Jump to content

User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Why you block me?

Why you block me??--39.211.4.158 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll need more information than identifying yourself as "me" to answer your question. I have never blocked this IP address. Do you mean you have an account that I blocked? Or you were blocked when trying to use a different IP? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Carmel Bay

Thanks, Floq, for fixing the Carmel Bay DYK. --Kenatipo speak! 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for flagging that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

TheProfaneSalesman

Obviously someone who's been around at least once, as a truly new account hopping straight to ANI is improbable, but I'm not seeing that as sufficiently grossly trolling for an immediate indef. The comment that sometimes people do get away with unsubstantiated claims - even and to some extent especially on noticeboards - is fairly uncontroversial.

I would tend to believe it's a troll, but it could also be the IP you were responding to deciding to get an account and being a bit flippant about it (without actually going beyond the pale), or someone else in a similar situation.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, see you un-talk-page-blocked them as I was typing here. Thanks! We'll see how the conversation goes... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was reblocking at the same time you posted there; I wasn't trying to step on your toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
We have yet to figure out how to appropriately flag "I'm looking at this" before we actually post something. Usually people are slow enough it doesn't much matter. Such is life, though... Thanks for the note. I assumed it was just timing, no problem, hope you have a good night etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps using one of the parameters from the {{inuse}} tag? — Ched :  ?  03:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
hmm. On the noticeboard section? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Nazi Germany

Just letting you know, I'm recreating the Portal, in a neutral way. If there's any way you can save me the list of assessed content, that would save me about an hour of largely clerical work. I am, in no way, attempting to prevent you from the deletion that (I think we can all admit) needs to be done. Achowat (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to, except I don't quite know what you mean. If you're more specific (pretend you're talking to a clueless idiot), I'll try to get you what you need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There was a huge list of all the Nazi Germany FAs, FLs, GAs, etc. on the Portal before it's deletion. It'd be nice to have that document. Achowat (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had to meditate on this for a couple of minutes, because since the old version was deleted, there's no attribution. However, I've convinced myself that this is just a list, formatted in a standard way, and so there is nothing copyrightable in it, and I do not need to attribute it to User:Neogeolegend. It is at: User:Floquenbeam/Emergency backup sandbox. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I saved it as well (at User:Achowat/Portal/NG/Quality Content) under the same rationale. There's probably no point to both lists existing, and I know that I'm going to {{db-userreq}} my list after it's incorporated into the Portal. Achowat (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, let me know if you need anything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Sorry about that ;-) Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall take my revenge at a time of my own choosing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

Administrators should be friendly and helpful, even when issuing rulings that someone may not like. Your comment was fair, but there was clear anger in it. Maybe I shouldn't have written that guy, but I filed the report because I thought people can't remove your talk page comments unless there's a clear violation of WP:TPO. So I filed a friendly report and got harrassed for it. Did you read some of those comments? And most of the people were the ones involved in the complaint. And the most frustrating part is that no one said a word to the user (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556) in there that kept bullying me, even though he's been blocked repeatedly for causing trouble and being uncivil. Pretty sad. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think I'm angry. I'm trying to help. If you're not a troll, that's great. That's what I'm assuming. But you did something that was really quite troll-like, and you shouldn't be surprised when you're treated like a troll by those less magnanimous than myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, what that guy did with the images was bad and I was sort of expecting him to apologize for it when he wrote back. Those pics shocked me when I saw them. But I figured he would say hey, I shouldn't have done that but that guy did such and such to me. You notice I did not say that I agreed or liked what he did. I didn't want him to think that. I just wanted to see if his issue with the editor was related to my issue because it involved a guy who's been essentially acting like he's owned an article for many years. But I see the point about why I shouldn't have even written the vandal. I guess I was just a little more trusting and thinking he would apologize about it. Then vent about what the problem was. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A Kind Request

Hello Floquenbeam, Could you please unprotect my talk page and my userpage please? Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also, I've deleted a rather disappointing page in your user space that was a really bad idea. I hope that on reflection you understand why it's a bad idea, but if not I will email you the reasons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If I'm probably correct when saying so, I shouldn't be feeding an everyday normal troll. or if not that, it'll welcome a whole-new drama of probably the lamest game of whack-a-mole against a troll, which I'm not probably interested in. For what it's probably worth, it would help me or any other guy if I just focus on something else. Thanks for the heads up Flo, will try to not do something like that. On a brighter side of things, the troll hasn't bothered me for almost a month now. Points all noted, and see you around sir :) Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for intervention

76.189.114.163 , whom you warned about acting like a troll, is becoming progressively more obsessed with taunting me at Talk:List of African-American firsts, calling me "Tenebrat" at every turn, attacking me continually, and now digging up a request for help I made for a Wiki addiction back in 2006 — six years ago! — and plastering that on the article's talk page in a misguided effort to, I suppose he thinks, humiliate me. I've tried to be calm with him, but I think this crosses a line. Please help. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given. Let me know if it happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Many sincere thanks, especially since I see you're mostly retired; I very much appreciate the intervention.
Is it OK to remove the 2006 Wiki Addiction "outing" from the talk page? Is there any way you might do that thing were particularly egregious comments are permanently erased? The whole thing as just astounding to me, that someone would go to all that trouble to dig up "dirt". --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better if I remove it; I'll do that in a sec. I'd prefer not to revdel it, since I don't see this as egregious so much as tacky and annoying, and revdel is overused IMHO. If you find another admin who is more flexible with revdel, I have no objection, I just don't plan to revdel it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comment. Be fair and look at both sides. Don't jump to a conclusion before you know the facts. User:Tenebrae calls me a “taunting, jeering, sarcastic and immature anon IP lowering the level of discourse"[2], among many other derogatory things, and then has the nerve to declare incivility. That takes guts. Do you consider that comment from him acceptable? And the many others? He has acted as if he owns that article for the six years since he created it. And when other editors come along who have been working hard to improve it, he fights as hard as he can to oppose almost every idea and purposely refuses to address any questions or concerns presented, instead choosing to evade the issues by interjecting irrelevant comments. Take a good look at the entire talk page and the article's edit history of List of African-American firsts and it will become abundantly clear to you that he thinks he is the final word on the vast majority of edits people want to make. He also made five edits in five hours yesterday and an administrator had to warn him about it. Are you going to warn him, too? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't pull the "he did it too" card. You're obviously way over the top. If Tenbrae is too, and has been warned about it, then that's taken care of as well. The point is, nobody on that page is going to do it anymore. Starting now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about warning him for his abusive and taunting language, which he has not been warned about. I gave you a diff. And there are plenty of others. I understand the warning you're giving me. Now be fair and warn him. The warning he received recently was for continually reverting another user's edits. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A somewhat strained analogy: If you're driving 90 mph in a 55 mph zone, and everyone else is going 65 mph, you can't complain to the cop who pulls you over "that's not fair, they were speeding too". I'm saying that from now on, that talk page is a speed trap, and you'd better drive 55 mph for a while.

And to address another comment below, the guy who was driving 55 mph the whole time still needs to stay below 55 mph in the speed trap. But he shouldn't be offended that it applies to him, because he was already driving 55 mph; all he has to do is keep doing what he was doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "strained" to say the least. If you honestly don't understand why Zep was offended, that's a shame. I'd suggest staying away from the condescending analogies and instead focusing on treating editors like human beings with feelings. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So you post multiple warnings about bans for any future attacks by "anyone," TMCk then comes into your talk page and attacks me without any provocation whatsoever, and you do nothing except removing the attack comment. So why'd you give the warnings? Unless you follow through with your promise, you have no credibility and your word means nothing. Sad, I really thought you'd do the right thing. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a "personal attack". It was pointing out the hypocrisy of your words. It annoys me that he posted here, because it encouraged you to post here again, but it wasn't a personal attack. "No personal attacks" does not shield you from criticism of your behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you are very wrong. The next time you cite a guideline you might want to make sure it actually says what you claim it does. TMCk's comment was clearly a personal attack, and contrary to your claim that "'personal attack' does not shield you from criticism of your behavior," it in fact does. It says "it is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Also, the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section explains that "linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" is a violation. So you were wrong on both accounts. TMCk clearly violated the personal attack guidelines, not to mention your warnings. And your sarcasm about his post annoying you only "because it encouraged you to post here again", only acts to serve as evidence of your bias and hostility towards me. That editor is someone who had zero involvement in the dispute, yet chose to interject himself after your warnings, and after I stopped all "personal attacks." This incident with TMCk is not about my transgressions, which I never disputed; it's about an uninvolved editor who came into an administrator's talk page for the sole reason of insulting me. And you, an administrator, chose to do absolutely nothing about that blatantly inappropriate behavior. Not only did you not block him from editing for what you know full well falls within the definition of a personal attack, you chose not to even give him a simple warning, which would have taken a couple seconds and put an easy end to this matter. As I said, unless you follow through with your stated promise, you have no credibility and your word means nothing. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair warning

The reason I request specifics is those editors whom have perhaps crossed the line know they are the target of the message. As of right now, "next time" would imply an editor like me has already made personal attacks, which if you read the talk page, you will not find any attempts at a personal attack on my part and therefore, would take offense to being lumped in with others when I have made efforts to stay above the fray. Zepppep (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep has never said or done anything inappropriate. He has been the editor who has worked the hardest and most calmly to improve the article. I have worked the second hardest and the least calmly. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Zepppep, "the next time" does not refer to the "next time" you make a personal attack; it refers to the "next time" anyone makes a personal attack. See the somewhat strained analogy in the section above: I'm not accusing you of speeding in the past, but the speed trap still applies to you, so I'm notifying you that it's now a speed trap. I will concede that I was frustrated last night, so I didn't take the time to actually acknowledge that you had not participated in the bickering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, maybe you should forget the unhelpful analogies and simply apologize to Zep. You lost your cool last night, took sides before even looking into all the facts, and, as Zep pointed out, lumped every single editor together as if they're all criminals. The guy has worked his butt off trying to improve that article and has always been very courteous to everyone. You cannot block Zep or anyone unless they do something that warrants it. So maybe you'll do what you should've done already, say I'm sorry to Zep. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion so freely; I will give it all the consideration it deserves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And I will give yours all it deserves, as well. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopiakuta (2)

For some reason, I got involved reading about this user at ANI and then his own bizarre userspace. Your desire to work this out is certainly admirable. Can I suggest you get more specific with him about some things?

  • Get him (?) to get rid of the custom signature. For a reader who doesn't know his username and unusual actual name, it just seems like more gibberish, especially when it is constantly repeated unnecessarily (another suggested fix). Nobody needs to be told to sign things by someone else's signature – that reminder's already all over the wiki software. If he wants to be known as Hopiakuta, then be known as that. If he wants to be known as one of his other names, use it instead. Pick one.
  • As a teaching exercise, try picking apart one of his missives piece by piece to explain how or why it is inscrutable. A lot of it sounds like someone just trying to be clever (perhaps more than they are) when a wide audience requires far more descriptive and plain vocabulary and sentence structure. There also seems to be some sort of obsession with streams of homophones, synonyms, and free-association words that only serves to distract and confuse. There's also all the wikilinking to common words, which wouldn't be correct in mainspace, and is just distracting in talk, particularly when you're hoping that they will link to something that will clarify what he's talking about.
  • Looking back to June to find his last main article space edits, they, too, seem all to be redirects of various modifications of an article name back to that article – many of which I don't think should exist. For example, "Mars Won" and "Mars won" redirect to "Mars 1" seems totally unnecessary. Perhaps this is intended to handle inaccurate voice-to-text translations, but it should probably be implemented differently, without resorting to creating millions of confusing redirects and otherwise unnecessary disambig pages for every capitalization of every homophone of every title.
  • I'm guessing that his disability does not require use of a page reader. For someone so concerned about accessibility, creating all these gigantic (both long and wide) pages with long page names is not being very friendly to those who have to read through or understand them – even without a page reader. E.g., User:Hopiakuta/ doppelgänger communist communism vandal sockpuppet handicappist handicappism fascism plutocracy oligarchy disruptive vandal libel colanorate weirdndes fløqenbæm fløqenstein acoma niemti coma toe .
  • Edit summaries need to make sense to other editors. I don't understand why writing a coherent summary would be harder than a bunch of somewhat related words.
  • He seems to have some sort of negative attitude towards WP as a whole as being mean-spirited, stupid, libelous, and largely useless. Trying to work with a community he thinks so little of is unlikely to work out well for anyone. I'm afraid that, despite any work done to fix the process, the attitude behind all of this may prove too poisonous.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • P.S. I searched for his name and found him widely present and active among many blogs, social media sites, etc. Which is great. Everyone needs a hobby. I fear, though, that WP is just not appropriate for most of what he wants to accomplish, which seems to be to promote his activist agenda. Most of WP:ISNOT#Content seems to describe his userspace and most of his mainspace edits well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and your patience.

If he starts editing in mainspace again, I'll make some of these suggestions. My goal isn't really to be a mentor for Hopiakuta. He doesn't seem to want one, and I didn't really sign up for that anyway. My goal is just to try to run a little interference for him. There are times when what he is saying is, indeed, inscrutable. But other times, people seem unwilling to work hard at understanding what he's saying (I assume partially because some think he's faking, others think he's not trying hard enough, and others because they don't feel like it, or don't think they should have to). I'm willing to try to translate a little, if I can. I might give a little unsolicited advice from time to time. But I don't think lecturing, or giving him a list of things he needs to do differently, is going to work.

I don't actually hold out great hope that this will be sufficient, once/if he starts editing in the article space again; too many people looking for a mistake. But I thought I'd at least try to act as a middle man (what Xeno had been doing until he left), not so much because he has some "right" to edit here, but because I think he's editing in good faith, and I disliked the condescention of many of the people commenting in the AN thread. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out.

I mentioned to him his signature may annoy people, but the common criticism of his signature annoys me, actually, because it seems to me a symptom of what is wrong with some of the ANI criticism of his editing. The signature isn't really that disruptive. It's that it "isn't normal". That kind of unwillingness to accept a relatively harmless difference, that willingness to call it "not respecting community norms", as I saw someone say, is what gets my goat.

Still, you have some useful comments, some of which I may pass on if it looks like he wants to get back to article space. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK – thanks. I think the key is that, in exchange for the reader's attention, it's the job of a writer to try to communicate effectively and respect the reader's time. At least part of this is trying to understand and comply with "norms" (like punctuation and common uses of common words) that readers are familiar with. An encyclopedia and discussion about editing it do not seem to be the place for prose resembling a painting that you stare at in a gallery to try to make sense of :) Doing that intentionally is not respectful of the community. The sig, I think, was just easy to point to as being representative of the larger issue. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Offense

None taken. Nobody Ent 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, I expected that would be the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I know. But ANI admins only pay attention when it is about a block. See yourselve, you took it for serious -- only now. Now where did my serious question go? Why are you helping hiding all that? -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying, DePiep, is that I am not helping to hide it. But since I am a volunteer here, comments like yours make me say to myself "I don't really care if DePiep is right or not". So if this is how you plan to continue to try to get satisfaction, good luck with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a plan to contribute. You stepped in late, and now you complain while you did not read or reflect my primary (ANI) statement. I was serious from letter 1. My ANI post was good. Still, I think you are a serious editor. -DePiep (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I stepped in late? What, I'm required to monitor ANI 24 hours a day? I saw edit warring on ANI. I looked into it a little. I read the thread you were trying to restore. You insulted me. I decided I didn't care about your problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Late: yes. Only after the thread was into archive. ANI admins did not solve nor close. The bot put it into archive. When I restored the (still open) thread, this caused me the problems. -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Flo, IMO you have shown that you no longer have the ability to be a fair and impartial administrator. I think you should resign your adminship. Or change your 95% retirement to 100%. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy vacation

Hey, enjoy, Floquenbeam. I hope one of these days you'll be back 100%: we're better with you. Take it easy! Drmies (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't wish a trip to Florida on my worst enemies, but regardless... enjoy yourself. :P MastCell Talk 04:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I forgot to remove the note last night; we just got back. Typical Theme Park Hell for much of the week, but we did go to Kennedy Space Center (very cool), and we did get to swim with dolphins and snorkel with rays for one day (very very cool). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Still, I echo MastCell, haha. Then again, when we go to FL we rent a house on the Gulf, and that's pretty nice. Welcome back, Floquenbeam. Oh, I have been thinking about you the last two months while we were trying to turn our pool from green to blue: flocking agent is usually abbreviated "floc". Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Had a house with a pool once. Never again. Spent 4 hours maintaining the damn thing for every hour in it. Smarter thing to do is cultivate friendships with other people dumb enough to own houses with pools. So... How are you, my amazing brilliant good looking friend? When can we come over and see the new baby? While we're there, perhaps we should bring our swimsuits and make a day of it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

This is interesting in light of that edit. He certainly is heading towards an indefinite block if he carries on like he has. He's extremely difficult to work with and may not be representing his sources accurately. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually not a Civility Police type of person, but that was way beyond the pale. I didn't look too deeply into anything else, just wanted to make clear to them ASAP that that particular thing couldn't happen again. Everything else I'll leave to others more active and more familiar with the subject matter than me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Whips of Fire

Regarding this edit, perhaps a copyedit of the hook would have been useful. "... that the Indonesian film Whips of Fire, featuring a strong, independent female character, was held up for a year by the censors?" would have read better, or even "... that the Indonesian film Whips of Fire, which featured a strong, independent female character, was held up for a year by the censors?" That being said, being bold and changing to "Malaysian" would have been fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been told so many times that I use too many commas, I guess I went too far the other way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • LoL, I think I have the same issue sometimes. The way I see it, "featuring a strong, independent female character" is a subordinate clause and should be indicated with commas. Oh well, horse is out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is going on here?. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, and for the good faith unblock, Black Kite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Poke, poke

I have mentioned you name here. I apologize for taking it on me to interpret your motives for certain actions, and invite your correction. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

I don't want to participate in that thread, but also don't want to leave your comment about my view unaltered, so I boldly changed your comment there to erase my name. I'll explain later via email. I hope you don't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam, thank you for removing a diff from my talk page that contained my real name in real life that came from an out-of-control IP harasser. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey

Great minds think alike. Seems I beat you to filing the arb case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll comment there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, good. Hope you didn't mind me listing you as a "party"; as you saw, it was just because I noticed you had been drafting this thing in parallel. BTW, could you do me a favour? The way it looks now, the case will likely be opened during a time when I'll be away with little or no internet access for a week or two. When that happens, could you just copy over that evidence list from my statement onto the evidence page on my behalf? (Or, if you like, merge it into whatever evidence you might be submitting yourself, if that suits you). I think it's pretty straightforward enough so I hope there won't be much need for any further active participation in the case on our part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem; if you had not done so, I would have had to list myself as a party anyway. Yes, I'll move your evidence over, referencing this thread, if/when the case opens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_.28involved.29_Floquenbeam

In regards to your comment at the ArbCase responding to my posting on EncycloPetey's talk page...

ArbCom remedies have at least of late been frequently disproportionate to the FoFs. I firmly believe my statements at EP's talk page regarding the possibility of a ban/block are not in any sense hyperbolic (I know you didn't say they were). I consider it a very real possibility. I think this especially possible given the fact that at least one arbitrator seems to feel a thorough review of EP's past is in order. The early proof in the pudding is ArbCom's willingness to accept the case (so far 4-0, with 2 on the wings wanting to accept) without EP even having logged in to make a statement. There is a rush to judgment here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with most of that, but doubt either one of us will convince the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin on a rampage

Look out, admin on rampage ! [Enviously.] Looks like you're having fun. It almost makes me want to pick up my own tools again. [Dreamily :] Zap! Zap! Zap! Indef! Indef! Indef! Gotcha! Kaboom! Bishonen | talk 12:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

It's even more fun if you imagine those old Batman sound effects while doing it: "Krunch zlonk klonk bam kapow ouch whamm zap kapow urkkk zok biff zzzzzwap!" Yes, by all means, get the kit back and try it yourself. Very cool anagram .gif on Andy's page, by the way. Of course once I saw it, I played with a few myself. Did you know Floquenbeam is "Queen of balm"? or DarwinBish is "Bad whirs in" or MastCell is "Cat smell"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
"Queen of balm" is pretty good, ha ha. Yes, I did know the "Cat smell" for MastCell (I wasted hours at that site, it's hypnotic). In fact I was looking forward to flinging it in MastCell's face if he didn't unprotect his userpage soon. Now you've gone and ruined that good plan. :-( You queen! Bishonen | talk 13:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC).
Sorry I ruined you joke; I *hate* it when that happens to me. "Queen of Balm" is slightly related to how I chose this username. Just need to change a gender and a place name in my future opus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deposed king? And people say that wikipedians have high opinions of themselves??? It's always dangerous to tempt fate with relink usernames BTW, but I shall resist the urge. signing out. Dad's Chive 18:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Your userpage appears to be move-protected. I can't believe it! How'm I supposed to move it to the correct, olde tongue, revered spelling User:Fløqenbæm[3]? Do I got to humiliate myself and go via WP:RM? darwinbish BITE 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
Ha! Looks like I'm smarter than you, little sharklet. Move protection was put in just to prevent you from being able to cause me troub... Ouch!! Dammit! My ankle!! (Of course, you could tell your sockmaster's sockmaster to get her tools back and do it. Tell her that's just the beginning of the fun she can have with the tools. And it's virtually impossible to have them taken away! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think "Cat smell" was bad, try one I found for me: "RE: Men shit". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Ouch!
While I can smile at my basic immunity to this, it also leaves me somewhat left out of: User:Radiant!/Classification of admins : ( - jc37 01:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought maybe there'd be something if we leet-ified your name, but "jcet" doesn't have anything either. Just inherently boring, perhaps? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. do you think it would be cheating to add my name to the "Literary" section of radiant's page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
smiles @ "boring" : )
(And trying Leet - that was a creative idea! : )
And sure, though Radiant! has been the final arbiter of these things lol
(Though I read your username source, I decided to do a search for fun : ) - Besides the obvious partial source of Quickbeam, I did a search for "Floquen", and came up with a scan of some writing of Dante's which would seem to be the result of the scan needing editing : ) - jc37 02:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Thou art great -- shut up otherplace

However great thou art, don't judge me. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I love you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No you don't. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do. Your impulsive irrationality sets my heart aflitter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Aflitter? Is that kind of a cross between Twitter and flutter? Risker (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If it ain't a word, it should be. Off I go to Wiktionary to add it. I'm sure they'll welcome me with open arms... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Could you also restore Restore Rollback for the alt. account I'm using now? here's a diff to prove i operate this account. Thanks,--Anderson (Public) (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If I restore rollback to your main account, I'll restore it to your alternate account too. I'm still going to wait a while to see if there are any instances of you misusing the tool; I may or may not restore rollback after that. As a separate issue, you're really going about quite a lot of things the wrong way. Whether your rollback gets returned or not, I'll drop some advice on your page in a while that I really think you should listen to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A Query

Hello there Floquenbeam, I saw that you made a revision hidden from my user talk page, as shown here: ([4]) and I am rather confused and a little bit scared because I don't think that I posted any kind of disruptive material. Can you please tell me in brief that what was the problem actually? Regards, Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 15:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit of yours I revdel'd. Just another annoying bit of harassment from an IP. I've semi-protected your talk page for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh ok, Thank you for letting me know, and apologies for a bit of a muddle-up about the revdel'd edit. Just to let you know, that IP was clearly the banned troll User:Rinpoche - Most of the IP's that troll used geolocated to the city of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Clearly that guy has been spending way too much time on the Internet. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 15:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

hey ...

mentioned you here. (sorry, I always did get a good chuckle out of bots that edit war). — Ched :  ?  22:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cydebot obviously didn't know who it was messing with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We should introduce him to the 'Zilla and Monster cabal .. :-) — Ched :  ?  02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Base-a-ball

In checking out your predictions for the MLB season I finally decided to comment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge MLB fan - leaning more towards NASCAR, NFL, and NHL as my preferred viewing tastes; but thought I'd comment just the same. First: Best of luck with your Mariners. Now: I just want to see the Pirates get into the playoffs one more time in my lifetime. (which goes back before Maz hit that shot heard round the world). Cutch certainly has turned a few heads in our fair city, so it'd be nice to see. Carry on. — ChedZILLA 21:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind having baseball conversations (even on my user page, MastCell!), but it won't be that enjoyable for you; although I enjoy watching baseball, I was born lacking the gene that enables me to talk coherently about it (or, indeed, sports in general). I forget players' names, I can't remember who won yesterday, I fall asleep during games, I still don't understand how balks work after years of having it explained to me, etc. Plus, having only basic cable, I never get a chance to watch the M's anyway. I root for them when given the opportunity, but I don't pay very close attention day to day. I went to a Red Sox/Mariners game at Fenway in 2011 (I was the guy whose daughter brought a book, and would only look up when people cheered or booed loudly). When I left Seattle they were still playing in the Kingdome (Griffey, Randy Johnson era), so I probably saw more Tacoma Tigers games than Mariners games, because at least those were outside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bold linking

I've seen you around here and I have a great deal of respect for you; it's disheartening that you found my edits to be "silly". I was following WP:MOSLINK, which seems quite clear on the matter. In the absence of a convincing IAR argument, I don't see where I was wrong. If I am, please point it out to me, and I'll change it back. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's silly because it doesn't matter. It looks like it's been one way for several years, and another way for around a year. And during that time, people somehow mananaged to read and understand the article no matter how the intro was formatted. Yet today, it's suddenly vital that it be changed to the "correct" version immediately? So vital that WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR get thrown out the window? So vital that there's no time for a 2 sentence explanation for your opinion on the talk page, followed by waiting for the consensus before changing it back? So vital that it's worth risking blocks, or page protection (depending on whether an admin decides to intervene, and which one it is)? If you really don't see that edit war as "silly", if you think this is how disputes should be settled... who's more willing to risk a block, who's got more time on their hands to revert for the eighth time... then I don't know what more I can say to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I was beginning to write a detailed response, but it would probably just be a waste of time. Sorry you feel that way. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Any detailed response about the content question would probably be better on the article talk page instead. No detailed response about the edit warring is needed; I was just answering a question you asked, not demanding a response. I certainly don't want to waste your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

gilberto etc.

