NO remorse, attacks the user who blocked them multiple times, and gets a one week block. How is that consistent or fair? I strongly suspect this user to be the same as GP66, and am gathering evidence as we speak to request an SPI. I have a gut feeling a lot of interesting info will come of this. (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
So you are suggesting GP66 created my account? He, as you are trying to say, uses my account to create articles in an absolutely different writing style on the same subject, while continuing to write on his own "master" account? Then he created my whole persona and wrote pages of dialogue between me and him, giving me unique back-stories (almost like I am a seperate person!). I guess we will just ignore the amount of time each day GP66 would need to spend to accomplish that. Wow IP that is a genius plan, you uncovered it all with great detective work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said previously, if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear when I submit the SPI. That said, I think you have plenty to hide. Why else would you be protesting so loudly, surely you'd relish a chance for vindication and to prove I'm wrong! If you really think your little narrative above is consistent with the fact that, despite your claims to be "friends" with GP66, you abusively used sockpuppets to attack them, then dream on. Even if GP66 is not your sockpuppet (and I think he is - I've already amassed a fair amount of evidence and will be submitting fairly soon) it is clear that your intentions here at Wikipedia are not good. It beggars belief that others can't see this, even after you've been caught red handed! (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
No I'm looking forward to the SPI actually. We all know who you are IP so please hurry that submission up, so you can be blocked. My intentions are not good? I have written over 200 articles (no deletions), effectively expanded awareness on 60s music and obscure blues musicians, brought four articles to GA status, and do not hide behind an anonymous address to attack someone they have an issue with. What have you done, may I ask, that has been even a little productive?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cassianto's talk page

Being an uninvolved editor concerning the baiting and continued harassing of Cassianto, I believe that any trolling comments, like this posted on Cassianto's talk page should result in a block. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was baiting, and it looks like it was taken care of with a block of the IP by... someone (my connection to WP sucks today for some reason, don't want to look again to remind myself who it was). I've got his talk page watchlisted, but I'm not around too much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Knock what off?

Block me for what exactly? The user is breaking Wikipedia policy by removing not only my own comments but my notices of breaches of Wikipedia policy, whilst claiming I have no idea of them despite quoting them. They made a 3RR, then when I placed a friendly notice on their talk page, I was slighted. How is exactly is this being civil and assuming good faith? Then they add a disruptive editing tag to my talk page for reverting the removal of one of my comments on their page, which I did not give the permission for. Every edit to their talk page since then has been reverted, without my permission, and without archiving either. That's a pretty hefty list of breaches, a good few I have seen users banned for. Uamaol (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to aslo forget the cheek of adding a "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" despite doing it themselves!Uamaol (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You are confused. First, Meters didn't violate 3RR when reverting vandalism; reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule, as it specifically says at WP:3RR. Second, Meters can remove whatever he wants from his talk page, and doesn't need your permission and doesn't have to archive, as it says at WP:TPG. I note that you had no concern about removing his posts from your page, so I wonder if you really think that's what the policy is? So the answer to "blocked me for what exactly" is: blocked for disruptive editing, and edit warring on another user's talk page. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Time to go back to your corners. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Then explain to me why I have been threatened when I first joined here for doing the exact same thing? As per WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." and "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by"."
What about the disruptive editing said user took on my own talk page? The user breached the above policy be editing my comment to hide the facts. I reverted it because of the malicious nature of removal!
We have. I agree. I have tried to reason with them, which you can read, but have been uncivil from the start. I'm worried that if the user doesn't assume good faith to reg. users, how exactly do they treat IP users? It's a scary thought! Uamaol (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Begging Floquenbeam's pardon, but you missed this part:
Did you happen to click on that link?
  • "Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user."
??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what KB said. You can't do something to someone's message to change its meaning, but you can delete it from your talk page. While I don't understand the choice of a lot of editors to communicate via templates, Meters is certainly not the only one who does this (you did it too), and there is nothing disruptive on your page from him, and there is nothing malicious in his removal of anything from his own talk page. I assume this has settled down now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Might you be so kind as to lock down their talk page access? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Can I ask you to block the user who made this edit when you get a moment? A revdel would be good too. I've emailed the WMF emergency address. agtx 18:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a copypasta. clpo13(talk) 18:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Doesn't really matter though, if it's directed at another editor. agtx 18:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Editor already blocked, I've revdel'd the messages. Not sure WMF emergency is needed (this is some 13 year old idiot), but they'll know what to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
As I told the folks at WMF, I err on the side of caution with these things, even when it's dumb copypasta, just in case it coincides with something more serious. Recall Slender Man stabbing. agtx 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Larry Pretlow

In case you hadn't seen it, there's an AfD for Larry Pretlow here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow. An anonymous IP posted the same legal threat as was on the page you deleted, Remove Salt Delete All Current and Pass Articles and Debates on Larry Pretlow. I suggest a block for User:RemoveSaltDelete for legal threats and likely sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. --Drm310 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting caught up on this now. I read slowly, may take a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Special Request

All caps is really, really annoying, and you're just copy/pasting pages

Important Request: Larry Pretlow







Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete and Salt per (a) WP:CSD#G4, (b) WP:SNOW below, and (c) apparent request from article subject.. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
20:26, 13 October 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page Larry Pretlow (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Pretlow)

Final Understanding of Request

Please Read Page FULLY then REMOVE. Can also remove and delete this account too. SUBJECT doesn't wish to be included nor mentioned on Wikipedia at all at any time past, present or future. Subject has never claimed to meet WIKIPEDIA Notability Standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfy Xfinity (talkcontribs)

All pages have been deleted or courtesy blanked. It is not possible to prevent the deletion log of a deleted page from showing up when you go to that page, and we don't delete AFD's although we do courtesy blank them.
Now that you've posted this take down request with this account, I guess my question is, why did *you* create the page again? You're obviously the same person who created it all the previous times, and who requested page deletion and AFD blanking all the previous times. So why create it again? It makes no sense. It seems a little disingenuous to claim "Wikipedians" are trying to make you (or your client, or whatever the relationship is) look bad, when the actions are directly attributable to you. Yes, you did directly claim this person was notable by WP standards, when you recreated the article for the 13th time. So perhaps save your fake outrage, it's not convincing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


*cough* Mlpearc has requested on IRC for this IP to be blocked for something like 5 minutes *cough* Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for your help

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Great team work - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Happy to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the same person: Is there some piece of bureaucracy I'm supposed to go through to get it dealt with? --JBL (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

While I would not be surprised if this is him, I don't think it's certain. There may be tells I'm missing, but it doesn't hit the few tells I'm aware of. If you have stronger evidence than a link to their contribs, let me know, by email of you prefer. But until then, if it was me, I'd treat them as a headstrong but legit editor, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, it's less obvious than I said. The connection is that it is obviously the same person as the IP editor who made identical edits earlier, who I've always assumed is the same person as TB. But I agree that it's not clear-cut. --JBL (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I compared their contributions, and the IP user's contributions don't appear to be a series of attempts to push what he thinks is neutral into articles, and they don't seem to be complaining about other editors reverting their edits, but they may be almost as disruptive as him, even though we aren't supposed to be quick to think that they are one of his sockpuppets. I put a sock suspect thing on the IP's user page and a notice on their talk page. -- AI RPer (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Hey Joel, are you thinking what I'm thinking? No need to spell it out, just yes or no. I'll keep an eye, I guess, until I'm sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: Joel, I've looked at this in more detail, I've blocked AI RPer as a sock of Turkeybutt JC, and I am very, very confident the IP editor is not a sock of Turkeybutt JC, and have no reason to think he's a sock of anyone. I'm also concerned because I think some of your reverts of the IP were based on your assumption that he was a sock, and weren't really fair. It all seems to have escalated. Please take a look, and see if you agree that you owe him an an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up and your comments. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for helping with Draft:Maternal Health in Texas

And a second thanks for helping when there was an urgent schedule.

