This is an archive of past discussions with User:Floquenbeam. 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.
I raised awareness of two with memorable names. I hope they're found. I think it's worse to take down a missing child's poster, online or off, but agree that might not have been the proper place for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe you, but since we apparently agree that ITN/C is not the place for "raising awareness of two with memorable names", I guess it doesn't matter whether I believe you or not. However, since I have lately being having increasing difficulty interacting politely with horrible human beings, please do not post here anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hands off!
Re deleted comment: Hands off - no one's 'mocking' anyone, and spare us the pathetic F-word, assuming you find it possible to delete that from your vocab. – Sca (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Using the deceased dagger "†" in lieu of a "t" in "tipping p†" - in direct response to a comment about missing children - certainly seemed like mocking. However, I'm familiar with your history of being sometimes incoherent, and I should have assumed that's what was happening with your post instead. Since the post following yours was definitely mocking, that may have led me to the wrong assumption about yours. You might want to clarify what you're trying to say, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
What "deceased dagger," pray tell? The † is commonly used as a symbol for death (most often before the date of a person's death). – Sca (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted it. If this happens again, there is WP:CSD#G7, which you can add to a page and an admin will delete it if appropriate. G7 wouldn't apply to, say, an article that other people have contributed to, but in this case, the other edits were categorization and similar edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I usually try, once a day, to AGF. This is the one I chose today. Watching and waiting. Bish is also on the case, and less patient than me (sometimes). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Could there be someway to put in a longer ArbCom sanction on the Kubrick article regarding infoboxes? It's quite a magnet of trouble[1]. Discussions regarding whether or not Kubrick and others should have an IB, no matter what side of the argument someone may fall under, tends to bring out the worst in editors.
Also, with the 1975 photo of Kubrick, no IB brings about a certain elegance to the article honestly.
I'm not saying all this as some sort of appeasement. These are my honest thoughts since last year.
I don't think an extension of the prohibition against an infobox discussion is a good idea; it's been, what, two years? What I think is needed, and (so far) has been happening, is good faith editors preventing trolls from returning to the page just to stir things up. If a legitimate editor wants to open a discussion, I don't think we should prevent them. If an actual legit discussion is held, I do think another year or so moratorium should be re-imposed at its conclusion so that whoever didn't get their way doesn't just open another one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
You’re all wrong, it is actually pronounced Ā-NĪ, since it derives from the second-declension Latin plural of anus. Why a word meaning more than one anus would have been chosen as an acronym for a well-trafficked dispute-resolution noticeboard, I couldn’t tell you. Its origins may have been lost to the mists of time. Perhaps Jimbo knows. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey stranger! At the risk of looking stupid, is that actually true? Because if it is, hahahaha, what a crazy world, and if it isn't, hahahaha, you're clever. Hope all is well with you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam. I just wanted to let you know that I've opened a new SPI regarding our old friend Cyberllamamusic, to whom you previously issued a one-year ban. See here. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz07:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Viennese Waltz: Thanks for the courtesy notice. Unfortunately, a poor memory about what that involved last year, combined with a lack of time due to IRL issues, means I probably won't be able to comment there. Sorry. I hope it works out with a minimum of fuss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
My memory is even worse than I thought; I misread this to mean I blocked them last year. Instead, it was only 4 months ago. Yikes. Anyway, thanks to User:Drmies and User:Blablubbs (using those shiny new admin buttons, woot) it looks like this is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Twilight Sparkle 222
Hi, just turned up at enWS and on my talk page there. Do we have suspicions that they are associated with other known problematic accounts. Smells of LTA. Thanks. — billinghurstsDrewth21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I am positive this is an LTA, and on their enwiki talk page, jpgordon says "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts". If you're an admin on WS, I'd block them. If I knew an easy way to get them globally blocked, I'd do it, but I'd have to (re)learn how. Maybe a page at meta? Anyway, the same person created TwilightSparkleCuddleBear453, which was then renamed to FlutterButterfly123, which has been editing on simple.wp and en.wbooks, but not here, so I can't block them preemtively. I reported them to admins there (@Ferien: and @QuiteUnusual:; not pestering you, just in case you forgot), but so far they aren't blocked there. Perhaps I need to take the time to learn how to request a global block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Sorry, I forgot to respond. I did check the account after you reported it, as well as hunting for sleepers, but couldn't find anything. If the crosswiki behavioural evidence suggests a sock then I'll go with that and block them. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Floq, they stopped editing on simple immediately after you gave me a notification about that user, so I saw no need to block. As I said here, we have a "one strike" system for users who have been disruptive on other projects. --Ferien (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Good idea to monitor the discussion you know where. Tell me, how is calling a group of people something not kind a personal attack? I think singling one out is. So perhaps watch over Peter Sellers as well. The one attacked full name wrote the TFA of 9 September, and replied well, I think. All this a while ago, but I discovered it only recently, and call it teh wars in a nutshell. For more joyful topics, click on the songs. I should add yesterday's ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey Gerda,I really like that photo. I'm afraid all but the last two sentences above were a little too cryptic for me this time. Real life is very hectic right now, so maybe I just don't have the mental bandwidth. Did you know... the two young women you met 5-6 years ago are now both in college? Mrs. Floquenbeam and I are feeling lonely; hard to let them go. (Un)fortunately work is keeping me busy, so not dwelling on that as much as I otherwise would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Rehearsal was good. - Today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The user you just blocked had a bit of a PRAM moment wanting a self-requested block. Not sure if it means much now, but figured you should know since I was about thirty seconds behind you about to do as they asked. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2021 (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.
Hi Floq, I replied to you on the admin noticeboard, only because you said that I had 4 years of socking. Actually, I will revert this edit and talk about it here instead, also, please can you correct it to 2 years? That would be great 👍🏻 Speedcuber1talk01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
See this diff where I explained it. Speedcuber1talk20:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In this diff you said I'm being disruptive, please can you provide diff links of me being disruptive since I was unblocked so I can see what you mean. In my edits on the admin board I'm only trying to help. Speedcuber1talk23:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock request
I attempted to enter the following reason in the template on my talk page, but it's not apparent to me whether this succeeded. Can you advise, please?
Reason: I corrected the objectionable post, and I promise not to post such things again.
I agree to your conditions and apologize for having created this ruckus. I understand that my posts were potentially offensive to family members of this recently deceased person, and possibly others. In my reason, please change "not" to "never." Thanks. – Sca (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
W.r.t. [3] -- perhaps I can invite you to start two above (so one above where Fram put it)? I mean, I don't think my post is substantively off-topic, but obviously it was the starting-point for the long digression, and I would certainly rather have it hatted than have ARoseWolf's definitely-off-topic post visible. Thanks for your consideration, JBL (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@JayBeeEll: I appreciate your volunteering to let your own comment be "first inside the hat", so to speak. But I'm inclined to leave it as is. It was a gradual descent into sniping, so one could make a case for hatting in any of maybe 5 places, but I think your comment was quite on topic, and I don't think I agree with you that ARW's comment just below yours was substantially off topic (tho headed in that direction). I don't want to spend too much time thinking more about a fine-tuning a hatting that can't be fine-tuned perfectly, seems to have stuck, in a thread that seems to have died down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
I saw the disdain you held Ivanvector in for mentioning one of the Star Trek spin offs (and one of the to episodes too!), so I thought I'd just drop a thought that brain-locking paradoxes were something of a trope on the Original Series. There was The Return of the Archons where the computer blew itself up, or The Changeling where the computer killed itself for violating its own programming - same thing happened in the The Ultimate Computer. How about the androids in I, Mudd coping with the liar paradox? Any of those fit the bill? Perhaps you'd rather just take your brain out of your head and expand it? WormTT(talk) 10:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, technically not disdain for Ivanvector; disdain for TNG. I was thinking about Return of the Archons, of course; the same place I got my (too) frequent WP reference to "not of the body". But I, Mudd is probably more applicable. TOS is on Netflix, at least in the States. I'll still watch an occasional old episode when I'm feeling nostalgic, even though during my childhood I probably already saw each episode 5 times in syndication.