Thanks for helping out there...sad thing is, what this guy is spamming has to do with some of my very favorite music...for about a month, I went to sleep every night listening to a couple of albums from the period being documented. Frustrating; we've given these people a good route to doing it right, and they simply say "we know better because we're Brazilian". --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw him in concert a few years ago (Jesus, it was more than 10! Life is racing by...) (my wife is a fan and took me with her). Not really my type of music, but even I was deeply impressed. Yeah, at some point we have to throw our hands up and say "Enough is enough. When you're ready to act like an adult, we'll be here, ready to talk. Until then, yes, you are essentially censored." --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Where did you see him? We saw him around 2003 in San Francisco. Just him and guitar. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
At a university in the Boston area; I've been trying to count backwards to figure out the year, but my memory is fuzzy. Yes, just him and a guitar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir You are experiencing a tremendous misunderstanding between us. I have tried to demonstrate that as a producer and entrepreneur John for 25 years I have information that improve the entry in the encyclopedia. It has been difficult to be understood and accepted, I still can not understand why. I tried to include in the entry information concerning the passage of Joao in Japan I imagine that it matters to the fans. A list of the key facts of the artist's career in the 25 most recent years of its history, I also seem relevant. Enter the website we have developed with texts and images of the artist, like no other website on the internet, also seems appropriate for the encyclopedia. But what we had? Misunderstanding, debates, demands. And you are fans of Joao .. For example, in the Amazon we are accredited to administer the biography, here on Wikipedia are treated as spam. Gentlemen, how can we change this? How can we get our information published?--189.60.164.201 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I feel very proud to have produced and touted the shows that you refer and brought so much pleasure. Now I would like to ask you in order to help improve the information in your encyclopedia entry. I refer to two texts: a chronology of recent 25 years, and the data about the passing of Joao by Japan. Is it possible?--189.60.164.201 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My talk page isn't the place to have this conversation; you should post to the article talk page instead actually, I see you've posted to the article talk page too, that's the place to discuss this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of the clearest cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I've ever seen. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's beginning to look that way. I also just saw Miúcha, which I guess I'll try to deal with when I have more time, possibly tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

my apology

I am the one to apology here. My reaction to the block was over to the top and not correct. In a civilized world we discuss and talk without verbal aggression or inappropriate language. You did what you had to do based on the info and situation. Thanks and lets just work to make Wikipedia a better and better project, including João's page. user:lfcohen —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw this yesterday, but forgot to reply. Thanks for this. No worries from me, I know being blocked is stressful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

my point of view

I beg permission to enjoy what LCohen said, and agreeing with him in relation to civilized behavior should emphasize the value of independence and freedom. The greatest value of the civilized world is freedom and thus, preventing the free access and free circulation is the main executioner of value. For my part I have nothing to apologize, I think we have braked a confrontation fair and honest, I do not see why i should simply accept what i disagree, mainly because I see in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, an opportunity that we have, all of improve it and make it really an instrument in the service of communities. My identity and achievements are displayed on my site and have the social responsibility that I have legitimately manifest here. I sincerely hope that we can move forward and understand my motivation is honest.--189.60.164.201 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Good call

[5]. I was watching as well. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started blocking obvious trolls and vandal-only accounts with talk page and email access removed right away, to reduce the amount of timewasting involved in pointless unblock requests. I'm open to feedback if you think that's too aggressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I really totally think that's way too aggressive. Carry on. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Voldyworthy

You neat me too it by an edit conflict. You realise of coiurse that he's almost 99.9% sure to be a sock of Anderson. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Anderson to know that. I just know there was a 0.00001% chance of useful edits in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Djjazzyb

Sorry for all the edit conflicts, but the editor was incredibly abusive. I could have restored your decline but wasn't sure if you wished me to. More important, I'm inclined to extend the block. Any opinion on whether to do that and, if yes, for how long? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly more forgiving than most when editors spout off on their talk page right after they're blocked; I wouldn't lengthen it myself, though that's probably a minority viewpoint. However, I'm slightly more harsh than most people when editors don't rapidly gain clue, so if they come back after the block as disruptive as they have been so far, I'm inclined to block indef next time, and they can find out how they need to behave and then request an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably go along with your "minority viewpoint", although I'll give it a bit more thought. I'll just watch them after the block expires to make sure they behave. Thanks for your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

that's a feature, not a bug

I understand the phrase. I have no clue what it has to do with this situation. The user still doesn't get it, but good on you for restoring the rights before they have a chance to gain the clue. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for an explanation, or did you just want me to read this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
The Admin's Barnstar is awarded to Floquenbeam who went through a tedious discourse and took what I think is a particularly difficult decision. Please do not retire. What am I going to do without admins like you? (No offense to others) Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rude Comment

I noticed you accused me of 'whining' on the AN so therefore I will open a complaint case against you at AN. --Niàobùmíxìn (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that will work well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Good call with the block. Good lord, it's been a while since I've had one of these encounters. I should've probably dropped it sooner. Oh well. – Connormah (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes you only recognize trolling in retrospect. I was clear at ANI that I wasn't referring to you, right? If not, sorry, I should have been clearer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No you were perfectly clear, it's my fault for taking the bait or being too AGF-y. Oh well, lesson learned, time to move on. – Connormah (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Need information on policy

I need some clear information/confirmation (feedbacks from stalkers are also welcome):

  1. Does an image have to be at least "1024x768 pixels" (or in short, have to be of featured quality) to be eligible for inclusion in a Featured Article? I know the larger it is, the better and all of that but my question is can an image of dimensions, say, 672 × 480 pixels be eligible for inclusion in a Featured Article? Is there a policy that explicitly dictates that images have to be of this size or meet some other criteria (in terms of quality) for being eligible to be included in a featured article?
  2. Does anybody have the right to arbitrarily (or rather autocratically) dictate "protocols" (not to mention that will cause confusion and obfuscate a simple issue) on the talk page of a Featured Article which others, according to him, should abide by, before voting or proposing anything??

This sort of autocratic thinking actually perturbs me. I understand best-quality is preferable, but what I am asking is that is it mandatory? I know there is a good intent behind all this but can a protocol like this be imposed on others or made mandatory in one article by a minority of editors, under the current policies of wikipedia? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images & Wikipedia:Image use policy. Is there anything else that corroborates this severity when it comes to FAs? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about FA requirements for images. If this is an actual honest content-related question, you could ask at WT:FA. If this is part of an ongoing battle, then don't take it to WT:FA, because FA is a part of actual quality encyclopedia building, and they shouldn't have to put up with crap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wondering about the template on this user talk...

Came across this IP's talk page today[6] and noticed it has a 'schoolblock' template on it placed there in March 2012. I ran a couple of 'WhoIs' checks and did some Google research and so far as I can tell, this IP is not a school/library/etc, but maybe I'm missing something? Since you were the admin who placed the 'schoolblock' template on this IP's talkpage, I was thinking you might want to take a look at their Whois and let me know what I missed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything, i just used the wrong template. I've replaced it with {{anonblock}}. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at your own diff, you diff.

You're own diff shows there was no edit war, but instead the proper form of editing. 1)I had made an addition to an article (as an IP, which is not an offense, even though you seem to think so with your rude comments, you jackass (per community response to user Malleus using swearing to insult an editor is ok if they did something to make you mad, so it's ok for me to do that). 2)Logical Cowboy, who I was in a dispute with somewhere else, decides to remove the information. 3)I revert his undoing. 4) he reverts my revert, calling it vandalism. 4) I go to his page and let him know that vandalism is intentionally trying to hurt the encyclopedia and that is not what I was doing, and secondly that he's wrong about there not possibly being "alot of businesses" in a small community of less than 150 (6 gas stations, 5 hotels, 3 restaurants, and 5 fast food restaurants (and much more) sounds like alot in 1 sq mile to me) At what point was that an edit war, let alone breaking 3RR? It sounds like normal editing to me. Apology please?Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not interested in playing your games. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Do not use your account and your IP on the same pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Block me then. "Play your game"? Really? Is that game called "look at the diff you posted and see you are wrong". I will post as an IP anywhere I want anytime I want.97.85.211.124 (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and consider this your AN/I notice for refusing to apologize over your wrong analysis of the "edit war".97.85.211.124 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, that seems an odd choice, but I'm waiting with bated breath. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think reverting twice is an edit war you're a major twit.Camelbinky (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with myself on that!97.85.211.124 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

This User_talk:Mrt3366 is reverting the good faith edits in the page Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, inserting pov templates, putting <· ··!> in the text to hide information. When asked to restrain he argues and uses harsh words. My request is kindly take a look on the history section, talk page and on the article and act accordingly, so that the encyclopaedic values of the article are not lost. Thank you sir.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing disgusts me more than an edit warrior whining that someone reverted his reverts, except perhaps for an edit warrior smelling blood because an enemy has recently run into trouble, and thinking they can take advantage of an enemy's unrelated problems to "get" them. Mrt3366 appears to have reverted you once, with a descriptive edit summary. You had just reverted him, with no edit summary. This is, of course, not how grownups would collaboratively create an encyclopedia article, but it is par for the course here on controversial subjects, and the templated warnings you give each other are silly. There is no way I'm getting involved in that quagmire, I have no opinion of who is wrong and who is right in the underlying content dispute, it is a subject I know nothing about, and for the most part people like you deserve having to deal with each other. But I'll tell you what: the next time you revert someone with no rationale, and then "report" them after they revert you once, I will block you for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Even though I agree with your response to Mehrajmir, I still do want to point it out to you that in principle this editor is not completely wrong. Mrt3366 was clearly bullying editors and abusing his rollback rights by reverting pages carelessly even when editors had support for their edits. Consider the argument where more than one editor agreed that a resource clearly mentions that the people killed were civilians, Mrt3366 went ahead and reverted it mentioning "reference might say it, but who knows in reality that they are innocent" (seriously ??). We are not here to make judgements and decision at WP, rather presenting what is out there with well cited references and let the readers form their (well informed) opinions. So, I completely agreed with and (respect) TP for his diligence. At the same time I do respect your decision to give the rights back. I am sure you considered everything and if nothing, it served as a warning to all editors including myself as well as Mrt3366, that just because they are experts at editing WP does not mean that their actions will go unnoticed (and unpunished). Now I am not here to argue who is right or who is wrong, but I request you (sincerely too) that if someone comes to you requesting assistance as MehrajMir did, it would be courteous of you to teach them what WP is all about and why their request has no merit instead of threatening them with a one month block. This is often taken by editors like Mrt3366 as a vindication of their actions, which we do not want. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Killbillsbrowser,
I understand and agree with some of what you're saying, and God knows I try to be patient and explain how things work to anyone who seems to be editing in good faith but running into trouble. That's not how I read Mehrajmir's post. He seems to be deep into the dispute as well, but as soon as his blind reverts (no explanation) were reverted with an edit summary (not rolled back), he came running to me to try to get Mrt3366 sanctioned for edit warring. I HATE that particular type of dishonesty. That isnt being a newbie, that has nothing to do with needing education, that's evidence of a character flaw. If I had my way, all POV warriors from all sides would be kicked off as soon as it became clear that’s what they were, whether or not they edit within policy. Since no one else wants to do that, (and since it isn't really feasible), I settle for ignoring them, and biting them when they dishonestly come to my talk page to prevent them from trying to draw me into their games anymore.
As for Mrt3366: If Mrt3366 comes to me seeking to get someone else sanctioned for edit warring, I'll likely bite his head off too. I have not looked into the content of his edits, or defended his behavior anywhere; all I've done is note that he wasn't misusing rollback. If he is misusing rollback, show me and I'll take it away. If he's being a jerk, I'm not going to cut him out of the herd and sanction him, while his opponents are doing the same thing. If Mrt3366 is violating policy, he should stop, or be sanctioned; he certainly won't be defended by me. But I've no interest in policing that particular subject area, so much of it is beyond my knowledge that I would be a bull in a china shop. All I did was return his rollback, not volunteer to be his fairy godmother, nor his parole officer. If he misues rollback, tell me and I'll take it away. If he does anything else bad, please follow normal WP:DR methods. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
more:I guess I should have looked at your contributions before replying. I see you're involved in the dispute too, and another of Mrt3366's opponents, so much of what I said to MehrajMir applies to you too. For example, you state that Mrt3366 has misused rollback. Please provide diffs. If you can do so, I'll remove it. If you can't, then if you ever make a groundless accusation on my talk page again, I'll block you for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to turn this into another dispute. You said you're involved in the dispute too. Show it to me where I was being unreasonable or reverting stuff without rhyme and reason that you accuse me of this. Otherwise please do not threaten anybody. Just because I registered my concern to what Mrt3366 was doing, does not mean I am involved in the dispute. Also, you said it is groundless accusation, so I take it what you want to convey is that that TP's action was nonsensical and without reason. I did not go to TP, he acted (rightfully) on his own. Anyhow, my suggestion to you was in good faith, you are welcome to take it or leave it. I am not going to spam your talk page by extending this. Thank You. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Lahyani

I think that is the wrong decision on [7] and I formally request it to be reopened. You have to understand that we also have one editor that wants the page to stand as a whole with NO redirect at all. We must determine if it must be eliminated completely or if tennis project consensus on redirecting these items will stand. This would need to happen "before" it would go to a redirect discussion. Once it is determined if it can be eliminated or redirected we can discuss where it should redirect to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click),
I made a mistake, but I *think* the close is still correct. I didn't notice that there was a recent opinion that the page should actually be an article; I thought all recent opinions expressed were that it should be a redirect, and the disagreement was the target of the redirect. However, no one is actually saying that the article should be deleted, so I still don't think AFD is the place to talk about this; no admin action could possibly be needed, and it's always been my understanding that if deletion isn't a possible outcome, it shouldn't be at AFD. If there really is someone who thinks this should be an actual article, a discussion can just happen on the article talk page. If the result is redirection, but the target is still disputed, then WP:RFD would be appropriate.
However, although I pretty firmly believe this to be the case, I'm not *100%* confident, so I've asked an admin who closes a lot of AFD's to confirm my opinion. If he agrees, then I think this is the way to go. If he says I'm wrong, I'll reopen the AFD. Let me wait to hear from him, then I'll reply here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Thanks. Interesting though that this is the only tennis ref we've had a problem with. I think all the others were simply deleted or merged or redirected into the list of gold badge umpires by AFD. I'm not saying there isn't some merit in redirecting to the only notable item in the umpires career, but this was sort of happily sitting as a redirect to the umpire page when we suddenly get one editor wanting a full article and then one editor wanting it redirected somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if no one is interested in deletion, it is technically incorrect to bring it to WP:AFD. It happens, and sometimes admins turn a blind eye, but Floquenbeam's stance is grounded in policy here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Well... I'm as willing as anyone to turn a blind eye to technicalities if it makes sense, especially if, as Mark says, it's commonly done. Since there is an editor who truly believes it should be an actual article, then rather than have one discussion about that, followed by another about the redirect target (if it's redirected), we can try to kill two birds with one stone in a single AFD discussion. I'll reopen this, and note the reason for doing so in the AFD so that hopefully another admin won't come along and close it again. Give me a few minutes and I'll reopen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Eva basil and Vladimir Mikhailovich Zakharov

Hi Floq, thanks for you help with this situation. I've decided to start a deletion discuusion for this article, because I'm not convinced about notability - I haven't been able to confirm the strongest claim, that he is a People's Artist of the Russian Federation, by searches in either either English or Russian (which I can read). Of course the fact that she hasn't received the promised payment is not a good reason for Eva to ask for deletion, but she might be able to contribute to the discussion, so do you think that an unblock might be in order to allow her to do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked her so she can participate in the discussion, and warned that blanking, or re-adding PROD or CSD tags while the AFD is going on will result in a re-block. Thanks for starting the AFD, I may comment there later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh well, I see she's reblocked. I think everyone pretty much bent over backwards to help her. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohamed Lahyani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Nice edit summary. I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. "Hung like a horse" is no longer that impressive a phrase, is it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the quick cleanup on Aisle 28. Speaking of assholes, have you read this? I've got a copy from the library; it's a pretty good read so far. 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, looks like you're not the only person they're upset with. No, haven't read the book; I have a pile of about a dozen books I've been trying to find time to read for months, but instead I do things like play on Wikipedia. Haven't seen your name around lately; flying under the radar? Cheers, --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Been hanging out at WP:CHU trying to grab a rename request or two before MBisanz gets 'em. He's pretty quick, though. That and writing (smallish) articles. 100 articles created as of last night, which was a milestone I'd been looking forward to. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Writing articles? What, you already forgot everything in the admin handbook? That's frowned upon. Perhaps it's time for a reconfirmation RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (p.s. Congrats on #100)
Don't know if you've seen The Campaign, but there's a great scene where a political consultant is horrified that a candidate is spending time with his wife and kids instead of working on the campaign: "...and here you are playing Hee-Haw with the fuck-around gang!" That's my new name for AN/I, I think. Think WP:Hee-Haw with the fuck-around gang would survive an RfD? 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Only one way to find out... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANI and NLT

Well you're half right - I don't hang out on ANI much. :-). This was my first time actually having to deal with a legal threat, so I'm chalking this up as a learning experience. I read the line "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." in WP:NLT as an obligation to report. As I said, I'm viewing this as a learning opportunity for me and will report to ANI only when I feel a block is warranted. I generally think that blocking is less effective than we give it credit for. If we can convince someone that their actions are negative and not in accordance with wiki's best interests, they may stop voluntarily and the root of the problem is solved. If we just block, there's nothing to stop them from creating a new account with a different name (possibly from another IP address at home or work), and continuing their activities. While blocking is clearly a useful tool, I always think that in cases where there's no imminent danger (meaning no active and ongoing vandalism), we owe it to ourselves to try persuasion at least once because it will be better in the long run. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Thanks for the info on ANI - I do believe I understand ANI better now. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say; if I were God Emperor of Wikipedia, there would almost never be a legal threat block without a discussion (preferably non-templated) first; I'd only block if the legal threat was repeated after a pointer to WP:NLT was clearly given. But, alas, I'm not God Emperor of Wikipedia. Yet.
Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How can we improve Joao Gilberto?

--Gill 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we've discussed this before; maybe it was with one of the IP editors though. Propose specific, concrete changes on the article talk page which follow our policies and guidelines (I left a list of applicable policies and guidelines on the article talk page a week or two ago). Don't write long paragraphs on the talk page about the horrible unfair censorship on Wikipedia, because when I see that, frankly, I tune out anything else you say, and I suspect most people are similar. Instead, propose actual changes to the article. Try to get consensus for the changes, which means other people besides those associated with Showbras need to agree. If you cannot get consensus, follow the steps in WP:dispute resolution, including a third opinion, a request at The Music Wikiproject for more editors to comment, or a Request for comment. If you still don't get consensus, then stop trying to make that change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Floquenbeam, Thank you for your answer. Now I just tried to post information concerning Japan and album recorded in artist's passage there. I includes reference. Let's see if somehow we begin a new path. But I regret to say that my observation about censorship on Wikipedia deserved a more thorough analysis and a recognition of something must change.--Gill 06:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Lopes (talk • contribs)

Why would you ask me a question about improving the article if you didn't care what my answer was? That is most clearly not what I suggested; indeed, it is the same behavior that led to the page being protected from editing in the past. It is finally, slowly dawning on me that none of you are confused, none of you are asking honest questions, none of you are looking for help... you're just dishonestly trying to get your own way by exhausting good faith editors. If you continue this behavior, I will be forced to fully protect the page for a year, to force you and your IP friends/employees/coworkers/sockpuppets/whatever to propose changes on the talk page first. I do not think there is a point to your posting anything on my talk page anymore. I won't spend time answering dishonest questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, is absolutely embarrassing receive these your words, especially for your inelegance. Your judgment and your attitude as a censor are compatible with what we perceive in the environment that you want to impose in your encyclopedia. This your lack of respect with a Brazilian producer is only a symptom of a far worse badly of your arrogance. there is no dialogue possible with you and such behavior spreads and it is a role model. We will fight inspired by the ideas of the free world against the New Censorship, yes it was unfair.--Gill [removing date so this idiocy gets archived]

Seeking redress

Greetings Floquenbeam. I understand the conviction that led you to fully protect will.i.am, and tentatively agree that it was a prudent and timely step. It occurs to me that the reason, given in summary, has served its purpose, and that the inverse rationale should now give cause for removing the protection. We've had a spell where blocks were avoided; may we conclude with a spell where block-worthy behavior is avoided. Certainly the majority will contribute in good faith; without disruption. And those who won't should be blocked. IMO 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they've gained consensus yet, so what benefit is there to unprotection? There are no unaddressed {{editrequest}} tamplates. At this point, adding something before consensus is reached seems unwise. Still, if you can find another admin who disagrees, I'm willing to be over-ruled; it doesn't need to go to ANI or anything crazy like that, and they don't need my OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am thankful that your character measures as true as your fine reputation; which precedes you. I am pleased to have sought your fair measure, to find the abundance of surplus. You are far more reasonable than I had imagined, and exceedingly kind in dissent. If an inkling of merit weighed in favor of my plea, you are sufficiently fit to amend your own course. And I am confident that you would. Thank you for thoughtfully considering my request. Sincerely - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am well, thank you

It would be a shame if you retire, but if you do... close down everything but your talkpage, and keep the notification system up, and just walk away. It is hard for a week or so, but suddenly there will be a new lightness in your web browsing when you realise that you are not going to spend an evening hunting through page and editors history to attempt to fix a point when all was not as bad as it is alleged to be now. It is quite refreshing. It is also best to do so while you still hold the project in good regard.
I trust that you and yours are good, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They are, thanks. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, again

I see the result was keep. I am grateful for your assistance in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

HINT HINT

These guys seem to be eager for your help, but they haven't contacted you, as far as I can see. See also this. Well, I don't know if you've actually, er, contributed to Buyer's remorse, or merely helped combat the "See also" jests (much appreciated, as such). But it seems a pity they should want for some experienced advice. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

Whenever you wonder whether I've actually contributed to an article, the safe guess is "no, probably not". All that content stuff would get in the way of my MMORPG.
You're correct, all I did was help out with the "See also" silliness. Still, I'll go over and introduce myself, and offer to help with whatever they think I could help with. Thanks for the note, I was wondering why my ears were burning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AIV thanks

Thanks very much for your rapid help here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, glad to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Retirement

When I saw this I was gonna encourage you to be more retired, but now that I've seen that I think WP is better off with you less retired. Nobody Ent 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So on average, I should stay exactly as retired as I am now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
No and No. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have one of those lapel pins too. I wear it when I am using my "Beer is from Mars. Chocolate's from Venus" mug. Risker (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I used to have two, but I lost one in a bar fight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I never had one until one day I was running my mouth at a bar and this guy knocked the hell out of me and one somehow got stuck on my forehead. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for this edit. Somehow I thought Fram made the contribution and we are quite often on opposing sides. Suddenly I'd seen a comment of theirs, so agreeable to my opinion that I felt compelled to make that gesture. That is why the edit summary is a bit off. And I don't want my no no above to be misconstrued in the confusion. I meant no harm! The first no is because you are not average; and the second, because you should never be stifled. I'll go now. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to make sort of a point with that link, and it was partially muted by it not, actually, being the red link I said it was anymore. Anyway, no worries, I still feel somewhat guilty for punching you in the forehead many years ago, so I'll let this one slide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Church prodding

Thanks for your permission to re-prod the churches. I've gone one-by-one through all of the churches that were prodded, and I've reprodded some, being careful to avoid ones that you didn't decline and ones that had a possible claim of notability. Probably a few of them should be kept, and I'm confident that others should be deleted through AFD, but prodding really is the best solution for many of these articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I never intended my revert of these PRODs to be official "declines", they were "undos". There's not really any way to do a mass rollback with an edit summary, but I'm glad you saw my note. I looked through a few of them before mass rollbacking, and most looked notable, but it appears my sample size was so small that it was skewed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

fair enough

no ..I won't restore. You do damned good work here Floq., and if you say or do something then I listen - because I know there is wisdom in the words you write. I'm a bit surprised, but not shocked at your choice. I've seen you become quite bold, but I've always respected that. I'll admit that I tend to be quite protective of Ms. Bishonen, and while I can not justify it - I will stand by it. I will admit that I considered a "rant" on the childishness ... but perhaps my energies would be better served in other directions. — ChedZILLA 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gotten pissed off and told people off a couple of times too; sometimes people removed my comments, and it was always for the best when they did. I wish friends would tell friends to calm down more often, discretely remove their impulsive posts, etc., because when enemies say "please read WP:CIVIL and no WP:NPA", it never, never, never helps. The thing is, this whole dustup is silly, and I would hate to see it go to ArbCom, piss more people off, risk Bish turning her bit back in in frustration, boomerang on Jc37, and just generally put one more nail in the coffin of this place. We're all going to run into each other on other issues in the future, and there's no benefit to poisoning that interaction. Jc37 is dead wrong about this, imho, but he's not evil or insane, his pride was just wounded. Saying something like that to him is just going to make it more likely that he feels set upon by a "cabal", and files an ArbCom case, and no wise person wants that. I hope the next time you see me say something unwise (it will happen, no doubt in my mind), you'll remove it too; it would be much better you do it than have someone I don't respect do it. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Good grief .. I just saw another one. I honestly don't know how you folks put up with it. More power to ya Floq, I admire what ya do. As far as protecting a user's talk page goes - I'm not even gonna get into the absurdity of that. Best to everyone. — ChedZILLA 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's my imagination, but we seem to be sliding into another phase of more-than-the-usual-level of dysfunction that periodically infects the site. I should see how that correlates that with the phases of the moon, like they do in ER rooms; I wonder if that would explain it. Anyway, probably going to de-watchlist AN and ANI for the duration of the current outbreak, lest I call people "assholes" again. Maybe switching to User:Floquenstein's monster would help... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(watching) you read about the "naughty word on the front page", try WP:IAF ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(*patiently*) Silly Gerda, don't you understand that when I call someone an asshole, it's "calling a spade a spade", but when someone else does it, it's a "personal attack", and when it shows up on the main page, it's an "affront to human dignity"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know it had such a long history. I am proud that the above useful WP was created because of an email I sent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Poorly thought out

Poorly thought out putting five things into trifecta (but the rest of it was spot on, as usual) Nobody Ent 12:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Spellcheck rejected quintfecta, so I had to go with something imperfect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be quinfecta, which also has another, more exotic meaning involving five girls and a pizza. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm stunned there is no Wikipedia article on that, sourced to the Urban Dictionary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Elegantly hatted! (And luckily I caught Autocorrect thoughtfully changing "hatted" to "hatred". That would not have been helpful.) --Pete (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. I tried to come up with a joke about "elegantly hatted", but couldn't think of one up to my usual high standards. (Closest I came was "haven't seen anything so elegantly hatted since Abraham Lincoln". No good.) So I'll just say "thanks" and leave it at that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I would have invoked The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins, not his best known, but one of my favorites.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll make it a personal mission to quote Dr Seuss the next time the opportunity presents itself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm beginning to feel like Eric Applebaum, young hat collector! --Pete (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

How appropriate!

