User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Recently Deleted SPI attack page

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.

---

I was wondering if it might make more sense to leave some access to that, and stuff like it. It's a little like really rude t-shirts...at first they seem like an offense to society, but then you realize that they are a way for us to identify persons with personality disorders easily; in fact, the differently mannered do most of the work for us, marking themselves and sparing the rest of us a lot of work with specialized machinery. Anmccaff (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

A couple points. First, if I'd wanted to focus this above on anyone in particular, I would have pinged them. Next, if I thought you, or any other admin, was deleting stuff over the writer's objections because of personal dislike, I'd be at ANI, not commenting on your page. Third, and most importantly, stuff like that is better in the open than festering, and gives some valuable clues to personalities (and the issues that accompany them). Sweeping it under the rug, not so much. Anmccaff (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Except it violates policy. The fact you think I'm sweeping something under the rug is noted. We're done now, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (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.

Request

Hi Floq, If you're around, can you protect User talk:Cassianto for a spell? He's been the target of nonsense postings by a sock. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I screwed up the protection rationale a little (throw-away accounts, not IP's) but couldn't bring myself to do a null edit to fix the rationale. Hopefully no one notices. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much. I've no idea who is behind it, although there a couple of people who sprng to mind! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they'll all be in Montreal at the moment  ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL I mean, shame on you for saying that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean perhaps this/these, too? No idea ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I just assumed FIM had no particular editor in mind, and was just riffing on the idea that Cassianto is persona non grata for the generic Powers That Be. If FIM was actually thinking of someone in particular, then it isn't really funny anymore. I think I'll choose to assume the former. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam; Thank you for the good faith, your assumption is absolutely correct, a light hearted jest at the expense of the great and the good, our occasionally elders and possibly betters... And what the heck's any of that got to do with a Requiem talk page will have to be spelt out for me! — fortunavelut luna 14:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Requiem talk page (and then ANI, and then Jimbo), an IP indulged in dated fights, which died down when Wikimania began. The similarity is that the same question came up: who's behind it? Someone going to ANI and Jimbo is no innocent IP landing in a dispute they don't know about, as I had first thought. - Perhaps another episode to better leave behind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians aren't really great at leaving episodes behind... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh, an IP buggered about, I assure you I was making no comparison with anybody! But thanks for filling us in anyway, it was a trifle opaque earlier that's all. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 21:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lament

Is it my imagination, or has WP been relentlessly taken over by people you would never want to go have a beer with? When I first started, almost everyone I ran into seemed interesting; quirky perhaps, but generally decent humans. Now everywhere you turn there are uniformly horrible people, all acting like eggshells armed with hammers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We had far more outright lunatics in the old days; we have far more prissy self-appointed cops nowadays. Which is the better state of affairs depends on your own preferences. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so. I wasn't around in the really old days. Perhaps I arrived during a Golden Age, after the Outright Lunatics left, but before the Relentless Warriors (and your Prissy Self-Appointed Cops) arrived? Or maybe I'm one of the Prissy Self-Appointed Cops and just don't know it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

#MakeWikipediaGreatAgain ? 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Too soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We had the Relentless Edit Warriors back then as well, but it was also laced with a strong dose of genuine psychopaths. The self-righteous edit-warriors of today are annoying and sometimes deeply annoying, but there's nowhere near as much outright stalking and harassment now as there was then (despite the exponential increase in the number of people who like to throw the terms around), and the seemingly-endless flood of child molesters and white supremacists finally appears to have abated as well. It's not something that will ever be a slogan on a fundraising banner, but one of the genuinely great achievements of the deservedly maligned Sue Gardner was to turn Wikipedia boring enough to feel safe without entirely killing off the spark that keeps it alive. (I freely admit that I didn't expect her to pull it off; by now, I'd have expected Wikipedia either to have degenerated into a Reddit-style pit of assholes locked in permanent arguments, or to be under the total control of the Civility Police and be a Citizendium-style ghost town of outdated pages which nobody dares to update for fear of upsetting their owners.) ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know that we have any more miserable people now than we did in the old days. But we do have far fewer interesting, sane people. I think it's the changing ratio that you're perceiving. If I look back to discussions I had on article talkpages or my user talkpage 5 or 10 years ago, I'm overwhelmed by how many interesting, smart, dedicated people were active back then and have since left the project. But the handful of miserable human beings I encountered in those days are, by and large, still editing. It's a vicious cycle, too; as we lost that critical mass of good people, the remaining ones got much less invested and more likely to leave as well. I mean, a lot of people I encounter here, particularly on contentious topics, are the sorts that I would literally go out of my way to avoid having to interact with in real life. So then why would I want to spend my free/volunteer time interacting with them online? I think a lot of people have gone through similar implicit mental calculations over the years, which is why we're still beset with bellicose pedants and ideological zealots but have lost the people who made this place fun. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I'm still miserable, MastCell. Weirdly, I've seemed to have more fun editing (well, mostly doing admin/functionary things) in the past few months than I have in years.  ;-) Risker (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have been told to not qualify editors or even comments as good or bad (as if I'd ever say "bad"), so will not comment on the topic. Shameless advertising: read today, Schloss Ledenburg (written) and The Fountainhead (nominated), or listen to music (between "infectious jollity" and "depths of despair"). Look and don't lament ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Hence why I stick to FAC and the occasional stint at AIV or UAA. ceranthor 21:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• You mean it isn't just me? Seems like there's a lot of petty timewasting going on lately. (Or maybe I just notice it more with less time?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• This is so true. My impression of the past when I first started was a community with open arms and shares the genuine joy of working together; nowadays, it appears to be more of silly cliques engaging in open warfare. Perhaps it is a reflection of the changing political atmosphere in the past 10 years? Alex Shih^Talk 07:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The guy saying nonsense

Hey

This is awkward but I didn't read that page i only read the begging and thought he removed the lines which was disrespectful to his country. Yep this is awkward.. and when I requested from him to not use al jazeera as his source, I requested him and I said " request not an order "

Sorry :$ Technical Peace (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Technical Peace (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so a mistaken reading of the diff, as I suspected. That happens, not the end of the world. I am concerned that you're worried he is not being neutral, but don't recognize the possibility/likelihood that you are not being neutral in the other direction. Something for you to think about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI ping

Hi, I replied to your ping in the RAN ANI thread but you may miss it, buried part-way through the thing as it is. I'm not happy, even more so now because he seems to have been able to engage in a lengthy email conversation with someone but is unable to edit WP. But I guess I have to be pragmatic even though it stinks. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I mentioned in my reply that Johnuniq apparently knows something about a long history of troublesome behaviour, and Iridescent has just intimated the same on their talk page (not pinging Iridescent deliberately, per their note). AS far as I can recall, this is the first time RAN and I have had any real dealings with each other, so I came to this with clean hands. I'd be surprised if we haven't both edited an article or talk page, though, given how long we've both been around. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Long history" is something of an understatement—RAN was the party in the legendary "Footnoted Quotes" case, which created the BLP policy as it exists today. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I got a BLP discretionary sanctions alert years ago (IIRC I was trying to break up a dust-up between several longstanding editors over whether to cite the Daily Mail for the Mail's own opinion on Nick Griffin on Question Time) and always wondered what on earth "Footnoted Quotes" had to do with it. I'm still confused. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Workshop it might be clearer (although it was a horribly complicated case); the TL;DR summary is that RAN used the quote= parameter in citation templates to dump assorted copyvios and biased commentary into articles, arguing that because the footnotes aren't part of the article they don't need to comply with WP rules. (Sometimes, he'd go to a ludicrous extent such that the article would only be a few words long because everything else was dumped in the footnotes.) This led to the "BLP applies everywhere and if you're not willing to follow it, you need to be off Wikipedia even if it means us kicking you off" situation we have today—before that, BLP was much wishy-washier and based on the assumption that everyone was trying to do their best and just needed guidance on which sources to use. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I don't have much time to look and see how things are going on that thread, but didn't want to just ignore you here. I'm semi-familiar with BLP and copyvio issues Iridescent raises, not aware of previous history of this kind of behavioral issue. I hope I made clear my warning didn't preclude further action by others. The warning was just the minimum there was clear consensus for at the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The thread is closed anyway now, thanks. I will remain p'd off but nothing I can do. Some people have all the luck with serendipitous absences when taken to ANI etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I just took a peek and saw it's closed. Lots of unproductivity going on there near the end, wasn't there? ANI sucks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing good

I don't disagree, but I can't help but think a reality check of sorts may be what the user could do with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll give you it's rather cruel of me, but if they did, it would be closed rather sharpish and without too much of a pile on (I'd hope at least). I admire your attempt, but there are better things to be doing that trying to dissuade someone who has made their mind up -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I solved that aspect by deleting and salting. But suggesting they file it anyway is, as you say, a little mean, and it wastes the time of whoever comments on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh bugger, had the RfA page been deleted? I hadn't noticed in the time between looking at it, and then wording a reply.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we crossed in the ether. I deleted shortly after replying to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection

Thank you. I'll leave the protection for a while, because it's a big range with lots of contribs. Many of them are indeed vandalism or borderline, but look at it — that's just from August — I'd rather not block that lot. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC).

That makes sense; I just see the first 3 #'s in a set of IP's the same, and decide it's over my head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Read Message, and Made Decision

Thanks for your message on my Talk Page. I apologise for that... I don't know why, but I guess voicing an opinion on that noticeboard just came to me from reading reports. I'm gonna do my best to avoid doing anything to that page. Reading it - Yes. Anything else - No. You will ensure I stick to this, if you can possibly, please? I think I might focus on looking to articles of Video Games I know of, and looking to improving them for now. GUtt01 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll help you stick to it. Thank you for the reply; I was worried when you deleted the message that things were going to get worse. The improvement of video game articles sounds like a good plan. And to be clear, I think Only and I both understand you were trying to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me amend that slightly, so I don't give the wrong impression: I'll "help" in the sense that if I see you commenting there, I'll remind you of this discussion rather than running to ANI. But I'm not online often enough, and don't frequent ANEW enough, to keep a close eye on it, and anyway I don't want to be anyone's Jiminy Cricket on things like this. You'll need to take responsibility for remembering this yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, that recent report you handled regarding Lord Aseem - Have you talked to Oshwah about his claim that he reviewed the page, along with one other? And also... the article in the report - is there a possibility the user is connected to an IP User who got reverted several times for POV edits? GUtt01 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on Lord Aseem's talk page, and I addressed the IP issue in my comment at ANEW. And... didn't you just say you were going to stop getting involved in ANEW-related issues? You're continuing, both here and (I note, making me somewhat more discouraged) at User talk:Oshwah just now. We've got this under control. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So sorry... You're right, you've got it under control. Forgive me... Urgh... I really have got to stop sticking my nose in further... :-( GUtt01 (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh the horror, the horror

"Anyone who quotes Buckaroo Banzai is AOK in my book. That was (*gasps in horror*) 33 years ago?!"

