User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:43, 11 January 2016

Soren (given name)

your answer is provided in the talk page!

Happy New Year!

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

POV editing

User Meganesia is promoting Assyrian POVs on the Assyrian people article.

Ariel Winter

Hi, I think it'd be ok to lift the full protection now given that both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Celebrity_breast_size and Talk:Ariel Winter#Breast Reduction have arrived at a consensus. -- Chamith (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 Socks

It seems that User:Voyevoda got 2 socks as User:Voevoda and User:Воевода. Worth checking.--Galassi (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 this is not formatting correctly.--Galassi (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

What if I have business w/ you as admin?

Excuse me, but do you mean, as admin, to prohibit any post or Q I might have of you, s/ you perform any admin action I have Q about, concerning me? (And if so, isnt' that against policy? [You are admin so I'd expect you to know that.]) IHTS (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the (unlikely) event that I should take admin action in matters concerning you, there would of course be no problem about posting here, in a matter-of-fact way. In any other matter, consider yourself banned from here. Do not answer to this or enquire further now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, that is decent of you (i.e. "unlikely"). Sincere, IHTS (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think he's doing you a favour. But, it's good that you think so

HNY :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS, you've been clearly asked to stay off this talk page, including not further commenting on this request (as you then did). You've also had it clarified that you can still contact here for administrative matters; that can't be banned. If you comment here further (except about an admin action affecting you), I'll presume you don't intend to stop, and take appropriate action from there. For clarity's sake, if you need to reply to this, do so on my talk page, not here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just pack it in

Removing items from my talk page, including my own comments, will soon end badly for you. It appears that you need to take a long break. Stop now before it's too late. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having friendly encouraging chats with banned harassment vandals is not looked upon lightly. Do no reinstate that banned vandal's posting again, or you will be blocked for proxying for a banned user and for enabling harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's my talkpage, and you have now twice deleted my own comments. Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it back, FP@S

Blocks work well with vandals, POV pushers, banned editors, etc. As you well know from your long, long history of dealing with such editors. They don't work so well with estabished editors who happen to disagree with you. I've unblocked both TRM and Cassianto, because this could easily be resolved without threats and blocking, and maybe just maybe this can somehow be resolved without long ANI threads or ArbCom cases. I have long respected your work here, but this was not impressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I too have a lot of respect for you, and for that reason won't challenge your unblocks. Nevertheless, I fully stand by what I did. I have very little patience with established editors making common cause with banned harassers. It was extremely poor form for TRM to respond to the harasser in the first place, rather than revert them on sight, which is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. Reinstating the posting after explicitly being warned about it was way over the line. The policy on this is crystal clear: if you reinstate postings of banned users, you are taking full responsibility for them. If the posting is harassment, and you reinstate it, then you will be treated as a harasser just as much as if you were its original author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even enough patience in order to stick to the rules, eh? Seeing as I'm here, maybe you'd like to translate the badly worded wiki-speak you seem so eloquent in using? Who knows, I may learn something? Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are evidently not here to actually solve or discuss anything but merely to spread your usual snark: go away, there's nothing more to be said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evident to you, and only you, that is. I'll tell you what is evident; you are not here to abide by the rules either, as clearly illustrated here tonight. Cassianto^Talk 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)First, I believe you that this was probably a banned editor, based on their behavior and my sense of smell. But it isn't like it's been proven somewhere, has it? If someone doesn't think it's a banned editor, is there something besides your word (well, and my +1 of your word) to point them too? You probably have a better reputation than most any other admin for ID'ing these people, but it still can't really boil down to "because I say so", can it? A fantastic way of handling this would have been to explain why you're sure it was a banned editor, and (if TRM had not removed the post themselves after explanation), asked another uninvolved admin to review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Just so you know, "Perfect", I responded to an IP, not a "banned harasser". You may have a list of IPs that you consider "banned harassers" but I don't. The information the IP gave was interesting and shows your misbehaviour, just as the current threat at ANI is doing, and the thread on my talkpage where you threatened to block me for re-opening a discussion, and the thread were you blocked me and revoked talkpage access without any warning other than in an edit summary and where you blocked another editor with no warning at all. Just take a look in the mirror. Multiple misuses of the tools in 24 hours. Plus you were INVOLVED in all of it. Arbcom beckons. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Floq: TRM is a refdesk regular; he knows the signature of that banned creep perfectly well, just as everybody does who posts there. At the time I removed the posting, the IP had already been blocked and was duly marked as a block evader (by another admin), so there was nothing difficult to understand about the situation. TRM: I never had any dealings with you. I approached you yesterday as an uninvolved admin trying to stop your edit-warring. You don't magically make me "involved" by then turning against me with the kind of abuse you did [1], or by "banning" me from your talkpage – if every edit-warring editor could that easily make themselves immune from admin intervention, by simply spewing insults against any uninvolved admin that crosses their path, we'd never have any admin action at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A complete lie. I knew nothing about the IP at all. Nothing. I responded because the IP posted some informative items about your "behaviour". Please retract the lie. As for Ref desk regular, no, a ref desk talk page semi-regular. I have never seen this IP edit style before. You made mistake after mistake here, the sooner you realise it, the easier the Arbcom case will be. If you stopped before you abused the tools, that would have been helpful, but you didn't. I don't hold out much hope, but an apology would be a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that blocks are only meant for vandals and that they should not be used on regular editors is held by some, but it has failed repeatedly to gain consensus. While proper warning for Cassianto would have been a good idea, the block against TRM was sound. The difference being that TRM was informed and warned.