Referring to this hat

(I wish it were a setup, but I fear not.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I liked Jayron's comment at AN too: [8]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Thank you. v/r - TP 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've commented there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hello F. Last month you blocked Barbara Osgood (talk · contribs). I think they may have returned as Barbara Oswold (talk · contribs). While I am not sure of the circumstances of the block this new editor is adding future book titles without referenced to various author articles much like Osgood did and the similarity of names is worth looking into. If you think that things are okay then that will be fine with me. I just thought that it was worth taking a look at. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is obviously the same editor. Blocked the sock, let me know if others show up. I have not removed their edits to other articles because I don't know enough about the subject to feel competent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your taking a look at this. I will try and go through Barb's edits and see if they can be sourced or not as I have time. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks for looking at her other edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please re-consider

Hi Floquenbeam,

On feb 3, 2012 you restored me to Wikipedia after I had been blocked indefintiely by another wiki-admin. I honestly don’t know why I was blocked in the first place, how or where I crossed paths with the admin who blocked me, and followed me around for a while after I had been unblocked by you, and how and why you came to my rescue.

In short I know very little about you. But I do know that you had the guts to unblock me!

I try not to dwell on the negatives in my wiki-life and keep to myself most of the time. But when I see people like you and user:Henrik are thinking of leaving wikipedia it makes me very, very sad. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ottawahitech,
That's very nice of you to say, except I'm not sure it was really very courageous; there was a consensus to unblock, as I recall. Still, I'm glad it's worked out.
My note has been up there for quite a while in various forms; I did take a break for a month or so, and I'm still not as active as I used to be, and don't expect to become really active again going forward. But the note is intended to as more a kind of semi-retirement, not an impending rage quit. I'm around, and plan to continue to be around, just not terribly active. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal

Floquenbeam,

Believe it or not, I didn't revert you (I know, shocking, huh ? ) Anyrate, whois does actually show AT&T and the answer group , so this is very much part of the whois and doesn't go into outing territory. However, I'm willing to talk about this with you and not even touch your revert.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had reverted that; there was a bit of an edit war between Giant Snowman and the IP editor in question. I agree it's not a 100% clearcut case, but I do think it's over the line, and my thought is that the information is no longer important anyway, so why not err on the side of caution. There's a thread on Elen of the Roads' talk page where she seems to concur; the edit might have been actually oversighted if there weren't so many intervening edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
As Kosh says, that info is clearly available via the IP. Plenty of people have contributed to the thread without finding an issue; it's just this IP, who tried to hide his removal by adding a comment at the same time. Your removal is fine as it's good-faith - the IP's was, I'm afraid, not. GiantSnowman 17:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the mis-understanding.. I wasn't implying that I had. Anyrate, the information I provider is here | obtainable from OverLord's Tools, we have a link for this on Wikipedia . It's not at all outing. Consider that this IP user posts his userid, his IP page shows a tag stating this is registered to TAG. It's not outing. Will you consider reverting ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't remove the part that ties the IP to TAG, I removed the part that ties it to U-Verse. That is not part of the WHOIS results nor OverlordQ's tool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Still not outing, that's his employer. TAG is an outsource call center (I've worked for them, unfortunately, and know how they word, and in fact, worked with the prior account , Bellsouth Fast Access DSL, which is now ATT U-Verse. Basic information.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, like I said, it's not from WHOIS, and as a result it's too much information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Check the WHOIS again, it shows both T.A.G and AT&T, in fact the addresses overlap. It does show this overlap, and again, because I happen to know how TAG works, it's pretty obvious. Please understand that I hear you, yes whois shows both T.A.G and AT&T as the owners of this IP address. It does NOT show that this is AT&T U-verse and it doesn't show that T.A.G is the outcall center that hosts for AT&T U-verse. However, neither does mention that fact constitute outing.

Outing consist of:
Posting another editor's personal information [..], unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.
He's already posted his work information (by virtue of using his IP that information is on his page. I haven't posted his name, date of birth , id number, home or workpace address, job title. Work information is also shown on his page (IP page ) once again. I haven't posted his telephone number , email address or any contact information, therefore, no, posting what I posted is not outing. At best, it's synth, which applies to articles but not to the AN or ANI pages, as best I know.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an exhaustive list. TAG is evident from a WHOIS; their clients aren't. Attempting to identify the client of someone's employer seems like personal information to me. The makers of that list can't be expected to list every conceivable possible type of info. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't exhaustive, however, it is the current Wikipedia definition of outing, just like wikipedia has a specific definition of vandalism. Essentially, you're using your definition of outing and not wikipedias.

Just as I can't revert some one's edit as vandalism because it meets my defintion of vandalism and not wikipedia's, neither can you remove text from a message as outing because it meets your definition only. I will ask you again to revert please.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not using "my" definition of outing, I'm using the spirit of the policy to extrapolate a non-exhaustive list. You can't agree that the list isn't exhaustive, and then turn around and say anything not on the list doesn't meet the definition of outing. That's what "not exhaustive" means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Extrapolation = your definition. If I state "I'm using the spirit of the policy to extrapolate...." and remove an edit as vandalism there's no way you'd accept that. We have a definition of vandalism, just as we have a definition of outing. Your definition is not wiki's . Please revert.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't think I'm going to be convinced to restore that portion of your comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, all, I'm here as a result of the 3O request. That request was rightly declined, as 3O is for content disputes, not conduct disputes, but I decided to go the path of least drama and comment here anyway. I'm tending to agree with Floq. A few reasons: first, the material isn't even relevant anyway. Looking at the userfied copy, it doesn't create a COI, so I'm not sure why it would even be posted to begin with. It has no real value. And then there's the technical definition: just because there are specific definitions of something on Wikipedia doesn't mean that there aren't also judgement calls involved. To take vandalism as an example, say someone types in "xyzzy" into some random page. This could be considered vandalism, but it could also be considered an editing test, which is explicitly not vandalism. There's still a judgement call there. We shouldn't throw our brains away when deciding whether an action fits a definition; common sense still should reign supreme. I'm pretty sure that, since the community values privacy and anonymity, we should err in favor of those, especially when the information has little-to-no encyclopedic value. And even if the specific rule doesn't account for judgement, Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules for that purpose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this dispute no farther. 30 favors your view, so that's it, I'll stop bugging you about it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon

This time Zrdragon12 edit warred with mostly with someone else, namely with Special:Contributions/89.168.123.75, which is User:Stumink logged out. [9] [10] [11] [12]. I know it's Stumink because it geolocates in the same place as another IP in the same range which Stumink admitted was his [13]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And Nguyen has also been busy edit warring, not only against Zrdragon12 but also against User:The Gnome. G N G N Z N some IP. Have fun. It looks like this whole Vietnam War area should go to ArbCom. It's too hard to deal with all the disruptive editors at ANI, especially when they wall-text the place. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll look later tonight at the IP and Nguyen, I just saw TTAAC's edits because he was still on my watchlist from the last time they got into it; I didn't notice Nguyen because he wasn't warring with Zrdragon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Tijfo, I'm sorry, I'm unavoidably detained in real life; I don't know when I can look into their edits, and by the time I can, I don't know if it's going to be considered stale or not. You might bump the ANI thread if you want better admin attention on this. Otherwise, I'll look when I can, and either deal with the edit warring, or (if it's stale) add some pages to my watchlist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon sockpuppets go here

Failure of Admin to do his job correctly

It is a bit of a shame that you have failed to do your job correctly in regards to edit warring on the wikipedia site. Blocking one person for edit warring but not another shows you as completely biased. You should think about giving up your admin duties and letting some one who can do the job correctly have a go,it is clear you have failed in the duties prescribed to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.22.151 (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I shall give this opinion all the weight it deserves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
But does it weigh as much as a Duck. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
An unladen duck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This IP looks like another sockpuppet of Zrdragon12, so I've made note of that on its user page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing error

I would just like to point out your revert here. I am pretty sure you did not even check this before reverting. Your revert deleted the reflist and also reinstalled a link to a blacklisted site,another editor has to come behind you and undo all your mistakes. Edits. Please try and actually read what you are reverting and the reasons that the article was edited before reverting. Thanks.199.21.149.243 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Kaz sockpuppets go here

Admin abuse

Please notice the following edit [14] why is there a conscious edit to hide the truth on this topic on wikipedia? I am trying to catch the attention of an admin with some integrity. I hope it is you. Every time Toddy1 does a controversial edit no one is watching, how is it that so many admins have supported so far his Zionist POV pushing? Surely any Admins with a Zionist POV have a vested interest in such matters and should be excluded from making decisions which stack the deck. For example decisions which include blocking users who have made tremendous efforts to build encyclopaedic quality articles and reverting their efforts. Have a look at what happened to the Crimean Karaites article just before you stepped in. Is the new version really better then the old? Did User:Kaz really deserve to be blocked without a review date after such constructive contributions? Notice how it is the same Admin who executed all this on behalf of User:Toddy1 whose edit history shows mainly non-constructive conflict and POV pushing. Something seriously twisted is going on here. It's as if there is money involved. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) (this IP is Kaz (talk · contribs) evading an indef-block Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ)

There's always the option of deciding to try to edit collaboratively, request an unblock of your account, and move on, but every time you edit with an IP to evade the block, that path becomes that much harder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Important note

Could all block-evading sockpuppets please post new complaints as a new subthread in their respective threads? It would make my life ever so much easier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:199.21.149.243

Can you please block this sock? Zdragon's using it as (at least!) his fourth account to keep editing articles. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, and since they seem to have multiple IP's, I've semi-protected the page. I'm unlikely to be available more than once or so a day until Monday, so if they pop back up somewhere else you'll need to find another admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More IP sockpuppetry by Zrdragon

Hi Floquenbeam, there's several IPs that are popping up that have exactly the same time of edits and editing behaviour as the blocked user Zrdragon, which concludes that these IPs are sockpuppets by Zrdragon. These IPs are 68.68.17.37, 68.68.17.21 and 31.7.57.198. 68.68.17.37 posted more delusional, false criticism about me "edit warring" on the War Remnants Museum article even though i didn't, and everything's all settled and resolved for a few days now on that article since Zrdragon's block. This was posted to Zrdragon's talk page, with the same type of writing style and content as Zdragon. 68.68.17.21 ([[15]]) was used by Zdragon to make personal attacks and insults on my talk page [[16]], and censor out things they didn't like [[17]]. 31.7.57.198 is also used for more censorship of articles and edit warring, and it's an anonymous proxy just reported as a spamming source ([[18]]). Can you please act quickly to these IP puppets before any more vandalism occurs? Thanks Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(I got the same notice on my talk page.) See Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Requests#Lots_of_dragons. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, out of at least 8 IPs, the 3 that are still unblocked are here, here, and here. Just saying, since Nguyen came here first.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The article "War Remnants Museum" needs protecting, as it's become the object of emotion-driven, POV edit-warring.-The Gnome (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The third sock I mentioned was blocked by MaterialScientist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Folks, I really meant what I said above; I have zero time to deal with anything on Wikipedia until probably Monday; you'll have to find another admin, or go to RFPP or SPI or something. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for starting that [[WP:OPP thread, Tijfo. I've started blocking these IP's for a year as open proxies. From what I understand, it may eventually be possible to find the ranges these open proxies are using, and range block them; until then, I'll block individual ones as I see them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

confused

Is this the way Jack left it, or did I pooch up the revert? Please fix if did, going offline. Thanks. Nobody Ent 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't screw it up. It's because Ed decided it would be a fantastic idea to tag all of Jack's accounts in the middle of this discussion, and the Br'er Rabbit userpage transcludes a random userpage of Jack's previous accounts. It can't really be fixed unless Ed is reverted, but of course we all know if I, a well-known low-life defender-of-Jack-and-enabler-of-all-that-is-wrong-with-Wikipedia revert the tags, people like Burpelson will get hysterical and have coronaries. Ed knows this too, but doesn't give a shit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's very Jack like. Thanks for the explanation. And I agree with pretty every you've said on AN -- the whole debacle is classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds Nobody Ent 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request

Hi Floq. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks for the note. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
One of your comments on Iamthemuffinman's talk page was just perfect. I loved it. Think the "Banhammer of Damocles" should be an anti-barnstar? or maybe a userbox? :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I like your shortening of it to "Banhammer of Damocles" even better, and wish I'd though of doing that. I was all set to congratulate you on your neologism, when I googled it, and sure enough: [19]; like every other good idea under the sun, it's been thought of before. Still, yes, The Banhammer of Damocles should be a barnstar, userbox, or something. Not sure what, though. I'll have to meditate on that... cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Award

The Don Quixote Award
Dreaming the The Impossible Dream
That bad Jack be treated like a human. Nobody Ent 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NE. Wikipedia doesn't handle people who are "not of the body" very well. It's not surprising, but it's depressing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Floq, thanks for being so eloquent and so right so much of the time. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Very kind of you to say, Keilana. However, one nitpick: surely by "so much" you meant to say "all" ? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I did, must have mistyped. ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
rofl (looking around for an humility barnstar : ) - jc37 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Floq...

It's not just for the RfA.. if that was the case, we'd only be focusing on there solely.. it's for his complete behavior including referring to people as "dishonest fuckers" or "dishonest twats" (both of which he did in the current discussion, and his passionate defense of the right to call people that. It's showing that he cannot work within wikipedia's norms and policies, especially that of working with people that you disagree with. As I said on Malleus's page (and elsewhere), if Malleus indicates that he will try to improve his beahvior, I'll oppose the ban motion and try to convince my colleagues as well. But unless/until we get that, nothing's going to change. And that's sad. SirFozzie (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say; I think most of the people screaming at Arbs are ridiculous, but that doesn't change the fact that I just think you're all so wrong on this. If it wasn't for the RFA, the Clarification Motion request wouldn't have been started, he wouldn't have felt unfairly treated, and wouldn't have done his Contempt of Court thing. So really, it is about the RFA. I've been expecting/dreading this for a while; there are way too many people here that love to run up to someone with a chip on their shoulder, knock it off, and then run to teacher when they get the reaction they crave. That doesn't mean the person with the chip on their shoulder is right, but I am far more disgusted by the taunters than I am by the reactor. I don't support Malleus' word choices, of course, but I understand them. For just one example, the 9/11 Brigade has been poking him with sticks every single chance they get for a while; they pretend it's about their concern for civility, but it's really about getting even with a content dispute. But the pokers don't get in trouble because they don't use the word twat.
I remember years ago watching a pretty serious car accident happen in front of me. From my position, I could see it coming for like 5-10 seconds before it happened, but of course I was powerless to actually stop it. I sat there, honking the horn in a pathetic attempt to get the drivers' attention, and my passenger told me later that I was just saying "no, no, no, no" to myself over and over for the full 10 seconds. But I couldn't actually do anything about it. If either driver had slowed down, it wouldn't have been as bad, but neither one did. Irresistible force meets immovable object. I don't really care if the drivers are "sad" or not, I just wish they'd both fucking watched where they're driving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
They trying to ban Malleus now too? Guess I'll have to go futilely oppose that as well. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of AGF, as I think you know. What is so shocking to me, is that in initially commenting, honestly I was intending to help. There are times at RfA when people are a bit over-eagre to move extended discussion to a talk page. It seemed to me that MF shouldn't be penalised for that.

For the time being, screw all the rest of the subsequent comments/motions etc. Let's simply look at what the whole page looked like at this diff (my initial comment) and now look at MF's seeming over-reactive response here. And (to save you the step-by-step diffs) then how it looked as of my final comment here.

At this point, I just find it hard to believe that it's merely the venue that's causing this. Even if we try to frame this in the best light possible, I'm still having a hard time as seeing MF "provoked" to his responses by my comments. I welcome your insight on this. - jc37 21:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm not blindly defending all of Malleus' comments here. I think things were already screwed up by the time you commented; and maybe the use of the word civility was a red cape, whether or not you meant it to be. I don't know, I'm not inside his mind. Personally, I don't have a problem with your initial statement there.
You know, since MONGO gets to just make up fake stories about what happened to him at work today, I'll tell a true story about my workplace. There is an old ex-professor in our office, who knows everything about everything. But he also doesn't like to be bothered when he's stressed out about something he's working on. He is the person to ask about anything technical. But everyone knows before going into his office, you stand outside his door first and listen to hear if he's muttering under his breath or not. If he is, you go away and come back later. If, not, it's safe to go in. He isn't constantly told by people 1/2 his age to be polite, he isn't threatened by the principals with termination; he's treasured by everyone, as is. New employees just out of college don't go into his office and lecture him about how he should behave. They are either warned how to behave when they join, or (more often) allowed to find out the hard way, I suppose as a kind of hazing ritual. When I hear about whether "people would act this way in a professional office", I wonder, are they talking about real offices, with curmudgeons and quirky people and gossip and feuds and geniuses and dead weight, or are they talking about imaginary utopian offices where people who cannot be assimilated into the collective are removed. I've never worked at a place where there weren't prickly people. Seems odd to expect better behavior on-line. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
I know people like that as well.
Here's the difference: In that setting they are a teacher, or a professor, or a school or business administrator or manager. Someone in an authoritative position.
On Wikipedia, we're all Wikipedians here, and the expectation is that we interact collegiately. No one here is to be considered "authoritative". Even our highest step of dispute resolution is arbitration, and not judicial (as much as i realise some would like it to be).
Maybe part of the problem is the FA/GA process (where, from my understanding from others' comments, MF does his best work) creates a false situation of "reviewer" and "article creator" as "authoritative individuals", which is unlike the rest of wikipedia. If so, then that is a problem as well.
Regardless, we're all Wikipedians here. And occasional outbursts aside (we're all human), simple collegiate behaviour is just required. People shouldn't have to seemingly wade through excrement to interact with a fellow Wikipedian. - jc37 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well first, our ex-professor is not in authority. He is no one's boss, he's an expert at what he does, and coworkers who need advice seek him out. No one accepts his prickliness because they have to, they accept it because he has something (knowledge, advice, wisdom) that they want. Second, Malleus is, or was, an FA creator as well as an FA reviewer. Third, it wasn't intended as a 100% perfect analogy; if I'd wanted a perfect analogy, I'd have made up a story too. And fourth, our worldview is just very different; I think likening talking to Malleus as "wading thru excrement" (with, I assume, no hint of irony) is too off-target to warrant further discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If that was true, you wouldn't still call him an "ex-professor". People may see people as "authoritative" even subconsciously. I didn't say "position of power". My understanding has always been that what is "authoritative" on Wikipedia is external sources, not any of us.
Every editor to a page is a content "creator". But yes, I fully accept that those entrenched in the FA/GA processes place "weight" on what they define as "article creation". All I was saying above is that perhaps that perspective may also be part of what's helping contribute to the seeming perception that those involved in those processes should be immune to the same policies that everyone else should need to follow. (And I don't mean MF in particular; this is a situation which has been re-played many times over the last several years.)
As for "excrement", per the immediate context, it wasn't to MF in particular, though certainly, I'm having a hard time seeing how even just the comments I've seen at the arb page as WP:CIVIL, I was talking about all of us. We are all Wikipedians here. And none of us should place ourselves above anyone else. And atm, now based on my current experience at the arb page (where I even see MF threatening people), I see an editor who apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia's civility policy.
I sincerely welcome being dissuaded from that assessment. But in the meantime, the crux of AGF that is so often forgotten, is that we shouldn't continue to AGF when clearly presented with contrary evidence. I'm still willing to try to AGF of MF. But atm, the evidence is looking condemnatory. - jc37 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, things have taken an "odd" turn. (Descriptive words fail me.)
Anyway, I just thought you should know that (for whatever it's worth) I have to admit that I was impressed (not quite the right word, but it'll do) with MF's introspection that I saw on his talk page as of this time stamp. I hope that it results in something constructive/positive for everyone, MF in particular. - jc37 08:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I get the impression you're not listening to what I'm saying, just looking for phrases you can disagree with. I don't want to do that; it's too frustrating. Yay, you win another debate! --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't my intention. (And to be quite honest, I'm not much a fan of "debate".) I had thought we were discussing towards mutual understanding.
My initial comment here was because I was still somewhat reeling from the surprise of my recent experience on that page, and then, reading your comment: If it wasn't for the RFA, the Clarification Motion request wouldn't have been started, he wouldn't have felt unfairly treated, and wouldn't have done his Contempt of Court thing. So really, it is about the RFA.
I just was having a hard time seeing how RfA was the problem, when this is just looking like a behaviour issue of someone who chooses to not self-censor in collegiate collaboration.
I knew when I posted that you appear to respect malleus, but at the same time, my experience with you is that you aren't a (for lack of a much more appropriate word) "bandwagon" person. And I think you can look at a situation objectively.
And seriously, I'm wondering why I got attacked like I did, when others who said similar things were considered having friendly comments.
Anyway, this is clearly becoming a stressful time now for those who care about MF.
You have my sincere apologies if I have in anyway added to yours, as that was never my intention. - jc37 18:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Drama Queen

I'm Malleus, and I've been banned for 6 months from Wikipedia.

Cut! You came in too quickly. Go back and do it again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

protection

If you wish to have your talk page at a certain protection level, please feel free to let me know and I will install the desired protection level. — ChedZILLA 05:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection and the recent wheel warring

Floquenbeam,

First, please, as a personal favor, undo the protection or allow me to do so. I think I understand your frustration, even if we do not see precisely eye to eye on the subject. More over, it isn't fair to only allow administrators to try to communicate with you, and if anyone down the years tries to sort through what happened, this will only confuse them more. Secondly, I've written something on the Clarification request the singles you out by name, so it is only fair I let you know. Third, if you just want someone to talk to, send me an e-mail. I'll be happy to listen. I know that is strange considering I'm calling you out for bad behavior, but I'd still like to be a friend if I can. Whatever happens, safe travels. --Tznkai (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was a level of super protection that prevented admins from posting on my talk page too. I do not want to talk about anything right now, with anyone, admins included. Adjust the level of protection to whatever level you feel is necessary to prevent your encyclopedia from exploding; there are certainly no bigger problems that need fixing right now. But keep in mind that my fully protected talk page is a pretty good honeypot; people who are upset that it's fully protected, in violation of THE RULES, are much more likely to be MMORPG players (or possibly, I suppose, normally good editors currently in MMORPG mode). It seems like you would want to be able to identify such people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another symbolic move

[20]. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Treats and Reformation

Sharing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, Gerda. I'll drop some kernels on the ground for JM. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Too early, see my talk, there was an apparition on Halloween ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
As a powerful all-important admin on this site, I'm supposed to disapprove of that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
at least three people bemused, what else can we hope for? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed

I saw your edit summary "bad form when "running" for something" and thought "Hey, excellent, Floquenbeam is running for ArbCom!" Oh well ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the proper attitude for trying to be an Arb right now. It seems to burn most of them out after a year or so; it doesn't seem wise to go into it burned out. I might have had the proper attitude in the past; I might have it in the future; but right now I can't imagine putting up with what they seem to have to put up with for more than about 2 weeks (possibly wouldn't even make it through the election :) ) Very kind of you to say, though, Boing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely the day rate must a least tempt you a bit? Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
They would have to at least double it before I would be interested. (Hi Pedro!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No cats, no dogs. Must have been something the gerbil dragged in :) Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll thank the gerbil for it, then; good to hear from you again. hope all's well with you and yours IRL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, you should run for ArbCom instead; the only person I know who would probably last less time than me! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

I thought JClemens block was a stupid, bone-head melodramatic stunt (which is why I went with Consistently instead Always in my endorsement). I didn't say anything at the time cause it obviously about as much chance as lasting as a snowball in the Sahara, and the was enough drama in the air. Nobody Ent 12:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I still disagree. I think WP:DR says we're supposed to duel to the death now, or something. Killer rabbits at 10 paces? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe tradition is the challenged gets to pick the terms? Champion warfare, I say; I'm going with Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man. Nobody Ent 19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
More serious answer: "civility enforcement" is currently another way of saying "respect authority". It shouldn't be. It should either no longer be a blocking offense, or it should be applied consistently. I'm fairly sure if someone had said that JClemens was not a Wikipedian (which was not done in the heat of the moment, but after careful consideration of his words), they would have been blocked. It is grossly damaging to the way the whole place works that an arb can feel safe in saying that just because he's an arb. The block was a way to make that clear, a way to prevent a re-occurrence. I knew as well as you that it wouldn't last, but it didn't need to last in order to be useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel totally confident in asserting that JClemens' antics have driven away more editors (or caused them to vastly scale back their activities) than anything Malleus has done. The episode in question was not isolated but was part of a longstanding pattern of assuming bad faith and personalizing disputes. I don't at all endorse Malleus's language, but civility is about more than naughty words. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So what? WP is not a zero sum game. FWIW, I was equally opposed to the block on MF around the same time. Nobody Ent 19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought so obviously untrue it simply ridiculous; if I were to Floquenbeam is a turnip!, would that be a personal attack? Nobody Ent 19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Those statements aren't even close to equally ridiculous. Still, it's a judgement call, and it's OK when 2 people's judgements differ. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No they weren't. Jclemens went way beyond what should be expected of an arbitrator, and he did so quite coldly and deliberately. I very much hope that he gets the spanking he deserves at the upcoming elections; might give him some pause for thought. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm disappointed he didn't have the decency to resign when the no-confidence motion went so strongly against him and a number of his fellow arbs disassociated themselves from his comments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

