User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8



Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is If I may..... Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That was very quick. Congratulations on your efficiency. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Let it go. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You, sir, are evil to the CORE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh. The cold never bothered me anyway. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Some levity

I feel your pain regarding this. Although in my house "Do You Want to Build a Snowman" seems to have won out. I find wine helps, and if I've had enough I sometimes even join in. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wine often helps with many kid-related things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely or for one unit of Planck time, whichever comes first, for mentioning that goddamned song and getting it stuck in my head. You may appeal this block by mentioning something that's at least better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Floquenbeam (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Wish You Were Here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Pink Floyd is always acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Song: Agnus Dei was performed by this singer in a way that we held our breath, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That was going to be my second choice, if SB didn't like Floyd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned that one because it's on the Main page. My second choice would be the following Dona nobis pacem. - Did you know that I sang it in the US on 16 March 2003, the day before the war, - and we sang as if they could hear as in Washington, - still chilling to remember. During the reception after the concert, there was a minute of silence for peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Great song/band choice! My favorite song is probably Shine On You Crazy Diamond, pts. 1–5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Deeply sorry for forcing such a horrible piece of music into anyone's head with my edit summary. I hate it too. Go Phightins! 01:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Favorite Floyd, that's tough. Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a great one off Wish You Were Here (as is Have a Cigar, I wonder if the music execs even realized they were being parodied in it), but I might have to go with Hey You or Comfortably Numb, or Us and Them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


You blocked this user in April of last year, for edit warring and for his apparent inability to understand the concept thereof. He has now posted a reasonable unblock request, and to my knowledge (without benefit of CU} he has not edited here since his block. As the blocking admin, what are your thoughts on his request, which I am inclined to accept unless there are factors not known to me? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

going to need 12 hours before I can look at this, I have 3 minutes and I'm out the door. This is the Godzilla guy, right? I think he might have socked but I think it's been a while. If you feel good about unblocking go for it that's fine. If you want to wait half a day I'll check to see if my memory is faulty. Sorry can't be more help sooner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury:: OK, my memory was pretty good. I blocked him in April 2013. It appears he socked in October 2013 (see User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#TurokSwe... back?). He then requested an unblock in November 2013 (see User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#TurokSwe), and this was denied. To my knowledge, he hasn't socked since. I've no objection to trying an unblock. But I suggest in addition to edit warring, he be reminded about how consensus works, or he'll likely land right back in trouble again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

RevDel request

I think I got it ... deleted username when you edit while logged out, and content of next revision that showed the IP address. Let me know if that didn't do the trick. Go Phightins! 15:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: and @Bencherlite: (or some slightly confusing combination of the two, plus apparently an oversighter?) thank you all. That's perfect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Move in harmony

How do you like my latest slogan, derived from a piece of music a friend wrote? See also hope over experience, today, a year later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As a description of how this place works, it's not very good. As a slogan for how it should work, it's very good. Thanks for the smile, needed it today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a description ;) - derived from Move Like This, by 28bytes (should tell him). A year ago, I almost gave up, remember? (link from hope) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
ps: moving image, your barkingmoon, see also In Freundschaft - and that I wrote RIP on my user page by moving reformation before peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For another smile, I hope: Did you know that Carmen has a happy ending (after having been pregnant for about 15 months)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bonkers The Clown

Curious as to why this needs to be protected. There's little harm in others being allowed to post on his talk page, and recommended for some Wikiwork (AFDs, etc). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:
First, before I forget to say it at the end: feel free to undo anything if you think it's best.
I indef blocked him, and someone else removed talk page access a day later, so it's impossible for him to have a conversation with anyone. I thought page protection was a good idea at the time because someone was asking him questions and/or asking him to edit something, and I wanted to discourage that. If he's indef blocked, with probably a year until his next appeal, I think we'd want to limit things like AFD notices, invitations to RFC's, etc. Even the POTD "thank you" template you left on his page technically encourages him to edit the encyclopedia.
But again, if you like it unprotected better, I'm OK with that. I won't be around to discuss further, so whatever you decide is fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a solid enough rationale, yes. I'm just curious as it's not usual practice. Even Br'er Rabbit's talk page is not protected, and his socking (and blocking) was much more heated than Bonkers'. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would try unprotect and see how it works. I watch the Br'er Rabbit page, and nothing worse happened than that I get accused once a year of making it a shrine when I remember Precious ;) The last "The shrine will continue to grow." was obviously wrong because it was the last entry, dated 18 September 2013. - I love the Kiefer.Wolfowitz talk. Remember Remember not, Lord, our offences? (Talkpage) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Meh. Consistency is over-rated, but you're right, Gerda, a consistent approach would be to unprotect. Far be it from me to prevent people from leaving "I miss you" notes to BTC. Unprotecting in a moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you with the good news that "Ich gehe nicht schnell" is now GA ;) - working on a lovely rose (concert on 3 October), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
ps: we sang Remember not, Lord, our offences --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Henry Ossawa Tanner - The Good Shepherd - Google Art Project.jpg

dreaming in hope

A year later, I am still here, expanded Magnificat and translated the dream ;) - I sent most of my talk to the archive on the occasion, but what you gave me is now under blushing (#10), returned to the splendour of its full header. You helped me a lot to survive, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A friend died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of Austrian economics WP:BATTLEGROUND

Hi Newyorkbrad, I'm cross-posting this to your and NewYorkBrad's talk pages as both of you were drafting arbitrators of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. I am concerned that despite the ArbCom case, the dispute between at least two of the key participants has become personal as they continue to clash with one another in other topic spaces. In particular, it appears at least one editor is stalking the other editor's edits. I explain my concerns here.[1] I'm not sure how to proceed since the topic-space is unrelated to Austrian economics, but it's clear that the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality continues to be a serious problem. I think an interaction ban is probably in order as this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident, but I'm not sure what the correct venue would be. Should I ask for an interaction ban as an Amendment to the ArbCom case? Or at WP:AE? Or at WP:ANI? Or is there some other course of action? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you're not online as much as other admins, so I've raised the issue at AN/I.[2] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for doing the right thing regarding Sitush. LHMask me a question 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock of Sitush

I fear that your unblock may stir quite a bit of controversy, considering that the AN/I thread is still pretty active... I urge you to reconsider. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but the fact that Sitush hasn't even responded yet concerns me over your actions. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah; if we've really reached the point where an editor like Sitush is valued less than this user, and the WP:NEVERSAYANYTHINGINANGEREVER is the most important policy, where one intemperate remark results in an indef block and a long ridiculous argument about it, then WP has finally jumped the shark as an actual encyclopedia. If that really is the case, more drama doesn't matter. Although it appears WP is still fairly healthy as a MMORPG, in which case, everyone should be happy about more drama. So it's win-win. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It was quite interesting watching some of the MMORPG players trying to figure out which way the wind was blowing in that thread, so they could decide what their opinion on it might be. Thank you for doing the right thing. LHMask me a question 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I do have an opinion. Good unblock, Floq. The ability to see through the smoke and noise is rare these days around here. It restores my faith that it is alive and, well..., alive, really. ty. Begoontalk 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Begoon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No. I'm thanking you. You have no idea how it is to have to watch impotently whilst context is ignored and "justice" is doled out on the strength of a pretty much poked and baited reaction, uttered in a moment of anger, while everyone piles onto said reaction with no regard (deliberately or otherwise) for the big picture. No... hang on... you do - that's why you unblocked. ty. Begoontalk 21:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Good unblock, good work. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Rule-breaking! *swoon*
  • Oh God! You broke... a rule (see reaction, right). Yes, but in doing so you finally took a stand against the baiting and sycophantic pandering that allows professional activist editors to run the show. Nailed it. Keep it up. Stlwart111 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, he didn't just "break a rule" and do so for the side of good. He took advantage of a loophole in our policies that allows the second mover in any dispute to gain an enormous advantage. His undoing of the original block, while violating our policies regarding undoing admin actions, is unfortunately not subject to an automatic desysop. Any admin that undid Floquenbeam would be subject to such a desysop. It really doesn't matter which way you think the block state should be, it's irresponsible to support such cynical misbehaviour. Floquenbeam has an unfortunate habit of using this loophole to ensure that we do things the Floquenbeam way.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So, basically he didn't break a rule at all, and you're just pissed off that you can't just undo Floque's unblock without being desysop'd? Good to know. LHMask me a question 23:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So he "took advantage of a loophole in our policies" and "[did] so for the side of good". While ever we ignore all rules with regard to the professional activist who has been pushing a block for a fortnight (breaching canvassing, NPA, and CIV in the process) we should extend the same courtesy to those willing to stand up against such silliness. Stlwart111 23:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, he absolutely violated WP:RAAA. I'm upset that Floquenbeam has a habit of unblocking disruptive editors, and takes advantage of a policy loophole to do so. This is the third such unblock I'm aware of, and it's not like I make a habit of monitoring his unblocks.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, he did not. It's not a "loophole", it's designed to keep angry, law-and-order admins from simply reinstating a block when a good admin like Floque unblocks. It's a good policy. LHMask me a question 00:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How can you read his action as following WP:RAAA? Where's his participation in a discussion prior to the unblock?—Kww(talk) 00:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    An admin gauging the weight of arguments in a discussion, and arriving at a decision, is not required to participate in that discussion prior to making the decision. I see what Floque did as similar to closing a somewhat contentious AFD in that way. It's not a !vote, Kww, and the weight of the arguments favored unblocking a valued contributor, with a clean block log, who used intemperate words. All other argument basically boiled down to "but he didn't apologize!", "it doesn't matter if he was serious", or some variant of those. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, perhaps vehemently. I'm also quite certain that you'll be wrong when you do. LHMask me a question 00:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I most certainly disagree. The only argument in favor of unblocking him was essentially that we should tolerate childish outbursts. That's an argument that holds no weight whatsoever. Editors that cannot refrain from such behaviour have no place among us.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    An editor like Sitush certainly has "a place among us"--much more than "editors" who seem to exist only to promote bureaucratic bullsh. LHMask me a question 01:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • He shouldn't have been blocked in the first place and had the blocking admin been aware of the context, I don't think he would have been. When someone is shoved closer and closer to the edge, their subsequent fall should not be considered a "childish outburst". The word you're looking for is "inevitable". Want to talk about things we shouldn't "tolerate"? I can point you in the right direction. Stlwart111 01:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI

In case you don't keep the Committee of Pigs on your watchlist, I thought I'd let you know that there are a few editors who seem rather serious about taking your unblock before Arbcom. Nothing may come of it, as it feels a lot like people blowing of steam because you didn't check the boxes they wanted you to check before making your decision, but I just didn't want you to be blindsided. LHMask me a question 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: I've ignored most of your comments that I've found offensive, but "Committee of Pigs" is over the top and really inflammatory. Please stop trying to fan the flames. The situation is heated as is. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You've never read Animal Farm, I see. LHMask me a question 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate unblocks

There's no general problem with unblocking people, but there is a substantial problem with the way you do it. Could you have the courtesy to discuss it with people and gain a consensus that the unblock is an appropriate action? Your technique of undoing blocks without discussion or consensus forces everyone else immediately into a corner, where we either have to tolerate your action or violating WP:WHEELWAR. Your unblock of Sitush is a violation of WP:RAAA.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Everybody wasn't already in their respective corners already? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter: no one gave you the power to unilaterally unblock people when the blocking admin objected and there was no consensus to do so.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, this IS the definition of a good unblock. A prolific content editor (more than 100,000 edits of which 85% are in wikispace) with a clean block log has been told "we appreciate the work you do here, please don't go away". Now, you can either accept that we - Wikipedia, that is - are in a better place than we were a few hours ago or you can grumble bureaucratically about the right paperwork not having been filed. Are you on the side of creating drama or creating an encyclopedia, the call is yours. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's the definition of a bad unblock. An editor violated policy, was blocked as a result, and Floquenbeam proceeded to substitute his judgement for the original administrator's without consulting the original administrator or having consensus to override him. It's not a matter of not filing the right paperwork, it's a matter of Floquenbeam misbehaving.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Then try for his tools. See where that gets you. LHMask me a question 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not terribly polite to try to goad/dare/taunt someone into action that would desysop someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought the sarcasm in my reply was obvious. I think any attempt to remove your tools would be wrongheaded and fruitless. LHMask me a question 03:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Lithistman: I think most of your comments contain pretty thick sarcasm and they come off entirely different than you intend them to. You seem like you're so angry it spills into your posts. If anyone wanted to go for Floq's bits it's fairly easy and has been outlined. I see no reason to unless Floq refuses to talk with Mike in his post below. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Two responses: one bureaucratic and one practical.

First, for the general case: You say that an unblock like this gives me an unfair second mover advantage, but the other choice is an even worse first mover advantage. No one "gave" Mike V the power to "unilaterally" block people, either. You block when you think there would be consensus for it if it was discussed; if someone unblocks, you gain consensus to reblock. The problem is there are lots and lots and lots of cases where no consensus develops either way, but if we do things your way, the result is a sustained block with no consensus, whereas my way, the worst that happens is an unblock with no consensus. I know which way I'd prefer things, I guess I know which way you prefer things, but I'm not taking advantage of a "loophole". It's a feature, not a bug. It works out this way for a reason, because it's the most stable way to do it. Just like WP:BRD is a relatively more stable way to edit; we'd have a nightmare on our hands if anyone could change an article, and if anyone else didn't like it, they would have to get consensus before they could change it back. If we required a consensus to unblock someone once they were blocked by an admin, the number of poor blocks will increase.

Also, I'm curious. Did any of the rogue unblocks I've made that bother you end up being reversed by a consensus somewhere? I don't think they have, but if I'm wrong and they have, feel free to point them out.

Second, for this particular case, from a practical point of view: I'll repeat what I said in the unblock log: That was not an actual threat. If Sitush is really leaving (I hope not), one intemperate comment doesn't need to sully a reputation forever. No one honestly thinks that was an actual threat of violence. It was unwise, hotheaded, and atypical hyperbole in response to someone making fun of editors feeling threatened in real life. Almost everyone who commented at ANI knows this in their hearts. People are not upset that a real threat of violence was made; they see something they can cynically pretend to interpret as a real threat of violence in order to act like they are on the side of goodness and righteousness and law and order.

If Sitush had made a habit of this, I wouldn't have unblocked him. But he doesn't. WP is acting dysfunctionally about this, and I attempted to short circuit the dysfunction.--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the most stable way for admin actions to work is for people to defer to the original action unless there's a consensus to unblock. Your way condemns us to an eternal sequence of Eric Corbetts.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dreadful thing that is. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is, and it points out the hypocrisy of Floquenbeam's comments. Eric most certainly does make a habit of making incivil statements and threats, and Floquenbeam feels free to unblock Eric or shorten his blocks based on his personal view that he can override perfectly valid blocks whenever he feels that Wikipedia is being "dysfunctional". If he repeatedly unblocks habitual offenders, it makes it hard to take his claim that he overrode this block because the behaviour wasn't habitual very seriously.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
If we had an eternal sequence of Eric Corbetts, Wikipedia's problems would be solved. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid that we are condemned to be having an eternal sequence of Kwws and Demiurge1000s. (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

The decision to unblock belonged to the community. There are nowhere near a consensus to reverse this block. Please re-read WP:ADMIN. You don't get to short circuit a debate with your preferred outcome. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Because cupcakes are nice, and I thought you should have some. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(hijacking Heim's thread) Jeez, y'all really need to learn how to take a weekend off every now and then. I always miss the "interesting" things. After trying to do my bit in defending Sitush from IAC, I'd probably be considered invooooooolved anyway. Writ Keeper  16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Writing on the wall

From Mike V's successful RfA (closed 22 Feb 2008) ...

  • I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not, from the reports he has made to WP:UAA. [...] rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with rspeers. An admin should be a bit less strict. Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems overeager to use the block button. Admins should follow a generally conciliatory approach wherever possible. [...] User:Dorftrottel 19:16, February 15, 2008
  • You seem far to "free-and-fast" with your vandalism reporting [...] Pedro : Chat 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first. Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions, even since last RFA was declined. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't like freedom, I do. Further elaboration: this is in concurrence with rspeer and Pedro. I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving. User:Krator (t c) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Over-eager with his desire to block [...] DDStretch (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [..] In the particular case of this editor, the separate reasons of having a tendency to be too quick to want to block, and the unwillingness to go for open review, though separate, have the overall effect of making me think I am no longer doubtful, but that the editor could do with a bit more time before becoming an admin. [...] 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstretch (talk • contribs)
  • [...] Those ARE hasty trigger happy reports. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [...] some of the points brought up in the Oppose section would indicate that this user is using policy as a replacement for common sense. A good admin needs to be capable of using both. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I presume the '...' at the end of the first sentence means 'over 6 1/2 years ago' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mmm, cherries are always nicest when you pick your own. Neatsfoot (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is that really necessary? Is it not possible to approve of the unblock without taking shots at the blocking admin? We're all trying to do the right thing here, imperfect humans that we are. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's a bit out of order. Even those of us who disagreed with the block realize that we're not talking an obviously bad block that's been overturned, but an understandable one which perhaps didn't take into account the entire background. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    While I agree with you that disagreeing with the block doesn't mean thinking "Mike V is a terrible admin", in fairness to Ihardlythinkso, a few editors have been clamoring for Floque's bit, so perhaps Ihts was simply letting those people know that all (or at least most) administrators reside in houses of glass. LHMask me a question 14:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone "clamouring for Floq's bit" over this needs to have a good hard look at (a) the wider situation here, and (b) why they're actually here. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree. LHMask me a question 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sitush

Hey there Floq,

I noticed your unblock of Sitush and I was hoping you would be willing to start a dialogue with me. If you’re open that the idea, I’d like to begin by hearing more about your perspective on your reason(s) for the unblock. Would you be willing to elaborate further on your rationale? When the issue was first brought to my attention and having never (to the best of my knowledge) interacted with Sitush or Demiurge1000, I was concerned with the level to which Sitush was escalating the conversation and thought through a number of our policies and potential outcomes before issuing the block. I also consulted with two other administrators (separately) after I made the block and revision deleted Sitush’s comments for second opinions. Respectfully, some of the comments that you made on your talk page and the administrator’s board appear as if your action may not have been thoroughly considered and were more of a gut reaction to the situation. If you feel this is incorrect, I’m open to hearing more about your approach to the situation.

I’m also curious to know why an unblock was made without engaging in discussion. While we haven’t had the pleasure of working together on Wikipedia, I’ve always tried to be an individual who’s open to discussion and receptive of constructive criticism. From my perspective, when you undid the protection I felt that it was an action that trumped the traditional administrative checks and balances. I hate bureaucracy as much as the next person (really I do!), but when it comes to contesting the use of administrative tools, I believe that going through the process has typically produced better results for the community and those involved.

While I’m not familiar with Sitush’s work on Wikipedia, the comments spoken on the user’s behalf suggests that Sitush is a valuable member of the community and it would be unfortunate if he or she left. My intentions were never for a long duration block and I had hoped that myself or another administrator would be willing to discuss the incident with Sitush once he or she came back. However, through working with individuals in real life who were in very stressful situations and from interacting with a number of users here, I’ve seen that each person has a different threshold level for stress and some take more or less time to mentally disengage from a situation. I left the block length as indefinite, as I wasn’t sure of the time until Sitush would choose to re-engage with the community. In addition, I was also concerned with the possibility of Sitush resuming to edit without addressing his or her culminating behavior.

I look forward to your comments and hope that you’d be willing to partake in a conversation. I also encourage you to ask any questions or concerns that you may have for me. If for whatever reason you’d rather discuss this in a more private manner, you’re more than welcome to send an email.