Do you think anyone else is going to close the rest of those? Seems surprisingly inactive. I'll try to close another few obvious ones sometime today or tomorrow, but surely someone smarter than me should tackle the ones that require thought? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been begging around - but haven't attracted too many others yet. 1.9 has a bit of urgency if possible (even if it is a 'no consensus to change anything'), as the RfC it impacts is expected to move to stage 2 in a couple of days. The rest of the open issues have a bit more time. — xaosfluxTalk13:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess a lot of people who would normally close these actually commented in the RFC? I'll try to take a look at 1.9 today or tomorrow if no one else does, and if I can find the time. But if it requires actual thinking, someone's going to owe me a beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Glad to help. I'll try to knock off a couple of others, but real life is busy and I've got to relearn how SPI works, so no guarantees I'll have enough time for everything. If there are any you think are more important than others, I can try to look at those first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Most of them have plenty of time, perhaps 1.12 though, in the event there is enough commentary that can be gleamed mixed in with the !votes to lead to a change. — xaosfluxTalk17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
... well, not everywhere, but I do look for beauty, and typically find it twice a day ;) - I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. Bittersweet DYK #1700 today, with the creator blocked, so the "perennial gang of three" (as the review said) disrupted, and my appeals on AN not heard. Hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to circle back to this now that I have my laptop. @Blaze Wolf:, EEng's initial edit was a joke; the whole point is that is an unusable section. Just to be safe, I didn't mean your edit was a joke, nor that my edit summary was a joke. Since EEng started the page, it makes sense to give them some latitude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah ok that explains it. Also I'm attempting to get my username changed to Blaze Wolf however i may not be able to due to it being too similar to existing usernames. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for Stanley Kubrick: have an infobox in the even months, and no infobox in the others. I will not again appear on the page, and really don't care, but I care about the loss of kindness, on top of thinking that energies wasted there could go into articles. I care about the poor fellow blocked. It's all not worth it. - On AN, an editor was banned who reacted too strongly to the thought that his production of years was trash. He can no longer help me with translations from German, such as Edita Gruberová, as if it wasn't enough work for me to hunt for references, - now I have to perform the translations as well, and many topics we'll simply miss, in the project that anyone can edit. I'll hunt for Kölnisches Stadtmuseum. People die, - why refuse the offers of those still alive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, something like that, or my coin toss idea. Something to make people realize it really isn't that big a deal. If you're talking about the editor I blocked, You're certainly welcome to assume an extraordinary amount of good faith, but I haven't wasted a second worrying about it; that's a bad faith troll, I'm positive. But I'm sorry about Alain, I know he was a friend. I wish that could have ended some other way, but everyone seems so intent on conflict and not compromise, it almost feels like it was destined to end that way the second it started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes for the last. Leave a person alone and he produces nice articles en masse over years. Bring him to AN, and you bring out the worst in him, and then ban him for it. It feels a lot like the RexxS arbcase, with the BIG difference that RexxS knew when to say nothing more but "If ArbCom want to review my administrative actions seriously and dispassionately, I'm willing to discuss and try to learn any lessons. But if they want to simply provide a forum for everybody who has ever disagreed with me to sling mud, and then take on the role of civility police, it's not a game I'm willing to play." In: User talk:Hammersoft#Feedback sought, which LouisAlain found and quoted on my German talk, along with some Schopenhauer wisdom. Tomorrow we'll enjoy another of his creations on the Main page, as the quirky DYK. - SK: don't through a dice which would be fair to only one side ;) - If 50/50 seems unfair, you could make a scheme "infobox one day for every name in support, no infobox one day for every name in oppose". What's your guess? How many support over the years, and how many oppose, counting each name only once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In general, there are lots of possible reasons. In this particular case, I don't know. It's a shame, but I don't think we were left with much of a choice. Most of those talk page posts were so over the top, I feel like I probably owe several editors an apology for not blocking sooner. Perhaps his perspective will change with time away; he was pretty out of control like a decade ago, and was able to revise his approach and edit without those problems for a long time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I was remembering that past adjustment in his approach when I made my post at ANI Floq. It is a bummer that isn't likely to happen this time. Cheers to ya anyway. MarnetteD|Talk15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It was necessary. One can only imagine, what he was about to post at one of the two ANI reports, once his 48hr-block expired. His trajectory would've gotten him indeffed, before the day was over. PS: I'll never know how things turned out, with those sprinklers. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, I believe when Neutralhomer referred to "the R-word" he wasn't referring to "racist," but to "retarded." The latter has fallen out of being culturally acceptable and often just spoken of as the R-word. That doesn't make it any better though, and I think your block was entirely justified. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree it wouldn't make it any better! But from context (he says it twice, and context is clearer on the other one) I'm positive he means "racist". I basically told him he couldn't call people racists without proof, and he followed up with "...which are clearly made to elicit response (and break NPA) and the clear R-word (I'm not allowed to say) behavior regarding an editor from Mexico?". The odd thing is, there is zero evidence - not even possible misconstrued words, but nothing - to make one believe that anyone he's accusing of racism has said anything racist. Of all the aspects of this dispute, it's such a bizarre accusation to stick with, and a bizarre thing to make a final stand on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I said it on his talk page and I've said it as factually and with as much evidence as I could at AN/I: I think he came out all guns blazing defending someone who raised the issue preemptively and wrongly. There was clearly an old grudge against someone that was part of this, likely that was the impetus, but he was assuming there was basis for such a complaint and I can't find any. I don't want to condescend by saying I'm sorry for him, but this is yet another reason why such unfounded accusations are reprehensible, along with the mistrust they create when others make a justified complaint. Do I need to apologize for my "under a bridge" circumlocution or is it clear what internet phenomenon I am alluding to? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I guess I'm wrong, in an absurd interpretation, "under a bridge" might be one possible misconstrued wording, although it's quite a stretch; possible racist connotations hadn't occurred to me, even after NH criticized the phrase, and are fundamentally unreasonable. I don't think you need to apologize - I think it's obvious to everyone what you actually meant - but I guess if it were me and someone brought it to my attention I'd be tempted to strike the phrase out, put "trolling" in it's place, and apologize in the edit summary for the confusing wording. That's bending over pretty far backwards, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. the only reason I clarified was that I originally thought there was a 0% chance of actual confusion, and on reflection I realized there was a 0.5% chance of confusion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Done, thanks. And a long addition at the end of the subsection I started. Neutralhomer will now write me off for good and all, and so may others. And the newbie may not have started off as a troll; some people take very badly to being reverted, and those citation templates are baffling until you realize you can grab almost any parameter from any of them and put the parameters in any order so long as you don't make spelling or capitalization errors. Which is how we get news refs that name neither the publication nor the reporter, and references where the title is "Archived copy" or "BREAKING! VIDEO!" Plus as I said earlier at the noticeboard, I think he took sfn refs as incomplete refs, and fair enough; I consider them a pretentious hindrance to reader convenience as well as a high barrier to fellow editors. This has been a multi-collision trainwreck. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Neutralhomer (more)
Yuck. The admins (Ritchie and you) did what the admins had to do. This was a mess, in that Carlos The Exterminating Angel had a complaint about Dr. Kay, and I am not entirely sure what the original issue was. Then Neutralhomer went into a tantrum, and first had to be partially blocked, and then had to be blocked without talk page access. He basically committed public wiki-suicide. I still don't know, or much care, what the original dispute was. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It did almost seem like an intentional flame out, but from what I know of NH, I don't think it was. I agree, it was a shame. If it had been some other kind of disruption, I'd maybe have tried to cut him a little more slack, but he was repeatedly accusing named editors of being racists with no evidence, even when warned. Not sure what else I could have done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: That seems to me to be exactly the wrong perspective, a kind of battleground "us vs them". In case you're interested in some unsolicited advice, you've been making comments lately in a lot of AN/ANI discussions (plus this one here) that I find counterproductive. I assume that is not the reputation you're trying to achieve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hi, you blocked Iyo-farm a problematic editor who was discussed at ANI [4]. This user has now resorted to evading his block by using mobile IPs every few days and creating sock-puppets which he is trying to blame on other experienced users. Can you please block his latest mobile IP? He is using this IP currently [5]. On the British pet massacre talk-page [6] there is a list of the other IPs he has been using. I am not sure if a range block is possible, he is using either talk talk or o2 mobile. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: For the immediate term, I see User:El C blocked that particular IP. I think it might be reasonable to do a partial range block, where even widely used IP ranges are blocked from the pet massacre, veganism, and a few other specific pages. If you have in mind a list of say 6-8 pages (maybe including your talk page) Iyo-farm is most actively disrupting, that would help. Unfortunately I'm swamped until late today (and I'm also a range block virgin); please either ask someone else - maybe El C since he is familiar with the problem - or give me a decent amount of time to deal with real life swampedness, and then figure out what I'm doing. Sorry I can't be of more help right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Floq. Psychologist Guy, I don't really do much range blocking either (outside of WP:/64s), at least unless the prospective range is spelled out for me to look at. Which is to say, I'm okay to check for collateral, but not so much the range's calculation. And if I do block such a range, I can't really speak to its efficacy. FWIW. Anyway, if you're so inclined, feel free to submit a range on my talk page and I'll have a look. Otherwise, maybe noticeboard (or SPI if applicable) it up. El_C15:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the replies, there is some odd stuff going on if you check the history of the talk-page of the Vegan Society article. I have filed an SPI [7]Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Knowing when to just stop saying anything is a difficult skill, and something I am aware I get wrong sometimes. Thanks for the reminder. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You’ve been around long enough to know that I have suffered from the same issue sometimes. I think it’s easier to see it in other people. Good luck (whichever result you prefer!) in the election. —Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gerda! I really like that picture. I followed a link and then another link and found out about your recent ANI experience; I didn't know you'd gone thru all that. Sorry, it didn't look pleasant, and I'm glad it's over. I too am a little surprised how calm the Kubrick discussion was, with only a couple of exceptions. I am not going to unblock Fragglestomp - they are clearly a returning blocked user who has been trolling that page for a long time - but as I've said, if anyone else is convinced by their unblock requests, I won't stand in the way, even though I think an unblock with conditions would be wrong. But I'm pretty much done talking about Fragglestomp, Gerda. We're going to have to agree to disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
What you mean (gone thru) was AN, not ANI, and I had a great model to follow, RexxS (don't defend yourself!), so I didn't go thru it but ignored it. I didn't even say I was sorry (which would have been a lie) but that it wouldn't happen again. Further musings on my talk, prompted by an article mentioned on the Main page which was written by a QAI member who was then banned, and I took it to GA, and that went into a featured topic. Aga Mikolaj was translated by my now banned friend (who should not have tried to defend himself which made things worse, misunderstanding much and saying really unacceptable things), and without him I'd not know she even existed. Such a loss for content. He created Draft:Wildes Holz, to be rescued. But first a new article about music we rehearse, and another about a mezzo we heard. So, if nobody dies, on Monday. Wish you were running for arbcom, or comrade. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I think people are beginning to realize I'm a jerk. I used to get multiple requests to run for ArbCom each year, but not anymore. You're the only one this year. I was/would be horrible at it, and didn't/wouldn't want to, and couldn't win, but it's still nice to be asked (even after the fact!). Even nicer to be lumped into a category with Ray. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome. Now what about Darkness Shines, - looks like the wrong one was credited for the portion of humour in the election ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You know, Darkness Shines didn't seem right to me, but I'm not a Checkuser so I deferred to them. Looks like it's sorted now. Not sure I'd call it humor, they're a banned user with a history of outing other editors. A combination of humor and trolling isn't humor, it's trolling. Just like a combination of noise and silence isn't silence, it's noise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If I had gone with my original instinct and done it myself, maybe thanks would be in order. But in the end I just enacted what consensus said at ANI, so thanks are maybe due instead to the WP community. But that's kind of a pompous (and some might say disingenuous) way of saying "you're welcome", I guess, so you're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
that self-important jerk User:Floquenbeam (if Jimbo or WMF had their way)
Technical news
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