About the EC

Thanks a lot for taking the high road. I was serious, however, that the best way forward would be for you to run in the election.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. +1 Nobody Ent 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. True. They are badly in need of some sense over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, all 3 of you. As mentioned above, I'm trying to imagine dealing with the firehose of crap that Arbs apparently have to deal with, and so far I see myself curled up into a fetal position after a few weeks. Although someone emailed a while ago suggesting that I should be forced to run as penance for blocking a sitting Arb, and there might be some justice in that. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be lying if I said the job was easy, or that you didn't get a great deal of truly vicious crap for your trouble; but it's not insurmountable and it really needs doing and there aren't that many people that have both the skills and the fortitude to do it. Don't feel pressured to run, because you really need to want to do this (as opposed to feeling obligated) if you want to remain sane; but I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't think you had both the capability and fortitude to survive a term.  :-) — Coren (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to popular opinion, I think the dream team candidates for ArbCom (along with Floquenbeam of course) would be Giano and me. We would really rattle the windows! Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Giano would already have been on the committee if he hadn't been so stubborn about identifying to the Foundation; and he would have done a fine job of it I believe. It's not a coincidence that I had insisted he be tapped for the founding of the advisory committee back then. — Coren (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Most kind Coren, but unfortunately, you are quite wrong. I would not have already have been on the committee because King Jimbo made it abundantly clear that I was not required nor likely to be appointed - which led to the small matter of insuficient votes. The Arbcom has always been a private club for those perceived as the ‘good boys’ - perhaps ‘compliant boys’ is more accurate (rather the like the prefect system of a rather cheap, Jesuit school of the 1930s) and I don't see that much has changed there.
Secondly, identifying is against the whole concept of the ‘encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’. If you knew my true name was Lorenzo Cretino that would not make me a better or worse arbitrator. In fact, many of those who have identified have transpired to be some very odd people indeed. As for the UK Chapter (or whatever they call themselves) I won't comment. It’s my belief that requiring people to identify drives off the best, especially those who have made their names, or are public figures, in the areas where their services to the Arbcom would be most useful. Being a 'famous Wikipedian' in North America may bring adulation and laurels, but in Europe it would not - in fact, probably the opposite, especialy for those who already have than two google hits to their name. This is yet another way in which the non-N American editors are disadvantaged, and probably why those that seem to shout loudest and have most power hail from North America.
Thirdly, giving one’s name and details to a group of strangers running a website somewhere in the USA is foolhardy in the extreme and breaks the first fundamental internet rule that sensible people teach their children. In short, my name or that of any other unpaid volunteer (not handling funds) is none of the foundation’s business. I wish Malleus and Floq luck though – they’ll need it.Giano (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That was a shame. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"Contrary to popular opinion..." - I suspect it might be more popular than you think. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe anarchy isn't dead. Maybe I should have some Malleus masks made up for next year. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If Malleus runs, I imagine there will be a stampede of people running too, just for a chance to watch the sparks fly on the mailing list. Actually, I'd join them: I'll run if you do, Malleus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It'd be fun if Malleus ran and got more supports than Jclemens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I he might. But to remove all doubt of victory, he should change his username to User:None of the above. Wouldn't even have to answer the questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if I didn't, but as Giano points out above, the election is just a bit of window dressing; in reality Jimbo makes the appointments, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In chess, there's sometimes a benefit in forcing the other person to capture one of your pieces. A veto by Jimbo of an elected Arb - something that's never happened - would likely bring the Jimboship Issue to a head. From my perspective, of course, the creative destruction that might result would be worth the trouble; but then, of course, that's easy to say, since it would be your trouble, not mine. The piece that is sacrificed probably wouldn't see the move the same way another piece would! Anyway, it appears that no one from this dream team (nor anyone from my original dream team) is going to run. I guess we'll have to settle for mere mortals this year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the mortal fish, Floqueman! Me and my feeb brother are gonna run as a team, for a joint, or twin, seat. Just writing up a power statement covering all the bases: evil vs good, ABF vs AGF, pretty vs gawky-looking minnow with feet, clever vs <personal attack removed>, and so on. What's not to vote for? Spread the word, get two for the price of one! darwinbish BITE 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
  • Hi sharklet, I welcome any opportunity to vote for an editor with the string "bish" somewhere in their username. You realize, of course, that Those Who Make And Follow The Rules will say (a) you don't have enough edits, and (b) we can't allow the sharing of seats. It would lead to dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria (and of course if the question of this candidacy ever made it to the new Electoral Commission, I'd have had to recuse, which is yet another reason it's good I withdrew). Still, I'm glad you're throwing your hat (or whatever the piscean equivalent of a hat is) into the ring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
With unusual solemnity, the darwinbish throws her smoldering stogie into the ring. All hold their breath, overawed by the significance of the moment. The hats in the ring catch fire. 22:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
  • I don’t think Jimbo has to worry about appointing undesirables. He has historical ways of dealing with these matters in advance. Here is my candidacy for the 2007 elections going public on 2 November 2007 [21]. I was getting a great deal of support around the site and then Jimbo made a couple of strategic comments; you can read about it here [22] Despite him, I still polled loads of votes, but sadly not enough because it was some strange percentage mathematical system which I never quite understood. The point is that the constitutional monarch is hardly impartial especially if he thinks he might get an undesirable Arb on his hands. As a result, those of us who have been around a while have the benefit of hindsight and subsequently know when it’s worth making an effort for Wikipedia or, as inthis case, just sitting back and watching bemusedly at the naivity of others. Giano (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You may be right, Giano, I'm not as familiar with the longer-term historical trends of WP as you are, so I'll defer to your judgement. My own guess is that if you or Malleus was elected, Jimbo would have grit his teeth and grudgingly accepted it, but I could very easily be over-estimating him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(←) It depends in part on game theory and whether Jimbo is playing with the same perceived rule-set as the rest of us. Jimbo's power comes in three sorts: influence over voters by charisma and gravitas (Jimbo said it, it must make sense), influence over influential people and gatekeepers (generally over-assumed by critics), and his position with the Wikipedia governance structures (his constitutional role).
The nuances of the first two are genuinely well understood, so let me focus on the last one, because I think most people are missing the point. Jimbo may or may not have a constitutional reserve power to intercede in elections. The rules are unwritten, and perhaps more importantly, it depends on how the people who hold the levers of power react, and how the people who hold levers and influence over them respond. However, so long as Jimbo's powers are uncertain, he gains influence over people by their possible use.
Assuming that, for whatever reason, Jimbo tried to invoke his constitutional role, he would be taking a huge risk. If he is overruled, his powers are a nullity and thus so is any influence he wields by threatening their use. Jimbo has no way to enforce his authority except for hoping everyone goes along with what he decides. He has no armies to field, and no outside legal system to bring down on us.
Jimbo's hypothetical avenues for enforcing his decision would be the Arbitration Committee, the WMF, and the stewards. Stewards he could direct to not give certain otherwise elected arbitrators; but he runs into the same problem, of threatening a showdown that he may lose. The WMF could chose to support his decision and overrule the -en community, but they would risk editor flight, bad press, and compromise the firewall they are trying to build between the foundation and day-to-day editorial decisions. The Arbitration Committee could be placed in the decision of deciding whether or not to seat the new member (a decision I'm sure they would hate), but again, their incentives do not align well with letting Jimbo's override stand.
This isn't to say he couldn't pull it off, just that it entails massive risk. As time progresses, Jimbo's actual normal influence and knowledge of day to day Wikipedia affairs diminishes naturally, and his reserve powers become more and more uncertain. As long as that persists, the risk of actually invoking reserve powers grows, while the payoff of insisting they exist but not making overt attempts to use them is stable.
Of course, the mirror is also true. For those who want Jimbo to have no reserve power, every confrontation insisting they do not exist runs the risk of the reserve powers being invoked and upheld by the various people pulling the levers.--Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of the reason I think he'd grudgingly accept it; I think he wouldn't risk vetoing one of the Community's choices, and having that veto overturned. But my political instincts suck, so I could easily be very wrong. (That's a long, interesting comment, but I'm not going to do it justice, and only make this brief comment in reply.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, one more comment. I think you actually already implied this above, but to be clear: I think, by risking having his veto power being either exposed as non-existent, or overturnable, he'd not only be risking being able to use it again, he'd also be risking the substantial erosion of the first two types as well. Charisma/gravitas and gatekeeper influence only work if the constitutional power is assumed to exist. If you never use it, you always have it, but if you use it, you might lose it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI, and I do have a more "inside" perspective to this, Giano's conviction that Jimmy would have attempted to hinder getting a seat are entirely unfounded. He wouldn't have liked it, but there is no possibility that he would have attempted to prevent him from getting a seat if he had been elected. — Coren (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Coren, do read my post and follow the links. I do hope you were a little more astute than this when on the Arbcom. After, I had declared my candidacy, Jimbo told the electorate, not just once, but twice that I would not, in his opinion, be around for very long [23] [24]. I do think after that, there was little chance of me gaining a vote from the floating voter – or are you that naïve and stupid? Giano (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you should be taking a moment to actually read what I'm actually writing, instead of trying to put words into my mouth? I was referring to your 2010 candidacy, where the only reason you didn't get elected is your stubborn refusal to identify (yes, yes, you've made your rationale entirely clear already). And I hardly think Jimmy campaigning against you in 2007 is indicative that he would have denied you a seat had you won it – let alone three years later. Perhaps you hold grudges to the level of vendetta for years, but most people don't; and while Jimmy might not have liked you being elected, making the jump from that to ignoring an election result is one that you only imagine him willing to. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Coren, perhpas if I had you "inside perspective" and friends I may well have been elected. We shall never know, at that time there was no need to tell the Foundation one's private business. What we do know is that the constitutional king told the electorate that I would not be arownd for very long so the damage was done. Rather well actually once and for all. So please do not try and become Jimbo's appolagist, no matter how badly you feel the need to be so. I don't suppose he will thank you for it, any more than me - no one really likes a toady. Giano (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote for Floq? (spoiler alert: thread title is a teaser)

To be honest, I toyed with the idea this year. While I still very much doubt I have what it takes to be elected, I'm egotistical enough to think I have what it would take to be a decent Arb. I think there are some good candidates this time (and I hope to see more before the 20th), but there aren't (currently) eight of them, and there are some editors running who I respect as editors, but who I don't think should be Arbs. There's also the "put your money where your mouth is" aspect: I obviously think I could do better than at least one current Arb, so I should run and see how I'd fare in an election.

However, I ultimately decided not to run, because:

  • Main reason, which would be sufficient all by itself: I just don't see how I could make the time in real life to give ArbCom the attention it deserves. I mention above not being able to handle the stress of dealing with the firehose of crap. The problem isn't really the stress of having to deal with crap; the problem is the stress that would come from trying to find time to deal with so much of it. I've decreased my WP activity recently due to feeling burned out, but even if I ramped back up to pre-burnout levels, I don't think it would be near enough time. To be honorable, I'd have to be very clear up front that I was essentially running as a part-time Arb, and nobody wants a part-time Arb.
  • Other reasons, which I mention because every time I felt the urge to completely ignore the reality of reason #1, they quickly brought me back down to earth:
    • I'm not really an Arbitration junkie. I don't follow, or comment on, many cases, I don't get a rush when I see there's a new case, I don't have an agenda for a new improved ArbCom that I want to try to promote[1], I don't think I have any particularly brilliant insight that the ArbCom desperately needs.
    • That's a really daunting list of questions, even before you get to the additional ones that you're supposed to welcome. I think people expect ArbCom candidates to have some perfect, internally consistent vision of how WP should work, and how ArbCom should work. I don't have that. The closest I come to a vision is "try to be less dysfunctional".
    • There's probably a couple of reasons why a burned-out editor could actually bring a useful perspective to ArbCom, but there are dozens of reasons why a burned-out editor could easily be a net drag on ArbCom.

If reason #1 ever becomes more manageable, I'll likely overcome the other reasons and give it a try. But not this year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Request denied. Begin preparing your statement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha, it was actually already 1/2 prepared when I finally came to my senses. But I'd support your candidacy, Boris... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. ^ Well, I do have one: My Proposed Advanced Dispute Resolution Process, as outlined here: [1]. This method would efficiently and satisfactorily solve approximately 75% of disputes on WP. I'm not kidding; it really would.

Over my dead body

Hey, nothing important coming in the next two sentences, but I just saw your userpage and wanted to say that if the Mariners win the World Series in 2013, I will choose a new sport. :) Luckily for me, I think even my Phillies have a better chance than your Mariners. Anyway, just thought I'd drop you a note. Go Phightins! 03:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence; I also predict that the Phillies are the team the Mariners will beat in the 2013 World Series. In four games. One of them a no-hitter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Who's gonna throw it? Felix? Go Phightins! 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

San Marino Election

Do you want to try making a call on the San Marino nomination at ITN/C? The update is definitely enough, so it's just a matter of consensus. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If there was a consensus that the update was enough, and no consensus on whether it's "worthy" (for lack of a better word), then I'd be willing to make the call, since a previous consensus at WP:ITN/R trumps no consensus at WP:ITN/C. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus that the update is enough. Also, I was mostly there to comment on how small issues seem to get people more riled up than big ones; I'm not a regular ITN admin, so I'm not familiar with the customs there, and prefer to let someone else make the call. Also, technically I voted, so probably shouldn't close anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Cam Newton

Seriously? It can't be that much of an issue. Why couldn't you just let the hook be? At least this will keep me from nom'ing Charles until April. Buggie111 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I really, really think an encyclopedia should avoid intentionally misleading people on the Main Page. Do whatever you want on April 1st, it's expected then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I value your opinion, but I don't see it in the DYK rule section. Buggie111 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not everything is written down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You know, I've thought about it, and I apologize if I've said anything degrading here. I'm clearly at fault, and I apologize for not waiting until le poisson d'abril for this nom. Hope I didn't come off sounding too harsh in the above comments. Now please excuse me as I debate whether to start Braylon Edwards or Doug Baldwin for my flex spot. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No apology needed, and there's no "fault". The boundary between clever, humorous, or marginally sneaky and misleading is a fuzzy one, but (IMHO) that hook went past it. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

World Diamonds AfD

I had not been watching that page (precisely because of the nature of the votes, as you pointed out, especially when a contradictory position I inquired about was not responded to) so I'm glad you brought it to Phightin's attention, and that he at least made the effort to ask. I think Phightin needs some guidance as to voter biases, as well as the timing of a closure; you and I both know that "popular" topics get hit by fans to keep at first, and then other people come in objectively, and Phightin does not as of yet. I don't do it, but do we even have any guidance on NAC? MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I will re-open it. I had four AfDs open at the time and was going back and forth between them and was looking at one that had been opened on Nov. 15, got the dates confused, and closed this one thinking the five votes had been spread out. I will revert myself and re-open it. Go Phightins! 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Very rarely...

...do I add people to my watchlist without interacting with them directly, but holy hell, this edit made me laugh. Profane smartasses for the win. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi EVula, don't see you around here much anymore. Glad to have made you laugh; profane smartass, at your service. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Real life is kicking my ass (I took over as executive director for a small community theatre company a few years ago, and that's in addition to my regular day job), plus I've just generally gotten tired of some of the bullshit around here. I tend to be more active on other wikis these days. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Being insanely busy sucks, until you compare it to not having enough to do. That perfect zone of not having too much or too little to do is a mirage, it doesn't exist for real humans, so in general I think having too much to do is the best you can hope for. Yes, the bullshit around here can be exhausting - I'm still trying to come to terms with it somehow myself. Anyway, glad to hear from you, and break a leg in your next production (do you say that to exec directors, or just to actors? Although I suspect you're both...). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I've found that an excellent method for dealing with the bullshit here is to pop over to a different project... which is one of the reasons I'm so active elsewhere. :) Seriously though, I've found Wikisource to be an excellent alternative; there's always a plethora of work to be done, though I'll admit that my wikignoming (especially my interwiki work) isn't everyone's cup of tea. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be excellent advice if I was interested in improving the advancement of human knowledge. However, I'm just here for The Game, and winning requires being an admin, so I can't leave en.wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I try to avoid pages that have the words "civility" and "enforcement" in the same sentence. Seems like an oxymoron to me, but even if it isn't, those pages tend to be populated by people who get my blood pressure up. So thanks for the heads up, but no thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nataliekelapire

No doubt you have User talk:Orangemike watched, but I thought I'd let you know anyway that I have posted a message there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's review:
  • 17 Sept: Nataliekelapire removes content from an article about a client, but can't be expected to know why it's wrong, because she's new.
  • 20 Sept: Is reverted with no explanation whatsoever.
  • 20 Sept: Removes it again. Not difficult to understand, as no one has left any messages for her explaining why she can't do this. The edit is reverted, again with no explanation. Removes it again. Is reverted.
  • 20 Sept: She gets two templates saying to stop blanking sections, but the reason (lack of an edit summary) is incorrect, she was using edit aummaries. Still no way for her to know why what she's doing is wrong, but makes no more edits to the article.
  • 17 Oct: She asks the editor who was reverting her on his talk page why her edits are getting reverted. Never gets a response of any kind.
  • 6 Nov: Tries to create an article on a different client, using AFC, which is the process we tell new users to use if they want to create an article. When it's rejected, she never tries to put in it the main space.
  • 6 Dec: Removes unsourced information about yet another client. Is reverted, with a "take it to talk page" note. Still no one has mentioned the COI policy to her.
  • 12 Dec: Takes it to talk page, as instructed. Does not repeat the edit. Still no one has said anything about COI to her.
  • 12 Dec: Asks someone to explain what is going on at WP:HELPDESK.
  • 12 Dec: an admin notices that the information should be removed, since it is unsourced, and removes it. She also gets several replies on the help desk, which for the first time point her to the COI policy.
  • 12 Dec: She does not make another edit, but OrangeMike blocks her indefinitely.
I am so fucking sick of the way admins treat people (particularly newbies) editing incorrectly, but in good faith. Believe it or not, there are more tools in the admin toolkit besides a block button. See that keyboard in front of you? It has letters on it, and when you type them in sequence, they make words, and sentences, and we can use them to explain ourselves somewhat better than pushing a button in Twinkle. Believe it or not, Nataliekelapire is as deserving of respect as OrangeMike. To be upset that I've somehow insulted him, and not be upset about the way he treated her? To think that it's somehow OK to block without respecting the others who were already talking to her, but wrong to unblock without getting OrangeMike's blessing? Words fail me. Well, actually they don't, but I'd get in trouble using them.
Now that she's actually had the COI policy pointed out to her, if she continues to violate it, we may eventually have to block her. I've blocked plenty of spammers myself. But to assume she won't follow policy when she's made zero edits after having it shown to her for the first time is a "violation of policy" itself. Don't lecture me about how to unblock or how to talk to OrangeMike; a good admin would be more worried how we treated the human being behind the screen name Nataliekelapire. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the very full explanation you have given now. I certainly did not intend to "lecture" you. I simply indicated that the block seemed to me to be reasonable, and that some explanation should have been given. You have given such an explanation very thoroughly, more so, in fact, than I would have required. You may like to consider, however, the manner in which you have expressed yourself in your helpful response, and whether you could have given the same information in a way that might have been more friendly to me. Yes, I agree that Nataliekelapire is as deserving of respect as OrangeMike: indeed I would suggest that we are all equally deserving of respect, except those who are not acting in good faith, which does not seem to apply to any of us in this case, Nataliekelapire, OrangeMike, me, or you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Spoken like a true Wikipedian (that is not necessarily a compliment). I assume we're done here; you can confirm this by not posting any more passive aggressive advice about being more friendly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page

Thanks for confirming; I needed the reassurance. I'm now smoking a cigarette with a slightly glazed look on my face.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re 1st sentence: No problem. Re 2nd sentence: :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

God football

What is it about a username like "God football" that makes me think "perhaps this editor may need more guidance than most"? Cheers Tonywalton Talk 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless he really is, in which case, he'll need very little... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Really is what? A god or a football? I have my suspicions as to which. Tonywalton Talk 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You're confused because you didn't properly capitalize his name. He may be a God, named "Football". Like "God Zeus" or "God Jehovah 1". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hang on - a ginger cat is a cat which is ginger. So a God football must be a football which is a God. Or possibly merely a god which happens to begin a sentence. Fetch Richard Dawkins and Wayne Rooney immediately and they can slug it out. Tonywalton Talk 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what I did to deserve this, but I'm very glad to have helped. Newbies with a surplus of desire to help out, a deficit of knowledge about our 10,000 policies and rules, and a willingness to listen and be helped, are among the very few types of people here that don't annoy me these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

AS

Your message on his talk page was unnecessarily conflictual. He expressed a desire not to come back in an email message to me. I suggest you do the right thing, realize that the posts in that section will do no good, and allow the discussion to die. Ryan Vesey 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, since he has asked me a couple of specific questions, I will give him specific answers. And I suggest you do the right thing, not tell me what to do, or think you have the authority to delete my posts because they're "conflictual" [sic]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


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

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

Merry Christmas to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This is for your patient and helpful-looking reply to blocked user Wstreiff, which will look a lot more understandable to a non-regular wikipedian.

We certainly need more admins like you, who deal with new editors with patience! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni, I appreciate the support. Don't spend too much time arguing with people at the help desk. I've had this argument many times before, and those who believe insta-bans are the answer to everything don't seem willing to consider other points of view. All it's going to do is get your blood pressure up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

unblock

Can you unblock my French Wikipedia please ? Fête (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I am an admin only on English Wikipedia. I'm sure they have some kind of appeals system of some kind; I'd use that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assisting with that block. I was contemplating whether or not I was too WP:INVOLVED to do it myself, (I'm both the article creator, and had removed some of his troublesome edits from the page.) so you made things easier. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have considered you involved myself, but the path of least resistance is certainly to leave it to someone else. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing what looked like an accidental overwrite, but I actually did mean to remove that comment. I'm fed up with Andreas and have disinvited him from further participation on my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note on my talk page (and for the record, you have a blanket exemption from any of my categorical expressions of contempt for Wikipedians. Of course). Glad to see you're still around, and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays (depending on which side of the War on Christmas you support). Cheers... MastCell Talk 19:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, you don't have to be PC here: You can come right out and say "Happy Fesitvus". Glad to hear from you. Looks like you're diving right back in, at least temporarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I still the lone heretic amongst us who observes Saturnalia? NW (Talk) 09:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Berlusconi still celebrates it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Floquenbeam. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additionally you may also may have to fix my addition to the Suspected sockpuppets section I added an IP but it came out as a different IP altogether how does that happen? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like things have been handled there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not resolved, he opened a bogus RFCU (after I sent you the tb), I said to ignore the second part of my message in my edit summary hence I crossed it out but the talkback was still relevant. Cheers ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy!

May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go.
-- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Why thank you, KC. My best to you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Darwinian Venus Flytrap for you for Christmas

Christmas treat for you in box, mind your fingers!

Merry Christmas (whack!) Cool fighting santa hat, isn't it? darwinbish BITE 11:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

Yes, very cool hat, my monster wants one next Christmas. I'm holding off opening the box until my Grabber arrives in the mail. Not that I don't trust you, DB... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Truthissomewhere

Sock evidence? It's helpful if you add the evidence (or at least the master name) to the block comment. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the history of the page in question? OK, I'll do it and post here in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Socks, by inspection: User:DPERFOOLS, User:Dperfools1, User:Dpefools, and User:Penguin6969. Also, there are those who believe we should block any user with "Truth" in their username, but that isn't policy (yet). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit Conflict: No need. I see it. But it's very easy to put a little evidence in the block message since you already know it. Many users get blocked under that criteria, but often there isn't the clear paper trail like this one. Seems like a bad habit to be in.
After reading latest: Where's this discussion about truth in a username? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if the paper trail was in any way complicated, I'd do that. And the "truth" thing was a little tongue in cheek; I believe it started here: User:MastCell#The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, #15, but it's been mentioned at AN/ANI several times; usually when someone named "User:FighterForTruth" or something is causing problems, someone will make reference to it. Should probably have put a smiley or something to make clear it wasn't serious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Bummer

You already blocked him, I just filed an SPI, care to close it[25] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think only clerks can close these things these days, but I've commented there. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Urgency

I think there is urgency to block the ip series here as he has many personal pc's.---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked this particular IP, and have semi-protected the two articles they've been targeting. I'm unfamiliar with rangeblocking, so if they show up on other pages with a new IP, you should ask for a rangeblock at WP:ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
He is back already[26] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Same as above; IP blocked, and article semi'd, but if you need more than this, post to ANI, as I don't know how to rangeblock. I guess in this case a rangeblock wouldn't work anyway, but maybe a couple of targetted ones would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The user is a real trouble i am sure he is vandalizing from an organisation but ranges are different too here.---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There are hundreds of people at any given time vandalizing; no sense getting too excited about one of them. Yes, he has access to multiple IP ranges. Yes, it's a pain in the rear end to revert and protect. No, hes' not going to bring WP crashing down. No, we shouldn't let him get us all flummoxed (which is, after all, his goal). As I've said many times now, if you want to try to block the ranges he's editing from, post at WP:ANI and ask for it. Especially since I'm about to go offline, and won't be around to block/protect more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Floq

