![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
Let it go. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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'sPonyo bons mots 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Floquenbeam ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Pink Floyd is always acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:57, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you for doing the right thing regarding Sitush. LHM ask me a question 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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. Begoon talk 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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. LHM ask me a question 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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)
(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)
From Mike V's successful RfA (closed 22 Feb 2008) ...
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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 V • Talk 03:40, 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:
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)
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' (
tools
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)
hello Mr.Floquenbeam. Why you guys blocked that the user going to do some modification? The modification which made by Fetx2002 were wrong! http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290450&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=70&sname= Oh Se-keun(basketball) Profile is 200cm not 201cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290407&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=55&sname= Kim Sun-hyung(basketball) Profile is 187cm not 188cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290758 Kim Min-goo(basketball) Profile is 190cm not 191cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290750&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=50&sname= 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 http://www.lgsakers.com/ Kim Jong-kyu(basketball)
and KBL profile is 190cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290758 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)
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?
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)
A heartfelt thank you! - Takeaway ( talk) 14:45, 9 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)
Where's the warning on Technopat's talk page for doing that same edit warring that you just accused me of? 75.162.179.246 ( talk)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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! joepa T 19:07, 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)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
Re. --- Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
103.233.122.69 isn't an account, Floq. Indefinite, really? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC).
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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}} ( e • t • c) 23:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for clearing the situation on the Amundsen Scott station article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph194 ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
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. 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 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) |
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").
AfD or DRV, your choice. But an abusive deletion followed by an abusive salting is not acceptable. Wily D 18:10, 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
"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)
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, St★lwart 111 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hey evil admin You farted like a rooster and your butcheeks smell havin fun sucker! Ranabhai ( talk) 01:33, 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 just wasn't sure I could or should have done that myself. Thank you 331dot ( talk) 16:22, 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)
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)
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)
Can you please explain your G4 and G12 rationales? -- NeilN talk to me 03:39, 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)
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)
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&action=history (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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
In the mood for music today, passionate music, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Danish pastries is still a red link.
You are not trying hard enough.
MastCell
Talk
00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
“ | It's very hard to know that.
It's very complex... Like which twin has got the Toni. Maybe they both got the Toni Maybe Toni's a guy. It's very complicated. |
” |
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)
I am so very very sorry Floq. — Ched : ?
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)
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)
Just passing... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance with the Stewart MacDonald article and offending edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi
Many thanks for revoking this user's talk page access :)-- 5 albert square ( talk) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
kill me now? NE Ent 23:29, 26 March 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)
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)
Floquenbeam,
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)
What justification was there to protect that talk page? Tutelary ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
if yes can u archive it? Doorknob747 ( talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
I had interacted OccultZone at INB, he is active there. Delibzr ( talk) 01:51, 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)
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)
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)
Thank you Floq. — Ched : ? 15:02, 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)
Given these edits: [26] [27] would you mind protecting my talk/user page for a week? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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)
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! /info/en/?search=User:HondaS2200fan/Books/full_book — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 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)
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)
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)
May I ask why you blocked Dffr (you don't have to answer) TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:43, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Philcopperman.jpeg - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How do I know you? I'm dying to meet a friend in Gena Chandler! SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans ( talk) 18:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
This posting has the additional virtue of getting "Yangtze" without "River" off ITN. Sca ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
normal human -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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.
Thanks!
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
[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. Reso lute 14:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'd like to add you to the list of users I trust, and goodnight mate. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Big picture issue:
-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:42, 9 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)
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)
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)
I'm an idiot sometimes... :) Well, ok most of the time.... :D Ghostwheel ʘ 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
...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)
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:
Among other things. YMMV. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
I need to make an emergency block request for User:209.207.47.87 because they are continuing to vandalize at a rapid rate. Studentaccountantghost4 ( talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This kitten is good at sniffing. Thanks for making this place suck less.
Drmies (
talk)
23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Am I going to get blocked for being uncivil? -- Rubbish computer 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back, but why do you say that? -- Rubbish computer 17:48, 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)
Okay. It's just, I'm sure I intentionally logged out on mobile before. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
Let it go. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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'sPonyo bons mots 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Floquenbeam ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Pink Floyd is always acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:57, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
Thank you for doing the right thing regarding Sitush. LHM ask me a question 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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. Begoon talk 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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. LHM ask me a question 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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)
(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)
From Mike V's successful RfA (closed 22 Feb 2008) ...