An NFT of me unblocking Fram. I will improve on the WMF's wise counsel and actually conduct the auction on Wikipedia (for transparency). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The first real reason I've wished I was more technically competent in a while. I want one. Meanwhile, not gonna bid while you're here? Bidding starts at 10 quatloos. There is a reserve price. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Reading all those thousand-word “who cares? not me!” AN/I comments has worn me out. I need a nice refreshing drink to pep me up, how about you? 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Lol. Perhaps I'll decorate my user page with all the thousands of de minimus (or whatever the term is) logos on commons, and see if I can trick them all into thinking I'm a Wikipedia influencer. Even with the expected kickback to the WMF Board, I should still make out pretty well. DAMN. That Sprite was refreshing! I'd recommend it to everyone. Maybe I should nominate it for WP:TFP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Figured I'd have less of a chance of edit-conflicting here. You did the right thing, Floq. Double standards are never good, and the optics of this are terrible. (An NFT? Seriously?) Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis02:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Miniapolis, this comes at a good time. After a while, being pinged to the main page, not because there's a question for you, but to make absolutely sure that you see someone thinks you should be WP:SLAPped, gets old. Spirits were flagging, and this legit helped. Luckily, someone bought me a bottle of Disaronno a little while ago. I'd never had it in my long shletered life, and... I like it. Think I'll settle down with a bottle and watch the Wheel of Time. I'd never heard of that either, maybe I'll get lucky twice. Cheers, and goodnight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Good stuff. When we were first married, a friend brought us a bottle every time he visited. We're wine drinkers mostly, and when we were packing to move we poured most of it down the sink; I kick myself every time I think of it Enjoy! Miniapolis16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. Just read the Slate article, where they mention our new First Wikipedia edit article, inspired by (and more than 1/3 about) Jimbo's auction. And of course it will be appearing on our Main Page as a DYK. The advertising seed Jimbo planted on his talk page is bearing fruit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants a NFT of a unique artwork recreating my recollection of coining the phrase "ANI flu", I'm open to all reasonable offers. I can throw in the first use of the term "Bradspeak" as a freebie. (In all seriousness, what sort of idiot would pay for this? I'm inclined to think that if anyone's stupid enough to give Jimmy cash for something that's a transparent scam even by his standards, then they shouldn't be allowed near money and are probably better off being separated from it. To be honest, if history is any guide then if anyone's stupid enough to give Jimmy cash for anything, then they shouldn't be allowed near money and are probably better off being separated from it) ‑ Iridescent16:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Reading that link, it seems like I could have an Etherium (sp?) auction for an NFT of a unique artwork recreating my muse-like inspiration of your coining (ha!) "ANI flu". Or I'd accept 10% of whatever you get for yours, if you're worried about diluting the value. There are several ethically and intellectually questionable things involved in Jimbo's auction; while I agree one of them is that someone willing to spend money on these things kind of deserves what they get, that doesn't mean someone like Jimbo deserves the money instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If past performance is any guide, he won't hold on to the money for long. His business history is an unbroken string of failures (Wikia is AFAIK the only profitable one, and that only became so after he left). Remember WikiTribune? The People's Operator? WT:Social? No, me neither. ‑ Iridescent17:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually registered an account on wt.social recently out of morbid curiosity. It’s... not good. There are “delete” buttons next to other people’s posts, which I was tempted to click but didn’t. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That’s a first. At least, I think; the first I’m aware of anyway. The motherboard article isn’t a bad write up, as articles about WP by non-WPians go. And like WP, the comments so far read like an ANI discussion (except even less informed). —Floquenbeam (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
That markup on your userpage
didn't seem to be in any template I could find, so I've created {{invisible bullet}} (shortcut {{i*}}) to make it more reusable. I've found it quite helpful at SPI when giving a list of accounts midway through a comment. CC Drmies. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)04:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: that’s going to be really quite useful; I’d use that markup more if I didn’t have to go back to my user page to check it every time. You’ve made it much easier for me to be more accessibility conscious. Thank you. —Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The only annoying thing is that the HTML output still contains an empty <li>. I tried a few things that I thought might avoid that, but I gather it's not possible. I don't know enough about screenreaders to know if they'd just skip that bit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)19:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I would have no idea; I only understand about 50% 10%0.5% of the html in that template, and 0% of how screen readers work. I have no idea why an empty <li> is bad; is that the kind of "lint" thing people wander around talk pages complaining about and fixing with bots? I wonder if there is a "this user uses a screenreader" user category, or a "this user knows stuff about screen readers" user category, to confirm how it reads. Or maybe ask at WT:WPACCESS what happens to it on a screenreader? Either way, thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Empty list items aren't that bad in practice for people, since they're hidden. I wrote about the semantic impact in respond to your thank-you post, as well as providing a more verbose way to preserve the semantic organization, for those who care. If someone tries to invent a different way of displaying nested lists, or if they're doing some automated analysis, it might matter, but otherwise it doesn't. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding lint cleanup: linters don't care about empty list items, as it's valid markup. Linting is about fixing invalid markup cases. isaacl (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, empty list items are hidden by the MediaWiki software with CSS, and screen readers skip them. This was confirmed by Graham87. Did you test your template on higher levels of nesting? Since I'm typing:
Not 100% following and limited time to experiement in a sandbox, but if what I think everyone is saying is actually what they're saying, then it looks like Tamzin's template will work for what I need it for about 95%+ of the time. So thanks. And thanks, @Isaacl: for commenting. Sorry I didn't remember you already said something about the empty list item previously, but I probably didn't understand at the time, and that makes remembering even harder! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, this would be crazy if I was creating new articles. But the only pages I create are redirects, or user talk pages, or similar. It would be kind of crazy to make new page patrollers look thru that. I guess I'll assign it to myself after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Well let me jump in then :) Looks like Barkeep did it for you. I always forget that autopatrolled applies to the creation of all pages, not just articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I assume, if I ever go completely against character and create a new article, I could either (a) un-approve the page, or (b) temporarily remove the right, save the page, and restore the right in order to get a pair of competent eyes on it. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Autopatrolled is only meaningful for articles. You don't need to remain autopatrolled just because you create a lot of non-article pages because (i) those pages work the same, patrolled or not, and (ii) no reviewer is going around patrolling non-articles, so no reviewer time is saved (if they are, they should stop, and instead help with the WP:NPP backlog which is mainspace pages only). Mainspace redirects do get patrolled by reviewers but you can add non-autopatrolled redirect creators to WP:RWHITELIST to skip manual reviewing. So, if you are actually going to unpatrol your articles after you create them, it would be more efficient to not assign yourself autopatrolled in the first place. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️09:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Point taken - I thought I'd seen people accepting user pages, and I just assumed they did user talk pages too, but maybe that's wrong or uncommon. But I guess the most important thing is that I'm self-aware enough to know that if I ever create an entire article from scratch, is should go thru NPP. The most "efficient" way to achieve that isn't that critical, because the frequency is so small. If only there was a self-aware flag we could set.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
+sysop used to be the "self-aware" flag but I guess we're trying to change that now Unpatrolled pages show the "Mark this page as patrolled" link at the bottom that reviewers can't resist; that is the usual source of log entries for pages that don't need patrolling getting patrolled. There are of course editors who scour the userspace to practice CSDs, UAA, etc. or as part of RCP. But I doubt they're using a feed filtered by patrol status. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️17:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Every time we strip off a different "automatic" bit of the admin toolkit, we make adminship less and less attractive. I mean...every time. Frankly, I'm inclined to just go through and add autopatrolled to just about every administrator. I don't have the hours in the day to participate in all the RFCs around here, so I missed this one entirely, or I would have said "just because one admin screwed up doesn't mean that this is actually a problem that needs to be solved". Hundreds of people have now been punished because of the actions of one person. Risker (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Not being autopatrolled is hardly a "punishment", certainly not when you can assign the right to yourself straightaway. And I know of, oh, at least 4 or 5 admins who shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. But in the past, it couldn't be removed without a desysop, which was in some of these cases overkill. At least now, if I come across admins creating copyvio's or too many otherwise problematic articles, I can at least ask for the removal of the right without needing to show enough "admin abuse" to get a desysop instead. Fram (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I created new articles with very few problems for several years before some administrator gave me autopatrolled out of the blue, which seemed like an endorsement of my work. I was grateful. This was several years before I became an administrator. Today, out of the blue, Barkeep49 restored my autopatrolled, which seems like an endorsement of my work. I was grateful. Not sure why this change in the administrator's toolset really needed to take place, but what is done is done, I guess. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the advantage of removing autopatrolled is the admins who write content and those who are on the ball will either get given the right by someone else or be clueful enough to know whether or not they should self-assign. The "legacy admins" who are out of touch probably won't notice, and those are the sort of admins we would be better keeping an eye on to make sure they're up to speed on things. And I agree with Fram that it will make dealing with things like Neelixgate easier in future. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Splitting it off seems ultimately pretty harmless, I guess. Though I understand Risker's point, I'm not sure it matters very much in this particular case, where there is zero benefit to the holder of the right itself; the benefit is to the new page patrollers. I suppose there's an incremental benefit, and an incremental annoyance, and I don't really know what's actually bigger. I apparently don't have my ear to the ground, as I didn't know this discussion was happening either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It was theoretically to make it so RfA will be easier to pass, which won't be the case. The people who oppose because of lack of content creation most of the time don't know how autopatrolled works from a technical level (if they know it exists at all, many don't.) Not a big deal, but I categorize this as a "kinda pointless change that doesn't really do anything and won't have it's intended impact." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course–the "not enough content creation" objection is a rational choice (although often overdone) and fiddling with user rights has no effect on that. If anyone here is unaware, the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals are being closed, presumably because the goal of being visible from space has been achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't discounting that reasoning. I was simply saying that the idea that somehow it is linked to autopatrolled doesn't really understand the basis of the oppose (might as well ping Iridescent in for this since he has my preferred explanation of that oppose rationale.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If you're talking about my RFA boilerplate, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do.. Whether or not the candidate is autopatrolled has nothing to do with it. ‑ Iridescent06:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, I suspect most of the people parroting some variation on "it won't increase the NPP workload because most admins will qualify for autopatrolled anyway so they can just be re-awarded it" have no conception of how strict the requirements are. It took me three years to meet "prior creation of 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages", and that was back in the days when there were still a lot of redlinks so it was actually possible to find topics on which a page didn't already exist. My most recent 25 ab nihilo page creations stretch back to 2010, and I'm more prolific than most when it comes to writing about niche topics where we're less likely already to have a page. ‑ Iridescent16:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Despite the fact that pretty much any "not enough content creation" requirement would completely disqualify me, it still makes a certain amount of sense. I see it as one way to show empathy with people who create content, and one way to show it isn't all about being able to more easily tell other people online what to do. It's just that, unlike Iri, I think there are other ways of having/developing empathy for people who create good content, and there are other ways of demonstrating those two things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
One of the challenges of consensus-like decision-making traditions is that conversations are about whatever a consensus of people decide to talk about. During the first phase, consensus was reached that the diverse bundle of permissions within the sysop group resulted in scrutiny in a broad set of areas. This opened the door for any unbundling proposals to be made in the second phase. I feel that many supported the unbundling of autopatrolled as a good idea without concerning themselves if it would actually change any outcomes in requests for administrative privileges. As I said in my oppose, I don't think enough participant minds will be changed to have an effect. It might be a good idea for other reasons, but since the RfC was focused on RfA, the editors most affected—such as those involved in new page patrol—may not have weighed in. isaacl (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I count on you to provide a joking ask about what the delay is for ACE results. Yet there has been no such ask this year. So I have to ask "What is the delay with you asking about what the delay is"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Last year I think I hurt a scrutineer's feelings, who wasn't in on the joke, so I think I'll skip it this year. Plus, at this point it wouldn't be funny; it really needs to be asked a few days after the election closed. By now, it's almost time for it to be a legitimate question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Having hurt someone's feelings is a good reason not to do it. And yes it is almost a reasonable time to ask it though I will be surprised if we don't get results soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your care for what to say for TFAs, today an Italian opera, my second ever, as the TFA written by two dear people, and a park where I went with dear people, as pictured DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what I do to "care for what to say for TFAs", but whatever it is, you're welcome. Good article, as to be expected from a Boulton/Wehwalt joint. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: hi Gerda, hope your Christmas was nice! Always glad to get a reminder to look at the places and songs page. Still going to be a while until I have time to return to WP more than a token amount, so if I don't talk to you before then, Happy New Year! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Thanks so much for the positive feedback. There are definitely people who wouldn't have chosen "diplomacy" as their descriptor for me, so it's nice to hear this. Happy New Year. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: No, I'm not ignoring this kind - and eclectic! - message, just been insanely busy at work, followed by a break from everything to decompress, followed by returning to insanely busy at work. Thanks for thinking of me, and have a great New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Actually, 2021 was a decent year for me compared to prior years, but yes, here's to 2022 being even better! Best of the new year to you... Huggums537 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Floquenbeam! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