I posted a message about consensus at AN, but I'm willing to defer to your judgment (god knows how anyone is going to declare a consensus). If you think I should reblock Drmies, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you're asking my opinion: I don't think you should reblock anyone. All three are unblocked now, which is how I think it should be, and how it should have been all along. However loudly the hyenas scream. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Floq. Yeah, everyone is screaming, and I probably did act too quickly. Somehow, I thought that acting quickly was the right thing to do and then discuss it rather than the other way around. I've also asked Ironholds directly - putting aside whether I'm involved, should have talked to him, etc., etc. - whether he wants me to reblock Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you have a minor "involved" meme going on, so I understand your concern. I can't post at AN anymore (too many e/c's, too frustrating to keep hitting save), but you're welcome to tell anyone who will listen that they can assume for the sake removing the "involved" issue that I'll take over responsibility for your unblock. i.e. we can pretend you reblocked because of an abundance of caution wrt "involved", and I unblocked as an uninvolved admin. But let's not do that for real, as it would just pollute Drmies' block log for no purpose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's easier to post on talk pages than at AN at the moment. Ironholds has agreed that I should not reblock Drmies. He criticized me for my action, but he said to leave it alone. I thanked him for that and for his crticism (I meant it). If we're lucky, this will die down, but, unfortunately, my personal observation is that these things leave scars.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In your shoes I probably wouldn't have unblocked - calling you involved isn't completely off the wall - but it's a smaller error than the two blocks to begin with. IMHO, of course. I'm... bemused by the idea that the blocks were calming and the unblocks were disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I understand the involved part. The problem is that if I'd contacted Ironholds and if I had then raised the issue at AN, there probably would have been an endless discussion about the propriety of the block and whether he should be unblocked, all the while leaving him blocked. In hindsight, though, my speculation about what would have happened may be unduly pessimistic as someone may have simply unblocked him, either pre- or mid-discussion. Oh, well, we'll see how much heat I have to take for doing what I did.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I find all this talk about people being driven off the site by incivility hopelessly confusing; I'm exactly the opposite. I'm in a near-constant state of being driven off, but it's by block-happy admins and their enablers, who believe blocking is the first and only tool in the toolbelt. p.s. I kind of want to go eat dinner; do you have any idea how long I'm supposed to stick around and defend these unblocks before I can go AFK, without being accused of unblocking and running off? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, eating - in fact, anything to do with out real lives - takes precedence over anything Wikipedia-related. All that will be accomplished if you stay - besides making me feel better - is when you eventually leave, you'll be accused anyway. Enjoy your dinner.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the world has gone block-happy today and you have now become the official admin-unblocker (I don't count, at least not for much). This, of course, is going to create yet another shit storm (camps already forming), but I'm sure you knew it when you did it. Whatever happened to my good advice about dinner?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My wife's fault; she wanted to wait on dinner for a while. Yes, I know what I'm getting into, thanks for the concern though. Is "it's my wife's fault for not being hungry" going to cut it at ArbCom, do you think? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
p.s. "admin-unblocker" is incorrect; I've unblocked 2 non-admins and 1 admin tonight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant the admin who unblocks, not the admin who unblocks admins. Do you think this is really going to end up at ArbCom? I'm not up for it. Maybe your wife could set a place for me - give me some sustenance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I imagine there are those already salivating at the chance to open a new ArbCom case. "For the good of the Encyclopedia", of course. I wouldn't worry about it; you've already admitted you probably shouldn't have unblocked, and Ironholds told you that at this point it didn't make sense to reblock, and there are lots more examples of poor admin behavior that make your unblock pale in comparison. I can't imagine them getting too excited about a minor mistake that was a one-off for you. I'm a long term troublemaker, however. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think you're a tonic. You make me laugh, even in the midst of all this crap, and that counts for a lot in my book. So, when's dinner?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Not soon enough; I'm starving. Mrs. Floquenbeam says she'll be ready "in a few more minutes", but I've been married long enough to know that doesn't mean "a few more minutes". I'll set an extra place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I could bring an old children's block set as a gift; that way, you could spend the evening knocking them down. The "few more minutes" part sounds very familiar. Where are you geographically anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam, thanks for unblocking Scotty; that was the right thing to do. Also, I'm in a near-constant state of being driven off, but it's by block-happy admins and their enablers, who believe blocking is the first and only tool in the toolbelt. Wait, that sounds familiar. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • [*reblocks Drmies for copyright violations*] It does indeed sound familiar, probably some idiot who doesn't know what he was talking about. Thanks for the support. Have a happy New Year if I don't speak with you before then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, y'all can sit next to Bbb. Our first significant snowfall of the season is happening even as I write this; it's really late but the kids are out playing in it. I'm older and wiser than they are, and watching them from the window with a mug of wine. Traditional carrot for a nose, but they had to make do with grapes for the eyes. The stupidity of this particular website is falling away from my consciousness even as I write this... --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha, it's Delirium Nocturnum here. Plus I washed the girls' hair and that's always fun. Snow, huh? Cold and rainy here, just when I finally got that permit to rebuild a fence, out on the muddiest side of the house. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Homage

You didn't really expect nobody else to ever use this, did you?[27] Keep on unblocking, happy new year! Bishonen | talk 22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Heh, I'd forgotten about that page. Glad to see that it got recycled. Keep on talking sense, and happy new year to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Homage continued for restoring content! I would know some 40 more such pages ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda. I'm not looking to start a whole thing with the anti-somebody cabal (see what I did there?), so I guess the 40 pages I think you're alluding to will have to stay that way. It's very obvious to me that we shouldn't routinely blank user pages upon indef blocking, but I can't seem to convince enough other people to change our SOP. I limit myself to blocks I make, and cases like this, where I can't possibly be accused of favoritism for a friend. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why

You have a sysop who was blocked by another sysop 2 years ago threatening a retaliatory block over the same 2 year old issue. How is that not ANI worthy?--v/r - TP 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can all watch NW's talk page. Let it happen there, TP, without interference by others. And thanks, Floquenbeam. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone who actually has blocked an Arb before, I'd strongly advise against it in this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Why escalate an empty threat? What productive result would occur? Gimme is evidently upset; does that really have to result in another silly discussion that will result in nothing, except wasting everyone's time discussing something that can't be "fixed" on AN? Even if he actually does block NW, it still wouldn't be a matter for AN, as (a) the block would be undone in 24 seconds, and (b) AN can't desysop someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but did you miss the stuff that went on with User:SchuminWeb? Arbcom has set a precedent that they will desysop by motion on a serious concern and with consensus of the community. But that's neither here nor there, I'm not looking for a desysop of Gimmetoo nor threatening one. But Gimmetoo is becoming disruptive and I would seek a block until he acknowledges that he's involved and cannot blocked NW.--v/r - TP 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the stuff about SchuminWeb, but ArbCom is not going to desysop by motion because of an AN thread; that's not a correct takeaway from the SchuminWeb case. "Disruptive" is used too often around here; blocking Gimme for being upset would be more disruptive. NW is a big boy, and isn't going to be frightened by an idle threat. In spite of the fact that I don't always practice what I preach, de-escalation seems useful here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about your recent revert on User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hi. I recently noticed that you reverted Make mine a tripe's edit on Jimbo Wale's talk page, and I can't help but wonder why you did it (you gave no explanation why). There didn't seem to be anything wrong with what the user said; from what I can tell, the user was making what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate comment about something. I also noticed you blocked the user after he/she made only one edit, and I want to know why you did that as well. I've never seen a user blocked after only one edit unless the user was a sockpuppet. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of trolls have recently started creating new accounts to complain about User:Malleus Fatuorum. While what he said may not have been considered disruptive if voiced by an actual editor, I'll block them if they're trolling, and revert their edit, per WP:DENY. I agree it would have been helpful for others to figure out what was going on if I'd left an edit summary instead of just rolling them back; I forget that sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, misclick, then the worst-timed PC freeze! --Stephen 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, right? My computer always freezes right after I've messed something up, and I'm pounding keys and yelling at the computer to let me fix it before somebody sees... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Really?

I must not be as much of a watcher of RFAR as I thought. Which were the two recent cases where this type of thing has resulted in a desysop? Since you're the guy with the unique common courtesy, you may prefer to e-mail me the reply. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

I may have been imprecise (what mortals would call "wrong") in my use of "case" and "desysop". The times I'm thinking of are:
  • EncycloPetey here (I was about to start this case myself when FP@S did it instead), desysopped by motion for misuse of tools while involved (and refusing to participate in the case).
  • SchuminWeb here (I was uninvolved but saw it when it was almost over), case accepted, then suspended (to allow him time to reconsider his retirement), but he was "instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case", and will be desysopped if he doesn't come back to participate in a case within 3 months.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you call those "this type of thing"? OK. I mean I see. I was aware of them, in fact I took some modest part in the SchW RfC. Not much by way of precedent for the current incident, are they? [Withdraws, muttering.] Bishonen | talk 20:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
Oh, I don't know. They're certainly not perfect matches, but I see a similar overarching approach to adminning and response to feedback. YMMV I suppose. As I think I made clear in the AN thread, I don't think the frequency of the problem is the same, and an ArbCom case (which I see is, unfortunately, being created as we speak) seems premature. I'm not sure what I can do to ease your muttering (I don't understand its root cause). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Careful Floq--she may scratch. Happy days!

Drmies (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's really only one thing to say in response to something like this: "Awwww....". (well, and "Thanks Drmies, I'll be careful") --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible typo

I think you may have included a typo on your user page where you published "2013: Denver Broncos win it all". I think you meant the Atlanta Falcons, so I'm not sure what you were thinking that could result in such an error, but I did want to point it out to you. I wouldn't worry much, we all make mistakes. Cheers, --My76Strat (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are pointing out that "2013" is ambiguous and could mean this year, then point taken and I'll rephrase. if you're claiming the Broncos aren't going to win the Superbowl next year, then you are sadly mistaken. I have seen the future. Now, admittedly, I saw the future this year too, and it turned out wrong, but what are the odds of that happening twice in a row? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the wisdom

Dead Horse Award
Thanks for helping dead horses rest in peace by trying to counter mutual escalation with common sense! Salvidrim! ✉ 01:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvidrim, but I suspect TRM's closing of the thread was more productive than my essay. And thanks for the shortcut! --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea how long I debated over what shortcut to use, and I'm still not quite satisfied... hmph. Salvidrim! ✉ 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting re-hatting of off-topic digression on VPP. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Oh for fuck's sake. What a chickenshit move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur! Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. My wife is in the ICU, I'll see your not-high-chance-of-a-good-mood and raise you a Foley bag. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Sarek, really. Then please stop trying to start fights. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests for adminship/Clerks

On your "disruption" point, would it sway your vote if we all agreed to another RfC after this one to look for consensus on what constitutes a removable comment? - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; I'll think about it tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No, on reflection, I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of a "clerk" position, and no tweaking I can think of would sway my vote (with the possible exception of me having the sole responsibility to choose who they are...) I've commented in more depth at the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this RfC won't pass. It's clear to me, and I think to just about everyone, that most of what you said is quite sound, but you misunderstood what I meant by signal (as opposed to noise): I meant the information that tells us what we really need to know, the information that will allow us to put together an RfC that will pass. Let's start here: which of the four positions at WT:RFA#For the win comes closest to your own position? - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, had time this morning for one long post and I already made it. Will reply here later today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No rush. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I was about to write a long "Floquenbeam's Creed" on RFA, but instead I'll let you lead. To answer your question, probably position #2. It's an inelegant, dysfunctional system, but I would be surprised if we can come up with a better system. I suspect no one thinks this is the best system, but I also suspect no one thinks it's the worst system, and I doubt any system can be thought up that a majority of people would prefer to what we have now. I think we may have reached a Nash equilibrium. I, personally, think it would be better if it were tweaked the way I suggested at WT:Requests for adminship/Clerks, but I don't think a fundamental change is likely to be better there is a fundamental change that is likely to be seen as an improvement by enough people to gain consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I'm happy to have a back and forth conversation, but there's going to be a time delay on my end, as I only look in here occasionally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
My own position was option 3, a year ago; I thought that small but reasonable problems had been identified, and that we should fix them. At this point, I'm pretty sure that all the options have merit, and even if they didn't, all of them have substantial enough backing that we can't hope to pass a useful RfC unless we negotiate a settlement that gives something to everybody. I could fix the problem instantly, if I had a magic wand that forced everyone to think about the problem a bit and to be honest about their conclusions. We wouldn't need unanimity, brilliance, efficiency, or a Jimbo ex machina. The key is that not only would I have to be honest, but you'd know that I'm being honest ... so we might be able to negotiate a compromise that gave us both something, but didn't offend our sense of fairness by giving too much to one and not enough to the other. The problem is that people have come to believe that others aren't being honest in RfA debates, or perhaps just not giving them enough thought. So, one person may say (or imply, by a long string of oppose votes and a failure to offer mutually acceptable alternatives) "no change, ever" and another may say or imply "the whole admin culture is corrupt". Even though there are obviously compromises available that would give each of them something they want ... the first guy wants assurances that the things that work about RfA will always be recognized and preserved, and the second guy wants additional oversight of admins ... they won't take the compromise, either because they don't want to be forced to try to find middle ground with a position that seems too extreme to believe, or because for some reason they think they don't have to, they think that things will fall their way if they just wait it out. The sad paradox here is that I think if Jimbo does what he says he'll do and steps in, some of the "no change" folks will suddenly be willing to bargain ... at exactly the point where we risk losing others at the bargaining table. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope it was clear ... maybe it wasn't ... that I'm not talking about you, your reaction was ideal: you gave a wide range of opinions. If everyone did that, we'd have no problem ... we'd know where everyone stood, and that would allow us to compromise. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I half disagree, half agree, and I'm half not sure whether I agree or not. There's probably some amount of dishonesty (and perceived dishonesty in others) involved, but don't discount the possibility that the current condition is, actually, the best we can hope for in balancing different beliefs about what RFA should be. I sometimes think we need more "leadership" (not just at RFA, but everywhere), but the problem is I think Jimbo thinks he's the leader, and I don't always trust his judgement. I sometimes wonder (idly, not seriously nor in depth) whether we should occasionally vote for God Emperor of Wikipedia, holder of the Magic Wand, and then let them decide things, or let them appoint committees, or something. Direct democracy tends to break down when the size of the community is large, and some form of representational democracy might work more smoothly. I don't know. I'd probably end up being scared I wouldn't trust the judgement of the new God Emperor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, I really want to respond to that, but I'm going to have to wait until my new three-round RfC (see the last comment at WT:RFA#New RfC) sinks or swims. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your usual assistance

Come on, don't you have any examples to add? Bishonen | talk 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

I have one recent example that would have been great, but technically they didn't actually bluelink to it, just told me I should do it (evidently "assume good faith" means "don't criticize anyone for anything"). If I run across cases where it's linked in the future, I'll know where to add them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Pity, they almost always do link. This is the post that got me all riled up, so I was thinking primarily of The Piped AGF Link™. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

Hey, I just saw one! Not bluelinked, though. :( 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently under a self-imposed ANI ban, but if I did go there, I bet I'd see an average of one bluelinked AGF per thread. So if that's where you saw it, it doesn't count. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I thought it was always bluelinked. That was my impression. But, guys, your examples don't have to be bluelinked, you know. If they're good, why don't you pimp 'em (= bluelink) and then add them. They're supposed to be examples of the kind of thing that's said, not actual quotes. Most of mine aren't real quotes, and not pretending to be. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

please clarify

Your statement at BN did not provide sufficient information to be clear communication; specifically I think we need to know what kind of cookie you were eating to provide a proper comparison of the relative worth. NE Ent 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

One of those horrible tiny packages of stale cookies you get out of a vending machine, useful only to postpone starvation for a few hours. "Famous Amos" I think, although they're all pretty much the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ugh; then your statement is obviously incorrect because it's not possible for anything to be worth less than that! NE Ent 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was false modesty, actually. The truth is that I think my opinions are worth as much as a Double Stuf Oreo (Me wonders, idly, whether that's going to be a blue link or not. Could preview and check, of course, but I prefer the thrill of the surprise). But I don't like to brag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Help

Any chance you could delete Michael Ngoo and move User:Michael Ngoo to its place. Total cock up in move, realised my mistake before i thought it had performed changed it and moved twice.Blethering Scot 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I think correctly, but let me know if not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that.Blethering Scot 22:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Are you not fully cognisant of the English language? 118.92.203.57 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really interested in playing word games, sunshine. You are not going to re-add that, or you'll be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
And how, precisely, do you think her beloved electorate referred to her child outside wedlock? I mean, one could use the term 'child outside wedlock', but in the mother tongue, there's a perfectly good word for that set of facts- and whoreson would be inappropriate for two reasons. 118.92.203.57 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:The Duke of Madras

Hope it's okay that I blocked this user - the trolling continued, and I didn't notice your unblock until after I had already used a script to block. --Rschen7754 05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And also returned as User talk:Duke Four‎. --Rschen7754 05:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And User talk:Duke Five... sigh --Rschen7754 05:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
How's he doing this? Proxy or do we need a range block? Ryan Vesey 05:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We would only find out at the SPI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I'd hoped they would come back from the edge of the cliff. Sorry you had to deal with it; I told FP@S I'd keep an eye on them, but I was asleep when they chose to come roaring back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mbz1

Is still socking at User talk:drmies. It is pretty obvious but due to past conflicts I am probably considered involved. At least two more ips have been used, possibly time for a range block? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. In general, I'm not going to start playing whack-a-Mbz1-IP unless several of these things are true:
  • She is showing up in places she is not being talked about. It hardly seems realistic to talk about her somewhere on-wiki and not expect a sock to pop up.
  • She needs to be stirring up a dispute that shouldn't be stirred up. That was certainly true of re-igniting old disputes on Youreallycan's talk page, for which I blocked her last time; that doesn't seem to be true (or, atl east, as true) on Drmies' talk page.
  • I won't be stepping on toes. Drmies is an admin, and doesn't seem to mind her posting on his page; I'm not going to step on his toes by blocking and/or deleting messages he seems to not mind.
Also, I am humiliatingly confused by range blocks. Never made one, probably never will. Since it looks like only a range block would work here, you should ask at ANI or somewhere if this is really important to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, Mbz1, you're not really welcome on my talk page; I can't imagine anything productive coming of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops

I accidentally protected User talk:Halo jerk1 at the same time you did. Feel free to restore your protection time. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I've unintentionally done that to other people myself. Just leave yours, the duration doesn't matter much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify

This. Krusty111 (talk · contribs) was first adding information without a source, so I reverted the edit, and then adding unreliable sources to Carly Rae Jepsen discography. I later then discovered a reliable source for the information (which wasn't even made available at the time the user was trying to push the information). And then, they left several harassing messages to me. And now, randomly, claiming that I harass them both on Wikipedia and via email (I haven't even spoken to them before). If you could leave the user a message, I would really appreciate it. For reference of what the user said to me, see here. Thanks.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page for him to dial things back. Please let me know if things don't improve. In return, please assume he's trying to improve the article but is new and doesn't know all our RS policies, and take a little more time than you otherwise might explaining why you've done what you've done. Although templates aren't evil per se, now that we know they bother him (I'm fairly confident that's what he means by "email"), please don't leave him templates anymore. Hope you two can work together well in future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Please dial it back a notch

Thanks for getting back to me, wasn't sure whether to get back to you on my talk page or on here. I apologise for the attack on Status, however I was getting aggravated by his constant undoing on the article as well as his abuse via email. And yes I mean email, nothing to do with wikipedia. I've since removed it from my page and blocked any more communication with him. Didn't think I could do anything about it as it's not strictly on wikipedia. He said he'd deny it anyway. With regards to the article, in the beginning, I added a 'featured' single of Carly Rae Jepsen to the 'featured singles' section without a reference. He removed it, which is fair enough as I didn't reference it. I then re-added the single, with a reference to their official site. He removed it again. I added it again, then specifically referenced the blog post (from the official site) with a youtube video which had the the band confirming their new single. Status again undid my changes stating "tumblr, really?" which I know tumblr isn't a reliable source, however if he cared to actually click the link and read and watch the youtube link, he would have seen it was an official tumblr account and youtube account. Finally, I added it again one last time, this time linking to the offical music video. Status removed it straight away and then within 10 mins, had added it himself, with my exact reference and a comment to the effect of "I've just found this reference", which went to show he was "claiming credit for himself". --Krusty111 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a common problem, caused (in my opinion) by too much communication thru edit summaries, not enough communication on talk pages, and the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with me is "obviously" editing in bad faith and my enemy. I think you're assuming a motivation on Status' part that isn't really the case; who is the audience he is "claiming credit for himself" for? It's not like it would impress anyone.
The one thing I don't know how to handle is this email issue. He has said he didn't send you a harassing email. You're saying he did. Someone is not telling the truth, and whoever it is, they need to stop right this second. Either Status is sending harassing emails and denying it (a blockable offense), or you are making up said emails (a blockable offense). One part of me wants to let it drop as long as it doesn't come up again. The other part wants to ask a checkuser whether Status sent an email to Krusty through the WP interface (they can do this), and block whoever is lying indefinitely. I'll think about which path to take... unless whoever is lying wants to own up ahead of time, and get off with a serious warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Krusty, please forward me the email you are talking about. Or if you're not comfortable with that, please forward it to Arbcom. Don't copy paste, use "forward" (in mime format if your email client supports that) so that the header information can be preserved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I still believe he was doing for the credit, mostly so he can claim good articles and that he acts more like a dictator rather than a moderator of articles (this isn't an attack on him, I'm just stating how I perceive things). --Krusty111 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, whether a song is a single or not has nothing to do with an article being a good article, and in addition, lists cannot be good articles. And yes, that is, yet another, attack on myself. Floquenbeam, clearly, he is ignoring your comments about the email.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said I'm not personally attacking you, I'm just saying how I perceive your actions. And there's no need to edit my talk page. And I have answered the comments about the email. --Krusty111 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that's certainly interesting. After Status mentioned on-wiki that he last emailed someone on 12/4/12, you send me a screenshot of a purported email from him dated 12/4/12, with Status purportedly explaining why he's reverting you. But you and Status had never interacted until much later than 12/4/12. And your last edit before that date was in October, so no one would be emailing you on 12/4/12 about Wikipedia, anyway.
So, you're lying about the email. And when called on it, you doubled down on the lie rather than come clean. Since you've wasted quite a bit of my time looking into this, and casually smeared Status's name, I've determined that your participation here is a net negative, and I'm going to block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"It ain't over yet"

Apparently  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had people tell me I'm one of the all time great admins before, and I've had people tell me I'm a cunt before. But seldom have I had the same person switch from one to the other so quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called lying. Exactly what Status has done multiple times. And continues to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusty115 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krusty111 --Rschen7754 08:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but this SPI probably doesn't need my input. Pretty cut and dry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I keep saying WP:DENY, but it doesn't seem to hit the spot. This is all much too much delicious attention. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
Yep, exactly. Manually archiving in a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your thoroughly diplomatic, helpful and constructive interaction with KoshVorlon, encouraging a keen editor to keep contributing where they make a difference, and avoiding the dramah llama Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Elen. I'm pleased with how that turned out. To be brutally honest, I think my motivation for being so diplomatic was more because I wanted to avoid a lot of work and drama, than because I'm a wonderful person, but I like barnstars so I'll take it, selfish motivation or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP

After examining the source you reverted here, I definitely agree it can't be used. I looked for a replacement; would a web archive showing the associates suffice? m.o.p 23:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm no BLP expert, but my initial opinion is that you could use that to source a statement that those people were his associates on the website, but not to source a statement that they "included a number of well known criminals". I think it would be a stretch to try to link those names to criminals using some other sources; that would strike me as WP:SYNTH. "Included a number of well known criminals" is a strong statement, and I think you'd want a reliable source to come out and state that outright, as well as "The organizations being advertised on the site denied all knowledge". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Waltham

Hi. I see that you welcome talk back templates. Personally, I dislike them, so forgive the plain appearance of this message—but I have responded to your comment on my talk page concerning the Duke of Waltham page, and I would be grateful for your reply when you are next online. I wish to reiterate how deeply wrong I find your actions, but that is a discussion to be had over there or in the appropriate community venue. Regards, AGK [•] 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied there; "deeply wrong" about covers it for me too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

For the new season of ArbCom, the part of Jclemens will now be played by AGK. Speedy-deleting an established editor's userpage without even discussing your concerns with them first is uncivil. Why are the most vocal advocates of civility also the least committed to its actual practice? This is why people hate admins - because we forget that we have any tools besides The Buttons. This situation could have been better resolved with a polite request to the editor in question, by slapping a {{userpage}} template on the page, or by going to MfD. MastCell Talk 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are the most vocal advocates of civility also the least committed to its actual practice? That , MastCell, is truly proverbial - I will put it on my wall. It's what I've been saying for years only to be called a troll and accused by them of making ad hominem attacks their anonymous group of users! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Many of "the most vocal advocates of civility" are not really advocating civility at all; they're advocating having Rules that they can understand and that they can Enforce in others. The oxymoron "civility enforcement" makes more sense when you realize it's a kind of doublespeak[1] for "Rules Enforcement". It also explains the significant overlap with vocal supporters of userpage policy enforcement, username enforcement, etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Truth. I guess I should have said that the most vocal advocates of WP:CIVILity are often uninterested in the practice of actual civility (a certain former Arbitrator being the most glaring, but hardly the only, example). I once considered creating a chart illustrating the important distinctions between WP:CIVILity and actual civility. For example, pretending unctuous politeness to someone's face on-wiki while simultaneously talking shit about them off-wiki is entirely WP:CIVIL, although it's also deeply hypocritical and uncivil. And so on. This episode is actually a very nice demonstration of an act that's fundamentally uncivil, but also unlikely to trigger the typical Wikipedian's blinkered defintion of WP:CIVILity. In any case, your insight about rules enforcement is a good one. MastCell Talk 22:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ I'm aware of your disdain for references to 1984. I plead extenuating circumstances.

User talk:MrJuddsStudents

G'day Floquenbeam. So, after you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, the account was then blocked by OrangeMike. I get the impression that there may have been some adminshopping involved, because the discussion had already been archived by that point. So that's mildly frustrating.

In any case, the unblock request has been declined by JamesBWatson. I actually get the impression that if the discussion was allowed to go for a bit longer then there would have been more support for the IAR position (being that it's 5v4, not including me, and including IZAK, who didn't comment at AN, but commented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Outside_view_by_IZAK. What would you think about restoring the discussion (noting that there could be a pile on, as there was at ANI)?