"They doubly benefit the needy who gives quickly." - q:Publilius Syrus Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


There appears to be consensus in regards to the linkspamming @ WT:MMA, which is that the links should be gone. Can I have your permission to remove them? TBMNY (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@TBMNY: It would have been nice to get a few more people commenting, but that page seems pretty inactive so we're probably lucky to have one outside commenter. Treat it like a WP:3O, I suppose. User:SubSeven makes a good, reasonable case, and I think they can be safely removed. While you're doing so, probably good to remove other minor website awards. User:Autocaptcha can start an RFC somewhere if he wants more opinions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkeybutt JC again

Hi, you blocked User:AI RPer as a Turkeybutt JC sock. I'm pretty sure UnforgivablyPotatoes is the same person who keeps adding blocked templates to user talk pages for some reason. See [6] [7] [8].Sro23 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this, but don't have time to look at their contribs in depth (takes more effort than a quick ANI or AIV task). I'll try to look tonight. Or tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that's him. Blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

On Lane Splitting...

...oh froze it with one editor having "redacted" another editor's comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It. Doesn't. MATTER. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I realize the topic was trivial..was I supposed to walk away from one editor redacting/reverting another's comments? And yes...WP.IS.SILLY.Juan Riley (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, basically. Walk away from things that don't matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait...the topic didn't matter or the behavior of the editor didn't matter. Ignore me. I don't matter. Have a nice day. Juan Riley (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record JuanRiley, please stop with the personal attacks as you did here. Please see WP:PA. (N0n3up (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC))

Our lovely IP friends

May want to add 2600:1000:b035:ef5a:5afa:9a71:e4b4:493 to that list if you haven't already seen it. TimothyJosephWood 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Faster than you: [9]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your oversight

How come you oversighted EVERYTHING I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not everything. You missed one.2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
JUST ADMIT IT, IT'S A CUTE IDEA! In case you forgot what "it" was, I can put it here if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:E11:29E4:76F:96C2:9240 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello F. When you have moment you will want to check the recent edits by this IP as it looks like the disruption has continued. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For those talk page watchers who are curious about accusations of misuse of oversight: I revdel'd (not oversight) several instances of this user posting the same large silly thing in multiple places using multiple IP's, istead of simply reverting them, on the off chance they hadn't saved a copy offline, so they wouldn't be able to paste it again without significant effort. I realized the likelihood of it working was relatively small but figured I'd give it a try. Oh well, I guess back to RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, that edit summary. It must be hard being that fucking savage. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin

At the thread WP:ANI#Tendentious IP. JzG's there, but he's involved. I've asked more than one admin, so no pressure. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's been sorted by someone. Sorry, usually not around on weekends for very long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js Custom summaries (Special:Contributions/NQ-Alt) along with API rollback, so no additional windows popup when you mass rollback. - NQ (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nvm, I'm now in trouble for using the script. User talk:NQ#Stop - NQ (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. I'm not going to revert MS, I'll assume this will all get ironed out with a new AWB run by someone eventually. Thanks for the script, I'll play with it in a bit. Once I saw that it was just rolling back with the generic edit summary, I knew I was going to get blowback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with the mess I made with CitationCleanerBot! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries, glad I could help. But I wonder, @Headbomb:, could you have used AWB to revert yourself? I don't use it, so I don't know. But it would have perhaps confused others less if your bot was reverting its own edits. Unless it would have been a violation of AWB rules or something, or unless AWB isn't really set up to revert edits by a particular user. Anyway, just thinking out loud. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, AWB isn't set up todo reverts. At least not to my knowledge. Some types of edit you can rerun a bot and it'll fix it, but since the information needed was in an old revision, the bot was pretty helpless there. I'm sure someone else could have coded something to fetch the old revision, apply logic on that, and then only fix what was truly broken, but I'm nowhere near that level of coding genius (and editing based on old version is not something built in AWB). Mass revert really was the most efficient way of getting things done, at the expense of watchlist spamming. The alternative would have been spending 4-5 hours (at the least) reviewing each edit manually. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
OK; as you can probably tell, I know just enough about AWB to know that I don't know anything about AWB. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


I was catching up on wiki stuff on my phone and saw you posting your arb candidacy, yay! ...Then I read the edit summary. Are you sure you're not running? Hrmph. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I must say I was also initially pleasantly surprised when I saw Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Candidates. I only echo Opabinia: "Are you sure you're not running? Hrmph." Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I would vote for you! Few are left, - I can't vote for people having supported to desysop Yngvadottir and TRM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Fool myself once, shame on me, fool myself twice... no, wait.... OK, make a fool of myself once, shame on... no, that's not it...
Anyway, there is no way I will ever run for ArbCom again. It doesn't match my skill set (that's how to say "I sucked at it" without admitting any weakness). Personally, I think you can actually get more useful stuff done as a rouge admin who just goes ahead and does stuff without checking with 14 other people first. I certainly feel more useful now than I did on the AC.
However, I have to admit to a certain sense of satisfaction when people say I should run. I should probably work harder on not relying on external sources of self worth. But until I do: thanks, folks, I appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying rouge arbing is a bad thing? I, uh... hmm... *shuffles feet* I gotta go do some stuff now, brb... Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I know people like joining the party fashionably late but I can't help but feel weird that I'm the only name in the hat after ~36hrs. :/  · Salvidrim! ·  18:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is that one other user who might give you a run for your money. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd vote for that guy!  · Salvidrim! ·  18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Me too. And I'm probably not joking. He's a CU, so probably trustworthy. Been here since the beginning, so probably clueful. But only felt the need to become a sysop in the last few years, so not a hat collector. I say we draft him to run with you. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient content creation  ;) Muffled Pocketed 19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello F. Looks like the editor I should not have to register to make a template (talk · contribs) has returned as (talk · contribs). Since it is possible they will move on to another IP or stop (wishful thinking I know) this is more of a heads up than anything else. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. If it looks like a range block would be helpful, please check with another admin; I still haven't mastered that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Thanks. Sca (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheer up

Per the NY Times: President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists. I'm not surprised. The "Reagan Democrats" who voted for him are going to get disillusioned with him even faster than the left gave up on Obama. wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The lack of a sufficient number of corporate consultants and lobbyists in Trump's inner circle isn't the main concern I have with him, and I'm not going to be mollified if some of the less deplorable people who supported him quickly become disillusioned. I can't predict the future, so I don't know how this is going to blow up in all our faces, but with the slimiest person possible in charge of the executive branch, and other slimy and unethical people filling his inner circle/cabinet, and other slimy people plotting how to take advantage of the Breitbart presidency, it will definitely blow up in our faces somehow. Multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

See outreach: Here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, see below. Thanks for the pointer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Turkeybutt JC evading his block again

Take a look at User talk: It appears to be more of a static IP address, as he simply waited out his previous two-week block. Sro23 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-blocked for 6 months, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's just that gifts that keep on giving like this dude make me a little wonky, but at your leisure you might want to take a look at Some Creep 06. He posted at one of the socks talk pages and his contributions look well, Turkeybutt-ish. John from Idegon (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I saw that earlier, and looked into it a little, and I don't think that's him. I could easily be wrong, of course, but it appears SC06 posted on the TB sock's talk page because the sock had left a template on his. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the fast reaction! Cheers! -- (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like...