Think of how I felt when I was reminded recently that the "Summer of Love" was 50 years ago. I turned to my wife and said "I am so fucking old..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Summer of Love? A bit before my time. Jesus, you are really fucking old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm as old as the two of you, but it sure struck me the other day when a high schooler asked me "What was it like seeing 9/11 happen?" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

My husband teaches a fresh-faced batch of students at the local college every year. He is repeatedly having to modify his lectures to incorporate "touchstones" that they can identify with, making the passing of time visceral for the both of us. Last year in his Drugs and Behaviour course he mentioned Kurt Cobain and a number of them were like, "who?". Some of these kids were in utero (ha! see what I did there?) when the iconic words "the Dude abides" were first uttered. Jesus wept.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As the fella said, "I weep for the future!" — fortunavelut luna 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose Cobain would've been a while ago. And very punny, Ponyo, very punny indeed. But oh well, whatever, nevermind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Order

The clerks are hereby granted a 50% increase in salary. You and Drmies have also earned a 100% bonus to your Cabal salary for putting up with us. — Cabal Human Resources (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What, we have to be human now?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess you could be a cat and be worshiped by the rest of the Cabal. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still in the ArbCabal? Is the ArbCabal one of those things that once you're in, you can never get out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Floq, Would you mind removing my name [1] as I have since edited the comment, I will admit I was unfairly harsh and have since changed the wording as well as apologised, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

[2]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - Very much appreciated, I'll choose my words more carefully in future but anyway thanks again and have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Editnotice

Thank you, it is needed -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's probably out of process, and not all that visible, so I'm not sure it is actually of any use. Except maybe it helped convince them to change their wording. But I'm probably taking too much credit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Querying a Citation's Weblink

Hey there,

Can you do me a favor, please? I need someone to check and determine if a recent citation added to The Lego Batman Movie is a reliable source. This user I know of, because they messaged me about removing small piece of information on the article's "Batman and pop culture references" section. See they wanted to note a reference, a quote in the film, directly linked to a quote from the film Passenger 57, but they didn't properly cite it; they first tried to connect it to an existing citation that could not back it up, and then used IMDb for a source when it could be considered inappropriate use in terms of the site being used for a citation. Anyway, can you find out if quotes.net can be considered a reliable source for the information, as i just want to be sure it can be and thus determine if the editor has done good on this.

Thanks, and please attend to it ASAUC, if possible. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a reliable source to me; you can sign up to be an "editor" and, apparently, add quotes yourself. Kind of like WP. Next time, though, WP:RSN might be a better bet, because (a) I'm not around all the time, and (b) I'm occasionally a grump, and not a big fan of people asking me to attend to things ASAUC, even if accompanied by a smiley. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello you. :) Pedro :  Chat  16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Pedro! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I gather from your contribs that this doesn't mean you're back for good? Still, it's good to see your name pop up. Gonna go get in a fight with a crat, or just slum with us non-crats for a while? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

When you get a chance, let me know how life is going. Here or via email. My youngest just started high school this week. I'm old. At least compared to most of the puppies around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

My friend, we're all getting old. In a couple of weeks I'll have been an admin for ten years.... How crazy is that? I'm still about, but mostly as an IP - saves me getting into arguments :)

I have discovered a delicious new sport via Twitter though - spot people boasting about vandalized articles and maliciously fix them back up or even spoil the fun. So I do a little bit!

Hope all is well with the family (my lad started secondary school last week, ironically) and best of health to you and yours. P. Pedro :  Chat  16:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a go at vandal-fighting as an IP recently (just to get user experience on it), but it's difficult as you need to enter a captcha before you can revert or add a reference, which meant logged-in editors got to the revert first. I did decline a CSD though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, agreed it's a right royal pain; but there are some good bots on Twitter that track dodgy edits and often they're missed by the regular vandal fighters. I even (shock) occasionally improve the odd article as an IP ! I hope you're also well Ritchie. Pedro :  Chat  16:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

My IP got a 2-year block for vandalism and I kicked up a right old stink (it's a public library IP which has at least six people using it, rotating every hour) until Floq overturned it. Elsewhere, I am (touch wood) close to having taken 100 articles to GA, which along with Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations was one of my two "things to do" this year. So yeah, I'm good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nearly 100 GAs? Wow, brilliant job. The Foundation ought to put your rates up! Glad all is good. Pedro :  Chat  17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Redom115

Hi Floq. Just letting you know that I've (with some slight misgivings) unblocked this user, under the 1RR restriction that you suggested on their talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. We'll see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=799793151&oldid=799792812

I'm surprised at Ritchie sympathising with one of the most prominent sockmasters and disruptive editors of all times, and swallowing the lies and attacks hook line and sinker, and to cap it all, make judgments about my character in agreement. Ritchie333 may be a friend, but I won't hesitate to escalate; I will have to do what's best for the Wikipedia and the personal reputations of its other users. Arbcom is aware of the spree of attacks and has been asked to oversight some of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom is well aware, I'm sure. From what I understand, it's hard to do much without hurting a lot of innocent good-faith editors. I could have oversighted some of it myself; I just don't see the point. Sorry, I should have checked to see if you wanted me to. It's not Kumioko's comments that bother me, it's Ritchie's response, at least for me. And the knowledge that he'll support Kumioko saying shit like that is not something I can oversight. Still, since ArbCom response is often slow, I'll oversight the stuff I've seen if it hasn't been already, and you can email me if I've missed something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I can do that, @Kudpung:. It's not oversightable, doesn't meet any of the strict criteria. It could certainly be revdel'd, because it's a post by a banned editor, but (a) Ritchie specifically added the comment back (!!) when someone else removed it (I hadn't noticed that), and there are dozens of intervening edits by others in other threads, so I'm not comfortable with that either, I don't want it turning into a whole "misuse of tools" accusation; there are too many morons who frequent AN/ANI and would side with the troll. I would certainly not object if you or any other admin disagreed and revdel'd it, but I'm not going to. If there are other places besides Ritchie's talk page you had in mind, feel free to email me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I told him to ignore it and go and write something in mainspace; as I have just been doing with Paddington station. I think my point stands that if people want to rant, just let 'em, otherwise they'll go to Wikipediocracy and do it anyway. Yes, there are administrators who I think would be better off indefinitely blocked, but I would never go as far as to actually name names (although this is a clue). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised too, Ritchie. You seem to be saying if people want to attack other users on your page, you might as well let them get on with it and thank them for stopping by, because otherwise they'll only do it on Wikipediocracy? Is that really your opinion? Who cares about being attacked on Wikipediocracy? I know I don't. To encourage an abusive troll on a talkpage here on Wikipedia is something completely different. I was baffled by your responses to Kumioko when he came to your page (on your invitation) and attacked Floquenbeam and then Kudpung. Even if you didn't realize it was Kumioko... well, I have to assume you didn't realize it, since Kumioko is site-banned and you encouraged your interlocuteur to "keep on improving articles" (!). Incidentally I remember very well the lengths Floquenbeam went to to try to help Kumioko, back in the day. I wasn't aware of Kudpung doing the same, no doubt because I don't read everything, but I do remember about Floquenbeam, and the amount of shit he's been getting from K ever since, once K decided Floquenbeam wasn't doing enough for him. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

I could not care less if Kumioko is going to complain about me on Wikipediocracy. (Last I saw, he was banned from there too, but maybe that changed.) Or one of the more pathetic WP-focused sites for defective humans out there. Or via email to whoever made the mistake of giving him their email address. I don't even care that much if he complains about me here; apparently there's not much that can be done about it, so no sense worrying. What bothered me, and still bothers me, and what you have not addressed, is that you gave him a welcoming place to do so. When you go out of your way to be friendly and sympathetic with a banned editor who is actively talking shit about me, and your response when called on it is not "I'm sorry", but "I'm writing articles, how come you guys aren't writing articles", or "Hey look at my 100 GA's!", it's pretty hard to turn the other cheek and compliment you on your writing skills and dedication. A big achievement does not cancel out being a jerk; if anything, it sullies the achievement. I want to be clear here; I'm not upset at Kumioko; he is broken and can't help himself. I'm upset with you, Ritchie333, for enabling it. If the next words out of your mouth are not "I'm sorry", then don't bother posting here again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not surprised by these developments. Ritchie doesn't believe that people are abusive or offensive ("you cannot give offence, you can only receive it") and when, inevitably, situations arise in which people are offended or upset or annoyed about something said, his reaction is to evade the issue, by saying things like "chill out" and "back to mainspace". This approach may work well in many situations, but it is also likely to engender grievances that then go unresolved. For someone in a position of power within a collaborative project, this is a problem. [Disclaimer: I do not know anything about the issue with the IP; I am commenting here because I had independently decided that Ritchie is an enabler of abuse, and I was interested to read the comment above]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If an apology will help reduce the tension and get things back to normal - I'm sorry. I did something I thought would reduce the drama and tension on a thread that was getting over-heated, and unfortunately it had precisely the opposite effect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 11 September 2017 (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.

Your opinion

I'm concerned about a few recent edits by a user you cautioned at this unblock request. This editor re-created an article about Danielle Bregoli, which had been previously deleted three times. This editor created the article using Bregoli's lesser-known name Bhad Bhabie. They also redirected the article Danielle Bregoli to Bhad Bhabie. The sources used in the Bhad Bhabie article all use the name Danielle Bregoli, and only three of the sources even mention "Bhad Bhabie". This is a very active editor, and there seems to be a strong appearance of gaming-the-system. Could I get your opinion? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I was confused for a minute; I now see they got renamed.

In general, my experience has been that they seem to know what they're doing; my interaction with them was more related to edit warring and similar stuff. Also the Danielle Bregoli page isn't protected, so this wasn't done to get around a page salting. I'm not saying they're always right or anything, but all in all, my guts says there's no bad faith involved. I see articles have been continuously recreated at various names by multiple new accounts, meaning there might be some socking involved, but I'm pretty confident the socks don't belong to this editor.

If you're asking me to look at the deleted pages to see if WP:CSD#G4 applies, I can do that sometime today but I'm quickly running out of time for WP this morning and want to finish my thoughts here.