This is not particularly urgent: I'm teaching at a high school for the next 12 weeks, and my students there are, in my opinion, old enough to make their own accounts. In any case, honestly, I'm finding myself wanting to involve my students less since I created the account. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it isn't urgent, let me think about it a bit. I am so disgusted with similar "Daddy knows best" behavior from another admin recently that I doubt I could keep a civil tongue. At this point, discouraging your students from editing here is probably best; no sense encouraging them to come to a place where they're going to be harassed by Important People with access to Block Buttons. This may be a case where you have to be satisfied knowing that you have good karma, and they have bad karma.
Sorry, I may have more useful advice later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. It is good to know that there are admins who don't engage in what I'd generously call staffroom politics. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
While I'm willing to go out on a limb for someone who was blocked against policy, it's much harder to go out on a limb for someone who was blocked according to policy, but in a mean and spiteful way. A clueful admin knows when to turn a blind eye, but it's nearly impossible to do anything helpful once another admin is unwilling to turn that blind eye. Orange Mike and JamesBWatson have clearly decided that following the rules is more important than improving the encyclopedia (and JBW decided it would be fun to insult you in the process), but it's nearly impossible to undo a policy-compliant but clueless block. I recall a while ago an old married couple wanting to contribute using one account, and it being made clear to them by the protectors of the encyclopedia that we will not tolerate such blatant destruction of everything we hold dear, and they ended up leaving.
Now, this is just my advice, I'm not trying to forbid anything, but at this stage, I'm fairly sure if you tried to resurrect the AN thread, you'd get a chorus of "this was already closed in favor of an RFC". It probably makes more sense to either create an RFC about shared accounts in situations like this, or pick your battles and let it drop.
The reason I mention the second path is because when the question is whether or not to actually change policy, rather than whether or not to avoid getting overexcited about a well-intentioned violation of polcy, I think you'll get much more conservative responses. In other words, while I would certainly comment in favor of carving out this exception, I'm pessimistic that a discussion to do it would gain a consensus. I could be wrong, especially if it was made clear that all edits were going to be to a sub-page of the user space, the way you did it last time.
Have you considered creating one account for each student, even the younger ones? Being a mighty admin, I can create lots of accounts at one time without bumping into the account creation limit. You could choose the account names yourself (MrJuddsStudentNo.1, etc), and even ask me to block the accounts so they can only edit their respective talk pages and make suggestions there. A pain in the butt for you, keeping track of multiple accounts, but it would achieve the same thing I think, and would unquestionably be within policy. Something to think about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I caught JamesBWatson's opinion. Stellar. I prefer the option of an RFC. I'm keeping track of enough accounts and passwords just for myself to add my students to the mix. Heh. User:Hobit said that he would be willing to do that over the coming weekend, so I'll collaborate with him. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Good luck. Please ping me when it goes live; I hereby wave my magic wand and absolve you of "canvassing" in advance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Heh. I'll let everyone know who was involved in the AN thread. That was like... 6+you=7 vs 3 (IIRC). Hopefully that doesn't look too much like canvassing. Until then. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

"...isn't going to result in a change today...". Look again; it has been changed. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations on winning! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the smile!
Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like this. Have some bubur ayam, Indonesian-style congee, to give you a smile with your breakfast (in however many hours that may be). Yeah, I know it's McD, but at least they deliver here!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Crisco, glad to see a sympathetic POV. Half of that looks really, really good, and half of it looks... umm... don't know how to say this politely, but... not quite as good. Can I just eat the toppings? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Help desk request

The individual who asked for help Wikipedia:Help_desk#Remove_Incorrect_Content_About_Ownership also contacted the Wikimedia Foundation. I let the individual know that the situation was in good hands, so we would not be addressing it via OTRS. My personal belief is that Prod, or failing that, AfD, is the best solution.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Good hands"?! you can't possibly be talking about me?! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey we all make mistakes :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Riana

Now there's a name I haven't seen in a while. If only all the oldtimers came back, they could probably take back the wiki before the newbies knew what hit them. You'd have to do it stealthily and in secret though, no spilling the... Oh, rats. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that 100%, we need most of those old-timers back in the project, I have seen some of them slowly returning as well the past few months. I'm sure once many of them are done with college they would come back to active editing. Yea the good ole days, I miss them. As for the RFA, no worries, I understand where you and the rest of the opposers are coming from, and I'm taking that request as something that shouldn't be a big deal. Secret account 19:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to see some old names again, although it's still not like the Golden Age. We're certainly losing more oldtimers than we're gaining. I always feel bad opposing an RFA; it always feels like I'm saying "you suck", though it's not my intention. If it passes, just handle with care. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again it is no big deal, of course if I do pass I would handle the tools with sensitive care and hit up the backlogs. The Golden Age, brings back so much memories, I don't see many of the old-timers leaving the project lately, but Riana coming back is a huge plus. Now only if Nishkid, Moreschi, and crew comes back to active editing.... Secret account 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to implement TAFI that affects ITN

Discussion is ongoing about how to implement Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. A proposal is being worked on with general community support, where TAFI is put it on the left hand side, below the DYK content. In order to balance the Main Page, part of this proposal involves increasing the ITN content by one item per day. Since you are an editor involved in the process, I would ask if you could comment on the proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


The Cupola Endowed Chair

Thank you so much! It should be called The Cupola Era Endowed Chair. Sorry to have caused a fuss. Thanking you Ybidzian (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page in a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A nerdy thank you

A Wigner function for you!
Thanks heaps :) Ybidzian (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Nerdy thank yous are the best thank yous. You're quite welcome, glad to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RE:Heidi Montag

Sorry, I somehow got the IP and that user mixed up. Thanks for clearing that up :) Till 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Eagles

Thanks. BencherliteTalk 22:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Kevin's a good egg, if a bit too brusque sometimes. I think he's more "serious" than 98% of the editors here, but he's still interested in doing what's best for the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I entirely agree, and gave him a barnstar not long ago for his diligence at WP:ERRORS, where he is one of the few to have made over 1,000 edits. It's dull enough being effectively the sole TFA scheduler (Raul, Dabomb and Gimmetrow being essentially inactive, and TFAR being rather quiet most of the time) without having a mild attempt at humour by having a chain of unrelated articles linked by a single word described as "puerile" and "pathetic". As someone told me when I was appointed - and as I'm beginning to see - TFA scheduling is the worst job because nobody thanks you for the work that you do, but everyone has a view of how you've done it wrong... BencherliteTalk 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
At least a tiny part of that can be remedied right now: thanks, Bencherlite, for taking on the task of scheduling the TFA. (I mean it! Not being a snot.) I've noticed how much more organized the whole thing has become lately, and while I don't pay enough attention to know if that's your doing or not, I'm impressed. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(watching) every now and then I feel like thanks, right, 'lite? I would thank even more for scheduling the museum, and for getting rid of the "one nom at a time"-rule ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Floquenbeam. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I was undoing the RfA edit at the same time you were, and you won, which is for the best as your edit summary is much more helpful than mine would have been. 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm more calm, helpful and kindhearted than you? Swine are flying over a winter wonderland in Hades. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Zws23

Flo, thanks for nuking Zws23 yesterday. It was kind of fun and exciting wiping out a vandalism kiddie. Yay!!! :P Bobxii (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. The "fun and exciting" wears off after a while, and can be damaging to your karma, so I'd recommend making it a sideline, not a focus. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheboygan Press ban

How long is this ban? Are you able to make an edit on my behalf? Some time ago, I added a part about the Sheboygan Press becoming Sheboygan Press Media. That information is now gone. I'd like to add that or have you add that on my behalf. I am not all anti-Sheboygan Press. Look at my edits on the page. I did update some outdated info. Asher Heimermann (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have a duration in mind. It's been kind of a long term problem, I'm not even sure there should be a duration. I'll revisit in 6 months, if I decide not to recind it you can always go to ANI to see if there's agreement to recind it there. Same if you want to try to get it recinded earlier.
I'm not going to make edits for you. If you want to have something in an article you're topic banned from editing, make a calm, clear case for it on the talk page, and arrive at a consensus. Someone else will add it if there's agreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Are administrators allowed to impose topic bans on their own? I don´t see administrators listed among the persons and groups that can make the decision to topic ban, except in a few specific areas (discretionary sanctions). With regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Does "with regards" mean "with all due respect"? KillerChihuahua 12:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No. It´s a common way for me to sign comments, and simply intended to be polite. There is an explanation of the meaning here: when used as closers regards and best regards don't have much real meaning attached to them and are just polite ways to end a letter. I actually find your question to be kind of insinuating and incivil. But you are welcome to tell me in a polite way if you have some valid arguments against the use of the phrase. English is not my first language, so there is always the chance that there are some nuances that I am not aware of. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Technically, I don't know if it's "allowed" or not. Practically, this is just a clearer way of saying "if you edit on this topic again I'm going to consider it disruptive and block you", which is certainly within my remit. I'm confident this topic ban would be upheld at ANI, but if you disagree feel free to take it there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven´t looked into the underlying issue here; so I don´t have any opinion on whether a topic ban is appropriate or not. My problem is with using the phrase "topic ban", when a formal topic ban has not been imposed. The special thing about a topic ban, as I understand, is that users can later be blocked for violating the ban itself, even if they don´t violate any other rules. But I don´t think that will be the case here, where there isn´t a formally imposed ban. If a user has a clear Conflic of Interest in regard to certain articles, they kind of have a built-in topic ban for those articles, and that is of course relevant to point out. But to me, it will be less confusing if the phrase topic ban is limited to formal topic bans. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it (regarding your closing), and thanks for clarifying. Regarding the topic ban; when Floq imposed it, he told the editor to take it to ANI for review if he wished. I think you're worrying too much about "formal" vs "informal" - we really have no such distinction. Wikipedia is largely a controlled anarchy; our oldest rule is WP:IAR. Floq was clearly protecting the encyclopedia. IMO, it is like a site ban. If an admin indef blocks an editor, and no one is willing to unblock, that is an effective ban and becomes so. People argue about this, but it's pointless; they are effectively identical. The topic ban is Floq trying to give the editor leeway - offering a topic ban rather than a block. It is very common for an admin to indef block a problem editor, and then unblock only on terms, which are usually topic bans, interaction bans, etc. Those are almost always supported by the community when taken to ANI, and IMO this would also be. We have a lot of ways to do things here, and worrying about proper procedure or formal this and that is usually a waste of time. And yes, I have no issues with any admin choosing to impose a topic ban as Floq did, in order to avoid stronger sanctions and giving the topic banned editor clear instructions on where to go to try and get it overturned. KillerChihuahua 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If I'd returned to my page faster, my reply would be mostly just what KC said above. To me, calling a topic ban a topic ban is less confusing. It has exactly the same effect as what you call a formal topic ban; I will block the editor if they violate the ban itself, whether or not any other rule is violated. The only thing different is that I've imposed it by myself, with no formal discussion first. If the editor thinks there is not going to be consensus for it, he can appeal it at ANI, and if I'm wrong I'll be suitably chastised. But this strikes me as a much better approach, in this case, than an indef block (which I would not have had to get prior approval for). As near as I can tell, this editor has been very productive in other Sheboygan and non-Sheboygan areas, and this limited topic ban allows him to continue helping out in areas that haven't caused a problem.
If I thought there was a decent chance that the topic ban would not be supported by consensus if brought to ANI, I wouldn't have imposed it unilaterally. But since I'm confident in it's future support, I was "being bold", so to speak, by doing it without previous discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issue at the help desk

Hi Floquenbeam. I just wanted to make you aware of this unresolved issue at the help desk initiated by Guy Macon. I thought perhaps you might be interested in giving your input. I mentioned to Guy that it would be good to hear from some editors with a lot of experience. Have a wonderful weekend. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76*, citation policy is not my forte, but I'll take a look and see if I have something useful to add to the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I've seen you give some great help and advice before, so that's why I wrote you. I asked a couple others because I'm not sure who's available. Thanks, again! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Commented there. have a good weekend. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue

First person to make me smile today wins ψ10. You should be forewarned that everyone in real life has so far failed. You should also be forewarned that I don't actually have ψ10 on me, so I'll have to owe you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people in the other room were watching a YouTube video of a goat whose voice sounded amazingly like a person saying "Whaaaat!?", and it caused great enjoyment and laughter, but sadly I don't know the URL. Zany Internet goats are often a cure for the blues, I've been told. 28bytes (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried to imagine that, but it didn't work. Thanks for trying, thought. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Might have worked with the sound on, but watching with the sound off it just looks freaky, like someone is giving the baby a mild electric shock. Thanks for trying, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, Gerda, that's a picture of a cremation. It's interesting, beautiful even, but it doesn't make me smile. Thanks for trying, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
perhaps you smile when you check out how I tried to have it as TFP on Ash Wednesday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh, the discussion you linked to (well, the behavior of one person in it) made me frown, not smile. I do like the idea of linking it to Ash Wednesday. If only there were an eagle carved into the structure, it might have worked... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Talking about Jimbo, I took it there then. - An eagle would not have helped, because the one person was in the way of it even attempting featured status. Eagles are past, phalluses may be next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Late addition: I don't know about you, but this made me smile, an urn matching cremation, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's pleasant to notice these small coincidences one runs across daily, and in addition sometimes try to decide if they're really coincidences or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed intriguing to follow a creative mind. The picture was taken in 2005, the urn filled in 2009, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Two guys walked into a bar and the third one ducked. Go Phightins! 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Heard it before. Thanks for trying, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I know we already had a winner, but I seem to remember you're a Mariners fan, so perhaps you might find some of these amusing. Go Phightins! 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why, but I smiled a little at this. Not actually at the idea of Jimbo playing it, but at the phrase in the article "...and use the space between the two gourds for carrying small items such as money and tobacco." So it looks like I owe you ψ10, Crisco. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
CANNOT UNSEE Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi, I see your comment was mistakenly deleted when I edited my own [28] and I didn't notice it immediately. Sorry about that!Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker here.) That most likely wasn't your fault, Jeppiz. ANI does that. It doesn't do edit conflicts well, and sometimes it eats posts outright and claims in the history that some innocent person deleted them. I'm quite serious, I've seen it happen several times. It's alive! It's malignant! Bishonen | talk 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
(e/c) Not a problem at all Jeppiz; the edit conflict resolution software is nearly useless these days, especially on busy pages, even when people are editing separate sections. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Floquenbeam. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Please note that I did not and do not advocate unblocking. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I think we're out of synch; I already saw your first email, responded, and undid my decline. Did you send a second email? Or did you not see my response? Or am I confused? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of synch; have not been back to e-mail. I do not dispute that you know what you are doing, and as I said, do not in any way criticise your block. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I understand no offense was meant, and none was taken. Thanks for the feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Further e-mail sent. BTW, I love VOGONS, which I have not previously seen!
It's relatively new, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

popups

read your comment on Bish's page about "admin" showing in popups ... I never noticed that before. Glad you mentioned that - sometimes I tend to miss the little, albeit obvious, things in life. TY. — Ched :  ?  00:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. You learn all kinds of tiny, interesting (and usually useless) bits of info stalking Bish's page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I learned a few things stalking your page as well. :) — Ched :  ?  02:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
And a third of them were true! --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello F. I've turned on the popups, at your suggestion on Bishonen's talk. Thanks!
  • In answer to your not-totally serious comment here, I've checked the recent history of WP:AN3. In any dispute, you can suspect the one with fewer edits :-). Of 37 3RR cases in the last archive, there were 17 blocks issued but only three of them were given to anyone with more than 500 edits. In fact, the rate of blocking was 58% (14/24) for those with less than 500 edits, and only 23% (3/13) for those with more. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You've misunderstood; I block the admin over the non-admin, and the experienced editor over the newbie. :) (thanks for the statistics from ANEW; something to mull over.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Useless? What about the wonderful suggestion from Writ Keeper on my page for putting a little crown into all admins' sigs (at my request, because I'm clever too), so as to keep their royal nature always in mind? I have implemented it, and I certainly hope you lot have, too. You're all admins, I see (at a glance!), and I know you'll find it especially delightful to see your own sigs crowned. Really improves a person's sense of self-worth! Bishonen | talk 14:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
Eh, I caved in and did it too. I think I either never knew or forgot that Ched gave back his tools, so it was useful that way. (Smart man, Ched.) But now I'm going to waste hours looking thru unicode characters for something more appropriate than a crown. Is there a unicode for a dunce cap? Or one of those propeller cap beanie things? Ooh, I bet there's one of those Greek tragedy/comedy drama mask thingys somewhere! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, this is much better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably precluded by the NPA policy from revealing the symbol I use for admins. Perhaps this ⍡ moplike symbol would be appropriate for general use? unicode table provides many choices. NE Ent 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought about ✋ (i.e. "talk to the hand"), but I like my drama symbol better (for now). Plus, you're bluffing: you don't have any symbol installed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The best signature tool is this one, which strikes through blocked users' signatures. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');
Ooh, that is handy. Thanks Ryan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Pff, only if you have my css hack that changes the strikethrough to a little "direct hit" (🎯) next to their name, or two for indefblocks. That'll learn 'em! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Where would this hack be? I looked on your common.css page and didn't see anything with a 🎯 on it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It was a joke; the strikethrough is fine. Easy enough to make, though, if someone wanted it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Got me. It seemed like something you would have done. Speaking of "easy enough to make", how hard would it be to whip up something that put different symbols next to (a) various other user rights (eg checkuser, oversight, crat, rollbacker, etc) and (b) non-user rights, probably determined by belonging to a category (only current example i can think of is Arbs). Not asking you to do it, just curious how hard it would be; the answer will help determine whether to ask you someone to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, to be honest. I'm not entirely sure how Amalthea's script works; I haven't looked at the source closely, though i don't think it's that hard to figure out. The problem is figuring out what rights a person has. If you have to make a request for each person on a page, that's a looooooot of server traffic on a big page like ANI. The last time I read (which was a while ago, so this might not be correct), the way the OG author of the script (not sure it actually was Amalthea) got around that was by having a list of admins somewhere and then checking all the usernames against that list. That way, it only has to make one call (to retrieve the list) instead of potentially hundreds (one for each user, to examine their rights). I know that there are things that run off categories, so presumably there's an efficient way to look up categories. Anomie's link classifier script, that colors wikilinks based on whether they're stubs, dabs, redirects, nominated for deletion, etc., which I recently suggested to someone else, is one that works like that. I'll look into it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, after looking at it, that's what it does; it runs off a list of current admins at User:Amalthea_(bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js, which is (obviously) maintained automatically by Amalthea's bot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh, maybe I can work a deal: Amalthea gets his bot to maintain a list for the other userrights, and I rewrite his script to use JQuery. It needs JQuery. Badly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
JQuery? Category:Things that just went sailing over Floquenbeam's pretty little head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It makes things easier and faster; basically, it would replace a lot of the lines of code in his script with only a couple lines. Anyway, the MarkBlocked script (which is actually imported from the Russian Wikipedia, where it's a standard gadget, interestingly enough) works the same way Amalthea's script works, so no luck there. I see how to do it with categories, but the problem is that not everyone is in the categories they should be in. For example, the only category Newyorkbrad is in is Category:Wikipedia administrators, so there's no way to tell from categories alone that he's also on Arbcom. That's why Amalthea maintains his own list of admins to use. So...it'd basically take a bot to keep a page up-to-date with the appropriate lists. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting; we'd just need to create a separate up-to-date list of Arbs. Thanks, Writ, this is all over my head, but fascinating just the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As long as we're talking about javascript tricks, is this hidden by any chance? It's a twist off of a similar trick to hide things from peons like me. Hopefully it doesn't work. Ryan Vesey 21:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I see it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Dang, well now I don't. I was sort of hoping NE ENT and I could have a conversation behind your back. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just logged out to look, as I thought you were yanking my chain. I'll be damned. I had no idea there was an actual "sysop-show" class. Fascinating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There's some serious discussion somewhere about using it for attack pages instead of blanking. Ryan Vesey 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Squeaky

I wasn't aware that I had had any involvement with Johnny Squeaky when I first reverted his edit (not that it matters,there's no WP:INVOLVED for undoing someone's edit) but in any case, I checked his talk page and contrib histories. You might want to keep an eye on him for a while. Ryan Vesey 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Color me confused; I didn't accuse you of being involved anywhere? Certainly not intentionally. Unless you mean you just realized you'd dealt with them in the past? Anyway, I would have reverted if you hadn't, no one could argue with your edit there. Yes, I was just looking over their talk page history, and have now watchlisted his talk page and the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming or implying you had accused me of anything. I was more or less heading off an expected response by Johnny, he didn't seem to happy with the last time I got involved with a matter involving him [29]. Ryan Vesey 20:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see, back in January. Yes, he does seem to spend quite a bit of time unhappy with other people, doesn't he? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yup. Go Phightins! 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ottoniel Blanco

You just deleted Ottoniel Blanco twice. It looked to me like an autobiography. In that case, the author, User:El Blanco Facil (talk), would be a sock of indef-blocked User:Ottoniel Blanco (talk)). I'd prefer not to go through a full SPI, especially since the behavioural evidence was just deleted... Thoughts? Huon (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're obviously the same person. I'm not a fan of using FAKEARTICLE for autobiographical user pages, but agree it should probably have been deleted anyway for, as DS67 put it, "the user's own good". When User:Ottoniel Blanco was blocked, sockpuppetry was mentioned; is there more to this, do you know? I'm probably going to block EBF as a sock, but I'd like to have all the background first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I need to leave for a while, so rather than wait for background I just blocked them for socking. Background would be nice, but it wouldn't change the fact they're indef blocked, and now behaving more disruptively than before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot provide any background information on earlier sockpuppetry; I happened upon Ottoniel Blanco via a help request on the now-deleted article talk page and got curious enough to dig a little and noticed that User:Ottoniel Blanco was indef-blocked. We don't seem to have an SPI on him; I just checked the archives. Huon (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Take responsibility

You blocked me for making one edit in a week, when those opposing the edit had stopped participating in the discussion. Tom harrison reverted my last edit without further comment in Talk. He has taken the position that only the Christian view of the resurrection of Jesus is germane to the subject. This is likely an area where Wikipedia's principles don't coincide with consensus. Will you contribute more than blocks? Right now, my edit has been reverted by an editor who has made no further contribution to Talk. His edit summary about undue weight is absurd, given that the material in question is one sentence. Help. Strangesad (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is, Tom harrison reverted to the consensus version. See WP:DR for what options you have if you want to continue this, but right now, it needs to stay out until there is a consensus to include it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "the difference." I didn't compare him to myself. I pointed out that the consensus process is essentially discussion, so when people stop participating in discussion, the consensus becomes unclear. The rules about consensus don't entitle anyone to revert without discussion, indefinitely. Strangesad (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
New users often think that they have seen some great truth, and that their situation is unique. However, the kind of disruption evident at Resurrection of Jesus is an everyday occurrence here. Some thought about how articles would look if articles were written based on which editor was most persistent shows that re-adding and re-adding similar text is not going to work. Please ask at WP:HELPDESK about standard operating procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

...I added a block template to LaLaLAND's talkpage and attributed it to you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OK by me. I'd already added a hand-written note, but LalaLAND removed it as "spam"; I figured it didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. But your addition doesn't hurt anything either, so all's well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL ... I saw your response at John Carter after I left this note here ... we're all too efficient (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
We're so efficient, we're inefficient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Think you misplaced a post...

This is probably not in the right spot (think you meant to post to the WT:AC/N but instead posted to WP:A/R/M) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penwhale. No, it's where I wanted it. Hersfold is now saying, in the Arbs-only section above mine, that a full case is required to reseysop if an admin is desysopped per this motion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I know he replied to you; however, you posted it in the Motion discussing the possibly policy change (which is in WP:A/R/M), not the Kevin (temp) desysop (which is on WT:AC/N) - so logical reasoning led me to assess that you might have put it in the wrong place. Apologies! - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I had tricked myself into commenting on Kevin (like many others in the Motion thread), but before I saw your note here I'd already removed that sentence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for protecting my talkpage Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would have revdel'd it too, but I'm so rusty on how to do that someone else got to it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas t 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out why I got notified about this; I see I did make an edit to that page. Thanks for the note, but this isn't really a big deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation

I haven't posted (and may never post) at Wikipediocracy, but this is to confirm that the account "Floquenbeam" created there a few minutes ago is me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And SarekOfVulcan there is me, in case it wasn't already obvious... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And if anyone had any doubts about you, my talk page is the first place they'd look! :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Some editors, I wouldn't be surprised... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well bugger, I was about to drop a request for you to take a look at AN where SilverSeren is basically continuing the rubbish you shut down at Demi's page. However as you are now a member of WO you must be evil and completely unable to have an independant thought on the matter... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • They argue about important points... only to shoot themselves in the foot every other week. And yeah, they've already "outed" me too... although not in such a bombastic fashion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • re to OID and Crisco both: Not really "joining"; I signed up in order to be able to report a case of outing to a Wikipediocracy admin/moderator, because at the time it looked like that was the only way to flag an edit. But (a) I had to wait 12 hours to be approved, so I still couldn't flag it; (b) it turned out I found an email address for their moderator list, and sent an email instead, only to find (c) someone else had already reported it and it had been removed. So that was pretty much a waste. I don't imagine posting there much, maybe even at all; the only thing worse than arguing with crazy people who devote every waking moment to Wikipedia is arguing with crazy people who devote every waking moment to whining about Wikipedia (plus a sprinkling of evil people, and a sprinkling of really really crazy people). OID, I don't even want to look at AN, but whatever is going on there I doubt I could fix it. There was a Star Trek episode where every so often people went completely crazy for one day; I think WP does that regularly, and this is one of those times. You need more than a desire to get people to stop going nuts, you need a superhuman ability to convince people to stop going nuts, and that is hard to do when they're busy going nuts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"...muttering"?

Well, hello to you, also! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Muttering" probably wasn't the right word, but I didn't have time to get a thesaurus. Anyway, hopefully it was read in the manner it was written. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you meant "insightful comments, displaying both high intelligence and a subtly acute sense of humour" - which is certainly how I read it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Not just acute; anadorable! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect

Please unprotect this article: Diamonds World Tour, since the tour officially happened yesterday, thus the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL anymore. I will request in WP:RFP if you refuse to unprotect it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.158.52 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it will need to be unprotected at some point, but first I have 2 questions:
  1. Why not start writing about it at Unapologetic#Diamonds World Tour until it gets too large?
  2. Can you point me to two reliable sources that discuss the tour in detail?
If there are satisfactory answers to those, I'm happy to unprotect, even though I suspect in theory in should go to WP:DRV, since it was deleted as the result of an AFD. But I'm not around much this weekend, so if you decide to go to RFPP instead of waiting for me to reply to your reply, I'm fine with any admin making any decision they see fit; no need to check with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It was deleted because the tour had not yet begun, so there wasn't a lot of info about it. Now there are TONS of articles from media publications reviewing the show, etc.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Weird, I thought I'd replied to this earlier today, but I guess it didn't save. As I know you know (because you've already edited it), I took your word for it that by now there are reliable sources for the tour, unprotected, and restored the deleted article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfB?

As crazy a suggestion as this may be, I am here to suggest that you consider submitting a request for cratship. I have expressed some concerns regarding the low number of crats being promoted at WT:RFA and I am trying to get somebody to run. I know that you aren't the most uncontroversial admin on this project and we have not always seen eye to eye, but I would definitely trust you with the added bit. So, please consider. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's really very nice of you to suggest, AS. I'm going to decline, though, because it's not really something that matches my skill/interest set (plus, I don't think I could get even close to 85% support, but that's secondary). Crats basically do 3 things:
  1. Flag bots. I don't understand bots, and in fact fear them a little bit; I'm concerned they're a precursor to Skynet. I often think I should probably figure them out, but let's face it, I'm not going to.
  2. Perform username changes. That looks like it's technical enough that I'd screw something up, and someone's username is a bad thing to screw up. And there's lots of details to consider; I hate details.
  3. Close RFA/RFB's. There aren't very many RFA's these days, and plenty of Crats to close the few there are, so there's no pressing need for me (or anyone) to seek the Crat bit if all they're going to do is close the one RFA per year that runs over because no other Crat is around.
Interestingly (to me), at one time, I did consider running for Crat on a simple "platform": I was going to market myself as a Crat whose purpose is that I'd be to be willing to desysop an admin if they broke a clear promise made in an RFA. This was as a way of non-technically debundling the admin toolkit, so someone could, for example, promise never to get involved in blocking users, and if they ever blocked a user, I'd desysop them (on the theory that it was a self-requested desysop, the request having been made during the RFA). It was the result of a disappointing WP:BN thread I started, but I won't try to find it unless you ask. But while I think a lot of people think something like this is a good idea, I'd have never gotten 85% support on that platform, and starting an RFB destined to fail would have been a timesink.
To be honest, I don't share your concern that there aren't enough Crats; if I was going to lobby for someone to run for something, it would be to find more good solid admin candidates, and (even more important) some good solid ArbCom candidates. I think we're actually all set for Crats at the moment.