That's a nice gesture, thanks Sdkb. Complications on that linked page notwithstanding, I know it came from a kind place. Happy New Year! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
I’m sorry for any inconveniences and also apologize for the rude removal of your imperative comment and the dismissive edit summary. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries, just a miscommunication is all. I could have been clearer why I was posting on your page. Not sure what you mean about imperative comment; probably not important? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Imperative, as in what you told me was the truth and nothing but the absolute truth. apologies once more, it is wasn’t my intention to offend you or anyone. Celestina007 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yikes. Thanks for the pointer. Is this another example of assembling a group of smart people in a committee, and they'll come up with something dumber than any one of them would come up with on their own? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes, people just stick a finger in the air and go "eeny meeny miny mo" and the decision sticks forever. Happens everywhere with things people think aren't important at the time but turn out to be. Why is the standard block length on Twinkle 31 hours? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I know that one. 31 hours was added to the admin block drop down menu because it was considered more likely that the same individual would be behind the keyboard at the same time of day (e.g. a bored student in computer class at 2PM). By blocking such vandals for 31 hours instead of 24, the intent was to prevent such repetitive drive-by vandalism from occurring. I assume it was eventually added as the default Twinkle duration based on its common usage in the standard admin interface drop down menu.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots00:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict; rotten talk page stalker who types faster than me) Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! It was thought (originally by someone who maybe a talk page stalker remembers, but probably lost in the mists of time), that a school vandalism block for 24 hours means they know to do the same thing the next day's study hall/lunch period, which they likely have at the same time, and the block would expire during the period and they could vandalize again. 31 hours means a student would have to go home the next day, and would have to wait 2 days until their free period, while a 31 hour block for non-school shared IP's would mean non-school collaterally-damaged people wouldn't be locked out a full 48 hours on someone else's block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ponyo: There will forever be an asterisk at the entry for this victory in the record books, in that it was won against literally the slowest typist on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's two reasons for that: 7 hours throws off the cycle of school/work/sleep, making it unlikely to pick right back up, and (I shit you not) "it's a prime number." There's a diff somewhere explaining it if you care to dig around from 15+ years ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a good reason (well, a reason) to pick a number that is relatively prime with 24: it will cycle through all the different times of the day if the block is continually reapplied immediately after expiration. Of course, it doesn't have to be a prime number in itself to achieve this. isaacl (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's two different things, one good, one not so good. People actually avoided bikeshedding and paid more attention to the concept than the abbreviation, which is kind of good. However, consensus-based decision making doesn't scale up, not even to the handful of people who were involved during the brainstorming phase whence the name originated. As is typical, we deferred to the original proposer to choose the abbreviation from our suggestions, because that's what consensus is: you try to find something that everyone can live with, even if you don't really like it. But that can mean a label that most people don't like being chosen, because after all we can live with almost any sequence of letters. isaacl (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
For a somewhat similar take, see this old essay of mine: WP:SOLVED. Only problem is, Moni is long gone, User:MastCell is so fed up with the place he barely shows up, leaving only Bish. Actually, that's not really a problem, is it? Same as Ritchie's plan, except replace me with Bish. WP:BRV (oh rats, that's already blue). Plan B is WP:MRV with User:Moonriddengirl (oh rats, that one is blue too. I guess it has to be FRV then....) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
One day, the community may decide (or if it gets overrun by paid editors, someone might decide for it) that the greater efficiency of decision-making through some form of hierarchy is worth it, like most other organizations. They won't necesarily be better decisions in every case, but they'll be made, and editors can move forward with other things. But it probably won't happen until there is a large shift in the editing population. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the meaning of Bishonen having more authority than me??! What makes you think Bishonen would be better at ... OK, wait, I see it now. Good call. Excellent work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Howdy Floq. I saw your {{closing}} on that; do me a favor and clarify whether or not The C of E's already approved DYKs can proceed through the pipeline. I'm assuming so (I approved one last night) but I can foresee that being a point of uncertainty. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, it seems to me that something should be posted at WT:DYK about the decision, since it's "and DYK", including about what to do with The C of E's in-process DYKs. Can you do that, or should I? I'm assuming that the prior rules apply to those in process, though because of the topic ban, they can no longer post to any DYK nominations or the DYK talk page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I'll do that. I kind of made that last bit up on the fly, let me know if it causes some kind of hardship or complication for DYK people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is I agree that I shouldn't have blocked. It was hasty and an overreaction. But if you had just taken a moment to tell me the user should be unblocked and why, I would have said fine. Even with a bad block, I don't think that's a lot to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose if I were a better person, I would have. No doubt you're supported by guidelines, and last I checked policy strongly suggested what you're saying, but didn't require it. Maybe that's changed. But it seems unreasonable - and for me, really disappointing - for you to treat someone with so little power here so disrespectfully, and then complain when I try to salvage the situation because you feel I didn't treat you with sufficient respect. FWIW, if I had made this block and someone else did what I did here, I would have said "Thanks for undoing my block", and apologized.
I have the unfair advantage here, because I know you hate noticeboards. No doubt I'd get my wrist slapped. But morally, I'm right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Even if I didn't like noticeboards, I wouldn't have taken you to one over this. This is not a moral issue; I'm surprised you personalize it so much. My view is the user was disruptive, incompetent (and not just because they're new), and a possible troll. I have less patience than other admins (indeed, you are not the most patient of admins) in this area, but often my sense is correct. In this instance and in retrospect, as I've already said, I think I was wrong, but I still think you should have talked to me first. You shouldn't assume that your response (apologizing) is what everyone should do. We're not all the same. I suspect these comments will not get through, but I figured I'd try.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy new year, Gerda! I'm envious; meeting with friends in real life hasn't happened for us in a couple of weeks. 3 separate covid scares (all ended up negative, but we've spent quite a bit of money on home tests) have kept us near-quarantined for a while. But at least I got to see the kids over the Christmas break. As always, I enjoy the pictures. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Although no one is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing funny pages, such as Template:Uw-dttr4im, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in absolutely nothing. Under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" (but you will find that there is no button). This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted, but who cares, this feature is useless. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it will always be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself (but you will find that there is no tag either).
I'd forgotten about that template, thanks for the memories. However, seeing it again just reminds me that it's been kind of ruined over the years by well-meaning people, so the memories are somewhat bittersweet. Sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Do I get this for the other 5-6 times I've "become" an admin again? Hadn't realized I was quite that much of a drama queen (after a while, all the rage quits kind of blend into one) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure the crats are quite that fun anymore. Maybe I could get User:Dweller and User:28bytes on my side in a crat chat? Maybe? Oh, and User:Aardvark Floquenbeam would be OK with it. But I can think of several AN/ANI types that would absolutely lose it if that happened (which, come to think of it, might make it worth a try). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You could file a request at WP:FRV for yourself to review their refusal, and if they disagree with your ruling Bishzilla wouldn't so they'd have to move the bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I haven't checked but I'm sure in the meantime they managed to get RfA all sorted out and transformed into a pleasant process enjoyed by everyone! 28bytes (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Sometimes I wonder if the decades-long trend favoring tougher notability and sourcing standards was inevitable, or if Wikipedia could just as easily have turned out to be a "people's almanac" with articles about things people find interesting with no particular requirement that the New York Times or Wired or Newsweek find it interesting first. I know there are folks who are deeply disillusioned that it didn't turn out to be the latter, and it's kinda sad when they turn up and get kicked to the curb, although perhaps inevitable. I remember wanting to write an article about a video game I loved as a kid, and only being able to because a guy wrote a piece for Time wondering why there wasn't an article for it. I'm still waiting for someone to write an in-depth piece on Space Quarks so I can write an article about that too. I'll probably be waiting a while. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, Timwi's comments feel kind of like more mainstream comments from like 2005, pre-trend. And the admin actions seem kind of 2005-era rouge, too. Someone could write a (really bad) alternative history of WP assuming the people's almanac side had won. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your comments on grace were pompous or inappropriate in any way. I think they're spot on, but maybe that's because, despite our various historical on-wiki differences, we're both old and have aged into middle age while serving Wikipedia. But I get your hesitation because to those who are newer, or younger, or serving a particular cause other than just making the encyclopedia the best it can be... it won't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, JC. I hadn't thought about it from an age perspective. I guess my overall take is that Timwi is wrong, but honorably wrong, if that makes sense. Maybe part of it is undiagnosed nostalgia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I liked your comment on grace too, Floquenbeam. The whole Timwi business is horrible .. I can't look. But, the big difficulty with the people's almanac approach, as attractive as it sounds, is that such a project would be utterly choked with frank as well as lightly disguised advertising. Even more than Wikipedia is now, I mean. Am I right? Aren't there even now ten undisclosed paid editors for each bona fide person who turns up because they find something interesting? (And don't the UPEs all say "Oh no, I have no connection, I just found it interesting? Fuckers.) It's my impression that there are, but then I patrol WP:UAA quite a bit, and it may have made me cynical. Honestly, though, would we even be able to find the actual expressions of interest, shy violets in the rank weeds of paid promotion promotion promotion? In fact, you know what the problem is? Capitalism. Robber capitalism rampant and unchecked. There. I said it. Freedom-hating far-left Wikipedia admin·commie propaganda14:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
I hope nothing I've said implies I think the People's Almanac approach is better; just that I have a bit of a soft spot for true believers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I see Bishzilla has invoked her (imaginary) status as superclerk and "improved" your recent comment at WP:ARC. Sigh. [Hopelessly:] Bad dino. Bishonen | tålk22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC).
I almost superclerked myself, but to reword an actual motion ("shall respond timely"?? aaack! my eyes!). I chickened out, to my everlasting shame. I doubt 'Zilla ever chickens out. My hero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
XRV thoughts
I don't want to pile on at XRV or the talk page, but here's my take on this.
Fram was going to take JFB to ANI. I thought XRV might be a better venue, so we could just focus on whether the article should have been deleted (consensus looks like it should be). At ANI, that would have happened, but also everybody who'd ever had a grudge with me, Fram or JFB might come out of the woodwork and accuse any of us of incivility or something, turning up the drama levels a notch. I notice that Levivich has already had a word with Fram about conduct; stick that on ANI and all hell might break loose again. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The only reason there is currently "less drama" is because not as many people have AARV on their watchlists yet. Once they realize that it will be the exact same type of circus as ANI, they'll come running. I'm becoming more convinced with every thread that those who think AARV is going to somehow be different are unwilling to do the work necessary to make it different. Right now, the thread is about 2 admins' actions, people are suggesting trouts, and there are accusations of bad faith and lying. It does not look anything like a DRV/MRV thread (or an AE thread, for those who like that), it looks like an ANI thread that not very many people have seen yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Not that my opinion is worth anything, but I've long since taken XRV off my watchlist. Reading the current thread doesn't do anything to change my opinion that XRV is fundamentally useless. Since when has an admin action ever been taken in a vacuum, such that it can be discussed in a vacuum? With the possible exception of an admin who has come back after 10 years of inactivity to do something random and outside norms. Which is ironically at AN and ARB, and never graced XRV's front page, and...actually, my thoughts on that are definitely not worth anything. 15:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writ Keeper (talk • contribs) Four tildes, Writ! Bishonen | tålk.