If you know G4 doesn't apply, I don't really have an opinion on whether this person meets A7; in a sane world, she wouldn't, but God knows why internet memes become internet memes, and I'm not up to speed on how they're treated here. If this is not a G4, then you could try AFD #2 if you're convinced they aren't notable. Or to save time, ask on the article talk page what's changed since the old AFD; if you're convinced it saves the hassle of an AFD. I also don't have too much of an opinion on which name the article should be located; when someone changes their name it takes time for sources to reflect that, and so it isn't a cut and dried decision. I guess it would be the most common name as of now, rather than historically, and I have no idea which is being used more often now. I think both of those things could be hashed out on the article talk page.

Let me know if you want me to look at the deleted version for G4 later today --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I just went ahead and looked. I don't think it's G4-eligible, all the feuding and legal trouble and music career stuff is new since the AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your help today. You are an absolute satr for sorting out the dispute between me and User:32.218.38.102. Sometimes, decisions are hard in life but you are making the most fair and swift decisions. Therefore, you deserve this barnstar! Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot resist the joke...

First, I won't name the article, but thank you for your recent removal of uncited material from a BLP. I hadn't had a chance to go through it yet, and my brain was confusing it with a similar article I dealt with.

Second...yeah, I guess any article with most of the words devoted to breast implants would be undue weight, wouldn't it? :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I really did almost use that as an edit summary (pun definitely not intended), and only realized at the last minute how that would sound. I settled for the shortcut instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Most editors and admins assume that IPs are vandals, or at the least, are blameworthy. Thank you for actually reading through the series of edits to determine what has actually been going on. 32.218.38.102 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That was particularly dysfunctional, wasn't it? There are lots of people on revert patrol who probably shouldn't be. But at the risk of spoiling the love... if you had simply said, sans template, "Hi Playxxxx ( don't want to look up name), you made a mistake; "owned by" makes zero sense, and "rival" does", you'd have saved a lot of heartache. I'm not saying you're obligated to do stuff like that and they aren't; they were clearly acting dumb. But think how much happier the last half hour of your life would have been if you'd done that. When adults interact with kids, you have to make some allowance for the fact that you're interacting with kids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I started off with a request to PlyrStar93 to actually read the edits he was reverting, but perhaps that was too harsh. Shortly after that, the tag-team wrestling began. 32.218.38.102 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Careless wording; I should have said "gentler than perhaps you think warranted" rather than "sans template". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I did try a more reasoned approach with Redgro after they started to revert all my edits willy-nilly, but that went nowhere. 32.218.38.102 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus; what the hell is someone with 250 edits doing on new page patrol? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that's really all the edits they've made... 32.218.38.102 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

At the time of reverting, I was looking up recent changes on Huggle and there were a relatively high level of vandalism edits going on. Not that I'm using this as an excuse, but when I try my best to identify vandalism in a short time, it is inevitable that I misidentify edits as vandalism when conducting a large amount of looks and reverts. The first notice I gave to this user was a level-1 notice automatically by Huggle. This IP went to my talk page saying my reverts are "kneejerk" when I was only giving the lv-1 notice along with the revert. I make mistakes when conducting reverts but I know to look back and correct it, sometimes I have to get notified by the original editor (like an undo action). I am fine with my reverts being undone as long as the edits are at least in good faith, but it's not something comforting when they come to my talk page and assume what I did was in bad faith. PS: you're replying so fast, always getting in edit conflicts. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 20:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"but I know to look back and correct it" - But in this case you didn't look back and correct it, even after it was pointed out to you. You persisted in reverting the edit. 32.218.38.102 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(tps)&(ec) There's an easy way to avoid making that kind of mistake: Slow down - WP is not a race to see who can revert the most vandalism in the shortest amount of time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(to User talk:32.218.38.102): Then you should check again. The only revert I have ever done with your edit is the one on DeForest High School. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

But this is what I don't understand, @PlyrStar93:. You think you deserve sympathy for being treated shabbily for making a mistake. Sure, I've made mistakes, I don't expect anyone to be perfect. But as far as I can tell, you don't think the IP deserves sympathy for being treated like a vandal by you. You take offense by having your edit called "kneejerk", but you don't show any remorse for reverting this editor and treating them like a vandal. It's the old "internet is filled with eggshells armed with hammers" syndrome. You want to be treated well without treating the other person well. As far as I can tell, you and @Pkbwcgs: and @Redgro: have all not apologized to the IP editor yet. I doubt you plan to, unless this shames you into it. What is so hard about saying "Yeah, I guess that was kind of a knee-jerk revert; my mistake. Sorry." Why do you get to take offense, but they don't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I do appreciate you only reverted once, and told the other two to stop reverting on the IP's talk page. It's not like you're a horrible person. But I just think acknowledging to the IP that you were wrong, and saying "sorry for the warning template, my mistake" would have been a good thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @32.218.38.102:. This is Redgro and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It's just that most editors (including me sometimes) think IPs are vandals. You are not a vandal so I have 2 suggestions for you. 1) Consider creating an account so most editors don't assume you are a vandal. Also if you create an account you would have access to more things such as Twinkle and editing semi protected pages (your account needs to be at least 4 days old and make at least 10 edits to do these things). 2) Assume good faith. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia in which many editors co-operate. If you assume good faith you can avoid edit-wars and other incidents. Good luck with all your edits, take my advice and you can become an experienced editor. Happy editing! Redgro (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@32.218.38.102: I am Pkbwcgs and I am here to apologise about the incident yesterday night. I am very sorry for reverting your edits and for misreading WP:BLANKING. I admit to have breaking this rule and WP:3RR. Basically, I made a careless mistake by reverting when you removed warnings. What I thought is that IPs can't remove warnings that were given within a one week period but it turns out that I was wrong and it is not one of the rules in WP:BLANKING. I would like to encourage you to continue with your constructive edits and I would also suggest that you create an account as most IPs are caught as vandals. Thank you for your edits and if you continue with your constructive edits, you might become an administrator in the future! Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A similar case of talk page edit warring is happening at User talk:199.101.62.55 but this time, I am not involving in the discussion after what happened yesterday. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Redgro and Pkbwcgs: I appreciate the attempts at apology, but remain concerned about very new editors, and/or editors with significant past problems, both of whom aren't too clear on how Wikipedia works, doing recent changes patrol. In particular, you folks are going to need to lose the "most IP's are caught as vandals" attitude, or I will rouse myself from my inherent laziness and ask at WP:ANI that you be topic banned from patrolling. And "WP:AGF for me but not for thee" doesn't work well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the revert and revdel of those edits. I only caught the edit summary of Sinebot, and it was quite the unoriginal attack. Thanks again! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sinebot's automatic edit summary is pretty annoying in cases like this, but I think I finally got it all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Floq, for cleaning up the Augean stables before I even had a chance to see the mess. I think your protection reason just pretty much sums it up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

SgThomas aka ChickenFingers6262

Hi Floq. I don't know if you want to do anything about it, but check out this edit summary. I suspect this has something to do with the edit you recently oversighted on my talk page. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much time to investigate properly, so I'm assuming this is not a common behavior and issued a warning. If they do this kind of thing a lot, let me know and I'll block. I don't see any obvious relation to what I revdel'd from your talk page last night. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CobraSA

Since all of his edits since becoming active this year has been edit-warring on M.U.G.E.N. and complaining on talk pages, shouldn't he be indeffed as a WP:SPA and per WP:NOTHERE? Stikkyy t/c 21:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not against policy to be an SPA, and I don't think NOTHERE applies (that gets thrown around too much). They're certainly disruptive, and a 1 week block might have been somewhat lenient, but if they don't significantly clue change their approach when the block expires, I'll block indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation. Stikkyy t/c 03:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your close

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.

---

I take issue with a number of statements in your close.

1. I never said anything about knowing Anarcho's motives. I said repeatedly the words they used in their edit summary and initial talk page comments were a red flag of POV pushing. Red flags are an indicator of a problem, not proof of it. No-where in any comment I made did I ever state that Anarcho had anything less than the best of intention. I only ever criticized their way of engaging on this.
2. You said you understand about getting pissed off so you won't warn about the insults: Really? Repeated personal attacks against an editor who explicitly stated to be open to changing their mind over a single revert with no effort put forth to actually change that editor's mind until after filing an ANI thread over a content dispute is understandable? This is not an 'interpretation' of mine about the series of events, either. I can show you all the diffs with timestamps. I'd also note that Anarcho attacked SlaterSteven for, essentially, agreeing with me that the edit looked problematic and requesting evidence that the source was bad.
3. I never "sniped" at TParis. Indeed, I've never interacted with them before this thread. I responded to bald-faced, incivil accusations wrongdoing by pointing out how wrong it was in direct terms, with evidence. The frustration I imbued into those responses was justified, as TParis' accusation of gaming is just so bizarre; as if I conspired to have content inserted onto that page over year ago (seven months before I ever edited that page), so that I could revert someone and get reported to ANI in order to... I dunno, I guess "further my liberal POV pushing" or something equally as ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for sharing your issues about the close with me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all you've got to say? You're not going to consider anything I've said or defend your close in any way? Because at least one statement in your close is, undeniably counterfactual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think you're generally wrong on all 3 points. In a nutshell, that was a poor revert; instead of trying to parse the possible red flags, you could have spent, I don't know, 15 seconds to realize what kind of site AIM is. Or left it out of the article pending discussion, which had already started on the talk page before your revert. If you had discovered this yourself, removed it, and been reverted, you'd be making the exact opposite arguments you're making now, and you would not have been gentle in your messages to whoever reverted you. AA's edit summary made it very clear it was a BLP issue, even if they didn't use the magic words. Like I said, people get to make mistakes, but 12 hours later you were still arguing on the talk page, and still saying basically that since this "looks" like a red flag, you don't have to do any more research, it's all on them.

I'm standing by the close; i don't see the point of arguing minutiae like whether you guys don't like each other, or don't like what you're saying about each other; or whether you said you knew his motivation, or only repeatedly claimed his edit was a "red flag" for having such motivations. Those seem like distinctions with no difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm always open to being wrong. I think I proved that when I admitted to being wrong about AiM. But when the "evidence" that I'm wrong is bare assertions that I can counter by pointing to actual evidence... What the hell am I supposed to think of that?