Best regards,

Mike VTalk 03:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Mike. Given the timezones, Floq is almost certainly in bed by now, but since I'm up I'll comment. Having seen the comment in question, I completely understand why you felt a block was necessary: it was an entirely unacceptable comment, no matter what sort of baiting or mocking might have precipitated it. That said, as Floq has indicated in both his unblock summary and his comments further up the page, this is not something he expects to see Sitush do again, and from what I've seen from Sitush generally, I've got no reason to doubt Floq on that point. Sitush may, unfortunately, have been serious about leaving, in which case a block would seem to serve little purpose. Should he return and make similar comments, I have no doubt there would be a swift re-block, and neither Floq nor anyone else would rush to unblock. So the question is: what now? Is it best to leave things as they are and hope Sitush comes back and puts that episode behind him and returns to the kind of content work he's earned a great deal of praise for? Or would reinstating a block have some benefit? Personally, I can't see it... blocks are, after all, meant to be preventative, so they say. I suppose you and Floq could hash out the particulars of how it got to this point – that's up to you two – but it seems clear to me that both of you thought you were doing the right thing (and not without justification), and maybe what is needed most is for everyone to step back and let things calm down on their own. Just my 2¢. 28bytes (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no practical difference between before and after the unblock apart from what regentspark said at 00:04, 22 September 2014 above. People who are familiar with the situation know that Sitush is an excellent content builder who has been very calm under high duress for an extended period (one of Sitush's activities was defending certain types of articles from alarmingly clueless POV pushers who use every trick in the book including legal threats with recent false claims of copyright violations—Sitush has been extremely calm during those attacks). In recent weeks Sitush made some poor decisions following a clash with another editor which spiralled out of control. It's over. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have indeed rev-deleted such threats with fairly intimate details, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush is indeed highly appreciated. As far as I can see, he himself felt threatened when his identity was outed (was it? I don't know), and some editor, from an organisation he's been arguing with for months, remarked on this. So, maybe, Sitush really is afraid that some fanatic may show up with a gun to shoot him, now that someone apparently knows, or thinks to know, who he is (and no, I don't mean the editor mentioned above; that's another clash). If so, that also provides a context for his remark. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
From what I gather, Sitush's identity was indeed outed and he received death threats from someone in India. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: the block was not evil, but it was just wrong. I don't have time to organize this into a clear concise creed, but my disorganized thoughts, in no particular order, are:

  1. That was not an actual threat of violence. It was unwise, hotheaded, and atypical hyperbole in response to someone making fun of editors feeling threatened in real life. It was not a part of some pattern of threats, it was an outlier. We certainly don't want everyone using such hyperbole all the time, but it's not good practice to indef block on its first occurance when it hasn't happened before, and when (I can't say this too often) it wasn't actually a threat of violence.
  2. People who think this should be reported to the police or something (not saying this is you, I'm kind of writing this reply to you with the knowledge others are reading it as well) are idiots, and lack the judgement to be in positions where they make judgements.
  3. Sitush was one of the more valuable editors we had, both in article writing, and in trying to maintain some semblance of order in Indian caste articles. If you are not familiar with his work, it's hard to describe to you the loss we just experienced. He is easily worth 10 of me.
  4. I use past tense because I take him at his word that he intends to not come back for a while, or forever. He does not have a history of quitting Wednesday and showing up Friday as if nothing happened. As such, I don't expect he would make an unblock request himself.
  5. If he is truly gone, he deserves better than to be permanently indef block for "personal attacks and harassment".
  6. If he is not truly gone, I am confident that this is not going to recur.
  7. I'm not saying is wasn't a "personal attack" (although "harassment" is not correct), but it makes no sense to indef block someone for a one-off intemperate remark. It makes no sense to address the final snap when we don't address the baiting leading up to the final snap.
  8. I can look at timestamps, so to be clear I am not part of the small group of people claiming your block somehow drove him off; he was gone before that. I also "officially" distance myself from Ihardlythinkso's idiocy below.
  9. People (again, no reason to think you're one of them) who think this unblock was part of me taking sides in some larger dispute between him and CMDC are wrong. I perused some of that dispute last night, I think there's more than enough blame on both sides to go around, and am not taking sides in that mess.
  10. It is completely dysfunctional when a block for one intemperate remark becomes a discussion by several dozen editors over a full day with several dozen axes to grind.
  11. There was no consensus for the block. No consensus defaults to unblock. If it is vitally important to someone that we put the scarlet letter back, they can get consensus for the block first, and then reinstate it.
  12. It is quite possible that if that happens, I'll take that as my cue to finally leave. I realize technically that isn't a rationale for unblocking, but it might help clarify how deeply wrong I feel this block was.
  13. It is immensely frustrating to me that I can't find the link to it now, but at User:MastCell#The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia (or somewhere similar, I'll fix the link when I find it) it used to say something like "We're all eventually going to lose it and get indef blocked. The goal is to do as much good as possible before that happens". Except classier. That's what's happened here. The damage was already done, I'm just trying to minimize, in some small way, the magnitude of it.

I'll check back in when I can, but I'm juggling many things, so it could be many hours before I reply to anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to find the quotation, but didn't succeed. Close enough: "hope—the most important thing in life" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
#2. MastCell Talk 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. It was there the whole time, staring me in the face. How embarrassing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
To 28bytes and Floq, thanks for both of your thoughts on the matter, I do appreciate it. I wanted to note that Sitush left a note on his page in regards to the comments that were made and his thoughts on returning. This note makes a majority of the issues moot at this point and I hope Sitush will return in good time. Mike VTalk 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Category for currently open RfAs

Greetings Floquenbeam! I posted here since I don't want to get off topic of 'Categories for currently open RfAs'. You said, p.s. I can definitely see the value in a calm, wise, helpful person getting pinged when an RfA page is first created, before it goes live. Early intervention and guidance is probably better than a cascade of NOTNOW votes on a newbie's live RfA., well over at Tool Labs, there is a tool named 'RfX Analysis' (, click the 'Select from most recent RfA's / RfB's' dropdown menu and you'll see all recent RfA's/RfB's even one's that aren't live yet (the top one's are the most recent ones). Try it yourself. Best, ///EuroCarGT 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you, I'll try it out when I have a chance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

calm, wise, helpful person

I found this wording in your writing ;) - Is there a category of them? - I told you that a friend died, the funeral will be tomorrow. I have an article in my sandbox to be published then, Magnificat #3. - He taught me to love Bach. You know that I wrote most of BWV 138, "Why do you trouble yourself, my heart". Minor trouble: I didn't "create" it, therefore can't raise it to the standard of my Bach FA and GAs myself without facing to be blocked for a month, remember? - I could do it, might be an interesting experience, but perhaps some calm, wise, helpful person has a better idea? - My suggestion is on the talk page. (I was helped before.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

found a cwhp, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
on phone and about to leave, will look more later. I'm sorry again for your loss, Gerda. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I sing today Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, in memory, will fill the red link from here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. This would be a true DYK: all over the project you could read until today that it was first performed for Christmas. The news that it was composed half a year earlier, placing it right at the beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig, the first piece for five voices (to remain one of selected few like the Mass in B minor) was out since 2003, but no longer. The article is heading for FA, you heard it here first, by a former member of Classical music. Look at their talk. It looks as if Andy and I were respected partners in discussions ;) - "Ich gehe nicht schnell, ich eile nicht" is on the German Main page today and tomorrow (link on my user page from "Dream"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

modification, block, vandal

hello Mr.Floquenbeam. Why you guys blocked that the user going to do some modification? The modification which made by Fetx2002 were wrong! Oh Se-keun(basketball) Profile is 200cm not 201cm Kim Sun-hyung(basketball) Profile is 187cm not 188cm Kim Min-goo(basketball) Profile is 190cm not 191cm Kim Jong-kyu(basketball) Profile is 207cm not 208cm --U-tima (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

my edit is not vandal. my edit is accurate. and U-tima is Fetx202's multiple account.--KRAKOV (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

and Changwon LG Sakers profile is 207cm 95kg not 93kg Kim Jong-kyu(basketball)

and KBL profile is 190cm Kim Min-goo(basketball)

multiple account? so what? your edit is wrong. my edit is accurate.--U-tima (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious AnmaFinotera

Today's FA, Meerkat Manor, (MM, following MMM) was written by AnmaFinotera. I would like to tell her (?) that she is precious, but the user pages are protected. I say so here, and perhaps a calm, wise and helpful admin can find a way to move it?

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Meerkat Manor
Thank you, AnmaFinotera, for quality articles on topics such as "a frozen treat I loved as a child to the truth behind why I could never find a film I loved on video for so long, to learning the hilarious background of" Night of the Lepus, "to discovering an amazing author I now admire for her dedication to her art", for featured topic Meerkat Manor (Nature–Documentary–Drama) and for Lad, A Dog, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your intent, Gerda, but AF's talk page was protected at their request when they retired several years ago, and AF redirected it to their user page. It seems pretty clear they didn't want further communication. If it had been protected as administrative punishment of some kind, I'd probably be willing to copy it onto their talk page, but AF isn't blocked, or being punished. If they wanted to leave with no further communication, I'm inclined to respect their wish.
So that's calm, but not helpful, and whether it's wise is open to debate. 50% isn't bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the friendly parking position, it's helpful ;) (There's not even a talk page.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

A heartfelt thank you! - Takeaway (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not entirely clear on why people care what others write about them on their user pages, but you certainly aren't alone in that, and there's policy on your side, and it's clear you two were locked in some kind of Let That Be Your Last Battlefield type thing. It's possible you both have the record for "number of reverts on one page without being blocked by someone".
So what would be great is for you to do your part by ignoring him completely from now on. An unofficial voluntary interaction ban. Unwatchlist his page/talk page. etc. At one time, several years ago, I imagine one of you was right and one of you was wrong about something. Or more likely (based on experience, not anything I know about you two) both partially right and partially wrong. It's a shame that never got fully sorted out by neutral observers. But this far down the road it wouldn't be a productive use of time to revisit that; it's probably time you both forget the other exists. It's a big encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have in the past kept a loose watch on this editor's edits and have uncovered significant amounts of blatant COI and extreme POV which had gone unnoticed by other editors. If no one keeps an eye on this editor, they will only feel encouraged to return to this type of behaviour. When I took them to ANI for yet again posting their rant on their user page, the reaction there was "but he's gone already so what are you moaning about?"; and of course, the ANI petered out due to the subject of the ANI not showing up there at all. It is obvious that this editor wants me off their back in order to pick up their POV. Please read some of my findings on this editor's behaviour posted here, and here. It will at most take you 30 minutes and investing those 30 minutes might prevent a lot of problems that could come, and surely will come if their past behaviour and their persistent attack behaviour is an indication of what can be expected from them, from this editor being unmonitored. I have saved their pet articles in my watchlist. I would gladly ignore this pesky editor but who else will keep an eye on them? They are that problematic.
I am not proud at all of having posted 8 npa warnings on their talk page 2 days ago, but if I hadn't, it would again have gone unnoticed by other editors and admins, and this absurdity would have been a never-ending story. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have 30 minutes to spend reading up on a problem from several years ago, and which has not recurred. I probably don't have 30 minutes to edit WP in the next week. It is almost always a mistake to assume that you are the *only* person who can keep the barbarians from entering the city. There are lots of other people, and if it is as blatant and extreme as you say, we'll see it. If it isn't, it's possible you've lost perspective.
FYI, the 8 NPA warnings yesterday (and, what, 2-3 dozen reverts over the last few months?) were possibly the least effective way you could have chosen to get an admin's attention. I almost didn't get involved because it was so over the top; who needs the heartburn? The problem was not solved by the edit warring, it was prolonged by the edit warring, and resolved in spite of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Their rant has been acknowledged by other editors and also administrators as being a personal attack on me, and as such it is something that I can delete from their user page. Rak-Tai keeps reposting it despite warnings from neutral parties to desist and now I am the one admonished for repeatedly removing that attack, instead of Rak-Tai being admonished for actually posting it time and again. I have in the past asked this editor politely (really politely) to stop posting their attack, writing that if they left their user page as it is now, that would be the end of it for me. - Takeaway (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason quoted for deleting my user page seems rather weak as compared to the restrictions about changing another editors user page. I made a reasonable request that Takeaway stop monitoring my edits in exchange for deleting the reference to him, but you have not addressed this. Further, please explain what "salting" means. I did not run across this term in my PhD studies. รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it means protecting it from recreation. See WP:SALT. I don't think "I'll follow policy IFF someone else promises to do something" really works. Furthermore, all you've done the last few months is re-add that to your user page; if you aren't going to do that any more, then there's nothing to follow. If you decide to start back up editing, and there are further problems, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I hope you didn't mind me reverting you there, Each time I fixed the issue I was met with edit conflicts,
Just thought I should explain why I reverted,
Anyway thanks, Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There were 4 of us trying to fix 2 different things at the same time; not surprising things got tangled up. I think it's all set now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring by technopat

Where's the warning on Technopat's talk page for doing that same edit warring that you just accused me of? (talk)

First, you're edit warring against 3 other people, not just Technopat. Second, you reverted several times more than he did. Third, you're treating editing like my kids treat getting ice cream: They aren't happy they got ice cream if their sibling got a tablespoon more. Like it's some kind of competition. Try to get some perspective here. Are you interested in resolving the issue, or not? If so, please use the talk page. If not, then what are you doing here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

78.2% of statistics are totally made up

Simple linear regression model of Mariners winning percentage by year; R2=0.798

I see you've been having some ongoing trouble predicting the outcome of Seattle Mariners seasons. I'm here to help. Since Wikipedia is nothing if not a venue for clueless amateur statisticians to showcase the Dunning-Kruger effect, I decided to bring a quantitative approach to your assistance. I fit a simple linear regression model to the Mariners' winning percentage by year since 2010. As you can see, next year the Mariners will have a winning percentage of 0.568, which should definitely be good enough for a wild-card spot. Extending the linear regression model further, the Mariners will achieve a winning percentage of 1.000 and have a perfect season in 2027 (data not shown). In case you were about to throw down and question the validity of this model, you should know that its R2 is 0.798, which is pretty damn good (in descriptive terms). Place your bets today. MastCell Talk 01:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgive you (this time) for assuming I know less about statistics than you, but please don't make that mistake again. There is a glaring error in your analysis. The data from 2010 and 2011 and 2012 is obviously "old" data, and has little relevance. The trend using only "newer, fresher" data starting in 2013 to project their performance has an R^2 of 1.0, which I note is better than your R^2. As a result, I expect a 0.636 season next year, good enough for 103 wins and likely a World Series victory.
I'm especially excited about 2019 and beyond, when they will start to win more than one game per game played. Suck on that, Anahiem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow... I bow to your superior ability in manipulating statistics to fool the gullible. Have you ever considered a career in social psychology? :P MastCell Talk 20:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Number of times the Nationals have had the best regular-season record in baseball in the last three years: 2
  • Number of times the Nationals have made it out of the first round of playoffs in the last three years: 0
  • Number of nights I drown my sorrows in whiskey about this: all of them Writ Keeper  17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that if one bears in mind that the Nationals are just the Expos with nicer uniforms, then these outcomes are less surprising. MastCell Talk 20:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well this is the bees knees. Ow - I think I pulled a rib muscle from laughing. Many thanks to all involved for brightening the day. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor Nats. :-( Maybe next year. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 78.2%? I heard it was 67.9? BTW, have you ever tried poisson distributions? I just ran some on the NLDS; they said the Cardinals shouldn't have hit so many home runs and Kershaw shouldn't have given up so many earned runs #StatHead #ITFDB pbp 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Statistics can't tell you anything about what will happen in a 5-game series, because the sample size is too small and all that Moneyball stuff breaks down. Sorry about the Dodgers... I can't say I'm a fan, but I like watching Yasiel Puig and Matt Kemp yell at each other in the dugout. MastCell Talk 22:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Baked goods and sweets.jpg
Lemon Balm Tisane.jpg

For your services to driving people nuts, you have been awarded this healthy snack with some lemon balm tea to wash it down.[3] darwinbish BITE 23:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, DB. I was so happy when I stumbled on the idea of reverting only one of them back. It probably isn't quite as funny as I seem to think it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Bish said I might share, I said you deserve it all! - Our missed friend would have hated a pic on the left under the header ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to share. And yes, I recall that used to annoy him. It's odd, the things that annoy people out of all proportion sometimes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Although now I see at least one reason why; it messes up the indenting. He usually knew what he was talking about, I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, guess, he usually knew (the other reason that you want to READ under a header, not search for where the text starts. The TFA has it wrong every day when there's a picture. The quality you described seems not wanted. Be careful, you have it also.) - I mentioned wildflowers, and the page got protected, how's that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Album track listings RfC

Hi. Hope you don't mind me dropping in, but I've been concerned about an RfC regarding album track listings, which has previously gone round the houses on Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Track listing numbers and Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War, and it doesn't seem to be reaching a consensus. As someone who seems to demonstrate clue and common sense, would you be amenable to closing the RfC and settling the argument once and for all? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Clue and common sense? I think you have me confused with someone else... Anyway, I'd be happy to look at this, but it isn't going to be quick. If the weekend is soon enough, then fine. If not, you should check with another admin. If I see it's still open on Sunday, I'll read through and close if I feel comfortable doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. It's been lingering in a state of everybody stating their opinions and then nothing happening for several weeks, another weekend won't hurt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I imagine you're sorry now you asked me instead of someone more practical, but I'm going to wait a few more days; WT:MOSALBUM was only notified on the 18th. Although I'm about 95% sure it's going to end up being "no consensus - default to status quo" (which appears pretty clearly to be "Side Two-Track 8", not "Side Two-Track 1") I'd like to give the MOS geeks a little time to notice the discussion and chime in with a new perspective if they want to. I've invented a new thing called a "pre-closing note" and posted it at the RFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Crossing paths first time

I don't believe we've ever crossed paths. But I must say, now that we have, I'm not impressed. It appears to me that you pulled your admin card (threat of blocking) before you adequately reviewed the full situation. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize.

The RM you reverted has been in the works for over a week. The list of users (participants in previous RMs) was compiled and prepared for notifications. The RM message was developed through consensus discussion. A table of choices was developed though consensus discussion. There are a number of people who lack the vision to see how the approach that is being developed has a much greater chance of working (find an title acceptable to consensus) than previous efforts. Did you know all this? Again, I apologize if I'm mistaken about that. --В²C 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to live that poor initial impression; it somewhat mirrors my disappointment in your behavior. Yes, I am aware this RM was not a complete spur of the moment thing; you mentioned that in the moratorium thread. But as I fairly clearly said on the talk page, when there is a current, on-going discussion about having a 6 month moratorium on RM's, and the 9th one closed a week or so ago, the discussion was clearly trending in favor of the moratorium, and you were aware of it - and you still started RM#10... I can't see that as anything but selfish and disrespectful. Your efforts aren't wasted; if the moratorium is agreed to, then maybe people will want to use that setup in 6 months. If it isn't, then maybe people will want to use that setup in a couple of days. But you can't ignore other people like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If they had called for the moratorium when we were 5% into the developing of the RM - which started out as a question about whether to do it, by the way - that would be one thing. But waiting until it was 99% ready, ready to be published, and we were just working out the final details before launching an effort to stop it is really disrespectful. And so is giving such blatant disruption legitimacy. --В²C 18:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

These are all the edits on the talk page from the moment I proposed the RM on 10/13 to the moment the moratorium was proposed on 10/24, not including all the revisions that were made to the sections of the proposal that we were drafting. 11 days of work preparing an RM. Already to go, finally, and then someone proposes a general moratorium on RM proposals? That's your basis for reverting an RM and threatening a block? I understand how it looked to you, but you should have looked closer. I'm not impressed that you did not. --В²C 18:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought you said you were going to apologize if it turned out I was aware of what was going on? Yes, I knew you were working on this.
  • 20% of the edits in the diff you give above were after NYB made his proposal.
  • A decent proportion of the edits made between the 11th and NYB's proposal were not attempts to refine the RM wording, but were attempts to convince you not to do it.
  • Indeed, I don't think there was a consensus to go forward with this, even before NYB's proposal. And that was not a "consensus" version of an RM, that was, essentially, your version.
  • This isn't 100% on topic, but... doesn't it bother you that there were 326 edits to that talk page in 11 days?
--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the diffs error. Since when does there have to even be a consensus version of an RM, or a consensus to go forward with one? The large number of edits have to do with this being a difficult situation. I wanted to make sure I had as many concerns addressed as possible before going forward with what I hoped would be the final RM regarding that article's title. People who did not believe the RM would produce a consensus decision tried to derail it. The whole objection is based on the assumption that it can't be resolved. I've heard it all way too many times. We can resolve these kinds of disputes. But the process has to be allowed to continue to completion. And it's not about exhausting "the opposition". There are generally three factions in this case "Anything but 'wife of...'", "Anything but 'Jane'", and "Don't care". There is no reason we can't find a title that is not "wife of" nor "Jane". I came up with a novel method to get there. It stinks that the community is not allowing me to try it. It's think kind of irrationality and gang-up mentality that is discouraging more and more editors all the time. --В²C 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not just me; many have already left. --В²C 22:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with User talk:You all love me. I'm literally stunned and in shock at being called a prick and told to f**k off - not once, not twice, but three times (on the article talkpage, in an edit summary, and on my own talk page). Any chance the ones on my talk page can be revdel'd? Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My own suggestion/opinion is that silly name calling like that isn't worth revdel'ing; just blank it and move on. There are, however, other admins who will revdel stuff like this, and rather than force you to try to find one of them, I'll revdel it if you really want me to. But it almost feels like giving them more attention than they're worth. Let me know if you really want it done and I'll push the buttons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I know I was probably out of order when I reverted it and called him a knob. But I do see he also called you a prick, and I must say I love your reply back to it. Couldn't have done it any better myself. Think you're right too on not to revdel it. It will give me something to read back on whenever I need a giggle. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Polandball

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Polandball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (tJosve05a (c) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... it's slightly more likely that Lfrankbalm (thread below) is right than I thought it was a minute or two ago; I see a comment there that says simply "Undelete, encyclopedic", and can't help but think that I have a different definition of "encyclopedic" than most people on WP apparently do these days. Participating in that DRV would be too depressing, I'll just have to let WP get incrementally worse today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curious...AC

Hi - just curious what specifically was so soul-destroying and depressing about ArbCom? Was it the drama originating with editors and admins, or drama emanating from the WMF that caused you to pull the pin?