...7 candidates for 7 positions open on ArbCom, with about a day to go before nominations close. Any thoughts about throwing your hat into the ring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See a few sections up; also I personally wouldn't be surprised at all if the number of noms doubled in the last 24h.  · Salvidrim! ·  22:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, on both: that you should look at a section above (with the emoji thread title), and that I'm sure there will be more last minute nominations. As I say above, though, BMK, thanks for suggesting it, it does my heart good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A rather ominous user page edit Comment

This edit by Alexis Ivanov seems rather ominous considering this user's recent editing history. --Adam in MO Talk 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: Looks like it's being dealt with at ANI, and I'm a little short of time, so I'm going to let that percolate instead of wading in myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Floquenbeam.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


here?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

maybe a little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Puny, compared to this. Talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not venting. He's just showing off the fruits (ahem) of his master's degree in English.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not venting. The blocked user who years ago told me that he was going to wait by the side of the road and throw a sackful of swallows (inspiring this alternate account) at me as I went to work: that was eloquence, leaving all the rest aside. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Saeed Jaffrey Protection request

Hi Floquenbeam, please protect this page because large ammount of sockpuppetors are trying to modify this topic you must protect with page for a week and block sockpuppetors.MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, @MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON:, how stupid do you think I am? You are the problem on that page, not the people reverting you. Since you are continuing the edit warring that you started a few weeks ago (now with an account, then an IP), we'll just do this: if you edit that page again without gaining consensus on the talk page first, your account will be blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I see now, you're just another sock. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


I'm replying here because my talk page is being flooded with edit conflicts. You can take it down, I did not realize RfAs were so serious around here. I hope this little prank will fall under the category of 'humorous content' and not 'vandalism' UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh, yeah you kind of wandered into a nest of vipers without realizing. RFA is Serious Business around here. I've deleted the page. Not "vandalism", just "unwise but easily solved". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I really hated to go to a second noticeboard on this, but the brusqueness with which my report was dismissed didn't sit well. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said on ANI, Ritchie has a legit issue with people making poor AIV reports, but is possibly going too far in the other direction. Anyway, no harm in asking for a second opinion, and easily addressed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Now Floq, sweetie, isn't it just a simple matter that I'm having a bad week and making a few high-profile mistakes? Well, that's my opinion, I'm off to sharpen my chainsaw and see if I've got enough grenades handy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
you're having a bad week? some of us are running for arbcom. the only way this week could get worse is if i win. Writ Keeper  16:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
That's what Boris and Michael said back in June, and look what happened to them..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, honey, don't worry your pretty little head about it. (I mean, don't worry about your bad week. You're encouraged to worry a tremendous amount about that other thing. I'm not into chainsaws and hand grenades, so much as the complete set of Gilligan's Island seasons one thru three (with commentary) to get me thru the next 4 years. And canned food, bottled water, and the complete works of Douglas Adams in case things really go to hell). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Look. I took the image (sort of related to todays featured picture) close to Rüdesheim. Heavenly. Survived 900 years or so. - A friend died. Yes, he knew that had to be expected, but still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, Gerda. It wasn't a friend or family, but I lost someone I looked up to a week or two ago. Hasn't been a great month. Thanks for the photo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Floquenbeam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


I read this for the first time today. I actually laughed out loud; and would have laughed harder, had it not been altogether too accurate. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you, Vanamonde. Personally, I like this version better, before the hoi polloi hacked at it, but that's just a severe case of WP:OWN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you. I wanted that the insults stop and thats is the case. The solution is OK for me. Best regards. --Ms10vc (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Be cool man

Hi I don't want to provoke any people. I accept your decision issued yesterday but I ask you what do I have if I am harrassed again ? Reagrds. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are harassed by someone you are banned from interacting with, contact Drmies or me by email, and we'll look into it. They should do the same if you harass them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V &c.

Sorry but I undid you closure. There have been many attempts to sweep this under the carpet, not saying that's your motivation, but it's clear that issues remain unresolved, mainly from my point of view the erroneous claims of IBAN infringements which are lodged in my sanctions. Mike V doing a runner should have no bearing whatsoever on this, we need to ensure someone in his position, i.e. with checkuser and oversight, is held to account, primarily WP:ADMINACCT but more than that since he has super-trusted tools. I would be asking WMF if he has made any CHU requests on me given his sudden interest in my editing patterns. It's a sad decline but it seems apparent from numerous notes from numerous other editors, not a surprise. Better to get this properly resolved now rather than wait for Mike V to return in a puff of smoke and continue in the same damaging way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the subject of an AE thread gets to decide when it's over, but I'm certainly not going to wade any deeper into the mess you and Mike V created together here. I guess we'll see if your revert sticks or not, I'm certainly not going to argue further. In the meantime, perhaps keep your snide comments about others to the 45 pages they're already on, I don't really need them here too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it sounds like you're too involved to participate in future too given your tone. You closed it prematurely, there were still unresolved issues. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, shit. You criticizing my "tone" just broke my fancy new irony detector. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking, once again, about being too involved. Your tone indicates you have a dog in the fight, so it'd be better for you to leave it to someone else, a bit like Mike should have done. I know it's all too easy to assume bad faith with me, but honestly, you made a premature closure, and that's all there is to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't anticipate this ever coming up, but if it ever is necessary, I'm uninvolved wrt you, and will do anything I think necessary. For that matter, I'm uninvolved with Mike V too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, with commentary like ... perhaps keep your snide comments about others to the 45 pages they're already on... you're involved enough to have shown your hand. That much is fundamentally obvious. See you at Arbcom again. I'm out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You fundamentally mistake criticism with being "involved". I can observe your comments and behavior, realize they are significantly sub-par, say so, and not become too involved to comment or act further. My comment above is not the same order of magnitude as Mike V's previous interactions with you, and it would be a foolish consistency to think it is. "See you at Arbcom again" doesn't engender the concern you seem to think it does, and in this particular case, doesn't even make sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh? Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally. Arcbom is the next step to deal with Mike V's behavioural competence issues, so of course it makes sense. But clearly you're on a parallel thread and agenda of your own. As before, see you at Arbcom! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
"Hyperbolic"? "Emotional"? For calling snide comments snide? Or for claiming that they've been made on 45 pages? If I reduce it down to a more easily documented 20 pages, would I still be involved in your eyes? You're a real puzzle, you are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hyperbolic. Reduce it down to pages you can actually document. Your emotional criticism is clear for all of us to see, including your premature closure allowing Mike V a free pass from further analysis there by concerned editors (and there are dozens, maybe even 45), but as you said already, I'm out of this meaningless debate. It's not productive, it's not improving Wikipedia, and my time is better spent elsewhere, and defending myself from rogue admins (who may also happen to be checkuser and oversight-enabled... curious.) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In German we say: Der Klügere gibt nach. There are articles to be written, as you probably know. I miss my friend Alakzi since Mike V blocked him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd buy that, if it weren't for the stain on my log where Mike V accused me of lying twice before hopping off to never-never land to avoid scrutiny. It's not going to work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Floquenbeam!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too. Here's to 2017 being better than 2016. I know, it won't be, but one can dream... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely!! MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Auto-confirmed status will not work. Vandal has sleeper accounts. Thank you, nonetheless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much. However, there needs to be a more permanent solution somehow in the future. I cannot count how many times this has happened.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple options. I think you should request indefinite extended confirmed protection of your talk, no expiry date. It's very difficult to sock your way to EC status. Making 500 dummy edits to your userspace in quick succession will always look at least a little suspicious. I have no idea what this person's problem is, but you would think that after a while the vandal would give up or get bored. You could also try the WP:CLEANSTART approach. Abandon TheGracefulSlick account and start editing under a new one. It wouldn't be considered sockpuppetry since you would have a good reason for doing so. But I doubt you would like that very much. Sro23 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Sro23 were could I make such a request? That would be my only option because, you are correct, I would not like abandoning this account at all. I accomplished too much on it and I would need to distance myself from anyone I work with for a clean start to be effective.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:RFPP. I don't think they would deny your request given the situation. Sro23 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RC; Merry Christmas to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Here We Come A-wassailing

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC).