• You claimed I was presupposing Anarcho's motivations, yet I had earlier stated explicitly that I was assuming they weren't POV pushing and that I was open to having my mind changed.
• You claimed I argued that I didn't have to do any research, and you yourself stated that I hadn't done any research, except I had specifically pointed out that I had done some research in my very first comment at talk. (note that I also checked Accuracy in Media, and read the lede before reverting the first place.)
• You claim that I had continued arguing my position for 12 hours, yet you left out the fact that I made only three edits in that time span, all of them within less than an hour of the revert in that time. Because I was asleep and away from the internet after making that last comment on my talk page. People tend to do that, and pretty much every day, usually around the same time at that.

So, once again, what I see is a bunch of comments that bear no relation to reality. Thanks for joining TParis in the "Let's make sure editors have good reasons not to trust the admins" train. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And I would also like to point out that I'm not the only one to think Anarcho's repeated use of personal attacks wasn't understandable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think if you had acknowledged at the start that you made a mistake instead of making a flippant remark about popcorn, the closing would have said nicer things about you. Woscafrench (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that ANI threads about content disputes should be taken seriously? At the time the ANI thread was opened, I'd checked our article on AiM, checked RSN for mention of AiM, and been supported in my revert by two other editors. No evidence or even compelling arguments that AiM was unreliable had been presented, just screeds against their bias. What possible reason could I have had to take that thread seriously? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting exactly what I originally said. This was not a constructive edit. Woscafrench (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither was either of your comments here, yet... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• And since you can't be bothered to respond, Floq, I'll just assume you still stand by making shit up about me to criticize me for. Well, at least I can admit I was wrong about thinking you were one of the more diligent and thoughtful admins. I know now that not admitting any mistakes is more important than being factually accurate to you. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 2 October 2017 (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.

Annoy each other?

We don't know each other. This was our first interaction. You're mistaken if you believed I was involved with either party. I read the dispute, read the diffs, and came to my own conclusion.--v/r - TP 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

RFA

Hi. Just a quick comment from me, because I think you have misunderstood the "getting mad" thing. I've said something at User talk:DrStrauss#Your RFA_comment, so I'll just leave you with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed the link and see what you're saying. It doesn't change my opinion, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and I wasn't trying to change your opinion - just to explain mine better, so thanks for listening :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Unimpressed with your latest comment there, though. You imply I don't understand what the real problem is, when I just told you I did. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I realise you do personally understand, though it does seem like other don't and it's becoming repetetive explaining myself to each individual - I'll modify my words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's OK, don't bother, that RFA is going pear-shaped fast. The fewer edits to it the better, probably. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No, my initial version of my comment was indeed unfair, so I have amended it. But yes, I'll back away from it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/804736637

That edit summary is harsh and mildly offensive to me. Please don’t use that kind of edit summary when referring to me. There is no policy that I’m aware of that says “new users can’t answer questions if they definitely know the answer”. —Ecstatic Electrical, 20:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, new editors should not be answering questions, and should not be closing questions they haven't answered. In particular, new incompetent editors in particular shouldn't be answering questions. You don't know the answer, you admitted it yourself. But adding {{helpme-helped}} means someone who does know the answer doesn't know about the question. In your short career here you've been blocked indef (and graciously unblocked by User:Yunshui, and made edits that have been reverted as not useful about 80-90% of the time (I'm going thru some more and finding others I'm having to revert, so that % may go up). I've seen this dozens of times before. Slow down, and don't get in over your head, or you're going to end up blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thanks for the help. I never imagined that someone would be unable to remove a block that he himself had just set :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I learned something too; I didn't know that someone, at some time, changed things so admins couldn't block/unblock while blocked themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ChickenFingers6262

Hi. I'm back again to follow up on this discussion. I appreciate the warning you issued. Dunno what you want to do about this new one. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same person. IP blocked 3 months, account blocked indef. Please let me know if you see them using other accounts/IP's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A comment on my user talk was oversighted by Alex Shih. I could be mistaken, but based on the page log, the alert e-mail I received, and the timing, I suspect this was block evasion by our friend ChickenFingers6262. I can't start an SPI since the username was oversighted as well. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Username was Death to communist oppressors destroying America. The same "you're all jew hating commies" stuff that has infected the site recently. Not sure if it's one loon with lots of free time, or a meme picked up by several loons, but this stuff is everywhere lately. CF already blocked forever, so best I can suggest is ask at SPI or ask a CU to see if there's a range to be blocked. I'm not a CU and am incompetent with range blocks, so I'm afraid I'll be of no use, beyond doing whack-a-mole duty when I happen to be online the same time as them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dumb

I didn't realize "dumb" was a valid deletion rationale, but at any rate, it seems to have interrupted my twinkle, rendering this page probably equally dumb. GMG^talk 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably easier to just delete the MFD and it's log entry, unless this is too rouge for you, in which case I'd have to look up the instructions for closing an MFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I already closed it. It's whatever though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I was implying the MfD should also be deleted, but... either way, as long as people aren't spending time trying to figure out what happened over at MfD. GMG^talk 14:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on review I should have figured out that's what you were saying. Otherwise you'd have just closed it yourself. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But that would have required me to "look up the instructions for closing an MFD." GMG^talk 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record (and this is the extent of my "competence"), the reason I closed it rather than deleting it is that, on a whim, I clicked on the [show] button of the MfD tools box on the MfD edit screen and, to my genuine surprise, found that it actually contained step-by-step instructions for closing MfDs. Otherwise, I too would've just deleted it rather than bothering to look up instructions. Welcome to shrug city, PG. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks WK; the existence of competent admins makes it far easier for us incompetent admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• We're just bumping into each other everywhere today. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev in case you want to link them in the block log... or... something. GMG^talk 17:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How long before one of us takes the other to ANI for stalking? Anyway, commented at SPi and tagged user page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably more like having watchlists consisting of several thousand too many pages. GMG^talk 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But how long until one of us takes the other to ANI for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. Something like Please protect me. Floq is deleting all the pages I'm trying to get deleted and blocking all the socks I'm trying to get blocked. I'm fine with that, but I'm pretty sure I have to go through RfA first and then get desysopped, otherwise it seriously cuts down on the chances it will manage to be a 10,000 word thread. GMG^talk 17:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

91.216.55.150

• 91.216.55.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP address is back at it again after your previous block. Please block them again for a longer duration. Thanks. 198.236.58.11 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AIV may be a better venue for this, since you appear to be offline right now. Thanks anyway... 198.236.58.11 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

And just like that, the IP has been blocked for 6 months... 198.236.58.11 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad it was taken care of. Switching to AIV was a wise move, I'm pretty unreliable these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking for Help - The Apprentice (UK series thirteen)

I need your help. I found that an IP User thought of themselves as a "joker" by adding in a number of changes and additions to this article. At first, they put in a "Under Construction" template and changed the names of the people taking part in this year's The Apprentice on BBC One, which was later reverted, and then added in information that was unsubstantiated and untrue; I watched the episode, and what they put in did not match what was broadcast, except for a small detail that was true, but not needed. Could you do me a favour and put the article into semi-protection please? I don't want to find this joker doing it again... GUtt01 (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: It looks like only one of the IP's you reverted was actually vandalizing; the other appears to have just been adding unverified information. Most of the IP editors on that article appear to be productive, or at worst, editing in good faith. I don't really want to semi-protect an actively edited article after one user vandalized; I'd prefer to just block the vandal. However, it's been nearly 12 hours without vandalism, so they appear to have stopped, and so I also don't want to block a likely dynamic IP when the vandalism has already stopped. If signficant vandalism returns, you can revert it, warn the user, and report them to WP:AIV if it continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm keeping my eyes on that article; if it happens again, I'll do as you suggest. GUtt01 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Administrator's Barnstar
		For clearing out that nasty backlog at AIV. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, geez, don't give me a barnstar for that; I think I only got 3 of them. Other admins did much more of the heavy lifting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Meh you all deserve it. Y'all don't get thanked enough for cleaning up other peoples messes. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, thanks. I see it isn't even cleared out yet; you've guilted me into dealing with 2 more before I go... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

reformation

reformation - I have that on my user page from October 2012, so it's time to celebrate. Reformation, 500 years of a work in progress, see? - With the help of a black falcon, I now have red "cats" back on my user page, about missing and smiling, and approved by the red-cats-policewatchful eyes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, has it been 500 years already? Time flies. That's quite a few Reformation-related DYK's. Congratulations.

That's a good solution for redlinked categories; I once toyed with doing something similar, but didn't ever follow thru. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Four of the hooks will appear tomorrow, not the work in progress though. - I'll hear the cantata mostly associated with the event, but like the other article better, - look and you will see ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

PA

I just revdeled the edit summary, but left the text intact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a personal attack on this page earlier. Boing reverted it, I revdeled the edit summary so it wouldn't show up in history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I may need a third cup of coffee. I see. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@both, you may want a butcher's at [3]. you commie :p  ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Already dealt with in detail, apparently. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[4]...I thought my luck had changed for a minute :) ah well, back to the grindstone! Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 08:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Tom Petty

That's totally my bad, honestly a mistake, I deleted way more than I meant to, I assume due to a ctrl-f, all I planned on was capitalizing Guitar. Thanks for telling me, and I'll be more careful in future. --DoorOpensCloses (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, @DoorOpensCloses: that was a ... pretty odd thing to happen accidentally, but Wikipedia is full of odd things. I recall from when I left that message that I hadn't seen any vandalism in your other edits. If the assumption of bad faith was unwarranted, I apologize. Thanks for letting me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

If you get the chance, could you review this for possible behavioral issues, and let the chips fall where they may -- or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Beyond My Ken:, I saw this late last night and thought I'd have time to take a look today, but I'm just swamped in real life. I just don't think I'm going to have time to look until tomorrow or Wednesday. If it's still a problem, I'd suggest another admin, or (gulp) ANI. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe a talk page stalker wants to step in? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm trying to avoid ANI (for obvious reasons), so I'll probably see if someone else can take a look. Any of Floquenbeam's TPS who are admins are welcome as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you asked -- if one were deciding which hill to die on, "should we use this picture of Mussolini or the other one?" would not be my choice. (Not an admin but I could be one tomorrow if it really matters.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't tease people; the fact that you could, but won't, is mildly frustrating. (or set your sights on a bigger prize...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

{after ec, wtf, Boris?) As a non-admin, non-solicited, non-competent spotted feline, I have this to say to you, BMK (whose edits I respect, greatly). This is not a battle worth choosing. Benito looks equally stupid on every picture I've seen (including before he became a fascist). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Precautions

Probably want to go ahead and suppress Jytdog's redactions on AN. GMG^talk 20:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, just did that, and at ANI (where it was posted briefly). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing

Please help remove category on User talk:Hidden Tempo, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The sock...