I supported the idea of XRV because I thought people would be able to leave their emotions and drama at the door and concentrate just on the actions, in the same manner as "findings of fact" in an Arbcom case summary. It appears that was just wishful thinking. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a ton of left-libertarians. It's also on the internet, which means it has a ton of cranks. There's going to be some overlap. Anytime you create a forum to review people with power (real or perceived) in an environment with these type of demographics, its going to be dominated by the left-libertarian cranks who see everything as a power issue. That's without getting to the friends of the aggrieved party who will be canvassed show up completely on their own without ever having edited the page before to comment as you would expect them to comment. Totally get why you wanted it. Also think its turned out like I thought it would turn out when I opposed. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I think WK is on to something here. DRV and MRV are fundamentally not about personalities, and fundamentally about reasonably clear processes. Not to say they're conflict-free - they require balancing of often competing interests, and people care deeply about different competing interests - but they're somewhat less personality driven, and somewhat less sensitive to context. AARV, by its nature, is going to have to be more focused on personality and context. I still suspect a process created with care could reduce (but not eliminate) the heat we experience at AN/ANI, but it wouldn't be easy. Focusing on just getting the board up and running, and working out giant details later, is pretty much guaranteed to create an ANI clone. As I've said elsewhere several times, the people who wanted this at the RFA RFC wanted fundamentally different things. I don't understand the hesitation to iron that out. Or even acknowledge it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
that was generous - I was surprised how much commented-out stuff remained, and made a mistake removing it - how do you like the "songs"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. If you look at the edits there's more going on. One user didn't look at the Yahoo source and is continually removing sources and not posting citation requests. Kinu, an admin, already stepped in.
Reply to what? These editors don't look at what is being explained. For example with the halftime show people are saying it's in the top 8 of all time. If you look at the article other people are saying that. If you aren't looking at the edits you won't see what is being done. Same for Coldplay, the user there described the disagreement between Chris and Will 3 times in two sentences. Talk pages are supposed to solve things however they would have to be willing to understand the points.Justanother2 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Justanother2: Reply to the multiple editors highlighting problematic edits you've made. This is a collaborative project. When multiple editors have issues with your editing, you need to address those concerns, not ignore them. For starters, do not follow BBB around, reverting him. Do better at writing correct English sentences. Do not restore unsourced information in a BLP that has been challenged by others. Talk pages are not for other people to understand your points; they're for everyone to understand everyone's points. You are editing from the assumption that you are always correct. You are not. If you continue editing uncollaboratively, you will be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not listening to anything being said. If you were to read most of the edits you may agree with me on a great amount of what I am saying.Justanother2 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That is not an accurate description of what is happening on the talk pages. They are not agreeing with what you're saying. Do you really think that all 5 editors who have commented at ANI are all part of the problem, and you are not? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I said I don't believe I am right all the time. Sometimes I could be tired, I mistyped 2019 for 2018, for example. Yes, I think if you looked at my last 75 edits you would agree with more than 62 of them.Justanother2 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's not really the point (and an 17% "bad edit" rate is not good). The point is collaborative editing. Assume, for the moment, that all 5 editors commenting at the ANI thread are correct. If that was true, what changes would you make to your editing habits? Now, make those changes whether or not you actually think they're correct. Boom. You've improved as a collaborative editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Ummm, it's nice that you are admitting errors, but "mistyping" is a nice euphemism for what happened concerning this edit, with corresponding discussion here (starting at "Not much listening is going on here", after which you proceeded to not listen to what everyone was saying). It was reiterated multiple times that the seasons in question are 2019 and 2020, after the 2018 Super Bowl season. If you just mistyped a year in an edit, that would be another story. But this very much changes the whole point of the edit (not even mentioning making the text worse to read in general). Fynsta (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
More likely the "good edit rate" would be 17% if you really went through all the edits. It definitely felt that way just sampling some of them. Fynsta (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if Justanother2 is lying above or if he really doesn't understand that he's 100% wrong about his claims. Taking just the one example above where he reverted me, he said "One user didn't look at the Yahoo source" - on Jonathan Owens, he added a source and text that don't match - nothing in the text he added is in the Yahoo source. Even after I explained that, he reverted and ignored my message on his talk page. That's just one example. The rest all follow a similar pattern. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That is the editor removing stuff that is important for our project (Wikipedia). Yes, the Yahoo article says exactly what you said isn't there. I know you understand some people on here are journalists. I realize you don't have much time, Flo, to peruse stuff however if you were to read my edits (not necessarily the ones on talk pages) I think you would concur with them. I am conscientious not frivolous. I really do edit well. I agree collaboration is necessary however one vs five is tough. If you did agree with almost all of my edits (not the ones on talk pages) then I suppose my point is made. Regardless I do try to meet people halfway. They have to be slightly listening though.Justanother2 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Last I checked, there's been about 5 editors reviewing and correcting your edits. Don't act like I'm the only one. Your habit of being very loose with the facts extends to your article edits and this discussion. You also refused to discuss anything until Floquenbeam said he would block you if your behavior continued, so you clearly are reading everything people are saying about you - you just ignored it because you figured we were nobodies. It took an admin's involvement to get you to pay attention. You're just dishonest about everything. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
There is almost never a benefit to saying another editor might be lying. Your first post would have a much higher likelihood of being useful (i.e. better odds they will listen to what you're saying) if the first sentence said "Justanother2 is incorrect". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand. I'm not saying he's lying - I'm saying it's a possibility and I don't know if he is or not. But also keep in mind, after I filed the report, he started stalking my edits and, seemingly at random, reverted some of them, I assume as retaliation for me filing the report. That behavior throws up a red flag. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree, the retaliation is concerning, and difficult to find a possible good faith rationale. I'm going to assume it will stop, now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I've recently accused another noticeboard of being ANI 2.0. I don't want this page to be ANI 3.0. I honestly don't know what the solution is to good faith editors not being able to resist sniping at other editors ("lying", "good edit rate of 17%", "They have to be slightly listening though", etc) is; particularly when everyone believes they have reachedthe end of their rope and are justified (and maybe some are). I just know that I don't have to host it here. Everyone either (a) act like they're trying to mutually work out a way forward with a peer, here on this page, or (b) do whatever you want to at ANI (and live with the consequences or lack of resolution). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You are right, and I'm sorry, that was out of the line. Concerning the use of this noticeboard, I would have loved to have a discussion on ANI, but the user avoided engagement there. Thank you for all your work for Wikipedia! Fynsta (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for what you have said. I would say what I told you, Flo, about the Yahoo article was borne out. Another editor put the info back on the page. I was correct.Justanother2 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, it was readded in a modified form; that same editor also said the wording you used wasn't in the source. But this is not a series of discussions each about single edits; it's that in general, you weren't listening to other editors in talk page discussions, and deleting without comment anything posted to your user talk page, and not treating multiple other editors' concerns with respect. As the most glaring example, your following BBB around reverting them, seemingly as retribution. All I'm asking is everyone assume everyone else is editing in good faith, and that you consider that when 5 people think your editing is a problem, there's a very very good chance that it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
BBB has made at least six edits that are not right. The user doesn't seem to know you can put a citation needed on a page. Removing information is not something that should be encouraged. No, not a modified form. His mother is an important part of his life and it's not mentioned however it will probably be put up there at some point.Justanother2 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
First, yes it was modified when it was readded by another editor. User:Firefangledfeathers correctly noted the information was after the "continue" button, but also noted the information about his mother was not an accurate description of what the reference said, so ultimately only added a portion of the disupted text. You are incorrect when you say "no, not a modified form". See this diff: [8].
Second, you are incorrect about having to use {{cn}} tags instead of removal. WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (emphasis mine). Some people choose to use {{cn}}, especially for material that is not particularly contentious, but challenged material can also be removed, and once removed it shouldn't be readded without a source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I posted the factoid about his sister, no one else. I am sure there are plenty of links talking about JO and his mother. If you look at the MLB (baseball) edit it definitively says the game has a sponsor and it's on the page cited. It's changing events and history to remove that one.Justanother2 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
When you get a chance, would you consider removing the temporary protection that you applied to ProudIrishAspie's user page over eight years ago? He is long gone, and in the unlikely event that he returns, I would hope he would've grown up a little. In the meantime, it's holding up my ability to do non-controversial userbox maintenance described here as it pertains to another migrated userbox. I totally understand if you don't want to, given that user's history. Thanks! — voidxor15:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you write an article for me im a football player of national team of Kosovo and i need it i can type my biography here if you want you just have to post it? 185.174.208.139 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Batonzabergja:, that's not really how things work here. We generally don't work on the basis of whether an article subject "needs" or "wants" to have an article. Take a look at WP:AUTO; you posting it here, and then me creating the article, would just be the same thing except with a layer of obfuscation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
But that doesn't address the point I'm making above. An autobiography is strongly discouraged, and this would be an autobiography by proxy. We don't write articles on request, we write them when an independent person decides they want to write an article about someone or something. Usually after independent sources write articles about it/them that we can summarize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
REvert of my edit
Hey! I saw your reasoning for reverting my edit to an IP's talk page. I understand and how it was worded in the block message seemed a little silly to me. I wasn't meaning to basically do exactly what the IP did since I didn't know block messages were still technically considered the message of the user who posted the block message. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
I concur with Primefac that the information is basically available onwiki and it is not covered under our outing policy and is thus not eligible for oversight. Your log note and edit summary seem to be hinting at that but perhaps you have a different reason under RD5 so I just note it here for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
My concern was the physical address and telephone number. I realize Googling is trivially easy. On the other hand, we've recently overisghted links to an article published by a mainstream news organization, so I don't think I'm being super-duper extra loony. Maybe just standard loony; the log note is an acknowledgement that I might be over-reacting. I've asked Eggishorn and Primefac at Eggishorn's talk page if you want to chime in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
If we're talking about the one that included OS'ing at AN, that oversight was then discussed on the oversight list and affirmed as a good suppression because the identity was not linked onwiki (though admittedly not universally). I'll respond more at that user talk but on a different note you made it clear a while back you never wanted me to email you so I'm bit surprised you've emailed me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
My stupid temper. I probably forgot I'd said that the day after I said it. I certainly can't recall why. There's a pretty good chance I was being a whiny idiot. Please feel free to email me any time you want, and I apologize if, as I suspect, the prohibition was stupid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not smart enough for that to have been a setup. It just came to me. No, really! Any uninvolved editor could see that! --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm just curious if I'm one of the 4 corrupt admins they've uncovered, or if they haven't seen my comment at ANI and I'm corrupt admin #5. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
is very convincing. To me. Does it even come close for you? Oh, they're globally locked, so once they successfully appeal the block, they can petition the Stewards. (sigh) The Stewards have repeatedly assured me that they might unlock following a successful unblock. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra(talk)08:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m not as optimistic as you are, but you’re welcome to give them another chance. I suspect more growing up needs to happen. One concern: can we please steer returning problem editors somewhere besides new pages patrol? That seems likely the place they could cause the most harm. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Enough that seeing the light after just 6 months seems like a stretch. The key is probably going to be a very, very short leash. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I asked him to address each of the talk page issues and suggested he ask the Thai admins to ask the Stewards to unlock him. His block there expired. --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Good conditions, but more promising is that he's got a mentor. Still pessimistic, but less so than before I see Patient Zero got involved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Your message on my TP