I certainly know better than to open the box with DarwinBish right there ready to nip me; unlike Charlie Brown with Lucy, I learn from my mistakes. Hope your Christmas was wonderful, Bish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. We did have a very Merry Christmas, hope you did too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Gah, meant to ping you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Montana. Very elegant card, thank you. I too hope the worst end of our trail is behind us, but will be surprised if it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks, Doug (though this looks vaguely familiar....) Hope yours was special too. Cheers! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bzuk! We were very close to Canada this Christmas, but didn't quite make it across the border. Maybe next year. Merry merry to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks Iryna Harpy, mine was Christmas (well, and partially the solstice: when the sun sets at 4:30 it's nice to know the days are at least getting longer now), but I'm hoping you enjoyed whichever yours was! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

4:30?? Luxury! Bishonen | talk 17:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

User Zaostao

Hi, I have dealt with this editor before on Wikipedia, and have reported said user to other WP users, diff here for reference [10]. I noticed the user has now been indef. banned from Wikipedia. The reason for my interest is that the decision behind the users block appears entirely political, i.e The user may hold different political, ideological opinions to the rest of the Wikipedia editing community. This is what you wrote to justify your decision: contained nazi dog whistles, editor now blocked. Now, I find those views to be morally reprehensible because I strongly disagree with them. However, since when does holding such views qualify someone to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia? Looking at Zaostao's contributions, many were quite constructive and beneficial to the project and the user certainly was no vandal. What if it was decided that I should be blocked from Wikipedia because I have a user-box supporting marriage equality? Or that my user page contained 'social democratic/communistic/socialist dog whistles' due to the red flag that I display on there? I find this logic and reasoning to be deeply distasteful, unfair and without any Wikipedia precedence. --Donenne (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say equating nazism with something like marriage equality as simply two examples of "different political, ideological opinions", was "a false equivalence", or, more strongly, an Emersonian "foolish consistency" that plagues little minds, and then try to spend some of my valuable time explaining to you how you're mistaken. But I think, on this last day of 2016, I'll allow myself a little honesty: it's either fuckwittery, or dishonest babble by a more subtle nazi. Looking at some of your edits, you do indeed appear to be a fuckwit, so I'll assume for now that's the explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
My, my, my what is this? I was not equating the beliefs held in both as ideologically equal, merely using it as an example to justify banning someone for containing "dog whistles" on their user page from Wikipedia Wikipedia when no such rule in Wikipedia's policy exists. You haven't yet pointed me in the direction of revealing to me this policy if it indeed does exist, which was the whole basis for banning User Zaostao. Instead you have accused me of being a nazi. They must have really lowered the standard in making editors admins on Wikipedia. Maybe you got a tad triggered when someone with my beliefs on same-sex equality was making the comparison? Is it because I don't fit into your narrow paradigm? How a person concerned with marriage equality, with left-wing tendencies could dare defend someone who happens to be banned for perceived right-wing material on his user page (If it was a hakenkreuz, that's a different story)? It must be because I am a 'subtle nazi' then, a far-right wing plant. As for my edits, I don't know how you can possibly see a reason for thinking I am a 'subtle nazi' when these diffs here don't really support such a claim:
[11] - Reporting the banned user in question for removing sourced material on a neo-nazi connection with the Alt-Right movement. User was correct in removing it as it came from a partisan, non-RS.
[12] - Adding the material in question to the article itself
[13] - Commenting that the NPI is an 'alt-right' think tank
[14] - Labelling the U.S Republican Party as a Far-right wing political party
If you do wish to back yourself up, and do believe I am in fact a "subtle nazi", then ban me. However as it stands, there is more reasoning for you to be banned from Wikipedia after that little Wiki-tantrum you had. Maybe you need to review WP's policy on personal attacks. As for user Zaostao, I am going to raise his banning with a non-partisan, impartial administrator. And one final word, I am going to give this conversation (with a link) an honorary place on my user page. --Donenne (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It's New Year's Day. Go away and find a joyous and productive way to start 2017, instead of trolling. If you read a bit more carefully, you'll note that Floquenbeam explicitly presumed that you weren't a Nazi. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Floquenbeam!

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Weed laced brownie appears!

:D thank you for not being around all the time, and playing role of admin to greatly serve this community. Merry Christmas, Woqa Floqqa ;) Deouble (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, Deoble. I very much like the idea behind "thank you for not being around all the time". You're welcome. Merry Christmas to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. [[Deouble, I mean. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Dammit! Deouble, I mean. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Deouble (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yeah, this site can't take much more chaos from ya! :) Deouble (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Your welcome, and happy new year :)

  • Seems like those were really good brownies, Deouble.  :-) Risker (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A bad case of twinkleitis

You recently wrote "Have I mentioned lately that I hate it when someone who is actively edit warring places an edit warring template on the other person's talk page?" I don't know about you, but I certainly have, and indeed I have boomerang 3RR blocked at least one editor for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was supposed to be the trigger happy admin and you were supposed to be the calm voice of reason. Did HQ switch things up again and I never got the new orders? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It's out with old, in with the new everywhere, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Just be up front with the name in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But if I did that, they wouldn't be able to resist getting involved in the discussion because they'd been named, and it would go all pear shaped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Well perhaps they shouldn't have 8,900 pages on their watchlist including good old Brad's talkpage. If you want to talk about me, at least have the common courtesy to let me know you're doing it. We call it "shit stirring", right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You might, I don't. But then, I consider this thread right here shit stirring, and I imagine you don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This thread is an observation that you appear to be claiming some kind of higher horse, yet you're as bad as the rest of the shit-stirrers. Which is a shame because I had some level of regard for you. Never mind, everyone shows their colours eventually. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"Blunt" is "derogatory"? Don't pretend to be a princess disturbed by a pea 20 mattresses below; when it's to your rhetorical advantage you would express pride in being called blunt. And, more to the point, shall we each go back over our last 1000 edits, and count the number of times you've said something derogatory about other editors without naming them, and the number of times I've said anything at all about other editors without naming them, derogatory or not? I bet you a pint that you're an order of magnitude higher than me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Bet's on. Go for it. Difference is, I'll call a spade a spade while you'll call it a shafted digging instrument. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't "calling a spade a spade" another way of saying "blunt"? I think the problem is you're replying too fast. Take a few moments to think about your response, make sure it's consistent with your response from 15 minutes previous, and then press "send". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hang on, I call bullshit. About half of your last 1000 edits (made over four months?!) are reverting a bot. My last 1000 edits, over two weeks, mainly involve improving Wikipedia. I'm sure you can prove anything you like from that. So it's your call, prove your stat despite the shoddy starting arrangements, and I'll buy you a beer. If you can't, you're coming here to get me two, for being so cheeky. (There's no "send") The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it would make more sense to use 1000 non-article edits. I'm not sure why you think I'm doing the counting, I said "shall we each...". I'm far too busy improving the encyclopedia to do all the counting myself! But I'll agree to the change in odds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
1000 non-article edits? Well be my guest. I noted today that nearly 5% of edits to the ERRORS page comes from me. Perhaps that's because I don't enjoy seeing so much garbage on the main page. But please, if you can demonstrate that I said something at all about other editors ten times more frequently than you have, I'm buying. Until then, wind it in and get back to doing your job. There you go, a free one. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not a free one; I think we're counting the number of times we say things about other editors without naming/notifying them, right? Anyway, this is getting boring for me too, so I'll talk to you some other time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-Continuation of article talk page discussion

(originally posted to User talk:Umair Aj)

I am not belittling you; indeed, it looks like you're attempting to belittle me with "my dear", although I wonder if this is a language issue, and you misunderstand what "Oh dear" means. It is an expression of surprise, like "Wow" or "Oh my", it is not a form of "my dear", which used the way you used it is demeaning. Anyway, if you really don't want to be dragged into this issue any more, that's fine, but then DanJazzy will probably revert your changes. Is that what you mean? You can't impose your preference thru edit warring, accuse the other editor of edit warring without acknowledging your own share of the blame, then refuse to discuss, and instead make ad hominem attacks, and still expect to have your edits stick. So either participate in the talk page discussion, or accept that your edits will be reverted, whichever you prefer. I will block you from editing for a week if you revert that article again without making a good faith effort to discuss first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(end of cut and paste)