He's a real pain in the , for sure. The Bushranger knows exactly who it is and has been dealing with him with whatever resources he has available to him. The guy was a sock farm. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:KylieStarzz

This guy go and make the edits at your userpage on Meta site. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw; thanks for reverting there. Now blocked on Meta too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, WV, hope you have a good one too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” Atsme📞📧 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, Atsme, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Rüdesheim

Look: Talk:Rüdesheim am Rhein, lovely memories ;) - Anything to improve the article(s) - 4 were created! - from your past? If not, just enjoy. Dinner place in J'Berg closed for the winter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost looks like it was taken from the J'berg place's patio? (although a quick look at Google maps makes me think Rüdesheim is on the wrong side of the photo for that to be true.) Lovely memories, indeed. When I win the lottery and retire for a life of leisure, on of my 10-15 vacation homes is going to be in that valley. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please win that lottery! You are in good company: Heinrich Heine said if he had the power to move mountains, it was the J'berg (a sad article, some day that should change ...) he wanted to move. - Yes, view from the patio would show you other vineyards and towns. St. Cecilia's Day (responsible for music) also today, and BB's bday, many reasons to give thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving! Hope all is well with you and your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I had a good one, hope you did too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Any advice?

Hi Floq, I'm a relative newbie and I love the idea of WP. On one hand, pooling our collective knowledge is a noble, beautiful endeavor. On the other hand, however, it sometimes brings out the worst in people. I do this for fun and to help in something that can be of use to everybody and I have neither the time nor the stomach for arguing ad nauseum. As a result, I have gravitated towards copyediting and doing minor things here and there until I am strong enough in WP policy to be able to stand my ground on an edit in which I believe. I am somewhat apolitical, but it seems how one describes anything has become a political issue. As an FYI- I'm not perfect and can/have/will make mistakes. I usually value the quality of thought almost as much as the correctness of the assertion and I'm, admittedly, a bit overwhelmed by the nitty-gritty that can sometimes be required to make a simple edit if someone out there who's been around longer doesn't like the source. Truthfully, I've considered that maybe WP isn't for me, but I do enjoy it and think I can offer something to this project. I stumbled across your page and it seems rare (to me, at least) to find someone "high-up" that does not wield power with seeming disregard for objectivity or protect a preferred narrative like a Praetorian guard. Your inviting, laidback tone led me to contact you as I was wondering if I might be able to pick your brain on occasion if I have a question concerning how to best deal with editors that seem more concerned with advancing an agenda than advancing the article? If not, I thank you for your time and the laidback vibe you've offered with your pages. It was refreshing. Blinkfan (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to ask for an outside opinion, though it may not be as insightful (or timely) as you might hope. Probably the first piece of advice, though (and I imagine you know this), is "don't assume people who disagree with you must be trying to advance an agenda, at least not at first". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Good advice. I assume good faith and thankfully not had any tumultuous encounters. I'm not thinking of any particular editor or anything, I've just seen on talk pages some ganging-up in terms of what is and is not "legitimate." I like the discussions concerning edits, but it feels like when two editors disagree, often it comes down to the more senior editor declaring that the others' sources are illegitimate (ie: "Your information is invalid as it comes from ______, which we ALL know is an untrustworthy news page"... Of course, sometimes people come up with info from an obscure blog or something (which is, of course, illegitimate), but I've seen this specious argument applied to reputable and disreputable sources alike.

How, in your opinion, is the best way to demonstrate the legitimacy of your sources (and thus, your position) if another editor flat-out declares that Reuters (or whomever) doesn't fit their view and cannot be accepted as a source? I'm not looking for an issue and I genuinely assume good faith, but I consider it likely that I may run into a stubborn editor at some point and he who best knows the ways of Wikipedia seems to fare the best in gaining consensus. So what is the standard protocol for gaining consensus when the other editor appears immovable in their assertions? Thanks for your help!Blinkfan (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blinkfan: The best way to handle a disagreement like that is to get more opinions. I'd suggest WP:RSN. That's their bread and butter. There are a whole bunch of noticeboards that can help with stuff like that; WP:BLPN, WP:ORN, WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Good advice! I'll peruse the boards. Thanks for your help! Blinkfan (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Our mutual friend Reece

Not sure you've seen his "reply to the reply" after the deletion of your latest message, but I'm impressed that he'd suggest that your warning had been anything less than abundantly clear. I suppose the absence of the actual text on his Talk page makes it sufficiently ambiguous...For the record, I don't think you're gullible for only giving him the week off in this instance. Given that what brought him to ANI in the first place was the AfDs, there's a way of contorting matters to suggest that anything else wasn't at the same level of seriousness. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree he's on an exceptionally tight leash from the start of next week onwards. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I guess wait and see what happens, but I won't really be around to deal, so if it resumes take it to another admin or ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@BigHaz: Sorry, meant to ping you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And ironically, I meant to watch your Talk... I'll keep as much of an eye on things as I can, although we've got family visiting from overseas for all of December, so I'll be a bit patchy as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks for not making fun of my obvious stupidity; you are, of course, an admin yourself and probably don't need me explaining to you how ANI works. :( Although, in a way, being mistaken for a normal human instead of an admin could be considered a compliment... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Compliment happily accepted. For an admin of reasonably long tenure, I've historically tried to steer clear of the real "nasties" of ANI and the like, so it never hurts to assume I know less than you think! I'll certainly never hold that against anyone. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Our mutual friend Big Haz

He seems to be having some plans and a nice conversation here with you, I like how that particular one changed topic out of nowhere.. haha
This conversation also appears to be very abundantly clear and also quite detailed for a talk page.
ReeceTheHawk (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So, after knowing you're on thin ice, 4 of the 6 "corrections" you've made to pages since your block expired have been reverted; 2 of those were obviously incorrect and reverted by Sarek (not sure about the other 2), and 1 of your two unreverted changes is also wrong and I'm about to revert you there. Plus, you leave this comment, which is incoherent, and solidifies in my mind that this is a WP:CIR issue. I am going to block you indefinitely; you're simply wasting too much of other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Only reverted him once, actually. Was very tempted to revert him on Kaaba, but I wasn't sure that was incorrect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now it's twice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my time travel device sometimes goes off without me realizing. I meant 1 you had reverted, and 1 you were going to revert... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I borrow that and see if my life is ever going to make sense again? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked. It isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, like I couldn't have figured that out myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, don't go to Memphis on 29 April 2023... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

*buys ticket, doesn't care anymore* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Greetings. Please see their talk page for a query you might have some views on. James Y Marshall (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have already ended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Is there a way that my edit-summary here [5] could be deleted? By manipulation I meant they're manipulated by time (because results are period specific). I just don't want others to assume there are accusations of manipulation by users or there is something deliberate. Tks Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yahya Talatin: The revision deletion policy is fairly strict, so I'm not supposed to remove the edit summary unless it is much more problematic than a simple unclear meaning. Personally, I don't think you need to worry too much about it, but if you are concerned, there are two ways to handle it:

1. Add a note to the bottom of the section saying just what you said above; if someone ever sees the unclearly worded edit summary, hopefully they'd also see that note.
2. Add a WP:Dummy edit, just adding a blank character after the section title, and clarify your old edit summary in the new edit summary.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I added another edit with an edit summary and also edited the section and removed controversial terms (wikireputation etc.). I didn't meant to be rude, saw only later that some of the stuff in the last edit could have been interpreted as accusatory. tks. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of line

Greetings Floquenbeam! I noticed your welcome anti-vandalism intervention at User talk:Joseph2302#Please explain this edit and I appreciate your friendly communication with the offending editor. However, your reply to their comment included an inappropriate rant, which left me puzzled: he got elected because there are way more misogynist racists in this country than I thought there were a year ago; there are far more horrible people here than I thought.[6] I hope you were just having a bad day, and that you would refrain from such divisive comments going forward. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

JFG - just...no. Sheesh. Situation awareness is an article in desperate need of improvement. I suggest you divert your efforts to something like that. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

JFG, ignoring the tone of your reply to Floquenbeam, what exactly do you find so "out of line" about his comment, exactly? To me it reads as him stating that the US has a lot of misogynist racists and other horrible people, an assessment that I think many, many, many people throughout the world would agree with wholeheartedly. I am genuinely curious. ceranthor 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: There are certainly plenty of misogynist and racist people in the USA, as well as in many other countries. However, lumping all US citizens who voted for Trump into such a basket of deplorables is an extreme and inflammatory exaggeration (unless you genuinely believe that half of the voting population is composed of "horrible people"). But we're drifting into WP:FORUM territory. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lumping all Muslims into a basket of violent extremists, or all Mexicans into a basket of drug dealers and rapists, or all African-Americans into a basket of violent ghetto dwellers, or all anti-Nazi protesters into a basket of violent antifa, or lumping all victims of sexual assault/harassment into a basket of lying opportunists... now those would be extreme and inflammatory exaggerations. I hope you'll refrain from enabling such divisive views going forward. MastCell ^Talk 02:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What MastCell said. ceranthor 02:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

MastCell has absolutely hit the nail on the head and I don't think anyone could ever say it any better. –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell: I agree with you that all inflammatory generalizations are harmful. — JFG ^talk 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Could people please not ask this person questions on my talk page? Then they feel like they're welcome to post here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, what MastCell said. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Another block?

You blocked User:100.14.81.196 for a week as a sock of a banned user, but it's back editing, and just posted some kind of nonsense on WT:Consensus. Maybe another block? Geolocation says it's dynamic, but the contribution log looks pretty static. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, don't know about the grammar fixes earlier, but that's the same guy. Blocked for longer, and with a hopefully more useful block log description for other admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, Ealdgyth, Merry Equinox to you too. From the indef block with talk page access removed person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

hi

I would have greatly appreciated any sort of explanation for your undo of my edit on the Wikibreak page.

I thought it could be okay in accordance with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Department_of_Fun , although it was a somber note.

I also acknowledge that it could have been a poor edit. I just need feedback, that's all!

Neuralnewt (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Info on that page should be either useful, or funny. Making some kind of ill-formed joke(?)/comment(?) about Aaron Schwartz's death is neither. I do acknowledge, however, that an undo with an edit summary rather than a rollback was warranted. Sorry about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking back, it was ill formed. I found it notable and worth remembering that Aaron made an edit the day before his death, and I didn't convey it in a way that made sense at all Neuralnewt (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Floquenbeam, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Thanks, Ben. "Hopefully things will be better in 2018" can have meaning on quite a few levels, but I hope it's true for you and yours as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Floquenbeam: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks, WV, and thanks for the card. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Floquenbeam!!