I have removed it due to its very sensitive nature, please next time send an e-mail. I don’t respond to e-mails but I am Responding to yours since you are amongst the very few people I have utmost respect and trust for. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll email you later, I'm a little short of time. But if it is sensitive, it seems weird to advertise it on your user page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Saying annoying things and then appending a smiley at the end doesn't really make them less annoying. I'll reply to the email today. Let's stick to email, so if I end up saying something too frank to you, it isn't in front of everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Glad you could take that picture, and glad it could make it onto the German DYK. I thought it made it to English DYK too, but maybe I'm misremembering? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm remembering, but at this stage in my life it seems unlikely it was a DYK from 2016! Speaking of 2016, the people we were visiting in the Netherlands when we met you in person are planning to come to the US to visit us this summer. I cannot believe it was so long ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Right, it sort of feels like yesterday. Rheingau actually yesterday. Goldatzel will reopen next week. - As for the pic, you can see where it links. Perhaps look at the DYK RfC which I find hard to believe. We (a Ukrainian, an American and I) expanded Prayer for Ukraine on 26 Mar, and right then it was prominently on U.S. television, papers including the NYT reported, it had a 5-digit view count within days, - but can't be shown on DYK (yet) because "we take side". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll look at the RFC with the intention of commenting (if I have something useful to say), but not with the intention of closing it. I doubt I'm impartial enough to close it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
That's what I thought - sorry to not have been clear. It's way to soon for a close anyway. We run there from A) nothing special, let the DYK review process take care of hooks and articles being factual and neutral, to E) ban all Russia and Ukraine-related hooks until the conflict is over. The conflict was there in 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure that I do. Have something useful, I mean. I think my vote would be "67% A, and 33% B", but I don't think that's helpful. There are some articles in that example list that I (if were God Emperor of Wikipedia (which I should be)) would accept, and some I don't think I would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You are right that it would probably not be useful ;) - How is it different from A, which is no blanket pass but submits the nominations to a reviewer's (hoped for) scrutiny. I wonder how Anna Korsun made it to the Main page yesterday. music with a chance to listen, - her piece begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude" (as in Berlin after the Fall of the Wall). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
No more harassing, I promise
OK, thanks for your advice/threat—I'll never mention this matter again on English WP! Man, I wish someone had explicitly threatened me with that sooner. And by the way, I'm curious—how DO indeffed Wikipedians who've had their talk-page-access revoked appeal their WP blocks? I really can't seem to find anything that would tell me. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Floq's warning obviously wasn't clear enough if you've decided to ask again here. So I'll answer for you: English Wikipedia isn't the place to ask any of this. So I suggest you drop it. CUPIDICAE💕19:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Shāntián Tàiláng—Floquenbeam's answer explains it very well. I've been blocked once (self-requested) and used UTRS to appeal. If you're banned from UTRS, though, you can email other users/admins. However, even email can be revoked. In that case, one would have to edit other WMF projects constructively to prove their case… unless you are globally locked, but that is for the worst of the worst. Coming back at the Wikitionary matter, @Floquenbeam—I'm pretty sure you use email to appeal after your TPA is revoked on Wikitionary, unless it is disabled there. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Follow up
I did want to follow up with you. I see you think I am trying to out someone. However, the only reason I know that user's original username is because they themself told me, here on Wikipedia. I've actually discussed this with another admin some years ago. I'm not sure if I should tell you where in my archives that conversation is, as that may run afoul of your warning. If you'd like to censor my archives to further your enablement efforts, I'll be happy to provide the year of which I speak with your assurances that you will not hold pointing to that archived past discussion to be a violation of your warning. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Not so much outing, as harassing. I see an oversighter has suppressed it now (not at my request), so there's at least one more person who thinks you were behaving inappropriately. Smugly doing something that only has one conceivable purpose: to annoy another editor you're feuding with, in a discussion they weren't even involved in. You know they do not want their real name on wiki anymore; it does not matter who told you or when, so no need to point out where in tyour archives it is. You know they have been harassed in the past because of it; you are being harassed yourself, which makes your not caring about their harassment even more disappointing. Yes, even pointing to that conversation will get you blocked. As far as WP is concerned, you no longer know their name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Please restore my comment at Ponyo's talk page that you deleted
Hi. I had a discussion at your friend Ponyos talk page where I argued that Wikis deletion rules and Ponyo's application of them where counterproductive (my point along with other editors is that the normally well functioning proces of deletion tags can in some instances be misused in the interest of censorship regimes such as Putin's Russia as in the case of the article of Marina Ovsyannikova). But you deleted my answer to Ponyo and wrote this:
>>hello "new" editor. stop being a jerk. you were asked to stop posting here. if you do it again, you'll be blocked from editing with no further warning".<<
And this is what I wrote that you deleted:
>>Yeah, you keep refering to those wikiproceses as if they came down from the sky written in stone. In stead of getting offended by me critising the holy policies and you fighting for their rigourous application, could you not consider - as many others had in the discussions page - that in this case the "correct processes" were counter productive and that they actually benefit a real life dictator? Especially after you realised, that I was in fact right that the article shouldnt be deleted. That could have lead to a discussion about improving the "correctable processes" instead of a religious trench defense. HansClumsy (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)<<
I cant see that my argument merits deletion, getting blocked, or you calling me a "jerk" - where did that come from? Also it is wrong when you write that I was asked to stop posting, so you want to block me for something wrong. By threatening me with being blocked for this I believe you are misusing your priviliges. So I will ask you to re-insert my honest comment and criticism of Ponyo and wikis deletion tag at Ponyos talk page, or I will try to explain my point at the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". And please do not remove this comment from your own discussions page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansClumsy (talk • contribs)
You were being obnoxious in that whole thread, and Ponyo made it clear she was not interested in discussing it with you further on her talk page. I will not reinsert your comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I know I just replied to you, but looking back through my responses today I might be coming off as a bit abrasive (I am quite tired) and just wanted to apologise if I have come off in that way. Thanks, Terasail[✉️]18:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, not at all; I obviously disagree with (and am still a little puzzled by) your comment, but in no way did I read that as abrasive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah my lack of sleep was what probably led me to completley misread the template and ignore the comedy tag to begin with. Who knows maybe I will wake up tommorrow and agree with you, ha. Terasail[✉️]18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
(Small point of order, they've somehow managed to not even put it in the right place, it's on the talk page which doesn't show the warning... but yes, I wouldn't get too worried!) Mike1901 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, I’m sorry about the events of yesterday, you are correct and I was wrong for my actions and there is no excuse for that. I take full responsibility for my actions and acknowledge that I was wrong. Please do accept my apology. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting my apology it does mean a lot. I should have been more responsible. Please do remain safe always. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Aye, I miss the good ones we lose, and I miss the sense of humor increasingly missing from this place. Fylbecatulous was both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice article, as always. I'm slightly curious how something that is described as "the last chorale cantata of Bach's second cantata cycle" ends up as BMV 1, but I fear the answer would be complicated and over my head. It can remain one of life's mysteries. Sorry you'd had so many recent death duties. It happened so gradually I can't recall when the tipping point happened, but I remember years ago I'd hear someone died and I'd say "who is that?"; now I hear someone died, and I've heard of them, and my kids say "who is that". You and 28bytes are putting me in a somber mood. Will try to go out in the sun for a while and listen to the birds and cheer back up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The article actually tries to answer the question, in the publication para, - please check if clear. In short: the editors of the first Complete Edition (of what they knew in 1850) liked the ecumenical touch of music for a Marian feast by a Lutheran composer, on top of composition quality, and their order stuck. - I went in the sun: Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The topic ban
Do you think there is any chance that there might be a way to get the topic ban at least tightened, so it does not at least have wording that openly invites people to try and consider ways to make it apply to as much as possible. Of should I just try living with it for a while more?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure. My own gut instinct, which you can take or leave, is that the trolls you've been putting up with aren't going to be deterred by a revised wording, and this seems (I could be missing something) the first actual good faith (but mistaken) report since your previous block. Plus, I'm not sure how you'd tighten the wording up further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, for starters replacing "broadly construed" with just plain "religious leader". Either that or just limiting it to mentions of religion. The fact that if I find someone in a wrong birth year category, even off by a decade, and they are a religious leader I cannot only not edit it but not even post a notice somewhere asking someone else to review the situation is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You do have a point. However when I am going methodically through birth year categories to catch misplaced births not being able to fix all the ones I come across is frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Thanks for the revert and temporary semi-confirmed page protection of my user talk page. The LTA continues troll, so I think we might maybe safe to revoke their user talk page access?
Xeno is the only one. I dropped all my bits when I stood down in 2019, although dropping the 'crat bit (and the global renamer bit) required a side-trip to meta, so it might not have been clear from the BN thread at the time that I'd done so. 28bytes (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I've always kind of assumed I'll end up getting desysopped for cause, rather than for inactivity, so this likely won't affect me. But who knows? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Most of our PAGs were written by bold edits?
I'm curious: do you think the majority of our PAGs were written by RFC, or by bold (meaning, non-RFC) edits? Levivich17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that the majority of them probably started out as boldly-written first drafts, but drafts that were contemporaneously modified through discussion about any controversial bits. But if they had started out as RFCs - that is, there was nothing there at all and someone said "let's have an RFC about what our role account policy should be", then they would probably be much worse. The problem with many of our PAGs isn't that they were boldly written and then modified to start out with, it's that were formed over time by individuals and groups of people who aren't really knowledgeable in how to do this kind of thing. A further problem, and the one I was talking about at BN, is that they've become ossified now, and difficult to modify further in the face of changing circumstances. If you don't organize an RFC perfectly, it falls apart. And almost no one is an expert at organizing an RFC perfectly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that crowdsourcing works for articles but not for policy pages. But I think that's maybe just a vestige of having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that crowdsourcing works for articles (apparently, sort of). Levivich18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Crowd-sourcing for articles is kind of like the apocryphal story of the bumblebee. It shouldn't fly, but it apparently (as you say, sort of) does. Off the top of my head, if I had to guess, I'd say the difference is articles are aggregations of information about what is; policy is more about what should be. Even in this godforsaken era of "they have their facts, I have mine", maybe it's (slightly) easier to agree on the former? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you're onto something about is vs. should be. Crowdsourced PAG writing is like crowdsourced article writing except we have no RSes to summarize and we're all just doing OR. Which means our policies and guidelines are examples of the terrible things that can happen when we don't follow our policies and guidelines. Levivich18:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Crowdsourcing.... often doesn't work great for producing full articles. When there are many interested editors for a highly visible topic, they fight it out and so the results can be good, but at a very high effort cost. Less visible topics generally have better articles when one or a small number of editors work on producing a holistic article to start with. Crowdsourcing works better for making incremental updates. But at some point many articles turn into a timeline of events ("proseline"), and an overhaul is needed. This typically is done by a single editor, though additional iterations can be done by other editors.