I am belittling you, really? I think you have misunderstood the gesture of warmth. Anyways, the only argument we are listening from you every time is that you can block me. So block me but for what? I am not giving any one any excuse to do so and even then, if you want to do it, I can not stop you but definitely would raise my voice against any injustice. Frankly speaking, if DanJazzy wants to revert my edits on merit, he should go a head but any editor, as a matter of fact, needs to justify his edits. Umair Aj (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I guess we can do this here instead. First, do not call me "my dear". You lie when you claim it is a gesture of warmth. I assumed perhaps it was a misunderstanding, but now I see it wasn't. Second, my statement that I will block you if you continue to violate policy is not the only argument you are hearing from me, you should re-read my two messages which clearly lay out what you are doing wrong. My warning that you will be blocked if this continues is just making it clear what will happen, so that you can't claim "But I didn't know I'd be blocked!" if or when it happens. Third, I have explained twice now what you would be blocked for: edit warring. Fourth, it is true editors need to justify their edits. You do too. Now he has done so. You have not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lie? You are calling me a liar? Very strong accusation again from your side. I think your shallowness is compelling you to resort to this offensive behavior. Do not call me 'Oh dear' and stop lying about not giving one statement again and again regarding your powers of blocking me. Third, better concentrate to justify your edits especially when you are writing someone a liar. Umair Aj (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying you are lying. I thought I was clear on that. And for about the fourth time, I am not calling you "oh dear". You are misunderstanding the English language. The fact that it is not your first language obviously excuses the first "misunderstanding", but subsequent more intentional "misunderstandings" after a clear explanation are your problem. You aren't nearly as good at arguing competently as you think you are. Anyway, I think I've made everything as plain as I possibly can, but let me know if you have any questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Again you are showing your shallowness and mendacity. You are just trying to be sanctimonious and that is all. Next time when you post a message on someone's talk page, do not mention your blocking powers and be a little reasonable. You entirely lack depth in your expressions keeping in mind that English is your first language which amuses me a lot. Finally, an administrator of your stature must show some maturity on his part because you neither inspire respect nor truthfulness. Let me know if you have more complaints. Umair Aj (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, you need me to "inspire truthfulness" in order for you to not lie. I don't approach truth and falsity in that way, but thank you for the insight into your sense of honor, it explains a lot, and it's at least refreshing when people with significant character flaws admit them publicly. I will certainly let you know if I have any further complaints. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Again you have amused me a lot after accepting mendacity on you part also. So now any one can guess who is a bigger liar. Some people do not have the shame to admit their shallow stature and deceit even in isolation but you are a claimant of perjury I guess. Do let me know any further complaints.Umair Aj (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested in reading a dictionary: wikt:oh dear, [15], [16], etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"by the OP in particular"

I'll leave it up to you decide what, if anything, to do with this after-close parting shot. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Undone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Floq, sorry but I got seriously sidetracked. As it happens I have a Hemingway TFA on the horizon, am trying to tidy the associated articles and need User:Victoriaearle/Hemingway sandbox to be resurrected. It has a lot of edits (I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of amount of work involved) but would be thrilled if you could bring it back. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Victoria,  Done. Sorry for the delay. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Delay?? That was very fast! Thanks so much. Hope you are well, btw. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You're lucky; this is my first time on-wiki in several days, and your message popped up 2 minutes after I logged on. Probably about to re-engage cloaking device soon. Glad I was around long enough to help. I am well, thanks, just insanely busy in real life. Hope things are good with you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Cloaking devices are useful. Glad to have caught you. Doing fairly well. Thanks again. I'll hit you up again next week for another. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I think I have some admin talk page stalkers, so if I don't reply next week one of them will probably help you out. Although I might be out from under my mountain of work by then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Re Blocked

Hi, Floquenbeam. You recently blocked the above editor for disruptive editing. I removed the section entirely. I have been trying to remember exactly which of our banned trolls this is, I don't think he's posted since the fall of 2015 or 2014 even. His modus operandi is usually to ask about a moral doctrine, an ideology and a geographic location, along the lines of "If Ameicans are so Christian, then why don't they support socialism as the more charitable doctrine?" Last time I came across this person I mentioned him to one of our ref desk regulars, who said "good catch". I think it was @Jayron32: or @Nil Einne: who recognized him at that point. I think the geolocation to a proxy server is also telling. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you think of User:Bowei Huang 2? If so I don't think the IP is that. Bowei Huang 2 generally geolocated to Australia when using IPs and some of their questions also suggested they may be from Australia (although it's true a lot of their questions related to the US). While this is mostly a guess, I'm thinking that the IP above is bigot troll (often called the Nazi troll), although there have also been other trolls before a few years back asking leading "questions" about Muslims or blacks in Norway and I'm not certain if these were the same person. I suspect bigoted trolls aren't hard to come by, although they would have to find the RD somehow. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't recognize this person currently. It's not the Nazi troll. And I'm pretty sure it isn't Bowei either. Not Vote X or Light Current or C3. That's about the full list of banned RD users I recognize on sight. Maybe Floquenbeam has some additional information or can link this to an LTA or SPI file so we all can learn more about who this is, and how we can all recognize them in the future. --Jayron32 11:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I blocked a Comet Egypt sock a couple of days ago so he's obviously back with us—he always enjoyed asking stupid questions at the reference desk. ‑ Iridescent 12:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have no insight whatsoever; I just blocked the IP for bigoted trolling. The IP I blocked was obvious; I'm somewhat less sure about the OP of the question; it could be a legit question (to which Jayron provided a legit answer), but it seems kind of unlikely. I have no idea if the OP is the same person as the IP I blocked. I won't support or object to the thread removal, I'm not on the Ref Desks often enough to know the culture. Whether it's a returning bigot, or a brand new bigot, I just try to block obvious bigots without worrying too much who they are. Until someone stops me because, after all, that's just like their opinion, man; we shouldn't block people for their opinions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, Nil, it is Bowei Huang 2 of whom I am thinking. Go to his contribs e.g,, you will see the state/ideology/religion/morality/policy pattern both among his redirects and his posted questions. And it is clear from geolocate the IP he is using as IP 50 is a proxy server, so it's unlikely he's not trying to mask his actual location. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I gather this is about User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/This is a subpage. While it's mildly amusing that I got this message, it does raise the question what User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is planning to do with that page. I see I said back in September that I'd delete the page after the ANI thread closed, but I forgot and never did. Now more is actively being added; if this is in anticipation of an ArbCom case or something, then OK, but otherwise this needs to be compiled off-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have updated it with new evidence, and am preparing a new ANI once he is unblocked. Collecting evidence is not attacking someone. Do you recognize the irony of me documenting personal attacks by this person for an ANI, then labeling the evidence as an attack and deleting it? It seems like your primary concern is protection of a friend and destruction of the evidence. Once the person in question stops making personal attacks, there will be no reason to document them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you see the irony of complaining about Cassianto's personal attacks, but casually slandering my integrity with zero evidence whatsoever? Cassianto isn't my "friend", I haven't lifted a finger to argue against his recent block, I don't even care if he's blocked or not, yet you feel comfortable lying about my motives, and because you didn't say the word "fuck" you figure you haven't been uncivil. I'd much rather just be told to fuck off; at least someone who says that to me might have some modicum of honor.
Anyway, in lieu of just deleting the page out of spite, which I'm fairly sure I'm not suppose to do, I'll wait to see if an ANI thread is started right after Cassianto's block expires. This time, I won't forget; the page will be deleted if an ANI thread isn't started within a day, and also as soon as the ANI thread is concluded, so you should keep a copy offline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Cassianto has been unblocked. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), you now have 24 hours to make your complaint on ANI or the subpage will be deleted again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble

It's from Go Fish. When you ask someone else for a card they don't have, they tell you to go fish, i.e. draw from the deck. If you happen to draw the card you asked for from the deck, you fished your wish (and you announce it by saying "fished my wish!"), and you get to continue as if you got the card from a person. So, metaphorically, it's getting something you asked for; I tend to use it somewhat ironically (or on Wikipedia I guess it'd be "borderline ironically" *eyeroll*), where someone gets something they asked for but don't necessarily want. Writ Keeper  18:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Good to see you around, WK. You know, I've been meaning to tell you, under a thread on your talk page titled "You know you've been on WP too long when...": my boss has the initials WK, and (like all good engineers) identifies his books by writing his initials on the side of the pages, opposite the binding (poor description, but you know what I mean). So I apparently borrowed one of his books. I ran across it on my desk the other day, saw the initials, and said to myself "Oh, I still have one of Writ Keeper's books, I should return it. I wonder what he's been up to, haven't talked to him lately". It took a few more seconds to realize my error. Anyway, I thought of you a few days ago. So "hi". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hah, that's pretty good. I'm still putzing around as usual. The free time I allocate for Wikipedia comes and goes, and I'm mostly doing CSD patrol, which isn't super visible. Still nice to see you around, though. Writ Keeper  18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No objections, but...