When a banned user posts copy/paste harassment on several user talk pages they are meant to be reverted. For two reasons, 1) banned users may not post, 2) it is harassment and harassment needs to be removed from Wikipedia.

When a user restored the content of a banned user they take responsibility for the edit. If the edit is harassment they are taking responsibility for that too. This is the sort of thing we could have discussed if we talked about this first.

I will also point out that your unblock was contrary our admin policy. You should have tried to talk this out first, and if you could not find an agreement you should have sought a consensus. When you just unblock you are gaming the wheel warring policy to force the last word in a situation.

I was in the middle of discussing the Cassianto block with Future where you acted. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you @Floquenbeam:, but in this case I think you got it wrong. HighInBC 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Perfect" got it wrong. Four times. Flo used common sense, something which is clearly lacking in this "admin". It was on my talk page, I'd already responded, and was given a trite warning via an edit summary, nothing else. Then my talkpage access was revoked instantly. That's admin abuse, right there. Flo was right, although we don't want it, this is going to Arbcom, and like other admins recently who have abused the tools again and again, threatened and got INVOLVED, this admin will cease to be allowed to continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you would want your behaviour examined in yet another arbcom case. HighInBC 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm "surprised" to see you muscling in on other peoples disputes Chillum. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're surprised. This isn't about me, it's about your buddy who has made two bogus blocks tonight, failed to give proper warnings, violated talkpage guidelines, threatened editors, and acted contrary to INVOLVED. I have no problem at all seeing Arbcom once again. Do you and your buddy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, HighInBC is Chillum! That explains everything. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum: TRM, HiBC, if you guys don't knock it off, I will block myself for a week. And will not unblock myself, nor accept an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. I was curious that we had some kind of "uninvolved" onlooker, but now I know who it is, everything is suddenly crystal clear. I'll go clear out my underwear drawer. Don't block yourself, you're one of the able in the land of the incompetent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<current activity> Waiting for User:Cassianto to be the one told to STFU

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 Ultimatum: TRM, HiBC, if you guys don't knock it off, I will block myself for a week. And will not unblock myself, nor accept an unblock. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 :Don't do that.  I was curious that we had some kind of "uninvolved" onlooker, but now I know who it is, everything is suddenly crystal clear.  I'll go clear out my underwear drawer.  Don't block yourself, you're one of the able in the land of the incompetent.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
+::<current activity> Waiting for [[User:Cassianto]] to be the one told to STFU {{wink}} [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)