User talk:Floquenbeam

Notes

Normal humans: I'm not online as much as many other admins. You probably should bug another admin if you need something in a hurry.
Admins: I usually check in at least a few times a day, but if something is time sensitive, go ahead and undo or change any admin action I've taken without feeling like you have to talk to me first.
WP:SOLVED
WP:LIGHTBULB
WP:VOGONS
WP:BEDFELLOWS

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Thank you

Thanks

You're welcome.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

@Andrew Davidson: I don't know about that, but there is a CSS trick to remove the rollback link on mobile devices only, if you're interested. Just put the following code into your common.css page (creating it if necessary):

@media (max-width: 999px){
	.mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
}

Let me know if you want to try it but are having issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, no worries, I've done the same many times myself. And hi, WK, nice of you to drop by as always. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC2 thing

Hi Floquenbeam. You wrote:

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

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

Kww himself wrote:

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

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

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

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

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