Thanks, though, for the vote of confidence. I do appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for giving an explanation of why the answer was "No." I do agree that we should seek to find more admin candidates, but my opinion is that although the current number of crats might not be a problem, if we don't add to the ranks, it eventually will be. But, I imagine somebody will eventually run. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You declined a speedy delete of Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow - you may be interested in following the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Over Your Cities Grass Will Grow.Moxy (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that; these things happen sometimes. You folks all seem to know what you're doing; looking forward to that redlink going blue soon. Thanks for helping the IP out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

TY

Thanks for picking up that side of it while I was blocking - much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that we kind of crossed paths there. Good to see you wielding your tools again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I kinda felt like AWOL while you guys were under heavy fire. — Ched :  ?  01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the admin corps now has one extra person, I briefly considered regaining equilibrium by unblocking Cla68, MZMcBride, and Demiurge1000 (and anyone else still blocked directly or indirectly as a result of WOgate), just to see how quick the rapid desysop process is. I imagine there's no 24 hour waiting period. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL .. Yea, real easy to get caught in the cross-fire. A lot of collateral damage on this one. BTW - YGM. — Ched :  ?  01:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Never

I've never made any false accusation. If I am saying something I do have evidences, but your arbcom talks only to wikipedians, and blessing God I am not. If you want to, you could email to me, and I will provide you with my evidences, and, if after reading them you'd say I made false accusations I will publicly apologize, but I doubt you will email me because as most wikipedians you only see a banned user, but you are unable to see a hurt human being. Regards. 71.202.122.31 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mbz1, I see a banned user and a hurt human being. And a human being who, being hurt, is willing to hurt others. I can't fix any of that; the world isn't perfect, and I'm not omnipotent. I'm not omniscient, either, but I do know that you're not going to stop hurting by hanging around here and inserting yourself into conflicts. I also know that I don't really want to be drawn into this web; it's not for amateurs, and when it comes to the kind of bitter struggles you've been involved in, I'm an amateur. But I promise that you're never going to get "victory" over your real, or perceived, enemies here. The best you can hope for, the best for everyone involved, the only winning move, is not to play. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You're mistaking. I am here not to hurt anybody, but only to defend myself, if you could see the difference. And I am doing this only because I was silly enough to edit under my real name. It is what is hurting me - defamation. If I were an anonymous I could not have cared less. I was denied the opportunity to defend myself, and nobody should be ever denied this opportunity, not under any circumstances. I am not a witch. They dressed me as a witch. I am not after getting a "victory". I am only after defending myself. Anyway, thanks for your response. I will not bother you anymore. 71.202.122.31 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's so not happening

[30]. The eye of Sauron sees all. (Except when it doesn't). NE Ent 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean I'm not going to be able to resist looking because I'm Sauron and can't help but see all? Or I'm not going to be able to change that policy because you're Sauron and you see all? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait -- a Wikipedia editor actually has to know what they mean when they post? Is this a new rule??? It means you ain't getting pay raise. NE Ent 22:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
NP, Ched, but I'm afraid we're going to have to "do something" about NE Ent; he knows too much now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in articles

Good night. This user is repeatedly vandalizing this article adding false information and unilaterally wants to cancel this list although it was kept after this deletion discussion. Due to his point of view, write style and his sources used are the same as used by this user, who proposed the list's delection (and others), can you confirm if that user (or this one) are related and, if possible, protect those articles of new vandalism? Thank you.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football, this is the same person, and I've reblocked indefinitely. Let me know if it appears they've come back using a different username. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Huldra (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.


Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for helping! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for the hummus; it looks better than the store brand I lazily buy all the time. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection of jesus

You blocked me over this, rather abruptly. Please facilitate. Strangesad (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because I blocked you for edit warring doesn't make me your fairy godmother. Facilitate it yourself. There are a whole bunch of options available to you in WP:DR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You weren't being asked to be a fairy godmother. Just something other than powertripper who gets half the facts wrong when issuing blocks and doesn't give a shit. Thanks for for the help, admin. Strangesad (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Upon re-reading my last comment, I was taken aback by my tone. Apologies. although I do wish admins would facilitate in matters where they block. Strangesad (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask for a clarification?

Hi, I saw you removed the report I had place on vandalism for a user. I don't doubt you're right and I'm not contesting the decision in any way, I'd just want to ask for a clarification so I'll know how to handle similiar situations in the future. When a user repeatedly removes sourced material [31] for a particular WP:POV, all of it sourced by reliable sources, and doesn't even bother to talk about it at the talk page, I would have thought it to be vandalism. If you say it isn't vandalism, then I don't doubt you're right but I'd appreciate to know what it is. Or is it really ok to go around deleting sourced text as one pleases?Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's only "vandalism" if the intent is to damage the encyclopedia. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead, this seems to be a difference of opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe he's right, maybe both, maybe neither. That's what WP:Dispute resolution is for. But step one is to use the article talk page and try to work it out between yourselves. If they don't start a thread about it, nothing is stopping you from doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case, I was clearly mistaken in reporting it as vandalism. I do believe it to be disruptive, but not intended to damage. I have no idea if I'm "right", I just happened to see a rather massive removal of reliable sources with no explanation given. Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem. User:Str1977 has made 37,000 edits here since 2005. Doesn't necessrily mean they're right, but it might be worth it to consider the possibility they know what they're doing, and ask rather than revert. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I was a bit hasty. I still think his way to do it was wrong, but I was probably wrong as well. He should have taken the time to explain his removal,I should have taken the time to better look into it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That's the way 90% of disputes on WP break out; a little bit of wrong on one side, a little bit of wrong on the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL

You win .. I'm out of cheetos. — Ched :  ?  18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bulleted list item

Problematic non-retirement

Lowkeyvision has come out of retirement and gone back to rather silly contributions at Memon people, reinstating a lot of content that several people had agreed was unsuitable on the talk page. I've just restored the Memon article to its state of several days ago because I could see nothing in their contributions that had not previously been addressed. Since no-one has yet provided a relevant WP:3O at Talk:Lohara dynasty, I'm kind of expecting them to resurface there soon.

I will try to improve the Memon article in due course but, honestly, I am involved in that many disputes with newbies at the moment that it might be a while before I get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely. Please let me know if you see a new account behaving similarly, or if I'm not around, file an SPI. This is someone we don't want around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. They've just re-registered as User:Fatman2020. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we'll have to play whack-a-mole until they get bored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, I've already got one malcontent popping up to mess about with my talk page over the last 24 hours or so but that is someone else. From your note on Lkv's page, it sounds as if you have discovered something. Are they not entitled to a WP:BASC link, nonetheless? - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Usually, but the block message they see when they're blocked actually points them to BASC, so that isn't strictly necessary. Plus, I get the impression they've been through all this before, so I'm sure they already know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realise that, sorry. I've never seen the block message but my day will probably come. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Heh. Yes, I suppose the longer one edits, closer the odds of being blocked for something or other approach 1.0. No apology needed, you're certainly right that we almost always leave a template or pointer to BASC, I just felt this particular editor wasn't worth it. A combination of laziness and snottiness (excellent qualities in an admin). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Busting your Butt Barnstar

Ye 'ole Broken Tuchusref Barnstar
For your extended efforts, and breaking yon Gluteus maximus (your vertical smile, backside, behind, butt, rear-end - OK "Busting Ass") to maintain the decency, kindness and good-deeds of Wikipedia, Ched would like to award you (Floquenbeam) the Broken Tuchus Barnstar. Efforts such as this do not go unnoticed.

Hey, thanks Ched! That's a very unorthodox barnstar - I'll treasure it. Don't tell anyone, but 95% of the time I'm a jerk to everyone, and really only help other people when it's on Jimbo's talk page; trying to look good in front of the boss. I'm still hoping for that big 25% raise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen <> Dash <> Minus Sign

Note:

These are not at all the same and have different rules of usage. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. But which one is used in Morse Code? And which one would you use to fix a broken dial on a humor meter? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The answer to both is neither. MastCell Talk 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, how stupid of me. You'd use a minus sign for both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just go take a look at Dash. It says very plainly:
Not to be confused with Hyphen or Minus sign.
There you have it, right from Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that all horizontal lines are essentially interchangeable. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for claims to the contrary.[dubious – discuss]{{dubious tag}} What!? how can that possibly be a redlink? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dubious (signing with a horizontal line of indeterminate length) — Ched :  ?  22:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I know Ched, I'm complaining about the lack of a {{dubious tag}} template; a meta-tag, if you will, that I could use to tag Jehochman's dubious {{dubious}} tag. _______ Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's try that again:
I have it on good authority that all horizontal lines are essentially interchangeable. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for claims to the

contrary.[dubious – discuss][[[Wikipedia:Disputed statement|<span title="This {{dubious}} tag may not be factual or accurate">dubious {{dubious}} tag]] – discuss] --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL .. actually I did get the sarcasm that time - just being the jerk that I'm so good at. :) — Ched :  ?  23:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Get with the times, people. Box─drawing characters are the punctuation of the future. 28bytes (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 

   -\-                                                     
   \-- \-                                                  
    \  - -\                                                
     \      \\                                             
      \       \                                            
       \       \\                                              
        \        \\                                            
        \          \\                                        
        \           \\\                                      
         \            \\                                                 
          \            \\                                              
          \. .          \\                                  
           \    .       \\                                 
            \      .    \\                                            
             \       .  \\                                 
             \         . \\                                           
             \            <=)                                         
             \            <==)                                         
             \            <=)                                           
              \           .\\                                           _-
              \         .   \\                                        _-//
              \       .     \\                                     _-_/ /
              \ . . .        \\                                 _--_/ _/
               \              \\                              _- _/ _/
               \               \\                      ___-(O) _/ _/ 
               \                \                  __--  __   /_ /      ***********************************
               \                 \\          ____--__----  /    \_       SQUAAAAAWWWWKKKKKK!
                \                  \\       -------       /   \_  \_     ********************************** 
                 \                   \                  //   // \__ \_    
                  \                   \\              //   //      \_ \_ 
                   \                   \\          ///   //          \__- 
                   \                -   \\/////////    //            
                   \            -         \_         //              
                   /        -                      //                
                  /     -                       ///                  
                 /   -                       //                      
            __--/                         ///
 __________/                            // |               
//-_________      ___                ////  |                
       ____\__--/                /////    |                
  -----______    -/---________////        |                
    _______/  --/    \                   |                 
  /_________-/       \                   |                 
 //                  \                   /                 
                      \.                 /                 
                      \     .            /                 
                       \       .        /                  
                      \\           .    /                  
                       \                /                  
                       \              __|                  
                       \              ==/                  
                       /              //                   
                       /          .  //                    
                       /   .  .    //                      
                      /.           /                       
                     /            //                       
                     /           /
                    /          //
                   /         //
                --/         /
               /          //
           ////         //
        ///_________////

Above image by Matthew Inman, [32]. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Zilla Article Problems

Hello, Floquenbeam. I am 493Titanollante, an administrator over at Wikizilla, the Godzilla and King Kong Wiki, and I noticed that the Zilla page had information that appeared to have been misinterpreted by a user, who according to the page's history, has been reverting the page constantly from various users who were actually adding correct information for weeks. I have edited out the misconception parts, and the article should stay like that. Just as it said on top of the page, the article was not very neutral and was actually biased and part of the user's opinion. The main thing he did was claim that Zilla and the 1998 creature referred as "Godzilla" in prior to 2004 are different things. He did not provide any citations for his claims except for an blog website, which although unreliable in itself, contains some information that actually be used against it, such as the re-release in 2006.

The reason why TriStar still said "GODZILLA is a registered trade mark of Toho Co. Ltd...." etc., is because the film itself is called GODZILLA, and the monster in the movie is referred to as Godzilla. TriStar didn't do any changes to the film at all, other than transferring the movie from VHS to DVD, and later from DVD to Blu-Ray. Again, no changes. So if they did not do any changes whatsoever, would they even bother to get the rights to ZILLA™, swap it with the Godzilla icon, rename the movie, edit the parts where they say "Godzilla" out, and a lot more of that? No, they would not. It would take too much time and money. Also, Toho has stated in their film, Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack, that the 1998 creature was not the real GODZILLA®.

Also, notice how these two, "totally different creatures" (Zilla and Godzilla 1998) look exactly the same, yet they have different trademarks. Doesn't it seem as a waste of money by Toho's part to trademark the creature a second time and for it to be exclusive to a movie? Yes, it does. Also, if these two "different creatures" which look exactly alike, why does Toho copyright 'all three Mechagodzillas as just Mechagodzilla? Wouldn't they be different trademarks, because they look fairly different? They aren't, those three use the same trademark and they are fairly different. Also, if they DID create another incarnation of the 1998 monster (which uses the same design, roar, powers, and appearance) and named it Zilla, then why don't they trademark all the different Godzilla incarnations differently? It can't be because Toho wanted their trademark on the 1998 creature, because TriStar's rights to Godzilla got returned to Toho in 2003, meaning they own the copyrights to the monster of the 1998 movie.

So you see, the American Godzilla page should be left as is. I will not hesitate to report the user if he reverts my edit when his block expires this week, because as I've shown to you, his edits on the Zilla article are biased and are far from the truth. Thank you for reading, and I hope you understand. --493Titanollante (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of insulting a friend, I have no real understanding or interest in the subject; I kind of stumbled onto American Godzilla by accident, as a user was edit warring on another article too. So I have no real knowledge of what should be in the article. I suspect you do, but as you may know, WP works by consensus, so assuming for the moment that that editor comes back from his block and starts editing productively, you'll need to hash things out on the talk page, and follow WP:DR if there are disagreements. However, I will keep an eye on the page, and will intervene if disruption resumes (instead of just a content dispute). Feel free to ping me if it happens and I don't seem to notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) [Bishzilla is vexed. Stuffs the little Floquenbeam in her pocket and pats him down with some extra firmness.] Naughty! Stay there till gains some understanding and interest! bishzilla ROARR!! 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC).
(*tries to speak from pocket, but muffled. Also, some slight jaw damaged from patting.*) Mmmf hphmm marblph. Mmmphlp? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In the presence of guests, 'zilla? For shame! Put him down this instant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
[Bishzilla is hugely amused.] Ho ho! Little writkeeper funny! [Indulgently sticks the yappy little Writkeeper in pocket to keep slightly squashed Floquenbeam company.] bishzilla ROARR!! 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/User:NE Ent/sandbox

Template:Editnotices/Page/User:NE Ent/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NE Ent 13:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a minute to figure out why I got this notice, but now I see. That was a sort of silly hoop to make you jump through, wasn't it? Anyway, dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Silly? On Wikipedia? First time for everything, I guess. Thanks for the clean up. NE Ent 01:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There was one silver lining, though: I found out AnomieBot will now close a TFD for you if you're too stupid/lazy to figure out how to close it yourself. Well, as long as you close it "delete". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

Good as gold!
Over the past several years, you have acquired a role as one of Wikipedia's most respected admins. That is the impression you have left me with, anyway. I have selected you as the fourth recipient of my new Golden Editor Award, which I intend to give to editors who have made a rather substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. This is a recognition that I want to be highly regarded and therefore I seek to give it to noteworthy editors. Your name was one of those that came to mind, as through the use of your admin tools and the influence you have in Wikipedia's society, you have become one of our noteworthy editors. If you would like, you are welcome to display this userbox. Congratulations and thank you for the help you have given the community, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you so much, ASO. Feeling more like a Tin Editor these last few months, but I'm glad to see at least one person disagrees. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't understand

Hello and sorry! I didn't quite understand your comment of bending backwards and avoiding piping the TFA. What was it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dharmadhyaksha. Sorry, I was probably too careless with slang. "Bending over backwards" is slang for trying really, really hard. By "piping the TFA", I meant that the precise title of the article was "Military history of Australia during World War II"; if we instead did what you sugggested, and typed [[Military history of Australia during World War II|Australian military involvement during World War II]], that's called a piped link. I think we try not to do that - I mean, we try hard to have the name of the featured article in the blurb be the same as the text of the link. I wasn't sure, though, so I left it for others to comment on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh okay! I hadn't understood the piping part. But still... history begins on a day was kinda odd. But anyways; nothing can be done about it now. Have a nice day! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree it sounded slightly odd, but not really really odd. Still, I've gone back and looked for similar cases (i.e. an article title that's hard to work into a proper sentence) in old TFA blurbs, and some of them are piped, so I could probably have changed it without worrying. As you say, nothing can be done about it now, but at least we'll know for next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Keeping abreast of the situation

I was wondering if you had decided to list your concerns about pictures of identifiable people in public places for discussion anywhere yet. I don't imagine for a moment it's urgent, but your actions show that you find it to be important, and it most assuredly deserves wide input as a topic. I feel that limiting it to people with normally covered areas showing would be too marrow for a discussion. Under the UK's Data Protection Act 1998, a photograph is personal data. UK data subjects thus appear to have different rights from (eg) Norwegian ones (one is EC and the other not) and US ones (not at all European). It is a complex topic. One might consider, too, that legal opinion ought to trump community consensus on this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, yes, I'm writing something up as we speak, slow going because I'm sandwiching it between real life task. I haven't quite decided where to do this: my first thought is the WP:BLPN, but there may be a good policy talk page that's better suited.
I am so unclear on the legal aspect that I'm not touching on that in my comments; I can imagine a case where it is legal, and I can imagine a case where it isn't, and IANAL. But my thoughts on this, which I have developed further overnight thinking about it, are more policy-based. if it is illegal, we shouldn't do it. But even if it is legal, I think we should have a policy against it.
As promised, I'll point you and Ken to the discussion when I finish thinking it through and posting somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and stupid me, I just got your pun. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
In general all of the Wikimedia projects seem to ignore all laws that are inconvenient, even copyright, where editors' opinions are deferred to as much as possible, even when glaringly incorrect, I have noticed. I happen to find the law I've quoted silly in this regard, so will argue from the content perspective. Glad you got the pun. I wonder if an essay might be useful for your thoughts? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(convenience link to Commons discussion so I don't keep having to find it on the article talk page: [33])

Great

Great comment(vote) at Wikipedia:Requests for_adminship/Pjoef TheStrikeΣagle 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate this place sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move?

Hello, Floquenbeam. I need your help. I need you to move the American Godzilla into Zilla, as there are many people that agree with it to be moved back to Zilla in its talk page, mostly in sections like Needs to be moved back to Zilla and Two Pages, and the reasons why it should be moved are in the Gino section. People have agreed with my arguments and are saying that it should be moved back. It is very easy, everyithing is right there. Nothing else needed. Or is it? Apparently, a "Requested move" section has to be created, and it has to be discussed. Why? The "Requested move" section on moving it back is already there, just spread out. The now indefinitely blocked user would have been the only one to disagree anyways, using the same, disproven arguments and contradicting himself; such as saying that a logo does not mean a name change, when he himself used a logo from a "2006 DVD re-release" (which in actuality was just a 1998 VCR snapshot of a logo), and that there is no evidence, when I have clearly given it.
So please, move the page back. It has already been discussed, just not in ONE section alone titled "Requested move". Please, do understand, don't make this time-wasting and hard. That article has already wasted a lot of people's time and gotten a few blocked. Apparently, I am next to be blocked because I tried copy-pasting the American Godzilla page onto Zilla, and redirect it, which I now know is wrong because of copyright, but it is insane that I am apparently to be blocked because of redirecting the Amerizilla page and its talk, on my talk page. Please, let's just get this over with. There's no need in wasting anybody's time. Thank you a lot, Floquenbeam. 493Titanollante (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have very little time today to look into this, and I'll want to read the discussion to make sure this is what consensus says. If you can wait a day or so, I'll dig in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the time to look at this, and I think you need to have an actual WP:Requested Move discussion. The move to American Godzilla was the result of a requested move discussion, I'm not going to move it back based on your comments alone, and there are an uncomfortable number of new editors and IP editors commenting now, I'm concerned that some of them are the same person, or that there's been some kind of canvassing going on. I don't think this is "wasting anybody's time", I think it's the way to settle an evidently contentious issue. I didn't block TurokSwe because of his opinion, I blocked him because of his refusal to stop edit warring. His opinion on this in not invalidated.
As an aside, I don't understand why Tbhotch was so aggressive in warning you about copy-paste issues; a polite note on your talk apge would have been more reasonable. You're not close to getting blocked, so don't worry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time anyways, I really appreciate it. So for it to be moved, a "Requested move" section and a discussion has to take place. Got it. Thanks a lot. 493Titanollante (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's what I would want to see before moving the page, yes. Alternately, since the previous RM discussion was so thinly participated in, you could ask User:BDD (the only other participant in that discussion) if they mind if you move it back, and if they're OK with it, I'll just do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Here! He said he doesn't have any strong feelings for that. Alternatively, it seems that me, and three other people want it to be moved (Kaiju-Human, Armegon, Betty Logan) support the move in the Requested move 2 section. Thankee! 493Titanollante (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But will they rename the page? 493Titanollante (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably, but that is up to whoever closes the RM. It is kind of a lot to read though, and there is a very small chance that it could be relisted to gather more input. Apteva (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

PA response

Responding here as the ANI should close soon. I agree that holocaust denial is a serious accusation. I did not say he was a denier. I said his edits reeked of denial and trolling. SPECIFICO's comment was that the fact that the jews were disarmed by the Nazis, as part of Kristallnacht and the larger holocaust, under the guise of gun control. This fact which is well documented by multiple primary and secondary sources (according to Specifico) had as much relevance to the topic as Hitler's hypothetical use of Mayonnaise on his Brats. He has further made arguments that we had no evidence (sources) as to the fact whatsoever or that every source indicating such was unreliable. Denial is a serious accusation, and he is well into the grey area of it being appropriate - although I think he was doing so not as an actual believer in denialism, but as an obstruction to editing, hence the trolling accusation. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about that comment of his has anything to do with holocaust denialism; perhaps you don't understand the term? That means someone doesn't think the holocaust happened, but is some kind of Jewish conspiratorial lie or something. It is not an accusation to make lightly. But I doubt you and I can have a meaningful conversation if you're going to say "I didn't call him a holocaust denier, I said his edits reeked of holocaust denialism." I'm not interested in playing word games. You asked for feedback, I gave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Trigger happy

Could you please explain to me why you blocked two respected members of our community without warning for 31 hours? You seem to be rather trigger happy. Multichill (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because they were intentionally being disruptive by edit warring, and knew what they were doing so a warning wasn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Are Wikipedia admins psychic these days? I see another admin already did some damage prevention. You should be more careful. Multichill (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control DR

I opened a gun control DR, but had some technical difficulties due to some sort of script/widget conflict with the DR submission template. Could you please hide my IP? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Gun_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin,
I've hidden your IP. That's still visible to admins; if you want it oversighted, use: Special:EmailUser/Oversight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked editor

The editor you blocked appears to be set on trolling when unblocked: [34]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've commented there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors. I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Wikipedia as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Shared IP header

Hi Floquenbeam. I saw your edit to remove the header here. It is allowed per WP:BLANKING: "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." In theory, it seems to be intended for possible uninvolved editors on the same IP that don't know what the messages are for. I suppose there are bigger things to be concerned with on WP, so I'm staying out of this case, but the users that are placing this header are doing it in good faith and according to guideline. Removing it might only be encouraging the IP's ownership mentality of the talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you are even getting involved in this. Like others, one moment you seem to be on my side, and another passive-aggressive with claiming it was appropriate. PER the NOTICEBOARD, the discussion is over. And I do believe it's a violation for editors (with conflict of interest) to get involved in matters such as this. I can post that "rule" here if you're unaware of it. So much for helping you out on the bseball article. The reason it was posted was not in good faith. It was done in spite and ignorance of my status/situation. I am active on it, there is no need to include it. End of discussion. This is not about you or others, so like you said it is best to "stay out of this case". You don't realize that notice is not accurate. And like another user, after I update your baseball pages, you turn on me? Noted. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of that rule, but it's a dumb rule, and prone to misuse by bullies. Is there a reason to not believe the editor when he says he's the only one using it? I don't think this was being done in good faith, I believe this was being done to "put an IP editor in his place". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless, it doesn't apply and I'm active on it. Such tags are not on all "public IPs" and the tag posted was not accurate. Per that "blanking" rule, they aren't to undo my work on the talk page either or sabotage it. Those who are doing it are doing so in spite. They also overly reverted and acted uncivil. I was being "Wikihounded" as well. They are the ones needing to be warned for intentional distress. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think he's taking their side against yours, so much as saying that he assumes more good faith in their motivations than I do. I've no problem with Bagumba's comment here. In fact, considering that my other option is being accused of unblocking my own sockpuppet, I think Bagumba is my favorite person to post about this issue on my talk page today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I concede and will move on from this and those users involved. FYI: I trust these people will stop following me just to annoy me about petty issues. This is not the best interest of Wikipedia. Thanks for your help/support and understanding! :) Have a great day... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I respect your opinion. Perhaps you'd consider getting this changed at WP:BLANKING and alleviate the drama from those that are stickler for rules.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Threading got all messed up here, but I trust everyone knows who was saying what to whom, so I'm not going to bother to refactor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I do hope I never need to see this again, but I did refactor anyways as it's just easier for me to do it now instead of the oft-chance I'm scratching my head and then kicking myself later.—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Now I'm only asking this because of a striking similarity with your comments at ANI, your seemingly short analysis about the situation? This is from the one discussion I have had prior with that user and it's similar[[35]] regarding Ip warnings/blocks and [[36]] here noting that there is an account with admin rights [[37]] if this isn't you editing yourself or someone you may be connected to? I will apologize beforehand if I'm completely off base here but with the similarities in comments and in particular the comment about having admin rights are the reason I am asking. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is "I will apologize beforehand" similar to "with all due respect"? i.e. a kind of get out of jail free card where you get to make baseless allegations and hide behind the preemptive "apology"? Sorry, Inspector Clouseau, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if an admission was really expected here. Post it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if this is serious (and it better be if you accusing an admin). A simple checkuser if approved closes this case real quick one way or another.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: What's interesting is that HIAB was wrong on the John Ritter article. He was the one who removed my comment then replaced it. I only updated it or changed it to avoid him and further confrontation (such as this nonsense). I wasn't trying to win a pointless battle. Since then, he has followed me, which is a violation. I am not a problem editor. I don't need to be babysat. You are trying to make me a "problem" by pestering me, HIAB. I hope you've learned from this, as I tried to advise you in advance. Crying wolf on noticeboards since you don't like me, is not the best idea. And you are taking notes/comments left on those talk pages out of context. I explained why it probably is not correct on another talk page of a person who is more level-headed and knowledgeable. Best of luck to all involved, I'm out! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk)