Thanks for your time, and the favor of even a brief reply. Cheers! joepaT 19:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything. Seeing only bad behavior from everyone involved in almost every case; there were no good guys and bad guys, there were only bad guys with various levels of "bad", so instead of trying to help good guys edit in peace by removing bad guys, you had to choose which side's bad guys were less bad. The depressing amount of truly disgusting, vile people that ArbCom had to deal with behind the scenes (it really makes no sense to me that this is ArbCom's job, but for some reason it is). The bureaucracy. The depressing dysfunction of the whole system; by the time a conflict gets to ArbCom, it's by definition been allowed to fester for so long that it takes months to figure out what the fuck is going on. The internal dysfunction of the committee. The lack of any apparent intelligence displayed by 60% of the people commenting at WP:ACN. The fact that my skill set didn't match what was needed nearly as well as I'd hoped it would. The discovery that there was no opportunity to engage in money-making corruption like other politicians get to do...
But I probably would have kept my promise to stay on, in spite of this, except real life changes caused me to have very very very little time for WP, and I was finding that I had no time to devote to ArbCom, much less to anything else related to WP. Just too many balls in the air. And since I'd promised people I could juggle those balls for two years, it became a very stressful time.
If you're asking because you're curious, I hope that helps explain. If you're asking because you think it's something you'd like to do yourself in the future, I'd not recommend it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A place to rest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A place to rest but not a rest room. Wotcher Brad! darwinbish BITE 23:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

From the point of view of a longer-serving arbitrator, one factor making the job more stressful in recent years is the change in the mix of cases and situations we deal with. When I started on the Committee, we dealt with a certain proportion of cases that were emotionally charged and bitter and prolonged and intractable—but we also had some cases where we could look into a situation, figure out what the solution was, implement the solution, and close the case with the feeling that we had actually solved the problem. Today, those "easier" disputes get resolved at an earlier stage in dispute resolution—whether by action of a single administrator or after a discussion on a noticeboard or whatever—and thus never reach the ArbCom. This leaves the Committee with only the emotionally charged, bitter, prolonged, intractable disputes to resolve, which can sometimes add to the feeling that we are as Sisyphus. I have been more immune to this phenomenon than some of my colleagues, because my real-world background is as a New York corporate litigation attorney, but even I face burnout and certainly am ready for my term to expire at the end of the year. I do not, however, agree with Floquenbeam's implication that the job is hopeless and that anyone would be crazy to undertake it. It's a tough role, but a valuable one and I do hope we will have enough qualified people this year willing to undertake it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Mine is limited: I found myself in a dispute that seems "emotionally charged, bitter, prolonged, intractable" while I don't even see where the problem was. The last battle of the dispute marked by the nice infobox was in 2012, - why the "dispute" is still prolonged I fail to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
When there is no ArbCom on a wiki and it's got significant stability issues, we get messes like this: m:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia. I'm getting used to repeating the standard four options whenever stuff like that comes up: 1) desysop everyone by fiat (which we really can't do under policy), 2) ignore the problem (which isn't a good thing), 3) hope a Meta RFC will fix it (which can't handle nasty stuff like that), 4) hope WMF will do something (which they don't). Without ArbCom, I suspect that enwiki would be like this too, but even worse. --Rschen7754 02:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated your note..

My conclusion is that this technology provides a major societal disservice. The only parts of Wikipedia that are partially reliable consist of a few of the reference links, which for the most part are random in nature. Even the idea of secondary and primary sources is bizarrely-wrong as it applies to research. No, I am not going to feed something that is societally detrimental.

I am more than happy to part company with Wikipedia.

More so than that. This is just a blatantly-evil construct as implemented. It has the unintended opposite effect of spreading ignorance not knowledge.

--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talkcontribs)

OK, everyone has to decide whether to participate and how much they value the site; I think you're being too pessimistic, but yes there are problems. "Evil" implies intent, I think, which I doubt exists. But anyway goodbye and good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Came back to undo my vandalism.... cheers.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this user maybe a previously banned or blocked user given what they stated when they created their user page [4], the statement above, and the number of alternative accounts they have created as pointed out in ANI. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It's possible, maybe even likely, I don't know. I don't think "I'm back" is a smoking gun, but it is certainly a hint. My instinct (which is often wrong) in this case is that this is not a banned editor, but someone who usually edits via IP, and creates accounts when needed. I could easily be wrong, maybe you already know enough to know I'm wrong, but that's my initial hunch. To be honest, I'm not in a sock hunting mood, and if I looked into this, I would ultimately probably be more forgiving than you think appropriate. It might make more sense to file an WP:SPI, where admins who still have the stomach for this kind of thing - and who are more competent at it - are likely to help. Sorry if this is a cop out, but as the note at the top of the page says (maybe I'll reword it to be clearer) I'm really only here sporadically these days, and don't have the time or inclination for anything complicated. A cranky user who might benefit from a quiet word, I can handle. An investigation, I really can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I largely agree with you on philosophy, but perhaps a stern warning is in order regarding the creation of alternative accounts and disruptive behavior that is not in the interest of building an encyclopedia such as the blanking an article using deceptive reasoning here and again here. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, alright, that's hard to argue with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

About your revert

Floquenbeam, I saw your revert over here , and no, I 'm not going to start a long protracted argument about it, nor will I touch your revert. However, I wanted to explain my reason for reverting (the first time ). AKlapper is advertising for the Google Code-in, and yes, I realize Wikipedia participated in the code-in, however, that doesn't change that the post is an advertisment and per WP:PROMO doesn't belong here. Again, I won't touch your revert of me, I just wanted to explain my reason as you noted it didn't make any sense to you. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's just fundamentally confused reasoning. It's a pointer on the Village Pump to a page on Meta that is about an event that could conceivably improve MediaWiki coding, written by a WMF staffer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mischief7/Archive, you may also want to take a look at IloveU4ever. This user has associations with two of the socks and started editing again after a year off of nothing, right after Mischief7 was blocked. The fact that Mischief7 has not made any effort to argue the socking accusation also adds to my suspicions and has my spidey senses tingling. Superfly94 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Superfly94:, it looks like User:Ponyo saw it already and did the necessary. I agree that was pretty obvious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Only just saw this

this at you-know-where. I became (a) a manager at work, (b) parent of teenagers, and (c) arbitrator all around the same time. This was helpful as I have to deal with similar behaviour in each role and could then understand the universality of it, have a (wry) chuckle and process it better without getting too worked up. I agree that it's valuable. The main reason I've run each time is a fear of things going too pear-shaped if I don't/didn't. Agree with the gist of things, but were you really surprised at some of the stuff you came across? I thought my time was worthwhile but i have only so many hours in the day, and content editing is (generally) relaxing and enjoyable, which I need as a recharge. Also I felt it was more worthwhile looking at ways to beef up or improve our core content for reasons I have (partly) explained at User:Casliber/Crossroads Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: regarding bad and badder behaviour, see Regression (psychology) - cool concept and helpful (i.e. stress can make people act like dicks...)


As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Appears to have died down now

Re. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. It was originally intended as rhetorical, but then I actually unwatchlisted for real, in case I saw an edit summary on my watchlist that moved me to comment again, tricking me into exposing my lie. Now rewatchlisted, thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W

"I would have been willing to support this time around if there was some indication that people in the oppose section had a legitimate concern, but I don't see that." You mean "lacked" a legitimate concern? or are you just being contra-contrarian? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No, just lack of coffee. I try to limit it to one cup per day, but some days - especially Fridays - I really need two before attempting to communicate with other humans. Thanks for the note, Dr.M.--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm on three. I'm going to say something that will be used against me in the future, but whenever I see your name I'm a tiny bit happier than I was before--the name alone does it already. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I had you at "hello"? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Hey papa, look at the new pic on my talk page. I think Ritchie333 will appreciate it too. Oh, wait, this is not a social network. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Whaddya mean "not a social network"? Half of Eric's talk page today has people talking about cats. If it carries on we'll start talking about the weather too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Late interjection from talk page one discussing felines on Eric's page: cats rule and weather _____ (fill in blank with whatever bannable word you prefer). Fylbecatulous talk 16:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
              • *Gulp* Oh, hi @Ritchie333:. Your presence here makes me suddenly remember I haven't looked at that template discussion in a while, have I? I kept putting it on the back burner so long I forgot about it. Assuming anyone still wants a "fucking moron"/"bastard"/one of "Jimbo's Civility Cops" to do it, I'll take a fresh look and see if anything has happened (unless someone else closed it?). Sorry about that, I'm hardly here these days, and easily distracted by shiny things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
                • The RFC at Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings got closed as "no consensus" a few days ago. A shame really, as my rationale for supporting it was chiefly to stop silly and pointless edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
                  • I just got yelled at for saying "I gotta pee" on ANI, trying to give a good reason for my inability to look into a copyvio allegation. Does the Civility Corps accept volunteers? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
                    • "Try and keep it professional"... on ANI?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
                      • ANI is not compared to the Slough of Despond for no reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
                        • What an amusing thread. I think I'll take a bit of a break now.[5][6][7] Bishonen | talk 20:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC).
                          • Yeah, that's a shame, but not uncommon after a disappointment at RFA. I hope/expect it won't be permanent, and that he'll be back after a break. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What did you expect from a proud grandfather? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It has pretty much nothing to do with being a grandfather, IMHO. I guess I expected disappointment, and perhaps an acknowledgement that some of the opposes had a legitimate concern. But everyone edits here because they want to, and if they don't want to anymore, they shouldn't. If they want to come back again after a break, they should come back. My own near-constant desire to quit means I will never criticize someone else for leaving. It's more like envy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, "grandfather" was short for a proud mature person with life experience, being told to come back in half a year, and the other comments with more or less respect. I would have stayed - see above - but I know too many good ones who leave for such reasons. - Different topic: I quote you top of my user: no foul, play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism-only account" isn't an account, Floq. Indefinite, really? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC).

oops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not that I think anything useful will ever come from this obvious open proxy, shrug. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC).
You've become one of those people that can recognize open proxies and do range blocks and stuff. When did that happen? I used to console myself about my technological cluelessness by saying "at least Bish is in the same boat", and now I've been left in the dust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretending. :-D Actually I'm proud to say I can do elementary rangeblocks, through using a mommytool my boy made for me, into which I can uncomprehendingly feed IPs and a range comes out. Wait till your kids are big enough. A year? Two years? Until then, eat my dust. But Bishzilla identifies open proxies purely by sense of smell. ("Static in Zimbabwe? Open proxy!") Bishonen | talk 12:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC).
I can do rangeblocks on my fingers but this open proxy bollocks still confounds me. These days, I usually add up the numbers in the IP and assume they're an open proxy if they're divisible by 13. Works - try it. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I was impressed that Bishzilla could smell open proxies, but if all she's doing is smelling numbers divisible by 13, that's a much less impressive feat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm just impressed that she can smell numbers. (By the way, the 13 thing doesn't work, last time I tried it I blocked the whole of the Turks and Caicos Islands, including a ship sailing nearby). Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Aw, and I was just about to code up and run a stealth adminbot on my account to preemptively block all IP addresses divisible by 13. But it also saves me the trouble of asking how you handle the letters in an IPv6 address. (And don't tell me "they're numbers in hexadecimal, not letters", because I know what letters look like, and what numbers look like, and those are letters. I wasn't born yesterday, I can't be fooled that easily.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, is that what those things are? I just assumed it was the same user every time with a cat that kept walking across their keyboard. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
13 in hexadecimal is "D", so you just globally lock everyone whose username starts with "D". 28bytes (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I think they started that policy a short while ago... Haven't seen you around in a while, just participating in the important threads these days, I see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not even the one where you complained that I like him better than you? (Or so you thought.) - Think of it, a former arb wanting to be liked better by a declared friend of the outcasts (one of them another former arb), with officially attested battleground behaviour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I for one appreciate your attempts at deescalation on Wolfowitz's talk page. Thanks for all you do around here. Go Phightins! 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I do, too, see my talk also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, GP and GA. I appreciate the notes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Remember that this place is about content? Might get lost. We have to move articles around. Imagine I call myself Cosima Wagner, make a singing career and become famous, then Cosima Wagner will have to be made a dab page! (You called me unbitter once, I don't deserve it.) - I have an article up for FAC, BWV 22, my second, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Since I can't thank you with echo for this administrative action, I'll send you a diplomatic barnstar instead because I think it was the right action. Keep up the good work! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, T13. i appreciate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
wtHELL is going on there? I spent 30 minutes trying to make sense out of a situation that made NO sense at all. I'm astounded that admins. are mucking about on a user's talk page with such little discussion - and outright BLOCKING the guy for it? Have things changed that much around here since I was a regular? ... geesh.
. /---\
. |__| *
(poor man's barnstar)
Thanks for trying to get a handle on it Floq; good work. (lord have things gone this far wrong in just a year or two?)
Best, — Ched :  ?  00:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ched. Thanks, I like that barnstar (took me a minute to figure it out, though). I don't know, I think it's been about this dysfunctional for several years, maybe you've blotted those memories out? Always good to see your name pop up, take care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz


I write to you since you unblocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for two days ago. Now he accused me of edit warring when I reverted a user (Redban) that has has many complaints on his talkpage after going on rampage and tagging many articles after he "lost" an AfD (he tags similar article). I got some "thank you" notices yesterday reverting Redban. As I said Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reverted me and I reverted back with explanation and now he gives me edit warring notices (final) and keep warring himself (feels like he threatens me to stop so he can get his will through). I have edited for over 1,5 years, never been blocked and I feel uncomfortable with this warning/threats (WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS) so since you judged this person two days ago I thought you could take a look? I know I did not behave my best and I have stopped reverting, but I am concerned about the editor, who has been blocked for edit warring in the past. QED237 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, he has now moved on threatening an other editor. QED237 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no doubt that Qed237 was edit warring and illegitimately removing notability tags. WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS is an essay, and contradicts the instructions at WP:3RRN, which require a warning and indicate a preference for an advance warning. Qed237 did not make any initial claims that the tags were inaccurate, and when called on the point tried to justify their removal (at Juelz Ventera) by referring to criterion 1 of PORNBIO, even though it explicitly says the awards she claims don't count towards notability. In any event, some of their tag removals (eg, Charlotte Stokely, don't even have that justification, since there are no claimed awards. And, if I didn't have reason to doubt the relative good faith in this dispute, I note the comment that I was "blocked for edit warring in the past", even though the block to which they refer )2 April 2012) was reversed 90 minutes later by the blocking admin, with an apology on my talk page, after being unanimously disapproved in admin's discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Yesterday's unblocking had to do with a completely unrelated subject. In general, when someone says "I know I did not behave my best", my advice is: start behaving your best, stop complaining the other person didn't behave their best during the same time period, put it behind you, and do whatever you're supposed to do when you disagree about something (usually it's discuss things on an appropriate talk page). Then, if the other person continues to not behave well, people are more likely to care and get involved. I have no desire to spend time figuring out whether you are 60% responsible and HW is 40% responsible, or you are 40% responsible and he is 60% responsible. You've both been here a long time and done a lot of work, right? So doesn't it seem unlikely that one of you is 100% right and one is 100% wrong?
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Looks like this has moved to WP:ANI and WP:AN3, Ill let people there worry about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought

I'm normally the one soliciting the thoughts, and you didn't offer penny, but nonetheless... I've only just seen your ping to Adam's talk page (and then looked at the history), but I wanted to be clear that I wasn't pulling a "block and run"; I wouldn't have objected to your proposed unblock had I seen it at the time. It was gone 2am here, and I hung around until the unblock request was declined and then decided that nothing good was likely to come from my continued involvement, so I replied to something unrelated on my talk page and then shut down my computer for the night. It seems to be a moot point now, but I just wanted to explain my lack of response and your talk page is about the closest thing to "the record" under the circumstances. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't interpret it that way. He seemed to want to log off and let the block stay and come back tomorrow, so my suggestion was immediately moot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

review of my recall conditions

Hi Floquenbeam, I recently came across your recall conditions, which led me to simplify mine a great deal. Because I appreciate your view on these things, would you mind taking a look at mine, and letting me know what you think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martijn, I really like the simplicity of it (shorter than mine!), and I like the fact that limiting it to "votes" by people with FA's or GA's effectively weeds out trolls being able to harass you with unjustified recalls because you blocked them or their roommates or something. Having an FA or a GA under their belt doesn't mean someone isn't evil or crazy, but it makes it much less likely. If you've got 5 such people honestly requesting you step down, you probably should.
I guess my only concern is that people without FA's and GA's, but who are good faith editors, are kind of shut out. Perhaps the idea is that they would need to convince 5 people with FA's and GA's that you've mistreated them, but it's worded in such a way that it sounds like only someone with an FA/GA can complain. It could partially be fixed by massaging the wording.
Now that RFC/U has been shut down, I need to fiddle with mine sometime, and I may steal at least part of your idea. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The rule about GAs and FAs seems like it is trying to limit the recall process to established editors. In case anyone finds that restriction too severe, you could limit it to people who are qualified to vote for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. See example here. A person must have 300 edits and satisfy a couple other rules to be allowed to vote there. Another option would be to accept only people who are approved for WP:AWB. That rule is (usually) 500 non-automated mainspace edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Floquenbeam and Ed. I think 500 non-automated edits is too low, and I really don't want to raise the number of required votes of no confidence to counteract that. And I really don't want a for and against vote. If more than two or three editors who really know what they're doing want me out, I should probably go. If I'm acting in such a way that I should step down, someone who hasn't written a GA/FA shouldn't have a hard time convincing someone who has to place a vote of no confidence. Floq suggests that that route isn't sufficiently clear, so I'll brood on better wording for that. Four is also more than two or three, but I'm on the fence still of four or five is the better number. I don't think it'll ever make a difference though, and right now I think that there should be plenty of people whose word I would also take, but you never know if future me will go power-mad and attempt to wikilaywer his way out (I doubt it, but better build in certainties). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too

Thanks for clearing the situation on the Amundsen Scott station article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph194 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope things go more smoothly for you now that you've got an account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, Bzuk. Merry merry to you too! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Floquenbeam, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Season's greetings to you too, T13. (although I bet a dollar that if I look at your talk page, someone is complaining about your use of the mass message bot) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Only took less than 2 hours --Rschen7754 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, 2 hours from my comment. But it looks like it took almost 4 days from the time of the mass email, which is surprising. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't send individual greets but have one on top of my talk (archived here), - one of many nice comments was that a user felt like listening to the music while working, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't send any Merry Christmas notes to anyone, but it wasn't to avoid bugging people, it's because I'm a grump. But I do like the top of your talk page this season, Gerda. And, while you're here, Merry Christmas to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings and Good Wishes

Wikipe-tan holding sign Season's Greetings.png Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Thanks for this [8] A search with ArbCom earlier in the month failed to find these users. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome @Hawkeye7:; although it probably would have been better if you'd referenced this combined diff [9] instead, as it doesn't make me look like quite so much of a jerk. Sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I know you're not a jerk, and I much prefer to be corrected and look silly than to go on in ignorance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Floquenbeam,
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").