I once went hunting for examples of policies that were approved from guidelines, as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Life cycle, and couldn't find any—all the ones I looked at predated this concept. I once said I was considering trying to write a new draft of the conflict of interest guideline, in order to separate background information from actual guidance for editors, but I could never get sufficiently motivated. English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions means you need to keep all opinionated editors happy in order to establish a broad consensus, but there are too many diverse views from different editors who all want their preferred passages in the official guidance There's just not enough upside for an individual editor to warrant upsetting so many, for a proposed draft that is highly unlikely to get approved anyway. I have seen cases where guidance was completely rewritten, though I can't remember which right now. So it's not impossible, but it's a huge mountain to climb. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't have much time left today to comment on Levivich's last comment, nor on isaacl's comments here, but I do agree with the broad strokes of both. I don't really think our consensus-of-opinions-based approach, combined with no one being in charge of herding the cats, is a great way to create policies and guidelines. I've been part of committees IRL that use a consensus-based approach, and... it isn't anything like what we do here. I don't think our approach scales very well. But it's all we have for the foreseeable future, until my plans for being God Emperor of WP come to fruition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Superb!
Hello F. This is an all time great edit summary. It has happened to me more times than I care to remember. As I get older it is happening in other areas of my life as well :-). Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, MD, you're still around! Yes, it's expanding into other areas for me too. Number of times I wonder why I entered a room is increasing exponentially. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
As long as its "what am I doing here" I think we are okay - when it becomes "How did I get here" uh oh. I'm intermittent both here and in RL :-) One trick I learned was to by reading glasses by the gross and place a set everywhere that I might need them. Best regards and have a nice weekend! MarnetteD|Talk15:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hearts and minds
I was going to try to come up with something witty, but I've got nothing. Someone's got to AGF around here, so it might as well be you :-) Primefac (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
How did I end up drawing the short straw? It would really fit my personality better to not AGF. I want to switch with someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
A belated happy Easter, Gerda. Beautiful pictures as always. Just noticed the "Calendar 2022" portion of your 2022 pictures page. Very nice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, in the ANI thread I wrote about this user, you made a pledge to block the user indefinitely if they made "one more comment, question, criticism, ping, or any other post that is related to [their] block on Wiktionary". That seems to have worked for around a month, but unfortunately the disruption has continued quite recently (1, 2) after they were caught socking under an account. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /17:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I wimped out slightly and made it only 1 day, because this seems like backsliding rather than ignoring. But to emphasize I was serious, I told them I'll escalate to indef if they do it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, my good faith has been used up since - gullible fool that I am - I stuck up for you last time. What should you do? I guess you could make fewer patently stupid votes, for a start. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, well if you were really on my side, you wouldn't have insulted me. Clearly, you didn't really mean to stick up for me. I guess I was gullible too, thinking that you really meant to stick up for me. Toad40 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to listen to anybody, but if you keep doing stupid things, you're going to overstay your welcome. Stop being disruptive with your RFA votes. This is a serious enterprise, and if you're just going to take the piss, you can take it elsewhere. --Jayron3218:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Look, you were not getting ominous threats this time around, and I'm under no obligation to "take your side" all the time after I've "taken your side" once. The first one I can chalk up to lack of clue by an enthusiastic newbie, but this is indistinguishable from trolling. You have explicitly said that you hope your participation at RFA will increase your own adminship chances sometime down the line. But votes like this are rapidly and significantly decreasing those chances. This is fundamentally the same as saying "I oppose anyone who starts their RFA on Tuesday. That's just my procedure". I do not have to respect that as a perfectly valid opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying you always have to take my side, but this kind of contradicts what you said on the post on my talk page. I'm not trying to be a troll, but if you think I am, I'm sorry that you think that. I assumed I was getting a ominous threat from Rhododendrites, so I went to you because you left that post because of first vote I made. You don't have to support me, but I think it would better to hear me out and be patient with me. Toad40 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It does not contradict what I said on your talk page. A rationale-less neutral is harmless, and as I said, indicative of a lack of clue by an enthusiastic newbie. People were making comments about how you'd "better" switch to support or oppose. No one said that here, even though you did a much less defensible thing. I don't think I can explain to someone who thinks "I will oppose if there are 3 other opposes" is a good argument, why that's a really dumb argument. If it isn't self-evident, I kind of give up. Come on. Do better. or at least don't complain when a dumb thing is labeled a dumb thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, Toad40, I feel much worse today about mocking your oppose rationale now that demonstrably more sinister oppose rationales have started to proliferate. "Silly" is still not good - I haven't come around to thinking it was actually a good oppose - but it is orders of magnitude better than opposing because Tamzin is insufficiently tolerant of bigotry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It's fine, I've come to realize that your right. Sure, you did make fun of me, but in a way your right. Voting in that way is kind of stupid, so I looked at the most of the Support and Oppose votes, and then I looked at all the pros and cons Tamzin I made from the votes I read, then I would decide if I need to keep my vote or move it. Not sure if this is best way to vote, but it's much better than the way I used to vote. Toad40 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Better watch out…
If 14 7 more people support this RfA here, your perfect record will be broken. Otherwise, you can continue bragging that your RfA had the most support !votes ever. Just gotta hope that they don't do it… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
And it looks like Ferien cast the 326th support, meaning that you no longer possess the highest amount of supports. Unless someone redacts their own !vote… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
If it was just Ferien, I could have struck my own support and prevailed. But several weasels supported after him too. Curses. And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for you rotten kids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
That RfA was rigged. There's obviously massive !voter fraud; as a matter of fact, it is the greatest fraud in the history of Wikipedia. Do you realize how many dead people !voted in that RfA? All of the illegal !voting amounts to the scam of the century. Floquenbeam, despite attempts to steal it, you definitely hold the title of most support !votes. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
CLicking 'thanks" on this one seems inadequate. A more public thanks is necessary. I can't believe this perspective didn't occur to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Not back. Checked my phone while back at the house for some sunscreen. There have been a lot of dolphins! Got one particularly good pic I'll share on my talk later.
There's things I'd still like to say to 7P, optics be damned, because I can ignore a ping, and I can maybe ignore an aspersion, but I can't ignore a ping to an aspersion. But I'll take the retirement at face value for now. Plus I'm at 8% and I forgot to get a power pack when I went to get the sunscreen. Time to get back to my book.
"Momentarily" back, then. Back enough to make me sound like an echo. In all the chaos I missed the part where you're hanging out where there are lots of dolphins. That... sounds better than WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I swear, it's like people think "cetacean needed" is a joke or something. :P See my own usertalk for dolphin updates. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)02:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
I'm pretty sure they were also logging out to continue to make targeted edits such as here. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to block the IP range for abusing them--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
What is suspicious about the IP, apart from disagreeing with you? TOFD was blindingly obvious. But I'd need more evidence before simply taking your side in an edit war against an IP. Consider a CU, or SPI, or another admin more familiar with the subject matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Ha! Even Floquenbeam is capable of blocking an IPv6 /64, because it's a single little checkbox in Twinkle, and you don't have to figure out the range first, and it says very clearly that it is unlikely to cause collateral damage. I would be ashamed to call this "range blocking", so I still consider myself incapable of that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The IP addresses that reverted me and outbursted on the Dr Strange talkpage are clearly in the same range, and there's this in the ANI report: "I myself encountered this when he, without rhyme or reason, removed a vetted and approved source from Vincent D'Onofrio's filmography." CreecregofLife (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't seem quirky? Perhaps there was no quirky hook? Sorry you have to occasionally put up with horrible people, you handle this kind of thing with more grace than I could. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice pictures of Rheingau. Interesting question about Ladislaja Harnoncourt; my instincts on notablity tend to go against a strict interpretation of WP:NOTE, so Storye book's comments on the talk page make sense, a review of the sources in German is in order. I've watchlisted the page, not because I have something useful to say, but because I'm curious what will come of that discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the article in February (preparing for March=women's month), thinking that it was unfair that we have four articles about her sons, but not a single woman from the family. I left the DYK discussion on the talk, because it illustrates how DYK wastes time these days. When we missed March, I thought of Mothers' Day, - we missed that also. I hate these tags, especially on Main page day, but someone removed it eventually. Our readers liked the article, which pleases me ;) - Did you see the image of infectious music-making, in the Kleine Zeitung ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
"infectious music-making"... you mean where it looks like one brother is smacking the other brother in the face with a violin bow? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
as usual, when I looked at the article, I started clicking interesting links, and then links in those articles, and then links in those articles... and now I've lost a half-hour, BUT I know more about Norwegian/Swedish history, and the difference between Otello and Othello, and the Napoleonic Wars, and the Oslo Nationaltheatret (which I have been to!), and the difference between Nationaltheatret metro station and Nationaltheatret station (one of which I have been in, but it was too long ago to know which one), than I did a half-hour ago. Thanks, Gerda, for the information you provide directly and indirectly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
if you also have a second for more background, check the credit further down my talk, where I explain that I added just a bit opera expertise, and key reason for the article (one of a series) is the featured pic. - I like the difference between Othello and Otello, because it spares me disambiguation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Ukrainian peace music is "on" today, with the conductor! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom Notices
I did notify TenPoundHammer and Alansohn when I proposed, in their ANI cases, that they be included in an ArbCom case. Alansohn replied "Why?" but didn't ping me, so I only noticed tonight. Notice has been given, but maybe the notice that I tried to give doesn't count, perhaps because I thought that the subject would have to go to ArbCom seven months ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure it "counts" or not either, but I didn't see it there, so thanks. The extra notice I gave probably can't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes I think WP:TNT is not only a solution to bad articles, but a solution to WP:AFD. Good luck to ArbCom; I cannot imagine any outcome that would make AFD less toxic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I saw from my watchlist that there's an active discussion there, but this is the first time I've had time for WP in a few days, and only have time in little 5-10 min blocks. Not sure when I'll get back to that discussion. Will try to do so soon. Thanks for the pointer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam. While discussing User:Benchijiguando you replied to me with (that's two editors warning you which apparently is some kind of threshold for you). Leaving aside the fact that that is not true what past conflict were you dredging up with this aspersion? Invasive Spices (talk) 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Impressively evasive. I do understand you have an advantage because you are an admin and I don't have access to whatever forum you do. However you do need to explain. Continuing a conflict while also refusing to resolve it when I offer is very disruptive. You appear to be referring to a past situation in which a large number of admins engaged in organised bullying across several unrelated pages on behalf of a pedestrian disruptive editor[10][11][12]. This was made to appear as if I was suddenly coincidentally in concurrent conflicts with all of them culminating in one of them "advising me to stop being so confrontational". Impressive technique. I have significant doubts you understand the entire story. If you don't know the full context you may find you are not carrying water for others. In this case you have been given a lie to carry. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Impressively evasive? Disruptive? Try again. (hint #1: If you have a question, ask it without being a dick about it and I'll answer it) (hint #2: I have no idea what you're talking about, you appear to have jumped to some kind of bizarre conclusion) (hint #3: if you simply can't ask a question without being a dick about it, then go away) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
What does which apparently is some kind of threshold for you) refer to? Invasive Spices (talk) 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It refers to the fact that you considered the fact that they were "warned by two editors that this is against the source" as proof that this was vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I find that a very strange comparison. That segues my next question.