Hi Floquenbeam, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey. Had a great Christmas break, hope yours was good too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, thanks for yours too. Have a great New Year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Floquenbeam!

Happy New Year!

Floquenbeam,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, Bzuk, season's greetings to you as well. Stay warm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Filling white space with a link to mine, - I normally don't send a card, but here's a green heart for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Can hardly believe I didn't send you one of these earlier - Happy New Year. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I do understand

I understand your point, but I think it's unfair to compare this case with Tony1 (if that was what you were implying). Yes, new editors are easily discriminated against, and "experienced editors" are given the benefit of doubt. I hate that, too. But reading through this user's contribution history and discussions from the talk page and the help desk, it was fairly clear that this is a single purpose account created for dubious reasons: please send your order to me ([7]). The challenged section was not "inappropriately added to Wikipedia", and "a clear statement" was never provided despite of at least 5 editors tried to calmly discuss the concerns with this new user, only to be deflected by their tantrums here and here after it was pointed out their rationale was false to begin with.

Throughout the entire ordeal, legal (or pseudo-) language were extensively used by this new user, and personally for me this was the final straw. This wasn't about a single use of a term, and a lot of communication has already taken place without the involved user making the effort to listen. Personally, I will block any editor that issues legally worded ultimatums without prejudice, when these two criteria (clarification and communication) has taken place. Forgive me for the rambling (insomnia), but I just wanted to clarify my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can reword this after you get some sleep; this doesn't make a lot of sense, and I don't want to spend time arguing with points you're not really trying to make. The editor actually did make a legal threat now (after your block), so it's not like I'm going to unblock them while you sleep or anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess. Let me reword my thoughts: I think your point is no clear legal threat took place at the time of the block, because it involved copyright complaint. It's been established that the good practice is to clarify the intention first. The way I saw it was the copyright complaint has been thoroughly refuted and not established, and even if it was, Special:Diff/818648927 cannot possibly be justified. The intention of the block was to prevent further disruption at the help desk. Although the points are now all moot, I do take your criticism (as always, I hope) and will reflect on them. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to call your attention to something.

Last month, you informally warned a particular user that further incivility might be met with a block, "no ANI thread required." Her recent comments on Talk:Shore Fire Media appear to me to be a clear breach of the civility policy and likely fall under NOTHERE as well: she belittles a "new editor" for challenging unverified information about a PR firm; refuses to engage with any of his polite, concise, policy-based points; and, when he refuses to go away, accuses him of "trolling" and "attacking the page." Rebbing 21:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: My warning last month was related to a specific unacceptable personal comment she repeatedly made that was then revdel'd by another admin. I didn't mean to imply I would block her if she was ever rude to anyone again. While I'm really not impressed with the way she's interacting with User:Ca2james at that talk page, I hold out some tiny bit of hope that sharp edges will get smoothed away with a little time without admin involvement, and Ca2james doesn't seem to have been intimidated. I've watchlisted the article and talk page, and will try to keep an eye on it, but I'm not around a whole lot, so if I'm wrong and things get worse instead of better, and I don't seem to be doing anything, then I suppose a trip to ANI would be warranted. I really hate to suggest that, but there's not much of an alternative for behavioral issues. Even before hitting "publish" I feel like this is probably a cop out. No real time to do more this morning tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Rebbing, for bringing this here. Floquenbeam, you're right that I'm not intimidated although it has been an unpleasant experience. I'm hoping that it will get better. However, I do have concerns about approach to BLPs and sourcing that I saw in the two articles. If I explore this and find more issues, I expect there may be more of the kind of aggression and attacks that I've seen already. Ca2james (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have almost 60,000 edits. I am not a newbie. That said, it's pretty clear that Ca2james, with less than 3,000 edits, has suspicious edit patterns to indicate a sockpuppet account. He is harassing me on my talk page. He is deleting content when the subject of the article has expressed duress about inaccuracies on her BLP page. He is fixated on deleting content that is completely acceptable. I don't need patronizing evaluation of my contributions to Wikipedia. I know what I am doing here. I am also doing some of the hardest things here in actually improving pages and adding content fully supported by citations. I am happy to collaborate on pages with editors who have that same agenda, but when it comes to editors who spend the majority of their time deleting content that took a lot of time and effort to generate, I lose patience. It's very difficult to edit Wikipedia and add content. It would be helpful if those of us doing this could catch a freaking break. This has been nightmarish for me, and I really resent the support of this type of editing behavior. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk)

I didn't understand the sockpuppet allegation but having read a certain Wikipedia criticism site I see that someone has said that I must be a sockpuppet (a "bad-hand" account) for rather ridiculous reasons. I welcome an SPI investigation if anyone really thinks I'm a sockpuppet. I'd even be willing to verify my identity to a trusted ArbCom/WMF functionary should it be necessary, but I do prefer to stay anonymous.

BrillLyle, on both of the pages in question you added content that was most definitely not fully supported by the citations you also added, and some of the content in question involved living people. It's great that you add a lot of content, and that is definitely vital on Wikipedia, but verification errors like those are concerning. I'd like to also say that I've tried really hard to be reasonable and honest and transparent with you and what I've received in return is aggression, attacks, and gaslighting, all while not addressing the questions I've asked. Mildly, had you not responded in that way, this whole experience would have been better for both of us. Ca2james (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) @BrillLyle: It looks like you have almost 44,000 edits, actually. But Ca2james has been here long enough that they are not a "newbie" either, and anyway we don't decide who is right in a dispute by counting edits. There's a pretty strong consensus here that you can't just accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without specific evidence (i.e. more than "he has suspicious edit patterns"), so you'll either need to stop saying that, or corraborate it. And please explain "He is deleting content when the subject of the article has expressed duress about inaccuracies on her BLP page". Depending on what you mean, it could be either good or bad that he's deleting info on a BLP. We delete unsourced negative or controversial info on BLPs all the time. It's actually required by policy.

This is a collaborative project, and interacting with people who disagree with you is required. I am not saying he is right and you are wrong in any dispute, but I haven't seen him say anything that is obviously unreasonable, and I have seen you say a lot of things that are unreasonable. You can't dismiss good-faith concerns with "I know what I'm doing and you don't", or "you are obviously a troll and sockpuppet", or "you are harassing me". If you want input on how an article is going to turn out, you need to discuss the article on it's talk page in a good faith manner with other good faith editors. Ca2james has done nothing to lead me to believe he is not editing in good faith. Please dial back the aggression with him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just curious

You said you were going to reduce the DS block to 48 hours. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

sorry real life unexpectely took up 25 hrs of my day yesterday. should be back online in an hour or two to deal

I've been there, brother. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You two, I decorated my talk today, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't speak that way very often. I am quite aware I burn up a certain amount of accumulated goodwill when I do. If I spoke that way frequently, I imagine I'd be blocked in short order; accumulated goodwill burns up quickly. Wikipedia is based on the ideal that people with actual souls are expected to smile and nod to people like Sir Joseph, WV, and you while not pointing out that you're intimately aligned with racists. It's sometimes harder than I can manage. It would be easier if you would go away and not darken my talk page again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How is this comment not a personal attack against myself and WV? You are now implying I'm a racist which is as far as the truth as you can get, or that I have no soul. You should strike your personal attack. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I find your lack of introspection disturbing. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. I thought I was the least racist person ever. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection of Katie's usertalk

FYI that I've rangeblocked the user on Katie's talk, and they don't seem to have edited since then. No problem with the protection, but thought I should let you know since you cited that in your protection rationale. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Black Kite posted recently, and I saw that on my watchlist and my tiny brain got confused and thought the IP's post from 2 days ago was recent too. Thanks for rangeblocking, I'll unprotect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

I got a ping there, see you reverted it, curious as to who the sock is? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. But it was obvious it's someone's sock. You've got quite a few enemies, I assume one of them is piggybacking on your latest conflict. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's been revdel'd and you can't see any of it. It was a generic "Please indef block DS because he's bad" type message, by an editor with 3 edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

O.k. was curious if it was the same as the mystery emailer Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, I saw that Officialbreadmoney, who vandalized Lake Michigan, was blocked without warning of block and cannot edit own talk page. That is unusual and usually only done for socks, if it is a sock, Wikipedia usually adds [Category:Sockpuppets of (Username)], so that other admins/users know what they are looking at.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That user is a long term problem. While this practice might vary from admin to admin, the preferred practice is to not link to the particular main account, as a means of WP:DNFTT. There is no real benefit to adding a category to their userpage/talkpage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For consistently making not only difficult decisions but the seemingly correct ones as well across multiple venues, in addition to holding your fellow admins accountable for their actions. Nihlus 18:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nihlus. If I could only learn to keep a civil tongue when I see hate being spouted (or, as someone suggested to me recently, dial myself back about 20% when I'm angry), I could run for God Emperor of Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso

Looking at your block note - still keep at two weeks or extend? Pinging Dennis Brown so he knows why I undid my AE log entry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm betting the system just didn't register the block. I've seen it do that before, although why it does that is beyond my pay grade. Needs to be reblocked, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh God, did I do something stupid again? I'll look in a sec. My intention was an indef block with no talk page access, with 2 weeks of it being GR's AE block, and the rest being a normal block that UTRS could overturn if they wanted to. I'll go see what I did wrong now.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @NeilN and Dennis Brown: Oh. Miraculously, I think I did what I meant to do. Indef block, 2 weeks of which are AE, the balance is "normal". Anything I should do (hopefully without bloating block log further) to make it clearer? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • No, that just means the AE log should remain unchanged. Nothing more to be done. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, I get it now. I was expecting the first year to be AE, but when I saw "two weeks" I just assumed it was a two week block. I blame it on being at work.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

IP evading block

Hello, I first want to thank you for blocking this 75.128.128.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) disruptive IP, however, another IP, 2602:304:CCC7:4A80:85:BC35:9337:6A98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same location is making similar disruptive edits as well and I am sure they are the same person. I know you are semi-retired so they were also reported to AIV however since you blocked the first IP I wanted to let you know. As well, the admin at AIV might not know the connection between these two IPs. Thank you anyways, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I just happened to be online right now. Blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, glad I caught you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

sing sung song play on

Look! Today's Main page combines a song with Lego 50 and pride and prejudice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean Lego 60? But aside from that obnoxious nitpick, congrats on the song, and thanks for the lapine memory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

60, right, - I only looked at the image ;) - The star singers received twice as many clicks as the song but deserve it! - Imagine the Main page as he proposed! Instead of these Lego-like coloured blocks ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Today, another good one, left side sadly fitting here. I began that article when PumpkinSky was blocked (2012), and expanded when I could not go to the funeral of a friend (2016). Hoped for it to appear in the reformation year (reformation!), but was too slow. - Now, I am determined to expand Alleluia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