Thanks again, Bzuk! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


AfD or DRV, your choice. But an abusive deletion followed by an abusive salting is not acceptable. WilyD 18:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Abusive? If that's shorthand for "an admin who understands WP:BLP1E", I guess I'll accept the label. I would prefer DRV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No quibble at all with your deletions, but there's a minor issue with the search bar that I'd like to bring to your attention. Both Kirby Delauter and kirby delauter are currently appearing in the search suggestions, if you look for them, which implies that Wikipedia has articles on this person, even though they have been deleted. I don't know what can be done to fix that, but it probably should be fixed, given the attention that Twitter and the like are currently showering on him. (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to be done for that on our end but wait for the search cache (or whatever it is) to be updated, I think. Writ Keeper  18:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) That's a software issue; I believe there's a time lag between when articles get deleted, and when the auto-suggest items get changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just tried it, and it's not auto-suggesting them anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

<insert notification of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter here>


Look who's suddenly turning back into an active admin! Was one of your New Year's resolutions to spend more time dealing with the dregs of this God-forsaken project? Or am I just projecting? MastCell Talk 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Floq, but I know that I regret making user scripts; it's always someone asking about them that seems to suck me back in. I think I was really making progress, too. Writ Keeper  20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what I've done to you to justify your casual slander of "active admin". But to answer your question, this level of activity is more an occasional extreme value in a random function than a pattern. I don't imagine being too much more active than I have been, just have a few more minutes free the last day or two. Good to see you both, by the way. Happy New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirby delauter redirect

Kirby delauter should be set to # REDIRECT Kirby Delauter which redirects to the county he is elected in. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If Kirby Delauter existed, we wouldn't need a redirect at Kirby delauter; the software is smart enough to do that directly. Doing as you describe would result in a double redirect anyway. I'm very confident Kirby delauter should remain deleted.
The question is, should Kirby Delauter be left deleted, or protected but redirected to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (it isn't currently a redirect, contrary to your comment above; I assume that was a typo?). That's not an easy decision; I'm not 100% sure either way. But we don't do that, for example, for any of the other county councilmen. This guy is well and truly non-notable; I think we should treat him as such. If you disagree, a reasonable place to get more opinions might be Talk:Kirby Delauter. I'd fight pretty vigorously against having an actual article there, but I'd be willing to sit back and accept whatever consensus developed about a redirect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wish you'd stop mentioning his name. Unless he's given you prior express written permission, of course. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's how it works. MastCell Talk 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Who's name? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just chiming in here to voice my objection to your decision to wipe out Delauter's page. He's a public figure that has received massive amounts of media attention from publications all over the world in just the past 48 hours. He's more than worthy of inclusion on this website, if only as a further example of politicians attempting to silence media critics and reporters. Deleting the page, without so much as a discussion about it on a talk page, was awfully reactionary and knee-jerk, in my opinion, especially given the reason you offered. Other "hot topic" pages are targeted by vandals and pranksters but that doesn't mean they don't belong on Wikipedia. I think you should have locked it down instead and prevented further edits for a while. My two cents. I realize it's too late now... Constablequackers (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As should be obvious by now, I disagree. I think he very clearly fails WP:BLP1E. If you disagree, there's always WP:DRV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for the info. Constablequackers (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Constablequackers: FYI, it's at DRV now: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I'll head that way. Thanks! Constablequackers (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


That's fine, but I didn't see any advice on WP:AN as to where to provide the supposedly requested comments. Can that notice be amended to tell the community where to comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a bolded "Discuss this" link right above where you posted. I suppose it might not be clear that it's a link to a discussion page, and looks like a header. That's pretty standard arbcom formatting, but I'll see if I can think of a better way and suggest it to the clerks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


I don't know if you watch arb proceedings any more. They talk about a review of the infoboxes case. I believe that every view of it is a waste of time. Did you know that Carmen, Rigoletto and Handel - these topics of misunderstandings - all have an infobox now. Teh Case was anachronistic in 2013, it certainly is in 2015. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly don't watch arbcom stuff anymore, though I have some of the noticeboard/request pages on my watchlist still, and I'm not boycotting the process or anything. (I even illegally edited WP:ACN yesterday! And haven't been desysopped yet!) I don't know what page you're talking about. If I had to guess, I'd imagine it has to do with Andy? If you point me in the right direction, I'll promise to look, but won't necessarily promise to comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, naturally, and you are right, naturally. Look for my name. I started the year with a Te Deum, and on top of the page you see a link to one of Andy's template merge requests which I think are a blessing (who needs a 2007 template without an image option and camel case parameters if there is a good one covering all parameters?), but others disagree. - The intention of the "clarification" was to avoid more clarification necessity by wording the restriction more precisely. Some think that's "narrowing" it. I think - and it is well known - that it was absurd nonsense from the start, to not allow someone to add an infobox to an article he creates where he is not in conflict with anybody! All this about an editor honoured by Jimbo Wales ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: you can also look for "I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You would think someone who's been around arbcom as long as he has would know better than to say "easy and uncontroversial" regarding anything to do with arbcom, much less the infobox case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I just violated a previous vow to never comment on infoboxes again, but I can't find where I made that promise to myself, so oh well. I don't think you'll agree 100% with my comment, but maybe you'll agree with more than 50% of it, so I guess that's better than 0%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Without looking (off to rehearsal): infoboxes could be so easy, adding a bit for some readers, as images do, not taking away anything. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
After singing Verleih uns Frieden and looking: thank you! I agree with 97% of it, the rest is unneccessarily long version for WP:ARCA, - keep simple, keep simple, keep simple, play on ;) - It would be so nice if after two misunderstood edits by Andy I could ask the arb candidates something else in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
A barnstar for your funny redlink categories on your user page and (more importantly) for having the courage to stand up to authority. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carrite,

A real "thank you" for saying nice things about my user page. It's always nice when another person realizes I have a sparkling wit. That makes, I think, 4 of you.

A reluctant "thank you" for the "courage to stand up to authority" remark; it's nice of you to say, but not really accurate. It might have been courageous-ish if I cared about what Jimbo thought of me, or about my political position here, yet risked both to do what I thought was right. But I really don't care much about either one anymore, so that was more "might as well tell the truth because they can't do anything to me that I care about". That's not really courage; courage requires taking some kind of risk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you lost during your stint at Arbcom a lot of the "caring" to which you refer. Didn't catch it all, but was it the near anarchy that got you to where you are, or the inhospitable WP environment in general no doubt intensified by the pressures of being an Arb? Or something else specific? (This user is asking 'cause he doesn't know full story, would like to, and what he sees impresses with unexpressed logic.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(watching) Are you referring to this? - You can't survive as an arb if your comment is "no foul, play on". I found the above-mentioned "discussion" closed, but added anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx, Gerda. "The depressing dysfunction of the whole system". But Floq's not caring seems to go wider. (And, begs simple Q: How can be reformed? It seems no one assumes is possible. [Yeah then, depressing!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to care too much seems to be a way to stay, my way, perhaps Floq's way. (I have been admonished because of battleground behaviour while I have not been in a single edit war, - who cares?) I know too many who didn't find such a way. Today, Precious - given daily in memory of two of those - went to someone who has "I have fun here" on the user page, that's another way of coping ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Floq: when you counted the admirers of your red links, did you count me? I just saw - looking for something else - that I even pinged you in 2013. - Btw, I reduced mine to two, by returning to project opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense intended, IHTS, and certainly none taken at the question, but I'm just not in the mood to think or talk about this. Maybe later (or, maybe not. I'm an enigma). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"A mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma" (Woody Allen). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Better than "a chicken inside a duck wrapped in a turkey", I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this again...

Sup Flo. I'm not going to link to all the threads and comments and arguments back and forth relating to Kirby Delauter. I opined in favour of endorsing deletion at DRV, along with others, and your original decision to delete was endorsed. What was also endorsed was your original decision to salt the title. That wasn't specifically addressed in the DRV discussion and so the closer took endorsement of one to mean an endorsement of both (and he was right to do so in the absence of any discussion). That close is now at WP:AN, not because of the endorsement of the deletion but because of the endorsement of the protection. It's a giant fucking mess and people are wasting way too much time on it. I was thinking of going to WP:RFPP and simply asking a bold admin to remove the protection to enable Draft:Kirby Delauter to be published in mainspace. Having given it some thought, that might be too bold for some. It strikes me that the easiest solution (given your decision to protect wasn't addressed at DRV and so didn't form part of the close) would be to ask you if you might be willing to remove the protection you originally added. Not by way of acceptance that your original combination of decisions was wrong (one was endorsed); simply an acknowledgement that protection is no longer required. You might want nothing to do with it and I totally respect that (feel free to simply delete this by way of a response). This has just become a ridiculous time-sink so I thought I'd go out on a limb. Cheers, Stlwart111 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thanks for letting me know about the AN discussion. The waters are muddied, yes, but that's not my doing. The current status - no article on a non-notable person who shouldn't have an article, confirmed (albeit messily) at DRV - seems right to me, and I think RoySmith (talk · contribs) got it right. But the behavior of some people involved in this have caused me to lose any enthusiasm I might have had for discussing this further. Plus, in that discussion 28bytes (talk · contribs) pretty much hit the nail exactly on the head as far as my thoughts on this are concerned.
I won't unsalt it myself, because I don't think that's the right thing to do. I won't raise a giant stink if someone else unprotects it, because I've been wrong about stuff before, and might be now. So if you find an uninvolved admin who thinks unprotection is the right thing to do, you won't hear whining from me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Big sigh. My initial response to all this is I didn't want to get dragged into a big slugfest, so I was going to stay out of it. I just took a look at the latest bunch of comments added to the "discussion" this morning and have reaffirmed my judgement to stay away. Life is too short to waste any of it on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, eventually people will get tired of arguing (he said with unreasonable optimism) and someone will put the thread out of its misery one way or another. (Or it will be auto-archived unresolved, and the archive bot will be accused of being in on the cabal.) 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That is, indeed, unreasonable optimism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response(s), all of which are perfectly reasonable. I thought there might be a reasonable work-around but I'm more than willing to accept there might not be. For the record, no suggestion it was your doing. Thanks for having a look folks. Cheers, Stlwart111 22:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have been clearer, I didn't think you thought it was all my doing. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop them

Please, stop this flouting of policies. Please, stop them. Stop this absurdity! It is too much. RGloucester 03:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm a little puzzled by your edits--reply privately if you prefer. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

DGG, did you mean to do that? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I accidentally hit rollback on one of your edits in my watchlist, and within a few seconds, reversed the error. Surely you've done this before yourself? I've probably done other clumsy things lately, but this is the only one involving you, so I assume this is what you're talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) p.s. I hadn't even noticed there were issues with your edit; I wasn't trying to fix that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: I just noticed that your accidental removal of Milowent's comment hadn't actually been fixed yet, so I've done that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
right. Everything's OK. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

stop your nonsence

Hey evil admin You farted like a rooster and your butcheeks smell havin fun sucker! Ranabhai (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please use a spellchecker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC

You keep farting man yo mama is ashamed of you cause of yo meanness you farted again man too much gas in yo butt got a magazine of holding your fart haaaaaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Boots and cats boots and cats boots and cats boots and cats!!!!!!!!!! Man the best joke in the world man! Ranabhai (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you find a new hobby, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was on my way to indef that user, but you got there first. Some people... Chillum 01:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I just wasn't sure I could or should have done that myself. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not sure there's an actual procedure, but doing it with 2 threads wouldn't make any sense to other editors stumbling on it now. I left a space for you to add a nomination statement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


I seem to remember that you're an admin who will perform a self-block request. If I'm correct, could you block me please. For about a month or so? Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Victoriaearle:, sure I'd be happy to. I often suggest doing these with talk page and email access removed too, to remove temptation to "check in", but if you'd like something different, let me know. I'll wait to hear from you before doing it; if I don't hear from you within a day or so, it will be a one month block, no talk page, no email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I think it's the only option because I'm in an advanced state of burnout and I've never had any luck with the tool that's supposed to prevent logging in (sorry, can't remember what it's called). I suppose I should give myself 24 hours to think this through in a mature fashion, but if by tomorrow night I don't say, "no, Floq, I've changed my mind", then yes, please go ahead and block for a month. Victoria (tk) 04:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Life looks much better today, so I've changed my mind and decided maybe to try stick it out here - in other words, canceling the self-block request. I think that was a case of too many gray snowy cold days, cabin fever, blah blah. Thanks for understanding and for giving me breathing space to think it over. Victoria (tk) 14:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand. 30" snow two weeks ago, 20" last week, and 15"-20" today and tomorrow... cabin fever here too. Glad today's better for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed the pic on your page so you'll understand this: one winter, half a lifetime ago, I was a ski instructor at Crystal Mountain. Nothing like having the fog roll in, rain coming down on top of feet of wet snow, and having to get skiers off the mountain in almost zero visibility. I don't mind snow all that much, but I live far away from the west now and it's not as easy to deal with the cabin fever for some reason. Anyway, I just had a weird day yesterday for no specific reason and was afraid I'd poke too many people and needed to put on the brakes. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For yesterday. Sound advice regarding the (un)block and the other issue. I was genuinely concerned about the latter and gald it's been resolved. Thanks again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


It's obvious that the kid amusedly wanted to be banned for good, which is why he lied to you so that you can banned him permanently. There was enough evidence already that supports that. Well, the kid already got his wish granted. Also, saying that "the three of you have been acting like idiots here lately, which isn't surprising at all", I guess that comment was most likely directed at me too, no? Listen, after I told on him for baiting me, I was plain done. If you want to personally attack both me and Lugnuts, say it directly to us then. I know I should speak for myself on certain things such as this one and all, but seriously dude, take that comment of yourself elsewhere. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Shoo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Edward Alahverdian

Can you please explain your G4 and G12 rationales? --NeilN talk to me 03:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

G4, because it's the same article as Nicholas Alahverdian and Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, both of which were deleted via AFD, just mashed together. G12 because it was a copy paste of the deleted article, so everyone who contributed to it before it was deleted at AFD was not properly attributed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across this at WP:ANI#Speedy deletion, I went into a little more detail there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 03:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize now that someone unaware of the ANI thread would be completely confused by my shorthand in the deletion log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I got what the G4 and G12 stood for. Couldn't figure out what was a copyright violation as I went over that article checking the sources and the admin who restored the article said it had been expanded. --NeilN talk to me 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). And what do you mean by copyright violation? It's inherently in the public domain. I may be wrong. Thanks for your help. EricJ1074 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing there that wasn't in the article when it was AFD'd. Those sources were all there. If you think the result of the AFD is wrong, you can try WP:DRV. But we can't just let an editor create new accounts and recreate deleted articles all the time. And it's a copyright violation because Wikipedia is not public domain. It's creative commons, and you have to provide attribution to everyone who contributed. Since several people contributed to the now-deleted original article, copy/paste versions of that article with no attribution violate copyright. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Have a good evening. EricJ1074 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Flo, sorry for filling your user page with more on this subject but I've been following the Nicholas Alahverdian activities for a few days and noticed something that might be worth sharing. As I'm sure you've noticed user EricJ1074 has a keen interest in keeping the Alahverdian page alive. He also added a ref to the page of Matthew Fabisch. Which brings us to this trio of Eric, Matthew, and Nicholas. User name could be a coincidence or it could be WP:COI. Any how, I find the whole thing rather fascinating... just wanted to share it with someone and you seemed an apt choice given recent events. Cheers, Noah 05:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. for someone so unnotable he certainly has a lot of fans and detractors. No, I am not Eric J Allen. Thanks for your unnecessary speculation though. I made the Matthew Fabisch edit because I needed to find out if he was actually a judge as it said in the wikipedia article. Get a life. EricJ1074 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And for the record, I tried to have the article speedily deleted. EricJ1074 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Edward Alahverdian

Kindly undelete this page. Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. You may observe that this is nowhere near being a repost, as it was extensively modified after I restored it a few hours ago because it even then was significantly different from the deleted version. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This admin mentioned it here and explained a bit. He said copyright was an issue as well as the article was copied and pasted? What if we rewrote it, thus absolving the copyright concern. quite a few users said it met WP:Notability. I do know there were reddit users wanting to spam the article, that's how I found out. There are tons of sources, over 30 from major news orgs. This is so confusing. Thanks again EricJ1074 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the same person trying desperately to gain attention for his cause. Thew same weak sources, the ones that name-drop the person in question while discussing court cases. Nothing has changed from 2013/14 to present, other than more puffery. This needs to stay deleted and salted, and alternate versions and spellings of th name watched. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c; how do all these people type so fast?) Oh for crying out loud. The repost was identical to the article previously reposted by a now-blocked sock. Who had, if I recall, around 10 sock accounts. It has been deleted by 5 different admins in the last few years, and recreated 5 different times. It is no different than what was originally deleted. The place to go if you think an AFD got it wrong is DRV. The approach you should NOT take is to give the middle finger to all the admins who have had to deal with this sockpuppeteer in the past, and to all the editors who commented in the two AFDs. Restoring it would be a copyright violation. I acted on information you didn't know about (at least, I certainly hope so), so it isn't a direct repeat of a reversed admin action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The content is significantly different from what was deleted at AFD, making it ineligible for G4; it has been significantly edited by numerous users, including established non-socks like NeilN, making it ineligible for G5; and unless EricJ1074's edits were copyvios, significant chunks of this were not copyvios, making it ineligible for G12. Per the speedy deletion policy, this does not qualify for speedy, meaning that only another AFD may be used to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not correct. If 95% of it is a copyvio, you don't keep it around because 5% is new. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
[ec with your last comment] See my response to Tarc, written before I'd seen your response; your copyright comments are irrelevant, given the easy ability to resolve any copyright issues: we routinely restore previously deleted content when a new article is written, and we can easily remove things copied illegitimately from elsewhere. Failure to restore will result in this case being an example of the statement from WP:WHEEL, Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to restore a copyright violation created by a long term sock. If you care so little about copyright, and serial socking, and reverting the 5 admins who have deleted this previously, undelete it yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know this person existed until people were beating the crap out of his name on reddit and then I saw a few comments about spamming a wikipedia article which is when I took action. I guess since we have put work into it, it might make sense to at least rewrite the article using the 30+ sources mostly from major news orgs. I would even volunteer to do part of the work because of the work me and multiple other users already did. We can't even see the old articles that you are talking about to compare. This is a article that clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY and has over 30+ sources from major news orgs (some of which I found myself this evening). This is why I left wikipedia, not you guys obviously, but confusing situations like this that render research and edits and work of users such as myself and others basically pointless. Thanks again for helping and for understanding. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Eric, this person was determined to not meet our notability guidelines in an AFD. With the sources you're talking about already available. Sometimes people make mistakes, that's what WP:DRV is for. If you believe he does meet our notability guidelines, start a discussion there. The article you added to was a direct copy/paste of a previously deleted article; the fact that others have changed it now doesn't change that fact. If the DRV determined that he might be notable, you could start a fresh article (not the puff piece written by socks, but a new one). You could start a fresh article in your userspace, pr draft space, right now if you wanted to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now I am really confused. I am not trying to be hard nosed here but policies usually mean what they say. For some reason, people here hate the article or the guy behind the article or the subject of the article. For some reason it's been deleted. That doesn't mean it's not notable now. Stuff has happened since it was deleted and obviously couldnt be included in that article because it was in the future. As I have noted a few times: sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). Perhaps a solution would be to reverse the delete and let the community decide. This is bizarre. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing bout this being talked about on reddit, just happened to see the name on the BLP board and went into involuntary facepalm/eyeroll mode. The subject himself has been trying to write his own Wikipedia article for several years now, and the attempt after attempt to create it again and again, with slight variations in name, is a mark of extreme underhandedness and bad faith. As I noted earlier, many of those touted sources are problematic...they either mention the subject once and then move on, are not reliable sources at all, or are just local papers. This person and his court proceedings are purely a local interest story; this is the English Wikipedia, not the Rhode Island Wikipedia., we should strive to write about subjects that actually matter, and not to enhance an individual's personal causes, even if they may be just causes. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You say all this stuff about "again and again" - first off how on earth do you know its the "subject himself?" WHat is your evidence for that? You're jumping to conclusions. And from what I saw in most of the articles I checked and the six original ones i found tonight he was the ONLY person mentioned or quoted. WHere are you getting this from?. And your claim of local papers? Not true obviosuly - and the states of nebraska and florida are included if i remember correctly. This isn't solely a rhode island story and as a matter of fact there were sources from the omaha paper and propublica. THis is so awkard. Why pummel this article? What is the point? Again, this is why I left wikipedia - people do ahrd work and then it gets washed away. At this point we can't even edit it or salvage anything. I stand by my other remark about being willing to rewrite it from the old article but we can't even access that so i wouldnt even know where to start. At least give us a chance to salvage the old material. How am I supposed to remember all of the sources? It would be much easier to let us rewrite it (i will step up and other will too apparently) or let the community decide. This hasty action from a deletion that we know nothing about was in 2013. It is now 2015. Clearly there is a better way to deal with this. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And this is my last comment on this subject because this kiddie back and forth back and forht is preposterous. I am going to name all the sources that are not rhode island as you claim that this was a local thing and how "you know" this obviously notable person is creating article himself. Boston Globe, Associated Press, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you just deleted my edits since they pretty much show that Nick was the one who was making his own accounts and creating his own Wiki article... FixingMisleadingInformation (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Because that's not all you added, there was also some negative BLP info, which may or may not be true, but I'm not going to leave it there while I look into it. Please keep your reddit wars (I gather that's what this is) on reddit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added it to my talk page for anyone who is interested. I directly cited the court cases for the "negative BLP" info in my previous post. And they were court cases in which Nicholas was actually convicted, and for which he exhausted all of his appeals and still lost.
As I mentioned previously, this is not a "Reddit war" - just because the fact that someone is probably using sock-puppets came to light on Reddit doesn't automatically mean that there isn't an honest concern regarding the validity of a Wikipedia article. If you read all of my post, you would see that it was directly related to a Wikipedia user (the Wikipedia user, in fact, who created the article about Nicholas). It was a culmination of all the facts that built up to that user coincidentally deleting his account at the exact same time that Nicholas deleted a bunch of his other social media accounts.
FixingMisleadingInformation (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
How ironic is it that now FixingMisleadingInformation is a sock of InfiLaw (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup on earlier

I have not read anything you've said here, or elsewhere, since my last message, and I won't until after clicking "save". I thought it best to go off-wiki for several hours after my last message to you (couldn't hurt to wait a while and make a calmer presentation of my position), and I'm thankful I did. What I've seen that's transpired since then, whether at my talk page, things linked from it, or even the minimal stuff I can see at (that page itself, not diffs or other links) has made me realise that this is not a normal situation: what's going on I don't know, but I believe that your action has improved the situation. Regardless of how we got there, let's take your action as a WP:IAR situation and forget about what I said before. Thank you for what you did. Nyttend (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, thank you, and I'll extend an apology for my half of the argument. I was trying to do two things last night at the same time: deal with this, and something in real life, and I ended up doing both of them halfassedly. If I'd spent more time documenting the sockpuppetry and recreation/deletion/recreation/deletion history more clearly, I doubt this would have happened. All this other reddit stuff, I didn't even know about, nor do I quite understand (nor do I want to). --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A danish pastry for you!