I was not warned to cease calling it vandalism and in fact there is no indication of so much as an opinion to that effect. Why did you threaten to block me on that basis? Invasive Spices (talk) 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Repeatedly and incorrectly saying that someone is vandalizing, especially after being told that you are wrong and it isn't vandalism, is a personal attack. You were, in tandem with the other editor, disrupting that discussion and preventing its resolution. Luckily an uninvolved editor arrived and helped resolve it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
after being told that you are wrong and it isn't vandalism That didn't occur. Above I linked the diff demonstrating that did not occur. in tandem with the other editor who? Invasive Spices (talk) 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only means the responding admin did not think they were vandalizing. "The other editor" refers to the editor you were reverting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
obvious Basic English competence says to the contrary. the editor you were revertingBenchijiguando? I was working in tandem with Benchijiguando¿? Have you informed WP:BKFIP? That's quite a serious crime. Wikipedia cannot have filth such as me working in tandem with filth such as Benchijiguando. Well then I think no productive discussion will happen here. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that as long as you are laser-focused on intentionally misinterpreting every single thing I say, no productive discussion will happen here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I've been swamped IRL. I've been planning to circle back to that discussion for a week, but hard to find uninterrupted time to read what's been going on. I'll try to squeeze it in this afternoon (i.e. in 5-ish hours). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
No, no, please don't comment I mean, rush :-) But seriously please do not even hurry a little bit for this. Everyone can wait, there is absolutely no deadline. I just wanted to check in, like "busy or dead?" I'm glad it's "busy". Levivich[block]15:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Fourteen in a row... Ty France hitting north of .300, J-Rod tearing it up, Winkler winning fights with the whole Angels dugout, Logan Gilbert over 100 innings before the All-Star break... MastCellTalk15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I do have a sinking feeling that a 14-game losing streak is getting started, but I’m going to blame… regression to the mean? :P MastCellTalk21:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Something I already told Svartava re:RcAlex36
Hello Floquenbeam,
Before you get too worried, this is NOT about my en.wikt block, but rather about the behavior of one of its users on my talkpage (that I sadly never noticed until July 5):
If you look at RcAlex36's messages here, they sound like they're almost personal attacks, especially when you consider he said my case was a case of 死不足惜 ("one's death is not or will not be a cause for regret", emphasis mine), even when I hadn't been edit-warring (disruptive editing, maybe, but not edit-warring; I had even thanked him for cleaning up after my bad edits prior to the block). In addition, I think that what he said ("I think you shouldn't be editing anything at all") may have...driven me to do these and these block-evading edits. (Both of them involved creating Japanese names from redlinks, such as those listed here; at the time, I assumed that this permablock had mainly been done because of me continuing to make the bad edits—inaccurate Chinese entry creations—that RcAlex36 was unhappy about and for which I'd originally been blocked; I was not aware that "block evasion" applied to both good and bad edits.) Of course, RcAlex36's messages don't exactly excuse my later block evasions, but they still sound somewhat like taunting to me.<shrug>
Also, RcAlex36's edit summary here and his reply to my message about that edit seem uncalled-for, since on Wiktionary you're not supposed to link to an Alternative Form of a word (like off-colour as opposed to off-color) unless you're talking about the edit history of, or links made to, the page of that Alternative Form itself.
Sigh. I've had to block you indef. Hard to believe you thought this post was OK. I wish I had back the time I've spent trying to avoid blocking you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
What I thought he meant was "Doug Weller and his toys" (because sometime previous he referenced someone - maybe Doug, I can't recall - throwing toys out of their pram). What he apparently meant was "Doug, like Lego, makes billions of blocks". I suppose marginally better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
There's a valid reason for the IPBE (tl;dr caught in a hard block of a residential range that will be lifted a few centuries after the rapture), but since they're actually blocked now, I do think it is a bit weird that they have it. We'd probably regrant if they were ever unblocked just because its one of the few IPBEs that is because of a residential range and not VPNs, though. Meh. Use your judgement on what to do with it. Just thought I should flag it for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I spent a long time picking out what picture to use here. Thank you for reminding us that it should be blue, dammit! BLUE! [Ignore that it is green. It doesn't matter, as you remind us.] Andrevan@19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I like it! Time well spent. Obviously, the color doesn't matter. I do think, however, that the clear portion of the cover should be about 0.15m wider. Who do I talk to about that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That was determined by the local planning board. You should have gotten a notification about the meeting. It was at the bottom of the stairwell marked "beware the leopard." Andrevan@19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
What do you suppose the ratio is of (percentage of WP users who are Douglas Adams fans)/(percentage of the general English-speaking population who are Douglas Adams fans)? Hitchhiker quotes always make my day brighter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is definitely a well-known correlation with Adams acolytes, computer scientist/software engineers of a certain age and disposition, and spending hours of the day fiddling with markup on a website. The real question is - why do we use dark mode? (It's because bugs are afraid of the light. As well as cockroaches). Andrevan@19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Incomplete summary of the discussion
I think there was a lot of time wasted at the AN thread that you closed with the bikeshed comment. But the idea that there was no substantive discussion of a formal appeal of the DRV that needed addressing in addition to the bikeshed color strikes me as a poor summary of the consensus of that thread. There are multiple editors weighing in on the substance of that appeal who, in my mind, deserve consideration of their comments in the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Or, wiki love process, forgot how to IAR. Those users are very experienced and their dispute is best taken offline to be handled between them. Andrevan@19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the idea that the two might find common ground when talking to each other in a less public setting is a good one. I doubt they could do that on their own and there's no reason to believe that this would be the outcome given that close. But it's a good thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
BK, I think you're missing the point: it. really. doesn't. matter. I'm hoping that one way to incrementally discourage future bikeshed discussions is to refuse to summarize the result of a bikeshed discussion. If you think it does matter, feel free to reopen or reclose yourself. As I said, I expected there's a 90% chance someone would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to do that for any number of reasons. But the big names who got desysopped in 2020/21 have lingered with me - no doubt because I had to vote to do it in one of those cases. And two major things that I took from those cases is that those admin's friends could have done a lot to save those people from being desysopped by offering honest feedback such that they could have course corrected (not at play in this situation) and that I wish the community had more effective ways to give admins feedback as well. XRV isn't it, so for me it's about doing what's possible at AN/ANI. Maybe dismissing the whole thing is the right way of helping create that culture there. It's possible. I'm skeptical. But it's impossible. My worry is that instead it'll become a diff at some future case request of the need for ArbCom action, and even in a decline far more of the community's time will have been wasted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If I can continue to insert myself into this discussion, I think this is perceptive. Giving and receiving feedback is a very important, and difficult skill. It is not something that people are born with, with some exceptions, but it can be learned through deliberate practice. Andrevan@20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
(e/c) If there's an Arbcom case about restoring the history of redirects that technically shouldn't have been restored, or about deleting the history of redirects that technically shouldn't have been deleted, then I'd take that as a good proxy for whether WP has jumped the shark or not. Note that I'm not saying it's a bad prediction - I can imagine it happening too. I'm assuming both people are capable of reading that thread and taking onboard whatever feedback is there to be taken. But I'm not going to raise a stink if I get reverted. It violates WP:BIKESHED to argue about whether something should continue to be WP:BIKESHEDded or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well there's the crux of the issue. You think the topic of that discussion was whether or not to restore the history of redirects and I think the topic is whether or not a administrator had supervoted in closing a DRV. This explains why you say BIKESHED and I say comments worth having summarized. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've re-opened the discussion; I take your comments here as (a) declining to do so yourself and (b) not raising hell if someone else does. Best, Mackensen(talk)12:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
But I feel compelled to point out, after reading the new posts to the thread, that User:King of Hearts said anyone was free to delete the history, and said he came to that realization based on my closing comment, so I’m feeling pretty vindicated. I really could solve all of WPs problems if only people would always do what I suggest without question. It’s quite frustrating. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Beat me to it!
Good block - was about to indef but conflicted with you. What an odd thing to get so worked up about. I've emailed the WMF juuuust in case. firefly ( t · c ) 19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
A bunch of different admins tripping on each other's toes doing the various tasks. Yikes, that was an angry dude. Well, that was a dude pretending very hard to look like an angry dude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
I see that at User talk:This Groovers you posted a block notice which included an invitation to post an unblock request on that page, although you had blocked talk page access. There may be a case for blocking such an uncooperative editor without talk page access and without telling them how to request an unblock, but I didn't feel that leaving an invitation to make an unblock request which couldn't be followed up was a good idea, so I have posted a "block no talk" template to the page. If that results in administrators at UTRS having to deal with a few more absurd unblock requests than they otherwise would, then I accept responsibility. JBW (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just seen the section above, started by Firefly. I too was about to block when you got in there, so there were at least three "admins tripping on each other's toes". I wonder how many more there were... JBW (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have changed the template, but got distracted. I only wish, instead of a template that tells them how to use UTRS, we had a template that says: you're blocked for infinity with no hope of an unblock. go away." But alas. I hope the text you wrote was a subst'd template or something, so you didn't spend time writing all that for someone clearly irredeemable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
As you no doubt expected, you have been blocked from editing again, for continuing the same kind of editing that led to your previous block. Naturally, this time the block is for a significantly longer period. JBW (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that it doesn't say anything about how to request an unblock. Obviously the blocked editor will normally have already been told how to request an unblock, but even so I mostly use that message only when I really prefer not to deliberately call their attention to the fact that they can request an unblock. However, if you have nothing better to do with your time than search through my block log, you will be able to find occasions when I just don't mention to an editor that requesting an unblock is an option, even if they haven't already been informed. I rarely do that, but I know of one administrator who does it frequently. JBW (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, Ponyo, but no. Maybe you do it too, in which case I'm afraid I haven't noticed, but I have in mind one who does it as a deliberate policy if he thinks an editor doesn't deserve another chance, very often. JBW (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, Ponyo, your mention of rouge admins gives me happy memories of the days when I first became active on Wikipedia, because, as you probably remember, that expression was in very common use then, but it pretty well fell out of use many years ago. I remember searching in a dictionary to try to find a meaning of "rouge" that made sense in the context, but eventually gave up. Then one day, some years later, it suddenly hit me what it meant. Yes, honestly. I really can be that stupid sometimes. JBW (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. As I said yesterday, the block might have been a touch early based on a misunderstanding, but I value my time too much to defend this kind of person more than I already have. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
] Bishonen | tålk 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator threatening to file a frivolous SPI against me over some absurd claim:. Thank you. on behalf of DarkMatterMan4500 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
that self-important jerk User:Floquenbeam (if Jimbo or WMF had their way)
Enjoy! Miniapolis 16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Unpatrolled pages show the "Mark this page as patrolled" link at the bottom that reviewers can't resist; that is the usual source of log entries for pages that don't need patrolling getting patrolled. There are of course editors who scour the userspace to practice CSDs, UAA, etc. or as part of RCP. But I doubt they're using a feed filtered by patrol status. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I made a wrapper for you. :P –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-dttr3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ✗plicit 12:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Well then I think no productive discussion will happen here. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 July 2022 (UTC)