Regarding "with all due respect", HIAB doesn't like anything that isn't a rule. Been there done that. Ugh. Also, this contains typos which I mentioned to someone else involved with the noticeboard dispute already: Going to noticeboard due to your vandalism and lack of communication during dipuste, to clear it up. Little do all of you know, I have admin credentials via my account. You are taking it out of context and the user's page I put it on did not question it. Don't ASSume. The fact you are going around watching my edits concerns me a bit. So HIAB, I will not clarify what it means, or should have "said" or if it was a past status I had, etc. You are not someone I have to report to. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Floquen if you want to take it as a "go fuck yourself/all due respect" then by all means but it was not the intention when I said I apologize. I understand you're a longer term contributor here and the fact that you are is the only reason I hadn't just filed the sock report. I thought you at least deserved that much. I'm still curious about it but the editing differences seem to be the one thing that doesn't fit. I plan on making a proposal at [[WP:BLANKING}} to determine if that template is useless and should be removed if it is not enforceable. It probably won't be for a while but since you have a strong opinion there you may wish to join the discussion. Either way I'm sure I'll see you in a day or two on the normal encyclo stuff, hope that burnt out stress level goes down. 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)
So you accuse me of unblocking my own sockpuppet on my talk page instead of at SPI as a courtesy to me? Fuck you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked into this some more, and learned that Template:Shared IP has the caveat "Where there is no indication of this, or where the IP appears to be static and used by only one person, the template should not be used." Granted the case can be made that http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.129.112.89 shows this to be coming from what looks to be an inn, so it's possible that it is being shared by multiple users. However, I believe Floquenbeam was saying to AGF when the IP said they were the only user. BLANKING, should probably stay, but maybe highlighting this caveat buried in the template doc.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: Template:Static IP has no such limitations documented.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell: there is no rule which applies to me about "shared ip" tags, and when that didn't stick, the attack about a "hit list" began which there isn't even such a rule about lists or hit lists (and was a misinterpretation of what I was doing in the first place). I didn't even need to contribute to the noticeboard drama as it was a fabrication by editors looking to find something wrong. And in the case of "shared IPs", there is ALWAYS a chance someone will contribute on an IP or account for that matter. No one is 100% of the time just going to use their IP or account on a computer or device perhaps. There is always a slim chance that once in awhile, a friend, neighbor, relative, spouse, child, etc. may get online and make a contribution or leave a message via an account or IP. But in general, no one else is. That does not mean the IP tag should be on every user's talk page. This was all just so ridiculous and no one believed me so this got way out of control. If I were those editors who contributed to ganging up on me, I'd be so ashamed to show myself on here again. But that's just me. I will say nothing more on it, there is just too much wrong going on here that it's not something I care to continue doing, so maybe the trouble-making violators/vandals on here have won in this case. I'm better than this... I don't need the hassle. I will do what I do without conflict off this site from now on. I know it's not appropriate to say per a Wikipedia guideline/article, but this site would have been better with me than without me. Maybe that will be my greatest "revenge". Because I don't need the IP to contribute. I could care less if it got blocked, it wouldn't stop me. So why wouldn't I just go on everyone's page who started this nonsense and blank their page, or curse them out and attack them with foul language or disrupt contributions? I could. Unlike everyone else, I'm actually not wanting to be right. It doesn't affect my ego/pride to be wrong. I just knew what they were doing was inappropriate and I can't stand double-standards or hypocrites! Bye... P.S. per prior issues with this matter, I tried to inform those putting the "Shared IP" tag on my page that it was not correct/accurate regarding being an Inn. But the fact it's not updated or right or whatever, doesn't even matter anymore. I don't want to deal with this type of abuse anymore. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess do whatever you feel makes you happiest, contributing here (as imperfect and annoying and insulting as it sometimes is) or not contributing here. As I said somewhere else a day or two ago, there are people here who walk around with chips on their shoulders (you), and people who enjoy knocking chips off other peoples' shoulders (people reverting on your talk page yesterday). I find the latter to be generally loathsome, but that doesn't mean I think it is at all healthy, or helpful, for people to walk around with chips on their shoulders, and I certainly don't want to take their chip and put it on my shoulder. It would have been fairly easy to address their stupidity yesterday in a way that didn't involve you wasting your entire day, and me wasting a chunk of mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just confident in knowing what I was doing wasn't wrong. There is also a message at the bottom of all talk pages that basically say the same thing the "tags" say. It was pointless and other editors created the "wars". So if I have a chip, it's cus of editors on here giving it to me. I guess those who can spot a chip, would also have one. Take care! :) P.S. I addressed the ignorance the right way. Ignoring. That didn't seem to work, so I was provoked to respond in resentful anger (edit summaries) and annoyed disbelief (noticeboard topic). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

lots of names and posts

Boy your talk page is sure getting a good trial run of this new notification system today. I probably shouldn't be adding to it, but couldn't help but notice it's been at the top of my watchlist for a while. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched, me no like this new notification system. You actually have to click on the number; if you just go to your talk page, the notification doesn't reset. I'm spending all my time looking at my talk page history trying to figure out who's posting what when. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep. I think there should have been a lot more testing, and an opt-IN for it for those who wished to try it. I like that if someone actually "links" to your username you can see it .. but for that talk pages? ... Hey - I installed Writ Keepers script pretty much right off that bat. (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js) I feel like we got an "alpha" version shoved at us - hopefully the beta version will be a bit better thought out. My first thought was "gee - now I don't have to ignore things - I can't just pretend I didn't know". Guess I'm just not open to change just for the sake of change anymore ... IDK. — Ched :  ?  19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hit list

Just because someone states it's a "hit list" doesn't mean it is. I have them there for a reason. They have all violated multiple rules and continue to bother me. Case in point, that user isn't supposed to remove them. I am working on something I will type up and remove, but I can't finish it before someone who is guilty comes along and removes it. I'm sick of this, they need to all leave me alone! It's getting old. They are judging my intentions. For the simple fact that user did that, will you please let them know to leave me alone or I will report them on the noticeboard for this and other violations I let slide before with an old article he/she is obviously upset or jealous about. I can assume too, if they want to continue. This is a message I just left someone else about the editor:

Will you do me a favor and let this person know to leave me alone? User talk:Toa Nidhiki05#Backoff Another angry person based on an old article I made changes/fixes to and advised of violations on the talk page (CCM). Not only that, they are assuming it's a "hit list" of people I will report. This is something I posted on my page and should remain due to recent events. They have reverted it twice, and I don't want it to turn out to be like HIAB. Talk about "hell in a bucket" today/lately... I will advise others involved in the last dispute if your help doesn't stop him/her from bothering me. P.S. It's clear they are trying to "hide" any attention about them and my grievance s with him/her. This nonsense is keeping me from being productive, I have to keep babysitting these disruptive users. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not one to read "edit summaries" as means of/for communicating. I feel messages should be left on pages if with instructions or is something personal to a editor. However, "this is not your talk page" was not meant for you in case you thought that. It's for the one who keeps reverting it which is twice now. I didn't plan to leave it forever, but the very fact he/she is on the list is why it exists. They are assuming what it is and actually going to result in what he/she is blaming me for if it keeps up. I didn't replace it to rebel against you, it's there to avoid those users. I have that right, the user removing it is out-of-line. I've just been too passive up until now. They took my kindness as weakness. You letting that person know to leave me alone would be appreciated so I have some support and they know they've been "warned". 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm no longer interested; if you want to try to keep a list of people you don't like on your talk page, in violation of a policy, I'm fairly sure there are lots of people who will take great joy and time out of their busy day to argue with you about it and revert and report and block and tell me they told me so. I was interested in preventing what I saw as the harassment of an IP editor, not take sides in a childish war. I was under the impression you were going back to "productive editing". This ain't that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to? I have been all along. The nonsense from them is what is preventing me. That list existed before the Shared IP flag. It is just now getting attention again. It is not a list of "people I don't like". This is not good faith at all. I resent that I'm being blamed. I am not conducting a childish war either. It was there on my talk page and others came to remove it like... I'll bite my tongue. They are the ones being childish. They need to leave me alone and stop stalking/hounding me. They are violating policy. I'm still doing nothing wrong but cleaning up their messes. I've been busy most of the day with just that. I can't catch my breath before someone else comes along with something ridiculous! This isn't about the list, it's about how people are breaking rules, reverting, causing discord, etc. and getting away with it. I've avoided them and still am not replying in anger, yet they keep bothering me. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine they will continue to bother you as long as you keep re-adding the list of editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Test for OBOD

Does Writ Keeper rock? --Floquensock (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How about now? --Floquensock (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:( --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Writ Keeper rock? --Floquensock (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hw about now? --Floquensock (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Yes he does! --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A dialogue

<poem>

Part of my brain: Hey, Tom, should you maybe track down what policy says you can't remove active block notices, so you can link to it? Another part: Nah, I'm like... positive... 100% 1st part: If you say so... you know, you're pretty good at remembering stuff like that. Who else remembers obscure bits of policy off the top of their heads that well? 2nd part: I know right?!

Mentally pats self on back

Echo: Your edit on User talk:168.190.80.40 has been reverted by Floquenbeam (Show changes)

Starts typing: "Hey, I'll defer to your judgment on this either way, but, just so you know—" consults userpage policy to find the line on removing block notices.

WP:UP#CMT: A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes. (Page lists a bunch of things that aren't active block notices.) Both aforementioned parts of brain: Oh. Shit.

Starts typing again: "A dialogue: ..."
Cue infinite recursion.

</poem>

— PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If any part of your brain wondered "why did Floq say 'quit stirring the pot' instead of 'please quit doing things that might have the unintended effect of stirring the pot'", please apologize to that part of your brain for me. I'm cranky. But yes, even if policy had said otherwise, I think that type of thing rarely helps. For example, I seldom restore blanked declined unblock requests unless they put a new request up. All it does it upset them, and any admin worth their salt reviewing an unblock request is going to look at the page history. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

All true. And yeah, no offense taken! Well, maybe a little. But I can rather relate, seeing as I'm currently on a self-imposed exile my favorite project, simply because I couldn't take the stress of a minor dispute with a few other admins there. Someday I really need to write Wikipedia:Wikipedia is therapy. Not that I'm saying you need therapy. Just that stress/burnout/crankiness/what-have-you is far too common here for that link to be red.
Well, I'm rambling as always. As to the actual content of what you just said, I agree with you more or less. That's definitely a policy where IAR can be applied a good percentage of the time. I'm not sure how much I trust every admin to check the page history, but that says more about our internal problems than anything else. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

New version of OBoD script

Hey, Floq, just wanted to let you know that I made a major update to the OBoD script; it no longer relies on cookies. Let me know if it starts working for you. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I bypassed my browser's cache (which I assume loads the new script), but... nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Old FORTRAN coder than I am, I remembered Step One of debugging, and removed everything from my .js file except your script. Now it works perfectly. I'll have to figure out what the conflict was later. Thanks much for this, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, I'm glad to get my orange bar back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I think what I'll do is try to pressure Facebook into adding an orange bar to their interface. That way, it will be modern and stylish again and Wikipedia will re-implement it four or five years later. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Emily Jones

Oops... Please try again. All you reverted is the spelling of "seat" back to "set".[38] Apteva (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops indeed. Looks like I was beaten to it, but... why didn't you just do it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I certainly could have, but I had already reverted it twice, which is more than I like to do. So I reported it to WP:BLPN instead. Since being blocked for 3RR very early on, I stay pretty far away from the limit. Apteva (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I would love to be able to say that it's crazy to worry about that in this case, but... there are some pretty judgement-challenged people out there, so I understand. I've blocked the IP for adding it back, and it's on my watchlist in case they get bored in the next hotel they stay at. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
As it is a Hilton Hotels IP, I would suggest a 31 hour block instead of a week, though. Apteva (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I almost {{anonblock}}ed it for a few months; there's been nothing but vandalism from there. Last block was for 48 hours, I settled for normal escalating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I noticed a vandal removal edit by one of the earlier users of this IP, in checking some of the other edits (I must be dislextic, that was a vandal edit). Apteva (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point.

I ended up changing to Oppose here. You raised some good points and I appreciate that. While I would love to have a tool like this, you are right that the misuse and abuse potential is too high to risk implementation. Like a knife, it could be used as a weapon just as easily as a tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my thought, mainly. I can see times where I wouldn't mind having this tool, but I'm too sure it would be abused to support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Floquenbeam, thank you again for the advice the other day and your explaining in Primark's talk. I am sure that Wikipedia will be a better place thanks to your great contribution. I wish you all the best. Cheers, New worl (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

nice people say nice things

Floquenbeam, please come back to the floq! darwinfish 09:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

What the Floq! Floqing come back! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bish, Hi Kiefer, thanks. Currently enjoying my time away quite a bit, but I don't imagine this is forever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

courtesy notification

It has been September since about 1994, so I assume you're back already. Or, just in case you are back already, this is a courtesy notification that I quoted you (not in any exciting way) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy note, but I am pleasantly surprised to find that I don't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess that sounded snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I just meant that I don't really care about that RFB, or any of the the associated "editors" involved in the old incident that you alluded to when quoting me, or what little faction is trying to grab onto power this week. Indeed, I find it a little embarrassing that I used to care. I highly recommend not caring to you as well. Not caring feels so good that I plan to go back to it, effective immediately. There's a mojito with my name on it, a garden growing so fast I think I can actually see it happen, and a chair on the patio next to the garden where I can sit and watch it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think that statement belonged under "nice people say nice things"? Good idea, to care about things of value, like a growing garden, or Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, ready for the Main page tomorrow (later today here) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, your ability be productive without getting distracted by all the weasels around here is a constant source of inspiration. As is the fact that, as far as I can remember, you have only been upbeat and said nice things about anyone, anywhere, ever. I inherited an appreciation of Bach from my dad, and it (almost) brought tears to my eyes when my daughter recently performed Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring at a piano recital. Congratulations on your impending DYK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
My corn isn't as high as an elephant's eye yet, but it is coming along, as are the cucumbers, squash and everything else in my little 25x100+ garden. I'm beer in hand after watering, currently. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You're much more productive than I am; I've only got about 60 SF, and after years of failure it's mostly filled with things I can't kill, like beets and potatoes and cucumbers. Still, it's doing great this year. Fooling around with a square foot garden this year too. Hi Dennis, hope all's well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm studying grow lights for work, so I got a good start early this year. I can't say I'm a good farmer, I just have the good fortune of a neighbor that has too many tractors and too much free time. Can't plow 10'x10'. As for here, not much has changed, and I just try to keep my expectations low and do what I can to serve. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
ps to the sermon above, central line of the cantata: "To do good and to communicate forget not", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll keep poking my nose in once in a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

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

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

A year ago, you were the 157th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, with my defiant red cat, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to self-report to you

Flo, Per our discussion, and my voluntary restrictions, I'm going to self-report that I have hat'ed a discussion on Jimbo's page where he was speculating on the wiki handle of Eric Snowden. I will only it once, if it's removed, I'll leave it alone, however, I did hat it which is in violation of our agreement, I also belive WP:OUTING permits this to be done. If you disagree, you can block me if need be and I will not object. The link for that hat'ed message is Here  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Kosh, I'm not really here, but since I feel bad that I never replied to your message a month or two ago, I'll avoid being a jerk and doing that again. Here are my thoughts:
  • I'm not going to block you. Our agreement wasn't that I'd block you if you didn't follow those voluntary restrictions; the agreement was that if you did follow them, I wouldn't feel compelled to open an RFC or something.
  • The problem, as I saw it, wasn't occasional mistakes, it was the frequency of such mistakes, and the edit warring that followed, and the fact that (not trying to be a mean) you were almost always wrong. Or perhaps better wording: your take on the situation almost never matched everyone else's. I can't get too excited about one hatting in several months, with no revert. As long as you don't ratchet up drama by edit warring or reporting him to ANI or something, there's no real harm.
  • In this one particular case, I actually think you are right, and Jimbo is wrong. But within limits, Jimbo can do pretty much anything he wants, including things that would get others banned, and he seldom listens to others' opinions if they disagree with his own. So there is zero benefit in arguing with him.
  • The concern isn't really outing Snowden; the concern is Jimbo starting a witch hunt, which encourages others to "research" this, and eventually someone will provide "evidence" that some poor schlub is Snowden, and it turning out not to be true but we've still made life miserable for them.
  • I'm not going to enforce anything; I'm not here enough to even dream of starting an RFC (others might). My advice, for what it's worth, is: I think it's very important you continue to follow 1RR policy; if you do something and someone reverts you, then don't redo it.
  • I think you'll find it's good for your karma to not get involved in stuff like this at all. It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Jimbo's page is a good one to watch to laugh at fools, but it isn't a good page to watch to Keep Up With The Great Issues Of The Day. Nothing important happens there.
  • Hope all is well with you; I'm going back to the real world now.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

Seeing your edit on your sandbox, I'd assume you don't like the visual editor. Some browsers can't handle it. From now on you'll have to click "Edit source". NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, of course, this is the long-promised "Visual Editor". Thanks. How come it only showed up when I edited my sandbox, and not this user talk page, or ANI? No, never mind, don't worry about it, I'll look into it myself sometime in the future. It isn't that it didn't work, I guess, just that I couldn't find the signature button, and I wasn't expecting it. Plus, I'm a dinosaur and don't like change. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even notice the "edit source" tab there. So if that's all I need to do to avoid change, I can adjust. Barely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want classic editing by default, try this. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In answer to your question, Floq, VisualEditor is currently only enabled on article pages and on user pages (including subpages). It is not enabled on any talk pages, nor in Wikipedia space. And it doesn't let you use wiki-markup, so if you want to sign something, you need to use the edit source button. Risker (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NF and Risker, for catching me up. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You move me

Wild Thing
Floquenbeam!
You make my heart sing!
You make everything ... groovy!
Floquenbeam!

Floquenbeam!
I think I need you!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keifer. You realize, I assume, I didn't do any of that for your benefit, but I can see why you'd appreciate it. And as ...complicated... as my opinion of you is (you're no angel, as I'm sure you're well aware), I'd hate to see you banned and Ironholds let off with a wag of the finger in the current ArbCom case. So good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

hard to argue with the above. Also, thanks for not letting those two get away with the hypocrisy. Generic Sketchy Editor (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia admin" part of my brain is doing the math: 90% chance of returning blocked/banned user, 9% chance of sock of active user, 1% chance other. The "normal human" part of my brain says "Thanks for the support, whoever you are". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Haha, returning banned user it is. Also, I like humans. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Proof that it is possible to reverse Wikipedia brainwashing. Andreas JN466 19:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Great to see you editing again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

none

Maybe you should be telling Wilkins to stay away from me when he keeps dropping by my talk to be an ass. Derp. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that from your page, and will leave him a message as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI mention

You've been mentioned (not in a negative way) at WP:ANI#Message forgery.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it blew over before I got a chance to say anything useful. Thanks for letting me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Arctic Kangaroo

Your talk page says you're here for light duties only..... so kudos for this which was opposite to my (eventual) vote, clearly against consensus and an excellent example of WP:IAR. I hope it sticks (I mean I hope other editors don't just override you) and I hope AK wises up. I think the first might happen, but doubtful about the second - however, we can always hope! Again, good call. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I think it's hard to argue an indef block isn't warranted, but (a) there won't be any more disruption, because if there is I'll block him myself, so I don't think I'm risking much, and (b) I dislike the way ban/block discussions usually happen on ANI, and felt this was snowballing too fast; a final, calm quiet word might be what's needed. I've been wrong before and will be wrong again, but it seemed worth a shot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo

I am frankly baffled by your action regarding Arctic Kangaroo. S/he has demonstrated conclusively that s/he doesn't understand the terms of the CC license. On what basis can it possibly be acceptable to continue to accept contributions in such circumstances? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect lots of people don't fully understand the CC-BY-SA license, but I understand your concern. I'm not leaving them unblocked and walking away, I'm going to teach them what it means. If they don't get it, I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The closure stated you indefed AK, I was just wondering, what is the point of a topic ban if they can't contribute in any manner? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That's the second version of Floq's closure you're seeing on ANI; the people above are commenting on the first version. All should become clear if you read Floq's notes on User talk:Arctic Kangaroo. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC).
I see. Thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for closing this tiresome matter. I shall now go back to not watching ANI. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
You may not be fond of WikLove, but I believe what you did today was a nice thing, you kept your cool and made the wise choice, you showed hope in Arctic Kangaroo and his performance here in Wikipedia. Thank you! Prabash.Akmeemana 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably ought to wait until we see how this pans out before giving me a barnstar, but... thank you for the thought. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely should have waited before giving me a barnstar. Sorry if this disappoints. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Nah sorry bout that, silly me rushing to congratulate you at the wrong time, sorta like giving a soldier a medal before he goes to battle. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL

stupid tablet....--Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Floquenbeam. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another User:Arctic Kangeroo question

Greets.

Sorry to be the third person to bring him up on your talk but I was wondering, what made you decide to pull his Talk Page access? Was it something that was said in the E-Mail or has he done something that I missed? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 22:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[Sir Floq's tps, sock, press secretary, Miss Bishonen, intervenes again.] Sir Floq does not care to comment. The Arbitration Committee are aware of his reasons for the action in question. Sir Floq regrets being reticent, but the user's privacy is involved. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC).
Indeed. Arbcom are well able to handle this very trivial situation, and as far as I know, they have been aware of it since March (or before).
Now, if we're going to keep up this play-acting thing - Matticus, please see me in my study before prep on Monday :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Demi, you can't bench one of my players! The big game is on Sunday! (That being said, I thought Floquen's rationale at the talk page was clear enough... a can of squiggly things we don't want to open) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There's nothing quite so liberating as discovering that you suddenly have a press secretary. I highly recommend it. Finally, I can edit drunk, or in a foul mood, and leave it to my press secretary to explain everything away.
Anyway, in this case, my press secretary has it precisely correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Dammit, I needed a press secretary ES&L 10:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I would further note that even talk page messages are CC-licensed, and since one of the major block reasons was that AK was not considered competent to release things under such a licence, talk page access removal makes sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Humour appreciated, but if someone had just said it was stuff in the E-Mail then I would have been happy. Thanks either way. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 16:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note from your press secretary

I have changed your "Thanks for helping out" note to "Thanks for pestering a blocked user", as clearly being what you meant to say. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

You'd already ably handled that problem; I was more talking about his overall vandalism work. You catch more flies, etc. And good to see that you're back to work on Monday morning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You're being wonderful again. This is the only warning you'll receive. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

Thanks

I don't know this policy; but see change the image. Thank you! — ♫♫ Leitoxx   The Police ♪♪ — 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Message left on your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
And...now — ♫♫ Leitoxx   The Police ♪♪ — 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick note on my last edit summary

Floquenbeam,

On my last edit summary I said I would "Take this to AFD " . That was me editing without coffee. I took it to AN instead. Didn't want you to think I started an AFD discussion  :)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I saw what happened, and think that was a reasonable approach. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

facepalm

Well, that was embarrassing. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just being a snot. Pay no attention to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm glad someone pointed it out. It was pretty bad. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your question on WK's talk

In response to your first question, it definitely should be possible. I've got my user links floating at the top now. (See my CSS.) I'm messing around with it right now; it's not entirely straightforward (so far I've got the "pagetitle" and "edit" floating, but nothing else), but I'll get back to you.

In response to your second question, I presume fixing it should be possible, but (I think) allowing scrolling would involve actually making into a frame. That may or may not be possible with JavaScript. Ignatzmice•talk 00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I fiddled with this a few months ago, but didn't/don't really know what I'm doing. If you succeed, let me know; in my heart, I know I'm never going to try it myself, that's just a recurring dream where I claw my way out of the stone age and figure out how the internet works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay. What skin are you using? This is NOT pretty in Monobook, but it might be okay doesn't work at all (gimme a minute) in Vector...
#p-cactions {
    z-index: 100; //bring (all) to front
    position: fixed; //...and keep them there
    background: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8); //R, G, B, transparency (adjust or remove at will)
}
Ignatzmice•talk 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Like all stone age editors, I use Monobook, and am unlikely to change; the Vector search box is in the wrong place, and I'm too old to learn a new location. I'll give it a try, and see just how not pretty it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're not using Vector I will focus all my energies on beautifying it in Monobook. (Though I'm most of the way getting it functional in Vector. I think.) Ignatzmice•talk 00:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It works for me! Thank you. I don't really mind it being ugly (in fact, it isn't really ugly). The fact that the page scrolls behind the tabs (if you know what I mean) isn't really a problem. Yay you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, to beautify: add the lines
    border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; //change color as you like
    padding: 0px 0px 10px 0px; //top right bottom left—note I have a "Retina" display, you may need to adjust the numbers so the box is not too big or small
within those brackets. It didn't start working for you until you added the bit about the user links? Funny, that. Ignatzmice•talk 00:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It worked, but I actually kind of like it the first way. Thanks again, this is one of those little tiny things that has slightly annoyed me for years, but I never did anything about it because it didn't annoy me a lot. (Well, I still haven't done anything about it, but I also never asked anyone to do anything about it.) Let's see, what am I competent to do in return.... (gulp).... ok, how about: I owe you one unblock, no matter what horrible thing you do. Or an indef block of an enemy of your choice. Or some adminish janitorial work someday. Or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh. Ignatzmice•talk 01:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam/Archive_5&oldid=1146664766"