Glazed apple Danish.jpg The sorting things out with a deep breath and common sense award
Danish pastries. Good for eating and snacking on. Bad for edit-warring about. Thankyou for your endless supply of patience and common sense. May I be permitted to write a follow-on story in WP:LAME later? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You certainly have my blessings, Ritchie. And that's not irony.
Peter Isotalo 20:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. It's not endless, I pretty much used up my supply for February. We'll see if it works or not. Thanks for the very kind feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Danish pastry 3RR

Hello Floquenbeam. It looks like you were leaving the 3RR report open for closing by another admin so I have done so. Protecting the article seems fine. Though your full protection of the talk page is creative, it's unorthodox. Somebody is sure to complain you are violating subsection 3(b) clause 4. So I'd recommend that you undo the talk page protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I'm inclined to let the experiment in talk page protection stand, and see if it's helpful or not. As always, if you feel I'm an idiot and it's actually making the situation worse, feel free to overrule; I've been known to be wrong before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen this used before, but only on BLPs that have either involved significant negative events or legal threats. Talk:Rolf Harris got locked for 2 days following his conviction and imprisonment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


In the mood for music today, passionate music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Lovely. Well done, Gerda. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, with a Lili 2014.JPG ! - More about wikilove and that cookie and heart is not it on my talk, with a nocturne (listen to music, ignore talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
(ignore that by now it was protected by an arb) play on --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
free again - good day today, my mom's favourite song, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pastry showdown III: This Time It's Personal

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Danish pastries is still a red link.

You are not trying hard enough. Face-tongue.svg MastCell Talk 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I still have to go through the RFC process; I wouldn't anticipate the arbcom pastry case until mid-March. (p.s. do you know how to add the sitewide watchlist notice for an RFC? I think that would be useful in this case). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You may want to unprotect Talk:Danish pastry now that the protection on Danish pastry has expired. --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I didn't actually mean for it to be indefinite. It was supposed to have expired automatically by now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I guessed as much, no worries. --Kim D. Petersen 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Big thanks!

Thank you so much for getting the editor blocked for harrasing me your a good administrator but I am pretty sure that the editor will make another acount and harras and revert my edits would you please keep an eye out if he comes back and block him? That would be very helpfull Floquenbean. Superflashieboy123 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I somehow don't think this warm camaraderie will last. I hadn't looked at your illustrious editing history when I blocked him. You have yet to do anything remotely useful here. This is not a playground. If your next edit is not constructive, I'll block you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will make constructive edits sorry Superflashieboy123 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


User:Floquenbeam I know that you think that i am a sock puppet but i am not because:

1: We do not share the same ip address becuase when Cooliemandude was blocked i could still edit other articles like User:ToonLucas22's talk page.

2: I was very frustrated when he was harrasing me and i tried to report him as sock puppet but the page was semi protected so i could not.

3: And last of all the reason why we created an acount on the same day because he probally loves video games and looked up terraria and hated my edits because he thinks i am stupid then he created an acount and harrassed me. it is a coincidence that he created an acount on the same day as I did. As a matter of fact lots of people could create wikipedia acounts every day.

That is my evidence. Superflashieboy123 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Blocked per Checkuser. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


says thank you for a rant of good observations. If it gets you blocked you may have time to look into something I noticed yesterday. We started thinking about what constitutes a "main editor", and what they can decide. I am not a main editor to anything I didn't start from scratch, as you will remember, even if I write 99% of an article. Tell me, is it just envy seeing a "main editor" ignoring an article history of many years (Christmas 2006), produced by many editors, installing a personal preference (and discarding on the talk a rant from the public as incivil)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gerda, I just can't bring myself to get involved in a discussion about anything remotely related to that subject. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, others stepped in without me even asking, about the topic of discarding a comment as incivil, as a reason not to deal with it. I only said "look", not "get involved" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Self blocks

As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comment and a link to your requirements page, if any. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've messed with the page a little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


I am granting your request for a block.[10]. Due to my inherent sloth like qualities, and the indication that you've already performed the technical aspects of it all - I won't go mucking about in the logs.

  • Duration: "Until you get a good nights sleep"
  • Requesting an unblock: No need, consider it granted.

Comments on your "Rant". Indeed, we do seem to be privy to a well orchestrated and quite organized plan of disruption. Interesting that even some of the participants seem to be oblivious to specifics beyond their own little roles. While this little mystery and its plot twists are rather predictable, it's hard to not admire the excellence in execution. Hopefully the 'Big Reveal' won't be spoiled with anti-climatic threads which drone on like an endless soap opera. I am concerned about the ever expanding scope of this however, and hope the collateral damage is minimal.

One interesting twist that I enjoy: (spoiler alert) is that one of the primary antagonists has an interesting character development. 8 of their top 10 edited articles revolve directly with guns and weapons. (some 2k worth) I don't think the term "militant" would be an overreach here, especially given the chosen use of this graphic. Interesting also is the "sleeper" account aspect - but perhaps that's just minor point. The ability to start a thread, provide bait for provocation, and then, once the recruited supporters and antagonists arrive - play the wounded "please don't hurt me" role. Once the predictable ruckus has reached a certain volume, you can find little pokes and jabs that continue to fuel the fires. Interesting as well is that an editor's first thought on their user page would be: "Let's Co-exist Peacefully"; and would then be involved in so very many threads which were so divisive.

Paul Newman had a wonderful little speech

Perhaps I'm being cold and overly analytically, but if I let myself become emotionally invested, then it would suck what little enjoyment I have from my soul. Max Ehrmann really did get it right. Just remember: all is well. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and unblock, Ched. Appreciated. I can't think of anything interesting, clever, or insightful to say about the latest predictable developments in this situation since last I checked in. Unlike most other people in a similar state, however, I just won't say anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I wish I had the ability to say nothing. — Ched :  ?  11:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: I ended up failing at saying nothing: User talk:Coffee#FWIW. It's hard to say nothing, takes quite a bit of practice. Maybe next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to say nothing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't always do this, but I like the idea of only commenting twice in a discussion, and sometimes try to follow it voluntarily. Especially in quagmires like ANI, where it's easy to get sucked into the vortex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that sometimes things fall into place without me, but it's still not easy to be quiet instead of "why didn't you listen to me?" - Did you know that recently the cat "Surrealist writer was added to Kafka? I reverted. He was a realist, just look at The Trial, "it tells the story of a [wo]man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of [her] his crime revealed neither to him nor the reader". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Floq. Yes, it's often a difficult call to know when to respond. I thought your post to Coffee was very well done. Subconsciously I think I often try to simply post my thoughts to the drama boards, and then try to avoid being drawn into a tit-for-tat debate; but I really like that "2 comment rule", and I will definitely try to adopt that consciously. Perhaps say "nothing" is not quite accurate on my part as well ... I would hate to fall into a "first they came" situation. :) (Ched waves at Gerda on the way through). 16:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


I am so very very sorry Floq. — Ched :  ? 

?? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What, the Kirby Whatshisname thing? I'm not frustrated with you, @Ched:, just with a small group of people who have been forum shopping this for the last month or two. If you believe it should be unsalted, then unsalt it, that's OK. I think it should remain salted, so I'm not going to do it myself, and I just get tired of being told repeatedly by this small group of people that I have an obligation to do it myself when I've explained several times why I'm not going to. With lots of insinuations that I'm unethical for not doing it. But I don't have a monopoly on being right, so please do what you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. Oh, I see. Sorry, it didn't register that it was you who pinged me, I thought it was someone else. No worries, there's no way you could have known. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for looking and protecting ;) - What do you mean "some are nice people", aren't we all? - The topic is not new, see my talk with a link to Classical music (and contribs of the warrior). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I should have said "I know some are nice people, the others probably are too but I don't know them so I can't say for sure". But that's way too many letters. I'm afraid, based on his latest post to ANEW, that an indef block is the next logical step. We'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg
No revert (thanks to Dreadstar) for the newbie who doesn't understand disambiguation (don't blame them, took me a while, and I still get cross when I see a popular article made a dab, - as just seen for Lohengrin (opera)), - but understands "block" and "edit war". To understand block and ban also took me a while, and the place would be better if they were not needed. I was reminded of my short description (a year ago) on how arbcom works ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Vienna wrong again, and nice person not treated well (see talk page history, but what's new?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved, in the way that I kind of expected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Vienna resolved, nice treatment of nice person will take longer, - not by you, of course, - "play on" is a good motto ;) - How do you like the image on the peak of my talk, 21000 feet? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I put "daß ich dir werd ein guter Baum" (that I become a good tree for you) on my user pages today, for personal reasons, - did you see who gave me this one? (archived under "blushing" on the talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Clicking a couple of the links under your tree, I see that User:Yngvadottir has now reached her limit too. I don't know what happened, but that is really a shame. Only ran across her a couple of times, but each time I did I left impressed with her approach. Oh, yeah, almost forgot, she also wrote a boatload of actual encyclopedia articles. It's a very nice looking tree, Gerda, but it comes with some bitter fruit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Bitter enough, I thought, before she left, but worse now. She helped me from the start with translations, and again as an admin. Did you see my nurse statement (AE)? - I can proudly present two GA and one FA in 2015, but some still think I have only little ... in mind, - also a bit bitter, - even more I enjoy your "un-bitter" below the tree ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Floquenbeam

There are just two problems with this threat[11]. The first is that mentioning a certain subject is not in any violation of any policy and therefore an admin is not within his rights to block a user for simply speaking something. Plus the word of one admin doesn't make it amount to a topic ban. The second thing is, you do not have the privilege to use the language of the gutter when addressing fellow Wikipedians, so I will thank you to refrain from using expletives when talking to me in future, I don't use those words myself and I don't let my children use them. I am offended by the insult, so I will thank you not to use that language again on my talk page and will remind you that admins are not above being banned or even demoted back to the "unprivileged" grass roots experienced by us newbies. --Mark Winterbottom (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Just thought you'd find this funny, Flo. Origamite 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well that's completely different. Somehow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the people I miss (not the project)

Just passing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well hello, Ghost of Wikipedia Past. Hope all is well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I had wondered... ;) - I am good, and also well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You are good ;) - I am writing peace music, with the spirits in endless battle for renewed existence, - if the vocabulary sounds familiar, it's 19th century poetry - I am silently dedicating the work to the victims of the endless infoboxes battles, on both sides. - I must be very important, judging by how many times my name comes up when a famous actor is discussed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh noes! Am I finally gonna be permabanned?! (Thanks for the note, Robert, I don't plan to participate, my note there was only bureaucratic.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You will not be permabanned. Whether you are pressed into service as a reserve arbitrator is another question. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh noes! That's much scarier; can't I just be permabanned instead? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
My bookie places the odds of you being permabanned in the case at 1.65%, certainly a much longer shot than me being desysopped (15%) or Collect being asked to stop using archaic 19th-century synonyms for common English words (30%). You'll be fine. MastCell Talk 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I can handle odds of 1.65%; I figure that's only slightly higher than my typical daily odds of being community banned. And there's money to be made here; I've done the math, and there's actually only a 12.7% chance of you being desysopped. If your bookie is really giving odds of 15%, I want in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Stewart MacDonald ‎edits

Thank you for your assistance with the Stewart MacDonald article and offending edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I should probably protect it, since they have access to at least 2 IPs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Feeding the...

I tend to deal with them in the same manner I deal with socks (and my students) using a who's willing to keep this up for longer. I've noticed they tend to get bored of me quicker than I get bored of them. Amortias (T)(C) 21:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If that works for you, good luck and enjoy. I never had any students trying to troll me, but mine were engineering students, so they may have been missing the trolling gene. Or maybe the subject matter just doesn't lend itself as easily to trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)



Many thanks for revoking this user's talk page access :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. A pretty easy call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, you have been removed as a party from the American politics 2 arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Aw, I was only a party for 1 hr 21 minutes. Now what am I supposed to do with my 53 diffs of misbehavior by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who I see was also removed as a party)? Trim 3 diffs? Unthinkable! --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I never quite forgave arbcom for not sanctioning me in WP:ARBCC, and now this. They are trampling on my right to be persecuted to the full extent of applicable laws. You used to be on the committee -- can I request to be reinstated as a co-belligerent? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I was kind of more successful, told by AE that the next time I made more than two comments (as I had done on Laurence Olivier) I would be sanctioned. Counting the comments of some others might be interesting, not yet talking about content, who would speak of content, what is that, content? - Then I nominated a young singer for DYK who died, and all that bickering fell in place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine if you apply yourself, you could get added back to the list. I'm not sure just requesting it would work, though. There are some ornery and contrary people on the committee, who would leave your name off the case just for spite. But with some carefully chosen reverts to some carefully chosen pages, you could probably get added back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


What do you think of this guy? I think you blocked PennJilletteFan for exactly that kind of behaviour. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah same guy. Will block when I get to a computer (on phone right now). Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, already taken care of by others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Redaction request

Hi Floq, may I please request the redaction of the edit summaries in these edits: [12][13][14]? I've picked you as you are the blocking admin. Danke! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do in a while, called away from computer in mid-response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually don't revdel garden-variety stupidity, but since it's in the edit summary (which is more "permanent"), and since it was easy to do without messing with other people's edits, I've done it. Also removed talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity

kill me now? NE Ent 23:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It kind of ruins the laconic effect (as Boris described it) to explain it, but for the sake of clarity: yes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I really want to add "Electric Boogaloo" after the case title, but I suppose a clerk would just remove it and scold me. 28bytes (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't let the clerks scare you. Do it. I triple dog dare you (skipped a few steps). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No idea what kmn stands for, sorry. I made a statement. Real people really die. I try not to bring the line about the "art of infobox terrorism" on the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Explained above. Should be interpreted as "good grief not this again." --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the nice fiction about me? Very inventive. Too bad I'm much more boring, the cleaning lady of TFA and the nurse of the wounded of the battles about the unspeakable. Did you know that one of my better questions was archived today, of April 2012, "Who decides what readers read?" (archived now on my user page). Open. Who decides what they don't get to read read? We know that much, and hidden notices take care that it sticks. What a wonderful world" (Not exactly un-bitter.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
ps: revisited there: „Keep on Knocking“, „Sad Song“, „Free“, „Drag on Forever“ - forever? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You just made me lol on ANI, a good sign: I feel better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it, Gerda. I've now done one useful thing today. That thread was a head scratcher. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to a garden. Note that was begun before a woman died, the above, and an admin exploded. I take all the blame. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Dreadstar, but watching what unfolded (1/3 real time, 2/3 after the fact), I doubt you taking the blame makes sense, and I doubt he'd like it if he knew you were trying. What someone somewhere said (can't recall details) sounds truer: that he'd burned out and was going to be gone soon no matter what. I haven't gotten to quite that point before, but I've been pretty close, and understand it a little I think. If I had actually quit, and found out later someone was incorrectly blaming themselves for my leaving, that would make me feel worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have am icon for sarcasm? I mean I take all blame for everything, I am the toxic personality with the user page full of hostility and accusations (that's on record) ;) - Dreadstar knows that I wasn't serious. I am less sure about GFHandel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sarcasm mark? OK, I see, my mistake. I'm usually on the other end of any sarcasm misunderstanding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If you really don't know Dreadstar --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Today's DYK is a hymn which appears in surprisingly few sources, but - about its function in the St Matthew Passion: "... in the closing chorus of part 1: “O man, bewail your great sin” (“O Mensch bewein dein Sünde groß”). The word “sin” is heard fourteen times in the St. Matthew Passion, with related words of guilt, fault, heavy burden, transgressions, penance and remorse, need to make atonement, being deserving of punishment and blame, and the weakness of the flesh."[15] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bots deny

Thank you, good idea. It's not my experience that these things work, but you never know, it could. At least after Bishzilla has eaten the little bot. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if it will work or not, Bish, but it's worth a try. Either that or I'd have to block you and the bot for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

AN filing


I saw your notice. Since I mentioned your name and our agreement during an AN filing, I thought I'd give you a heads up about it just in case you wanted to add anything to it or comment on it. The AN filing is here . Thanks. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'm in "meh" mode right now as far as WP is concerned, so I won't be commenting there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Full protection

What justification was there to protect that talk page? Tutelary (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

To stop you from shit stirring was one. To stop you from making an unfortunate situation regarding a living breathing human being worse is another. I have a few others, but I'll save them for the inevitable ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Really, thank you for that, it is exactly what was needed. In fact you beat me to it by just a few seconds. Some people just can't see the forest through the trees and apparently believe that the letter of our policies is god's own law and nothing else matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. While you're here, @Beeblebrox:, do you have any problem if I restore RG's talk page access in a week or so? It might be useful for him to talk to other people before the block expires, but after a bit of a break. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Support protection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Tutelary, use your common sense. This isn't RGloucester's first kick at the can and past history has shown that when he's upset, he tends to make really, really unfortunate remarks. --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't mind if you restore it early. Of course I am operating under the assumption that if he starts back up with the crazy nonsense you'll yank it back. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it: that IP was our old pal Kumioko/Regyula. I should have recognized the style with all the hating on admins and self-pity. I do believe I am going to shut this machine off and do something else. (i.e. drinking) This whole episode is just sad and depressing on every level. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
(a) Yes, of course.
(b) I hadn't picked up on that, although in retrospect it was classic Kumioko. I should have known. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Issues_at_Rgloucester.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Over before I got back. But at least you had fun, which is the important thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Re User_talk:2600:1017:B800:4B55:24F6:8DF5:75E5:981E

Floquenbeam, I see you blocked this user, but he's now abusing his page by pinging people telling them that he'll be back in 12 months. Childish stuff, but still, he probably should have his talk page access cut off KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Reaper Eternal got it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That user sent me a ping also, before they were banned. When I looked thru the history I saw the name "dodo bird die". That user is a sockpuppet!!!!!! If you go to my user page and go thru my history you will see someone with the name Epicgenius 2 or Dodo birds die, vandalizing my page, and if you go on their history, you will also see that they had also messed around with other peoples pages with vandalism and profanity!Doorknob747 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

is the discussion about me on ANI over yet

if yes can u archive it?Doorknob747 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about you to close that thread, and I'm not going to wade through it. I suspect if I did, I would block you from editing. But I have seen enough to tell you not to comment on ANI threads that do not already directly concern you, or I will block you from editing. You're giving too much incorrect information/advice, and complicating threads that don't affect you. You need to focus on the fact that a lot of people are saying your edits are a problem, and not focus on other people's problems.
Also, you should stop editing Wikipedia from your phone; according to you, it's causing problems, and according to everyone else, they're having to clean it up.
I'll cross-post this to your talk page to make sure you see it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you have seen it but there is a section at ANI about Door Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Doorknob747 Im doing my best to WP:AGF but with edits like these: [16], [17] it becomes hard to. I feel that plenty of editors have done their best to reach out here but how far does it go? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what the thread title is about... I'm not going to get involved in that thread, some other admin will deal with it eventually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving WP:ANI