You beat me to it there Floq. I removed their thread on ANI as well, because reasons. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. As you may noticed I forgot to remove talk page access, so that's now a 3-way division of labor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see the evidence page is kind of dying on the vine. I can't argue that Joe's temper isn't too hot and too quick, and he's been unfair to MrX. I don't really have any evidence to add in his favor except a character reference (I assume you don't take those). But I'm certainly not going to help get him banned. So thanks but no thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Check your inbox

Hello, Floquenbeam. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Well hello there

Hey Floq - good to see you're still out and about once in a while on wiki. Hope all is well with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  — 17:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. All is, indeed, well with me and mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yours what? His what Ched?
I always knew you were hiding something from me Floquenbeam. :-/
—usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

About IHTS

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the logs of UTRS appeal #20545 whenever you have time? I have had some exchange with the editor, although I am rather unconvinced with their rationale, I am thinking about reducing the block extension (perhaps to one month) with conditions, depending on your thoughts. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never been able to navigate the UTRS interface. If they've agreed to stop pasting a copy of GoldenRing's RFA opposes in lieu of an unblock request, and agreed to stop violating their topic ban, then I don't object to restoring talk page access for an on-wiki unblock request for the indef block. However, I would very, very strongly object to unblocking before the 2 week AE block is up (which, on re-reading your post right before saving, I see you're not suggesting, so skim the rest of this paragraph). Even if you ignore the original Toddst1 blocks (which IHTS believes were unfair, tho many disagree), there's still a long history of this kind of crap, and an early unblock no matter what they're saying would be the wrong thing to do. You'd have to request that at AE/AN, as GoldenRing enacted a solid consensus of uninvolved admins for that block (and then got personally blamed for the block by IHTS).

I've finally reached the conclusion that I don't think unblocking at all, ever, is wise, but I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about the AE block, so I won't object to another admin reducing the indef block if they honestly think it is best, and there are conditions that IHTS explicitly says they will follow. If you're comfortable doing that based on UTRS, I wouldn't insist on a public discussion or anything. Although that might be best to determine a good set of restrictions, i don't know.

If they're unblocked, this needs to be the last unblock ever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Alex Shih:, Alex, what were the conditions you ended up agreeing on with IHTS on UTRS? Please note them on IHTS's talk page before the block expires. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Here they are ([8]). Personally, I think it would be probably more convenient if you could access the UTRS interface, in this kind of cases when you are the administrator that turned off talk page access (so that you can keep track of the conversations). But I understand it's unnecessary, just my thoughts. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tried before, and never got it to work, and never needed it enough to get someone to hold my hand while trying to figure it out. Thanks for posting them on-wiki; even if I had UTRS access they'd need to be known to the community. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

few doubts

Hi again. I have some doubts/questions out of curiosity.

1. What is an oversight block?
2. Recently, there was ANI discussion, and that user was blocked. Late you said that ANI thread was suppressed.

   Why was that thread suppressed? I mean, there was nothing personal, or offensive content in that thread. It didnt even need to be rev-del'ed, so why was it suppressed?

Again: I am not asking why you did it, as in "why the f* did you do it?" I want to know about the policy :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• An oversight block is explained in this template: {{OversightBlock}}. While I didn't use the template, I explained the same info in words. Unblock requests have to be taken to ArbCom or the functionaries list. I don't want to get into the specifics of why I suppressed the ANI thread, except to say that a ran the suppression past other oversighters on the functionaries list, and there was unanimous support for suppression. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

deleted page

Could you please send me copy of a deleted article through email? This guy was an actor who later became dancer, then singer, and now apparently a wrestler. Vicky (wrestler) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'll send it to you for background, but if you want to write an article, it would be better to start from scratch. There's only an infobox and one sentence, but there's also only one source that verifies one small fact. Everything else is unsourced, and would need to be sourced before being added to a BLP. Give me a minute, and the email will be on it's way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

lol no. I do not want to create an article. I simply wanted to know how he provided sources for "being a wrestler". In the past (after salting) he has been many things including actor, dancer, and whatnot WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vhacker Vicky kadian. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

error?

Hello, I noticed that on your userpage you have the userbox that says that "This user is not an admin, but would like to be one someday", yet you have the admin topicon at the top of your page. Is that an error or a joke? Best regards, L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the userbox again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see, ha ha ha. very funny. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was going for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile twice within minutes. DYK that it was me who asked if we could have women for IWD? If you want to see my latest vacation pics, turn to my talk and click on "the desert", - I took most of them, and know the fish already - thanks to 3 wonderful colleagues - but didn't get to add their names - promised a peer review. If only we'd say "no foul, play on" more often ... - Playlist for tomorrow: the suite from The Armed Man and Abendlied. In memory of a bass chorus singer who died. Thanks for making me smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw those. I once took a 1-man vacation to the Grand Canyon and other places in the desert southwest US. Beautiful in a very different way. Wouldn't want to live in the desert, but it's beautiful to visit. I'm envious (but in a good way). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fool me twice

Thought it was "Fool me twice, prepare to die." :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

oh i see you liek star treks? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but mudkips, otoh... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Geez, that was what, 15 years ago? Surely all the cool kids still use that one... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The smile is gone when you remind me of that. I asked the candidates if they agree with Opabinia regalis, they say yes, I vote for them .... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You realize the "thanks" feature is logged, I presume

Hey, stalker. You are not welcome on my talk page as you well know. And you need to stop using the "thanks" button in a harrassing way. @GoldenRing:, your buddy is being a jerk again. Could you do something about this, or shall I hat this thread as "No action" too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page revdels?

Hey Floquenbeam, what was said on my talk page? I missed it entirely. Did you pick up on it automatically? Ss112 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just random "I hate you" type stuff with ruder words. I revdel'd not so much for the stupid content of the post, but for the account name and edit summary that included your username. No threats, just rudeness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying the account name included my user name, or just the summary? Thanks either way, anyway. Ss112 00:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Account name. But then sinebot came along and included the account name in its edit summary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oversight

Removed per your request. Many thanks for your contributions and hopefully we will see you soon. Green Giant (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin recall request

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Floquenbeam, I noticed that my userpage has "disappeared", by virtue of an edit you did. Even though I won't edit this encyclopedia any more, I'd like to make a contribution by kindly asking you to step aside as an admin, so that other users won't be angered by the kind of behaviour that you displayed in regard to myself. I will not be convinced by any argument that your stepping aside is optional, so I won't respond here. As to further reasons, I noticed that you are keen to dismiss the opinion of an "unknown" user so long as you know that the other may have a job at MIT. It now has turned out that my correction was correct and remains in the article, cf. Master theorem (analysis of algorithms). I have still not recieved any apologies, nor any invitations to rejoin the project. Hence, I will continue to focus on different matters. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Cf. also this post, for which I was blamed by you, cf. here. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher) Adding a space to a page leads to a desysop request. Wow. Mathmensch, you're welcome to edit here but you'll find that demands for apologies and ludicrous desysop requests will get short shrift. --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Try adding two spaces. Community ban. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC) I second the call for Floquenbeam to step aside as an admin. It's past time someone held him accountable. Just six short years ago, he made this edit to my userpage, for which he's never apologized. In other words, there's a pattern here. I can't prove that his 2012 edit to my userpage led to the subsequent gradual and ongoing six-year decline in the quality and cluefulness of the Wikipedia "community", but I can't disprove it, either, so let's assume it's true. (That's the scientific method, as explained to me by Wikipedia editors on various talkpages). Like Mathmensch, I categorically refuse to be convinced by any arguments that counter my pre-formed opinions—and I'm also angered that Floquenbeam won't listen to my arguments and opinions. I'm tired of Floquenbeam getting away with stuff just because he's sane, intelligent, and honest. Those qualities, it is increasingly clear, have no place on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC) @MastCell: Sir, I must seriously quibble your unfounded assertion about the decline of The Wikipedia beginning with That Evil Edit. Gather round, while I tell you a mighty tale from the days of yore. In them hallowed and toothless days, a great and mysterious wizard (whom I shall call The Old High One) did walk amongst us, teaching us the Way of the Wiki, arbitrating our differences of tuppence opinion, and spinning off Sister Projects. The wise sages of today recount that the Great Decline began in the torrid summer of '06, when the wizard began preaching the philosophy of Quality Over Quantity and called for the acolytes to slow down the mass production of articles; to instead focus on crafting The 100,000! Curiously, this happened around the same time that you, MastCell, began editing as an underling on the Wikipedia. We should have seen the signs back then and demanded that the Old High One should cast you into the ether with the other malcontents. Here and now, j’accuse you, MastCell, of precipitating the downhill acceleration of all that was Holy and Good, by creating an account here (oh the audacity!). Many winters from now, when Nukilar War has devastate our planet, younglings will cower around fires in caves, whilst their grizzly elders tell them of the long-lost wickedness of MissedCall and Flowbeamthing. I rest my dubious case. (P.S. I claim copyright on this far-fetched fictional tale but I license it for reuse by anyone and for any purpose). Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Hilariously, you linked to a blocked account for the wizard. I suppose if "Jimmy Wales" can be blocked after nine edits, an admin can be blocked for adding a space. Flo, you had a good run. --NeilN talk to me 00:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC) The linking was deliberate, unless you are poking fun at me, in which case can you point me to the correct dramah board so I can air my petty personal views and request the immediate sacking of all checkabusers, undersighters, and politbureaucrats? 😉 Green Giant (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) FLOQ IS A TROLL SHE SHOULD BE BLOCKED OR BANNED WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE IS NO MORE OF THIS "OH IM SO REASONABLE SHIT" NO BE BOLD AND GET RID OF HER Oh dear oh dear. Your invitation to rejoin the project must have met with a mishap at the post office. Incompetents, all of them. In the hope of rectifying the oversight, the WMF has authorized an extraordinary expenditure to send you an engraved invitation, delivered on an equally engraved platter, borne on a palanquin accompanied by a troupe of harlequins mounted on unicorns. Recent troublesome weather may delay delivery, but we ask that you remain close to your front door at all times so that you don't miss a second of the pageantry. Yours, the WMF Office of Terrible Error Rectification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @Acroterion: On behalf of all trolls and other magical creatures (myself being a fictional mascot for frozen foods), I am requesting a 10,000-page Official Report (rubber-stamped by Jimbo and the gang), in quadruplicate, to confirm that neither said harlequins nor unicorns were harmed in the making of this admin-appeasing pageantry. Can I expect it on my desk in the morning, or will we have to initiate desysop proceedings against you too? Huh?!? Well?!? 🤔 Green Giant (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) I agree Floq should be desysopped immediately!!, this content is absolutely fine and should be on everyones userpage, This message isn't sarcasm and I'm not currently thinking "Someone block this idiot for all our sakes"...... –Davey2010Talk 02:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Y'know, I know my opinion isn't any more important than anyone else's, but just in general, I find our widespread and endless riffing on other people's unhappiness to be in poor taste, even when that unhappiness is self-inflicted or "deserved". The people behind posts like this are still people; do we really have to be so quick to each get our own barb in? Can we not just say "no that's not how it works" or even "no please go away"? i mean, we're not even that funny about it Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s a very grown up thing to say WK, and a very grownup thing to do, 28bytes. There was a time I would have agreed. There will, no doubt, be a time in the future when I agree again. Right now, though, in spite of the angel on my shoulder telling me you’re right, I do kind of appreciate people mocking someone saying stupid things about me, you know? Like, in some way, we're a little too tolerant of people being jerks? I know I shouldn’t. So thanks everyone, but yeah, WK and 28bytes are probably right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