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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 V • Talk 03:40, 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:
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)
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' (
tools
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)
hello Mr.Floquenbeam. Why you guys blocked that the user going to do some modification? The modification which made by Fetx2002 were wrong! http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290450&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=70&sname= Oh Se-keun(basketball) Profile is 200cm not 201cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290407&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=55&sname= Kim Sun-hyung(basketball) Profile is 187cm not 188cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290758 Kim Min-goo(basketball) Profile is 190cm not 191cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290750&flag1=1&flag2=0&tcode=50&sname= 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 http://www.lgsakers.com/ Kim Jong-kyu(basketball)
and KBL profile is 190cm http://www.kbl.or.kr/players/player_info.asp?pcode=290758 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)
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?
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)
A heartfelt thank you! - Takeaway ( talk) 14:45, 9 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)
Where's the warning on Technopat's talk page for doing that same edit warring that you just accused me of? 75.162.179.246 ( talk)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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! joepa T 19:07, 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)
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 (
talk •
contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
Re. --- Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
103.233.122.69 isn't an account, Floq. Indefinite, really? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC).
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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}} ( e • t • c) 23:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for clearing the situation on the Amundsen Scott station article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph194 ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
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. 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 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) |
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").
AfD or DRV, your choice. But an abusive deletion followed by an abusive salting is not acceptable. Wily D 18:10, 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
"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)
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, St★lwart 111 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hey evil admin You farted like a rooster and your butcheeks smell havin fun sucker! Ranabhai ( talk) 01:33, 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 just wasn't sure I could or should have done that myself. Thank you 331dot ( talk) 16:22, 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)
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)
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)
Can you please explain your G4 and G12 rationales? -- NeilN talk to me 03:39, 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)
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)
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&action=history (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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
In the mood for music today, passionate music, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Danish pastries is still a red link.
You are not trying hard enough.
MastCell
Talk
00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
“ | It's very hard to know that.
It's very complex... Like which twin has got the Toni. Maybe they both got the Toni Maybe Toni's a guy. It's very complicated. |
” |
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)
I am so very very sorry Floq. — Ched : ?
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)
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)
Just passing... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance with the Stewart MacDonald article and offending edits. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hi
Many thanks for revoking this user's talk page access :)-- 5 albert square ( talk) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
kill me now? NE Ent 23:29, 26 March 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)
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)
Floquenbeam,
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)
What justification was there to protect that talk page? Tutelary ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
if yes can u archive it? Doorknob747 ( talk) 16:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
I had interacted OccultZone at INB, he is active there. Delibzr ( talk) 01:51, 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)
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)
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)
Thank you Floq. — Ched : ? 15:02, 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)
Given these edits: [26] [27] would you mind protecting my talk/user page for a week? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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)
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! /info/en/?search=User:HondaS2200fan/Books/full_book — Preceding unsigned comment added by HondaS2200fan ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 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)
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)
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)
May I ask why you blocked Dffr (you don't have to answer) TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:43, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Philcopperman.jpeg - 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How do I know you? I'm dying to meet a friend in Gena Chandler! SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans ( talk) 18:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
This posting has the additional virtue of getting "Yangtze" without "River" off ITN. Sca ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
normal human -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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.
Thanks!
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
[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. Reso lute 14:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'd like to add you to the list of users I trust, and goodnight mate. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Big picture issue:
-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:42, 9 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)
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)
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)
I'm an idiot sometimes... :) Well, ok most of the time.... :D Ghostwheel ʘ 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
...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)
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:
Among other things. YMMV. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
I need to make an emergency block request for User:209.207.47.87 because they are continuing to vandalize at a rapid rate. Studentaccountantghost4 ( talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This kitten is good at sniffing. Thanks for making this place suck less.
Drmies (
talk)
23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Am I going to get blocked for being uncivil? -- Rubbish computer 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back, but why do you say that? -- Rubbish computer 17:48, 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)
Okay. It's just, I'm sure I intentionally logged out on mobile before. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
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)