Hey, Flo,
There is an editor that I believe is trying to be helpful and is archiving cases on WP:ANI that they believe are finished. But there is a bot that takes care of that, right? I wasn't sure about undoing all of Mdann52's edits and you look like the last admin to comment on the noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:, Lowercasesigmabot archives threads that have had no edits in 48 hours (or maybe 36, I'm not sure). It looks like Mdann52 is going through and clearing out threads that don't meet that criterion, but are still stale and taking up a lot of bandwidth. If he's archiving threads that should be archived, he's doing us a favor. If he's archiving threads that shouldn't be archived, you can ask him to be more cautious when choosing threads to remove. I've seen him do it before, though, with no complaints I'm aware of, so if I have to guess, I'd say he's probably do it right. Why, are there threads you don't think are "done" yet? If so, drop him a note on his talk page. If not, then I think he's helping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like I owe Mdann52 a big apology! To be honest, looking at the most recent archive, the cases weren't closed. But I realize that not all archived cases are closed, some are left unresolved. And while I've seen editors/admins take cases out of the archive (if they were archived prematurely), I'll admit that I've never seen anyone put cases in the archives. I thought only the bot handled that. But if this is not unusual and it's just new to me, that's cool. My apologies, Mdann52! Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


I had interacted OccultZone at INB, he is active there. Delibzr (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Do you know the other three? I'm quite puzzled by this pattern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You can update this to the ANI, and I have never seen those other three before. ANI is just full of people who you don't know, now I am not sure who is, but he is commenting like a pro. Delibzr (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


This is insane. Have this discussion somewhere else. It's too depressing to be constantly reminded that people have this little consideration for the very long list of people Kumioko has harassed. Up to and including yesterday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Floquenbeam. I hope you are well. I have been speaking with Kumioko via IRC in the unblock channel. I will be the first to admit I have not followed the Kumioko saga. I will also agree that past attempts to resolve editing behavior have not worked well. That said, I see you have removed his ability to edit his talk page. While I understand the reasoning behind this, I would like to ask that you lift it. I have been speaking with Kumioko who is willing to post an unblock request with what I consider to be reasonable conditions. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 02:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why the fuck are you talking to him about an unblock request, when his previous indef block was reduced to 6 months on the condition he not edit WP during that time, and he has since socked dozens of times since then? The latest yesterday? There are no "reasonable conditions", he had unreasonable conditions in his favor and he refused to meet them. He requested an unblock a little while ago on UTRS and was denied. He has had talk page access removed since November, and several months before that, due to serial socking. And he's not socking to edit articles, he's socking to stir shit. How could you possibly believe anything he says? Aren't you a functionary, for God's sake? Aren't you supposed to have some tiny iota of clue? No, I won't change the block settings, and I will be deeply, deeply disappointed if you do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm disappointed by your response, not your answer, but your response. Yes, I am a functionary, but that does not mean I have to engage in group-think. Additionally, as a fellow functionary I would expect more respect from you. As I stated above, I have not followed the Kumioko saga. Instead of calling me clueless, you could have briefly explained your opinion and provided me with the history that lead to your decision. If this is how you react to administrators who come here in good faith to you to discuss your administrative actions, then you should not be performing the actions. Anyways, my apologies for disturbing you. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 8,673 times, and on Wikipedia you get another chance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
So if I say something mean to Tiptoety 8,672 more times, he won't be mad anymore? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
+1 in the absolutely shocked by the nature of your response. Floquenbeam, that's quite, quite unnecessary and wholly unacceptable. I'd like to see you apologise to Tiptoety and seriously think about resigning, if that's how you're going to respond to people trying to work in a collaborative environment. Nick (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Opinion noted, and given the consideration it deserves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any unblock of Kumioko at this point in time would be, to be blunt, incredibly stupid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If we can keep Kumioko away from perpetually criticising ArbCom and various administrators, we will get an enormous amount of good quality content for very little trouble, which is all that we want ask of anybody editing here - have a very low noise to signal ratio.
The problem we face with Kumioko, perhaps more so than any other blocked user, is that the block is feeding the pattern of bad behaviour. He's a user who has become steadily more disruptive because of some really quite bad administrative decisions concerning him, and to continue to insist those administrative decisions should stay as they are is really just continuing to pour fuel on the fire. I don't know if reversing those administrative decisions will extinguish the fire or not, but it's abundantly clear the current course of action isn't working and it's genuinely worthwhile trying something different.
The blocks are cheap, if unblocking Kumioko doesn't work, he can be re-blocked. If he's unblocked, there would naturally need to be editing restrictions, the one I favour is Kumioko not commenting on any administrative action or discussion that doesn't involve him directly, so no crusades and interjections at ANI.
It has to be worth trying something - he was a damn good content creator, and in between his bouts of poking administrators with a stick, he still churns out some excellent content. I know some of the articles he wants to work on too, and I have no doubt if he can be kept to editing pretty much just those articles, we stand a good chance of getting back a good editor out of all of this. Nick (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Kumioko has been such a pest. I know Floquenbeam has tried to work with him, talk to him, and assume good faith of him, and has been burned for his pains. So have I, but Floq more, because he has more patience. But I still think, if the surely reasonably cynical Tiptoety thinks it's worth a shot after extended discussion with K, then we should try unblocking, with restrictions similar to what Nick proposes. You won't catch me saying reblocks are cheap, because they're not, they're damn expensive, but nevertheless. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RfA Revert

Can you elaborate on your edit summary? Even though it 100% has no chance, it was my understanding that they should at least get some voting time before being closed as WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW. Unless you plan on closing it yourself that is... 18:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason for people to vote on an RFA of someone with 40 edits. In particular, uninvolved people should never transclude someone else's RFA onto WP:RFA. That's only for the candidate, or a nominator. I've left him a note, and rather than "close" it, I imagine I'll just delete it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Just as long as someone keeps an eye on it I'm ok with it. Since they subst: the timestamp template, it started the official timer and should have been transcluded then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, @EoRdE6:, the fact that they subst'd the timer means they made a mistake because they didn't know what they were doing, and you should have talked to them to explain. You should not have transcluded the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Spiral of justice

You will have seen it, - explains a lot, which helps ;) - and was the result of wonderful collaboration, - more on my talk, top and bottom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Leading to a rare attempt by me to actually improve the content of an article (albeit only slightly). Thanks for bringing it here, G. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, - never heard that term before, always learning ;) - I knew epitaph. - Feel free to go over my articles, I list them on my user page when they come. Yesterday Missa Dona nobis pacem, but only started, will grow, as peace hopefully will ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you Floq. — Ched :  ?  15:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No prob, Ched. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello. A week ago you topic banned Doorknob747 from WP:AN and WP:ANI, other than in threads that directly involve him, but he's back ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), giving "advice" that we clearly can do without. Thomas.W talk 05:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I see a few people have re-warned him, and he's now removed his comments from everything except the thread that directly affects him, which is good. Thanks for the note, I tend to make pronouncements like that and then forget I've done so. Good to see you back, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Given these edits: [26][27] would you mind protecting my talk/user page for a week? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I'll probably forget to look, so if they return after a week, let me know and I'll do something long term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, btw I knew I was most likely wasting my time at door's talk-page but I was kind of hoping given the evidence that an "all-right it was me" confession would be made. Ah well, back to editing I don't think this is the last we will hear of it though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. your comment at WP:ARC

That comment had me chuckling. There's an IRC bot that reports all arbitration-related edits to the clerks, and the edit summary was enough for me to click immediately. There's also a standard template, {{ArbComSize}} that we clerks can use for this stuff, so I didn't have to do much typing. Cheers! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd assumed you didn't type it out by hand, but still; that was quick! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I'm sure that you get swamped by these things to the point where they become a bit bland. Nonetheless, here is a token of appreciation for all of your hard work on Wikipedia. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, L235. I appreciate the note. Back at ya. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for everything.

I think I should not have done all that dodbird stuff in the begining. I am now regretting all that has happened. If only I can get a second chance will I show that I will not do this again. I will start from scratch. Also, I have requested someone to help me find a way so I can get a whole pdf on all of Wikipedias rules and policy, as I have stated in a question on the tea house. All I want to say is sorry and I woll not do the dodbird thing again. The reason why I denied the fact that I was dodo when I was blocked for the first time as a yesterday for being a sockpuppet as because I thought that, if I said I was dodo that you guys would ban me anyway and would not care for my apology and for that reason I thought that, if I said that I was not dodo, with somesort of proof that I could maybe get unblocked. If you noticed from my tudrttt account that I never made a vandalism. Although I do regret going back and vandalising again that night. I did that so I could be unblocked if you guys thought that my computer was hacked. After being unblocked I would have said I was dodo. I do not really think that you are going to accept this appology, but please accept it, if I from this point on ever make a vandal edit then you can consider me as a person who does not learn from the mistakes. I also, will not edit on Wikipedia for a month after I get the PDF aof all the rues, just to let you people be assured that I read the whole pdf. If I do edit anyything after I get the PDF, you can ban me, and you can also consider anyof my future appologies as worthless. I promise that I will not edit as a vandal again, or do another sock.

If you want me to wait a year, before apoligising again and in that time period if I don't vandalise, can you please consider my apologies. Please, I am soory. I promise I will never do this again. Please accept my appologies. From doorknob

Please consider my apoligies, I promise and I beg you that I will not do this again. Please give me a second chance. HondaS2200fan (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can patrloll all of my future edits if you want, I understand the fact that I can never be a admin ever. HondaS2200fan (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

book not parsing and rendering help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan (talkcontribs) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@HondaS2200fan: I don't know if you believe what you're saying or not, but either way, it is not true. You have not learned from your mistakes, and likely won't learn fully for quite a while, until you've matured. I would be doing you a disservice to unblock you now, teaching you that doing bad things is harmless and easily fixed, that all you need to do is say "sorry". There are consequences to treating others poorly. The problem is not that you don't know the policies - you're not going to solve things reading a pdf for a month. The problem is that you thought it was fun/exciting/humorous to create an alternate persona, vandalize, and attack other people with it (including claiming that they made death threats against you). I'm assuming you're young, not evil. So come back in a few years. Right now, Wikipedia is not the forum for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This user has left me an apology on my talk with a link to your talk page Floquenbeam, but I'm confused as to who they are. Any ideas? CassiantoTalk 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cassianto: it's Doorknob747. AKA DodoBirdsDie6 and others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it's since been pointed out to me. I always knew there was something iffy about that user. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if this user might be worth sticking up for... but now I know their original username, and can see that they were blocked yesterday... yeah, this was the right call. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Im waiting for an official WP:SPI to come out that links these accounts for the record, my edit was undone here [28]. So far there are a possibility of at least 7 8 different accounts involved now. [29] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm fully aware that you might not know me from a hole in the wall, or, conversely, that you might think of me as an asshole, but I've noticed a couple of your decisions and comments recently in various places, and I was prompted to say that I very much appreciated the frankness and common sense intelligence you showed. Knowing full well that there's every chance that in the future I could be the subject of your candor and honesty, I still want to thank you, as a rank-and-file editor, for your work.

No need to reply if you would find it awkward or inappropriate, just please consider this to be a personal barnstar without the gaudy graphic accompaniment. Best, BMK (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I have to second your awesomeness Floquenbeam. I think you're my favorite editor here. We crossed paths for the first time in awhile today, and frankly it was just nice to see you. Hope you're doing well. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, thank you both very much, that's very flattering. I'm not quite sure what to say to that (looks down at feet, blushes, kicks at imaginary stone). I almost want to say something candorish and honest to you both just to break the awkward silence... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
While you're here, BMK, on this safe, quiet, out-of-the-way page: I would probably have something "honest" to say about this. Not so much the edit warring, which can sometimes happen when both sides are 100% sure they're right, but for the dismissive tone. I assume you were in a shitty mood? You probably know what I think about "requiring" apologies, but I do believe in suggesting them, and IMHO you owe them an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct. I have struck my remark and offered my apology. BMK (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, I've never really wanted to be an admin, but now I want to just so I can use your "Minority Report" block rationale, where you blocked an editor for the vandalism they were going to do. Excellent! BMK (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That would probably be a bad habit for me to get into, I suppose, but I'll admit to a certain smug self satisfaction in that block log entry. When a troll complains about being harassed by User:Conman200 (which didn't exist at the time), and then that account was created an hour later and posted to ANI... it doesn't take a precog to know what's going to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion it was just good, common sense, adminning. (I'll go away now lest someone accuse me of working the refs.) BMK (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that when you make minor procedural comments at RFAR, you get put on The List. I don't care too much if I keep getting these, but I don't plan to participate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies; the thing is, when dealing with something as sensitive as arbitration, IAR simply isn't an option. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


May I ask why you blocked Dffr (you don't have to answer) TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean Dfrr. Disruption at WP:ANI and other users' talk pages during a thread started about his behavior, and spamming literally hundreds of users' talk pages earlier. The ANI thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Dfrr's conduct on Wikipedia. If you look at his edits from 1 May you'll quickly understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I meant Dfrr, sorry my mistake, I received an invite to the WikiProject: Music was I being spammed? TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, he was not here to build an encyclopaedia whether a troll or lack of competence. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


I have reverted all of Kumioko's Giraffesaurus edits, with the exception of those to his talk page, and the one AfD he started.In my view, banned is banned, and banned editors cannot edit, period. However, any Wikipedia editor in good standing who thinks that any of the edits I reverted was a benefit to the project is welcome to undo the revert, with no fuss whatsoever from me. BMK (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point; it will have zero effect on anything. Normally I'd be actively against it, if they were good useful edits, but over 90% of these edits have absolutely 0% benefit and 0% cost, so it seems like a meh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
New user HanselnGretel has reverted many of BMK's reverts of Giraffesaurus so he might be another sock. Or might not be! Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's him, I just didn't have time earlier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Hey. You answered this user's latest unblock request, so I'm going to you for this; however, I'm also putting this on Yunshui's talk page because he made the initial block. Wakalaka123 is apparently caught in Micah's blocked IP. I was a bit suspicious when Wakalaka came to me with no previous interaction about his article Chip64, but I let it go. However, Our dad wants us protected!! My brother is upset. Why! im way different than him! UNBLOCK ME! demonstrates the same lack of maturity which got the first account blocked. (Also, what should be done with Chip64? It has no references and reads like an advertisement, and a google search shows a blog review and a barely-arguable notability-establishing article.) Origamite 12:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Took a prelim look but I'm out of time. Will look later if Yunshui doesn't do something first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Origamite:, I've blocked the account. Not sure what to do about Chip64, I can't really speedy it except with a small dose of IAR, but it is not article-space worthy. A7 isn't really my area. I can imagine moving it to draft space, but if Micahmpj remains blocked I don't see anyone else working on it, and I'd really be making work for someone else later. I think I might redirect it to a parent article, and see if a non-sock makes it an article someday. What do you think? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. As for the article, I agree that it would just be G13'ed in 6 months if moved to draft space. Either a redirect or a WP:PROD would work, I think. Origamite 16:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If you haven't already, I'll do one of those in a minute; dealing with some ridiculousness right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Easier than I thought; it's 90% copyvio. Page deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Or it could have been WP:G5ed-you deleted it in the middle of my templating. Thanks. Origamite 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick confirmation

It was an edit conflict. The thread wasn't closed when I started writing, but it was immediately after I posted, so you were probably just seconds behind me. I've got no problem with your deletion, seems like a good idea. BMK (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Random question...

Floquenbeam, I've got a random question for you – What happens, if anything, if an Admin is blocked for, say, edit warring? Do their privileges get suspended? Is there any penalty at all?... As you are busy these days, feel free to answer at your leisure – I'm in no hurry for an answer, just curious... --IJBall (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Their editing privileges get suspended, just like anyone else. It's not technically possible to remove their admin privileges without a Crat, so theoretically they could still delete/move/block/etc, but it is universally understood that using them while blocked (in particular, but not limited to, unblocking themselves) would result in an immediate ArbCom case with a very, very likely quick desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining that! --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hash Tag 444

Thanks for investing the effort in checking and for bending over backwards to be reasonable with him. It's a shame that sometimes being nice gets no reward. Nil carborundum. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rexx. In retrospect I feel embarrasingly naive. The trick, I suppose, is to not become, after a while, someone who starts assuming every clueless newbie is intentionally disrupting things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, Floq, you're on the side of the angels. It's far better letting the bad'uns have some rope than biting a newbie. You did good. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Re this: - yes you're right - I'm pretty sure that he picked the photo up from Twitter and/or LinkedIn. I'm so cheesed off. I need to stick to editing harmless articles and not raise my BP with this stuff ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It can, indeed, get old. Relax, have a drink... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


This edit over here[30] is plain and pure WP:VANDALISM. Yes it may be rare, and maybe it was not intentional, but you have now established that Hash Tag 444's endeavours were not strictly intentionally disruptive either. When I reverted him properly with summaries here[31] and here[32], I note there was no backlash despite his or her continued freedom to edit at that time. His antagonists however were using WP:ROLLBACK and as you by now know, Hash Tag's edits were consistent with ostensible attempts to remove vandalism albeit misguided. I do not appeal on his behalf, it is not my job to do so. I do say however that at least a word in the ear of User:Interference and User:Widr is in order, after all, it is every editor's duty to check facts before stamping on "undo". If not, I can only assume that you have excused non-constructive contributions from other editors. --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I think you've misunderstand what "vandalism" is. Please read the page you linked, and note the word "intentional". I have not said Hash Tag 444 was vandalizing with those edits, I said he was accidentally restoring vandalism. Second, and more on point, as I've said several times now, Hash Tag 444 is not blocked because he accidentally re-added vandalism to two articles. He's blocked because 75-80% of his edits are unhelpful, some of them apparently intentionally, including numerous personal attacks on others. People make mistakes, I'm not going to go bug two people who made isolated mistakes a few weeks ago in the interests of "fairness" to someone who is making "mistakes" all the time. Finally, I'm not sure what "If not, I can only assume that you have excused non-constructive contributions from other editors" is intended to imply; a dramatic flourish that falls flat, maybe? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OIC [33] [34]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Head>desk. Thanks for getting this sorted. But, really, my head > my desk. :( DBaK (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So... this could mean that two of the most prolific vandals of all are actually one person, just being operated with different MOs? Wouldn't surprise me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You'd have to ask User:Tiptoety, but I get the impression they're different people, and it was slightly unclear at first which it was, and now it's clearer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is still possible they are two different people as David Beals' MO is to attempt to impersonate other vandals. For more information, see this thread. You will note that one of the accounts commenting on that thread is a Beals sock who attempted to link the two accounts together. That said, even if they are the same, it makes no difference, they both get blocked either way. Tiptoety talk 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


I cannot see much evidence of content creation from you. In fact, I cannot see any evidence of mainspace editing in 2015. I think you may need to reconsider your attitude towards people who are here to work on the encyclopedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't see any disruption or cluelessness from me, either (well, that's probably not true, but certainly an order of magnitude or two less than yours). The people I'm concerned about are the people who are here working on the encyclopedia, and get obstructed from doing so by you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for experimenting with the RfA transclusion process to see if you can find the flaw. Sorry about all those vicious oppose votes. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was thinking of something like this: [35] (it should open in edit mode). See what you think. In general, a lot of the template complications seem geared towards trying to do the work for people that don't know what's going on, except (a) people that don't know what's going on shouldn't be filing RFA's, and (b) all the complications mean newbies and old hands now don't know what's going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I like it! I especially like the humorous flavor of it. So typing five tildes works? --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
5 tildes results in: 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
But if you put that in the "scheduled to end" place, won't it produce the same result I had - that it transcludes as "closure imminent"? I thought it needed to be a week from the current date. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Gah, yes actually that would give (roughly) the time it was transcluded, not the scheduled to close date. Still a couple of bugs to work out... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That looks great! Thanks for fixing this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not sure I'd call it "fixing". This is just my sandbox, and mostly an exercise to see how easy it would be to simplify things. I don't expect it to go anywhere, I've spent time on WT:RFA, and I know nothing ever changes. I already see the forces of entropy trying to shut down any change to the status quo. I expect to see the phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it" within 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
But please don't drop it! Could you link to it or propose it at WT:RFA? Or at least say "hey folks, here's an example of how it could be fixed, somebody go for it!"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I won't drop it altogether; I'll clean it up a little more and post a link at WT:RFA; I just don't expect anything to come of it. That was based off my old RFA, it's possible some things have changed in the eons since my RFA, so I may base it of Ritchie's or Abcd...something's instead, to be safe. And do you have any idea what that "plainlinks" thing is? I'd love to get rid of that too... Seems like something I should understand, but I don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The "Voice your opinion..." link is technically an external link, not a wikilink; the plainlinks span allows it to look like a wikilink even though it's not. Compare:
It's hardly mission-critical. Writ Keeper  18:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks WK. Remember when Jimbo stripped all the templates from his user page? That's my secret goal for RFA. No templates at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
But didn't you know? Absurd overcomplexity at RfA is a feature, not a bug. Writ Keeper  18:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Bishzilla is quite phobic about templates, they make her break out in a cold sweat. Keep your distance if you're going to say "fullurl" or similar to her, or you may drown. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
Ew. Drowning in pool of cold lizard sweat. Hard to think worse way die than this. Drowning bad. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I was gonna dig Cthulhufish out of the mothballs for this, but it just seems like so much effort. Also, drowning in mothballs is probably up there. Writ Keeper  19:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam or whoever you are at the moment: Do you think this is your cue? --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a trap! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wonder. I know you don't want any templates or complicated nonsense, but the trickiest thing for these is usually the transclusion itself; what if we made a button that would do the transclusion for you? Writ Keeper  22:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, it won't work without Javascript. Damn. Writ Keeper  22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing staid, my personal preference would be for less colloquial language. Humour is a very hit-and-miss thing, highly dependent on the reader's receptiveness and shared cultural context, so I think a more straightforward presentation is better. I can draft a sample change, if you like. Assuming the existing nomination instructions page is intended to remain, I also suggest adding a link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. Otherwise, I think including the instructions inline is a good idea, and I hope consensus will agree. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl: My preference is for less formal language; helps emphasize that people shouldn't stress out about it. But I'm not married to it, and I see your point too. I didn't really intend my userspace to be a work in progress, so much as something to point to, to give an example to start with; I'm certainly not marketing it as ready for prime time. I don't actually think WT:RFA will result in a change - I don't believe I've ever seen a change resulting from a discussion there - so I'm not going to invest too much time in this. But if it does gain traction, and you propose there that the language be formalized some, it certainly won't bother me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mellowed Fillmore