UTRS ticket 20909

Would you mind looking at UTRS appeal #20909? MastCell also might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm afraid I don't have UTRS access. Could you please let me know what this is about (preferably on-wiki on my talk page, or by email if necessary)? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, you should be able to login using your SUL. It takes you to MediaWiki where you authorize it to log you into the system. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I don't do UTRS, but from the timing and from the fact that MC is involved too, I imagine this is Hidden Tempo, probably asking to appeal their community ban, which will no doubt consist of asking to be shown the "missing evidence" yet again. Do whatever you think best, keeping in mind that they have always been a tremendous timesink, and good faith editors deserve better than to have to deal with timesinks every 6 months like clockwork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I ended up copying the appeal to AN from UTRS, but keeping TPA revoked. It's at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_appeal_from_Hidden_Tempo. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

I saw your comments about World's Lamest Critic about WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Warring over personal information on WP:COI. World's Lamest Critic had outed someone in February, 2018. He outed my friend Joshua Boyle, in November, and edit warred about it. While they have been indefinitely blocked, I strongly suspect someone that dedicated to violating our policies was/is also a sockpuppetmaster. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

White flag

remembered, pictured, not that I was there in 1945, but every day I walked to school I passed the sight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, nice little article there. Sorry, I've kind of dropped off the grid for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, dropping off I mean. 17k+ viewers for the church, unbelievable. Psalm 84 was in the normal 3-digit-range, - the first of my psalms project. Needs more interesting titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

ps: will sing that Requiem on 3 October, in case you need a reason for a trip to Europe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what the big difference in traffic is. Is it really just how interesting the hook is? Whether there's a picture or not? Just the fact it was on top? Or just random luck? Anyway, I've got plenty of reasons for another trip to Europe, but one gigantic reason not to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

new word

Thnaks, I did not know that was a word.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At your service! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Mystery messages

Floquenbeam, I'm trying to figure out why you and Gerda would be leaving messages on my talk page that I get alerts for but which don't shown on the talk page except in its history mode. Sca (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: That's odd, I can see them fine, in normal viewing mode. The messages are being left in an old section way up near the top of your talk page, is that the problem? I'll throw Gerda under the bus, it's her fault for posting in that section! :) I'm just responding in the section I was mentioned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sca, from under the bus: I normally continue where a thread started, here the discussion (about do we have to subject names of foreign churches to English rulez?) on Main page errors, but that was archived (as soon as the DYK hook that caused it left the Main page). There's another thread with a similar question on my talk, in case you want to comment. I think that it's sad not to know Idstein, and I think Floq agrees ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I see. I moved the comments down under a separate heading, as on talk I prefer chronological order. Must archive some of that page soon. Alles gute! Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Floquenbeam, apropos your Schiller quote above:

"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity." – Einstein

Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: "English rulez"? Are you suggesting there are other kinds of "rulez”? :P —Green Giant (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw the original discussion? "St Martin's Church" (English English) vs. "St. Martin" as it's called in Germany, and is a church and a parish. The French say Eglise Saint-Martin. I say different names for different cultures are ok, even make the thing more recognizable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Request #21878

Hi,please see my question here.Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I don't have a UTRS account, and am not active on WP right now. You can ask here, or via email - I'll try to check back in later today - or just do what you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Flo, you no longer need an account. If you click on the link for English Wikipedia and then hit "Allow" when the box pops up, you should be able to see the request. You might would have cared about this because the requested unblock of a certain IP might have meant that a certain banned editor could have regained access with accounts. That said, I think that I have already found a different solution so I doubt anything more is required. I left a comment in that UTRS request, if interested.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a useful change, thanks @Berean Hunter: for letting me know. I've commented on UTRS. I assume I did so in a way that the user can't see, but the interface is still unfamiliar... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The user can't see your response. You did it right. The comments are character limited and may get truncated so multiple short comments have to be used sometimes instead of single lengthy ones.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy me day! Thanks Gerda! Hope all is well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

All well is asking to much. Health fine, family fine, a FAC failed (minor problem, was intended for 2026), saw two blank talk pages in the last few hours (major problem, Cassianto - happy his day today or I might not have noticed - and someone else), too many great people in recent deaths lately, something we can't help. I expanded a composer yesterday, just to do it while he's alive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Health and family are the important ones, everything else is noise in the signal. For me, health and family fine as well, but work is particularly stressful. I can understand retiring - it really can be a horrible place sometimes - but also understand how hard it is to do forever, so maybe they won't stay blank for a long time. We all ebb and flow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog

Don't give up the dream. Write it someday. I also punched Fortran on cards. Cheers. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I will, perhaps I will.... Thanks for the note, I'd forgotten about that page. Ta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog

A tag has been placed on User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 23:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a "self-awareness" exception; if I pre-emptively admit it violates policy, then CSD no longer applies... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I know, sorry. I thought I was funny. What a Muppet. Sorry about that. My edit summary might explain..—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm stealing the "Muppet" thing, btw. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Summer music

Some summer music for you whenever you look. If soon, we have an RfA where you can make the difference ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK links, Gerda. Unfortunately, I don't know the RFA candidate well enough to comment without research, and don't have time/inclination to do research. Depending on how it ends up going, and how it "should" go, I don't get quite as worked up about mistakes being made at RFA as much as I used to; there are much more grotesque and life-altering examples of elections going horribly wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Did you see the video (... elections going wrong, Macabre)? - I had the feeling that something was wrong with the candidate, then did some research and supported, then noticed that he had said something "uncool" about Opabinia regalis (as Begoon termed it), but I was stubborn and didn't change, and now she supported ;) - she is simply great. That candidate did good content work while the RfA was running, - I like that. Stay away, listen to music, - off for rehearsal, vacation is over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw the video; possibly why that was on my mind. Yes, OR is simply great. I should probably go blindly support just because whatever OR thinks is very probably correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Commented after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I added the fight against intolerance to my talk which Luigi Nono called Intolleranza 1960 when he composed it, but removed the year, - it never ends, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

It appears some have totally misunderstood my appeal whereas other comments represent typical opposition pile-ons...kinda felt like I was at an RfA. Whatever - we're losing content creators, GA/FA reviewers/contributors by the score but easy come, easy go...right? My first ping to you from my TP was asking for a link to the policy that explained why my case may have been a t-ban vio...so if you've the mind to, you can post it here or on my TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Every possible permutation of ways one could violate a ban haven't been spelled out specifically on a page somewhere that is a simple link away. You are complaining about MrX's edits in the AP topic area. Doing that is editing in the AP topic area. If that was OK for someone who is topic banned, then the whole concept of a topic ban is pretty useless. I think you know this, because I don't think you've talked about other AP editors elsewhere (have you?), I assume because you know what would happen if you did. Right? Do you think you could talk about AP subjects or editors on, for example, user talk pages? Or file, say, an AE complaint against an AP editor? If so, you should check with an editor you trust, because they will tell you you can't. Just because your ARCA request is theoretically an allowable appeal doesn't give you a backdoor into doing something you can't otherwise do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(→‎?: kind of hard to gaslight someone when there's a "page history" button) <--- I just saw this...WTH??? Gaslighting?? How was I supposed to know which ping you were referring to? This is exactly the problem on WP - misinterpretations, misunderstanding, defensiveness, accusations...unbelievable. I won't bother you again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

How were you supposed to know which ping I was referring to? There is no way to interpret my very clear message about your talk page ping as a message about your ARCA ping. For one thing, I specifically mention you deleting the thread in which you asked the question. For another, my note on your talk page came hours before your ARCA ping. You can pretend to be hurt if you want, but the problem here is you, not me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Atsme: I was going to comment on your page, but it seems the thread has been deleted again. I got pinged to your TP yesterday and spent a couple of minutes trying to find the thread, searching in the (long) table of contents that (by the way) lists all those sections that are collapsed. I figured it had been moved into one of those collapsed sections or that there was a formatting issue with one of the collapse templates that was blanking the rest of the talk page. Then I realized you had deleted the entire section, so I had to go to the history to read your comment to me. I realize using the OneClickArchiver to instantly remove anything on your TP you don't like is in vogue but it is really annoying for everybody else. I think some people have the idea that it makes them look better if they remove sections of criticism or negative feedback and leave just the barnstars and thank-yous, but it kind of has the opposite effect, making people trust you less and assume there's probably more negative feedback that they could find with a little digging into the history. Anyway, I think it's a bad habit, and was probably the root cause of the little misunderstanding you had with Floquenbeam above. ~Awilley (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity - I didn't delete anything, I simply archived it so as not to attract tps to the discussion while the ARCA case is ongoing. I certainly don't want to encourage discussions about a t-ban topic so it's best to just avoid it. Sorry if either of you had trouble finding the archive box at the top my TP. Discussions are filed in numerical order, oldest to most recent, and there's a search bar for quick finds. The last discussion is in archive 27 which I've linked for your convenience. I've been in and out with plumbing issues this evening, so that's my first priority. Yeppers, there's 💩 backed-up everywhere I turn. 😂 Oh well...enjoy the weekend. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining in detail how talk page archiving works. I've always wondered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It works differently for different people. Some have it automatically done. Some old-fashioned ones - like me - send it all to the archive, but keep what they like (or want to demonstrate). Some just delete, saying it's in the history. Some make archives for topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you may want to check your sarcastometer, it may have pegged so hard it broke... Ravensfire (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)