Acknowleding the "ease" of doing what you did here, there is still the transparent violation of sanctions involved in the original posting, which I think probably requires some form of addressing. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Addressed at the ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted me to forward the material I received in e-mail from someone who is at or least was an admin which basiclly raised all the concerns, and more, I have raised, I would be more than willing to do so. Pardon me for saying, but I don't think necessarily thinking the assessments of someone who has a longer history of dealing with this individual have merit is necessarily a bad thing. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No thanks; I can't stop people from slandering others by email, but I don't want to play too, and it isn't going to be done on wiki. Many people have been blocked for repeated snide comments about someone else's mental health; don't be one of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, they weren't "snide comments," as the individual involved seems to have been on Hijiri's side in other discussions and in some way supported his return to editing after his previous site ban. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
God knows I hate to do this, under the circumstances, but does this edit maybe look like someone to you who, maybe, shouldn't be doing anything on that page? John Carter (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not him, that's an idiot with too much time on his hands at school who I blocked last week, reverting me. Now reblocked for 3 months, which was my original intention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a block

Normally, I edit happily, but this time, I am feeling upset partly because of my overall performance this month; I have not been doing as well as I could have been, but that is not the main reason why I request a block. No, the main reason is that I feel upset that I am constantly giving up self-control for staying logged in to the English Wikipedia with little progress being made. I think that I am showing signs of Wikipediholism, as I am waiting for a chance to edit particular articles but despite not doing really much am still logged in.

I hereby request a block as a means of taking a wikibreak so that I would not feel as if I have to stay being signed onto Wikipedia. Because you are one of the administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, would you like to place a block on my account? Gamingforfun365 03:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A duration of one week would work for me. Gamingforfun365 03:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure. A break is sometimes best, helps regain perspective. 1 week, no email, no talk page access... a clean break. See you in a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey there, you recently have blocked Abhinav619's account for being WP:COMPROMISED. The user have since contacted me in real life and was able to recover the account. I confirm the real identity of the user as they served as the former Executive Committee member for Wikimedia India chapter. I think the block can be lifted now. Cheers! Jim Carter 18:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.  Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Floq! :) Jim Carter 14:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Troll you just blocked

Floq, please could you revoke talk page access for Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for all the reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Couldn't have put it better myself. Help yourself to User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump; several other Wikipedians have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My last userbox is related, but more subtle. It's falsely optimistic, though; I have very little hope anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.



  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Here I was, all ready to start snarking about getting spammed, but... this was actually sort of useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Crook - edit war

I am involved in an edit war at Joseph Crook. Some is repeated reinstatement of contested material, some is one-off changes that are not, in my opinion, an improvement. I did try to engage - sort of - on the other person's talk page but they're not responding. Their first edit to that article today was particularly bad and now I think they're just trying to wind things up. Any chance you could take a look? If you have to block me for warring then so be it but I don't think I can be "done" for 3RR because of the range of issues. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sitush:, I'm about to log off, so I just did a heavy-handed, didn't-really-look-too-closely page protection. If no discussion is forthcoming on article talk page, I might be able to take a closer look later. Sorry for inelegant solution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Also for future info, it's more than 3 reverts of any kind, not necessarily reverts of the same material. Not that I was leaning in that direction, but just so you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanity check

Hey, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alaninter‎, but even there I wasn't sure if the master was actually the master or just a compromised account. While I completely accept Bbb23's findings that Alaninter is not related to the rest of the gang (and I guess the prior contributions are too stale), I still have a lingering suspicion that it's a compromised account. The current contributions around Ananya Birla are quite different from earlier ones which are UK or biology/nature related and the language seems a bit different too. Could you take a look and let me know if you think I'm just seeing ghosts where I shouldn't be? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff:, I think you might be seeing ghosts. The current article seems much less advert-like than the deleted draft, and the editor in question has created bio articles of people of similar notability before, last year. One of the blocked socks seems to be arguing with AI about the proper name. My gut says AI is being upfront and helpful, though my gut has been too optimistic and too pessimistic before. To be honest, I'm not 100% comfortable with the block of the other two accounts; if it's "likely", I'm not sure we can't rule out an attempt at a collaboration by, say, college students or something, rather than sockpuppetry. Where were the accounts used abusively? I'm not a CU so I'm not able, or willing, to challenge @Bbb23:'s CU results, but knowing only what I know now, I don't think I'd have blocked, at least not without trying to talk to these editors first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. Too early in morning. @Bbb23:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm good with your analysis on AI, though I still think it's a bit of a stretch in terms of topics of interest. With the other two, I don't think it's college students (the SOP of the paid COI farms in India is to plaster their user page with "I'm studying this" etc, it's just surprising to me that more accounts aren't linked yet. Also, these sort of "freelancers" are hired by the PR agencies on a routine basis and that's probably the only reason the third account didn't show up as linked. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You and Bbb23 probably know way more than me about typical sock tactics in this area, so I'm happy to defer to you two on the blocked accounts. I could easily be wrong about them and/or AI, but you asked for a second opinion and you get what you pay for! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I was not convinced one way or the other reg AI, that's why I asked for the second opinion, happy to accept it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This smells really fishy to me. Although the user removed the tag later, I still really don't feel good about the user. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, already blocked. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, reporting things to me directly is unlikely to result in a timely response for a while. Glad to see it got dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What is going on?

Let's move along. –xenotalk 19:33, 6 March 2017 (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.