Despite the outcome of the inquiry, I think yours was still the right approach to take given the available information. Thanks for that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; it was worth a try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Current ANI re Antonio

If, as I understand it, ARBCOM is involved now, shouldn't someone close that thread in lieu of notice or action from them? It has no value other than WP:DRAMA at this point. My two cents, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know, Joe, I really don't. Maybe @Courcelles: can clarify (or maybe he isn't in position to), but I gather ArbCom is involved only with the potential sockpuppetry issue. The ANI thread is more wide-ranging than that. Plus, if I were to attempt to close the thread now, some editors would have heart attacks, due to how shockingly abusive of power it would be to defend another admin at all costs because of how we all stick together. ANI looks like it's going to end up making things worse - no surprise. For all his faults, he contributed a lot, and I'm pretty sure we'll lose that. I was going to file an ArbCom request for a desysop - I don't think there's a case to be made for an indef block - but the pitchforks are out now, and I may chicken out, do a Pontius Pilate impression, and wash my hands of it. An indef block that will be lifted only if a user "voluntarily" requests a desysop seems like a very bad precedent, but it's a tough thing to disagree with when a desysop seems so obvious. It's what happens when there's no structured community desysop process; eventually, you get an unstructured one. Sorry, I'm rambling, I'll stop now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we only handled the desysop for socking. The socking and therefore the desysop are the only parts that are directly ArbCom's remit in the absence of a formal case. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I gather that ArbCom are pretty unanimous that this was actual socking/meatpuppeting, rather than an unrecruited family member. I'll consider revising my opinion at ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Destructive Destroyer Vandal

Thanks for the assist on this and I'll keep in mind the de facto banned matter. Sometimes AIV can be a tricky place to get remedies. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not have known they were vandalising without the link to the ANI thread - the subject matter is greek to me - and I'm basically trusting you and the previous blocking admins. In the past, I've created summary pages in my user space that I can point to at AIV/ANI etc, so i don't have to keep explaining myself; not sure if that would be useful for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I know you?

How do I know you? I'm dying to meet a friend in Gena Chandler! SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't know me; I'm just an admin here. Not sure who or what Gena Chandler is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello Floquenbeam,

I hope that you will take a moment to read the message I was writing on their talk page at the time you blocked this editor. I do not contest your block, but perhaps this new editor might possibly have something to offer, if we can get through to him. If a mentorship might help, I am willing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said on his talk page, if he agrees not to add anything to the article until there's consensus for it, I have no problem with him being unblocked. I'll admit to not being extremely optimistic, but I'd be happy to give it a shot. Has to change his approach, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I can ask for no more than that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Are you sure that Krinkelbot has protected Blatter's image over at Commons? Or is that a local protected version? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a locally protected version. As soon as I see Krinkelbot has added it to the list, I'll delete the local copy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, a local version that is automatically cascade protected; I don't actually need to protect it here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok cool. It was on the list of images to be protected, that's all. Not necessary now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, KrinkleBot strikes again. Local copy now deleted, otherwise I'd forget: [36]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm offended

Clearly it was, at the very least, the 1,274,313th most important thing we could be doing. It would be higher, but my arm itches, so that takes precedent. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 topic ban

Hey there,

I've noticed from his talk page that there has been some edit warring at times occuring - since if I need to (though I really hope I wouldn't have to) I can prevent him from editing certain pages, do you think things like 1RR would fall under that scope (as lesser restrictions - I'm not asking for unlimited "powah" but conscious that sometimes an outright ban might not be needed). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think whatever you think is necessary; I mean, you can't tell him he has to give you his lunch money, but anything within reason that you genuinely think would help with the problems enumerated at ANI. I optimistically hope that he's interested in this working out, so if you explain how whatever limitations you're imposing will help, I'm hoping he'll go for it. If not, he does have an avenue for appealing it, in case you do demand his lunch money... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
But what if I'm really hungry? Hehehe...I get it. Thanks :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


This posting has the additional virtue of getting "Yangtze" without "River" off ITN. Sca (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Win-win, I guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ellen Pao.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ellen Pao.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bot. It's sorta tagged. Ish. Anyway in 7 days even Commons will get around to deleting the file I'm "blocking", right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate 500 edit requirement

I'd like to suggest that for evaluating the 500 edit Gamergate requirement, the same standard be adopted as is used when evaluating whether the 3RR "bright line" has been breached -- that is, that edits which are made consecutively, with a very close time interval, be considered to be a single edit. In this way, Handpolk's 170 4-byte edits to the Tamil film article in just under an hour would be considered to be a single edit for purposes of achieving the requirement. This standard seems reasonable, has a precedent in edit warring evaulation, and prevents the kind of blantant gaming of the system seen in Handpolk's edits Certainly, it's a bit ex post facto, but that's true of the 500/30 requirement anyway, and this is just in the way of tweaking its administration. BMK (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I made the same suggestion on Zad68's talk page as well. BMK (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: That has a certain amount of logic, but... meh. The 500/30 rule isn't a terrible proxy for what we're really trying to achieve: minimize the number of SPA's. It has the benefit of being easy to determine; you hover over the user's name, and Popups tells you how many edits they've made. Your plan would require manual counting (unless there's a script or something that does what you propose). And, since any restriction can be gamed, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I see the editor was topic banned, so perhaps this is the best way: leave it at 500/30, and if bad faith gaming can be demonstrated, act on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
One suggestion I've seen proposed, actually from the Gamergate side, is that the requirement be 500 article space edits. By going into Edit Count, one can easily see if this requirement has been met and one can look at the top articles edited to see whether they were 170 edits to the same article. Of course, I think you'd have to run this by @Zad68:. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's possible too. There are a large number of possible improvements to the rule, all of which would require more effort than I would expend if I were you two. But that's just my opinion: offered because I was asked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding Dispute resolution

As the admin imposing an interaction ban and that some of my interactions have been referenced by other editors I inquire if, in your opinion, my participation in the currently open ArbCom case to present evidence of long term incompatibility of the other editor with established and widely held conventions would fall within the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" clause of WP:BANEX. If I hear nothing back, I will assume that I should not participate in the ArbCom case. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the person to ask, but my opinion is that an I-ban is mostly to spare everyone (you both, and everyone else) from the day to day bickering. It makes sense to me to allow statements about each other in the confines of an arbcom page only, as long as you are both careful to stick to facts and not start name calling or something. But before you do that I'd ask one of the arbs. In the recent Lightbreather case, arbcom actually passed a motion to suspend the I-bans (only on arb pages, and with limitations), but I'm not sure it's needed here, I don't think things between you are as broken as they were with LB and her enemies. But an arb would know better than me how they would interpret BANEX.
That said, to be honest, if I were you I'd just assume it was in good hands and not wade in. But if you want to, that's the route I would go. You'll get no argument from me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Yogo2783 Close crop.JPG
This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on 19 June 2012.

normal human --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Gee, thanks Gerda! I'm touched. I thought for a second I had been recently awesome, but it appears this is just an anniversary of previous awesomeness. I'm still flattered. Hope you're well and enjoying things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Precious is once, only repeated, but as last time you said you didn't want to be reminded of absence I changed to the general. Category "Awesome Wikipedians" was just deleted, and you fit no category ;) - I am well, working on a new project: a GA for each occasion of the liturgical year in Bach's works, #3 in progress just approved (BWV 21). I am out of prison on parole, as you probably know, and so far didn't ruin the project ;) - playing on, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Recording a restriction

I was reading through the ANI archives and I found that you had imposed an i-ban between Hasteur and Technical 13, which appeared to be formal and enforceable by block, which I didn't see was recorded anywhere. Do you want me to record it at WP:EDR for you to give it effect? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be nice of you, thanks. I'm not great really, really, bad at that kind of i dotting and t crossing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No, thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty moot right now anyway in light of the current ArbCom injunction against Technical 13.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How so, Brad? Hasteur is asking if he can provide evidence on an Arb page about T13 without violating the I-ban. That has nothing do do with T13 being limited to the Arb pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose my response only makes sense if you combine this thread with the one above. My question is still reasonable, but my comment otherwise doesn't make sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I was thinking in one direction but not the other. It probably has something to do with my height. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I should have closed that thread as "Randy Newman in Boise". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

History merge

[Worn out but smug.] My god, I just did a history merge![37] You know, the "delete B, move A, delete A, undelete A, move A." There's a special procedure for admins, but it looks frankly even worse. Drinks are on me! Carry me on your shoulders through the gates of the city! Bishonen | talk 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC).

(watching:) I would if I could! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Um... I don't know how to say this, Bish, without raining on your parade. Do you want some constructive criticism now? Or would you prefer I wait for a day or two so you can enjoy the (usually well-deserved) smugness?
Also, when I saw the orange bar, I thought maybe you or Gerda were leaving a message to congratulate me for one or two mildly amusing things I've said in the last 3-4 days, but which (*sigh*) no one has noticed, leaving my self image as mildly witty on occasion in doubt. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You saying "No foul, play on" was so great, it's for life! Where would I have met you saying something new? I try to avoid the dramah boards ;) - (Bish, don't listen.) You meet me in infobox discussions again after I was released a bit. In teh case, I thought if I only show them (arbs) how useful they (the little boxes, harmless like images) are, they would win. Instead I was told to better "conduct themselves". I try, - please review my conduct ;) (#1, #2). I spend little time on it because (following Bach's cantata cycles) I set myself a goal of a GA per week, celebrating my initials, #3 will go for FA next year or later, #4 is ready for nomination, - it's St. John's day today ;)
ps pssst: I confess --- to be proud that Beethoven made it from suggestion in teh case to real, - I play on and enjoy it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


You recently described someone as an übergrump. I'm seriously thinking now of visiting CHUS with a request! I'm pretty sure that the person you so described went to the same Cambridge college as me, based on things they said about William Stone Building prior to and immediately after I created that article. The college only takes around 70-80 new undergraduate students each year and, since I am also an übergrump, perhaps causation really is correlation in this case ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Which caused what? Did the college instill grumpiness in until-then normal people? Or did they recruit already-grumpy people? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha, the old chicken and egg! I doubt anyone who attends Cambridge is truly "normal". They're either like me - people without privilege but bright and very independent of mind - or they're the more stereotypical Hooray Henry's whose life began with a silver spoon and ends with silver mountings on their coffin. (I knew a chap there called Pine-Coffin, btw: what a great name!) In fairness, my grumpiness was probably pre-Cambridge: I got extremely pissed off with what I perceived to be the naivety of Hugh Trevor-Roper at my entrance interview and called him a fool, amongst other things. He bought me a bottle of scotch when he next saw me, as a new member of the college. I think the likes of Michael Axworthy, Andrew Roberts and Guy Black will probably attest to a grumpiness in me that at least began on Day One in their experience, and that they are all much less so. Probably why they have got somewhere in the world and I have not, come to think of it! - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Floquenbeam, I don't believe you intended to remove my report with the other, unless I am mistaken. ([38]). I won't restore it, I am sufficiently terrorized by your edit summary. Face-smile.svg Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I already noticed I removed too many, restored it, and then blocked the IP. Sorry. But I'm glad to know the edit summary instilled terror, that was my goal. Just you weren't my target. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I rather figured! Thanks for all the hard work. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You do the hard work, I just occasionally push the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the other half of that, so much for avoiding the depressing. Facepalm Perhaps should switch to decaffeinated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me?

[39] You may not like my view of Bishonen's bad faith actions, but that doesn't give you the right to revert without comment. If you have a problem with my view, have the basic courtesy to comment and state your disagreement. Resolute 14:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) Talking about good faith: have you never hit the rollback button inadvertently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
you have an unlimited amount of good faith, Gerda, but in this case it is misplaced. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Today's Sunday sermon is about mercy, - shamelessly inviting to a GA review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Gerda, I have. And my very next edit is invariably to self-revert such a mistake. In this case, Floq is deliberately hiding an opinion he doesn't like and mislabeling it as "vandalism". Which is itself disappointing, because a former arbitrator should know better. Resolute 15:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Floq I'm sure my opinion matters squat to you but I do agree with Resolute, it isn't the sort that needed removed or classified as vandalism. If it bothers you consider hatting it? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not that it doesn't matter to me, but I disagree. I have a deep seated hatred of smug hypocrisy like this. Editors wandering around demanding editors be banned because they aren't "civil" to others, but feeling free to make offensive personal attacks, with no basis in reality, themselves. "Vandalism" isn't accurate, of course, but if it annoys Resolute, then yay, that was the intent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get all abrasive now Floquen, be nice ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of hypocrisy, suppose someone made a comment, and you ignored it? Resolute 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


...are not in the clique. On the contrary, if you are not a content creator, then you are one of the targets of Blowfeld's blanket attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam is a reasonable guy I think, even if he thinks I'm abrasive at times ;-) If you don't contribute to content and all you do is relish in drama at the notice boards, making negative comments, then you're not exactly of value to the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I used to contribute a lot of content, but I got tired of fighting the vandals. But still believing in Wikipedia as a concept and as a first-look for information, I found the ref desks, where I hoped vandalism would be less of a problem. That was overly optimistic, but at least there is a good-sized group of "regulars" who are equipped to deal with the vandals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you starting creating some stubs on Gabonese rivers or East Timorese villages I'm sure you won't have to worry about vandals! ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. You would be amazed at what vandals will target. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


I can't even get arrested in this town.
  • @Euryalus: regarding "don't do it again": Geez, you and Mom never let me have any fun. (*kicks pebble, sulks*).
  • {{ping|everyone else}} Thanks for the comments, whether in support or opposition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How dare you use revert on my edit? You think it was vandalism?! Doc talk 00:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No, more like being an ass. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop reverting. --NeilN talk to me 00:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You should be stripped of your tools. You can't tell vandalism from personal attacks from dissenting comments. Doc talk 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Everybody calm down. I do think you need to explain why you have reverted a half dozen times Floq. This isn't a good hill to die on. Dennis Brown - 01:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I'm bone-wearyingly tired of the hypocrisy of people pretending to be so concerned about how important civility is, but the second they see an opening, they feel free to do the same thing back. Worse, really; in real life, that accusation, based on nothing, is worse than name calling. Anyone restoring that comment has no class; I'll trade a block for identifying as many of those people as possible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a rat's ass if you think I have "class" or not. Follow teh rulez, "Floq". Doc talk 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Objectively speaking, I do see plenty of snark, but I regularly see worse and wouldn't, and don't, revert it myself. I have to put on the admin hat here and say that while the comment wasn't particularly constructive, the same could be said of many of the comments in that and other threads, and I can't see a rationale for redacting/reverting. I understand your frustration, but you need to keep your powder dry and pick your battles. Dennis Brown - 01:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing but bad faith in that remark, so personal insult, yes. (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment was a) not vandalism, and it was b) not a personal attack. This admin reverted it multiple times beyond 3RR, and he really should be blocked for edit-warring. Any other editor would be blocked for those reverts! I may have to make a big deal out of this one. Totally unacceptable behavior for an administrator, really. Doc talk 01:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It would better if you didn't. Nothing worthwhile will come it, it was arguably snark, and if no reason that I'm asking you to please just not. I'm trying to get things cooled down, adding gas to the fire isn't what is really best for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 01:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to restore it. You know me, Dennis! But he had zero right to remove it once, let alone however many times he did. And you know what I'm saying is right. Doc talk 01:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Get hold of yourself and stop edit warring. You're over 3RR. It's certainly rude and in bad faith but not a personal attack. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please accept this as a compromise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not really thrilled with that compromise, but (a) I suppose, as a token of respect for your previous attempt to find some kind of compromise on the overall mess (even if it didn't pan out), I'll defer to your judgement, and (b) I'm not really in a position to do anything about it right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have reverted once again, after concerns were raised about your behavior and while the issue was under discussion at ANI. There is nothing at Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions that exempts you from 3RR on this basis. You dared someone to block you [40]. Consequently, you are blocked. DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, 3RR is more important to you than smearing another editor's reputation. Noted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ouch, welcome to persona non grata. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
At least, unlike you, I was actually edit warring. "BLP" and "NPA" and "Civility" sure are interpreted weirdly around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer that no one unblock me. Mostly because I see poor Sitush (just about the only person acting like a grownup), seems genuinely distressed about all the admins acting like idiots. I'm worried that he'd quit if someone started screaming "wheelwar" or something. Si, sorry for any distress my obstinacy caused you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Honourable. But none of the yelling mass will care. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I like you obstinacy, - didn't I write already today that correct is not equal to right, and how they counted my comments to 3 in Talk:Laurence Olivier#a discussion but ignored the spirit of the others, and that not logic is the key word of the cantata title but heart? - Getting tired. - I also recommended a book and a stroll in an arb case request - perhaps you have time for it. You could also check if this is comprehensible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Floq, got your ping and, well, no worries. I am incredibly fed up but that may be in part for medical reasons unrelated to WP. Although it almost certainly doesn't alter the fact that a significant tier of people involved with this place have basically imploded these last few days and it has been particularly frustrating to witness. Almost all of it seems to stem from a combination of someone "running to teacher" in the most stalker-ish manner and a series of (often involved) actions by people who should know better but obviously are also human and therefore trending towards their prejudices. Then there are people who, wittingly or otherwise, have used it to pursue long-held vendettas.