Please explain this and this. This notice serves as a warning about personal attacks. El_C 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Floq, mind WP:BAIT. TRM is pretty good at yanking people's chain; don't give him the pleasure of responding. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi SBHB, you're being a much better admin than El C. Noted, thanks, and you're right of course, I'm well aware of that, but am occasionally imperfect. (Parenthetically, always glad when I see you still poking around here occasionally. We don't really deserve you. Just went out to dinner with Mrs. Floquenbeam, no kids, and had an interesting Kentucky Bourbon English Ale. In a much better mood. Hope you and yours are well.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OFF TOPIC: Floquenbeam, the first half of that drink sounds god-awful(I prefer single malt scotch), whereas the second half sounds pretty good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: The combination was surprisingly good, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that slight, and counter with: you can't speak to other users this way and simply go about your business. If that position makes me unpopular, so be it. El_C 03:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it saddens me when two nice boys don't get along. Floq, El C is a decent admin. He didn't go about this in quite the way I would have but then not everyone has my boundless wisdom, personal charm and animal magnetism. El C, Floq has admitted that he slipped up. No need to keep making the point. Now let's all go have one of those Kentucky Bourbon English Ales. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it's not that much of a slight; you can be a worse admin than SBHB would be (if he was an admin) and still theoretically be in the top 10%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No thank you
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris It was hardly baiting. It was a request to do something about a woefully under-referenced article which was about to appear on the main page. The rapid escalation to such an egregious personal attack was completely unwarranted, but as it's the second time in a short period that this admin has resorted to direct and overt breaches of NPA with impunity, I think we can safely say that he's one of those admins who has that Arbcom immunity badge. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The hypocrisy. It hurts. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:ADMINACCT, both of you. Your standards should be far higher, not lower, than us mere editors. Both of you failed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, Floq. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't comment on the rest of this, but I find this especially disappointing coming from a functionary. --Rschen7754 21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Functionary" has always struck me as a stupid, embarrassing title. I'm not a "functionary", I can oversight stuff. But anyway, if people who can oversight stuff are not allowed to get pissed off at months of continuing snark, and you'd like me to no longer be one, tell someone I respect to suggest I resign, and I will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"For most of us, being described as a functionary wouldn't be a compliment. The word refers especially to a person of lower rank, with little or no authority, who must carry out someone else's orders. Bureaucrat is often a synonym. However, functionary can also refer to the world beyond government and offices; a character in a play, for example, could be called a functionary if it was obvious that her sole function was to keep the plot moving." (Merriam-Webster) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not exactly reassuring to folks to see gross incivility from someone who has access to oversighted and highly sensitive information. I don't want you to resign, but you need to dial it back a bit. FWIW, I have voiced similar concerns about other CU/OS/stewards who have done similar things (including on this wiki) and I would do so again. --Rschen7754 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Rschen7754 I think he gets the message, maybe time to stop winding him up - after all, you're not TRM, Floquenbeam don't let yourself get baited again. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I hope Flo gets the message. I respect him, but I must note a non-admin would likely be blocked for those edits. Jonathunder (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this TRM's tagteam turning up? Has Floq repeated the behaviour since Boris advised him to mind WP:BAIT? Have any of the admins piling in paid any attention to WP:BAIT? DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
My hope is that admins apply warnings for personal attacks, unless they're especially egregious. That's certainly my modus operandi. When this fails to happen, it's noticeable. A block in this case would have been excessive and an escalation, regardless of user-rights. El_C 02:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have the words to reflect the disappointment I felt on reading this thread. I disagree with those above as to who was doing the baiting. I have always respected your work on this project, but baiting a sanctioned editor into potentially breaching the terms of their ArbCom restrictions is beyond the pail, and it's what I see in that thread. I gather there is history between you and TRM that would provide context to this rather uncharacteristic behavior from you, but that only reinforces my concern as to why you got into an argument with TRM on WP:ERRORS in the first place. Might I suggest if you have trouble holding your cool in discussions with TRM that you simply avoid him? Others can respond to his posts on WP:ERRORS. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that TRM's behavior at WP:ERRORS is such that no one is going to be left to respond to his posts. I, for one, felt like I was being treated like a servant and being told that I had to jump to do whatever he thought necessary. While I'm very willing to help out, and I certainly don't expect to be fawned over when I do something, I don't expect to feel like I'm being ordered to do things. So, I just don't help out there nearly as much as I thought I would when I ran for adminship. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to let this go to archive without thanking you for the comment, @Ealdgyth:. I won't go more into the substance of your comment because this was, probably wisely, closed by Xeno and I want to be fair and not say things that others would want to argue with but can't. But I did want to say thanks, and a belated welcome to the admin club. Loads of fun, ain't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose getting multiple versions of this kind of public lecture is my penance for momentarily losing my cool. So please, by all means keep them coming, they are all really improving the situation and helping me to become a much better person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Floqué d'Arc, eh... ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, I do respect you. You are a valued editor and member of the community. If this is chastisement, please consider it as well-intentioned. Jonathunder (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Fuck you" isn't a personal attack, and people who say it is (not so much on this page, where the standard seems to be a little higher, but on multiple other pages) might benefit from reading WP:NPA. Is it a derogatory comment to or about a person? Is there anything personal about it at all? "Fuck you" is a way to push somebody away, maybe even a way of telling them you don't like them. Though I would argue it's at most a way of saying you're not liking them at that moment. It's rude, and is a "profanity" (in that strange modern usage of "profane" that doesn't have anything to do with religion and that I was very surprised to learn about (from Wikipedia) — sex is sacred now? What the fuck?) It's not something Newyorkbrad would say. But a personal attack, absolutely not. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
  • @Bish, "Profane" in this sense (" irreverent, blasphemous, impious, ribald, coarse, indecent") is attested as a common usage for well over 400 years (Ȝor prettikes ar profane, Puir ladeis to supplant, Alexander Scott, 1568 is the earliest confirmed use of this meaning—albeit in Scotland—with Richard Braithwait's So should our prophane Pamphleteers restraine their libidinous writings more in 1614 the earliest confirmed use in England itself.) I think we can allow that this meaning has had enough time for anyone who disapproves to raise objections. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I disapprove, Iridescent, perhaps because I'm from a country where cursing is profane, in the sense of based on religion. I know usage is king, but IMO you guys might at least take a shot at saying "libidinous" instead. You might like it. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
  • What's the religious origin of "skitstövel" and "fitta"? ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't sweat it Floq, anyone who's spent any serious amount of time editing here will have bad days, and while I don't think I have told anyone directly to fuck off, I have come very close, up to and including of hitting "Show preview" showing me replying to a comment with "Fuck off" + signature and hovering the mouse over the "Save changes" button while wondering of the consequences of clicking it. I'm glad Beeblebrox wrote that essay, the most important part of which (IMHO) is "don't do this, it's not worth the hassle". (PS: I lied, though that's not directly telling a specific person to fuck off, and I did apologise) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • You didn't "momentarily" lose your cool, you carried out obviously premeditated actions to bait an ArbCom sanctioned editor into breaching their restrictions. That is completely unacceptable behavior for anyone on this site, let alone an administrator. Consider yourself admonished in lieu of a block by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll consider myself anything you want, if it means you will go away and not come back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Coffee, your patronizing, aggressive, and inaccurate "admonishment" about baiting is, in itself, a fairly obvious means of baiting Floquenbeam. (As a source of unintentional irony, Wikipedians never fail to disappoint). I probably would have had to count past 10 before responding with something non-profane (cue lengthy etymological digression about profanity). Floquenbeam, this entire situation is covered under Cipolla's Fourth Law of Stupidity—although to be fair, assiduous adherence to that law essentially precludes contributing to Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @MastCell:. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (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.

Could you please take a look at the trolling going on at this article? Every principle of common sense I have tells me to just fix it, but I suppose it could technically somehow become a 3RR violation. I'm forcing myself to take Gerda's advice and not feel I have to fix everything myself. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Take it to talk please. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb: If you are unwilling to discuss the issue on the talk page, 'tis YOU who are trolling, not the other guy. pbp 14:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly, @Joefromrandb and Philafrenzy:, you both need to grow up. I've requested temporary protection for the page so that anyone who is actually interested can go to talk or go elsewhere. Happy editing, -- — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • And Joe, while I have you on the line, you need to cut down on profane edit summaries or summaries such as this one. You use the word "troll" too cavalierly. pbp 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:, Lectonar's protection seems like a good idea. Philafrenzy may be right or wrong, friendly or unfriendly, reasonable or unreasonable, but (and this is, I believe, a first) I agree with PBP here that they clearly aren't a troll (of course, PBP immediately calls you a troll, which is obviously stupid, so that didn't last long). It seems like 90% of the key to success around here is to overcome your frustration and be willing to discuss things you really don't think need to be discussed, if the person you disagree with is acting in good faith. I think Philafrenzy is acting in good faith. I don't necessarily agree with them, and am not a huge fan of tagging an article without trying to fix it, but that isn't part of the deal. And to be honest, I've done that before myself, and you probably have too.

Gerda is right; there are (breaks out template to check) 6,752,377 articles, many of them in horrible shape. You'll drive yourself crazy if you insist on fixing every one you come across yourself, and getting frustrated every time someone disagrees with something you think is obvious.

And lastly, take it from someone who narrowly escaped Serious Sanction for Personal Attacks: go extraordinarily lightly on saying rude things about people, even if they deserve it (or, as in this case, because they don't actually deserve it). Far better to mutter it under your breath. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't call him a troll, I said he was trolling. The difference is far from semantics. He tag-bombed the page out of clear spite. Engaging in attention-seeking behavior on teh internetz is trolling. While I completely reject the notion he was acting in good faith, I still assume your good faith in assuming said good faith. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. However, from recent personal experience, that distinction is usually not recognized by the subject of the comment, nor by anyone else around. "This is why other people think you are an X" becomes "I am calling you an X in public", and there is nothing you can do to clarify. Plus, I believe you may have said "I will not feed trolls, I will not feed trolls" or something in an edit summary, which doesn't help the distinction. I guess my point is to not assume it was spite, not assume it was attention seeking. Unless you have some previous history with that editor I'm not aware of (and I hasten to add don't wish to be made aware of by either of you nor any helpful third party), I don't see the signs of bad faith that you do. But I appreciate the good faith involved in your assumption of my good faith in assuming that good faith... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggesting Joefromrandb was trolling might not have been the best of words, but I did have problems with his "no" in regards to the perfectly reasonable suggestion he talk about it. pbp 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith works miracles ;) - I have been called passive-aggressive because I thanked someone, - so even thanking is dangerous when met with not so good faith. - Assuming good faith works miracles. If you want to know about a user you put their name to a little test: Joefromrandb, The Rambling Man, Philafrenzy, Floquenbeam, - and then lets get together and have a drink. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I do get the point, but I have to argue that my children understood by the age of 2 that if they did something bad, it didn't mean they were bad. Still, I get how the distinction can easily be blurred on the Internet. I've had no interactions, good or bad, with Philafrenzy (to the best of my memory). He's obviously an extremely productive editor, and I've no doubt he's acting in good faith and then some when it comes to Wikipedia itself. I'll withdraw my accusations of "trolling", but I steadfastly believe I have it completely correct in impeaching him of tag-bombing the page out of pure spite. I've done spiteful shit myself when editing. I'm far from proud of it, but I certainly don't pretend to be beyond reproach myself. If you vouch for him Gerda, that's good enough for me. If his handle has anything to do with my beloved hometown of brotherly love, he can't be all that bad. Philafrenzy, if you're reading this, I apologize for my poor choice of words, as well as using a flamethrower where a match should have all that was needed. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think it was Floq who said something (this is probably a bad paraphrase) about how much different the conversations would probably be if we all worked in a setting where we were physically present together and risked a punch in the mouth for one off-color remark or another. I'm surprised to see friction between you and The Rambling Man. In my (admittedly limited) discussions with him concerning issues with the main page, I've always found him to be an amicable guy. You're obviously a rather friendly individual, and you seem to have extremely thick skin; the situation between the 2 of you is probably an anomaly of interpersonal relationships as they exist in cyberspace. I always thought you were a nice guy, until the time that you blocked me. By the way, that was an egregiously shitty block; maybe not the most unfair block in the history of the project, but by far the most unfair one I've ever received. I digress–what I mean to say is that my opinion of you went from quite high to less-than-zero after that incident. I've come to believe I got that very wrong. At the time, I figured that you had to be a giant, Machiavellian asshole to make a block like that. Aside from that incident, I've generally found your conduct as an administrator to be beyond reproach (your block of JClemens had no basis in policy, but in terms of hilarity, as well as much-needed and long-overdue poetic justice, it was a beautiful IAR-move). I've long wondered how such an otherwise-circumspect individual could do something so contumelious. I suppose the answer is that it wasn't contumelious; that you are an amicable and circumspect individual and you are not a Machiavellian asshole. Sorry for rambling on (pun half-intended). It's just that the row between you and TRM prompted me to do some thinking. The block itself is still an issue to me, but it's obvious now (and should have at least been evident earlier) that it wasn't the act of perfidy that I made it out to be. I thought (sincerely) that I was reciprocating your "dickishness", and felt moved to do so in spades. In hindsight, I was actually stultifying your character with canards ("attempting to stultify" is likely more accurate - I wouldn't think that Wikipedia (or you) gives a shit about my opinion of anyone). To that end, I apologize. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Joe. It deserves a decent reply, but I really have no time for a decent reply today, possibly the rest of this week (stupid real life). Just didn't want a long silence to be the only response to a kind, thoughtful note. I've read it, and I'll reply in a day or two when I've had a chance to think too, and have more that 5 minutes to write. I'll spend the extra 15 seconds now to say that, while not outside of policy, your block is probably one of the blocks I've made that I'm least comfortable with, reflecting on it after the fact (the other one you mention being my favorite). So I'm not sure what I'll say yet, but I'm confident that I owe you at least a partial apology too. I didn't act 100% fully grown up that day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been in a position several times where 2 editors I like and/or admire can't get along, so I can sympathize. I've no desire to interact with them right now, so things won't escalate further. And I certainly won't be one of those people who try to make you (or anyone) choose.
  • Regarding the block: As best I can piece together, I was trying to resolve one of those dumb typical WP issues that should have been minor but was spiralling out of control. I thought you were obstructing my de-escalation, and making things worse. It was a while ago, but I think I assumed at the time that's what you were trying to do, which seems an unfair assumption. The note about "don't revert again or I'll block" was an inflamatory note intended to de-escalate a situation; which is stupid and never works. The block itself - for escalating something after a warning that you'd be blocked - was probably within policy, but was a lazy and disrespectful solution to the problem; maybe I was having a shitty day of some kind. So in my view, with 20/20 hindsight and the benefit of significant time, I think I was basically right on the underlying issue, and you were basically wrong on the underlying issue, except I handled it so poorly and gracelessly that I probably owe you the larger apology. I'm sorry.
  • FWIW, that's the only block I've made I can think of that Bish has criticized (after the fact, so she couldn't unblock; I think she probably would have if it hadn't expired). At the time I thought she was cutting you too much slack and me not enough, but in retrospect, she was probably (as usual) right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No apology necessary, but I accept it, with gratitude. Strangely, I don't recall Bish weighing in on it. I feel like a cad, not having thanked her, or even acknowledged her support. My assumption was apparently off as well. By hatting what was IMO legitimate debate, I felt Fram was attempting to maintain editorial control of an AfD he initiated. If you had admonished both him and me, threatening to block us both if we continued, it wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much. When you reverted me and then threatened to block me if I reverted you, I was nonplussed, to say the least. As far as policy goes, I guess, "we were both right and we were both wrong" is the best way to put it. I felt Fram was out of line in initiating an AfD and then trying to preside over the discussion. I was quick to conclude that you came to the page as a solidarity action. I can see now that that wasn't the case, and with that in mind, the block doesn't seem to be as horrible as I was making it out to be. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I find myself champing at the bit to see this discussion between you & Bishonen; not at all because I want to revisit the drama, but because I share your opinion about her perspicacity and I'm curios to read what she had to say. I don't expect you to dig for diffs, but (assuming it wasn't an off-Wiki discussion) if you could tell me on which page the conversations took place I'll hunt it down myself. FWIW, if Bish felt you were right and I was wrong, I'd be every bit as eager to see what she had to say. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn't have teased you with it, since I recall almost nothing about it. If it was on-wiki (75% chance) it would have been on my talk page or hers. If it was in an email (25% chance) it's long since been deleted (and I probably just violated some rule about divulging email stuff - sorry Bish). I simply don't recall why it came up, and whether it was 1 day or 3 months after the block. I think maybe I brought it up in passing, while talking about some other long-forgotten thing, and the response was just something along the lines of "um... that wasn't a great block, Floq" or something. I don't think it was a detailed discussion. Anyway, if it was on-wiki it would be on one of our talk pages. Maybe @Bishonen: remembers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Afraid not. But "um... that wasn't a great block, Floq" doesn't sound like me at all. Too milquetoast. I bet there was roaring in it. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
(talk page watcher)Yes... a ROARRing!! threat of soon-to-be-ordered lightly-grilled Floqué on a bed of half-baked diffs and raw email, probably... ;)
I may have been censoring the actual wording to preserve my ego? You're right, that sounds more like something I'd tell you. Except, of course, you never make non-great blocks... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, since we're all here, allow me to bestow a years-belated thank you to Bishonen for saying whatever it was that you said. I'm sure it was quite witty and sagacious, as always. "Milquetoast"! What a splendid word! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed! --