There are lessons to be learned but I have little hope that it will happen, for reasons that I would rather not specify right now but which possibly fall under the "sjw" category. I'm taking a break: I don't expect people to get on with each other all the time but I'm disappointed and demoralised at the moment. It looks like you are unblocked but that doesn't stop you from taking some time out from this madness if you so choose. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh what the fuck? I interrupt the drinking of Westmalle and the cooking of dinner so I can unblock you to find that Nisus's male companion already did that? For the record: it was a personal attack, since it suggests that actions are taking based on personal thingies, not on proper judgment or policy. Also, Doc, you have no business screwing around in here. Fight the power, sure, but fight it somewhere else: an admin does something on an admin's noticeboard, stay away. I could state it more strongly than that, but I think you know English well enough. Floq, I appreciate you sticking your neck out to do what's right. Now, I believe Eric got hisself unblocked to by someone who's bound to get soaked in shit too and that will give the Judge Moore's of Wikipedia plenty of reason to complain about how the letter of the law blah blah blah; but I really don't give a rat's ass. I'm logging off again--this is just to say to the good guys and gals, thanks. Floq, Bish, Reaper, Sitush, and a host of others, thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow Floq - you deserve a barnstar for conviction to put yourself on the line to make WP a little less indecent. Very impressive especially you are an admin & former arb. (But WP is too-far gone to be saved w/o radical reform - you know that, right?) Resolute's public-board conjecture was a slur on Bish's ethics, so I agree it was PA. IHTS (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus. I go away for a family reunion and hell breaks loose. I've looked through the backstory and come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has too many assholes (not that I didn't know already). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'd like to add you to the list of users I trust, and goodnight mate. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting block

Hi, I am an account that is created by another user deliberately to prevent vandalism and account creation by vandals. I promise that this account will not be used in any way, and I will not use this account for sockpuppetry. So I request my account to be blocked, to show others that this account was created in good faith. Please do not hard block me though, I still need to edit using another account on this IP. --GovernmentUSA (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been addressed. Risker (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Risker, even if I'd been around I'm not sure what they are tryng to achieve. Luckily, you seem to understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"unbearably ridiculous and detestable"

Here's a handy phrase to through into discussions: "unbearably ridiculous and detestable", when you think that Ah! perfido might be misunderstood. - DYK that the French is even more elegant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is handy. I'll look for opportunities to use it, thanks Gerda. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


My main concern about the "wheel warring" comment is that I know you're level-headed and clued in about in a number of areas, including Arbcom, so ... can you elaborate? I know you were talking about avoiding wheel-warring yourself, but that implies that others, possibly including me, should avoid wheel-warring as well. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: There are some, who have posted to this page recently, who would not agree with "level-headed and clued in", but thanks. I just meant that editing the TFA blurb could be considered an "admin action", and one admin did one thing there, you undid it, so if I redid it without a clear consensus (2.5-1.5 not being a clear consensus), it could be considered wheel warring if I'd changed it back to "burning of". Since there's not time to gain a clear consensus, I punted on trying. I think at worst someone will have to re-read the sentence once to figure out what's meant, and probably not even that, so it doesn't really matter. If it ended up sounding like a threat or something, that was definitely not my intent. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I didn't feel threatened. I still feel a need for clarity, because you were recently an Arbcom member, and your thinking about what constitutes wheel warring may well be in line with the current committee's. This intersects with various problems I'm currently pondering. I'll get back with you. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I know there are some current Arbcom members you didn't serve with, but I trust your judgment, and I'd count it as a favor if you'd take an educated guess anyway: would Arbcom be likely to define wheel warring roughly the same way you're defining it above? - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, hope you don't mind if I step in on this. As I write, there is a current Arbcom case where the crux of the matter is whether or not an administrator decision at arbitration enforcement is equivalent to an administrator-only action. Because (as Floq points out) only administrators can take action on the above-noted error reports, the question of wheel-warring comes into play here. There's perhaps heightened sensibility in certain quarters on this issue right now, even though it seems that common sense would be .... fix the problem, leave a note saying "can be undone by another admin as appropriate" and leaving it at that. But we all know wheel-warring is a bright line and that (at least historically) the "can be undone" message doesn't necessarily count as much as it should. Risker (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all the answer I need, thanks, although I'm still interested in Floq's opinion, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 09:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've generally used a very strict definition which includes editing through full protection as well. DYK, TFA, POTD... the whole lot. Too often editing text can be common sense, but the atmosphere here is too toxic to allow common sense to win out. The bright line rule means any semblance of wheel warring needs to be avoided. No need to give people ammunition to use against us. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed Brian and Chris on this. I'm pretty sure my hands are tied, that after I get a reply from Brian, I'll be left with only one option on how to proceed in general (since I have Chris's answer already). - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dank: You overestimate my ability to predict ArbCom's opinion (even if I was still plugged in to the clique - which I'm not - it is almost never unanimous about anything, color of the sky included). And your last comment about emailing people and having "only one option" left lead me to believe there is some undercurrent here I don't know about, so if I was smart I would keep far away from whatever it is. But, since you ask, I'll give my own opinion on wheel warring. WP:WHEEL seems clear to me, and usually, when discussed by editors at AN/ANI/etc, topics end up arriving at the same place, though usually after much hand wringing:
  1. Wheel warring refers to any action admins can take that non-admins can't.
  2. Reverting another admin's action without prior discussion/consensus is considered rude, but not wheel warring.
  3. Re-doing an admin action that has been reverted without a clear consensus first is wheel warring.
  4. Sometimes people have said we should re-write it so that the first revert requires consensus (replacing the so-called second mover advantage with a first mover advantage), but I very very strongly disagree, to the point where I would likely resign as an admin if that ever happened.
  5. the first revert of an AE admin action is not really wheel warring, but it will get you in serious trouble.
  6. Tweaking stuff on the live main page is usually slightly less nit-picky about this, since it tends to be more time sensitive. If you reverted an action there, I was confident I was acting on information you didn't have, and expected you would probably agree if you did have it, few people would criticize me for re-doing the action. But in the case we're discussing here, where reverting you would have been substituting my judgement for yours, that tends to get treated more seriously.
  7. Whether something was truly wheel warring or not, people (ArbCom included) tend to take a dim view of stirring up a drama about one isolated incident. Especially if there was any complicating factor resembling changed circumstances, or semi-clear consensus, or the passage of time, or something.
  8. ArbCom sucks, so whatever you're talking about, if your "last option left" is ArbCom, consider whether ArbCom is worth it.
--Floquenbeam (talk)
Heh, now I have to apologize, and no, I don't mean Arbcom. The entire FA process, including TFA, is magic: by the usual laws of the universe, it shouldn't work, and to the extent that I even know how it works, I'm not inclined to reveal the tricks. So: my general approach is to try to write bulletproof TFA columns, in part so that I don't have to talk about how to write a TFA column at WP:ERRORS. It usually works. When it doesn't, then (given that the spectre of wheel-warring is now firmly out of the closet) it becomes impossible for me to deal effectively with some problems as soon as I make any edit to a protected TFA column, except in those rare cases where talking about the problem at ERRORS will actually fix the problem. This is a semi-acceptable state of affairs for the other Main Page columns; it's not acceptable for TFA, for various reasons. Unfortunately (and, for all I know, not coincidentally), every incident that has merited attention since I started in January has happened right after I went to bed. Chris and Brian have been leaving these issues to me. So, unless someone comes up with an option I haven't considered, all that's left is to induct one or more new wizards, preferably night owls or Eastern Hemispherians, into the fellowship of TFA thaumaturges (with much ensuing discussion over the proper shape and color of the pointy hat). - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, one problem is I never picked up on the fact that you created the blurb in the first place. I'm still not sure I understand the problem you're describing; are you worried that technically *you* wheel warred in partially reverting the change to the TFA blurb, because you restored your wording? Or more broadly, that by being the person "in charge" of creating the TFA, you can't really revert any changes other admins make if you think they're mistakes? (If that's not what you're saying, please dumb it down for me.) I don't know, I suppose one could argue that at the time you wrote the blurb, it wasn't protected, so that doesn't count as an admin action (although I suppose it would count as INVOLVED!!?). But even better than looking for technicalities is to just acknowledge that whatever we're doing right now regarding featured content on the main page works very well, and in an IAR kind of way, we should all agree that accusations of wheel warring against the TFA/TFP/TFL directors/managers/whatever should basically be ignored. Or at least you get one extra revert. Or something. I wouldn't suggest an RFC proposing this be codified somewhere, because that could end up making things worse. I really regret mentioning wheel warring now, especially since it was kind of as a throw-away line, and wasn't intended in any way as a description of what I thought you did, it was a description of what I would have been doing if I had reverted again. The featured content directors in particular, and admins who deal with ERRORS and the main page in general, tend to be quite reasonable and quite knowledgeable, and I expect almost everything will work out with a minimum of bad blood or drama as long as we ignore any rules that would handcuff featured content directors. We don't need an RFC or revised policy for that, it's already a pillar. I will say that I'm reasonably confident that the admins who hang around the main page would probably quickly shout down any claims of wheel warring or involvedness or ownership or something made against featured content directors. Unless it became a habit or pattern, or began to look like you weren't open to feedback, or something.--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I co-write the TFA columns ... sometimes it almost all comes from the article's lead, sometimes not so much. I'm going to hold off responding to give Chris and Brian a chance to read this over and decide what if anything needs to be done. There's a lot here to digest. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anything needs to be done – but then I'm not sure, after reading this thread, that I understand what the matter in dispute is. I had never heard of "wheel-warring" before meeting the term here. In general terms, I believe that the text appearing in the TFA box on the main page is the responsibility of the TFA coordinators collectively. Chris and I have devolved that particular task to you, and I believe you have carried it out brilliantly. You have always been open to suggestions, and have frequently sought other opinions, but yours should be the final word. We don't need any armies of moderators ("new wizards, preferably night owls or Eastern Hemispherians") to complicate the matter. I hope I haven't missed the point altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly, Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian, the "matter in dispute" isn't really a matter in dispute. I'll risk wasting your time and explain in detail, to reduce the likelihood that we waste time in further misunderstanding. There are two things: a small disagreement, and a bigger picture issue.

Small disagreement:

  • Dank wrote/edited a TFA blurb (I didn't know this until recently)
  • Once on the main page, someone at WP:ERRORS felt is was unclear in two details
  • Another admin saw the ERRORS report and changed the blurb to address those two issues
  • Dank changed one of them back, saying he felt it wasn't needed
  • I commented at ERRORS, saying I thought it had been a good change (i.e. I disagreed with Dank), but that I wouldn't change it myself because, among other reasons, that might be considered wheel warring. I said this because Dank was an admin, not because he was a TFA coordinator (I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't know this at the time; my brain doesn't handle change well, and I'm still in Bencherlite mode).
  • Dank started this thread on my talk, because it evidently resonated with a bigger picture issue he'd been thinking about.
  • Not realizing what his bigger picture issue was, I and a few others expounded on our views about the wheel warring policy in general
  • Through a series of minor misreadings/miswritings/misunderstandings, Dank and I have spent an inordinate amount of time unnecessarily reassuring each other that we aren't offended or upset.
  • So the small disagreement kind of started out already resolved. It's only important in that it (a) made this thread confusing, and (b) because it led to Dank's big picture issue.

Big picture issue:

  • I'm not 100% sure, but I think (Dank please correct/expand if I've missed the main point) the big picture issue is Dank is worried that his original setup of the TFA is an admin action, so if another admin does something he really thinks messes things up, he would be prevented from fixing it himself, lest he be accused of wheel warring. And would thus need another TFA coordinator to do it instead.
  • My opinion, expressed above but condensed into one sentence, is: I don't think we should worry about it, because handcuffing TFA coordinators by following the explicit wording of a policy would prevent the improvement of the encyclopedia, and we aren't supposed to do that.
  • My other opinion is that I still think I'm right about the small disagreement :)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like we were stumbling around here, Floq, I needed to get some information to make a decision, and I needed for Chris and Brian to have access to the same information. I got exactly what I needed here, from everyone. My next step is to talk privately with Chris and Brian about what I see as the problem and how to proceed. I'll report back here when I can. Thanks everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Btw, Floq, to answer your question, the problem I'm trying to get a grip on is what I should say, what tone I should take, when I disagree with what passes for "consensus" at ERRORS#TFA. Based on what people are saying above about wheel-warring, the answer is: after I've made one edit through protection and been reverted, I'm done. All I can do at that point is put out a polite call for help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(watching:) reading "spent an inordinate amount of time unnecessarily reassuring each other that we aren't offended or upset": be consoled that a much more inordinate amount of time has been spent for worse courses, clarification is fine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, reporting back: Chris will be able to free up some time in August to help at ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just a little puzzled by this whole conversation. Like you and I are still talking past each other, despite best efforts not to. Or something. Maybe I'm just being thick. I don't really see a big problem to be solved. But since Chris's increased presence at WP:ERRORS is, of course, useful (not because he's a TFA coordinator, but because (a) every additional hand there is useful, to cut down on response time, and (b) he's clueful person), I think I'll just let it go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As luck would have it ... in case anyone failed to see the relevance, see WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, a fix to poor English and some fixed redirects as a bonus, that's what's happened tonight. How is this part of "wheel warring"? This place is going downhill fast, that's a pity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is why we can't have nice things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Oceanides

Did you know that it is the title of a tone poem by Sibelius, first article of a promising author, first DYK today, - is such amount of content a bit of cure for a headache? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not know. Thanks for sharing that. It's always something of a miracle when an article turns from this to this in one month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am on my way to lead the author in the field Wikipedia made especially for me: GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A month? Lightweights. – iridescent 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well yeah, Iri, but we already know you can do stuff like that. (In one afternoon, no doubt. While walking uphill (both ways) in 2 feet of snow.) This was a newbie, and I refuse to not be impressed. (William Etty is, by the way, very impressive work. Congratulations. ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Floquenbeam, i had copied your response on my ARCA appeal in my section when framing my response and then neglected to delete your words. I apologize for the error. Soham321 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm an idiot sometimes... :) Well, ok most of the time.... :D Ghostwheel ʘ 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

...because there's no way this is not going to seem like sucking up to you, but I just can't help reiterating how impressed I am with your ability to cut through the crap and utilize your common sense to get to the core of a messy situation, while others -- myself very much included -- fail to see things clearly. If you ever end up blocking me, I'm gonna know that I damn well deserved to be blocked, that's for sure. BMK (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was the "cut the crap" guy, but clearly i failed to see the forest throught he troll yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong. I thought your proposed sanctions were a very reasonable thing to do, and I supported them, but the guy kept on and on, and the more he did, the ranker the air became. Assuming that Floquenbeam got it right (which I think he did), it's amazing how often trolls dig their own graves just by not shutting up -- but I suppose the attention is part of the psychology. BMK (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox:, I don't think it was 100% obvious yesterday, and your sanctions made perfect sense. It was the interaction with Citywhatever that sealed the deal, which you didn't know about yesterday. @Beyond My Ken:, does this mean that you agree to be ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh, ouch. No, I don't think I'm quite ready to go there yet, sorry. <g> BMK (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Having encountered TEOATW before all the drama and tried to give them what guidance I could, I happen to disagree with your intuitive evaluation of the situation. But I'm new, and haven't had to deal with disruptive users much. So I'd like to express my categorical gratitude for the stress you admins put yourselves through for the sake of the project.
If, per a desire to AGF and present the better aspects of the community to new(ly appeared) users, I don't mind finding myself trolled from time to time, do you have advice on what to say to similar users in future? (what I did say pre-ANI: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]). FourViolas (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
First, it wasn't an "intuitive evaluation". Second, I'm unclear what you're asking, but if you want my advice on how to handle over-eager editors in general, I'd suggest emphasizing that they need to slow down and listen to others, before they wear out their welcome. First by advice, then by warnings if necessary. After a while, it doesn't matter what a bull's intentions are, you still need to get them out of the china shop. This is not some uniquely Wikipedian cruelty; there are not many places that would tolerate disruption for 7 days straight, especially once it became clear that the user was being disruptive on purpose. Indeed, the uniquely Wikipedian aspect is that some people think we should have let it continue, in spite of pretty overwhelming evidence that we were being trolled, just on the off chance that they were, instead, incompetent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was what I was trying to ask. I won't challenge the assertion that it was ever obvious they were intending to be disruptive, because I don't see how that would help improve policies in this area. Instead, would you mind suggesting some rules of thumb for distinguishing usefully eager young users from dangerously eager ones, or do I need to develop my own judgement from experience? FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not a bright line, where behavior just to one side is enthusiastic newbie and just to the other side is trolling. In general, I usually start out on the "assuming the best" end of the spectrum, but that can shift further towards the other end of the spectrum when you see various things. Examples of evidence that causes me to start getting more and more suspicious that this is a returning troublemaker include:

  • When a newbie starts patronizing and lecturing an established editor about how things work around here; bonus points if they're really wrong about how they actually work.
  • When a newbie demands that everyone assume good faith about them; bonus points if they bluelink it.
  • When a newbie disrupts one area, gets told to knock it off, and immediately jumps to another area and disrupts that; bonus points if they do this in 4-5 areas in succesion.
  • When a newbie has the "bad luck" to immediately wade into a highly contentious area with a history of socking/SPA's; bonus points if they soon note that they've been reading up on past conflicts and understand why they're viewed with suspicion, "but really guys, I'm innocent."

Among other things. YMMV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Belated note: "Bonus points if they bluelink it". Compare Wikipedia: Don't link to WP:AGF (But do link to that essay, and feel free to improve it and/or to write compliments on the talkpage. [A self-pitying whine enters B's voice. ] Nobody has ever done either of those! Bishonen | talk 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What seems better to express your mood: my heart swims in blood or spirit and soul become confused? The latter needs a GA review the sooner the better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the swimming in blood. Thanks for noticing. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
  • This is another "hunchy" thing, but that username was also a flag Redflag. Although not a violation of the username policy, I don't believe I have ever seen a user, good faith or bad, with a username like that that was any kind of help around here. Anyone who proclaims themselves an expert when creating their account, without ever having even made an edit is going to run into problems sooner rather than later, usually ending just like this did. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Back when I was an arbitration clerk, the Committee banned an editor named User:Fairness And Accuracy For All. So I was required to post all over the website that "Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year." I was always glad certain people never got hold of that one.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another rule of thumb, somewhat related to the incident Brad just mentioned, concerns editors who put "truth" or its variations in their usernames. There's a high degree of probability not that they're socks or trolls necessarily, but that they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and push a distinctive POV. The first steps there are to point out that Wikipedia is not based on "truth" it's based on verifiable facts which have the proper weight and are backed by citations from reliable sources. This usually fails to convince, and the final result is almost inevitable, although I don't doubt that we still have some active users with "truth" in their names. BMK (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. I'll keep those principles in mind. FourViolas (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @NYB This was always my favourite block log entry. ‑ iridescent 16:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Improper blocks by Floquenbeam. Thank you. DES (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Emergency block request

I need to make an emergency block request for User: because they are continuing to vandalize at a rapid rate. Studentaccountantghost4 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, busy defending my outrageous behavior in various fora. Looks like Bosh took care of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Thank you for sounding the alert, Studentaccountantghost4. Another time, it may be quicker to report to WP:AIV, which is well watched and won't crumble just because Floquenbeam is busy filing his nails. Bash·Båsch. 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Red Kitten 01.jpg

This kitten is good at sniffing. Thanks for making this place suck less.

Drmies (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

+ 1. And I hope you enoy(ed) the sunshine. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you two. I did indeed enjoy the sunshine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Being Nice

Please be nice on Wikipedia. You called someone a jerk as seen on this page User_talk:Unframboise. Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are so silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What more can I say? --Drmargi (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(watching) I am sorry but I also just used the word silly (examples in the history of that page, among others) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


I saw your notes on the TEoATW's SPI archive and on Cityside's talk page. I'll be interested to see what their response is, and to see if they walk the straight and narrow if unblocked. Coincidences happen, of course, but trolls can also be clever as well. I thought your offer was generous, but understandable given the circumstances. BMK (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling I just fucked things up even further, but I couldn't very well leave things as they were when I lost faith in the original linkage to TEoatW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


You were right and you shouldn't have self reverted. Sorry, I need to get a grip. --Rubbish computer 17:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: No, I should have self reverted, and better yet, shouldn't have hit save in the first place. But you're right that you need to get a grip; that's really small potatoes, what you're complaining about. I am not WilyD's biggest fan; if there was something there, I wouldn't have tried to sweep it under a rug. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I should know about thinking it through before you hit the Save button, I guess. I've got rid of the thread, as it seems resolved: am I allowed to do that? Thanks, --Rubbish computer 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically, no, but practically, kind of, assuming no one complains. I was the only other person to comment in the thread, and I don't object. You might leave a "nevermind" note on WilyD's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I have done. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I going to get blocked for being uncivil? --Rubbish computer 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Relax. You might want to take a break, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back, but why do you say that? --Rubbish computer 17:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you seem to be pretty stressed out. A break, even of a few hours, can bring perspective. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. --Rubbish computer 17:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) How do you log out on mobile? --Rubbish computer 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I have a problem *logging in* to mobile, so I'm not the person to ask! I'm not even sure there is a way. But there's nothing wrong with staying logged in but ignoring it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It's just, I'm sure I intentionally logged out on mobile before. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

When you tap the sidebar on the main page, it's a button to the right of your username. --Rubbish computer 19:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha! I didn't see that button because the stupid site had already logged me out again! I see it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Give them Rope

Well the madness continues, as time goes on I've admired more and more that you cut through bullshit. Would you do some bullshit cutting again? Administrative actions are not required but a comment or two on the discussion wouldn't be amiss. WP:ROPE talk page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. It's just so silly. I was almost tempted to pretend I'd logged off, but OK, I get you confused with another editor but I have a faint recollection that I did you (or a similarly named editor) wrong some point in the past and probably owe you one. Either that, or you did me wrong, so doing this would increase my good karma. So, OK, I'll comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well you did tell me fuck off but this was after me accusing you of socking so that was mostly on me. Either way I have been watching and I have found a respect for your actions. Thanks Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Sorry about that. I'm not sure I can be too useful, actually. It might seem silly to you, but I don't really have a problem with the requested move discussion. In the mean time, the article is close to it's old pre-blowup title (I moved the talk page archive), and the text is close to it's original pre-blowup text, so everything seems to be progressing along. Just have patience and let the RM run it's course, I think the results of that will pretty much solve 90% of the question over the wording of the text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok I wasn't saying you should intervene just give an opinion on the subject. I find it to be petty personally. But all is well that ends well, water under the bridge thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I don't think I have an opinion to give; certainly not a strong enough opinion to make it worthwhile to wade into that. Might go more smoothly for everyone if you and Alakzi kind of backed off each other, though, and since A seems kind of heated right now, that might be up to you... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
yeah not much to keep going on at this point my head hurts and the wall aint breaking I think i'm done with them. ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)